Ngl, when I first joined the Bloodymary fandom, I fully was thinking a majority of them were like me in that they were followers of Markiplier who saw Iron Lung to support him.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there's actually a lot of fandom members who had never really followed Mark, or even watched him, before getting into this fandom.
On the one hand, this kinda makes sense, right? Mark is merely the actor and filmmaker in this context. You don't need to have engaged with the filmmaker/actor closely to watch a movie he did and engage with a crossover fandom regarding a fictional character he wrote/portrayed. But it does make the fandom's reaction to stuff Mark does (like his reveal of how he knew about Bloodymary) so funny to me and how y'all probably don't know how absolutely Unhinged this man is (/affectionate).
So, to my Bloodymary creators who don't know the Markiplier lore, here are the highlights:
Mark is known to have gone to the hospital Numerous Times, to the point where there's an entire twitter account dedicated to counting the days since his previous hospital visit.
Mark has a bit with fans where he claims he's not a masochist, he just wants to know how much his body can take it, and then he'll turn around and willingly put himself through something he knows is going to cause him a lot of pain.
Not including the hospital visits (some more serious than others), Mark has: gotten tased, gotten pepper-sprayed, broken his nose while doing stunts on an aerial hoop, broken his hand after punching it through dry wall, gotten shot with a paintball gun, and probably various others I'm forgetting. These all happened on camera, by the way.
Mark drank his own pee through his brita filter. Twice.
EDIT: Following up the last point, he at one point experimented with a sauna tent by putting in different liquids other than water to steam in. Yes. One of these was his own piss. Pee sauna it was called.
EDIT 2: Mark actually has, what fans like to call, "egos", which are characters that he's portrayed that either he created or that fans created and he then ran away with. These include: himself if he was an egocentric sociopathic murderer; twins stuck in a single body who's whole schtick is to be vague and deliver the most based villain-sounding monologues; Google; a TV entertainer who breaks the fourth wall and is a mass murderer and was seen as the saddest character he probably ever created until Simon came along; a theater kid who loves prison; Indiana Jones; Jim; and more.
Mark actually cannot drink alcohol because his body can't process it correctly. The last time he got drunk, he had to go to a hospital for a heart attack. (This made the choice he made to have Simon drink rubbing alcohol VERY funny to me)
Mark made a tasteful nudes calendar and (I think?) fucked up his hand because he signed thousands of them over the course of a weekend.
Mark made a video announcing that he would create an Only Fans if the podcast he does with his best friends got to number one streaming on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Needless to say, it became number one in just a few days and he made the Only Fans.
Mark repeatedly has said how badly he wants to be launched into space. Meanwhile, he has massive thalassophobia (fear of the ocean) and also a fear of mannequins.
Mark (affectionately) bullying his fans is actually quite common. Lots of posts said it already, but him mentioning Bloodymary was not a matter of "if" but "when". Because he ALWAYS pokes fun at memes and fandom stuff we create with his work. He also is the BIGGEST enabler of this too. He tells people to pick apart his projects for secrets he put in, and if we get something wrong or we don't find something he'll tease us about it. Fans will then, affectionately, bully him back. Recently, he's had the habit of dying in Subnautica 2 because he forgets to gain more oxygen and like half the comments are making fun of him for this.
I will say that if you try to go looking for some of these clips, a fair amount are from Unus Annus, a channel he co-created with his friend Ethan Nestor and has since been deleted. But people have made a Many compilation edits so they can be found, they'll just be a bit of a challenge lol.
In an attempt to stave off my annoyance with fandom discourse right now, I am going to write down my approach to discussing the transgressive topics, abuse, and otherwise difficult and frustrating material that Interview with the Vampire presents to its audience.
This is a good check-in for my followers to decide if you still want to follow me, will be a set-up to the mini-essays on the season 1 and 2 characters I'll be writing over the next week, and may be helpful for you develop your own frame of reference for how to approach the series AND the fandom without wanting to tear your hair out.
I go to school to study textual analysis: I am nearly done (9 credits away AAHH) with an interdisciplinary degree in English and History from the University of Alaska, where we specifically focus our discussions and syllabi with postcolonial theory, because the tribal citizens that have been colonized are my community, and the school is located on colonized land. So I will always be interpreting media with that context in mind. So here is how I approach AMC's Interview with the Vampire, and why I do genuinely believe that this show's adaption is made through a postcolonial lens.
I've discussed this topic briefly before, so you can get the tldr from that, since there is a 2000 word essay under the cut.
Vampires are interesting because they function as the living dead. They are the result of legacies of blood and violence, they do not have the same heartbeats mortals have, they do not face the same pressures mortals face, but they are still somehow alive. Unlike the Anne Ricean book vampires--the Others who are able to use vampirism as a marginalized escape from societies oppressive structures--the show has given attention to the fact that the margins are not safe, power does not create an escape from oppressive systems, and that through the experiences these vampires have lived they may continue to perpetuate the language and learned habits of those who have oppressed them. This means that, in a metaphorical and thematic sense, vampires in the AMC adaption are presentations of the mutual transformation of the colonizer and the colonized, and therefore their perspectives present a paradox of meaning and identity in a double consciousness--one both alive and dead.
Most people discuss the romantic encounters of these vampires as abuser/victim, which I will outright say that I find reductive when this creates a discourse that centers itself around protecting the victims. Not because I believe in the mutual abuser fallacy, but because "victim" freezes the character in the moments they are at their weakest. These characters are not frozen in weakness, as the transformation results in vampires with the literal power to dominate, subjugate, and abuse characters that are weaker than them. I find that "colonized" becomes a much more dynamic framework that still allows the character agency, futures that grapple with the violence of the encounter, room for paradox, and most importantly, the ability to identify how the characters control a measure of power and resistance in the face of subjugation.
Albert Memmi has argued that the lingering residue of colonialisation will only decompose if, and when, we are willing to acknowledge the reciprocal behavior of the two colonial partners. The colonial condition, he writes, 'chained the coloniser and the colonised into an implacable dependence, molded by their respective characters and dictated their conduct' (Memmi 1968). Memmi's predication of this perverse mutuality between oppresser and oppressed is really an attempt to understand the puzzle circulation of desire around the traumatic scene of oppression. The desire of the colonizer for the colony is transparent enough, but how much more difficult is it to account for the inverse longing of the colonized. ¹
Considering the basic process of creating a vampire requires the draining of their lifeblood and replacing it with the blood of the more powerful creature, applying this framework to the vampire metaphor feels natural.
By foregrounding the parallel 'contamination' of the victims of colonialism, Nandy* draws attention of the hybrid and unstable identities of both colonizer and colonized. Accordingly, he argues that the ethic of a. . . utopia can only begin to address the requirements of its. . . alliance by first conceding the contiguity between masters and slaves**. ²
*Ashis Nandy, author of The Intimate Enemy, a book focusing on the power dynamics and exchange between colonizer and colonized.
** This is also the framework through which Anne wrote the series, which is why each relationship is sadomasochistic to some degree.
But what do I mean by the paradox of double consciousness?
Double-consciousness is social philosophical theory that puts forward ideas of the development of a "twoness" as a result of oppressive societies that encourage repression and devaluation of the oppressed people. The source of the concept and its use to describe realities in oppressive systems is credited to William Edward Burghardt du Bois* to explain the African American experience in 1903. Essentially, because of the trauma of slavery and the violent psychological and physical danger of Jim Crow laws, African Americans would pick up how to see themselves from two perspectives. One from how they view themselves, and also from how white supremacist society must view them. This creates a doubling reality that describes the unsettled sense of self, code-switching, and hyper-attentive self-critcism that was a survival skill. In Gothic Literary terms, this would be the Uncanny, and could also be summarized as the desire to assimilate into society, but being unable, due to anti-blackness in addition to racism.
In the sense of vampires, they are both alive enough be people and interact with society, but they are dead enough that they cannot successfully blend in, nor can they ignore the reality of how they survive; killing people that they were like, once. This is Louis's internal conflict in the series and so is loudest in his sense, but Claudia also faces a double consciousness with the disabling aspect of how vampirism is affecting her; she is an adult vampire trapped in the body of a little girl.
*if you check out the link, which has some incredible insight into the evolution of Black philosophy, check out 5.1 for how Sartre is connected to the concept.
This isn't just me imposing my perspective on the show, either. This is written into the text. While I will be going more into the subjects in detail for each character/group in my individual analyses, these ideas and how the adaption highlights them are part of the story: the characters, their internal and external conflicts, and how the show reaches the conclusion in 2x08 to settle each story line. Contextual inclusions of philosophers like Sartre allow quotes of his to apply purposefully to the text, like this reworking of Hegel's master/slave dialectic; "I am possessed by the Other; the Other's look fashions my body into its nakedness, causes it to be born, sculptures it, produces it as it is, sees it as I shall never see it. The Other holds a secret--the secret of what I am."
For our sense of value--our moral character--is predicated upon the 'contaminating' attachments of human existence. We are fashioned by the contingencies and contradictions of our lives, and rarely does an ethical action of decision proceed from the dictates of a single imagination or a single set of feelings. ³
Louis's arc through the story reveals the marginalization sexual deviant black men face, and their struggle for respect in the internal and external communities. In response to this oppression, Louis leans into power, sophistication, and excellence to demand the respect he is owed. Louis is presenting how Black Excellence is a response to colonial subjugation.
Claudia reveals the marginalization of black women and their struggle with the infantilization yet idealization within internal and external communities. In response to this oppression, Claudia attempts to mimic those who look down on her as a method to demand a place in this world. Claudia is presenting how mimicry and matching actions are a response to colonial subjugation.
Armand reveals the marginalization of the histories of European Orientalism upon brown bodies, and the resulting existential drift to find meaning within internal and external communities. In response to this oppression, Armand attempts to become an ambivalent, undefinable, and maleable presence, "half acquiescent, half oppositional, always untrustworthy (Bhabha 1994)." in response to a colonial invader. Armand is presenting how assimilation is a response to colonial subjugation.
Daniel reveals the deconstructive powers of critique and an educated purview, as well as the dual presentations of ego and weakness that comes from lack of experience.* In response to incurious society and powerful assholes fucking with people's right to live, Daniel has committed himself to a life developing the skills to take on projects of historical, psychological, and qualitative questions and cover-ups, and dismantling and interpreting them to make the the transformation of the troublesome past into an accessible retrospective. Daniel's role in the conflict is "[Telling] the history of another is to be pressed against the limits of one's own--thus culture learns that terror has a local habitation and a name (Suleri, 1992.)"
*the lack of experience is metaphorical in the sense of mortal vs vampire, rather than because I actually think Daniel is inexperienced. In a more literal sense, my headcanon that Daniel is Jewish/Armenian and has assimilated more successfully into hegemonic society, would still reveal a different kind of experience that cannot be shared by Louis or Armand, considering Daniel benefits from whiteness.
Now that we have Lestat in the room, we will be engaging with an evasive, morally self-conscious individual whose internal struggles resulted in prejudiced violence on others. Lestat is presenting the conflict of a colonizer faced with the reality of his modes of oppression, in addition to how he is a victim of his own modes of oppression (Gabistat incest as abuse).
The emphasis of victimization of the victor is not intended to omit the palpable suffering of those oppressed by colonialism. Rather, its objective is to facilitate a complex system of cross-identification--of ethical hybridity--connecting former [antagonizing abuses]. Relatedly, an analysis of the 'contaminated victor needs to be complemented with by an analysis of the victim as a sometimes-collaborator, sometimes-competitor, with the oppressive system.* ⁴
*Seasons 1 and 2 are the voices of the colonized being presented FIRST. Not only that, the revelations of Louis recalling the trial and realizing that Claudia's turning and the 1x05 domestic dispute were closer to Lestat's version, acts as this analysis.
Look, I am the first to say I don't enjoy the books. Anne's narrative style grates on my reading preferences, and my intention with reading the books I have (QotD, TVA, Pandora, in slow progress of B&G) is to get better insight into Armand and Marius to better understand Daniel (because the end of the day I AM a Daniel stan). I think the works are threaded with imperialist and racist ideas, and definitely do not muster up well to a postcolonial analysis, but as Elkhe Boehmer notes, "Colonialist writing, in her words, 'was never as invasively confident or as pompously dismissive of indigenous cultures as its oppositional pairing with postcolonial writing might suggest.'"⁵ I don't think Anne's books are flawed in a malicious way, I think they're just flawed in the way that a white woman from the generation she was born into, with the information she had available to her, raised Catholic in the American South, is going to end up creating a work that perpetuates certain realities that seemed normal to her. I respect her work for laying the foundation down for this story, characters, moral complexity, narrative richness, and romantic and toxic playbox to enjoy. My critiques, although they may come off as ethical, moral, or harsh, are simply identifying the themes that Anne either never challenges, or didn't have the tools/skills to challenge successfully.
And overwhelmingly, that is why the AMC adaption satisfies me. Because it is addressing the lived realities of the marginalized undead legacies of real people. And honestly, it's doing it really fucking well. If American gay men and women were so impacted by Interview with the Vampire when it was published in 1976 that it became a cultural phenomena, then this adaption is passing the torch of the internal turmoil of being marginalized monsters to different groups. Black men and Black women, South Asian men and women, in addition to the queer intersections in those groups as well as others. This isn't a "oh that means that you shouldn't criticize AMC, Rolin or Hannah, or the presentation of the story," but simply a note of appreciation for the theoretical and adaptional literacy this show has already presented.
Noteably, [the analyses of those who study Romantic* literature] "romanticize" the postcolonial writer's vision for 'marginalized' postcolonial societies, they simultaneously insist. . . that postcolonial texts characteristically 'write back to' the metropolitan center. Thus, metropolitan culture designates itself as the privileged addressee--the chosen audience--of the romantic postcolonial text**. . . the privileged postcolonial text is typically accessible and responsive to the aesthetic and political taste of liberal metropolitan readers.⁶
*"Romantic" as the British/Western European movement that was a reaction to the 18th century Industrial Revolution and cult of Reason, not the genre we now refer to as "romance."
**I would not technically classify this adaption as a postcolonial TEXT. This may seem like dithering over a definition, but a postcolonial text is defined by the voices of colonized subjects as written by colonized subjects. Because the writers room is majority white, produced by a studio that is clearly bigoted, it is not a postcolonial text. Simply a text designed by postcolonial thought. I included this snippet because the audience still fits.
So no, I don't find issue with approaching Lestat's narrative as it is. We not only STARTED the story with two incredible seasons that are presented through the voice of the colonized (this is GOOD), but the narrative of the colonizer will still result in reevaluating his relationships with the ones he has colonized. Especially with the already intense critique the show demonstrates to the limits of power, love, and romance in the face of systemic oppressive violence, and the legacies of abuse and pain.
This is why I talk about Marimand as much as I do, because WOW my Armand notes from this book are vast and complicated, and why I am so determined to label this the "abuse" show. Because to ignore the violence, racialization of the cast, grounded historical perspectives the writers are including in every way they can, and clear creative ingenuity is breathing life into this story, I feel like I'm doing the writers a disservice by thinking they have no idea what they're doing. They very, very clearly do. While I would have loved for this to be made with more writers of color in that writing room, I will still leave room for grace and see what they have in store for us.
¹ Every quote in this essay comes from: Leela Gandhi, A Critical Introduction: Postcolonial Theory (Columbia University Press 1998). Mostly because I just finished it, but also because Dr. Gandhi is incredible at condensing really complicated theory into approachable concepts. This quote is from page 11.
I’m glad there’s only like… five of those Marius fans who are very vocal and the rest are normal people capable of basic media analysis and just find the character interesting. Reading things from their perspective would be like watching Hannibal and pretending that all those people were okay with being eaten. That’s obviously not what happened and also it ruins the horror. Congrats on making the books boring.
I support making fun of Armand because he's a crimgefail loser but if you start making fun of him for being in love with Marius based on how he looks in the show you will taste my blade
The way Armand said Daniel’s name in that clip btw………… no one talk to me for at least a week oh my god. We are so back and it’s so over at the same time.
My brain literally cannot handle everything happening right now because we have new TVL clips and Armand looks the most beautiful he’s ever looked AND he and Daniel had a moment AND Iron Lung is officially available to buy and rent AND Mark just posted a video about it and he referenced the fact that he’s currently being shipped with Ryan Gosling. I don’t think I’ve ever been this overloaded before, but like in a good way. This is too many things that provide dopamine happening at once and Idk how to handle it.
Is there any overlap between these two things????? Is anyone else freaking out rn???????
