♪ I was lost within the darkness but then I found her ♪
PERCY JACKSON & ANNABETH CHASE — Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Titan's Curse Teaser
One Nice Bug Per Day

Product Placement
KIROKAZE
cherry valley forever
Keni
macklin celebrini has autism
🪼
tumblr dot com
noise dept.

shark vs the universe
Sweet Seals For You, Always
art blog(derogatory)
Show & Tell
YOU ARE THE REASON
Interview Vampire Daily
RMH

PR's Tumblrdome
Phantogram Three
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

roma★
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Vietnam
seen from T1

seen from Malaysia

seen from Bangladesh
seen from France
seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
seen from Morocco
seen from Singapore
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Libya

seen from Venezuela
@jeunesseoubliee
♪ I was lost within the darkness but then I found her ♪
PERCY JACKSON & ANNABETH CHASE — Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Titan's Curse Teaser
one of the best things about pjotv percy going so hard with the yearning is that he is still in fact actually deeply oblivious to the nature of his feelings so even absolutely unhinged shit like "i'd burn down olympus for you" is genuinely him just Having A Real Normal One With His Good Friend Annabeth
I wanted to forget him, and yet it seemed I thought of him always. It was as if the empty nights were made for thinking of him. And sometimes I found myself so vividly aware of him it was as if he had only just left the room and the ring of his voice were still there. And somehow there was a disturbing comfort in that
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE 2.03
Happy Leah Jeffries got casted for Annabeth Chase because we've always needed more unambiguously black girl representation,more black nerd characters who weren't jokes or villains and more black female love interests who get to be the main one and endgame and Book!Annabeth was held back by white feminism so she's finally written as well as she deserved.Happy Tamara Smart got casted for Thalia Grace because i always headcanoned Book!Thalia as black so it was a personal dream come true and it debunks stereotypes about alternative subcultures needing eurocentrism and androcentrism.Happy Walker Scobell got casted for Percy Jackson because it means Percy's beating the 'generic fandom migratory black haired white boy' allegations
I find it funny that I'll carefully write my posts about the criticisms I have of the show, choosing my words carefully to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, only for people who can't see past their hyperfixation on Lestat to call me a victim blamer, an abuse apologist, a hypocrite, ignorant and every other name under the sun.
I don't owe Lestat sympathy simply because he was a victim of abuse. What I do extend to him is empathy, which means acknowledging that abuse and recognizing how it shaped him. And that's what I've done and will continue to do, which is a lot more than many of you Lestat stans have ever extended to Louis and Claudia.
Trauma may explain Lestat's behavior, but it does not absolve him of responsibility for the harm he inflicts on others, nor does it make him above criticism.
So, to be clear, I'm not asking any of you to feel sympathy for Louis and Claudia. I'm asking you to act like the adults you are and examine your own biases. Ask yourselves why you're willing to acknowledge Lestat's victimhood while minimizing, excusing, dismissing, or outright denying the harm he inflicted on others. Ask yourselves why Lestat's lack of accountability for the harm he inflicted on Louis and Claudia doesn't seem to bother you. Ask yourselves why you can so easily dismiss Louis's account as untrue. Ask yourselves why you can so easily cast Lestat as Claudia's “mother “despite the fact that he was portrayed as the patriarch of their family. Ask yourselves why you're so willing to excavate signs of love, care, and affection from beneath the overt conflict, hostility, and harm in Claudia and Lestat's relationship, yet so quick to question, diminish, or reframe Claudia and Louis's. Ask yourselves why empathy seems to flow in only one direction.
My acknowledgment of a character's victimhood or suffering is not contingent on whether or not I like them. It is not contingent on whether or not I've made them my whole personality, and it is certainly not contingent on whether or not I identify with some aspects of them. My acknowledgment is based on what's presented on my screen. I will not resort to mental gymnastics, victim blaming, abuse apologia, claims of "mutual abuse," or the dismissal and denial of abuse that I witnessed with my own eyes simply because I strongly identify with the perpetrator. Can you all say the same?
What's baffling is that I've given Lestat far more sympathy than he ever deserved because I genuinely thought the time would come when he would have to reckon with all the harm he inflicted on Louis and Claudia. Do you think I have him as my profile picture for shit and giggles? I used to like him a lot back in seasons 1 and 2 (still do to some extent), and even then, I still recognized that he was an abuser. See how that works?
So what am I supposed to do? Drink the Kool-Aid and let Lestat's DARVO campaign seduce me into believing that Louis was lying through his teeth at worst or misunderstood Lestat's actions at best? That Claudia was a monster who poisoned Louis against Lestat because she hated them both? That there was never any love between her and Louis? That Louis’s grief was selfish and self-serving? That Lestat is some poor, traumatized pookie who never hurt anyone, but if he did, it's because he couldn't help it due to his trauma? Am I supposed to write meta after meta about Lestat’s suffering while ignoring the elephant in the room? Am I supposed to disregard the evidence of my own eyes under the pretense of "unreliable memory"?
And why are you even bothering with me, especially when you're not even willing to engage with my criticisms? I'm just a small drop in a sea of people who have bought into Lestat's DARVO campaign and are embracing him, defending him at all costs, and absolving him across Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and even here.
Then again, I suppose you're just taking a page out of your idol's playbook.
Its crazy that every character in iwtv experiences intense rage, justified and unjustified, but of all of them Claudia is the one who gets her rage treated like the core of her character. Occasionally its shoehorned for the sake of lesdaughter parallels (because a white man raging over his patriarchal power being diminished is exactly the same as a black woman angry at being abused her whole life) it always ignores her immense love, her desire to love and be loved. It ignores what I consider to be her main trait which is her steadfast pursuit of joy. Like she would do anything to be happy. She throws away all morals because she knows deep in her heart that she deserves to be happy and that she can be.
So a love story is when we're such awful people that, who else will have us. So let's get together.
So a love story is when a victim of domestic violence goes back to their abuser because they are just as bad as them, and therefore made for each other.
Louis depicted a tragic love story that asked the question: Can love and abuse coexist?
Lestat depicted a tragedy disguised as a love story that asked the question: "Isn't abuse from a partner a form of love?"
After all, "And to us monsters, what's a bite between paramours?" To quote Santiago, who seems to have been involved in the writing of AMC The Vampire Lestat.
They somehow managed to make the scene where Louis reads Claudia's diary to Bruce even worse this episode. Because now we know that scene exists purely for Lestats benefit. It was never meant to be genuine engagement with how Louis violated Claudia's privacy and autonomy (not even getting into the discussion of whether reading the account of her rape to her rapist was in character or not). The only point of Louis' involvement in that scene was so they could throw it back at him later by him saying a line so heinous and out of character that even Louis had to mention so after. Like so many things this season, the diary scene and the seance actually had very little to do with Claudia or Louis but rather exist for cheap shock value and to absolve Lestats actions at the total expense of Louis' character.
PERCY JACKSON AND THE OLYMPIANS | 2x05: We Check In to C.C.’s Spa & Resort
Bugs when you lift up a rock
Let's talk about show Lestat's reaction to the séance. His reaction didn't bother me nearly as much as Louis's because it confirmed something I had been in denial about ever since Lestat showed up to that "trial" looking relatively fine. I find his reaction in line with the way the show has portrayed his relationship with Claudia thus far. And I mean show Lestat specifically. I know some fans like to use the books to fill in the gaps, but my analysis is based on what the show has actually presented.
To me, his reaction only reinforces something the show has never really been able to hide, despite all the "Lesdaughter" propaganda: Lestat never truly cared about Claudia. He liked her when she was making Louis happy. She fit into the little family fantasy Louis desperately wanted, so he enjoyed her presence. But the moment he started perceiving Claudia as a rival for Louis's affection, whatever affection he had for her disappeared. From that point on, she was a nuisance.
I honestly think the only reason he didn't outright kill her on murder night was because he thought doing so would mean losing Louis forever. Claudia was an inconvenience he had to keep around for Louis. Unlike Louis, who genuinely saw Claudia as his daughter, Lestat never saw her that way. The fact that Lestat always saw Claudia for what she was isn't proof of some special understanding or connection between them, nor is it evidence of his love for her. Even details like him knowing about her heart murmur feel more like remnants of a time when he liked her enough to pay attention to those things than proof of love.
That's why he's not haunted by her death the way Louis is. Louis lost a daughter. Lestat lost a nuisance at worst, or someone he used to know at best.
That's also why, now that she's gone, now that she's no longer a threat, it's safe for him to honor her with a song. It's safe for him to romanticize her, to be sentimental about her. The real Claudia demanded Louis's attention and challenged Lestat's authority. The dead Claudia asks nothing of him. She's no longer a rival, no longer an obstacle, and no longer a threat. Only then does it become easy to celebrate her, even to love her. It also explains why he doesn't appear particularly shaken by her words during the séance. Claudia can mock him, insult him, and air her grievances all she wants, and he can even feel bad for her for a moment, because none of it changes the outcome. None of it threatens him anymore. Claudia is dead, and she no longer stands between him and Louis.
Lestat loved the memory of Claudia. Louis loved Claudia. And when you start looking at their relationship through that lens, Lestat's reaction to the séance starts to make sense.
The thing is that none of the events of House of the Dragon would have happened if Rhaenyra had been born a man. At the root of this war is misogyny. It's the giant elephant in the room and the true crux of the matter. That's why I'm Team Black on principle. Viserys officially named Rhaenyra his heir in a public ceremony before the lords of the great houses of Westeros. This wasn't some secret decision made behind closed doors, nor was it known only to a select few. The realm knew who the heir was. The war began because the Hightowers, particularly Otto and Alicent, used Rhaenyra's gender against her to usurp her claim. As far as I'm concerned, the bloodshed that followed rests primarily on their hands. Mind you, Aegon himself initially had no desire to be king. Alicent can try to make amends all she wants, but she and her father are the ones who set these events in motion. What exactly was Rhaenyra supposed to do? Surrender her claim and trust that she and her family would be spared? From her perspective, yielding the throne could very well have been a death sentence. Honestly, I only wish she had gone scorched earth on them from day one.
And let's be honest: if Rhaenyra had been born male, whatever Alicent thought she heard Viserys say on his deathbed wouldn't even be a point of discussion. No one would have considered a confused, dying remark sufficient grounds to overturn public declarations, sworn oaths, and established succession. Had Rhaenyra been a man, there would have been no debate, no competing interpretation of Viserys' final words, and likely no Dance of the Dragons. The very fact that her claim could be questioned, despite being the king's chosen heir, proves the point. Everything else came afterward. The misogyny was there from the beginning, and it was the spark that set the realm on fire. Some people often frame the Dance of the Dragons as a story of royals fighting over power while ordinary people suffer, and while that's certainly true, I think it misses an important point. The war didn't erupt because two equally legitimate claimants simply wanted the throne. It began because the rightful, publicly designated heir was denied her inheritance. The smallfolk suffered because a faction of the royal family and its supporters decided that a woman claiming what was legally and publicly hers was unacceptable. The war was entirely avoidable.
That said, I want to add I do have sympathy for Alicent. She is also a victim of misogyny, as well as of both Otto and Viserys. However, being a victim does not absolve her of responsibility. While I can understand how her circumstances shaped her choices, she still bears a great deal of responsibility for the events that followed.
The thing is, I've always found Lestat to be a bit of a loser, but in season 1, his loserdom was more endearing than annoying. It was balanced by enough charisma, charm, magnetism, and genuine vulnerability to give him the emotional depth that made him compelling. More importantly, he was entertaining. Even when he was being awful, he was still fascinating to watch. In the Vampire Lestat, though, I find his loserdom very off-putting. The writers have stripped him of everything that made him compelling, interesting and fun to watch. He comes across as immature and emotionally stunted. He acts like a manchild, and I just find that deeply unattractive.
The world is already full of men like Lestat: men who are self-absorbed, emotionally immature, lacking in self-awareness, delusional, who can only ever see themselves as the injured party even when they've hurt other people, and who are allergic to accountability. I don't need fiction to give me more of them, especially not as a protagonist the story wants me to invest in while seeming far more interested in making me feel sorry for him than anything else. This version of Lestat genuinely gives me the ick.
Watching The Vampire Lestat, I kept thinking to myself, what the fuck did Louis even see in this man? Hell, what the fuck did I even see in this man? I feel like I was catfished by Louis's tale. If this was supposed to be the real Lestat, then I'm not hungry. They should have kept him. I preferred Louis's greatly embellished version of him.
According to some section of this fandom, if your husband puts his hands on your child, you're supposed to just stand there and watch. Because if you fight back and become violent in response, then suddenly it's a "mutual fight," and apparently you should have stopped when your husband told you to, which means you somehow deserved to be beaten nearly to death and dropped from the sky.
The lengths some of you will go to defend Lestat. When it comes to Louis and Claudia, Lestat is and will always be an abuser. Lestat literally said that what he did to Louis was unforgivable and that he did it to hurt him. No amount of victim blaming or abuse apologia will change that. It's been four years. You'd think they would have made peace with that.
Edited to add: It's perfectly fine to still love Lestat after what he did to Louis and Claudia. It's also perfectly fine to still root for him and Louis. Because they are fictional characters, Lestat didn't actually abuse anyone. But what's not okay is using the same rethoric that are used to discredit abuse victims in real life to ease your discomfort with Lestat being portrayed as an abuser.
RIP Loustat, You Were Bigger Than the Sky 💔😭
The way The Vampire Lestat has completely destroyed my interest in Loustat needs to be studied. I was a Loustat girlie first and foremost. I genuinely used to think that Loustat chemistry could get me through anything, any amount of nonsense the writers threw at them and at us. But boy was I wrong! I watched an episode centered on them and felt absolutely nothing. No butterflies. No smiling like an idiot. No excitement. Nothing.
How am I supposed to feel invested in Loustat when Lestat is calling Louis a whore for no good reason, a "cancerous jackal" for no good reason. He has the audacity to reduce Louis's anger over being beaten nearly to death and dropped 5,000 feet from the sky to nothing more than "redirected moods."This undermines his season 2 apology. I already had issues with that apology because of the context surrounding it. Still, I could at least point to it and say, okay, he's acknowledging what he did. He's taking accountability. After all, Lestat admitted that he broke Louis because he couldn't force him to love him. But how am I supposed to take that remorse seriously now when he's minimizing the grotesque harm he once acknowledged causing?
It does make me wonder: does Lestat even like Louis, let alone love him? Who is to say he isn't mistaking obsession for love? The narrative can insist that Lestat loves Louis all it wants, but at some point, we need proof. We need to see it in his actions. So what exactly am I supposed to point to as evidence of this supposedly great love? Am I supposed to see the fact that Lestat showed up for Louis despite being angry with him as evidence of his deep, unwavering love? Especially when the narrative frames it against Louis not checking on him after he was shot? Mind you, Lestat "I have the blood of Akasha in me" de Lioncourt was never in any real danger of dying from a gunshot. When his life was actually at risk, Louis showed up.
Because that's the problem. The show is asking me to treat these few and far-between moments as proof of Lestat's deep and unwavering love for Louis. But the rest of the time, what we're given is a Lestat who seems far more interested in possessing Louis than loving him. He wants Louis's love, devotion, attention, and availability. He wants Louis to be sexually, emotionally, and physically available whenever he needs him. And when Louis gives him what he wants, Lestat is affectionate. When Louis doesn't, suddenly he's a whore.
Now, you can tell me he was acting like that because he was still angry and hurt over the book. Fine. Let's look at what happens when Louis and Lestat are supposedly in a good place and he's no longer angry.
He gets irritated at the insinuation that he killed Claudia, which is true, by the way. He played an active role in Claudia's lynching and murder. He gets dismissive when Louis brings up his affair with Antoinette, suggesting that Louis mischaracterized her in the book.
Then we get his reckoning. This is supposed to be Lestat's big character growth moment.
And what does Lestat's subconscious have to say about Louis?
Lestat is now fixated on Louis having been a pimp. When we finally get a glimpse into how he sees their relationship, we're told that he offered the Dark Gift to a pimp, someone he apparently viewed as undeserving because of his profession. And what did he get in return? The pimp made his life miserable, baby-trapped him, slit his throat, and then fucked his ex. What's jarring is how much this framing glosses over the details that actually matter. The implication is essentially: I gave this man everything, and look how he repaid me.
The narrative is framing it as though Lestat's great tragedy is that he loved Louis too much, too deeply, too selflessly, and was punished for it. And despite all of Louis's faults, in all his benevolence, he remained steadfast in his love for him. What makes this so baffling is that Lestat genuinely seems to believe he loves Louis the way Louis needs to be loved, even as he frames Louis as someone undeserving of that love in the first place. He doesn't see himself as the perpetrator. He sees himself as the wronged party in the relationship. Meanwhile, Louis is the one who was beaten nearly to death, dropped from the sky, cheated on, manipulated, isolated, lynched, and forced to live with the loss of Claudia, a tragedy Lestat played an active role in.
What kind of DARVO nonsense is this? Because this framing sounds suspiciously similar to the way Santiago characterized Louis and Lestat's relationship during the "trial". The selfless lover who gave everything. The ungrateful partner who repaid that love with betrayal and cruelty. By the end of it, I was left wondering whether the writers intended for Santiago's interpretation of their relationship to carry more truth than I initially thought. In retrospect, Rolin's insistence that Lestat not apologize during the NOLA reconciliation, despite Jacob and Sam's objections that he should, makes a lot more sense. In fact, it made me realize that the seeds of Loustat's downfall were planted in that very scene. On paper, it was supposed to be a reconciliation. But in practice, the narrative framed Louis as the one who needed to make amends, the one who needed to express gratitude, the one who needed to reassure Lestat. Looking back, that should have been my first warning sign.
The thing about Loustat in past seasons was that, yes, Lestat was abusive, but I also believed that he loved Louis deeply. The appeal of their relationship, for me, was that the story allowed love and abuse to coexist in a way that could be explored safely through fiction. It allowed me to engage with dynamics that would be unacceptable in real life. Even at his cruelest, I believed Lestat's actions came from a place of love, however warped, selfish, and destructive that love might have been. Even after he dropped Louis from the sky, I struggled with it a bit, but I eventually came around. I felt the relationship had become more complicated, more tragic, and more interesting. The abuse didn't erase the love; it made the contradictions within their relationship more complex. That's why I was still invested.
Had the story followed that up with genuine accountability, had Lestat taken responsibility for what he did and sincerely apologized, with the narrative fully supporting that reckoning, it could have been incredible. We could have watched Lestat reckoning with what happened to Claudia and the role he played in her death. We could have watched Louis wrestle with the impossible contradiction of loving Lestat while knowing the part he played in Claudia's murder. We could have watched them mourn Claudia together and slowly find their way back to each other. Maybe even the séance scene could have been part of that, with Louis and Lestat working together to help Claudia finally find peace. That would have been compelling. That would have felt earned.
Instead of putting in the work, the writers resorted to abuse apologia and victim-blaming. They centered Lestat's trauma throughout the season while avoiding any meaningful accountability for his actions. Meanwhile, they increasingly nudged the audience toward viewing Louis (and Claudia) as the source of the conflict in the relationship, a pattern I only now realize began in the season 2 finale.
All I needed was for the narrative to acknowledge the reality of what he did and allow him to grapple with it honestly. Yet very rarely did the narrative ask him to truly confront the damage he caused. The writers keep telling us that Loustat is the heart of the show, and yet they have given me very little reason to believe it.
At this point, I'm not even angry about Loustat anymore. I'm just tired. I was willing to forgive a lot as long as I believed there was genuine love between them. That was always the appeal of Loustat for me. The idea that love and abuse could coexist in a way that was tragic, messy, compelling, and impossible to justify in real life, but fascinating to explore in fiction. The problem is that I don't buy it anymore. I no longer believe in the love story the show keeps insisting is there. And once that belief is gone, all that's left is nothing.
Lestat in season 2 while talking about the dv especially the drop: I did it to hurt him (Louis) and it did hurt him. And afterwards, he was a broken thing, I know, I saw because I am the one who broke him...I couldn't persuade him to return my affection, I couldn't force him to love me and so I broke him. What's worse than that, crushing what you cannot own. I hurt the one, I hurt the only one...I will always be sorry for what I did to you. I was not worthy of the forgiveness you would give me.
Lestat (through Paul) to Lestat during his reckonning in season 3: Thank you for loving him (Louis), for loving him the way he needs to be loved.
A certain section of the fandom is perfectly willing to acknowledge the ways Gabriella abused Lestat, both when he was human and after he became a vampire. They'll acknowledge their sexual and incestuous relationship as abusive. But when it comes to Claudia, they suddenly become blind to abusive dynamics. Lestat's actions toward Claudia get reframed as something else entirely, something that apparently shouldn't be called abuse.
That same section of the fandom will tell you how important it was to see Lestat's trauma treated as valid and handled with care, while ignoring the abuse apologia and victim-blaming directed at Louis. Apparently, Lestat is the only character whose trauma is entitled to that level of empathy.
Many of those same fans will complain that people are trying to deny Lestat's victimhood, when that would be impossible even if anyone wanted to. The writers have gone out of their way to ensure Lestat's victimhood is consistently recognized and validated. At the same time, you have Rolin Jones saying Louis can no longer "play the victim card," because God forbid any character who isn't named Lestat be allowed to exist as an abuse victim in their own right.
Those fans will watch the séance scene and cheer Claudia on as she calls Louis nappy-headed and a slave, and then tell people to stop complaining because she called him a slave before, as though context doesn't matter. As though Claudia essentially telling Louis, "We're being treated like slaves" in Season 1 is remotely the same as telling him that being a slave is part of his nature.
The same people have questioned Louis's victimhood since day one, yet will jump down people's throats the moment anyone points out the double standard in how the narrative treats Louis's abuse versus Lestat's. Any criticism of the disproportionate care, validation, and narrative weight afforded to Lestat's trauma is immediately reframed as an attempt to dismiss or deny his abuse, rather than recognizing that people are pointing out that Louis is so rarely extended the same grace.
They will endlessly dissect Louis's past as a pimp to argue that he is some uniquely great evil, while conveniently ignoring that Lestat was a customer. He was emptying coffers to buy women during that same time period, but I guess buying women is somehow less reprehensible than selling them. It does make you wonder: who exactly do they think Louis was pimping those women to? The discussion rarely follows its own logic to its inevitable conclusion, because that would require applying the same moral standards to Lestat that they so eagerly apply to Louis.
These same fans will scrutinize Louis and Armand through the lens of the pimp and CSA victim dynamic, treating it as essential context for understanding their relationship. But when it comes to Armand and Lestat, not a peep. Suddenly, the fact that Lestat was someone who bought people for sex, just as Armand was someone who was bought and exploited for sex, becomes completely irrelevant. Apparently, those dynamics only matter when they can be used to demonize Louis.
Many of them will write metas about how Lestat has been conditioned to believe his body is his only value, how he has learned to equate sex with love and validation, and how that makes him vulnerable to exploitation. Yet many of those same people seem unable to recognize that the narrative repeatedly faults Louis for being unwilling or unable to make himself emotionally, romantically, or sexually available to the men in his life. Louis's emotional distance or withdrawals are often treated as moral failings rather than symptoms of trauma or expressions of autonomy. When Louis pulls away from Lestat, it becomes evidence of cruelty or neglect. When he is cold and distant toward Armand, it becomes evidence of toxicity and abuse. Louis is repeatedly framed through the lens of what he failed to provide the men who wanted access to him. The irony is that many of the same viewers who can recognize sexual and emotional conditioning when it comes to Lestat seem unable to recognize the expectations being placed on Louis. They understand that nobody is entitled to Lestat's body, affection, or emotional availability. But when Louis exercises that same autonomy, his boundaries are recast as methodical cruelty.
And when viewers point out all those issues, that section of the fandom retreats into a collection of strawmen and pats itself on the back for rebutting arguments nobody made, because it is incapable of engaging with the actual criticisms being raised. And then there's also the performative "I wish we could all just get along" lament, framing conflict itself as the problem while turning a blind eye to the issues that gave rise to those criticisms in the first place.