A certain section of the fandom is perfectly willing to acknowledge the ways Gabriella abused Lestat, both when he was human and after he became a vampire. They'll acknowledge their sexual and incestuous relationship as abusive. But when it comes to Claudia, they suddenly become blind to abusive dynamics. Lestat's actions toward Claudia get reframed as something else entirely, something that apparently shouldn't be called abuse.
That same section of the fandom will tell you how important it was to see Lestat's trauma treated as valid and handled with care, while ignoring the abuse apologia and victim-blaming directed at Louis. Apparently, Lestat is the only character whose trauma is entitled to that level of empathy.
Many of those same fans will complain that people are trying to deny Lestat's victimhood, when that would be impossible even if anyone wanted to. The writers have gone out of their way to ensure Lestat's victimhood is consistently recognized and validated. At the same time, you have Rolin Jones saying Louis can no longer "play the victim card," because God forbid any character who isn't named Lestat be allowed to exist as an abuse victim in their own right.
Those fans will watch the séance scene and cheer Claudia on as she calls Louis nappy-headed and a slave, and then tell people to stop complaining because she called him a slave before, as though context doesn't matter. As though Claudia essentially telling Louis, "We're being treated like slaves" in Season 1 is remotely the same as telling him that being a slave is part of his nature.
The same people have questioned Louis's victimhood since day one, yet will jump down people's throats the moment anyone points out the double standard in how the narrative treats Louis's abuse versus Lestat's. Any criticism of the disproportionate care, validation, and narrative weight afforded to Lestat's trauma is immediately reframed as an attempt to dismiss or deny his abuse, rather than recognizing that people are pointing out that Louis is so rarely extended the same grace.
They will endlessly dissect Louis's past as a pimp to argue that he is some uniquely great evil, while conveniently ignoring that Lestat was a customer. He was emptying coffers to buy women during that same time period, but I guess buying women is somehow less reprehensible than selling them. It does make you wonder: who exactly do they think Louis was pimping those women to? The discussion rarely follows its own logic to its inevitable conclusion, because that would require applying the same moral standards to Lestat that they so eagerly apply to Louis.
These same fans will scrutinize Louis and Armand through the lens of the pimp and CSA victim dynamic, treating it as essential context for understanding their relationship. But when it comes to Armand and Lestat, not a peep. Suddenly, the fact that Lestat was someone who bought people for sex, just as Armand was someone who was bought and exploited for sex, becomes completely irrelevant. Apparently, those dynamics only matter when they can be used to demonize Louis.
Many of them will write metas about how Lestat has been conditioned to believe his body is his only value, how he has learned to equate sex with love and validation, and how that makes him vulnerable to exploitation. Yet many of those same people seem unable to recognize that the narrative repeatedly faults Louis for being unwilling or unable to make himself emotionally, romantically, or sexually available to the men in his life. Louis's emotional distance or withdrawals are often treated as moral failings rather than symptoms of trauma or expressions of autonomy. When Louis pulls away from Lestat, it becomes evidence of cruelty or neglect. When he is cold and distant toward Armand, it becomes evidence of toxicity and abuse. Louis is repeatedly framed through the lens of what he failed to provide the men who wanted access to him. The irony is that many of the same viewers who can recognize sexual and emotional conditioning when it comes to Lestat seem unable to recognize the expectations being placed on Louis. They understand that nobody is entitled to Lestat's body, affection, or emotional availability. But when Louis exercises that same autonomy, his boundaries are recast as methodical cruelty.
And when viewers point out all those issues, that section of the fandom retreats into a collection of strawmen and pats itself on the back for rebutting arguments nobody made, because it is incapable of engaging with the actual criticisms being raised. And then there's also the performative "I wish we could all just get along" lament, framing conflict itself as the problem while turning a blind eye to the issues that gave rise to those criticisms in the first place.
gamechangershow
gummygunk
2087
areudirty
yousharknotpass
stormborns
izzy806
