nodominion:

// The number one thing that bothers me about Rose’s story in PL is that she both swallows and has acid thrown on her face and neck, including her eyes, and is somehow healed perfectly by the magic of Vampire blood. I realize it is a supernatural story, and that I am able to suspend my disbelief to believe that Vampires are real in the story and that they fly and all the other stuff. And their blood has been proven to heal wounds, though it has its limits. It cannot regrow limbs or organs lost before the transformation. 

So Rose, who is both blind and mute by the end of the ordeal, should not have been able to be healed with Blood. I feel like it’s AR’s way of making everything okay for her special Mary Sue Self Insert. After all, if her plan all along is to kill off two strong female characters by the end of the book, one whom happens to be blind, and the other mute, then of course the special snowflake won’t be disabled either. 

I firmly believe I’ve read Rose’s chapters more times than anyone by this point, all in the name of perfecting her nonexistent character. What happens is I find a trait mentioned in one sentence or one line and extrapolating out that to her whole life. Now, the same could be said of many side characters in VC. But I still feel like the end to Rose’s story could have been far more interesting than what we were given. 

#AGREES AGGRESSIVELY

Not specifically about the acid (bc I have not reread her sections i just can’t bring myself to revisit that entire book yet), but I think you’ve actually articulated here what I couldn’t, about why I still can’t find love in my heart for her, an entire year after the release of that book. It’s not just me being a cranky old Earlier Canon Was Better preacher! *sobs* Thank you, nodominion-mun. It took guts to actually put this out there.

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

goddessofidiocy:

im gonna liveblog interview with a vampire so get ready kids

brad pitt talking in monotone is the single weirdest and funniest thing i have ever seen

i think im developing a thing for 80s/90s christian slater

“how can i put you at ease?” idk maybe you shouldn’t have told him you’re a vampire 

six minutes in and there’s a montage with dramatic music and a deadpan monologue voice over provided by brad pitt i love this movie already

aaaaannnnnnnddd………….now they’re flying

they’re in mid air, tom cruise in a blond wig is drinking brad pitt’s blood, brad pitt made a sex noise when tom cruise detached himself from brad pitt’s neck, and then tom cruise dramatically dropped him into a river. i really do love this movie

as in all period dramas, there is a scene where a rich person in lacy nightclothes lies coughing and gravely ill in their massive bed in a huge mansion. even when the period dramas have vampires, there’s always this scene

question: how many times is tom cruise gonna attach himself to brad pitt’s neck in this film

also: how many more dramatic speeches is tom cruise gonna have, and how many more sex noises is brad pitt gonna make

this movie is so dramatic i can’t

do you mean to tell me that these two guys can just sit in a public tavern and casually drink someone’s blood in the corner until they die and no-one notices??

tom cruise: [offers him rat blood]

brad pitt: [makes an “is this bitch for real?” face]

brad pitt:

brad pitt:

brad pitt: [drinks it anyway]

tom cruise: read her thoughts

brad pitt: [makes an “is this bitch for real?” face]

brad pitt:

brad pitt:

brad pitt: [tries it anyway]

brad pitt: 

brad pitt: i can’t

the “NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” then the high pitched squeak/laugh i’m losing my shit

in other news, this immortal vampire is also a grape-throwing eight-year-old

HE’S DANCING WITH THE FUCKING CORPSE 

claudia: where’s mama??

lestat: [brief “oh shit what do i tell her without seeming like a homicidal maniac” moment]

lestat:

lestat:

lestat: she’s in heaven

they’re parents. its official. lestat and louis are an old married couple, complete with daughter. i can’t believe i don’t even have to make this up

“you’re mine and louis’ daughter now” gay vampire dads i cannot fucking believe this

claudia: eww dad when did u eat rats

louis: long time ago, before u were born 

louis, silently in his head: and it was bc of fucking lestat so don’t blame that shit on me

can’t believe claudia is having a teenage rage while louis is like OH NO BBY CALM DOWN and lestat is yelling NOT IN THE FUCKING HOUSE

the only thing not making this a scene from a domestic family comedy/drama is the dead body

there’s door-slamming and everything amazing

claudia: oh btw they’re dead ¯_(ツ)_/¯

lestat:

lestat:

claudia: ¯_(ツ)_/¯

lestat:

lestat: fuck

lestat: LOUIS

THIS WAS WORTH ALL THE DIGITAL INK IT WAS PRINTED WITH

“question: how many times is tom cruise gonna attach himself to brad pitt’s neck in this film”

Not enough times. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH TIMES.

what is the main difference(s) of gothic horror / tragedy etc. and horror? aka why is crimson peak gothic?

annabellioncourt:

I don’t know what post it was, but if its any help, horror is more of an element while gothic is a genre/mode/mood (scholars like to butt heads on it), horror would be a madman breaking into your house and slaughtering you–it scares you, its dark and grim, but it doesn’t effect you beyond the scare. 

A Gothic would have you anxious over the madman, questioning your belief in such a story, and possibly in God and superstition as a whole, while wearing something elegant in a gracefully lit room, with overtones of love running through that anxiety–the madman still shows up and there may still be a slaughter but there is a chase, there is hiding, there is terror instead of horror.

Compare Crimson Peak to Halloween, or Jane Eyre to any lifetime movie where a girl marries a person with a dark secret. Hammer Horror films were very good at treading the line between Gothic and Horror, as was the original Dracula novel. For another book comparison: Frankenstein is a Gothic, but IT is a horror.

Tragedy is common but not a necessity in the Gothic, it often comes as the price for including the terror. Crimson Peak ends in tragedy (and opens with it, as most Gothics do), but the terror and suspense and questions overpower the tragedy–if you haven’t seen it yet, I’ll tell this much: you leave it excited rather than depressed, there are a handful of questions like melting snow in your hand that drip away between your fingers before you can fully form them, ethereal and haunting visuals wash away the last of the nightmare, and then the credits roll–this is the Gothic, as opposed to pure tragedy where we see Horatio speaking of Hamlet’s nobility as he stands over the corpses of the last of his friends.

Gallery

lettersfromjericho:

takemetocoffin-or-losemeforever:

annabellioncourt:

i-want-my-iwtv:

annabellioncourt:

takemetocoffin-or-losemeforever:

GTA Vice City : San Francisco Edition – A slight recut of the final scene

YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, HOW THE HELL DOES LESTAT KNOW HOW TO DRIVE??? DID HE HAVE TO GO TO DRIVERS’ ED? DID HE MAKE LOUIS TEACH HIM? HOW DID LOUIS LEARN? CAN ANY OF THEM DRIVE? DAVID, GABRIELLE AND LESTAT ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT DO IN THE BOOK, OH MY GOSH I NEED TO KNOW.

Well somewhere in the series – I think TVL? – Lestat says that vampiring makes learning things much faster, he learned to read and write just by watching the transcriber do it for him long enough. Same with technology and modern inventions.

In movie!IWTV, he was watching Daniel from the backseat for at least a mile or two before they got on the bridge.

That makes more sense, but its a lot less entertaining than thinking about them wrecking their way through the cities trying to drive.

Yep, I made this
gif set thinking “oh, it would be fun if Lestat drove and reacted like a GTA’s
player”. I’m very surprised, and most of all delighted, that it’s
generating so many constructive
reactions. You’re amazing, people of the vc fandom, and it’s always a pleasure to read you!

Remember how I said that Lestat and Claudia’s final conversation was my 2nd favorite scene from the movie. Well everyone, this is it. My favorite scene from the Interview with the Vampire movie and there are so many reasons why. Some of them are mentioned above like: how the hell does Lestat even know how to drive??? but what really gets me is that Lestat was like camping out in this guys car the whole damn movie. He was just sitting there as Louis dictated his life to Daniel and restrained himself from jumping into the room and saying ‘EXCUSE ME THAT IS NOT HOW IT HAPPENED LOUIS.’ and then proceeding to tell the nice man the REAL story. Seriously what is going through Lestat’s head this entire scene? I don’t know but I need someone to write something on it. Frankly this is one of the most ridiculous and funny scenes in the movie but for all its OOC-ness I can’t say with a clear conscious that it wasn’t immensely amusing to watch.

^Yes, #fanfic request or #fanart request. I bolded what we need. Someone plz feel free to #DO THE THING.

What was the most romantic thing you ever said to Louis?

gorgeous-fiend-blog:

“I’m getting into the coffin and you will lie down on top of me if you know  what’s good for you.” Now, I’m quoting directly from Louis’ insipid novel in which he provides the barest skeleton of how this scene actually played out. It was really quite romantic on my part, while he on the other hand  was being a prissy baby.

Do you think vampires are better than humans?

thelionscrimsonclaws:

I think that we are designed to be supreme predators, our instincts finely tuned, our bodies and minds honed to withstand time…with some caveats below.  I think that we are often silent witnesses to the passage of time….how history repeats itself.  If we’re looking at it from a physical standpoint, then yes…I think we’re superior.

Now on a mental, spiritual level, I need to elaborate.

Sometimes, I do think we’re better than humans.  Aside from our occasional squabbles and naturally solitary nature, we live in relative harmony with each other…whereas human beings are slaughtering each other in the streets if they don’t like their ideas, lifestyles or perhaps even how they look. The more civilized and advanced humans become, there is an equally savage and primitive reaction. There is an acute misery in the human condition.  How that precious time, that finite lifespan, is often squandered, utterly wasted. They spend so much of their time worrying about petty issues, things that affect themselves right now and then burying their heads in the sand over global issues..things that can affect the long term, future generations.

Yet vampires have their drawbacks.  We are often trapped within the confines of our time and have difficulty transitioning out of being echoes of our own pasts.  We become the moral dictators, making our own judgments on who lives and who dies.  We can be contradictory creatures….say one thing, do another.  That solitary nature that I referred to earlier, makes us incredibly lonely…but enduring the company of another for centuries is often difficult because of our core, contrary state of being.  We have a constant need for new blood and use our fledglings as crutches, to guide us through life because we are so easily lost and stray from the traditional paths.  Because time moves differently for us, we can become completely absorbed in a single moment, a solitary object….glance up and months have passed. We can retain vast amounts of information but we are without practical application….sometimes what we carry with us, makes us lose our minds.  We become walking revenants or spectres.  There is also a cognitive dissonance for us and often, our beliefs and attitudes are quickly outdated, antiquated. For humans, it’s adapt or die.  For vampires, we needn’t really adapt for us to survive…but it makes it hellishly difficult for us to live among our prey if we don’t keep up appearances at least.

In humans, I admire their ingenuity, their creative spark, the ability to adapt to each new situation and their tenacity for life….to persevere despite enormous challenges that threaten their very existences.

So in short, the answer is that each has it’s benefits and drawbacks.  I can’t rightly say that one is superior to the other….I often believe that we are the dark mirror, reflecting the shadows of humans.  We’re symbolic….hunger and primal lust disguised as gentiles in our fashion and finery.  Our immortality and physical attributes are what all humans strive for….to live longer, to become stronger, to obtain and retain more information, to become more while we long for just a little more humanity….to feel as they do, to love, to create and move through this world with a bit of wonder at it’s fragile beauty.

cloudsinvenice:

violet-bayou:

OMG

My boyfriend just looked at this and went, “That’s Claudia… and Lurch standing behind… and Ed Milliband sitting.“ 

Yeah, I think something went wrong with this cover… kind of interesting, though, that the blurb was so up-front about the erotic quality of Claudia’s attraction for Louis. 

What do you think about snow?

thelionscrimsonclaws:

I’ve always had a fondness for snow….except when encased in the fragile skin of a mortal.  The cold and wet has always made me miserable.  I remember struggling through it as a mortal when the wolves were bearing down on me. I remember how insidiously it would creep in around the windows at the castle or into the corridors, where it would settle in drifts and make us all huddle closer to our hearths.  I remember those same drifts, filling up the kitchen in Jamestown.  Laying in them as my lungs stung with each coughing fit.  Thinking that I was going to die there.

But I also remember how sunlight looked on snow….how every crystal refracted the light and set the ground on fire!  And how blue the hills looked on full moon nights.  How every surface was carved in ice and glittering immediately after a storm…..the way the Earth slept beneath her downy blanket, a beauty waiting for Apollo’s kiss.

Winter is always there.  When you are high enough in the atmosphere, that is where water turns to ice crystals and the air is thin.  It simply waits for when it can return to embrace the ground again.

Did you know that the Romans used lead in their food? Also in cups, bowls, and for various other things. Not only was it highly poisonous but it caused hallucinations and (tehe) sexual arousal. Perhaps Marius could go into more detail?

mariusmymaster:

devilsfool:

While I appreciate your historical attention to detail, I’m afraid this doesn’t really apply to me, my dear. 

What a strange question to ask our dear Lestat. My great city existed well before even his ancestors were conceived, and thus I doubt he would be a very knowledgeable fount on this subject. 

The people of Rome knew that lead must be dangerous, as we were not blind to the ailments that seemed to follow those who worked in casting lead. They breathed in the caustic fumes and were left pallid and sickly, and from this we gathered that lead must be rather unwholesome. 

Although lead was widely accepted as a dangerous metal, many still believed it to be necessary in some aspects. It was used to line aqueducts and fashioned into pipes–nevermind that clay pipes were entirely more sought after, even by those such as myself who were rich enough to afford otherwise. Medicines and cosmetics as well were made of great quantities of lead, despite the wide belief that it should not be ingested directly if at all possible. Some greats such as Pliny and Columella argued that in leaden vessels was the only way to prepare Defrutum, a sweet syrup used to make products such as wine more desirable. 

Many attest that a rise in lead poisoning stemming from the Roman’s love for wine was perhaps a cause of the empire’s decline, though there is little evidence to support this. It is true that lead poisoning would have greatly impacted the sperm count of adult males, or the ability to carry a child in females, and even would have been fatal to the children themselves–as wine was the predominant drink for all citizens, regardless of age–but this means very little when you realize the people of Rome had no interest in rearing children, or even marriage. In fact, it came to a point where the people were so focused on a childless state, that Agustus himself attempted to intervene, much to no avail. 

As for the sexual arousal, I can only speak from personal experience. My sex drive was what I assume to be average for a man my age. I sought a wife early on, I sought to make love, and I sought to be loved. I never happened upon any urges that were out of the ordinary, or struggled with a drive for physical contact more mighty than I could handle–though, some of those who read Armand’s poor account of Venice may greatly disagree. Of course, by then my need for mortal sexual intercourse had long been dead, and I base my words solely on the desire for something greater: the sharing of immortal blood. 

*mic drop*

on censorship and sensitivity

akairiot:

There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity.  It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away.  If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it.  And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it.  This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common.  So, why do I think it’s a problem?

FICTION

An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction?  Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies?  To only see happy things?  As escapism?  That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols.  It’s a means of expression.  What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new.  

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely.  Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others.  Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing.  It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you.  Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile.  Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped.  Thought is not crime.

CENSORSHIP

Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them.  But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive.  

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable.  What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis.  Sad songs can be beautiful.  Horror stories can be fun.  When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s.  I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me?  Why does it scare me?  Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant.  When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later.  Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims.  No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material.  Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified.  When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that.  Can’t be helped.”  Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.

SENSITIVITY

To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”.  Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real.  I would never belittle someone else’s pain.  But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world.  Not all content is made with you in mind.  It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy.  The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms.  It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime.  Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it.  

THE ANSWER

What I would love to see is a perspective shift.  I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host.  If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work.  I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it.  No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves.  Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly.  Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others.  Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself).  Understand that not all content is meant for you.  Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm.  That’s all I’m asking.

(please don’t let this become a shitstorm… TT _ TT)