Cuz I totally get it: wanting to be offered roles that“any other non-person of color”would be offered–read: roles any WHITE person would get.
ALT
You don’t WANT to be pigeonholed or typecast into The Minority role, your characters always defined & restricted by your IRL race: Oh, an Asian can’t play this role; a Black person can’t play this role; a Hispanic can’t play this role, etc. Like why TF not?! Esp. when the role/project DOESN’T take itself too seriously anyway, and there IS room for anyone of any background to come in and shake things up in new & exciting ways. How many Asian vampires do we ever see in Western Euro-American pop culture anyway? (xxxxx) 🤔
ALT
ALT
Or rather: how many Asians get offered roles as major vampires in pop culture; WITHOUT it boiling down to the actors’ race? 👀
(Count Rapula’s not playing into Asian stereotypes, but he’s definitely culturally appropriating BLACK ones–which I guess says something about the wave of Kpop/Jpop appropriation of hip hop, too.)
As a light-skinned Asian, and as a Wasian with a white biological father in particular, I’m sure Hudson recognizes the privileged position he’s in, that dark-skinned monoracial Asians & Bipocs often struggle so much with.
Like, anyone can look at Hudson and tell that he’s East Asian–he can’t white-pass in everyday clothes & roles; even if he can (& does!) take colorblind roles–just a dude doing a bit. (He’s even played a dog–although I would argue that that role had A LOT of nuance that can easily accommodate discussions about race & power dynamics). But sometimes, depending on the lighting, or at the right angle…you kinda have to double-take just to make sure. 👀 And that proximity to whiteness works in Hudson’s favor, in a way that would NEVER work for other half-white biracial Bipocs with more distinctly non-white features (ie: Jacob Anderson on IWTV).
And in his Nosferatu makeup, you can’t really tell what race he is; he’s more racially ambiguous; with minimal prosthetics required to either exaggerate or obfuscate Hudson’s ethnic/exotic features (“ethnic/exotic” ofc used as a response/contrast to the “default” white race).
But then again, Nosferatu & his Dracula predecessor are STEEPED in Victorian England’s xenophobic & racist demonization of the ethnic Other–Eastern European foreigners “invading” Anglo-Saxon territory as minorities in and of themselves.
So yeah, while I get wanting to make sure you don’t get typecast because of your race, we also gotta acknowledge the elephant in the room, how wrt this predominately white racist industry, Bipocs will ALWAYS be seen by our race first, and our talent second. 🤷♂️
I’m just glad for Hudson, that he’s seeing so much success in his breakout role on Heated Rivalry. I wish him all the best in Hollyweird. ❤️
There’s a big problem when people in the ITWV or TVC fandom say that none of these vampires is morally good or bad, so hating a character or defending another character is pointless. Because if that was true, the entire premise of 2x7 would be meaningless. The sheer injustice of the Theatre des Vampires murdering Claudia & Madeleine would have no emotional weight or impact whatsoever, if one were to accept everything that happened during that Trial and go: Oh well, vampires are all serial killers, so who cares what happens to any of them? If that were true, Louis wanting revenge for his daughter’s death wouldn’t have the fandom cheering as TdV burned down. Santiago’s death wouldn’t feel satisfying, knowing Claudia’s killer is finally dead. Who cares that he used her ashes as lube, eyeshadow, etc? She’s a killer, so everything Santiago did was morally null and void, it’s all fair game.
In that same vein, it would make no sense for anyone to be eagerly anticipating Killer/Bruce’s death for what he did to Claudia in 1x5. If these are all monsters for whom human morals don’t apply, then him breaking her bones and locking her under the floorboards for a week as he raped her while telling her he loved her would be immaterial–Claudia’s a killer too, so she doesn’t ever deserve to have any agency, or bodily autonomy, empathy, or to be respected & treated kindly. Rape her all you want, she’s a monster, it doesn’t matter.
By that logic, everything Santino did to indoctrinate Armand into the Children of Satan was perfectly fine. Armand wasn’t kidnapped, mindraped, groomed, starved, tortured, and beaten into submission–he was educated. That’s not abuse, that’s discipline. Marius coddled him too much and was raising a human boy, but Santino was raising a vampire™. Armand was being ungrateful when he said how miserable he was running the coven.
Claudia was being ungrateful when she said how miserable she was living at 1132. Louis coddled her too much because he was raising a human girl, but Lestat was raising a vampire™. That’s not abuse, that’s discipline. Louis was wrong to say Lestat’s parenting was too sadistic–there’s no such thing as sadism when you’re all vampires.
Actually, who cares what Lestat has to say about Armand in S3? Why should he complain about Armand mindraping him & calling him a fatherless bastard & stalking him everywhere & killing his fledglings? Armand ran the Children of Satan for 200 years, and condemned/executed any vampire that broke the Great Laws, even if they weren’t part of his coven (see: Madeleine, Louis, Lestat, Gabrielle, Nicki, etc). Nicki wasn’t treated unethically, because Armand has zero ethics or morals and doesn’t know right from wrong because human morals don’t apply to vampires since they’re all serial killers anyway. Armand biting Lestat without his consent wasn’t rape, it’s just how French vampires say Bonjour!
What’s a bite between paramours, anyway?
Who cares what Lestat has to say about Louis in S3? These are all monstrous vampires, so Louis’ book actually did it’s job right and made Lestat look like a monster, a killer–Lestat should take it as a compliment, if anything. He’s so ungrateful. None of these vampires should expect to be treated humanely, or feel hurt & fear & betrayal & love & loss & grief when they’re treated monstrously.
But Louis’ the worst vampire on the show, because he wrote an entire book talking about his hurt feelings and everyone he felt mistreated him. No, Louis’ in the wrong, because Lestat wasn’t that bad; what did Lestat do that Louis & Claudia didn’t do too? They’re so ungrateful, whining for no reason. There was no reason for them to want to kill Lestat, because their feelings don’t matter; vampires are monsters and have no feelings because they’re not human.
There was no point in Lestat apologizing for anything, to beg Louis’ forgiveness. He doesn’t have a functional moral compass that can tell right from wrong, surely not. But then why did Sam Reid say 1000x that Lestat feels deep shame, guilt & failure for all the mistakes and monstrous choices he’s made? I thought he was an expert on Anne Rice and all the books? Sam should know that vampires have no soul, and that human morals don’t apply in this universe–there’s nothing for Lestat to be ashamed of at all, because there’s nothing any vampire can do that warrants as good or bad, by their own standards.
The fact that Claudia, in amc iwtv and the iwtv book, not only does not feel remorse for killing Lestat, but refuses to, is one of my favourite aspects of her character, and what makes her such a groundbreaking and definitive character in the gothic genre.
In general in media, women characters and Black characters, particularly those who are morally grey, are often denounced as unlikeable or unworthy of empathy for their actions by audiences and fandoms. Meanwhile, men and white characters are given the space to be villainous and still remain likeable, even redeemable. In gothic horror, women are often fainting damsels in distress, perpetually virtuous victims, or the evil femme fatale. Femme fatales have power that they wield through their sexuality primarily. Any violence they commit or intellect they possess is defined by their use of seduction to enact their goals.
Claudia in all versions of iwtv is something different. She is a woman, in a little girls body, who is allowed to be cruel and violent, without the narrative attempting to make her more likeable and palatable through remorse.
A common way to make audiences feel sympathy for a morally grey character is through portraying their remorse for their crimes. While this adds nuance to their character, it makes them more palatable by showing audiences that they are not truly evil, and are capable of repentance. In iwtv, Louis and Lestat for into this archetype, haunted by their mistakes and wrongdoings, overwhelmed by guilt, desperate for redemption.
Women are also demanded to feel remorseful for not behaving as women ought to. An evergreen example is Lady Macbeth. While wielding power through her manipulation of Macbeth, she is brought down a peg by her overwhelming guilt and psychosis, until she commits suicide, effectively punishing herself for her crimes.
Claudia is not held to this standard. The narrative does not force her to regret killing Lestat, feel remorse, or beg for his forgiveness. Claudia’s decision to kill Lestat puts herself first. Her goal is to gain an independent life for herself with Louis, away from Lestats abuse and tyranny. The only way for them to escape and gain the freedom to be their own people is to kill Lestat. In the show, Lestat had already committed violence when they considered leaving him. In my opinion, in both the show and the book, Lestat in this state in NOLA would never let Louis and Claudia leave him. The narrative makes it clear that Claudia’s actions are necessary. She kills her abusive father to secure her own future, and to help her other father escape from his abusive partner.
Furthermore, Claudia’s murder of Lestat is her act of revenge him turning her, trapping her in the body of a child forever. In this sense, reclaims some of the power that was stolen from her during her turning, breaking apart the family she was supposed to bring back together. (Further nuance is added to this in Merrick, but that’s another conversation I will have at some point.)
Claudias act of murder is achieved through her intellect. She outsmarts Lestat herself, tricking him with an extensive plan that preys on his ego and cruelty. The fact she doesn’t use her sexuality, or seduce anybody, sets her apart from the femme fatale, allowing her to be a new type of gothic woman. She is allowed to revel in her violence and enjoy her victory, no concern being given to making her appear “palatable.” In fact, she delights in being unpalatable.
At this point in the story, many women characters would be forced to feel guilt/experience mental illness in order to make them more palatable to audiences. Claudia doesn’t do this. She never regrets her decision to kill Lestat. She knows that her actions were essential to saving herself and Louis and creating their life in Paris. It is Louis, a man, who experiences the Lady Macbeth guilt and remorse that women are forced to. He hallucinates lestat, and is wracked by guilt and regret for killing the love of his life. Claudia by contrast is the holding him together.
The show adds even more nuance to this idea through Claudia’s Blackness. When Lestat, a white man, expresses his remorse and shame for his abuse of Louis at the extremely racist show trial/ lynching, the audience (in the show and irl) are overcome. He is given empathy and understanding for admitting his wrongdoing. He is not on show trial for his crimes, awaiting execution for also breaking the great laws; the audience have forgiven him
But Claudia is aware that as a Black woman, in the body of a teenage girl, she is not afforded this grace, by the play audience, by the false narrative pushed by the play script, or historically by general audiences.
The narrative asks why should Claudia feel remorse, when that remorse will not bring her the empathy of white audiences, or save her life? Why should she feel remorse for doing what was essential for her freedom and survival? Why should she feel remorse for choosing herself, the way every man around her has done for their entire lives?
Claudia never apologizes to Lestat, expresses remorse, or begs for her life. For this, she is punished and found guilty by the play audience, Armand and the coven utilising their racism, misogyny, and victim blaming to first dehumanise Claudia, then lynch her. Obviously, Claudia’s murder occurs so that Anne Rice and the show can explore the key themes of parental grief and child loss, but within the story it is a punishment for not being the perfect victim.
None of this negates Claudia’s love for Lestat. Claudia would much rather have Lestat be a loving, supportive father to her, than be forced to kill him. But that was not the situation Lestat put her in. The narrative makes it clear that this is Lestat’s fault, not Claudia’s. Lestat admires her for having the strength to kill her abusive father, because when he was in this situation, he couldn’t do it.
Claudia never backs down. The trial may punish her, but the narrative supports her actions. Rather than apologising to Lestat in her final moments, she look into his she’s, asking her father why he isn’t helping her. She doesn’t beg for his forgiveness or repent; she reminds us and Lestat that he was the one who failed her.
Claudia is a rare character who is not concerned about appearing palatable or moral to anybody. She is confident in her reasoning and unshakable in her beliefs. Not stubborn, but brave. This is why Claudia has been such an important and influential figure in gothic horror since 1976, and her show iteration continues to highlight the double standards applied to women characters, particularly Black women.
(And why she’s one of my favourite characters of all time :) )
(I originally posted this as a thread on twitter, but I’m reposting here to keep all my analysis together, and the format is better. I also wrote this before reading Merrick, so didn’t include the information it provides. This is more iwtv and og iwtv book focused.)
BEAUTIFUL ANALYSIS! 👏
The sad thing is, there’s TWO times that Claudia IS remorseful towards Lestat. The tragedy’s that both times, it gets her NOWHERE:
She ADMITS she was a handful, and that she’s “ready for whatever Lestat has to say.” The entry literally OPENS with her linking her running away with what LESTAT did to piss her off in the first place. She wasn’t ready to go back home cuz she had a feeling Lestat was finna be on some bullsh*t, and he ain’t never proved her wrong:
Like, it’s all well and good that Lestat was horrified seeing his daughter die–but that doesn’t change the FACT that she still died as he stood there NOT saving her–
–esp. since she died as a direct result of the Trial HE participated in. She doesn’t KNOW a lot: why he was there, why he couldn’t save her, why he withheld so much–etc. NONE of it matters. Too little too late; she IS being lynched in that racist AF Trial; she DID need love & support; and she didn’t get it. 🤷♂️ So why TF SHOULD she be remorseful, AMEN!👏😤
book!Lestat was hella confused, “caged, wounded, desperate;” and that instilled far more sympathy in me than I was able to muster for him on the show; when he was the same plucky a-hole he always was–EXCEPT for when he went offscript to finally apologize to Louis. He’s still the same racially insensitive a-hole he always is, too (xxx).
So even if ghost!Claudia comes back and asks Lestat point blank why he didn’t save her, any excuse he gives isn’t gonna change the fact that he CHOSE. He went in there KNOWING that if push came to shove, the one he’d move heaven & hell to safe was NOT Claudia, it was Louis. Sure, he loved Claudia and was sad to see her go, but no one can ever say Lestat loved Claudia more than he loved Louis. And she KNOWS this. On top of that, she also knows that Lestat’s love still won’t STOP him from doing truly effed up things–he still said HORRIBLE things to her in 1x5 - 1x7 & 2x7, and ofc look what he did to Louis. Where was HIS remorse when it mattered?
EXACTLY. book!Lestat begs LOUIS to kill his father for him; he can’t bring himself to do it, even after harassing & verbally abusing the man for pages on end. He’s MISERABLE having the Marquis live with them in NOLA, but he’s immobilized by his own indecision, Hamlet style; cuz he DOES love his father, even knowing what a p.o.s. he is. But he also wants to finally be FREE of him; and most interestingly, Lestat REFUSES to bind himself to his father the way he bound himself to his mother, y turning the marquis into a vampire so that the old man could just eff off on his own. Lestat KNOWS the Marquis has to die, even if he lacks the gumption to see it thru.
I am SO curious what AMC will do with their dynamic, since AMC!Louis’ not even born yet at the time the Marquis ends up alone. Cuz we’ve already seen that AMC!Lestat DOES have what it takes to get incredibly violent even towards those he loves. If he can drop Louis from the sky, can he kill his own father? Or will the Marquis just be killed by the mob? (Even better: will GARIELLE kill him?)
And again, it’s important to note that Lestat never ONCE apologizes to Claudia during the Trial. He doesn’t even address the wrongs he’s done to her–Charlie’s name is never brought up. Claudia busting him in all his lies about Antoinette are never brought up. Claudia calling him Massa is never brought up. Lestat losing his ish when she beat him at chess is never brought up. Lestat apologizes TO LOUIS for Dropping him from the sky, but where is his apology to Claudia for not making her feel like she was loved enough by him? Up his own arse, that’s where.
Daggone lovesick Louis literally saved Lestat’s life–AMC!Claudia should’ve stabbed him over & over and had him nommed on by alligators in the swamp, just like she did in the book.
I’m too busy/lazy to make a fic, but just walk with me.
I’m seeing a Beauty & the Beast-meets-Nosferatu/Dracula scenario, where Prince Ilya’s run afoul (a-FOWL 🤣) of a magic loon, that just so happens to be an Eastern European vampire in disguise. Rather than helping the dying loon-strix, Ilya insults it (“stupid wolf bird!”), so she curses him with vampirism. He secludes himself in his manor in the woods; and as time passes he alternates from looking more fuzzy/furry like a wolf, to more feathery like a bird.
ALT
ALT
And ofc Shane’s the beautiful local boy (also under a curse? 🤔 are we going full Howl’s Moving Castle?) who stumbles upon Ilya’s Castle. Ilya’s enchanted attendants offer him shelter–Wyatt (Cogsworth), Hayden (Lumiere), Jackie (Mrs Potts) & Arthur (Chip).
Ofc everyone loves Shane–Ilya included; and fluff ensues, with a healthy dash of Gothic horror cuz it’s a haunted frikkin castle and Ilya’s a “grumpy” vampire.
ALT
ALT
No hockey, but ofc there’s ice skating for thawing the ice monster.
ALT
There’s no iconic Disney Library scene; Shane’s not interested in books like that–but there IS a library where he DOES read up on how to cure the vampire curse–(Is it more like Herr Knock’s office with the Solomonari sigil under the rug? Or is it more like Dr. Von Franz’s office? 🤔)–esp. when it becomes clear that Ilya’s condition is getting worse.
ALT
ALT
The vamp that cursed Ilya was dying cuz it was also cursed (hurt people hurt people); and no one came along to love/cure her in time before she turned into a full loon-strix. But it’s not too late for Ilya, thanks to meeting Shane.
Ilya’s vampirism is cured in a more Koschei the Deathless way, where his immortality’s hidden in a magic soul-egg that loon-strix laid when she cursed Ilya–instead of the Beast’s wilting rose, or Howl’s heart in Calcifer’s fire, etc.
ALT
ALT
Breaking the egg, inside it isn’t the golden needle needed to stab Koschei the Deathless to finally kill him; but instead Ilya’s mother’s crucifix. When Shane puts it on Ilya, and the cross rests across Ilya’s heart, it cures the monster thru the power of both Ilya’s mother’s love and Shane’s love; in a true come-to-Jesus moment.
(Was Ilya’s mother the loon-strix, cursed by his father Grigori? 👀 That’s some Brothers’ Grimm type ish, I kinda like it, LOL.)
this exchange i had on twitter (yes i know, my own fault, i need to never go back there) perfectly encapsulates the problem with this fandom’s analysis of the leslouclaudia dynamic:
when it comes to louclaudia, the key element people use to assess the overall relationship is claudia’s feelings of being abandoned by louis, without factoring in louis’ motivation for his behaviour. but when it comes to leslou, the key element people use to assess the relationship is louis’ withholding of affection, not just lestat’s feelings of being unloved and abandoned by louis.
loustat are allowed nuance, where people can recognise that despite what lestat felt, despite what louis showed, louis loved (and still loves) lestat deeply and their lack of communication does not negate that. but louclaudia are not allowed the same nuance; claudia feels abandoned or less important and therefore it is objectively true that she was to louis. despite the fact that louis’ behaviour across both seasons simply does not make sense if you take this to be true - why does louis grow despondent in claudia’s absence? why does he have nothing but barbed words or silence for lestat in 1x05? why does he almost let the sun come up and kill him when she leaves in 1x06? why does he slit lestat’s throat in 1x07 despite having told claudia minutes before that he doesn’t think they should do it anymore? why does he follow her to europe? why does he stay in paris with her when he wanted to leave as soon as they saw lestat’s portrait at the theatre? why does he decide against telling her that armand knows about lestat once she opens up about bruce? why does he fully commit to armand after claudia reveals that armand threatened her? why does he turn madeleine and cut himself after? why does he stay away from lestat for 7 decades when he thinks lestat killed claudia? how does any of that make sense for a man who would always choose lestat over claudia?
claudia is not omniscient, why on earth would her feelings on something about louis make it objective truth about louis? her feelings tell us that louis is shit at communicating the depth of his love for people to them and shit at communication in general, but they can’t tell us anything about louis’ own emotions. only louis can tell us that. and, yes, he can lie sometimes, but his actions and choices reveal the truth. claudia doesn’t have all the pieces, but as viewers, we do.
and the frustrating thing is that folks do understand this!!! it’s applied every single day for loustat!!! otherwise the consensus would be that louis doesn’t love anyone bc nobody feels like he chose them. that’s why it feels intentionally dishonest when people talk about louclaudia this way. if you don’t also think this about loustat, then you’re deliberately lying about louclaudia and it’s gross.
I wanna bring up another point to tie in here:
I think some folks forget that these are vampires–or rather, people forget what vampires inherently are/mean. They’re walking corpses, sure, but they’re all, as book!Lestat aptly calls book!Armand, “the embodiment of thirst”–bottomless pits forever thirsty, forever hungry, forever EMPTY, searching for what will finally make them feel “filled with all the life you can hold.”
Physically, they’re always fiending for blood–it’s the one thing that they can ever live on–it’s oxygen & water & food & calories all at once; and the younger they are, the more they need it.
Psychologically, they’re all terrified of Vampire Loneliness. Cuz they’re damned. They’ll never go to Heaven, and they’ll never die–and if they make a companion of their own, they’ll never be able to share the intimacy of telepathic speech, when the Wall of Silence goes up so they can never read each other’s mind ever again.
(This is why book!Lestat’s Vampire Court at the Chateau in the PL Trilogy is as close to Heaven on Earth (a la the Savage Garden) as they can get–vampires learning to live together in “one tribe”, with the dungeons full of Evil Doers for them to drain as a “revolving door of prey.”)
Vampires are hungry & lonely, and they can never be satisfied–not unless they’re lucky enough to “Find the X”–whatever or whoever it is that finally brings them peace (“All the noise, the chaos, the crisis of my former existence, silenced. The simple joy of her hand in mine!”).
A HUGE problem that Lestat & Claudia have, as OP explained, is that while both of them understood what they wanted from Louis, neither of them understood what Louis wanted from them, and how he expressed it, tacitly or otherwise. So much of the Unholy Family’s problems started when their relationship/dynamics (esp. over Louis) became a competition–Lestat kickstarts it with: “what’s she saying? I can see where this is going! no family secrets!”; Loustat bickering together over who she take after; and everything snowballing after Charlie & Bruce, “come with me, Louis!” Lestat &
Lestat & Claudia BOTH know that Louis loved them (Lestat agreed that Louis married him “with a kiss of acceptance” in the church; and defended the “transcendent love between two vampires” to the homophobic soldier; and Delainey said that “Claudia died knowing Louis loved her deeply”). The problem was whether ANY of them loved each other enough for them to be satisfied with it; with things staying the way they were, or demanding more than they were ready/capable of giving at the time. And ofc the answer’s NO. 😔 They’re bloodsucking vampires, but they’re also emotional vampires, draining the life out of each other thru the sheer toxic AF aura (a la Colin Robinson on WWDITS).
So yeah, I think the fandom effs up whenever they act like it’s OBJECTIVE truth that Louis didn’t love them. It’s SUBJECTIVE truth, cuz in a story centered on perspective, a person’s FEELINGS are gonna matter way more than what’s actually real/true or not. If Louis fees unloved, he’s gonna give Lestat the cold shoulder for years on end. If Lestat feels unloved, he’s gonna Drop Louis from the ether and break all his bones. If Claudia feels she’s unloved, she’s gonna slit Lestat’s throat & cuss Louis up & down Europe. 🤷♂️ It’s not just that any of them are being “ungrateful/thankless” (which Lestat accuses in 1x5, 1x6 & 2x7) or selfish; but also how it speaks to the vampiric lore also at play, the unDEAD in a house not knowing how to LIVE together in a home. It’s part of the Gothic tragedy, cuz they DO love each other. They’re just “locked together in hatred” in the end. 😔
going from interview to hr is crazy becsuse fandom really will write so much fic as long as there’s no black person there
2 MONTHS 👀
3 YEARS 💀
And just to add insult to injury:
Not even onscreen canon yet. 🤦♂️
while I do find the a/d most upsetting, my analysis did in fact take all of these factors into consideration, and this is still the conclusion I came to.
yes hbo is a huge platform, but iwtv is a critic favorite on the network that brought breaking bad and the walking dead, not a small publicly funded network like Crave is. netflix has distribution rights for iwtv, so even if amc was a small network, netflix isn’t, so this argument is irrelevant.
iwtv also had a built in fandom. tvc book fans have been exceedingly clear that their problem is that louis is black and no longer a white slaver. every day it’s “Lestat is the blueprint for modern vampires,” so let’s not fool ourselves – any analysis undermining that 90% of the explanation is that his romantic partner and the show’s primary lead is now black is deeply lacking.
i’ve been very into hockey rpf, but you don’t have to be to know hockey rpf is huge because it’s the whitest sport in the west. same reason f1 rpf is huge. there’s nothing special or more appealing about hockey than basketball or american football, and hockey players are in fact usually the least personable and highest average conservative or apolitical. western fandom doesn’t care because western fandom is a bunch of queer white supremacists.
yes, iwtv and loustat are difficult to write for, but hannibal/will is one of the top 10 most popular ships and just as abusive, physically and psychologically. the problem is not that it’s difficult material, the problem is that fandom is the real world and the real world is foundationally anti-black and does not like black people. obviously the racial dynamics add additional nuance, but black fans manage to navigate that within the story just fine and still find enjoyment and humor in the overall show. the most difficult thing about writing loustat fic is that iwtv fandom is the current face of fandom antiblackness so those who don’t hate black ppl don’t want to deal with this bullshit with a ten foot pole.
i don’t need reassurance that you know fandom racism is real before you tell me i haven’t thought it through enough. i also wasn’t talking about fandom racism broadly, i was talking about fandom antiblackness. every other white gay has been incredibly racist about hudson; kpop and western danmei fandoms are extremely racist, yet they’ll still write fic while wanting to ethnically cleanse korea and china. the difference is that louis is black. point blank.
“western fandom doesn’t care because western fandom is a bunch of queer white supremacists.” 💯
So the bogus argument that it’s “difficult canon to write in” cuz it’s not feel-good romance and instead has super dark & heavy themes is clearlybulllllllllllllcrap 📢📢📢📢.
ALT
IDEC that Hannibal’s a 12yo franchise & what network it was on or the size of its fanbase–the creator himself was an Anne Rice IWTV fanboy, and he launched a whole career off of difficult canon & problematic themes centered on violence, abuse, trauma, manipulation, control, death, blood, guts, etc–everything the Hannigram girlies (gn) love.
So why is it that everything that SHOULD make AMC’s IWTV a success is clearly not working in its favor? 🤔 What’s the one (1) difference between AMC’s IWTV and every other johnny-come-lately riding Anne Rice’s coattails to act like they’re the first ones to ever touch queer media? 🤔
Gee gosh golly, I just can’t put my finger on it. 🤔
I really dislike people saying to ‘not recommend iwtv for people who want to watch more queer media’ Interview with the Vampire is a great series it is complex full of deep raw love compassion and the consequences that come with that with the reality of the time period it was set in. Iwtv is a gothic horror there is going to be uncomfortable themes, everyone is vampire eating humans for sustenance, no one is right or wrong in the series. That’s the point.
IWTV is not queer media…? Where the two main male couple are married in 1910 Jim Crow Louisiana. The Vampire Chronicles have been queer media since the book came out in 1976. Them not fucking every episode doesn’t make it ‘not queer’
😶
All this coming from someone whose blog name is armand de lesbian – but ah yes, do tell us more about how IWTV isn’t queer media. 🤨
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
🤦♂️
Amd ofc this nonsense is coming out of flawed comparisons people are making with IWTV & Heated Rivalry–omfg y'all.
HR’s not “strictly” a romance, it’s under the same DRAMA umbrella as IWTV. Drama includes romance–both the angsty Sports Romances, and the angsty Gothic Romances–
–neither of which have anything to do with Love, Simon–which is categorized as a teen romantic comedy DRAMA, btw.
By your argument, the “next logical step” from Heated Rivalry shouldn’t even be Love, Simon–it should actually be Yuri on Ice, if you wanna keep things queer sports related–but oh, is YoI being an anime and not live action a dealbreaker too?! 🙄😒 What about Check, Please! being a webcomic and not onscreen? How much are we supposed to split hairs until the whole head’s bald?
Oh, so queer stories never involve incest & child abuse (xx)?! 🤨
I can’t with this, y'all, wtf are we even doing anymore?
If you just wanna keep the same vibes as Heated Rivalry, just say you want queer sports media only.
But if you’re just asking for queer media in general, or queer romance in particular, sorrynotsorry, but that’s gonna run the entire gamut!
Your question itself is flawed, and you need to be more specific. Cuz it’s totally valid to recommend anything from IWTV (queer Gothic Romance) to Love, Simon (queer Teen Romance), to Wilde (queer Historical/Biographical Romance), to Moonlight(queer African American Romance), to The Untamed (queer Chinese Xianxia Romance), all the way to Yuri on Ice (queer Sports Romance BL anime), and beyond.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say “IWTV isn’t queer media” and coming up with all these bogus reasons why its characters just so “happen to be queer” is effing BULLCRAP.
Lestat having an incestuous relationship with his mother doesn’t make his story any less queer; or take away from the fact that he’s a bisexual man struggling to hold onto his gay failmarriage as he runs away from the ghosts of his abusive past in 18th-19th century France.
Louis being a Black man during Jim Crow doesn’t make his story any less queer; or take away from the fact that he’s a gay man struggling to find acceptance & equality & self-worth in homophobic Catholic racist society; before Lestat sweeps him off his feet and catapults him into a bloodsoaked story of love, repression, violence, abuse, and oblivious pining.
I’m not even gonna get into the Claudeleine of it all, with its tragically romantic story about two lesbians coming together in post-War France to find just the briefest glimmer of happiness with each other in an interracial sapphic relationship before it’s horrifically cut short by Armand and his satanic cult.
But oh yes~! IWTV isn’t The Queer Show! It’s not about queerness, or LGBTQ+ themes, or people’s struggles with sexuality & gender expression & gendered dynamics in pre-Stonewall pre-RPDR pre-GLAAD society! They just “HAPPEN” to be queer, but the story’s REALLY about….
Err….?
Uhhh….
Vampires!
Who totally haven’t been a foundational & pivotal metaphor for sexuality in queer studies/media/theory for the past 150+ years (*cough* Carmilla *cough*), surely not! 🤦♂️
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
