wellll its better if we dont bring nicolas back. im just sad because i immediately loved his character and. oopsie he was there just to be burned i will never forgive that lmao

*nods* The fandom takes care of him very well ❤

image

[^X Lestat de Valois and Nicolas de Lenfent by @kumiho5]

I think some ppl love Nicolas specifically bc, while he is mentioned, he doesn’t exist in later canon, he’s not as thoroughly explored, there’s more room for the reader to have our own interpretation of him.

As a side note: I really didn’t realize there was so much love for Nicolas until I got on tumblr! I think he represents this generation’s disillusionment with society at large better than Lestat does, Nicolas’ rebellion is a modern-era grunge rebellion, bc he HAS TALENT, and is angry with the way it’s recognized, angry with so much about the way the world runs on autopilot, angry with societal ideals of success. He probably does have some mental issues, too, and I think this generation is more comfortable “coming out” with BPD, or manic-depression, etc. than in 18th century France or at the time TVL was written… with some counseling and/or medication, he might have had a better life. 

@mendedpixie7 put it very well when they wrote about Adam from Only Lovers Left Alive; the similarity to Nicolas seems striking:

The reason I love Only Lovers Left Alive is it shows that a character (Adam) can be severely mentally ill, in this case depressed and suicidal, and still be seen as lovable and capable of being loved and loving in return without being “cured” of their mental illness, and that a mentally ill character can have other attributes aside from being mentally ill while still showing the impact being mentally ill has on his personality.

Adam from OLLA is an extremely important character to me you guys.

weresehlat:

grouch314:

hot4triangle:

sssn-neptune-vasilias:

points-at-my-hand:

Ever wonder how big wolves are and why running from them is a really bad idea?

This had me so fucked up the first time I worked at the zoo. Because honestly they just look like big German-Huskies when they’re not wild. They look like big puppies. And then… they get close to you… And it’s suddenly kinda fucking terrifying. Like “oh this is the animal that used to scare people shitless.” “This is the animal that used to run through nightmares and poems so much.” And you suddenly fucking get it. As cool as these animals are far away, as important as the animals are in their natural environment, as much as we need them to survive… they’re still pretty fucking terrifying 

can you believe these things became our friends

And then people domesticated them and now sleep with them in their beds.

We’re not a species meant to last

I’d actually argue the opposite!

We took these super efficient killing machines and befriended them and now they love and protect us as much as we (ideally) love and protect them

Cats basically domesticated themselves so that they could share in our food, medical care, and affection

In urban spaces, prey species know that there’s a higher likelihood that humans will help you if you’re stuck or injured than them killing or maiming you

It’s just, over time we see trends of our species overcoming environmental pressures that would and do lead to extinction in other species by sharing and forming close bonds with other sentient organisms and just kinda… aggressively community-bonding our way out of it?

For a long time there’s been this pervading idea that we, as a species, are just innately violent and terrible and “sinful” and it’s been that violence that let us survive (see the hunting hypothesis of human evolution). But that’s not what we see

We are, at our core, a species that looks into the face of something other, and thinks “I wonder if they want to be friends?” so long as the individual isn’t actively trying to kill us. Sure, tons of people do awful things every day, but for every terrible act or thought on this Earth, there are a dozen acts of kindness that people do casually for complete strangers

So yeah. We looked at these massive fluffy monsters with the sharp claws and crushing jaws rooting in our garbage just beyond the campfire and thought, the way no other species before or after us has done to the same extent; “They look friend-shaped!”

And they were. And that is how we got to be the dominant species on this planet

Sorry for the spam, but I’ve been binging your archive a bit and I’m wondering, just out of curiosity, how would you go about constructing at least somewhat science-y vampires?

biologyweeps:

That depends of course on what sort of vampire we’re aiming for. Infectious vampirism would require an infectious agents of course and there I would tend more towards viruses because they do muck around with DNA and protein construction so for physical changes that’d be neat.

At the same time, parasitic infectious a la The Strain are also really tempting, especially because it drifts over into ‘behavioural changes caused by parasites’ which is just hella cool, though I figure that those vampires would be sitting halfway between what we tend to think of as vampires and Umbrella Corp zombies. 

If we’re going with non-infectious vampirism, the field of genetics is wiiiiide open, though personally I’m not a huge fan of the whole ‘super predator’ thing because again, evolution the straight C student. You wouldn’t get twilight-style ‘super attractive/fast/strong’ because frankly one of those would be perfectly sufficient and as we all know, the concept of evolution is to get a ‘good enough’ and that’s it. Look at cheetahs. They’re incredibly speedy, but like sighthounds they’re not terribly strong. They don’t need to be. If you can run your intended prey down and strangle-bite the exhausted gazelle, there’s no need for you to be able to rip it into two parts as well. 

So like, you’re vampires are fabulously hot, chances are it’s a prey lure tactic and they’re not very fast. If you make them poisonous they might not even be very strong. On the other hands, if they’re ugly as sin you’re most likely looking at something that’s doesn’t need to make humans come close it so it probably *is* really speedy and/or strong enough to kill you before you can get away.

So uh yeah basically first you gotta settle on what sort of vampirism you want and then you gotta consider how you’d arrive at that particular kind through evolutionary sensible means (meaning with the last amount of effort). Thankfully nature provides for a lot of inspiration already if you want to wrangle out specific details. 

dontpokethevalkyrie:

daysofgrass:

prokopetz:

I think my biggest “huh” moment with respect to gender roles is when it was pointed out to me that your typical “geek” is just as hypermasculine as your typical “jock” when you look at it from the right angle.

As male geeks, a great deal of our identity is built on the notion that male geeks are, in some sense, gender-nonconformant, insofar as we’re unwilling or unable to live up to certain physical ideals about what a man “should” be. Indeed, many of us take pride in how putatively unmanly we are.

Viewed from an historical perspective, however, the virtues of the ideal geek are essentially those of the ideal aristocrat: a cultured polymath with expertise in a vast array of subjects; rarefied or eccentric taste in food, clothing, music, etc.; identity politics that revolve around one’s hobbies or pastimes; open disdain for physical labour and those who perform it; a sense of natural entitlement to positions of authority (“you should be flipping my burgers!”); and so forth.

And the thing about that aristocratic ideal? It’s intensely masculine. It may seem more welcoming to women on the surface, but – as recent events will readily illustrate – this is a facade: we pretend to be egalitarian because it suits our refined self-image, but that affectation falls away in a heartbeat when challenged.

Basically, the whole “geeks versus jocks” thing that gets drilled into us by media and the educational system isn’t about degrees of masculinity at all. It’s just two different flavours of the same toxic bullshit: the ideal geek is the alpha-male-as-philosopher-king, as opposed to the ideal jock’s alpha-male-as-warrior-king. It’s still a big dick-measuring contest – we’re just using different rulers.

It’s just two different flavours of the same toxic bullshit: the ideal
geek is the alpha-male-as-philosopher-king, as opposed to the ideal
jock’s alpha-male-as-warrior-king.

oh my god

That’s rather illuminating.

I feel that Queen of The Damned would have been so much better if they replaced the actress for Akasha and re-filmed her scenes/finished filming given that Aaliyah died (may her soul rest in peace)

wicked-felina:

i-want-my-iwtv:

Aaliyah was one of the only at least halfway decent things about that movie! 

image

[http://i-want-my-iwtv.tumblr.com/post/144355352629/anneboleyns-favorite-fictional-ladies-akasha]

(Can’t do fancy formatting on mobile *grrrr*)

I bet they’d used too much of the budget to re-film her scenes, but really, she was one of the only things they got right (well, maybe not “right” but close enough). I really like that she was a vampire of color who kept her color, despite being described as white (not Caucasian but light-skinned) in canon. I don’t know if ancient Egyptians were in fact light or dark skinned but in a series of alot of white ppl, it was good to see some diversity.

Crew morale was probably very low after she died, they might not have wanted to even try to replace her 😦

Okay, so firstly: I loved Aaliyah as Akasha. Sure, she wasn’t canon!Akasha, but practically none of the characters were themselves in this weird and loose adaptation. I wish she had completed filming fully and would have loved her backstory to be shown.

That said, I really, really want the next adaptation to do Akasha properly. She shouldn’t be black, but she sure as hell shouldn’t be white.

Akasha was from Uruk, which is roughly modern-day Iraq. Just imagine her role going to an Iraqi actress, and the implications of the most powerful vampire, the first vampire, the queen, being from a region whose people are treated like crap to this day and who face terrible persecution.

I imagine her to be like Sophia Jawad; the striking dark eyes Lestat mentions, the prettiness which underplays her regalness, etc. I would love to see Akasha brought to life as the infuriatingly brilliant debater cursed by her prettiness and her short temper.

So I’ve finally read Interview with the Vampire (for the very first time) and I can’t decide whether Louis’ narration sounds deep and meaningful or like the stuff I wrote when I was 13. Also, I knew from internet jokes that Lestat is a little shit but god, I HAD NO IDEA. Sorry for spamming u like that, I just had to talk to someone about this book and you are the first person I think of when it comes to Anne Rice

annabellioncourt:

I’m so glad that you thought of me when you read it! There are far worse things to be associated with omg. And yes: I still wonder if Louis is genuinely deep and depressed, and the pretentious tone comes from honest misery–or if he’s putting on some kind of Byronic mask, unable to actually feel for others any more than the average vampire does, and that this flowery writing is his attempt to reconcile with him self “Yes I CAN feel, I do still maintain that aspect of my humanity.”

And Lestat comes across as the villain because Louis wants him to, when you read the section of The Vampire Lestat that focuses on his time with Louis, you start to wonder how much Louis exaggerated to make himself feel like the long wandering philosopher, and that Lestat was little more than a rich European fleeing his troubles. Lestat, despite being just as melancholic and miserable is affected by things much differently, and unlike Louis, who at the end tries to stay detached from the world, Lestat compensates for his pain by falling in love with everything he sees in the world, throwing himself to the mercy of it in a half-death wish and half-euphoric madness.

They’re both such fascinating characters for the way that they handle pain and their own evilness (there’s a running debate under the surface with all of the vampires “are we inherently wicked becuase of what we are, or are we merely something enhanced, no more wicked than before, but everything we do seems louder?”). The cast of the novels are all so flawed but so heartfelt (often despite themselves).

As far as anti-heroes go, these two drama queens are up on my favorites list with the Phantom and Rochester, (though while Rochester’s failing was merely hiding and running away from his issues, pretending that they weren’t there, I’d say he’s lower on the ‘Byronic anti-hero’ level and more simply a Percy Shelley).

Finally, don’t apologize, I love talking about these books so much. Or at least the first three. I’m ride or die with Anne Rice at this point, but I try to take everything after Queen of the Damned with a grain of salt….or a few cups of salt. A lot of salt….

#Eloquent eloquence #Annabellioncourt #on point as always

They’re both such fascinating characters for the way that they handle pain and their own evilness… The cast of the novels are all so flawed but so heartfelt (often despite themselves).

^For me, this is what elevates VC from many other vampire/supernatural/any other series. If I liked them as vampires there’s plenty of other vampire media out there to get into, but these characters are who they are first, and vampires secondarily.

I would add that ppl are allowed to have those kinds of feelings when they’re 13, it’s around that time that we’re grasping the harsh reality of the real world. Disappointments about one’s expectations not meeting reality… it’s a trying time. 

Whether growing pains are as valid as Louis’ issues (the whole “killing people is wrong but feels right now” is a big one), that’s up to individual reader’s judgment, but I think @annabellioncourt put it very well, that Louis is trying to maintain some dignity with the way he tells his story, which may come across as pretentious by our modern standards. The other thing to remember is that that book was written in the 70′s, and the writing style may seem dated for that reason, as well.

Remember that Louis reads A LOT, and he likes this older literature, so some of the language of the writers he loves seeps into his own language and the way he frames his memories. I think that’s partly why we see/hear so little of Louis in later canon, capturing his voice is a challenge.

Gallery

radiatorfromspace:

emmagrant01:

vintagegal:

Interview with the Vampire (1994) dir. Neil Jordan

I remember seeing this movie in the theater and thinking “They should kiss. Why aren’t they kissing? OMG KISS. WAIT NO KISS FOR SERIOUS WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???” I hadn’t read the books at that point, but I remember being baffled by that. Ahhh I have learned so much about the media since.

@i-want-my-iwtv

redversaillesrose:

I was rewatching QotD the other day because I hate myself and like, check this out.

Like, these are two of the vampires in the vampire bar. But, like, ignore the shitty quality and look at them. 

Like, a red-haired teen with a guy in his mid-20s with long black hair. Both rather pretty.

And we all know that a lot of fans acted like extras in the “movie”. Isn’t it cool how two of them just went as Louis and Armand? 

ACCEPTED. That’s Louis and Armand.