#i mean... this is louis. it's a valid question

[sandushengshou]

[sammyblais9]

[misssassy56]

I just saw Holls' post and the issue with H's team—and the fandom's leniency toward them—is that the fans' parasocial bond with H, along with the almost excessive protectiveness surrounding him (for valid reasons we’re all aware of), automatically extends to the people working with him. Even Anastasia, who clearly maintains a more professional public relationship with H, gets swept up in that "Ohana means family" narrative the fandom has attached to his team. Consequently, any constructive criticism directed at them is perceived as a direct attack on H. This is completely unfair, as it stifles healthy discussion and debate among fans who simply want the best for the guys. An example? A casual tweet from a hc questioning H's team's inability to be proactive rather than reactive was reposted here on tumblr in a completely distorted way; the blog who posted the ask didn't even bother checking twitter to see the rest of the thread and understand the actual point of the conversation.

A side note: Louis Pisano (a paris-based fashion journalist) quote-tweeted the dxm post with a solid explanation of what might have happened regarding the paps (though he didn't mention the possibility that something said by one of them could have triggered H's reaction). Yet fans are already attacking him because he wasn't particularly "fond" of H when hr first blew up. It wasn't just about H though; he’s done the same with other actors from queer series who aren't "openly queer." But my point is, anything suggesting that something said to or involving the guys stemmed from poor decisions made by them or their team is rejected by the fandom and viewed as an attack on them.

I've been hesitant to post the more *ahem* blunt takes I've been getting regarding this but I think this is a good one that addresses things I've been feeling... For reference, here's the post in question by @holls24 👇🏻

Post by @holls24 · 1 image

💬 34  🔁 0  ❤️ 59 · I find the ass-kissing of Hudson’s “team” on twt very bizarre. Especially from big accounts. Their entire job is to prot

[murfpersonalblog]

Delainey Hayles & Jacob Anderson on ghost!Claudia & Louis (TVInsider & After Dark)

Delainey said even she doesn't know "how much of it [ghost!Claiudia] really means." There's open-ended ambiguity about how much was actually true or not--it's subjectively up in the air.

Delainey said ghost!Claudia "resents Louis so much."

Delainey says ghost!Claudia is HURT, and people say all kinds of things when they're hurt, even if in the moment they mean "every single word"--or at least they mean for every single word TO hurt.

Delianey said that she thinks Claudia was jealous of Louis/Loustat, that he/they got to have the love & companionship that she wanted.

Delainey said the seance is NOT the objective truth, it's still all Lestat's subjectivity; "the seance is Lestat’s version of it, which is why she might not lay into him as much." So Lestat is still being an unreliable narrator. 🤦‍♂️

Delainey learned something new recently that gave her "a whole different perspective" on both Stained Glass Eyes AND the seance; that is making her question objectivity vs subjectivity. 👀

Jacob said he thinks that "one or two things" ghost!Claudia said wasn't true, it was just meant to hurt Louis as much as possible--including the word "Slave" being carved on his ribs.

Jacob said he thinks ghost!Claudia "means it and I think it’s good that she means it...[because Louis] needed to hear it from her." And some things she said "are completely true and valid."

Jacob said AMC chose the middle-ground for the seance, because there were different versions that were either "harsher" or "softer" to Louis.

Delainey said that ghost!Claudia "has a lot of hate for Louis, but at the end of the day I think she still does love him."

'The Vampire Lestat': Jacob Anderson & Delainey Hayles Dig Into Claudia's Rage-Filled Return

'I was so happy when I got that script,' raves Hayles.

[virginiaisforvampires]

Hi Vee!

This is less of a question and more of a vent but i know you'll get it.

I just cannot fathom how people are getting so upset by the lack of queer sex scenes in this season when an ENORMOUS theme this season is Lestat's really difficult relationship with sex as an exploitative part of his life. Gabriella and Magnus's assaults most especially, but also the grotesque backdrop in the Tooth Team basement, asking Christine if he has to fuck the person he is meeting vis-a-vis the hotel, the intimacy with Baby Jenks as her 'honeytrapping' him into a life threatening situation, Salamander wondering if they might get intimate, Daniel looking like he's on the verge of orgasm because he thinks he has exposed Lestat, the whole business with Jarda and everyone having cold sores (which could just be people innocently drinking from the same beer bottles but could be more sinister) all of it.

We should take it as a sign of true intimacy and passion that Lestat chose to fade to black on his first encounter with Nicki. It doesn't get to be exploited. (Besides the little lead up flirty bit in the bar was sexier than any bums on screens could ever be).

They're couching regressive ideas in progressive language, just like always.

If a story is about queer characters, it is no less queer if it's not depicting sex between people of the same gender. A bisexual person is still bisexual if they're with somebody who is a different gender to them. And (I think this is really fucking important) MEN CAN BE SEXUALLY EXPLOITED TOO.

I know I am not so much preaching to the converted here as saying Mass for the Pope but I needed to get it off my chest.

Thank you as always for everything you do for the fandom. 💚

Hey!

I mean, I do understand where the genuine concern is coming from. I know the times we're living in, and I'm aware of the current wars against the queer community. That's why I'm pretty certain AMC wouldn't allow Rolin to make Gabriella a trans-coded character simply because he also depicted her as a sex predator. The messaging there would've been horrifying.

The thing is, yes, there does tend to be nefarious limits on certain elements wrt queer media. I don't think anyone is disputing that, or at least, I haven't seen it? But I have the right people blocked. 😅

Anyways. The thing with this show is that Lestat does canonically protect the intimacy of his loved ones. A lot of the most telling Loustat scenes are literally just one or two sentences hinting at something profound, but saying nothing in detail.

A lot of folks expected Lestat to fully delve into his relationship with Nicki, but that wasn't ever going to happen, imo. There was no way Lestat was going to hand something like Nicki's memory to Daniel on a silver platter after Daniel has already proven he's untrustworthy and after what he did with the sensitive pieces of Louis' story. He exploited them already — Louis, Claudia, and Lestat. So not only did Lestat not give any of the intimate details to Daniel, but he protected Nicki in such a way that Daniel couldn't do to Nicki what he'd already done to Lestat's unholy family.

So yeah, Lestat isn't going to exploit Nicki or Louis. Gabriella? That's another matter, because Lestat knows what she's doing to him and, like with Magnus in the books, Lestat calls out what she's doing for what it is. Just like he plainly states in the books that Magnus raped him.

And yes, this season is about Lestat's victimhood. It's about his sexual trauma and how his autonomy is grossly violated over and over. And there is more coming in that regard. More violations. More stripping him of his agency.

So yeah, that's where I am with it. I personally see this show and its meaning within queer spaces as more than just sex. I know not everyone feels that way, but I just don't feel that sex is needed unless it serves a valid point within the story and to be frank, a lot of the complaints are just because people are horny and want mindless sex. Meanwhile, AO3 exists for a reason.

As far as the other issue(s) go, there's really nothing we can do other than to consume the books, films, shows, and music with queer characters and queer stories. Build a safe space for queer voices. Educate ourselves. Work within our personal means to make sure these voices and stories are represented and appreciated.

[indiaalphawhiskey]

Hello hello! I’m new here but not new to the fandom by any means but I’ll be truthful, I’ve been inactive for years. I saw one of your answers floating around Twitter so I decided to dust off ye ol’ tumblr and have a chat. My question is: does it ever just feel? Overwhelming? I firmly believed in H&L for years but it got to the point where we were analyzing tee shirts for hidden messages (this is post RBB/SBB saga) and celebrating when one of them wore blue or green or certain numbers and it just felt like I was participating in nitpicking. Like the fandom was literally nitpicking tiny things to validate our beliefs. Then I left. You’ve been here for years. It never feels overwhelming at times? Like “what are we doing analyzing tee shirt references or other minute things? Has it really come to this?” I think I struggle with guilt feeling like “are we actually listening to them? Do they want us to do this or are we way overstepping?” And I don’t know how to reconcile those feelings. Your thoughts?

Yeah, of course it feels overwhelming. There have been some particular points that come to mind where I was personally like 'dude, I'm out'.

But, what I'm getting from your ask is that you largely felt overwhelmed based on the content you were surrounded by, and not what was actually happening. And to that I say: a big portion of the fandom remaining somewhat fun is making sure you're getting content from the right people. In other words, people who know their shit -- who know facts, who will honestly differentiate between canon and headcanon, and who are also willing to adapt their understanding of who Larry are now versus who they were in the earlier years.

For example, the blogs I follow don't read into coded clothing anymore, unless it's in an overtly attention calling way, like at Glasto. And, even then, the call to read into Louis' shirt came from a series of events -- liking the tweet + H stunting -- and not just because he was wearing a shirt, you know what I mean?

Sure, the blogs I follow will make memes and jokes, but they know that the coded clothing heyday of Larry is very much over, the same way the era of RBB/SBB is also over.

Longevity in fandom (in any fandom, as I've learned) is down to finding people who can have measured and reality based conversations about things, and who know when to put headcanon and speculation to bed. I think a lot of the more measured takes on Larry have been buried by the Old Guard leaving, because I remember a time when we really really really cultivated a culture of vetting and fact-checking, and it feels like we've largely lost that.

A lot of us have forgotten the reason we got into Larry in the first place, which was to support two people who were asking us to see them and their love. Signaling to us. Fighting for themselves and needing our support to do it.

I think there are much fewer Larries now who hold true to that call, and are willing to adjust their expectations based on what we're reading from older Larry and what they need from us now. Many more people would now prefer to treat this like a huge game of Come Out Clue and then will throw tantrums when they're no closer to "winning" than they were a year ago.

And yeah, if those are the people you're seeing content from, then I'm not surprised it took a toll on you.

[skepticalarrie]

Hey, there’s something I don’t quite get. With everything going on right now with Louis’ public image, it brings back a question I had a while ago with Harry: are they victims of the industry, or businessmen who’ve sold their souls to it?

People always say that whoever they’re seen with publicly is part of some obligation, while others claim those are their real friends. Some say they’re involved in making decisions about the stunts, and others say they have zero control over that. Some paint them as really smart guys who make calculated industry moves and have their careers perfectly mapped out, while others see them purely as victims.

With Harry, people say he’s a smart businessman because of his public circle and career moves, but then whenever he achieves something big, he just seems so genuinely shocked by it. And I don’t think he’s faking that.

With Louis, they’ve said he’s been business-savvy since the 1D days, but right now he’s making moves that honestly seem kind of damaging to his career—at least for the moment.

It's confusing 🙃. Maybe it's something in between all of that?

Absolutely no shade to you, anon... this is actually a really interesting question and a valid discussion to have. But honestly, one of the things that’s made this fandom feel so toxic and uninteresting to me lately is the constant need for people to pick sides, label everything, go to extremes, and demand clear-cut answers. Everything comes with so much judgment.

But real life isn’t like that—things are complicated, layered, and rarely black and white. Every story has more than one side, and yeah, I do think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Because they’re human beings, and so are we. I think part of why some things upset us so much is because we look at it too coldly—we forget to factor in the human side of it all.

I don’t like framing these things as “here’s the villain” and “here’s the good guy.” That just doesn’t exist. I think both Harry and Louis are smart, well-trained people when it comes to navigating this industry, and yes, I think they know what they’re doing business-wise. They’re part of the system. But that doesn’t mean they’re not victims of it too. They’re closeted artists—there wouldn’t be a closet if there wasn’t oppression, or pressure, or contracts behind it.

So just because they’ve chosen to stay in the game and make some compromises, that doesn’t mean the industry isn’t still brutal to them. Yes, it's confusing.

[massiveharmonytiger]

This is a response to a post I saw where someone went off about the diabolicule question at the NYCC panel, calling it "clamoring" and "embarrassing", saying that asking for diabolicule followed "porn logic," implying that writing polygamy into the show would be bad writing, saying that the writer wasn't here to cater to our own personal fantasies. They're here to write a good show. We just want to see an orgy. This isn't fanfiction, etc.

Anyways, I struggled to find it again after typing my response but I just wanted to express my opinion because that post triggered about 10 of my pet peeves in one fell swoop.

Look. I get that the show writers aren't writing them as a polycule at this early stage when wounds are still fresh and everyone is broken up and hating each other. Tensions are high and nobody is in the right place for a romantic relationship, let alone several.

Daniel's back on drugs, angry at everyone, especially Armand, and probably processing decades of deleted memories. Lestat is switching moods hourly instead of daily and going through a very elaborate midlife crisis flavored meltdown while revisiting every single trauma from his past. Both seem to be gorging themselves with blood, drugs and meaningless sex, determined to push vampire partying and excess to a whole new level. Armand is probably wallowing in self pity because Louis dumped him and he broke his centuries old vow and turned Daniel, and now Daniel is going to resent him, but oh, how he craves him. Louis is reflective for the first time in forever, pissed off at Daniel about the book, and examining his emotions for a change instead of shoving them down like he did around Lestat and Armand. Everyone is reeling.

Which is what I think Hannah's surprised reaction at the question was all about at the panel. Some fans saw it as disgust, but in a show with this many open relationships, what is there to be disgusted about? It doesn't make much sense to have the polycule be a thing when all of this is going on.

It was a perfectly valid question though. I'm lost on how asking it equates to "clamoring," but maybe that comment was about the posts made by people who were quite vocal about being disappointed at Hannah's answer. In which case that disappointment is also valid.

I can sort of see the bad writing angle. I mean, I've read some great polyamory in writing, but TV shows do pretty much consistently suck at portraying it. But if anyone could pull it off, my good friend Rolin Jones could. But dismissing the polycule thing as ridiculous, illogical, fanfic-type wish fulfillment when none of these characters are, in fact, monogamous is a hell of a take. I've also seen too much wholesome diabolicule fluff in art and fics for me to take the orgy comment seriously, but I find it interesting that that's all you are reducing it to. Gives me insight into your view of polyamory in general.

All four characters are varying levels of polyamorous (with Louis and Lestat occupying opposite ends of the spectrum) in the show and in the books. They're all in love with or attracted to each other (which the show deliberately reinforces). They all sleep with other people for different reasons. Daniel because Armand is using it as some sort of courtship ritual, Armand and Lestat because they're just like that and because it soothes their abandonment issues and makes them feel loved, bonus if it makes Louis jealous in Lestat's case, Louis because Armand is boring and he's been repressed for too long not to take advantage of this freedom. And to make Lestat jealous. And all four characters canonically move in together in the books, so if we're talking porn logic, Anne Rice went there first. It's not even our personal fantasy, it's Anne's.

You could make the whole "it's platonic" argument, but what can be deduced based on their attraction to each other? What can be deduced by their sexual behaviour in the show, which includes but is not limited to Loustat, Loumand, Lesmand, Louis offering himself to Daniel, Daniel offering himself to Louis, Daniel's "Jesus Christ, look at him" when he sees Lestat, and the upcoming Devil's Minion? What makes sense?

I mean, your original argument is that diabolicule shippers are using porn logic and ignoring any evidence that things might not go our way, but it seems to me that it's the other way around. You seem to be using puritan logic and expecting the show to cater to your monogamous personal fantasies.

I always find it amusing when people treat Anne Rice's books as some higher art form when it's not that different from angsty self-indulgent fanfiction itself (especially the later ones).

No disrespect to Anne Rice of course. It's just that praising commercial books while slamming fanfiction is something that pisses me the hell off. It's right up there with art elitism, sex negativity and the racialized colonial dismissal of polyamory especially as it exists in defiance to heteropatriarchal norms. Saying that unedited amateur writing isn't on the same level as professional writing that took up more time and had a paid editor look at it isn't the hot take you think it is. More so when we consider what a white male-dominated space professional writing is. And yet, so many fics still outshine so much of the commercialized slop I've had the displeasure of seeing.