queer millennial. any pronouns. communist. sometimes NSFW. 18+ only. right wingers, terfs, nazis, zionists, bigots, xenophobes, antis: fuck off. writer on AO3. “Ná habair é, déan é.” main media: ATLA, MDZS/CQL, IWTV/TVC. Here there be monsters.
"even the marquis stayed home" okay so we're committing FULLY to making gabriella look worse than the marquis. step one invent new awful things for her to do (she did NOT take him to the witches' place in the book btw! quite the opposite! and there were no actual burnings when he was there!! NONE OF IT!!!) step two make her look eviler and more vile for it to her son than his and her shared abuser, their patriarch the marquis (who's suddenly what, nice now?), something which lestat and gabriellE understood well about each other despite everything in the vampire lestat 1985 by anne rice which this thing is ostensibly an adaptation of AND YET!
This is a dangerous sentiment for me to express, as an editor who spends most of my working life telling writers to knock it off with the 45-word sentences and the adverbs and tortured metaphors, but I do think we're living through a period of weird pragmatic puritanism in mainstream literary taste.
e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.
I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.
This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.
And it's risky, because unmeasurables come with the possibility of rejection or failure. Drop in too many allegorical descriptions of the rose garden and someone will decide your prose is 'purple' and unserious. A lot of online audiences seem to be terrified of being considered pretentious in their tastes. That creates a real unwillingness to step out into discursive spaces where you 🫵 are expected to develop and explore a personal relationship with each element of a work. No guard rails, no right answers. Word of god is shit to us out here. But fear of getting that kind of analysis wrong makes people hove to work that slavishly explains itself on every page. And I'm left wondering, what's the point of art that leads every single participant to the same conclusion? See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Down the rollforth land, yonder horizonways. I just want to read more weird stuff.
So was the additional gratuitous Louis torture meant to be a cute little callbk to this? Bc if so, the writers should maybe die. Idk. Probably didn't need to show something like that when you have already shown that you know the exact context of racialized violence behind it and why it's fucked up, but okay. And for why? (I know why. The answer is racism. It's almost always racism).
That line in S1 is a reference to the 1811 German Coast Uprising. America’s largest slave revolt, which was in Louisiana along the river road known as the “German Coast” because of the number of Germans who settled there. 100s of enslaved people participated in this revolt.
It just so happened that this was the location of the Pointe du Lac plantation in the books, and that Anne Rice based the story of Louis’ slaves revolting against the vampires on that historical event (she used a lot of real-world historical events as inspiration for analogous events in her novels).
Anne had Louis murder his overseer and appoint one of his slaves (Daniel) as the new overseer. Daniel (not Molloy) turned out to be very clever and good at the job, but he figures out that Louis and Lestat are vampires and leads a rebellion they end up having to flee from. The real German Coast uprising was led by Charles Deslondes, an enslaved man who was the overseer of a plantation.
Unlike many of the other leaders, Charles did not get decapitated. Instead, he was dismembered, shot, and burned. Many of the other leaders had their heads put on pikes and displayed along the Mississippi River as a warning to future would-be rebels. There is a memorial to them at the Whitney Plantation - a closed garden in which silence must be observed.
Feel like it doesn't make sense for Armand to be so unhinged if he's already with Daniel. Like maybe this level of violence would make sense if he felt completely isolated and like there's no one for him ever, but he has a companion that he loves and he is still doing all that??
Something that, I just frankly find absurd and one of the more easily digestible flaws of season 3, is that the reason Devil's Minion feels so empty is because there is nothing tying them to the narrative. There's no themes past "loneliness," and a sprinkle of "patriarchal traditions."
And it's just laughable, because they had the set-up there. Devil's Minion in QotD is about addiction. Daniel relapsing, and Armand in AA as an addict, could have developed the subtext and meat of the relationship. "Too little" or "too early" aren't the problems with the writing, there, the problem is the fact that there wasn't any substance. Where did Daniel's struggle go? Why is Armand doing anything?
They are untethered, which is why they don't have the sauce. For a season with explicit drug use in it, it is not only shameful, but a waste of a motif, to not include two characters who are deeply involved in those themes.
There are SO many bigger, more egregious writing flaws and shocking decisions made, but the lack of meaning there just shows how empty and meaningless the show is, even if you want to say "it's Lestat's POV." How you forget to write in addiction for the couple that is an addiction metaphor is beyond me.
the finale was actually just loumand revisionist history (AND danlou, we’ll get to that later). like they are trying to retcon the fact that armand and louis had any love for each other AT ALL. of course we can point to the obvious and POINTLESS gruesome torture and the fact that louis only endeavors to empathize with armand because he was scared for his life and for regina’s rather than simply telling him this because, idk, they CARED about each other. but im gonna focus on two retcons in particular that shows the writers fundamentally trying to misrepresent this dynamic.
1. louis saying he never forgave armand for paris. this one just doesnt make sense because throughout the majority of their marriage, louis never knew that the trial and claudia’s execution was his fault. so why wouldn’t there be love there? we saw how louis and armand acted in season two prior to the twist: did that look like a couple where they were both secretly harboring resentment???
and 2. this is a small thing, but oh it is really is a big thing. it’s the line where armand says he put the fred stein photo’s in louis’ portfolio because he wanted to “fuck with his mind”. one, that’s pointless, what would armand have to gain from fucking with the mind of his then husband. what could he possibly have to gain from louis that louis would not be able to give freely. but it also is just a blatant bastardization of what made armand sympathetic and loumand interesting in the first place. armand didn’t put those photos in there because he wanted to “fuck with his mind”. the implicative reason for that action season two provided is much MUCH more accurate. armand wanted louis to be proud of his work because he loves and cares about him, and this was his roundabout, armand way of making that happen. of course it was read as creepy and meddling because armand doesn’t really know how to love others properly. the only way he knows how to love is meddling and fabricating and orchestrating lies, but the thing that the writers apparently want you to forget is that he tries. armand always endeavors to love. armand tried to love louis (and louis did the same!!). he tried to love lestat. he is trying to love daniel (the writer’s are fucking it up, but he’s trying). armand always tries to love, and they are just completely erasing the fact that he has ever put a sincere effort in understanding anyone who isn’t daniel because they’re rushing through the devil’s minion development and There Can Only Be One Pairing evidently.
thats what made him likable in season 2, despite the fact that he was virtually the antagonist of that season: it’s never perfect but armand always always ALWAYS endeavors to love. that’s why armand covered up his part in the trial in the first place. why would he have covered that shit up if he DIDNT love louis and WASN’T afraid of loosing louis??? is it so wrong to say that armand valued louis at any point??? that armand put up with louis’ bouts of (OFF SCREEN, BTW) coldness and resentment because he had some empathy of the fact that louis was MOURNING??? apparently it is to the writers. apparently louis has no credibility or relatability in how he acting in that marriage and apparently armand never loved him and secretly loved daniel or whatever. and i LIKE devil’s minion A LOT ok it’s just like. why did you have to destroy every discernible dynamic, and BORROW story beats from said dynamics (the rothko chapel devil’s minion bit—how is that any different than armand’s benign meddling with the fred stein photos?) just to destroy them. and you had the audacity to do that after teasing loumand throughout the season, with the auction scene and louis going weirdly into detail about san francisco in the lawyer debate scene. this is sincerely a season for no one’s enjoyment other than racist louis antis
Aside from the more serious complaints I've had with this season and I've already complained endlessly about (the misogyny, racism - esp antiblackness -, etc), I have one other complaint that annoys me terribly:
They are dead set on monogamy. And it's hurting the characters' relationships.
I always kind of imagined that this would happen to a certain point, but this season really amplified it by 100%. I can tell they want loustat and devil's minion to be The Couples™, so they want no possible ambiguity that they could love anyone else.
Nickistat is okay, because Nicolas is dead. But lesmand? Oh, well, they MAYBE fucked around a little in the past, but really Armand is just unilaterally obsessed with Lestat, and Lestat only really dislikes him, and takes joy in mocking and humiliating him. Doesn't give a single fuck about him - "apathy", as they called it in the After Dark episode after E6. Loumand? You thought their relationship just deteriorated over time? No, turns out they NEVER loved each other! Yeah, Armand only was with him because it was the only thing left for him - being with a man he took "aesthetic pleasure" in torturing back then and, apparently, in the present as well, and willing to just let die both times -, and Louis was only with Armand as a cope that he couldn't be with Lestat, and really everything that he did with Armand was really about Lestat. A way to get back at him.
It's like they want to burn every bridge between characters that in the book cannon do love each other deeply, because they want to be sure we can only picture The Couples™ together and nothing else (and I'm going to refrain from speaking in detail about how shit DM's development has been this season, with most of it happening off-screen and all, and I'll also not mention how we barely got any physical affection or even a kiss - bare minimum - between any of these couples for a whole season, but it is all pretty funny). There can't be even an INKLING of possibility that maybe there was love between anyone else, or, god forbid, still is.
I didn't expect them to follow the book route, really, with everyone sort of loving each other very deeply and going back and forth between each other, because at the end of the day this is TV and I know that many people would flip at this approach. Not palatable, I guess. But taking such profound and nuanced relationships and flattening them completely for the sake of keeping the main ships intact is really annoying.
(The way they went about lesmand in particular is very upsetting to me, because the love-hate thing they have going on in so important for the both of them in the books, and it's so clear, so it's really sad to see what they made them into the show - a past fling at best, vaguely referred to as "ex" in one scene.)
(But also, there could be something to be said about how they make sure that these relationships between characters of color and white characters work, so for that they felt had to destroy the only relationship that was had between two characters of color in a way that doesn't even happen in the books. Yes, they were miserable together post-trial, but Armand just gave Louis space and left when he realized it was beyond saving. I guess he did try to hide that he left Claudia to die, even if if Louis secretly knew, so I can see where they got the manipulation from. But the gratuitous violence that was inflicted on Louis? That was 100% the show. There is a main character Armand tortures in the books, and that's Lestat, and with the humiliation he put him through in the show it would make some sense, but oh well. Interesting choice, to not say something else...)
I also feel like the books' general love could also say something about how vampires exist outside of the norms of society in so many ways, but I don't think the show is going for that. Still, maybe they could have embraced it as part of the queerness. Or they could have at least given these relationships the care they deserved to feel like there's something keeping these characters coming back to each other that isn't just circumstance. But maybe they will only be around each other because of circumstance, who knows.
I just really don't like this because the relationships are so lovely to me in the books. The show has made them so shallow in comparison, I feel like.
omg what happeneddd in the finale??? i didn't and wont watch it but i'm curious what the plot was cuz they mixed a lot of stuff from different books apparently? but no akasha waking up ending? also sorry you had to go through this.. are they saying there'll be a new season (god i hope not)? or was this one a flop? i see many extremely positive and extremely negative posts i cant tell. what a mess. i hope rolins career ends
I love you, sweet angel, who is not watching and yet wants rolin's pockets empty. May your cheese grits stay gooey, may your pillow be always cool.
So, ok,
Lestat's head is in a bowling bag that Daniel takes to the bowling alley (but he never bowls with Lestat's head) and Lestat is having the worst Roast I've ever seen. He's at a long table, blah blah blah the long table, and Magnus and Gabrielle will NOT shut the fuck up and so help me god that little drummer who looks like she doesn't wear deodorant is there and Nicki and Louis and Claudia refuses to come (wow, so not impactful tbh) and it takes forever and it flashes back to Lestat seeing the witches burn and remembering he knew some little girls being burned. He's like oh no, le twin, Frenchgirlname, Maman, ah no, she used to place in le house avec moi, maman, how dare you sacre bleu MEANWHILE
Armand is... a mad scientist now I guess? He and Dr Fareed are sitting at computers and holding little electric bits and bobs and Louis' head is on a thing and his body is somewhere else and they make you look at it so much and Armand torture's Louis via the science but also via a monologue so bad I could feel Assad Zaman crying inside in the gaps where subtext would be if this was good writing. They bring in Not Claudia and Armand is like I paid her to walk by you 19 times before you took the bait and she's like [britishly] oi Louis I'm sohrr-ree if fings was different we'd be mates BUT TO BE CLEAR she's tied up, she's not like in on it. And anyways Armand is threatening head swaps and carrying on and you have to watch the life fade from Louis in a really graphic way until he APOLOGIZES TO ARMAND I h8 every writer in that room
the Talamasca show up to the bowling alley and say FUCK ALL and Daniel does his tooths at them and truly WHO CARES
Lestat has decided to be annoying and this breaks the spell of Have Your Protagonist's Abusers Talk At Him Uninterrupted For 100 Boring Minutes and he walks across the table and unfortunately there's another song and an audience forms and they made me look at that heinous band again fuck these people to hell and back
And a crowd forms and Lestat is giving shout outs to people he's eaten (I'm not kidding, HAND TO GOD🤲) and you can tell that Sam's instincts as an actor have been put in a cage because it's getting a little Donny Osmond, it's getting a little stiff "I'm afraid of disco" you know what I mean
And then it cuts to him recording The Failures [my new activation phrase, if anyone ever says this or cabbage around me I will turn into a motorcycle made of guns and end this whole affair] in his apartment which just didn't feel very Lestat to me but that seems to be what they were going for so LOL EGG ON MY FACE 👏 and then in a very Marvel Movie sort of thing that made me want to throw up and kill myself - not necessarily in that order - he opens the door and the camera looks at him with the sun hitting his face and he's going full blue steel. Cut to what Lestat sees. Omg. Ruins. Wow I guess bad stuff will happen one day off camera. OK
And then it just ends... and fir WHAT??? No confirmation of a season 4 yet and the social media comments are starting to become critical after the leak. But unfortunately if someone edgy at AMC is admiring Rolin's edginess they might kiss with tongue and continue to massacre my boy, your boy, that boy over there, any boy in proximity really
Any TV show deserves criticism; it's how writers grow and improve, but TVL deserves real fucking criticism for a lot of things. It can be really easy, however, to dip into hate mail - which will not be treated seriously by the company or show runners - so here are some tips on how to write a critical review that will be taken seriously. I recommend, even if you enjoyed this season and the finale, you write your own critical review - it doesn't need to match the examples I list below.
An email address will need to be provided for the form, so if you have/have had an AMC account, be sure to use that one. I also am unsure if there is a character limit, so try to keep the review concise and 2000 words or less.
Your goal is constructive criticism
I know, this feels like playing nice, or giving them flowers they may not deserve, but the people receiving the review will not know you participated in good faith unless you show your work. This is basic communication 101; you need to communicate that you see TVL as a work of art, and show that you did engage with the material with intent to understand. Lie, if you have to, but pure vitriol will not be taken seriously.
Before you start writing the review, identify:
1 or 2 CREATIVE decisions you liked. This could be actors, costume, set design, original content, dialogue, music, ect. These are things that make the work artistic. Map them out, and treat them seriously: for example, I really liked that the gift to walk in sunlight is a skill that can be taught, and doesn't come from age.
1 or 2 ADAPTIVE decisions you liked. This could be how they condensed something satisfyingly, an ambitious change that you think was compelling, character choices that surprised you, ambiguous details that have you thinking, or things you thought were interesting and were disappointed they did not explore more. Adaption is an art, so let them know how the art impacted you. For example: I really liked the choice to have Magnus be depicted in a music video first, and return as an aggressive and haunting muse. I think it was extremely effective, and I would have liked to see more music-video style narration.
1-2 points of strong criticism. It is easy to dogpile on a whole bunch of flaws, especially when you are irritated, upset, disappointed, or disgusted. Take a deep breath, and make sure your criticisms are substantial. I think everyone who reads this post should make one of these points reference the offensive and poorly framed racialized dialogue, and the striking and hurtful orientation of Louis as a character punished by the narrative.
The conclusion should include actions you wish to see taken to prove the creative team has considered and respected our critique. One or two requests are enough, and I will share my example at the end.
Once you have clearly identified your points, you can move onto the next step
Organize your points
Part of what makes a successful critical review is how it summarizes and analyzes a text's strengths and weaknesses, which means you won't just be writing bullet points. In academia, this would be an introduction and paragraphs based around topics abc, but we don't have to do that. These will be organized into "sections," but that's more to prevent rambling than to grade you. I'll include examples of what I would say, but don't be afraid to use your own voice and just use my words as inspiration.
I'll give you guys 3 methods you can choose between:
Concerned Viewer
If strong criticism scares you, this is a good option.
Start with a short introduction using casual language: "Hi, I am a fan of AMC's Immortal Universe, and I wanted to reach out to share some concerns I had watching the latest season of 'The Vampire Lestat.'"
Next, mention one of your negative points, and follow up with a positive point: "When watching the adaption, I was struck by the realization that ___. This disappointed me so much, because the story and themes could have added so much more to the world and characters, but I don't feel ___. I was happy that some elements made it through, such as ____. I would have loved more moments like this."
The next section should be this, but reversed. Start with a positive point, end with a negative point: "____ really stood out in their performances this season. ___ and ____ stuck with me for days after I watched. I was, however, distracted from complete enjoyment because of _____."
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with: "I would love to continue to watching The Immortal Universe franchise, however I do not feel comfortable returning to the franchise unless these criticisms are taken seriously. Thank you."
Analyst
This is a good structure if you have very precise critiques that extend beyond surface-level impact that you want to convey.
Start with a strong overview of your impressions of the season. Briefly address one good point and one bad point. You will return to these later: "Dear writers and producers of 'The Vampire Lestat,' as I have tuned into this season weekly, I found myself increasingly dismayed at ____ which damaged my enjoyment of ____ and I wanted to convey my impressions to all concerned parties, to avoid a repetition of this experience."
First section should include your weakest points. You're leading them into the criticism. It is good, also, to describe what story-telling elements you were paying attention to: "I was most excited to see the portrayal of ___ to explore the themes of ___. I was, however, distracted by ___, and found my attention torn between enjoyment and confusion."
Next section should hit your most appreciated moments, but why the flaw you chose made this feel lacking, despite your appreciation: "I was most impressed by ____ which landed with me in ways I didn't expect [fill in details]. However, the ____ were not only distracting, they completely circumvented my deep appreciation for ____ [fill in with details].
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with: "I am disappointed in the result of this project, despite how interested I was in the story being told. Unless these points are seriously addressed, please do not consider me to be a returning viewer."
Offended Viewer
If you cannot find it in yourself to be polite or logical, you are not a problem. There are ways to structure your argument to convey that emotion without having to "play nice." This will be if you can't seriously commit to the positives from above, but you should still mark things you COULD have enjoyed if the other things didn't ruin your experience.
Start with a direct address (don't name names - yet.), and then give a summary of your issues: "For those at AMC who take criticism for 'The Vampire Lestat,' I have some things that need to be said. ___ and ___ were flaws of the project that ruined my enjoyment, and taxed by emotional and intellectual well-being because I tried so hard to give this adaption a fair chance."
Next section, start with the creative/adaptive things you were looking forward to, and then transition into the moments/episode when you realized that they disappointed you. If you can name the scene, do so. Precision will get you everywhere.
Next section is when you really beat the drum. Name head writers of the episode that pissed you off, detail 2 or 3 moments that you cannot in-good-conscience accept as art, and then provide the summary of what the show seemed to tell you while depicting these things. Tell them what the story impressed on you, because a message delivered ignorantly is still as painful as a message delivered intentionally. Make sure they KNOW what you took from the story.
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with your earnest disappointment and frustration, and what guided you to this show in the first place: "I expected to enjoy this season. I wanted to respect the changes and experimental approach. I wanted to see ___ and ___, but I did not enjoy it, and my opinion of the project is forever changed because of it."
Conclusion and Action
I put this under its own header because any activist will tell you that you get the most reward out of being united, and if our demands are the same, or are similar, we are more likely to see the results we want. Giving them actions to prove they have listened will also tell the audience if it's worth it to tune into the next season.
You can shift this to be in your own words, with your own criticism. You can even choose different actions. This is just my example, to help you see exactly what I mean.
I do not expect to find myself returning to 'The Vampire Lestat,' unless I have proof that the criticisms I outlined here have been heard and understood.
First, because of the failure of the narrative framework to build a substantial critique of racism -- that included racially offensive dialogue and insults directed at Black characters -- I will not return to The Immortal Universe unless two or more Black writers are hired to share their voices in the creative space. I do not trust the creative team to further address the topic of anti-blackness without them. Second, I request a public and published acknowledgment of the creative missteps, and the insult they have given, so that I have evidence that the creative team is interested in audience feedback.
I know some people are probably not interested in returning and I get you, but I encourage you to lie anyway. Executives speak in numbers, much to my absolute disdain, so if they know they could do something to get you BACK, they will have more incentive to actually do it.
So lie: lie for the fans who want to return, for the actors who want to return, for AMC to treat us seriously, and because it's fun to give a little lie to people who won't be harmed for it. Does AMC really deserve our total truth?
You can screenshot this post, share it on other social media platforms, discord groups, group chats, whatever you need. You can do it without crediting me. Just get the word out there, so AMC's creative team is aware of the impact of their massive fumble of the season.
This isn't about personal taste, it's about solidarity and refusing to accept anti-black writing without calling it out.
You can reach out to the AMC Network through the following contact us form: https://www.amcnetworks.com/contact-us/ or by visiting the AMC N
A (planet hitting the sun) @crithir - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
andulkaphoto
areudirty
titsay
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
yousharknotpass
amandla
dailybridgerton
