You can ship characters for happily ever afters, sure, you can ship them for tragically-then-happily, you can ship two or three or four or more, you can ship endless combinations of personality types and relationship dynamics
but you can also ship characters under very specific circumstances, or for a certain period of their life but not for all of it, or only in a certain universe. You might say “I ship these characters” and what you mean is you think they are fascinating together and could have a story together. That story could be any kind of story.
Sometimes it means you want them together for the rest of their lives. Sometimes it means something different than that.
I don’t know about you, but for me, “I ship it” means “There is a story in this ship and I am interested in that story.”
for me, “I ship it” means “There is a story in this ship and I am interested in that story.”
Also for those of us who write or consume fanfiction, shipping can mean “I need to fix this thing that bothered me in canon, let me tell you my version of it where it’s not so gross and where I criticize it in a way that the creator did not.” I don’t understand people who can’t grasp this. Black & white thinking is not a good look.
Or I mean. Maybe it’s still gross lol. We wouldn’t have a horror genre if dark and awful shit didn’t intrigue people on a base level. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean there’s no value in it for people who like to look hard at things that frighten them.
(I have a backlog of asks, Real Life has been taking my life, and this is the one I decide to answer, bc I am apparently a glutton for punishment) (My senpais re: the topic of allowing writers to write dark fiction (and readers to read it) are @restoringsanity and @freedom-of-fanfic, among others, check them out).
Welcome to our little corner of Tumblrland!
This became a Wall of Text™, but I felt like articulating these thoughts again, as I do periodically. Sorry, no cut, couldn’t find a good place to do it.
Anon, I hope you come into the light and join us, share with us what you like about VC and make our fandom better for being part of it. You might make some of the best friends of your life with us 🙂 I definitely have, and that’s what fandom is about for me.
I think this question was answered very well by @interview-withthevampirehere, with supporting links. I was honored to be tagged as a Certified Old in the fandom, yes, I was around in the Dark Ages of the Internet, for the Spec Massacre, but am I a Respected Old? That’s debatable, lol. I have my opinions about VC, and everyone’s headcanon may vary on all of it.
No sense reinventing the wheel in answering the same way as they did, but I have thoughts to add. @interview-withthevampire started their answer as follows, and I want to start mine the same way:
“the reason why Anne Rice is a bit quarrelsome (I don’t want to use “cr*zy”) is because, well, the kindest way to put it is that she’s a bit of an ego-maniac.”
^YES. She’s probably a bit of an ego-maniac, but not “cr*zy.” “Crazy” is what we use to “other” someone, to dehumanize them by calling their mental faculties into question. It’s a gentle teasing at best and a bullying tactic at worst.
One thing you’ll find in VC fandom is that every so often, like a cycle, we’ll get another round of bashing Anne Rice. Whether or not she is a “good” or “bad” person with “good” or “bad” thoughts/intentions, that’s not the purpose of my blog and not what I base my love for VC on. My blog is primarily for entertainment and fandom positivity.
As fandom has begun a shift into examining authors and content creators who create problematic content (also known as ”dark fiction,” which I prefer as a term bc the word “problematic” has become kind of a joke in its overuse), there is a tendency to conflate that content with their beliefs, that they write what they would like to see happen in reality. I strongly feel that creation/consumption of dark fiction is not endorsement of it.
In brief, people might think Anne Rice is “cr*zy” bc of (1) her Real Life actions against her fans and other people, and (2) the problematic content in her books.
Again, I think @interview-withthevampire covered point (1). In the end, Anne Rice is just a human being who wrote a set of books that have gathered a wide spectrum of fans. I think it took her years (decades?) to understand the nature of her fanbase, and as the internet grew around her, it became easier for fanworks and reviews/feedback to publish into the real world. There were no longer the filters in place of people like magazine editors; any blogger could write a review of her works in full view of millions of fans, and they were not required to pull any punches.
AR had to acclimate to that and after fighting the ficwriters for long enough, she chose to stop suing, and learn to coexist with it all. I don’t know of many other authors treating their own fanbases the way AR treated us, so I would guess that authors who have published works since the internet really got in gear have probably all embraced their fanbases from the beginning. Therefore, VC fandom’s bad blood (pun intended) with Anne Rice stands out as being downright BIZARRE now 😛
As far as (2) the problematic content.
What we’re really talking about is whether dark fiction (pedophilia, incest, etc.) should be written about at all if they are not condemned in the narrative. Personally, I believe that creation/consumption of dark fiction is not endorsement of it.
*Bruised banana analogy*
VC, like any media, be it books/movies/music/video games/etc., is like a banana. It might have gross bruises, those parts that you find squicky or otherwise distasteful. It’s fine to point them out, so that others can be aware, but you are not required to do so. Some areas on a given banana are less bruised than others, and you can eat them. Maybe you eat around all the bruises, even the smaller ones. Maybe you don’t mind bruises and you can eat the whole banana.
I admit, on a subjective level, that VC books have gotten much bruisier for me over the years, and there are several that I find so bruised that there is much less to enjoy, but that’s how it is. I STILL LIKE THE PARTS I LIKE.
[X Banana from fromthedriversseat.co.uk] ^Red would be those bruises that I can’t accept, so I don’t eat them.
Maybe the whole banana is ruined for you and you can’t stomach it. Maybe you can bake it into banana bread, turn it into something else entirely! That’s a fanworks’ purpose. Like a fanfic where you remove/revise the bruises from canon and write the story the way you would prefer it to be. Fluff would probably be a banana with very few
bruises, if any at all.
I’ve made my own headcanons that have “fixed” canon in a way that greatly improved the stories for me. I’ve read fanfic that was basically providing missing pieces from canon. I’ve seen fanart and cosplay that pretty much illustrated my headcanon of the characters. For me, fandom is about taking inspiration from the canon source material to make your own works, sharing that with other fans, and being supportive of those content creators in whatever way you feel comfortable!
It’s every reader’s prerogative, how much of the “banana” they want to eat, if any at all. No one is forcing you to eat it, and other people enjoying the banana does not trample your choice. Your choice not to eat some/all of the bruises does not supersede other’s choice of eating them.
I’ve said that creating/consuming problematic content is not in itself endorsement of
problematic things in REAL LIFE. As far as I know, Anne Rice has committed no REAL crimes, so while I would love it if she had a trusted editor/beta reader,I don’t condemn her for exploring dark topics in fiction. More thoughts on that in my #dark fiction tag.
As fans in the fandom, we can like what we like, critique her work, choose what canon we accept, toss the rest. She put it out there and in that sense, it doesn’t matter if Anne Rice is “cr*zy” or not, or if she is a “good” or “bad” person with “good” or “bad” thoughts. Personally, I believe that AR was interested in sex before she was the age of consent and was frustrated that she was being prevented from pursuing sexual relationships. Those explorations led to bruises in her bananas. Those are her bones to pick, so to speak.
I’ve made some of my best friends in VC fandom, and if they or I had left because of the bruises in our bananas, I might never have met them at all. I consider VC to be a gift to us from AR, no more, no less.
[continued] But it rubs at emotional raw points when the agency of a character who is a minor has their agency completely written off. Mostly because it reminds me of the kind of things that were said to keep me repressed. So what I’m saying is’ yeah I can see how someone who has been there would write that’ not that I would, mostly because I live in fear that my weirdness will hurt others.
Hello Anon, thank you for sending me this message. Responding to these kinds of questions is intellectually stimulating for me, and sometimes the research and crowd-sourcing with trusted advisers changes my mind on things I thought I knew! It’s a learning process.
Reminder: This is a fandom blog for a fictional series, for entertainment only.
^Not shouting at you or anyone, Anon. I’m just reminding people that I recognize that I am out of my depth on certain topics, and trying to express myself without hurting anyone, too. I tried to answer that ask as sensitively as possible, as I, too, don’t want to hurt people who were abused, or anyone else. I’m addressing your message because I feel like you were hurt just for your interest in these things, which I feel is unfair.
TL;DR: Anon, I’m sorry that people trampled you to the point that you felt like your interests were harmful to others. Thoughtcrime is not crime.
Being interested in learning about sex, as a minor or as an adult, is not a crime. I don’t know if you create/consume dark fiction, or even specifically the kind of sex you were intrigued about as a minor, but human beings (for the most part) are sexual beings and are interested in it. In Non-fiction:
Books/essays/TED Talks/etc. are written on it,
There are people who devote their careers to it as a scientific study, see Sexology.
There’s at least one Museum for it! The Museum of Sex in NYC, which I still need to check out one of these days.
More than just for the mechanics, there’s the psychological aspect, the power dynamics, the intimacy with another person/people. It’s a unique experience and one that is defined differently by many people. Some relationships involve people who can’t (or don’t want) penetrative sex, but are intimate just the same.
“But it rubs at emotional raw points when the agency of a character who is a minor has their agency completely written off. Mostly because it reminds me of the kind of things that were said to keep me repressed.”
Right. Did Amadeo have agency in his relationship with Marius? That is up to the individual reader to decide. When people trample others, insisting their opinion is fact, and that you must be completely dense or willfully ignorant (or both!) to even suggest otherwise!!! please keep in mind that they are just a person, no matter how strongly they state their opinion, and you have every right to your own opinion and can disagree privately or publicly.
Repression of interest/education/participation/etc. as it relates to sex has long been used as a means of controlling people, and is too big a topic for this blog post. But I absolutely agree that repression is used to control people, for better and for worse.
Before we move on, re: the concept of hurting people: I’ve been thinking about this quote, (which I thought it was a McElroy quote, but I see that it might actually a Louis C.K. quote? I don’t know who said it originally) Here’s the tweet:
“When someone opens up and reveals that they have been hurt by you, they are being vulnerable. It’s not always easy to admit that you’ve been hurt, and if someone tells you that you’ve hurt them, the least you owe them is your respect and acknowledgment of their pain. The worst thing that you can do is make them feel bad for opening up to you, make them feel like they’re the one who did something wrong, or tell them that you didn’t actually hurt them. You don’t know their feelings. If they’re telling you that you hurt them, then you hurt them. Accept this and apologize.” [6 Lessons We Can All Learn from Louis C.K.]
^It’s easy enough to apologize when you’ve physically stepped on someone’s toes because you weren’t looking. I’m grateful when someone tells me that I did that, rather than bottling up their frustration and thinking I’m a clumsy person. It’s easy to apologize in that situation.
It’s much harder to apologize when you wrote/said something that you thought was socially acceptable, in private or in public, and someone tells you that it was hurtful. A sincere apology is still necessary, but harder to do.
I struggle with wanting to be able to speak my mind on these very sensitive topics, like about Anne Rice being interested in sex before the age of consent and how that affected her writing, inspiring socially taboo situations in her works. To even suggest that there is nuance and something worth exploring in dark fiction, that could be taken (even unintentionally on the part of the person creating/consuming/discussing dark fiction) as hurtful to abuse survivors or anyone else. When I create/consume dark fiction, it’s an exploration, not promotion. I am not intending to belittle the experience of survivors of abuse or hurt anyone else. I can’t speak for Anne Rice or any other content creator/consumer, but I can keep saying that in my opinion, creating/consuming/discussing dark fiction is not a crime. Dark thoughts are not a crime.
When someone is hurt by this exploration, it is partly their responsibility to avoid it.If X person tells me that my discussion of dark fiction (specifically incestuous/pedophilic undertones) hurt them, Louie C.K. is correct,I do not get to decide that I didn’t hurt X person. AND I apologize sincerely. I might also change my opinion of something based on this interaction.
But I also remind X person that this is only my blog, with my own unauthorized opinions. Every blog is an opt-in experience, you choose to read it. If discussing these things = endorsement to X person, then I would ask them, respectfully, to Unfollow/Block me and not read my blog. In a social network like this, it may be difficult to avoid a blogger that upsets you, especially when it’s one of the fandom’s more popular blogs like mine is, but that’s why we tag things. I’m tagging this post with #pedophilia mention tw and #incest mention tw for those who don’t want to see even mentions of it.
I hope that helped, Anon, and to anyone else reading this, it was not my intention to hurt anyone for expressing my opinions about learning about sex or about dark fiction.
Hit the jump for more, cut for length.
To get back to your question…
Anon asked:
“What you were saying about Anne being interested in sex before she was the age of consent, and that being part of her motivation in writing sexual stuff with underage characters. It makes a lot of sense to me. I have some.. interesting emotional baggage from being interested in sex when I was a minor.”
*nods* I think many people are interested in sex before the age of consent, if not the psychological implications, then just the mechanics of it. It’s like anything you learn to do, like anything else, there’s a first time, it takes some practice and there’s awkwardness, so of course we’re curious about it!
I was curious about it as a child, my parents never tried to sell me on anything fictional like the stork bringing babies to expectant adults.
The fact that the age of consent varies by country and even states in the US shows that different societies have different ideas about when a person can consent to physical intimacy, and it’s not universally 12:00 am on your 18th birthday.
Anecdote: My ex-roommate lost her virginity to her boyfriend at age 15. She told me she had no regrets about it. Maybe she did and never told me, or never admitted it to herself, but I am sure that there are those who had similar experiences and were not necessarily abused.
“A lot of wounds that tumblr likes to stick it’s fingers in and that I dare not react to for fear of how aggressive this site can be”
You’re absolutely right about that. I have seen people dogpiled for all kinds of reasons. Generally, it’s thrilling to feel righteous. It feels good to be part of a group attacking a common enemy. There are all kinds of reasons for it and you are absolutely not obligated to expose yourself to people who are looking to pick a fight and bully someone off the site. As someone accurately described it to me, some people are predisposed to disagreement, and you do not have to engage in fruitless, unwinnable arguments. They’ll even move the goal posts so if you think you’ve made a valid response to their point, supported by reasons, they’ll say that wasn’t the point in the first place *eyeroll.* For some people it’s more about just winning your submission.
{{ BTW, I don’t think we often address when X person claims that they were hurt in ways (or for reasons) that are hurtful to the one they claim has hurt them, but that absolutely happens. X person might say this is tone-policing or victim-blaming, but I’m sure that some of them are aware that they wield their argument more as a sword than anything else. Both sides can be hurt by call-out posts, for example, which are less about teaching and more about mob mentality and shouting into the void, but I don’t want to delve further into that. }}
Hello Anon, I’m sorry that it took me almost a month to answer this. It’s an extremely sensitive topic, as I’m sure you know, and these are very loaded questions. I took time to reach out to my trusted advisers, talked to them for hours, and considered their responses very carefully.
I’m very sorry to hear that you are a survivor of this kind of trauma in real life. The fact that you are still able to love the Vampire Chronicles despite the fact that they contain parts that are difficult for you to handle means that there must be something good in them for you, and I hope you don’t lose your love for them. Could you come back and tell me some of the things/characters you love about them? Or how you first got into them? I love those kinds of stories!
This has become a very long post, much to my chagrin. I wish that I could simply agree with you and move on, but I can’t do that. The issues you bring up are very nuanced to the point that a blog post on tumblr can’t truly cover it all, but I will do my best to keep this blog post concise and to the point. I have also placed the cut only after most of my response as I have been accused of hiding things under cuts on past controversial topics, so it’s all out, clogging your dash. Sorry.
Before we go any further: My stance on dark fiction (in this case, incest/pedophilia) is that I do not endorse or condone it in REAL LIFE. Period.
TL;DR: No, I don’t think the VC tv series will “dive too much into the incestuous/pedophilic undertones that the books had at times.” Standards & Practices won’t allow it. I’m going to use the term “dark fiction” because I don’t necessarily agree with you that every instance of fictional adult vampires feeding on fictional children is definitely a very erotic experience for the vampire, and therefore carrying incestuous/pedophilic undertones, but it is definitely harm against fictional minors. Harm against minors and incestuous/pedophilic undertones all fall under dark fiction, however.
I’m not asking you to like dark fiction, Anon. There is some that I can’t stomach, either. I’m not saying people who like dark fiction are in any way superior to those who don’t. I’m advocating that some of us do want some dark fiction, and that consuming/creating dark fiction is not necessarily endorsement, whether you are a best-selling author, a fanfic writer, a filmmaker, a fanartist, a popular metal musician, or a cosplayer, or a consumer of the media made by any of these.
(1) The Rices have said that they will try to adapt the books as close to canon-compliance as possible. Whether that means including incestuous/pedophilic undertones and/or harm against fictional minors, the show will very likely have to follow it’s network’s Standards & Practices Dept.:
In the United States, Standards and Practices (also referred to as Broadcast Standards and Practices) is the name traditionally given to the department at a television network which is responsible for the moral, ethical, and legal implications of the program that network airs.[Wiki]
Further:
…the essential responsibilities of the editors [are]… assuring that the programming is acceptable to the bulk of the mass audience. This involves serving as guardians of taste with respect to language, sexual and other materials inappropriate for children,… [More about S&P from the Museum of Broadcast Communications.]
^These are the people who are paid to point out when dark fiction has crossed the line, and together with the showrunners, they decide whether something in a given episode should be revised or must be “taken out completely,” (which is censorship, defined as “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”).
When we talk about censorship, the easy way to deal with dark fiction would be to just “take it out completely.” After all, why do we even need dark fiction? Not everyone wants it. Hannibal is a good example of why those of us who are fascinated by psychology want dark fiction. I foundthis great essay by Warren Ellis. Here’s a quote from it:
“… Fiction is how we both study and de-fang our monsters. To lock violent fiction away, or to close our eyes to it, is to give our monsters and our fears undeserved power and richer hunting grounds.”
“Fiction, like any other form of art, is there to consider aspects of the real world in the ways that simple objective views can’t — from the inside. We cannot Other characters when we are seeing the world from the inside of their skulls. This is the great success of Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lecter, both in print and as so richly embodied by Mads Mikkelsen in the Hannibal television series:For every three scary, strange things we discover about him, there is one thing that we can relate to. The Other is revealed as a damaged or alienated human, and we learn something about the roots of violence and the traps of horror.”
(2) For movie!IWTV, I don’t know what the writing or editing process was like, but I would assume that there was a S&P Dept. of some kind (or at least similar considerations were taken into account) because there ARE instances of the vampires feeding on children that were changed from how they were presented in the book!!, there’s a few examples that come to mind, and in each instance, and I think it was revised to make it less incestuous/pedophilic. I have examples under the cut so you can avoid them if you need to.
(3) One example of the filmmakers choosing to remove something (almost) entirely from canon: Armand being a teenager around 15 or 16 years old in canon, and he was aged up to the very not-teenage Antonio Banderas, who was 34 yrs old at the time.
^There are still fans today who believe that that change drastically changed the story, and he’s still the butt of jokes about it. Personally, I would say that this change did not drastically change much in IWTV. I don’t think he was described as being that young in book!IWTV, and I don’t think his appearing to be a teenager would have, for example, had enormous impact on Louis’s feelings towards him at that time; that he felt like Armand could be the teacher/mentor Lestat couldn’t be. That’s just my unpopular opinion on that. I have more thoughts on
So yes, I think if some things like that were taken out completely that were not absolutely necessary to their given place in canon, not much would drastically change, but talk to anyone who really dislikes/disliked Antonio!Armand, and you’ll probably get a very different answer.
SO… where does that leave us?
(4) In Fiction, we can explore these things from a place of safety, we can always close the book, or change the channel, or walk out of a movie theatre, as Oprah did during a screening of movie!IWTV in 1994 (my highlights added):
^She walked out because of the gore, which is understandable, there’s alot of blood. That, and the “force of darkness,” which isn’t all that specific. When Tom says, “The movie is not for everyone,” it’s not to say that anyone is lesser for not being able to handle it. I think he was intrigued by the darker aspects, and I think it might be the first truly antagonist/villain role he had taken up until that point. He wanted to explore that.
I don’t believe in just cutting out all the dark fiction, each instance should be considered and handled with nuance. Revision is one option, and total removal might be the better choice in some instances.
I think that’s part of what made movie!IWTV so successful, the enormous amount of care and sensitive handling of dark and light fiction, what they chose to keep, remove, and alter.
(5) The other thing you asked was “Why do you think Anne Rice would go [that] route in particular?”
The question has been raised, many times, whether Anne Rice is, and has been, writing (essentially) propaganda for her own view regarding sexuality, especially as it applies to minors in sexual situations/relationships with adults. Whether Anne Rice endorses sex between minors and adults, it seems pretty clear that she does, as this has been an element of her writing in other series, as well. To my knowledge, she has committed no crimes against minors in real life, and therefore I do not hold her as a criminal of thoughtcrimes. That is definitely an unpopular opinion to other fans, and again, it is why I will not engage in an ultimately fruitless discussion about a crazy lady who writes the books she wants to read. Thoughtcrime is not crime.
Since you asked, I’ll answer why I think AR would pursue that line of thought, under the cut, in case it is upsetting.
I hope that answered your questions in the limited space of a blog post, Anon, and I hope you weren’t offended at any of my response, I tried to be as careful as possible and share my thoughts as respectfully as possible. If any harm was caused, it was not intentional on my part.
Hit the jump for things I said I’d put under a cut.
(2) Instances of the vampires feeding on children that were changed from how they were presented in the book!!:
Louis feeding on Denis (Armand’s mortal “pet”) under the Theatre. In the novel, Louis feels the boy getting a hard-on against his leg. In the movie, their only point of contact is the part of the boy’s hand Louis is biting. Seems to have taken some of the sexuality out of it, and I don’t think it drastically changed that moment.
Movie!Denis himself seemed to be a “peace pipe,” with all those other bites on his hand, and Louis has to feed on him in view of the theatre vampires, making it more about Louis’ discomfort about being watched while feeding which we know from canon he really does not like DUE TO THE INTIMACY of the experience. This, however, is not really clarified in the movie, and it seemed to me to be more about a trust exercise, that he was given this little sip and had to trust that they had not poisoned the blood he was taking. This change worked for me, because the fear of being poisoned was very real in light of how Claudia had poisoned Lestat so easily.
Claudia feeds on Denis in the book, I think she’s even curled up in bed with him. She doesn’t feed on him at all in the movie. I don’t think it drastically changed that moment.
When Lestat turns Claudia in the book, he has Louis drain Claudia a second time, implying that it’s to actually finish her off. This doesn’t happen in the movie, and I was kind of grateful, because it’s more upsetting in the book, when Lestat tears her away from Louis and starts turning her without any discussion about it with Louis first. I’d say that this was a change for the better.
When Claudia offers those boys as a peace offering to Lestat, in the book, he has his hands all in one of their shirts, and as the poison takes effect, his arms are tangled around the dead boy’s body, it’s kind of scarier, this dead body clinging to him and binding him. I would say that this worked for me either way. It’s already a tense and scary moment.
…
(5) “Why do you think Anne Rice would go [that] route in particular?”
From what I understand, she was interested in sex before she was the age of consent, and was frustrated that she was being prevented from pursuing sexual relationships. When she writes these scenes involving underage characters, I think she’s placing herself in the role of the minor, and in some cases, trying to empower that minor with some amount of agency (Amadeo axing Marius’ door down in TVA), but it’s up to each individual reader to interpret the story for themselves and decide for themselves whether that minor was capable of any agency at all or was under duress, or whatever else they might headcanon about that relationship.
Again, I do not think she has committed any actual crimes. Thoughtcrimes are not crimes.
I-want-my-IWTV 