super excited to my favorite passages from the book come to live!
tumblr dot com
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
taylor price

shark vs the universe
art blog(derogatory)
hello vonnie
Keni
will byers stan first human second

Kiana Khansmith
Misplaced Lens Cap

titsay
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Stranger Things
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Xuebing Du
wallacepolsom
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
macklin celebrini has autism

tannertan36
Cosmic Funnies

seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Greece

seen from Bulgaria

seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Germany
seen from Norway
seen from Austria
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Malaysia

seen from Bolivia

seen from United States
@millaysmaeve
super excited to my favorite passages from the book come to live!
two weeks ago, my favorite telenovela author passed away. his characters had always felt like real people to me, they resembled my cousins or someone I met while visiting my family in the countryside. his secret to mastering the ability to write such compelling characters was quite simple: he felt every emotion he was putting on paper. he cried, got angry, and felt love. he was never ashamed of his creations' actions and didn't deny them their experiences no matter how ugly they were. in one of his most famous interviews, he declaimed the opening scene of his masterpiece: the protagonist was lost in the forest and got mesmerized by the biggest tree he had ever seen; then he started to cry, enchanted by the beauty of the jequitibá, a soil that is capable of nourishing a plant like that can only be fertile, so here he must remain. while benedito was saying the same words he wrote in the past, he got tears in his eyes, more than a decade had passed since he first wrote the script and cried while doing it, just like his protagonist. he still got emotional with it, his words still meant something and forever will as long as people who adapts them remain truthful to these characters and their stories. i think what i'm trying to say (aside from writing some sort of tribute) is that characters these days are just ideas, something less than that, a means to an end so the writers can go to point A to B. that's why everything feels so cynical and callous. but they got it all wrong, characters are what make the stories alive. so for them to be compelling to watch, they must feel real.
season so bad that the only thing that put a smile on my face was the backstage video with jennifer saying 'oh my god you're louis' after seeing jacob ready to shoot and jacob saying gabrielle is one of his favorite characters…they even send each other pictures of trees, this is feels like book gabi and louis to me in way…
jennifer on insta posting that louis should be on the sdcc poster that features lestat, gabriella, regina...that's family!
one nitpicky critique i had about iwtv s2 was when rashid hands daniel old photographs(?) and daniel tells him that you shouldnt wear gloves when handling historic documents. ive always hated that line because its SO obvious that the writers saw that critique in s1 and needed to let the audience know they fixed it, when they could've just shut up and let it slide.
this is what so much of tvl feels like? super aware of itself and what is said online, but also too ashamed of itself to not address it. its why characters are blatantly exposition dumping through monologues, why louis has to explicitly spell out ghoststat, why they address useless details we really can just let go. it really confuses me, this genre and these characters should be written unapologetically but i cant help feel like the writers want to scramble to explain themselves.
"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 pic reminds me so much of my fanfic, i can help it blonde bertha makes a lot of sense in modern times to me, especially in my emma au
So we can get a canonically androgynous and somewhat gender dysphoric/genderqueer Lestat, but a canon gender dysphoric transmasc/GNC Gabrielle is just off the table? Is this just seeing trans men as women and therefore unimportant, and trans women as men and therefore worthy of importance?
Cause both are pretty fucking transphobic
People talked to me like I was the too woke friend final boss but their version of Baby Jenks really was the canary in the coal mine, and IMMEDIATELY too
they made a girl that almost died (and would have if wasn't turned) from a abortion wanting to have a baby in her wedding the day...VILE
amc is so lucky anne rice is dead not even a NDA would stop her to torn these writers to pieces
you really can tell rolin and hannah genuinely think they deserve to live...
one day we should have a serious conversation about how awful it is to be a part of the fandom that not only has fans that gaslight you about the books (yeah i've learned to ignore it, but this isn't just about me; there are people here that do not intend to open the books and are bombarded with information that is not true at all) but also members of the crew and cast doing the same. i do love sam dearly, but there are things that he's saying while doing press that are annoying the hell out of me (like asserting that some stuff comes right from the source material and they clearly don't, or even claiming the tvl is an unadaptable book??like what? there are some passages that you can even say anne wrote with a script for a movie in mind).
and we're stuck in this weird position that uses some stuff as a foundation but is not the same as they were written. and yeah adaptations work like this, and i'm not saying that everything should be a copy and paste. however, some times the writing decides to do some stuff that no longer makes sense in the context of the show, and after that, every fan and their mother comes saying it's just like in the books! but it's not; it's clearly not. it doesn't work anymore because the context is different.
for example: like it or not, a vampire drinking from another in the show is not necessarily equal to sex (and i would like to argue that even in the books it is not always like this, but now is not the time) cuz now vampires can fuck. another one: claudia is no longer a child, so it doesn't work to claim that she needed someone traveling by her side or that she's small to make another vampire (this one is more debatable, but i stand by that). so, no you can't through a print of her merrick monologue and say it's identical, it's not a solid argument.
but still we're really, and it's extremely exhausting to have people picking up from the chronicles what fits their narrative better just because they agree with what the show is doing. same with the screenwriters, they just say there's a tone shift with lestat narration, yeah maybe in the latter books but in the vampire lestat anne rice was still writing a gothic like you know? a classical gothic book. maybe try to read it past the prologue next time.
and with season three, we even have a new element: since memory is a monster and we're changing the pov you can retcon whatever you want!
and while i'm in it, the same goes for the things producers/writers and actors say in interviews that are not shown to us in the episodes. like, yeah, jacob, i get that if lestat could, he would have saved claudia, but right now, with the material that i have i barely can say if lestat was willing to participate or not in the trial. gabriella is a child bride according to hannah and jennifer, but there's pretty much nothing to corroborate this statement in the show. now i don't know if it's deliberate or not, but her abusive situation is implied in a way that you can practically dismiss. it's gone; her main abuser is even killed. now foccus on other things! like the main character here, he's constantly going through horrors, he only suffers, his scars a permanent.
i think i will stop here, but think about it and do what you will with it :)
one day we should have a serious conversation about how awful it is to be a part of the fandom that not only has fans that gaslight you about the books (yeah i've learned to ignore it, but this isn't just about me; there are people here that do not intend to open the books and are bombarded with information that is not true at all) but also members of the crew and cast doing the same. i do love sam dearly, but there are things that he's saying while doing press that are annoying the hell out of me (like asserting that some stuff comes right from the source material and they clearly don't, or even claiming the tvl is an unadaptable book??like what? there are some passages that you can even say anne wrote with a script for a movie in mind).
and we're stuck in this weird position that uses some stuff as a foundation but is not the same as they were written. and yeah adaptations work like this, and i'm not saying that everything should be a copy and paste. however, some times the writing decides to do some stuff that no longer makes sense in the context of the show, and after that, every fan and their mother comes saying it's just like in the books! but it's not; it's clearly not. it doesn't work anymore because the context is different.
for example: like it or not, a vampire drinking from another in the show is not necessarily equal to sex (and i would like to argue that even in the books it is not always like this, but now is not the time) cuz now vampires can fuck. another one: claudia is no longer a child, so it doesn't work to claim that she needed someone traveling by her side or that she's small to make another vampire (this one is more debatable, but i stand by that). so, no you can't through a print of her merrick monologue and say it's identical, it's not a solid argument.
but still we're really, and it's extremely exhausting to have people picking up from the chronicles what fits their narrative better just because they agree with what the show is doing. same with the screenwriters, they just say there's a tone shift with lestat narration, yeah maybe in the latter books but in the vampire lestat anne rice was still writing a gothic like you know? a classical gothic book. maybe try to read it past the prologue next time.
and with season three, we even have a new element: since memory is a monster and we're changing the pov you can retcon whatever you want!
PEGGY SCOTT and WILLIAM KIRKLAND THE GILDED AGE 3.08 – My Mind Is Made Up
Girl….what did you think of THAT Claudia scene?
omg i was TRYING to wait until post-finale to vent all my feelings but aaahhhhh twist my arm
Honestly ever since ppl started vaguely teasing "anti-blackness in ep6" ive had a tightness in my chest. I was so nervous for weeks and weeks and really built it up in my head as this big horrible thing, so when I finally sat down and watched it...it kind of underwhelmed me at first? My immediate reaction was one of confusion...because nothing about the character we saw in ep6 resembled Claudia. At all. I was so bewildered it took me sitting with it a while to even feel upset about it.
Which could also be attributed to how ineffective the writing is this season, bc none of it moves me. The jokes don't make me laugh, the 'romantic' parts don't make me feel tender, the tragic parts don't make me feel sad...even the most vile/over the top cruelty barely makes me feel anything. I didn't even feel bad for Louis in this scene!!!! Bc none of it felt real (and also bc he barely seems to feel anything about it himself. they aren't even invested enough in their own flogging of Louis to show him suffering over it...Louis tried to kill himself when he heard Claudia's voice in 205...Louis and Claudia parted on far less hostile terms with a heartfelt goodbye in 106 and Louis wanted to kill himself then. Louis would be ashes rn if this shit was serious!!!) This is a show that used to be a GOTHIC HORROR MELODRAMA ROMANCE all genres that LIVE on heightened emotion!!!!! And this season is a cynical dry passionless husk......they've really bled all these characters of their human essence and rendered each and every one of them a cardboard cutout of themselves. It's the most insane waste of potential I've ever seen.
The thing about this episode, is that it convinced me that isn't an accident.
With all the constant in-text mocking of iwtv ("missing the psychodrama of Dubai?", Lestat laughing at Louis's turning speech, mocking Louis's romanticizing of Dreamstat, the constant calling Louis a liar and ripping apart the book full of his words without meaningfully calling out any specific part of his account...Lestat is not pissed off at Louis bc he made up a ticket pocket, like to this day we do not know what exactly in this book is the big lie he's mad about. and he's spent the whole season being mad.....meaning the point here is not to dispute or provide a contrasting POV, but only to ridicule and illegitimize) and the marketing push to court a new audience, it seems like their final push to distinguish tvl from the thorny, nuanced, deeply emotional, queer niche critical darling that it once was is to make this season of television a hit piece on its first two seasons. Every single choice seems like it was purposefully made in order to spite the original series and everyone who ever loved it for what it was (with a special personal vendetta against the person who was heart and soul of that series, Louis/Jacob).
Its only natural that this season's climax is to attempt to retroactively destroy the emotional core of s1-2, which is Louclaudia.
Louis's story is a story of grief. The common jabs people like to throw at Louis about him being whiny or passive or brooding or a sad sack or whatever - that's because his whole character is built around the concept of grief. Louis is the embodiment of a mother's grief over losing her child, the grief Anne Rice was consumed with when writing IWTV. He is grief personified.
(From The Vampire Companion)
The IWTV novel does not exist without Anne Rice's incredible love for and grief over losing her daughter, and Louis's story does not exist without his incredible love and grief over Claudia.
At first I thought they were honoring Louis's characterization by having his storyline continue to focus on his grief. I had my doubts about the Regina plotline (bc what else do they have to say now about Louis other than 'he grieves'? what does this plot add? isn't it just a retread of his journey in s1-2? if he immediately regresses, what was the significance of "I own the night"?), but the core of it is still Louis's love for Claudia, and Louis's grief wouldn't fade away overnight just because he grew as a person. I was actually pleased that in The Lestat Season, Louis was allowed to spend his time, not thinking about Lestat, but still focused on Claudia, even as Lestat spends all his time bitching Louis out (which is also kind of a 105 retread now that I think about it).
But what episode 6 revealed to me, was that the new addition they had for Louis's story was to undermine his grief. Louis was wrong to grieve, he was selfish to grieve. The person Louis exists to grieve not only hates him, but hates him for grieving her. In the hands of the writers of s3, Louis's love for Claudia is forged as a weapon against him, and his pain at her loss is an indictment of his character.
S3's Claudia is angry with him for grieving her. The first thing out of her mouth is "couldn't keep me on the wall". Claudia, who knew all too well (and according to s3, actively weaponized) Louis's incredible depth of love for her, is upset that the person who loved her so intensely mourns her....why? It doesn't make any sense for her to feel this way...of course Louis mourns her, and always will. Would she rather have vanished from the world without a trace, having left no one behind who loved her enough to care she existed? Would she rather have burned in a house fire when she was 14, died alone and unwanted as an unnamed casualty, the way Lestat said was her destiny?
It's not only nonsensical, it doesn't feel like the character. Claudia, who was so desperate to be loved and seen, to belong, to be "put first" by someone.....begrudges Louis for doing just that? Miss "picked another one over me/never about me" would rather Louis never say her name again??
I really can't even see this being as representative of Claudia in any way. So much of what they have her say in this scene goes directly against her character, and, despite all its overwrought viciousness, she doesn't even take Louis or Lestat to task for some of what we know she saw as their greatest offenses!!!!!!!!
Things Ghost Claudia Mentions:
-Louis grieving her. She, in essence, tells him NOT to grieve her, implies it insults her to grieve her, "burn her diaries, burn this dress". Like I said, this is not something Claudia would fucking say lmao even if she was speaking from a place of deep anger, she would not want to be erased, even if the dress on the wall is just a symbol to remind Louis that he fucked up, and that she suffered as a result, she would want to keep a record of the damage.
-Louis being 'back with Lestat' (which he isn't, really, romantically speaking. like they are at most back in a talking stage. so its pretty unclear what the scope of her knowledge is bc she knows about stuff like Lestat's "song on the radio" but not their most recent interactions? idk)
-She says she only didn't kill Louis so she could keep him around to do her bidding until she found someone better. I believe there is a book quote where Claudia says something along these lines and thats what they're pulling from (I couldn't find it though..), but in the books Claudia actually needs a companion to survive. She is in the body of a five year old and is emphasized as being very physically vulnerable; regardless of whether bookClaudia loved/hated Louis, there is a practical element to her choice to keep him around.
But in the show, Claudia is not physically 5 but 14 and a prodigious hunter who goes on killing sprees alone. She has no physical need for Louis that would justify this idea of her keeping him around despite "hating" him. Her need for companionship in the show is solely reduced to her emotional needs (and if she hated Louis, he would not fulfill that). You just can't take any of this shit seriously if you watched the first two seasons...Claudia was always returning to Louis, she was ensnared by the coven because she returned to Louis. Louis was dead weight in Eastern Europe, an active hindrance, hallucinating, depressed, why not leave him? He isn't any help to her in that period, which was years of them not getting along; she was the one that spoke the languages, she was the one keeping him fed, she pulls the revenant off of him. She doesn't need Louis to survive there, she wants him. She returns to him time again because she wants him. Meaning disintegrates without him...
(Obvs Lestat is included in her statement about missing them, but we only see her follow Louis...I really thought we would get at least one flashback of Claudia bonding with Lestat or even just missing him like this esp if they're gonna try to sell us on him being "her favorite" but no.....there wasn't even an attempt so i have no choice but to call bs)
-Louis "read the diary pages seven decades too late". I already discussed how Claudia was averse to anyone reading her diaries in this other post so i won't go over that again, but it is another inept writing choice that even when they want to vilify Louis here, they can't do it right. Claudia saying something like "it took too long" for Louis to read the pages eliminates the entire moral dilemma of Louis reading and presenting the pages without her consent...shouldn't Claudia be more upset because he violated her privacy in the first place? Nope...apparently he should have done it sooner...? Not to mention that Claudia took years to open up to Louis about Bruce, so this idea that she was waiting around on him to do something about it doesn't add up...if anything s1 Claudia seemed to scoff at the idea of him being able to avenge her with her "knight in vengeful black" comment. also no mention of Louis killing the coven in her name....which he did do immediately lol....like...
(also the fact they have Claudia chastise LOUIS for crying like the sa happened to him when they literally overlaid her words with Lestat's trauma crashout and textually made her sa about Lestat.................LMAO!! unserious)
-She says she fabricated the train scene (or at least exaggerated it) to get Louis to cooperate with killing Lestat. Obvs there is a whole heinous layer where the train scene was evoking the imagery of runaway slave captures and these white writers decided to have a black character lie about this specific kind of racialised trauma which is fucked beyond compare. BUT ALSO!!!!!!!!! IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE WITH THE PLOT!!!!!!!!!!! Claudia DECIDES TO KILL LESTAT AT THE END OF 106 BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LET HER LEAVE.......why would she return with Lestat if she didn't feel sufficiently threatened? and why would she decide to kill Lestat if he did not force her to stay against her will??
I've seen it floated that this was all Claudia's master plan to get Louis to go with her (even though she hated him sooooo much.........right....) as though she had her whole tearful goodbye and then magically changed her mind moments later and decided to do her big one and concoct a scheme to eliminate Lestat and ensure Louis would be 'on her side' and leave with her. Maybe that's even what the 306 scene is supposed to lead us to believe...only there is no scene of Claudia telling Louis what happened on the train, or ever using that event to convince Louis to turn on Lestat. All their telepathic conversations we hear about Louis trying to dissuade her from killing Lestat, and its never once a point Claudia uses to her favor. Ever. We get "we have no more use for him. He causes us misery with no horizon. I can kill him. You will enjoy it" etc. This idea of "oh daddy Lou he was ever so mean to me do you know what he said he'd do!" is a brand new invention for this scene alone.
Also.................
Uhhhhhh........no Claudia.....it pretty famously did not???????????
"Worked good, didn't it?" 😏 LMAO! They made her stupid??
Also they still can't decide what Claudia was threatened with. We get "I won't defile your pocket, I'll turn your bones to dust" in 106, "Did I threaten Claudia with rape on a train?" in 301 and "He'd do worse than rape me" in 306.....so.......which is it..........
-The blood thing feels too obvious to even be worth pointing out?? But they've invented this weird blood supremacy thing for Claudia to devalue Louis and value her maker more (even though they do have the same blood bc they both have Lestat's blood....that's why they're like....siblings....). When Claudia hated the idea of Lestat's blood THROUGH LOUIS being used to create Madeleine (supposedly the only character Claudia gaf about...but she forgot the whole lead up to her turning which was her begging Armand to do it for this very reason....mkay)
-And then ok the whole slave thing. Yes Claudia used the word "slave" in s1. But the context is everything when it comes to black characters using this kind of loaded language. Claudia uses "slave" in s1 specifically to refer to their lack of agency as long as Lestat is around. Claudia uses that very loaded language privately to Louis telepathically in order to emphasize the dire nature of their (shared!) situation! And obvs that phrase has a special resonance for them as black ppl living under the thumb of a white tyrant, and references the racialized nature of Lestat's control and abuse of them! She's saying "he treats us like his slaves! this way of life is not acceptable! we have to act!" Claudia was never using that word as an insult against Louis!!!! She used slave ONLY EVER TO DESCRIBE THEM BOTH!!!
Funny how the context of that word from its first use in a season that had black writers has been completely warped into blatant white supremacist ideology in a season without black writers...a phrase exchanged privately to discuss the oppression shared by black characters in order to encourage rebellion in s1, has become an excuse for a racist tirade from one black character to another in front of a white character in s3...
Also making Claudia spout this anti-black nonsense shows they never paid attention to her character bc she was the one most explicitly calling out Lestat's tyrannical whiteness; besides "he's made us slaves" she makes a lot of comments in 107 that align Lestat with violent white supremacy (calling Bach, which Lestat likes, the music of the master race, "Massa's had so much pain in his life" explicitly calling out that she and Louis should not give a fuck about the pain of their oppressor, "well-dressed tyrants, where have I heard that before" when Lestat compliments Nazi tailoring basically calling Lestat one of them). Like as much as Louis would go back and forth with Lestat about racism, Louis doesn't rly ever call Lestat out as espousing white supremacist thinking as harshly as Claudia does.
(Tbh they kinda fucked up this aspect of her character in s2 with her...y'know...dating a Nazi sympathizer and never giving Madeleine anything more than a raised eyebrow about it, but she was never fucking antiblack...and she at least has that "Armand's skin is darker than yours" comment to show race (and the race of Louis's partners) is a thought in her mind...the more i reflect, the more i acknowledge issues with s2 Claudia but my word i never would have foreseen this....)
This slave stuff combined with Claudia misusing nappy (bc that among black ppl means unkempt hair, and Louis's hair was extremely kempt in the scene - but ofc if ur nonblack and racist nappy just means any black hair so), "bleak black life" sounding like some bullshit from The Help, Claudia speaking to Lestat and referring to Louis as "your black queen" which is not a phrase any one of the three of them would ever use LOL, and even just Claudia's repeated use of "bitch" which is also not a word we have heard Claudia use - it's one of the most aggressively straightforward black stereotypes ive seen in modern media. They took a complex, beautiful black character who was treated with so much love and care for 2 seasons and made her an Angry Black Woman.jpeg. I know they wanted to work in a "MHMMMMM" or "OH HELLLLL NAW" sooo bad. Like Claudia's whole vernacular is different!!! She did not talk like that!! It's like every racist fanfic in this fandom ever!!
Things Ghost Claudia DOES NOT MENTION:
-ANY of the abuse suffered by her or Louis!!!!! In Claudia's last moments on Earth she was fighting through the pain of her slit ankles to cuss out Lestat for dropping Louis like an egg. She offered herself to be punished in Louis's place in 105, and then spent painstaking months nursing him back to health after he was dropped. One of the biggest rifts in her relationship with Louis was when Louis would not leave Lestat despite his abuse of them. Not a single mention of this from the ghost. Even if they wanted to focus on battering Louis in this scene, they didn't even have her bring up Louis choking her in 107, physically stopping her from burning Lestat's body! None of the physical violence that tore apart that household even gets a passing reference.
-Louis ruining Claudia's plan to kill Lestat. Louis's big misstep with Claudia was, in her mind, "choosing Lestat over her". Louis felt unable to leave Lestat in 106. Louis slit his throat, but wouldn't burn him, so they couldn't move on post-NOLA, and lived in fear of his return. She was calling him "dead weight" in Eastern Europe. He carried Lestat, "slowed them down". This was the principle grudge against Louis Claudia carried with her after s1, and it also is not mentioned.
-HER MAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The biggest fucking thing about this character in the books and show is that she forced into a child body for eternity without her consent!!!!!!!!!! It's the original sin of the unholy family, the first wedge to ever be driven between them, a point of contention between Louis and Lestat, Louis and Armand, Claudia and Louis, Claudia and Lestat, THE COVEN who kills her; it's the choice Lestat is haunted by in Body Thief! "Should she have been made or was she a mistake?" "Can she endure, or is she doomed by the circumstances of her birth?" "I WAS STILL BREATHING, WHY DIDNT YOU TAKE ME TO A HOSPITAL! I COULD HAVE LIVED A NORMAL LIFE SWEEPING FLOORS NURSING BABIES!!! WHO AM I GONNA LOVE, WHO WOULD WANT ME!!!!!" Even as late as the trial, Claudia is upset hearing about the extent of Louis's involvement in her turning. SHES IN ETERNAL VAMPIRE HELL BECAUSE SHE WAS MADE!!!!! BY THESE TWO MEN!!!!!!!!!!!! if there was ANYTHING the real Claudia would have screamed at them about it would be this!!!!!! AND HER GHOST DOESNT BREATHE A WORD ABOUT IT!!!!!!! It's so fucking egregious, you have to wonder if any of these writers watched the show
-The Regina stuff????????? If Claudia knows about Lestat's music career, surely she would have witnessed what Louis's been doing too, right? That's not something she would have some shit to say about?? If its the roast of Louis like how is that not her opener. "Yes its really me and not that broke bitch you paid to be my stand in". The Regina plotline truly had no bearing on anything ig
-Charlie???? This show hates black ppl now so I guess they couldn't have Claudia mourn a black boy (only her white gf they fetishized in the previous ep). but they literally showed a flashback to Lestat forcing Claudia to watch Charlie burn THIS SEASON (reshot with Delainey) and drew a parallel to Lestat watching Nicki burn. so....why make that parallel and not have that incident be important to Claudia? its almost like they dgaf
Literally everything about this scene does both Claudia and Louis a disservice. Make no mistake, it may seem like Louis is the target here, but BOTH their characters are being mutilated by this season. This person that we see in this scene is in no way Claudia. s1-2 are contingent upon having empathy for these black characters and being invested in the incredible, complicated, heart-wrenching, deeply loving bond they share. The story is built around Louis's grief over Claudia and therefore Louclaudia is the emotional backbone of the original iwtv series. Tvl has shown itself to be deeply committed to undermining, ridiculing, and eviscerating the notion of the Louclaudia bond and their respective integrity as characters.
It sincerely feels like this writers room has a vendetta against the original series and Louis as its protag by extension, and their hate for Louis so great they can't fathom anyone loving him. and Claudia loved Louis deeply despite all the pain and turmoil of their relationship, and they don't know how to write that, so they're dismantling that bond any way they can. It's disgusting and horrific but also kinda fucking boring.....this show was SO revolutionary bc it was a gothic genre show that took black ppl's experiences and pain seriously and centered them instead of sidelining them and handled them with an empathy that is so rarely afforded to us....and its been mangled into this ghoulish hateful conservative slop.
and they want to do a story with a black female villain next season????? fucking lol........like you just have to laugh.......
(even if they do the Merrick thing of it actually wasn't her ghost all along like. we still had to sit through that. it wouldn't actually change anything. the show gave airtime to these ideas. it might even be worse bc then its just using Claudia as a hammer to wack Louis over the head with while diminishing her place in the narrative even more. its a lose-lose)
so i've been thinking a lot about screenwriting lately (no kidding, another show i like is currently sucking at season 3) and looking back at the gilded age' season 3, and honestly, the major problem with writers these days is that they can't commit to the choices they make. it's such a cowardice that wrapped up gladys’ marriage that way, and they probably do the same if georgebertha’s fight to make room for his addiction (like they'll probably never address that george was screaming at her before getting shot or dismissing her work, but this is chat for another post). like gladys is happy, and it worked so they don't have to talk about it, and the conflict is over. but they barely addressed it; they barely exposed both sides cuz they knew that in the end they would make gladys find love in her marriage, so they didn't need to waste their time showing the viewers a more nuanced portrait of an arranged marriage. like they know the answer they want for this conflict, so they don't bother to actually make room for both cases being discussed. but also, they know it's bad to drag your daugther to make something against their will and they don't want to "pass the massage" that they're defending forced marrige so there's no space for bertha defend her case, it's really vague and fragile and still we as the audience have to buy bertha's intetions cuz we know how it was the social rules at the time and that's it. in end, you can see the writers pulling the strings of the characters to do what they want (and by saying this i mean the way the plot was wrapped up). instead of naturally lending arc's conclusion. it's fragile, and you're reminded that you're actually watching something instead of experiencing an event.
writing something like this should ban you from the writers room
jesse reeves & gabrielle de lioncourt, the vampire chronicles - he’s my man, luvcat
art at the beginning by @monsieurdinky