missmillicentalyssa

Call me Millie (she/her/it), 24yo gay wannabe-mermaid, general disappointment to the universe that created me, on ao3 under the same name

[missmillicentalyssa]

made a strawpage site at milliealyssa.straw.page and it maybe isn't perfect but i'm happy with it and it unlocks a feeling in me like I would've loved doing this as a teenager if only I'd known

[vamplire]

a lesbian vampire stroking your hair lovingly as she eases her fangs into your neck. you agree.

[yusiyomogi]

saw people laughing at the idea that rolin could be resentful/jealous that the character he wrote is loved and popular. well, here's the thing... 1) he didn't write that character by himself 2) a huge number of people love that character because of jacob's acting, not just the writing 3) that character is supposed to oppose the core ideas of what rolin wanted this show to be ("mutually" toxic relationship, "they're all monsters", "love cancels out abuse" approach) 4) he really wanted to write for lestat but was basically forced by amc to make another season of louis.

it's very important to understand that rolin always wanted to use louis as a narrative device to prop up lestat, ever since he "created" him. pretty much what he said himself! while he most likely tried to empathize with louis during writing for s1&2 (it'd be very difficult to make these seasons otherwise), i don't think he really wanted to make louis a powerful character beyond lestat. the most obvious answer to why he did everything to "humble" louis and break him down in tvl was because they didn't like that louis in the end of s2 managed to start growing away from his trauma cycle without lestat. it's a very similar mindset to when a man wants his wife to be successful, but doesn't want her to earn more money and/or be independent from him.

the writers are dissatisfied with their own writing all the time, especially when they have to share the writers' room with other people and make compromises they don't wanna make. and obviously it's not always a good thing that they have opportunity to realize their vision. some writers need to be stopped. in tvl there are plenty of moments you can see rolin forcing his own vision ("two lies" line...) because the team was much weaker this time around.

[penny-anna]

a problem w existing in the 2020s is you'll just be getting on with things and then suddenly learn that the HP fandom has had some whole cultural phenomenon ending in a massive book deal and the movie rights being sold and the whole shebang and out of curiosity you go and look up the fic and its not even good.

[penny-anna]

as an aspiring author its best not to think too hard about the people getting *clenching teeth* seven figure book deals for writing mediocre HP fanfiction lest one starts rattling the bars of one's cage

[penny-anna]

99% of the time i live in a blissful world that's entirely moved on from HP and then i learn something like this and its as if the vast shadow of an underwater behemoth just passed beneath my tiny boat

[vamplire]

a vampire stroking your hair lovingly as they ease their fangs into your neck. you agree.

[helenvaughans]

[helenvaughans]

the thing is that for all its supposed faults, i would take this brand of 90s utopian globalism over whatever the fuck we’ve been doing for the last 10 years in a heartbeat

[fanonical]

'classic doctor who looks bad' okay like some of it does, there's moments where they had 50p and a dream and had to make everything out of cardboard but

we are viewing this on bigger, better monitors than were physically possible at the time, of course we can see the cracks better than they did. like, i bet the cardboard background daleks looked fine on a 60s monitor

some of it legitimately did look amazing, like, the matte paintings in early 60s who, that beautiful model shot in trial of a time lord, the web of fear recreating the underground so well that the show got in trouble for illegally filming

and i am tired of pretending that it was all just wobbly walls

[charlemane]

a lot of holmes adaptations / pastiches seem to assume that holmes lived in 221B before watson moved in

and i get the narrative appeal of that- it sets 221B aside as Holmes’s world, and thereby creates a setting that reflects his character, where Watson can come in and experience this unknown man and his unknown world as facets of each other

but in A Study in Scarlet, holmes is looking for a roommate before moving into 221B. a mutual friend introduces him to dr. watson, and they go to check out 221B together, decide they like it, and then move in at roughly the same time. (watson moves in the same night as the day of their visit- holmes moves in the next morning.) and i like that, too. that 221B does not just belong to holmes, nor did it ever- that it belongs to holmes and watson; they see it together, move in together, and make it home together. even after watson moves out (and holmes never seems to find another roommate to replace him), he still feels at home in 221B. cuz it’s theirs.

[charlemane]

like ok i know that you can tell a lot about a person by their living space, which means making 221B holmes’s living space and then panning through 221B is a pretty good way of introducing holmes as a character, especially in visual media

but as an alternative strategy, consider: watson having moved in, sitting down with his morning tea, watching his new roommate who he met yesterday bringing in box after increasingly strangely labelled box to their new apartment

[fruitgravies]

codependent 🐰🦊

insta • twt • bsky

[lilacs-in-the-wind]

First of all, the audience shouldn't have to hear about the writer's intentions from interviews instead of parsing it from the show itself. However, I'm sorry to people who are mourning the Rolin Jones interview (I don't think he is a good writer just fyi) about Lestat's role in 2.07 but Lestat's willing participation in the trial was the last compelling writing choice they made regarding show!Lestat. It makes so much sense in the grand scheme of things that show!Lestat would be petty and would've felt wronged by Louis and Claudia enough to punish them. It's perfectly in character in the show's context for him to go to Paris in anger so that he can confront Louis and Claudia. It's also perfectly in character for him to realise as soon as the trial starts and he lays eyes on Louis that he fucked up and have little control over the outcome. He is distressed in the trial because he had a moment of reckoning but is compelled by the other vampires who probably anticipated his backtracking. It makes sense that he'll shout "you've no idea of Claudia's strength" at Armand in the rehearsal because he is a hypocrite who thinks himself the patriarch of their little family (maker/husband and maker/father, the male toxicity in Lestat Sam's talking about) and the only one who gets to belittle Claudia because she is his daughter. This doesn't make IWTV!Lestat any less in love with Louis or cancel out his love for Claudia because he does feel all of those things. He is full of contradictions and his contradictions are what makes his relationship with Louis and Claudia compelling. He loves them but actively chooses to hurt them because they don't love him back (at least in his head especially with Louis) and he is wounding himself in the process with his endless regret. At least, I had hoped that was the direction they were going to move only for TVL to happen. The logical continuation of Lestat's character writing with regard to the events of IWTV should've been "I've been a monster and this is my reckoning". But TVL's choice to not address the trial at all makes Lestat's willing presence at the trial an unbearably stupid writing choice. So now it's as though he actively participated in the execution of his daughter, almost got the supposed love of his eternal life killed in the process and expresses no remorse in text of the show for either of these things all the while being extremely bitter and cruel about said love of his life spilling the beans in a book he never wanted published. This would be fine and good if the show was trying to get the audience to hate Lestat as a one-note abusive asshole. But the show's intention is for you to understand and empathize with Lestat and his misguided actions as a monster. This is why the show is butchering Lestat as a character because in TVL he is neither a sympathetic version of the extremely compelling three dimensional antagonist that the show developed over the past two seasons nor is he Anne Rice's byronic brat prince from the books. The show's elusive treatment of past events and refusal to admit to the cruelty of the abuse in the past seasons are choices that are actively impeding its potential as a gothic romance, while its refusal to give Lestat any agency for the events that actually happen in the book makes it a poor adaptation of the book.

[mckatkat]

Because I love to poke a bruise:

This whole season my big issue has been, besides all of my small issues which are also very numerous so it's hard to tell the difference, that we don't know what the hell Lestat is doing or what his motivation is or why we care. I know why I cared about him as a character in seasons 1 and 2, because our point of view character did, and I know why I care about him in the books, very well, and I don't know why I'm supposed to care about him in season 3.

When I talk about adaptations I talk about this idea of there being a guiding principle that you organize your storytelling around, but I think that works for a lot of TV just in general. And this third season I don't feel like the writers really looked at the first two seasons that they made and thought about what the audience actually needed from a pivot to Lestat at all. They needed at least one principle of the season to be making the audience fall in love with Lestat. They knew the actor was charismatic and they knew that the book character was iconic, and they just kind of forgot to make the one in the show... anything?

The book TVL is about looking for a way to live with both authenticity and something you can call goodness. That's a really strong character motivation! You can do a bunch of twists on it, he can fail at his quest and be sad, he can succeed and be happy. When he's doing stuff it's not really hard to understand why, and it's likeable because that's a good motivation even though it's very difficult for him to achieve this very lofty goal. People I know who didn't like the book nearly as much as I do still get the point, they just don't personally relate to it as much.

In the show he's weirdly passive and angry constantly, but doesn't want to affect any change and is mostly just complaining? Which would make sense if I understood what he's actually complaining about, but he's mostly just griping? I can deal with a guy who complains, I read the book Interview with the Vampire? This is ridiculous.

The big original sin of this season: why do you actually want to spend time with the character of Lestat? This guy was mostly an antagonist in the prior two seasons, he testified at the trial that killed Claudia, he abused Louis. Yeah he was fun to watch, yeah we like him because of his relationship with Louis, but we don't like him or know him as a guy who is our main hero yet. Why should we care to watch his story? This season did not a single thing to answer that question!

The book answers that on like page one, you want to spend time with Lestat because he's an optimistic guy! And if that didn't work, he's telling you a linear story where he experiences character growth and change and is on a motivated quest for much of it. The questions you as a reader have keep getting answered: how did he become this vampire who seemed to embrace being a vampire so much? We see that! Why did he do a bunch of the stuff he did in the first book? We see the development of that character, and fairly early on you fall in love with that character in this book and so that question doesn't keep coming up. You stop thinking about Interview with the Vampire pretty quickly, and you start wondering, what's going to happen to Nicki? How is he going to deal with Armand? Is he going to find Marius? The kinds of questions that keep you reading a book!

In the TV show he is on a rock tour because he is bored. He is giving an interview to Daniel because he is... that's actually not explained? Maybe he's trying to correct the book, but he doesn't seem to want to give Daniel any information, so I think he just likes being mean to Daniel, but he doesn't seem to enjoy it? He is fighting vampires who are trying to kill him because they are trying to kill him. He is reconnecting with his mom because his life is in shambles, but not because he did anything, but because he's a rock star because he's bored but he's not good at being a rock star and also doesn't really seem to enjoy that that much either. He maybe wants to spend time with his mom? But he doesn't seem that happy about that either because he's making sad faces most of the time they are talking. Sometimes Louis is here, Lestat is mad at him because he did the interview that became the book, and the interview that became the book contained small factual inaccuracies that don't really change how we view what happened in the prior two seasons in any meaningful way. He doesn't like Armand because Armand is desperate and he doesn't like him and he let Louis be with Armand to punish Armand for... I mean in the show they both genuinely conspired to kill Claudia, so I don't understand Lestat's issue here. Demonstrably in the show Armand has done every single thing Lestat has wanted him to do since shortly after they met.

And he also doesn't want to tell humans vampires exist, and he also is only making an anthem for the great conversion because his mom is a cackling super villain with an absurd nonsense accent who controls him with her evil pushup bra powers. Gabriella really is far and away the worst thing in the season.

And to be fair, we also don't know why he is using an archaic piece of technology to record his story for a random mystery person who even he does not know. And he's telling this story in a similarly evasive way to the way that he is talking to Daniel, almost as though this element was very clearly added later and they didn't really think about why he would be recording this and how the motivations for it would meaningfully effect the voiceover.

What did he attempt? What did he fail at? Why are we supposed to understand why he did any of the bad things he did? Why are we supposed to like him enough to want to understand him?

Forget the human face of actor Sam Reid, and his charismatic performance. Has the show given you a single reason to like Lestat more in season 3 than you already did or didn't in seasons 1 and 2? Not because you feel bad because something bad happened to him, why do you like him? Why is he's someone whose goals you want to root for?

And also what are his goals?

I have none of those questions from the source material, and for what it's worth I had none of those questions about Louis in season 1 and 2. This isn't purposely chaotic storytelling, this is not good storytelling.

I know that the bad faith response to this is that not loving Lestat is a skill issue, so this is a me problem. I had no issue understanding his role in the first two seasons. I like Sam Reid as an actor. And as for whether or not I love the book character, all I can say is: that is a very funny thing to accuse me specifically of!

[letsjustkill]

What is to be done with humiliationvictim

Let humiliation victim leave the attic

Keep humiliation victim in the attic

Voting ended onJul 29

[plaidos]

MY BEAUTIFUL FOLLOWERS PLEASE UNITE TO SAVE MY DARLING LOVE FROM THE SCARY ATTIC!!!

[plaidos]

please oh god somebody has to help her……..

[plaidos]

if you dont vote to free her then youre transphobic

[plaidos]

AND BIPHOBIC

[plaidos]

there’s only like a 5% difference!!! we can push this!!! we can save her!!! she’s the sweetest soul on this whole website and you’re all just gonna let her die in an attic 😭 😭

[plaidos]

we can do it!!! everybody go down to the polls and vote to #freeher

[plaidos]

we’re sooo close!!! final push!!! #SaveHumiliationVictim #ForceBisexual

[storyweavingspider]

*sitting in my rocking chair* when I was a young’n, basic feminism had determined that calling people masculinized terms like “dude” by default as the “neutral” was a bad thing and anti-feminist because it centered masculinity as the default.

Nowadays even half the people that try to call themselves “feminists” will get in a tizzy if you tell them that. And for what? Because you REALLY want to be able to misgender trans women? Disgustingly misogynist.

[warriorprincesstramp]

it actually does uniquely infuriate me when a self confessed dyke is fucking transphobic and hates trans women more than when it's just some old heterosexual cunt like dykeism isn't a beautiful act of gender subversion and defiance as if lesbians don't have a unique relationship to gender and have experienced struggles that should align us with trans women and bring us close together we've felt like predators in women's spaces we've felt not woman enough (of course not even mentioning trans lesbians who have felt this multiplied) like what the fuck are you even doing. you are pathetic. and cisheterosexual society will never accept you.

[dragynkeep]

im sorry but could you explain how Epic: The Musical is racist towards its black characters? (genuinely curious)

I would say look at how the fandom treats the black characters (Eurylochus & Calypso especially vs Polites and Penelope who are nearly always drawn as white)

A person I follow @creatingblackcharacters is brilliant and has loads of lessons to learn about black characters, creating them, and the pitfalls so common with how black characters are treated in canon and fanworks.

This post also lays it out clear. Black characters in Epic are always seen as the aggressor while their white counterparts are the "good" influence, the most egregous is how fans treat the argument of Eurylochus vs Polites/Odysseus in behaviour, or how all the characters who are violent/rapists/dead are black, drawn to match their singers while Aphrodite, the literal goddess of beauty, is drawn as white despite her VA being Indian.

There's a few posts I found that make better points since your own race does influence how you view media and treatment of characters. I'm not Black, so I'm not the ultimate say all on this topic and would rather uplift people who do have experience in this.

[sluttyvirginmary]

Fucking finally someone articulates why I’ve felt so icky about the fandom’s depictions of certain characters as black…I think it’s notable too that Circe, Odysseus, the Gods, and other more morally grey or complex characters are NEVER depicted as black by a spectrum of different artists, but the characters who are portrayed as aggressively coercive and rapey (Antinous and Calypso) are almost always black in depictions from a wide range of artists. People have a ton of shit to unpack

[witchsteria]

i do think what gets ignored about carrie as a character is that she’s an incredibly easy target to bully; she’s a chubby, sheltered acne ridden teenage girl who wears frumpy grandma clothes and regurgitates the jesus freak shit her violently abusive mother tells her. she has violent thoughts about her classmates and is uncomfortable to be around. she’s far more interesting being a victim that’s somewhat uncomfortable to be in the head of than a tragic waif. she’s not a martyr, she’s a child and a child who’s been victimised her whole life shouldn’t have to be kind and angelic to be recognised as a victim. suffering teenage girls shouldn’t just be presented on screen as toned down glamorous thin ophelias, suffering teenage girls can be fat and poor and think violently. i do think we need to examine why culturally we need teenage girls to be beautiful and kind to valorise their suffering and treat it as bad

[cherrylimeade-l3sbian]

emeleedahla on TikTok

[priveetru]

You can just win the debate though...

Why is the solution not putting up a defense of feminism?

Surely we can say something more nuanced like "pick your fights, some men aren't worth it".

[dhakcjshkvjbd]

There’s a difference between debating men and spreading awareness. Talk about feminism and debunk lies and criticize misogyny, but don’t debate men directly unless you’re prepared to waste your time and energy.

This video isn’t about feminism specifically but it’s a great explanation of how “debating” can backfire and give a platform to the same hate and ignorance you’re trying to combat:

This has also been discussed at length when it comes to global warming deniers—debating with them ultimately brings them more attention and an unearned air of legitimacy.

Debunk antifeminist men’s talking points all you want, but be wary about engaging with them directly. If you talk about them you can raise awareness. If you talk to them, they can spew bullshit faster than you can debunk it—that’s just how bullshit works. They are almost never engaging in good faith, and they’re often performing their disrespect toward you for an audience of misogynistic men who have no interest in hearing your arguments and just want to see a woman treated poorly.