#if louis is not being interviewed there is no tragedy????

[incandesang]

me when season two gets a little too intense:

[ivyithink]

let them be, claudia, the hangover's gonna be bad enough, even without your sass

[rodrickheffeley]

“God loves you, but not enough to save you”

[the-woman-upstairs]

It’s just…so painful to watch Armand readily submit in order to obtain the love he so desperately craves. And while it’s most assuredly a manipulative tactic, it’s still one borne out of fear and desperation. He cannot lose this person he’s come to love and so will become whatever they want, do whatever they want just so they’ll stay with him. But it won’t be enough. No matter how much he acquiesces or seeks to control (himself, others, the environment), he won’t be able to make Louis stay with him in the perfect life, perfect self he built in the hopes of finally being loved. It will all crumble with Armand left alone in the rubble of what he created, the author of his own abandonment.

[dreadfuldevotee]

Extremely Serious Important Question for the class

[jaggedjot]

Unfortunately, illustrating Louis’ overly enthusiastic and romanticised approach to Paris through an outfit that combines a collar shaped neckerchief, exposed forearms, and a cinched waistline, may be effective, but it is also a top tier look for Louis.

[blueiight]

theres this quote running around from jacob anderson where he talks about how historically black people have been removed from period dramas and how, as suggested by the interviewer (w/ blueiight embellishment ofc), the very few times black charas would show up in these period pieces theyd be side characters delegated to a raceblind narratively incoherent plot to placate an audience ashamed with / of the nuances of blackness. i rly like how he said louis’s character represents both a ‘black and very human story about a vampire… [Black people] do not usually have the opportunity to play such complex and fluent characters’. i think that brings to heart a lot of why this show has my heart, as an armchair historian and r.n. (dont ask what that stands for). u racebent characters in a way that coheres, situate ur black characters in a specific context, and the story never deludes us into thinking the mere existence of an interracial relationship is enough to end racism. in e2 louis literally says “fledgling sounds like slave, dont call me that” and e3 starts with louis telling lestat the history of dismembering runaway enslaved ppl & placing their bodies on the gates of of jackson square.. in his initiation to vampirism, louis is moved from the historically Black creole treme area he grew up in & is placed into lestat’s townhome in the very white, french, old quarter. vampirism as hes initiated into is a loving, powerful, cruel, and isolating existence for louis. bc of vampirism he is able to kill a racist person and not be lynched for it, hes able to echo the historical dismemberment on the alderman by placing his body on the st louis cathedral, but he is unable to kill racist groups & systems that initiate race riots. his connection to claudia in s1 is not so much by the oedipal, but by both their connection as lestat’s fledglings and as Black [creole] people placed in a part of the city largely alien to them both. this connection can be broken down even further. louis saw claudia as his joychild of sorts, ‘[his] redemption’ for his 5 years of pimping but a big part of her tragedy is that a child being made into a vampire cannot redeem anyone, much less redeem an individual from what was a historical inevitability. claudia is adopted into such a stature that she wouldve otherwise never reached by virtue of being made a vampire, but even then that is conditional. claudia is rendered inert from being anyone’s ‘wife’ forever trapped in the confines of immaturity as a ‘daughter’, only hoping at best to be louis’s ‘sister’ and isnt that resonant to bw.. she’s selectively infantilized both a child ‘meddling in the affairs of her parents’ , ungrateful, arrogant, and adultified - presumed powerful enough to ‘poison louis against [lestat]’ , taking on the role of louis’s ‘knight in vengeful white black’ .. the response lestat has to claudia is characterized by him continuing the cycle of abuse he once faced toward her and with a black claudia who was once a poor girl now adopted into this immortal luxury it takes on a racialized element. “bach is beyond you” and claudia bites back with “yes this french music is hmm. not made for these mongrel ears”. the absence of metaphor is striking!! literally the fact that this show does not shy away from the era its set in is why its so good.

[blairwaldcrf]

@lyinoptimist On why Louis is a better character with a richer story because of the way they brought race into the show:

[captioned: I agree with his Interview with the Vampire take, and it's not just that I care more that they're black, it's that I care more that they are black in a world where the creators know that they are black and write the story accordingly.

I remember when they cast Jacob Anderson to play Louis in this story a couple years ago and people were confused and nervous and a little bit angry as to why they cast this black man to play a character, who at least in the original story was a plantation owner that owned slaves & let them go I think eventually, but still it's like "what is this choice that you're making?" and the creators were like "no, no we know what we did".

And so now Louis like owns a brothel instead, and it's like Creole and like down in Louisiana 1920s, and you're like, "Oh, that's a pretty solid adaptational choice."

And I think ultimately the decision makes Louis look a lot more relatable, and also makes the story a lot more relatable because at least it would be harder for me to recommend this story if old Louis was the one I was telling you was in this really great show. It's like, "yeah... but he owned slaves...", you know what I mean?

It's just one of the things where it's not something I have to get into with other black fans who are really into like fantasy stuff who maybe don't want to engage in that sort of like problematic content.

Beyond Louis and Claudia being black and then Armand being like South Asian, it also gives us a really interesting look into different readings of the text now that the characters playing it are adapted in this way. This happens a lot in season one remember... like, because Lestat makes both Louis and Claudia he can no longer read their minds, but Louis and Claudia can still read each other's minds. And so in this kind of familial dynamic they've established for themselves, Louis and Claudia have this literal telepathic understanding that Lestat will just never be privy to and you can kind of read into that. It's like a metaphor for their relationship being with two black people in the household and then moving through the world and understanding the world in a way that is just different from Lestat. There's an underlying racial anxiety to Louis and Lestat's relationship that makes it, you know, more complex and like more fun to watch.

Season two there's less of it, but you have things like racialized trauma being used as the backbone for the trauma that the characters are experiencing to both highlight how horrific the things they're going through actually are.

Like Armand and his like, being sexually abused as a child in that specific way very much has the connotation of like, this happened to him because he was a vulnerable brown child and this very powerful white vampire came--presumably, i don't know who they're gonna cast but i was reading into it--came by and did this to him. And it's like, okay yeah, that complicates that dynamic a bit more.

Same thing with the execution that happens to Louis, Claudia, and Madeline at the very end of the season which is very reminiscent of, like-- Claudia even calls it a stoning but I would also argue that there's, like, elements of, like lynching to it, right?

Like, it's very horrific in a very relatable way to Black people, which I think it's drawing upon that but it's not necessarily like glorifying it in that way in order to like make the point that it wants about like, the tragedy that these characters are going through and I think it just makes the story that much richer and allows for a lot more interesting new perspectives because these characters are people of color now and that's what you can do with a good adaptation and like, these creators they understand that. ]

[yearnerspermit]

The thing I keep coming back to about the finale is how much the writers get it

Anne Rice wrote the book because of the loss of her daughter. It grew and developed a world and life of its own in the years and decades after that, but at its core, Interview With the Vampire was born from a death. And doesn’t that just make so much sense? For vampires, where birth and death are inextricably linked?

And again, even here in adaptation, no matter how much else is changed:

Louis tells the story. He’s the perspective. It’s filtered through him, remembered imperfectly by him, shaped by him. And Louis is shaped by Lestat, there’s no denying it

But at the end of the day, the story is about Claudia. Lestat only matters here because he became her maker, Louis only matters as far as being the one who initiates that change, and the one who recounts it all

Because what story is there to even be told, without her? Without her life, and her anger? The unfairness of her existence and the unfairness of her destruction? The tragedy that at every step she could have been helped, this could have been avoided, but the only way to avoid it entirely would have been her never entering the narrative?

That truly the only way you could ever avoid the death of the one you love is if you never had them to begin with. And would that be better? For them? For you? It feels like logically the answer is yes. But emotionally? Even considering erasing someone you love from your life feels worse than being the one to kill them. I cannot say even now that I regret Claudia

Every important beat after her introduction — the good, the bad, the ugly — is motivated by messy, imperfect love for her. The story only exists for the love of Claudia, it’s only told for the love of Claudia. The story is Claudia

The tragedy is that they can’t forget her. The tragedy is they can never remember her as she was. Memory is a monster because it’s an incomplete, blurry copy of the people we love who are gone, and it can never be killed, even if you wanted to. But we never really want to, do we? So you cling to that monster, keep it, make it part of you

And at the end? Louis and Lestat, meeting again?

It’s perfect. It’s them, broken. It’s them, on the threshold of learning how not to be. It’s not about romance, its not about betrayal. It’s not about them

It’s two parent, grieving a child. It’s two parents, looking at each other, knowing how badly they failed that child, and knowing how much they loved her still. It’s two parents, embracing and crying and grieving a loss that only they will every truly understand

Because the story is about Claudia. And even when she’s gone? The story is about learning to exist without her. Her absence is still a presence, though. The space she filled, the space it left behind, matters. Because it will never go away, and it will shape them and what happens next, forever

Whatever madness and plot and love and hate spirals out from here, it started from the love of a child, and the loss of a child. And whatever happens next, that will never go away

The story will always be about Claudia

[official-saul-goodman]

This is mainly my observation as a non black person watching the reactions of other non black people and especially white people to the show Interview With The Vampire, they are a result of a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the idea of horror.

in a world of white dominated hollywood horror movies that mostly contain gore and white familial tragedy and abuse, none of which ever ever include the concept of race, misogyny and homophobia, racialised misogyny, and racialised homophobia- people cannot digest a horror tv show wherein the main character is a black man who is always and forever a victim of systematic, social, and microaggressive racism. people, specifically white people, have always been uncomfortable with being shown the extent of anti black racism in a way that isnt heavily sanitised or sympathetic to the white cause. to white people, the genre of horror simply does not include race cause they have not experienced the horrors of colonialist genocidal white supremacist anti black racism. and i highlight anti black racism because it is the subject of the show, as well as being a topic that is discussed vaguely by non black people while still being the most perpetuated form of racism from a global standpoint.

to white people especially, as the people who are responsible for the worst crimes committed against black people, anti blackness is just one of life's constants that should not be addressed directly or in detail, so to depict anti black racism so openly as a part of the genre of horror is incomprehensible to them. they dont want to be shown even a smidgen of exactly the kind of shit their ancestors and peers are responsible for, cause horror to them must just be things that they relate to and nothing regarding race at all cause it causes them to confront their comfortable positions. this is the same reason why you see white people saying jordan peele's movies are 'too hard to understand' despite being very easy to understand.

horror to people of colour is a concept that intrinsically includes racialised violence, its a constant presence like a rusted nail hovering near an open wound. and white people reject this. which is why they decided to degrade and miscontrue the purpose of iwtv and call it 'just another self important show thats racist and not worth watching'. cause to them horror is meant to be enjoyable, they want limbs chopped off not the actions of their white ancestors coming back to remind and haunt them. even though horror is a genre that is meant to fill you with... horror. horror to white people does not include the politics of racism, cause they see horror as an apolitical genre (obviously incorrect when everything and the kitchen sink is political naturally).

to the people of color, it is a moment of feeling seen, to see a main character ( a flawed man a pained man) experience the horror of all round racial discrimination, to see the horror of him being dismissed and exploited by the white people around him, the moment of witnessing yourself in the other when you see Louis and Claudia being so utterly sabotaged by so many forces, the way they are pushed to making irreversible devastating decisions cause they think they have no other choice to achieve an escape from a multitude of things they suffer through, the manipulation and abuse they had to become accustomed to. this is the horror, the horror of being immortalised against your will and lack of choices you were given, the horror of being forced to be subjected to racialised misogynistic and homophobic violence for eternity. being forced to live with all these memories and no means of forgetting. all this while enduring the way a white man belittles them for even suggesting that he might be racist while he expresses racist micro agressions (both lestat and daniel). this is real horror that hits home, horror you want to devour as a person of colour cause you want to see more of this story continue, to see what becomes of this living limbo that Louis, Claudia, and eventually Armand have to go through.

and as most white people cannot fathom this, cannot relate, they dismiss this version of horror that focuses on racism as a core element from the perspective of a black man and forever young black girl. they dismiss the show as just being tone deaf colour blind casting cause they didnt even see the trailer or try to understand this show. the white guilt is a shield they use to defend themselves against the frank and honest depiction of anti black racism from the perspective of a black man. they do not want to understand. they want sanitised, digestible depictions of racism so the horror remains fun for them.

even though this show is literally categorised as horror, and has all the hallmarks of classic horror including the camp styling, the blood, the gore, the supernatural, and the violence - the single fact that the show's core theme is based around racism from the perspective of a gay black vampire man is enough for them to declassify as horror in their minds. cause people of colour and especially black gay men must always be shown as having a good time to dissuade the guilt of white people and their responsibility is establishing the systems that oppress gay black men. speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil, and the evil is not there anymore.

i may have more thoughts on this that i'll express later but thats all i have for now.

[seasurfacefullofclouds1]

I’m an OG fan. I ship L/H but how ships are meant to be - your fave pairing, fun, fantasy, fandom activity, not something to discuss publicly much less with the celebs - but I never interacted much in fandom bc I disliked the bizarre obsession with ships being “real”. The “truth” of their sex/love lives is none of our business & was never their value to me. (i’d be much more interested in the truth about their friendships/coworker dynamics but we’ll never get it.) I drifted from the fandom when they went solo bc I saw how Harry was “Timberlake’ing”. No one seemed to see how calculated & ruthlessly ambitious he is, vapid, & fame obsessed. how he only befriends/dates rich, well-connected people. It’s refreshing to learn that blogs like yours exist - that people see him & see what he did to the other guys. Zayn, Louis, Liam - were all at times villainized and scapegoated while he’s treated like a naive princess who can do no wrong. His interviews are so pointless bc he never answers anything honestly. he’d never admit to being a cokehead who purposely deceived & fucked over the others to make sure he could launch his solo career without competition. Zayn tried to outmaneuver him but didn’t have the powerful team behind him & has too much integrity to ever be the kind of “star” Harry is. tbh I enjoy how much it irks harry that Zayn sees through him. It’s wild how sincere the others stayed, how they matured, how they have bigger priorities than money or fame. Harry mimicked Louis’ personality when they were younger, pretending he couldn’t wait to have kids & marry - when really he just wanted to be as rich, promiscuous, and famous as humanly possible. He bootlicks anyone in showbiz, so he has a glowing reputation in the industry - it’s laughable. “TPWK” unless it’s your bandmates who you can’t deign to acknowledge unless it benefits you - hosting SNL or winning an award? ok, mention the band so you get headlines. But like one of their promo posts or even follow them back on IG? heaven forbid, bc that won’t benefit him more than them. It shows his true character that he’s SO successful but still won’t be openly supportive or even seen with them. I don’t think he’s evil but I do think he’s lost to the industry… which is sad, bc there’s once a lot of sweetness there. His eyes have lost their sparkle; he traded it for “success”.

Hi anon,

I was reading this ask and nodding my head right along each sentence. A lot to unpack here, but mostly you’ve said everything I’ve tried to say. I’m not sure if anyone is listening, to be honest! Like you wrote, blogs who don’t worship Harry never become popular. So here I am talking to the air lol. Insanity.

I don’t think Harry is evil either. I think he realizes the trade-offs now, watching his ex-bandmates’ careers slowly build with intentions very different from his, their old ties fading to nothing except when tragedy yokes them back together. He has gazillions in wealth, industry kissing his feet, a lot of women (+ a few men) fantasizing about him, but nothing inside, the lights gone from his eyes years ago. It must feel awkward to stand next to his bandmates again?

Here’s the thing. I’m sure in every circumstance, forever for the foreseeable future, Louis is always going to be the bigger man and speak well of Harry. No matter how many times Louis refutes the idea of Larry, Louis has always said he’s proud of Harry, and I am sure he means it. 100%. No matter what Harry says or does, Louis considers him part of One Direction, his band, and that concept is sacrosanct to him. “We move as one.”

What Louis has in his heart is worth a million Manchester Co-ops. It is priceless. No one can take it away— no Kardashian money, no Rolling Stone cover, no Anna Wintour, no A-list actress or acting role. Nothing. What Louis has is the feeling of loyalty and unity that is the epitome of the song he wrote, Strong. “I don’t care, I’m not scared of love.” It’s not romantic love, at least not anymore, but what Louis describes in Only The Brave— the love that comes from the deepest pain, from uncomfortable truths, alienation, grief— broken beaks and dead birds— the love that requires moral courage. “Because love is only for the brave.” Louis earned it by going through fire, the love that endures because he chose to respect it, intentionally, over all the other things.

Last, Zayn’s intentionality is also transparent for those who open their eyes and see. I’m glad to see that Zayn is touring, and choosing to play the same smaller venues as Louis when he first started his tour. I’m also glad to see Louis communicating via social media. It’s not actual friendship, but a step! It means so much.

Louis and Zayn aren’t perfect people— far from it— but they chose to stay grounded and chose to preserve some part of their humanity. I know they haven’t always been their best selves. But who they are, especially who Louis is, is so endearing, and so inspiring.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hey! Love your meta and your blog in general!!🥰 One small thing I’ve always been curious about is when DreamStat(my beloved, I want to watch him follow Louis around and make bitchy/supportive comments forever) laughs when Louis and Armand exchange “I love you’s” it’s when Armand says it to Louis, not the other way around. Mostly I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that. Like, I think, given how it seems, at least in the show, Louis never said it aloud to Lestat (I will eat fics where Lestat bursts into tears when Louis does say it for the first time post reunion for breakfast lunch and dinner) the real Lestat would have Words and Big Emotions about Louis saying it to someone else- though I don’t know if Louis would have really wanted to acknowledge that at that point or in general during the interview🤔 And also I always sort of read Lestat’s presence and mockery in the moment as an indication that Louis didn’t mean it when he told Armand he loved him, but if I think about him staying (cuntily) silent until Armand says it back I’m not sure anymore. Was it Louis’ subconscious drawing attention to a suspicion at Armand’s lack of sincerity? Both? Neither?? Send help please and thanks🙏

Hey!

Glad you like :)

So to address the missing "I love you", you need to be aware of the fact that this is a book canon trait that the writers put in for show Louis. They called it "leverage of withholding", a weaponization of language (their words not mine).

This "weaponization" can only hurt when it is meant. Louis withheld the "I love you" from Lestat, on purpose.

And the other thing is... "DreamStat"... is not Lestat.

That's LOUIS.

Louis, mocking himself. Louis being sarcastic about something Armand says in his own mind. Louis, hating that he never said the words. Louis, reading himself for filth at times. Louis punishing himself.

Louis does not believe Armand. That he actually loves him that is.

The little snort Dreamstat gives when Armand says that it's not easy for him makes that very clear for me, he just doesn't believe it - because it feels not the same for him. And the reason why it is not the same, totally apart from his actual feelings that might have developed under different circumstances follows immediately, because Armand spells it out for Louis, namely: "I keep your secret."

That is a statement, as well as a veiled threat.

And it pisses Louis off, he literally addresses it when he makes the candle light back up, that it works best when he is pissed.

Armand then says: "I try and find the vulnerability within the object."

And that... is another barely veiled prod, threat, and one Louis understands very well (remember, Armand threatened to burn him before), because he immediately relents. And offers to come around more though he hates it at the theatre. And offers an "I love you", with a pasted on smile.

And mocks it within his own mind, via his own inner DreamStat. Laughs when Armand says it back! (Which is soooo bitter when you think about the fact that Armand could read that in Louis' mind!!)

Louis does not believe Armand has actual feelings (like that) for him.

And the thing is, I think Armand does, and that is the tragedy of it all. Because to get Louis' love Armand uses coercion, veiled threats and manipulation, which is rooted in book canon. And he thereby loses it, almost immediately after that initial infatuation phase.

Louis will tell Lestat eventually. He does in the books, and if you read the writer's thread then you know they have... plans :)

And until then we have fanfiction :)))

[iwtvfanevents]

Rewind the Tape —Episode 1

Art of the episode

During our rewatch, we took note of the art shown and mentioned in the pilot, and we wanted to share. Did we miss any? Do you have any thoughts about how these references could be interpreted? How do you think Armand and Louis go about picking the art for their penthouse in Dubai?

The Fall of the Rebel Angels

Peter Bruegel the Elder, 1562

This painting is featured in the Interview with the Vampire book, and it was important enough to be included in the draft pilot script!

Bruegel the Elder was among the most significant Dutch and Flemish Renaissance artists. He was a painter and print-maker, known for his landscapes and peasant scenes.

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

Francis Bacon, 1944

Bacon was an Irish figurative painter, known for his raw, unsettling imagery and a number of triptychs and diptychs among his work. At a time when being gay was a criminal offense, Bacon was open about his sexuality, and was cast out by his family at 16 for this reason. He destroyed many of his early works, but about 590 still survive. The Tate, where these paintings are displayed, says this about the work: "Francis Bacon titled this work after the figures often featured in Christian paintings witnessing the death of Jesus. But he said the creatures represented the avenging Furies from Greek mythology. The Furies punish those who go against the natural order. In Aeschylus’s tragedy The Eumenides, for example, they pursue a man who has murdered his mother. Bacon first exhibited this painting in April 1945, towards the end of the Second World War. For some, it reflects the horror of the war and the Holocaust in a world lacking guiding principles."

On the Hunt or Captain Percy Williams On A Favorite Irish Hunter and Calling the Hounds Out of Cover

Samuel Sidney, 1881 [Identified by @vfevermillion.] and Heywood Hardy, 1906 [Identified by @destinationdartboard.]

Sidney was an English writer, and his prints usually accompanied his publications about hunting, agriculture, and about settling Australia during the colonial period. Hardy, also British, was a painter, in particular an animal painter. There's also a taxidermy deer, ram, and piebald deer on the wall.

Iolanta

Pyotr Tchaikovsky, 1892

The opera Louis and Lestat go to was composed by Tchaikovsky, another gay artist. The play tells a story "in which love prevails, light shines for all, lies are no longer necessary and no one must fear punishment," as put by Susanne Stähr for the Berliner Philharmoniker.

Strawberries and Cream

Raphaelle Peale, 1816 [Identified by @diasdelfuego.]

Peale is considered to have been the first professional American painter of still-life.

Outfits inspired by J.C. Leyendecker

Leyendecker was one of the most prominent and commercially successful freelance artists in the U.S. He studied in France, and was a pioneer of the Art Deco illustration. Leyendecker's model, Charles Beach, was also his lover of five decades. You can read costume designer Carol Cutshall's thoughts on these outfits on her Instagram.

The Artist's Sister, Melanie

Egon Schiele, 1908 [Identified by @dwreader.]

Schiele was an Austrian expressionist painter and protege of Gustav Klimt. Many of his portraits (self portraits and of others) were described as grotesque and disturbing.

A Stag at Sharkey's

George Wesley Bellows, 1909 [Identified by @vfevermillion.]

Bellows was an American realist painter, known for his bold depictions of urban life in New York City.

Mildred-O Hat

Robert Henri, undated (likely 1890s) [Identified by @nicodelenfent, here.]

Henri was an American painter who studied in Paris, where he learned from the Impressionists and determined to lead an even more dramatic revolt against American academic art.

Starry night

Edvard Munch, 1893 [Identified by @vfevermillion.]

Munch was a Norwegian painter, one of the best known figures of late 19th-century Symbolism and a great influence in German Expressionism in the early 20th century. His work dealt with psychological themes, and he personally struggled with mental illness.

If you spot or put a name to any other references, let us know if you'd like us to add them with credit to the post!

Starting tonight, we will be rewatching and discussing Episode 2, ...After the Phantoms of Your Former Self. We hope to see you there!

And, if you're just getting caught up, learn all about our group rewatch here ►

[trippinonpaperhearts]

EDIT, because idiots apparently want to reply with their BS and make up their own ideas of this post defending Anne Rice, Sam Reid, and the FICTIONAL character Lestat because they are "white":

I'm pointing out facts. Claudia was based off her 5 year old daughter that died of Leukemia. Louis represented herself and her grief during that period. Lestat initially represented her husband, until later when Lestat became who Anne wanted to be (and I'm sure she didn't want to be a cheater and an abuser). Her tragedies are what created The Vampire Chronicles and these wonderful nuanced characters, and this tv show would not exist without her. SO YEAH, NONE of what the show changed represents Anne or her vision. I'm also pointing out that it is NOT OKAY to take your shit out on a real life person, an ACTOR (Sam, again), who has NOTHING to do with the creative choices, or otherwise, being made. But sure, read into it what you want 🙄 Again, if you don't like the FACTS, BLOCK ME.

---

EDIT 2: JESUS CHRIST. I just saw a post comparing Sam Reid's award nomination to that piece of shits presidential win (you know who, I'm not giving it a name). Are y'all fucking serious??? And I thought I couldn't hate this new fandom even more. Also, NEWS FLASH: Even if the show decided to keep everything and everyone canon, Lestat IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN the LEAD of THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES. It had NOTHING to do with racism or with Lestat being "white" in the books because pretty much ALL THE MAIN CHARACTERS WERE CANONICALLY WHITE--even LOUIS, CLAUDIA, AND ARMAND. That was my point in my orginal post that someone tried to twist. It was ALWAYS planned by Rollins, or whatever his name is, for Lestat to eventually lead the show/seasons as Lestat DOES IN THE BOOK SERIES. It was ALWAYS about Lestat because Anne Rice was Lestat. Yes, Louis took a back seat in the books, but it had NOTHING to do with RACISM. Louis represented a dark time in her life and that is WHY she originally planned to leave him behind, and I'm so glad that she decided against it and that book Loustat got their happy ending. STOP using your BS about LOUIS BEING PUT ON THE "BACK BURNER" FOR THE "WHITE MAN". Dang, it's so exhausting and draining explaining to the simple folk that love to tear down my beloved childhood books and characters that brought them their damn tv show.

---

Damn, I really hate this new fandom and the Interview with the Vampire tv show for ruining Anne Rice's vision. Because of all these changes to the characters, storylines, and the timelines, certain characters (Lestat) and certain actors (Sam Reid) are getting shitted on because of these changes. Freindly reminder to all the newbies and show-only fans: pretty much all the book CANON main characters are WHITE. Even this new fandoms precious Louis, Claudia, and Armand. The damn show kept Lestat white and made him a cheater and an abuser, and that's where the shit show all started. Sam Reid has been dealing with this bullshit when it is not his fault in how the damn disrespectful writers and show runners decided to take the show, and who the damn award shows decide to nominate. PLEASE BLOCK ME IF YOU CAN'T SEPERATE FICTION FROM REALITY. If you feel the need to bash an ACTOR (Sam) who has shown nothing but kindness to this fandom when it is not returned or deserved. You sick fucks must be real proud of yourselves knowing you fuck with his mental health based on a fictional show (as Sam stated he could not sleep after seeing god knows what online). PLEASE BLOCK ME, YOU'RE DOING ME A HUGE FAVOR AND SAVING ME A LOT OF TIME. Thanks 🖕😊

[panlight]

anon this time please!!!

anyway, hi hello! i think i saw you mention somewhere that you're a librarian and have read a bunch of vampire books (I think I also remember seeing you mention it as the reason why you were disappointed with the vampire elements in twilight, bc you expected it to read more as a vampire book than a romance iirc?)

So, i got curious with a few posts mentioning Alistair (one of those background character vamps in BD) and his backstory?? SHEITTT I'm a sucker (pun not intended) for that tragedy angle. Because of that, and because SMeyer really just gave all that and shafted it on the main story bc "they're not pretty things to write 🥺" I want to ask if you have any vampire stories/books to recommend that get into that tragedy? where the protagonist or at least even one of the main characters gets turned (likely against their will given the context) and deals with the horror of their transformation, goes through some Stages of Monster Grief trope being "What did you DO TO ME?!" (feel free to add in stories you know that do the whole I hate you vampire dad trope where they're bitter at their creator for turning them bc mmmm that's fun angst too lol!)

No Vampire Chronicles since I've seen them (though I like the existential angle of it all) Louis's experiences and Claudia's tragedy in Interview with the Vampire are great but I've read it already XD

thanks in advance!! 🥺🥺

You. You get it. That's the vibe. That's what I want in vampire stories, and why Breaking Dawn was just the opposite of everything I like about them. "Whee I'm so happy I was born for this" is maybe a neat subversion of "what have I become?!" but it was, for me, also boring. But the backstories, ugh, so many of the backstories were SO GOOD. Alistair's whole thing with his horse breaking its own neck in its attempt to get away from vampire!Alistair, his beloved falcons now being terrified of him, like SM went SO HARD with this backstory and does . . . nothing with it. It's just in the guide. It's so grim and tragic and devastating and for me, about 1000 times more interesting than anything that happens in Breaking Dawn.

And Carlisle!! I know I've harped on this before, but Carlisle's backstory is like 85% of why I kept reading the books after the first one, I LOVE it. The son of a monster-hunting pastor gets bitten and hides for three days in silence despite the pain because his knows if discovered his father will have him burned alive. Then he becomes a vampire and tries to destroy himself, but fails, so opts to banishing himself to the woods to starve. Mmmm. Delicious. Bring me 10 more stories just like this.

Regrettably I have not found many books that scratch that itch. So much of vampire stuff these days is romantasy and that's not what I'm looking for, I want to wallow in the dread and the horror and the angst and the crushing weight of eternal thirst, please and thank you.

If you haven't read Dracula yet, do give it a try. There's definitely dread and horror and angst over transformations. I really liked Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian but it's more like, spooky than horror but it's sort of like Dracula meets the Da Vinci Code but better written (and it has vampire librarians!). Stephen King's Salem's Lot is a pretty traditional vampire novel but it's been awhile since I read it and I don't remember a ton of wallowing in the angst, it's much more actual horror.

I do remember really enjoying some vampire anthologies when I was doing my marathon read. See if you can get your hands on some sort of short story collection of vampire tales. I can't remember what the ones at our library were called, but there was one story that I still remember about vampire who was a photographer and was obsessed with trying to photograph the sunrise . . . which posed the obvious problem.

If anyone has read a more recent vampire novel that's not a romantasy and DOES wallow in the existential angst, please please let us know!

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV S2 Ep3 Musings - Daniel & the Talamasca (SPOILERS)

I can see what the reviewers meant when they complained about the Talamasca & Daniel.

We start off with Daniel nervous AF, tryna keep tabs on all the mindscrewy shenanigans (at the sushi restaurant on his lunchbreak or whatever).

Today's... etcetc Cell phones, google -- Daniel, your handwriting effing sucks. San Francisco. Polynesian Mary's Playboy magazines as a doorstop? doorstep? |CLAUDIA| Mary's cab. Coke...etcetc. Alice. They'll come for me and Kate next--you bet your arse they will! XD THIS TIME I WON'T SAVE YOUR LIFE

He draws an arrow from Save Your Life up to Playboy--I assume cuz those are two incidents with Armand that took place in SanFran?

I really like the Omakase bit--

About how many risks Daniel's subjecting himself to under the whims of these vampires--but also about Daniel's hubris/arrogance breaking the rules of engagement by thinking he has any say over what they do and what he gets out of it, by stepping onto their turf. If you can't take the heat, GTFO their kitchen.

I'm only just now noticing the foreshadowed titles of Dan's books. 🤦 Burning & Blood--AMC swears they're hilarious.

OK, Raglan's been stalking Daniel's career just like Louis did. So my early suspicion about Daniel breaking the NDA was right.

Which is SO EFFING STUPID OF HIM. They're gonna find out! Loumand's literally drawing out this giant tragedy about what happens when vampires--Armand, specifically--are LIED to, and you're gonna pull this mess on them!? You're not even being SUBTLE!

AGREEMENT.pdf--Daniel, you in danger girl.

Raglan, stop tryna gas Dan up b4 they put him off commission permanently. He's no body-snatching psychic CROOK like you.

Get this nosey bish offa my dang screen.

Oof, right in the Devil's Minion feels. U_U

O__O WOAH!? OK, so aside from Dan (played by EB, a white Jew, along with JK) throwing shade at Caucasian European Israelis (which we been knew), he's implying that Armand & Louis might be persons of interest in the UAE by the Israeli gov't & assassins, esp. cuz of their ties to powerful people. But it's funny cuz that's the exact same thing Lou asked about him.

So Dan's telling the sushi patrons there's Israeli spies/assassins crawling around Dubai--STOP, b4 you get that place John Wick'd! XD

Not MI6. 😭 I said JOHN WICK, not JAMES BOND. XD

Raglan's gone full rogue then--if he was still working for the Talamasca he'd have darn near unlimited funds--they got that dirty TEMPLAR money. 💰💰💰

Yeah, and they don't actually call the Talamasca by name in the ep itself--only in the Insider interviews the producers give.

Daniel, why TF are you talking SO EFFING LOUD, when Raglan's whispering, tryna act like he's on the phone NOT talking to you in case y'all ARE being bugged. 🤦 SUBTLETY, my guy. What kinda investigative journalist are you?

I'm starting to suspect they're not gonna do the rockstar!Lestat, and instead this stupid Great Conversion's gonna be what wakes up Akasha/Amel, when their blood/consciousness gets stretched way too thin with all these new vamps being made.

To attempt an interview...? I believe that. We already know Marius & Lestat stalked Talamasca members for decades upon decades. Ain't no way NO vampire ever tried getting close to humans & talk about their lives to someone out of loneliness or something. Esp. the ones not attached to the European covens & all their stupid Great Laws.

Rest in Preternaturalism, Raymond Gallant.

BLENDERS! XD But this is THE most Anne Ricean answer imaginable, cuz everyone lost their ish when she had her vamps flying around with GPS-trackable cellphones in their pockets as they KILLED people. Rookie mistake. 😂

Armand was on a cellphone in S01E07, and he is LITERALLY married to his iPad, so PLEASE, sir. 🙄

There's Santiago's COMPLICIT speech coming back. Ain't no moral high-ground here!

And I figured Armand/AMC was gonna pin it on AMC!Lestat, and his jaded version the Savage Garden.

Armand says technology distracts humans from vampire crimes, but what's distracting vampires from psychic/Talamasca crimes, huh?

ISTG these are the laziest vamps I've ever seen; they care so much about their privacy & security, but aren't reading Dan's mind at all? I hope one of them just casually name-drops Raglan or catches Daniel in the act or something.

Raglan said Daniel's laptop was "comically vulnerable," and uploads a bunch of data files on it from the Bibliotheca Talamasca bestiary/archives--WHY? To help show Daniel he's helpful & trustworthy?

RJ: Omakase? Louis: The conversation was easy and flirtatious.... Armand: And combative. Louis: And combative, yes. Daniel: Arguing as foreplay. RJ: Peruse at your leisure.

I hate this effing show. 🙇🙇🙇