fursasaida:

joehillsthrills:

This is one of the best things I read all week.

Digital card created by Voodoo Darling.

YES. Also: ”The function of fiction is being lost in the conversation on violence. My book editor, Sean McDonald, thinks of it as “radical empathy.” 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.”

RADICAL EMPATHY, WHAT A GOOD

therainingkiwi:

acertainmaybe:

a-dreaming-equestrian:

no more ‘vampires who correct history books’

more vampires who don’t remember
more vampires saying ‘i don’t fucking know man, google it’
more vampires not remembering important historical figures
more vampires not recalling centuries worth of history
more vampires saying ‘ that was at least 300 years ago, how the FUCK could i remember that detail?’
more vampires whose brains work like human brains

More vampires who 300 years later can’t remember what was the truth and what was the lie they told to get out of trouble.

More vampires who are like, “I don’t know, man, I spent most of that decade in an opium den.”

More vampires who weren’t paying attention because they didn’t think it would be important.

More vampires who don’t know because there was lot of conflicting gossip and they don’t want to point any fingers.

More vampires who are just bad at dates. “Back in 1620, or was it 1645, wait, what year is it now?”

More vampires who were on a totally different continent when it happened, so get off their back and stop asking them questions already.

YES to all of this but also consider: vampires who only remember the most trivial stuff.

“Oh yeah, the only thing I remember about the American Revolution was this nice candlemaker I met sometime, and she was wearing this really cute red shawl…”

“Uhhh I don’t remember much about the fall of Rome but there was this one fucking cobblestone right outside the coliseum…”

(different anon) I read all your posts about Anne Rice’s really strange views on her own characters (Gabrielle being a bad mother like bitch where!?) and I just decided to settle for not caring about AR’s opinions. She is just a human being, and I think me and her see the characters pretty differently, which shouldn’t prevent me from loving them on and on :D

#^THIS #AGREES AGGRESSIVELY

image

I, PERSONALLY, don’t need AR’s validation of my opinion on canon. We all have our own headcanon. We can all love the characters in our own way. A good story (or piece of music or art, or whatever) DOES make you “read between the lines,” it DOES make you curious. It leaves things open enough for you to fill in the blanks. It doesn’t need to explicitly state everything for you, and the author has no obligation to do so, either. This has been true ever since the very first story was ever told, the first artwork ever made.

Most of all, I’m forever grateful for the gift she has given us. I don’t have to agree with her to still feel that gratitude.

If you don’t like a character’s trajectory in canon, that’s what fanworks are for 😉 Just try to be respectful of each other, abide by the Fandom Laws and we can all enjoy it all together, which is what we all want, right?

The Three Laws of Fandom

darthstitch:

notreadytosettle:

ozhawkauthor:

If you wish to take part in any fandom, you need to accept and respect these three laws.

If you aren’t able to do that, then you need to realise that your actions are making fandom unsafe for creators. That you are stifling creativity.

Like vaccination, fandom only works if everyone respects these rules. Creators need to be free to make their fanart, fanfics and all other content without fear of being harassed or concern-trolled for their creative choices, no matter whether you happen to like that content or not.

The First Law of Fandom

Don’t Like; Don’t Read (DL;DR)

It is up to you what you see online. It is not anyone else’s place to tell you what you should or should not consume in terms of content; it is not up to anyone else to police the internet so that you do not see things you do not like. At the same time, it is not up to YOU to police fandom to protect yourself or anyone else, real or hypothetical.

There are tools out there to help protect you if you have triggers or squicks. Learn to use them, and to take care of your own mental health. If you are consuming fan-made content and you find that you are disliking it – STOP.

The Second Law of Fandom

Your Kink Is Not My Kink (YKINMK)

Simply put, this means that everyone likes different things. It’s not up to you to determine what creators are allowed to create. It’s not up to you to police fandom

If you don’t like something, you can post meta about it or create contrarian content yourself, seek to convert other fans to your way of thinking.  

But you have no right to say to any creator “I do not like this, therefore you should not create it. Nobody should like this. It should not exist.”

It’s not up to you to decide what other people are allowed to like or not like, to create or not to create. That’s censorship. Don’t do it.

The Third Law of Fandom

Ship And Let Ship (SALS)

Much (though not all) fandom is about shipping. There are as many possible ships as there are fans, maybe more. You may have an OTP (One True Pairing), you may have a NOTP, that pairing that makes you want to barf at the very thought of its existence.

It’s not up to you to police ships or to determine what other people are allowed to ship. Just because you find that one particular ship problematic or disgusting, does not mean that other people are not allowed to explore its possibilities in their fanworks.

You are free to create contrarian content, to write meta about why a particular ship is repulsive, to discuss it endlessly on your private blog with like-minded persons.

It is not appropriate to harass creators about their ships, it is not appropriate to demand they do not create any more fanworks about those ships, or that they create fanwork only in a manner that you deem appropriate.

These three laws add up to the following:

You are not paying for fanworks content, and you have no rights to it other than to choose to consume it, or not consume it. If you do choose to consume it, do not then attack the creator if it wasn’t to your taste. That’s the height of bad manners.

Be courteous in fandom. It makes the whole experience better for all of us.

Yup.

Slaps onto blog.

THIS

merciful-death:

devilsfool:

thelionscrimsonclaws:

i-see-light:

Can we talk about… how Louis repeatedly has visual/auditory/tactile hallucinations, episodes of dissociation and depersonalization, and panic and anxiety attacks all throughout IWTV but these things are never really touched upon again in the series… like these are all possible symptoms of very severe depression, which I guess Rice alludes to Louis having throughout the series, but like honestly Louis was barely functional in IWTV and that’s never really been demonstrated again… in the later books Louis is always described as being calm, quiet, morally exceptional, conveniently kind, and romantically “sad.” I’ve always felt like the others’ perception of Louis was completely different from Louis’s perception of himself in his own account, and I wonder what ever happened to that intensity in his character in IWTV. I think if it’s touched upon later at all, it’s in Merrick? A little? Still though, it feels like Louis was conveniently stabilized and made static in the narrative in order to make him an easier character to sideline lmao

Very much so…..

//Frankly, this is an astute observation. And I think a lot of the changes in Louis’ character came, frankly, from his author no longer wishing to associate with him. Anne made it quite clear that she hated Louis’ voice and never wished to write in it again–and it took her almost forty years (39, to be exact) for her to be able to write in it again (I’m referring to the Epilogue in Prince Lestat). 

ooc; I agree with @devilsfool re: Anne.  I believe she was actually quoted at one point after writing Merrick saying that she didn’t want to ever write in Louis’ voice again???  Or something like that.  She definitely expressed not caring all that much for his character.

But I can agree with what you’re saying too, because ultimately, IwtV was the only first-person narrative from Louis until the last chapter of PL.  I’ve always felt Louis to be this intense perfectionist that can’t tolerate his own downfalls, and I definitely agree that he shows numerous symptoms of depression.  He’s his biggest critic, and I think that shows a lot in IwtV.

I feel like IwtV would have seemed a lot different if told from Lestat’s perspective?  Because while Lestat may get really, really angry with Louis sometimes, his descriptions of Louis are the most glorified in the books.  He’ll talk about Louis moping around, but he paints a general picture of Louis being a very strong person that is dedicated to his convictions.  Louis is literally his emotional rock, and really, I don’t believe Lestat would actually ever openly write of any breakdowns Louis may or may not have had.  And I feel like if Louis was to have a bad bout of depression, Lestat would be the one to know, above anyone else.

Then you have Khayman’s description of Louis, where he flat out says that Louis can’t exist without Lestat.  And Armand’s bit about Louis in TVA paint him as very melancholy, imo.

I also look at where Louis was when he gave the interview.  He’s a very careful, private person, and he had his reasons for giving the interview in the first place (which can be debated in itself; I’ve always thought it was a cry out for Lestat and/or suicidal recklessness).  He’d been alone for years and felt he’d nothing left.  He was infuriated that Daniel didn’t see his story as despairingly as he himself viewed it to be.  Louis felt down on everything at that point, and I don’t know that he’d really be that open with his experiences and feelings on any other night?

Idk, I’ve always felt that for as emotional as Louis seems to be, he still sucks majorly at actually dealing with his own emotions.  Which is how I reason his major breakdown(s) in Merrick.

/writing this at 1am and hopes it makes sense lol

#YES #THIS #this post cannot be improved upon

Gonna add 2 things anyway.

1 – AR wrote IWTV after the loss of her daughter. Louis was pretty much AR herself, dealing with that grief, questioning a God as to why he had to punish her so much. What did Louis do to deserve a life-in-death living hell? What did Claudia do to deserve eternal imprisonment in that little body? What did AR’s daughter do to deserve dying so painfully at such an early age?

In the end, Louis (and the readers) draws his own answers and has to come to some kind of peace in order to move on. Lestat has his Savage Garden, in which peace lies in the fact that there is no explanation, bad things just happen to good people. The most we can do is try to do Good and help eachother survive the slings and arrows, try not to be the slinger of arrows, and if we are, to do it for the sake of Good. We’re all imperfect.

2 – Louis’ voice is pretty damn hard to write, when done well. My guess is that AR didn’t see a need to revisit his POV, especially with the intensity of focus it required. @annabellioncourt​ had some excellent points on this awhile back:

“Louis is more along the lines of the Oscar Wilde’s era of the very late 19th century, which is what most people think of today when they think “Victorian writing.” Similar in voice (though not subject) would also be Matthew Arnold (read some of his essays, and tell me that’s not how Louis talks), Wilkie Collins, and Henry James.

”…Louis is not so much involved in human goings on, he’s aware of events and films, but still speaks in the language of the century where he spent the most time communicating with others–also he would not have lost his speech patterns over those decades with Armand because Armand was mostly isolated in his language circles. So we can look at all of that as to why Louis talks the way he does.“

“Louis does show a HEAVY influence from the French symbolist poets (the school that Charles Baudelaire was from).”

And of course Louis would express himself in the language of the writers he enjoyed. OF COURSE HE WOULD. We all know he’s basically a big ol’ bookworm w/ fangs.

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)

Also (about adulting):

gothiccharmschool:

You will occasionally make bad decisions! Sometimes you will make ASTONISHINGLY bad decisions! This happens, and pretending it doesn’t can lead to even worse consequences in the future. The important thing is to recognize when you’ve made a bad decision, do what you can to cope with your part of the aftermath, AND PAY ATTENTION SO YOU DON’T DO IT AGAIN.