[Image ID: The Destiel confession meme edited so that Dean answers 'JK Rowling posted upskirt photos of a woman on Twitter' to Cas 'I love you'. /End ID]
No one doing this should be allowed to call themselves a feminist.
The wealthy author escalated a social media spat that resulted in posting a photo from a 2023 event at the Institute of Economic Affairs in
Let's not beat around the bush: Children's author JK Rowling sexually harassed someone. In some jurisdictions, this would count as sexual abuse. JK Rowling has committed a sex crime against a woman and fell back on the old rape apologist standby of "she was asking for it".
I see people arguing that the slave remarks in Episode 6 of The Vampire Lestat were a callback to the slave remarks in Episode 6 of Season 1 of Interview with the Vampire. If that's true, then it is the perfect example of why black writers were needed in the room. And I mean black writers specifically, not just "people of color." The contrast between how the two episodes handled the subject shows that.
Before I get into that comparison, I want to make something clear. I didn't like the introduction of a slave-master narrative into the unholy family dynamic. The racial implications made me uncomfortable. However, discomfort and offense are not the same thing. While I found it unsettling, I did not find it racist or anti-Black, and that's the key distinction.
In Episode 6 of Season 1, there are two instances where Claudia uses the word "slave". The first time, she is referring to both herself and Louis. She is essentially saying that they are under Lestat's control, trapped in Rue Royale, prisoners of Lestat, his slaves. In that context, "slave" is being used to describe their lack of freedom and autonomy. The second time, she refers not only to herself and Louis, but also to Lestat. She draws a parallel between their situation and Lestat's situation with Magnus. Just as Claudia and Louis are trapped under Lestat's control, Lestat was once under Magnus's control. He was Magnus's slave, and he ultimately killed him rather than continue living that way (we know that's not what happened but that's what Claudia believed). In both instances, the word "slave" is tied to a circumstance, not an identity. It is being used to describe a power dynamic: control, imprisonment, coercion, and domination. You could replace the word "slave" with "prisoner" and the point would remain intact. More importantly, the narrative makes a deliberate effort not to tie slavery to Louis and Claudia's race. Applying the same language to Lestat is what makes that distinction clear. The point is not, "Louis and Claudia are slaves because they are black." The point is, "Louis and Claudia are slaves because they are trapped under Lestat's control," just as Lestat was trapped under Magnus's. Now, viewers can absolutely be uncomfortable with the racial implications of using that metaphor in the first place. I certainly was. But I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the use of the word slave in this scenario was racist.
The writers managed to create discomfort, arguably one of their goals without resorting to anti-Black rhetoric. That's exactly the kind of nuance the black creatives involved in season 1 brought to the story.
Now compare that to Episode 6 of The Vampire Lestat. Claudia calls Louis a slave and then goes further, suggesting that slavery is part of who he is. She implies it is in his DNA as demonstrated by her saying that "slave" is etched into his ribs. Add the "nappy-headed" remark on top of it, and the conversation is no longer about a power dynamic. It becomes an attack on Louis's identity as a black person.
That is the fundamental difference. In Season 1, slavery was used as a metaphor for control. In The Vampire Lestat, slavery is framed as something intrinsic to Louis himself. The word is no longer describing his circumstances; it is describing who he supposedly is. The narrative shifts from "you are being treated like a slave" to "being a slave is part of your nature."
Those are not remotely the same thing. You cannot write a scene in which a Black character tells another Black character that slavery is essentially woven into his DNA, pair it with a racialized insult like "nappy-headed," and then act surprised when viewers, particularly black viewers find it offensive. So if those remarks were intended to be a callback to Season 1 Episode 6, then the callback was an utter failure.
What made the Season 1 dialogue worked was that it treated slavery as a condition imposed on people. What makes the Vampire Lestat dialogue offensive is that it treats slavery as something inherent to Louis. One is about oppression; the other flirts with the idea that oppression is an innate trait. That is not a minor difference. It is the entire issue. And if you genuinely cannot see the difference between using slavery as a metaphor for imprisonment and using slavery as a marker of a black character's identity, then I really don't know what to tell you.
The contrast between the two episodes is precisely why having black writers in the room matter. Season 1 showed that you can explore themes of domination, control, and power between black and white characters, while navigating the racial implications with nuance. The Vampire Lestat Episode 6 shows what happens when that nuance is absent.
and if i said nolan's odyssey starring no greek actors and with no recognizable aspects of greek culture or involvement by greeks, is the direct legacy of white supremacist colonialism that treated ancient greece as not just the pinnacle of ancient culture, but of an artificially created "european" culture, which white western europeans and their settler descendants, as the new pinnacle of culture, were the sole spiritual inheritors of.
You try to talk to people how yes shaving your legs, bush, and armpit hair is product of the patriarchy and suddenly their brain shuts off and theyve never read one book ever in their life
Everytime its sensory issues this and that. Ok and why dont men have these? Why didnt you have them before puberty? So you point that out and they close their eyes and plug their ears and tell you you hate women
kurtis conner video: This Conservative Influencer is Crazy
drew gooden video: The us governments obsession with integrating ai into every facet of our daily lives is going to bring about the collapse of society if we don’t get of our ass and start taking action
Modern AU Abigail Pent who is everyone's favourite cookie-baking teacher/librarian/foster mom/therapist or whatnot is a little perplexing to me.
No, that woman is using her generational wealth to fund an academic career where she writes dense tomes on late antique heresies. She and Magnus are only validly married in the eyes of the church because they have a very, very good canon lawyer. They acquired the teens through a dubious international adoption and have maybe not kept them quite as in touch with their culture as they ought. Is she just really into her field of research, or is she dabbling in the occult in a way that requires knowledge of at least two dead languages and at least one archaeological artefact of questionable provenance?
Still a fantastic parental figure to the rest of the cast, willing to go to bat for them in slightly terrifying ways, etc etc but I'm begging you to let her be the "unwholesome" (ch 35) and "problematic" (CIF) person she is in the text.
blakekathryn
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
stormborns
