#b&g

[clairer4rt]

Day 1, prompt 2: Loss

Amadeo losing Marius because of Santino and the Children of Satan

[helianthus21]

some of my favorite Daniel lines

[gabriellelestat]

Did Marius plan on turning amadeo but made him think it was his idea?

Pretty much, blood and gold is explicit about this - marius specifically removes armand from the brothel because he views his life as forfeit because any further exploitation would’ve resulted in his death and this seems to entitle him to total possession of armand’s body. Armand is also quite literally his property - he’s purchased from sexual slavery in a commercialised setting just to be later transferred to sexual slavery in a private setting with no real say in what happens to his body. Marius notes that armand is his experiment and attempt at transforming somebody who can’t articulate any desire for life outside the parameters marius creates (that is, to be freed of him) because the language for it is beyond him and his earliest memories are lost following his traumatic experiences - his understanding of what constitutes normalcy is severely limited from enforced isolation and dependency. Any hesitation marius conveys is very performed and seems to only indicate that he’s indulging in philosophical and intellectual exercises (he’s called ‘marius the philosopher’ in the book for many reasons).

But if you also pay attention to the plot 1. his brush with eudoxia’s coven of child vampires gives him the necessary inspiration to create and predate on vampiric partners who’re incapable of standing up to him and challenging him in any meaningful way unlike pandora, an adult vampire who’s able to exercise her social and sexual freedoms maybe too easily for his liking (again pointing to him explicitly being the vampire humbert humbert in many ways) and 2. his determination to turn armand is also specifically set up in contrast to his lack of desire to turn bianca and botticelli who’re both deemed more necessary and even vital to the social and cultural life of the renaissance whereas marius views armand as more disposable for not having had any inherent value to add to this society besides whatever he ascribes to him.

That is to armand was given a ‘choice’ only insofar as he could technically say ‘no’. But marius always painted a dazzling picture of vampirism whether actively or passively through exposure to the feats he was capable of and armand was specifically misled to believe that vampiric transformation would empower him when it only serves to further isolate him from his peers and reinforce marius’s abuse of him. And these are some basic facts that the books state: marius’s mind was explicitly made when he purchased him in the brothel, and he later admits to lestat that armand’s turning was nothing less than a crime and lestat specifically thinks about this while recounting his transformation of claudia.

[angrybubbles]

[3x03 - The Aesthetic Philosophy in AMC's vampires - Analysis]

On "Can vampires create art?"

@thedramanticist posted her first video of her reaction to 3x01, and I thought the delightful question she asks as soon as she finished the episode was so interesting, especially when looking at what we have so far this season.

Anne was an interesting-and-very-complicated author who posed a lot of philosophical inquiries in her writing. Often times, she answered those inquiries inconsistently, or with a lot of purple prose, so the answer becomes highly interpretable instead of an active dialogue. Her most common answer was "no," but characters like Armand and Lestat - and even Daniel's model trains in B&G - seem to create a space where the answer is more nuanced. Is a vampire's "inability to produce art" something inherit, or is it a result of trauma, OR does it depend on the eye of the beholder? The reason I bring up B&G is that Thorne was really impressed with Daniel's models, finding a joyous wonder in them, while Marius was critical that not everything had been crafted by hand, since Daniel instead used pre-made sets to support the things he *does* make. To Marius, Daniel was mad and wasting his existence doing empty-sensory seeking. To Thorne, he was weirdly intense and focused, motivated beyond a casual interest to be engaged with his work, but nevertheless creating something interesting. Depending on who you ask in that scene, "is that art?" would have a different answer.

The TV show is taking a very similar approach to the question with season 3, and even pushing it further into "what's the difference between good art and bad art?" What is vampiric art, and what is mortal art, and how does one tell the difference? Is it all in outside criticism about numbers and audience, or is it about the person making it?

One thing from episode one that I remember really liking is why Lestat is able to reach a point where he falls in rhythm with the music instead of fighting against it. He was able to let go of HIS vision of the music because he had a panic attack on stage, and instead made music TOGETHER with his band. That's where he reached freedom, and connected deeper with the art. He let go of ego, and became a performer.

This ties in with a scene from episode 3 about performing for yourself vs performing with people. Daniel is also making art when he is acting as an interviewer, but then comes with question: when is Daniel being a good-yet-tough journalist, and when is he just being a bully? When is he an artist, and when is he a vampire? Is it the emotional connection he reaches when he guides his subject to an answer they couldn't have reached on their own, or is it when he gets them to break down their barriers?

Daniel's documentary is straddling the line between Daniel making art with the knowledge and skill he had when he was alive, vs the desire to take what he is OWED from his subject, and that's where I think we pin how the book is vampiricly exploitative with that mindset, and why Lestat's prank on him hits so deeply. Daniel got his vampiric wish, but Lestat recognized it as Daniel feeding as a vampire, so took away the art Daniel thought he received. Daniel isn't working with Lestat to find a story - Lestat is too evasive for that - but he presses and presses past a point of necessity because if Daniel doesn't get a story from this, what's the point of doing it? Is Daniel doing this because it's his job and skill, or because it"s his drug?

I think that this presentation of the philosophy continues Anne's question and makes it more interesting. It isn't "can vampires make art" it's "can a vampire make art if they are feeding on it?"

It makes for an interesting perspective when looking at Louis, who wavers between empty and fulfilled with photography and art collecting, and Armand and the Theatre des Vampires. Louis was making art when he was moving with the photography. Maybe it wasn't "great," but it was art that meant something to HIM. He takes criticism of it not being "good" personally, and abandons the pursuit of that art, and instead cultivates his eye on recognizing good art into its own art. It becomes empty again by Dubai, however, because Louis is art collecting to fill the hole in himself, rather than doing it because he is moving in the community to find potential.

I appreciate this perspective shift, because it gives allowances for the addiction and trauma themes to weave together with it. The answer I see being presented so far, ends up being "art can't fix you or fill the hole inside of you, but it can keep you company." Lestat letting go of the need to feel whole because everyone loves him, and instead enjoying the process, ends up making better are that reaches more people, and we as the audience are expeirencing that first-hand. The less Lestat is fighting the audience to keep his story what *he* wants it to be, the less good it is. The more Lestat is interested in being moved *with* us, the better the story is.

[flyingred]

Something that i did while waiting for the next chapter of B&G by @obsidianpen... That scene now lives in my head

[all-fyre]

finally picked up Blood and Gold again and LMAO Marius asking Mael if he wants to live after being put back together wrong...exactly what I needed

[inexplicablepeas]

Thinking about Marius telling a fledgling Amadeo that no, he won't turn Bianca and Riccardo for him and having bitter arguments about it and then 500 years later after Armand goes into the sun he's turning Sybelle and Benji without a second thought.

He got his leggy blonde and his childlike caretaker in the end.