#tvl

[aaluzuxz]

marimand reunion is more imminent than ever..... which means at least some amadeo/arun flashbacks in order to build up emotional weight for said reunion....... which means that first lestat will have to finally adress the gigantic armand sized elephant in the room and narrate the missing 18th century lesmand Happenings™ and guess what that entails

[sarcsticfangirl]

Does ANYONE know how to access to the The Vampire Lestat audiobook by Simon Vance? For some reason it is impossible to find where I live. It sells nowhere, I can’t order it and the audible version just sounds wrong to my ears. I can’t find it on eBay or any used book platform either.

[yusiyomogi]

we can talk around it a lot, but the reality right now is that tvl writers have chosen abuser-centric narrative as the most important/true/interesting one. and this is not a watsonian critique.

iwtv is the story told from the povs of victims. and it was amazing and well-written, but looking back at it now we can highlight some very important things: 1) the story is put under scrutiny of the in-universe journalist 2) the narrative constantly emphasizes the idea that victims weren't "perfect", that they fought back and there were a lot of complexity in the relationship dynamics 3) the narrative focuses on accountability of the victims, making them acknowledge moments where they made mistakes and did things they later regretted.

which sounds fine on paper, right? this is gothic fiction, that's what we do here, we look at uncomfortable things and recognize that abusers are not one-note caricatures, that things are complex and humanity is kinda fucked up.

except then they wrote tvl. and things are not looking good from the doylist pov.

here the writers made another set of decisions that played into very specific narrative. now that the season is told from pov of someone who abused main characters from the previous seasons, we see some interesting changes: 1) the story is not questioned or challenged by anyone in the narrative 2) the accountability is downplayed, the abuser suddenly has a lot of reasons "to act like that" framed in sympathetic light 3) people who abused the abuser are depicted as one-note caricatures 4) the victims of the main character are framed as selfish liars, cruel and shallow in their actions.

and here you could say "wait, maybe they're going full meta..." but we have another surprise: the writers didn't waste any time to confirm that their intention was indeed to punish the victims from iwtv, that these characters played their "victim cards" and that they were assholes for not being loving and caring enough to their abusers too.

all this paint not-so-great picture. this is not complexity, this is abuser-centric storytelling, and the writers think it's far more interesting and "brave" than anything else. generally speaking, i believe that fiction can be anything, but it's important to be careful with the message the story provides, especially in the context of current-day culture and politics. we all need to be smarter etc etc. fiction can be and has been very harmful in the past. but going beyond that and saying things rolin and hannah said behind the screen... well, it's not even about fiction anymore.

[apotter]

I hope the vampire lestat makes a video for us 1%ers on spotify

[whooshsoohw]

This fandom has a tendency of making mountains out of single lines that kind of imply something and then get upset when those assumptions get contradicted or expanded on in ways they didn't expect or don't get expanded on at all

[wormothythejester]

Without Louis de Pointe du Lac, there would be no interview, no story for Daniel Molloy to transcribe. He is flawed, he is infuriating, and sometimes he's downright evil. But none of those things make him unlovable.

He was turned on the single worst night of his entire life. Lestat wore down his defences when he was at his very lowest. He felt responsible for his brother's death, and the guilt was slowly eating him alive. Then his mother subtly disowned him on the night of Paul's funeral, and that was the very last straw.

I do not understand the lack of empathy for Louis shown by "fans." In a show about vampires committing various crimes against humanity, it shouldn't be a contest of who is more evil. They're all equally deserving of our adoration and our contempt.

And Louis de Pointe du Lac will always deserve that love. Flaws and all.

[purplehalnw]

So far, I haven't seen anyone point this out. Magnus's line in ep 7?

"Lestat's makers love their Lestat with... considerable considerables".

It's a reference to what Lestat says in s1e5, after being frustrated that Louis is so focused on finding Claudia:

"But I am the one currently standing in front of you. And unlike Claudia, I am a full-blooded adult with all the right appendages. So if my considerable considerables are going to be squandered..."

This moment was definitely intended to be somewhat of a hint towards Lestat's relationship with his mother (specifically for book readers who had an idea of what was coming). Lestat sees Claudia as sexual/romantic competition, he thinks that Louis might choose her over him in that manner. Because Lestat doesn't know what a normal parent-child relationship looks like. He just sees that Louis and Claudia have a "closeness" between them, just like with him and Gabriella.

It also shows how Lestat ties his worth to sex. He basically says to Louis, "I'm better than Claudia because I have fully developed sex organs" and "I'm better than Claudia because I'm a man and you're gay. I'm more sexually compatible with you".

He ties his worth to sex because the two people that arguably had the biggest impacts on his life, Magnus and Gabriella, only valued him for his body, for his considerable considerables.

They dealt with their feelings/issues by using his body and saying it was love. So, seeing Louis "squander" Lestat's considerable considerables signals to Lestat that Louis must not love him.