Tag Archives: tldr i know

I have another suggestion for a possible VC casting, which would be Rami Malek as Enkil. I think he has the right face for it, and he already played the role of an Egyptian ruler in Night At The Museum. (And he was a vampire in the movie Breaking Dawn, but let’s forget those catastrophic Twilight movies.)

Leave a comment

One of my fave topics is VC casting 😀 and Enkil doesn’t get enough love. So naturally I wrote an unnecessarily long-ass answer.

image

(^Rami Malek from NatM bc I couldn’t look at pics of him from Twilight, that vampire makeup was just too weird for me and that’s saying a lot bc I love the gross vampire makeup from 30 Days of Night.)

Rami is ethnically perfect and very cute and Enkil was supposedly pretty young when he started his rule:“But he was young and strong and determined to rule his land.” Maharet talking about Enkil, QOTD

And he looks like someone a giant bitch in a tiny package Strong Woman like Akasha could push around without much resistance. I vaguely remember liking Rami in NatM, all those characters were somewhat cartoonish and I always enjoy that. I’ve only seen bits of the Twilight movies but not enough to poison myself, and not enough to remember him from them 😛

But if you really want MY opinion, he’s not my first choice for Enkil.

We first really meet Enkil in TVL when Lestat meets him for a cordial discussion Enkil nearly crushes Lestat’s skull in defense of his Queenie. Even before that moment, Lestat is freaking the hell out over TWMBK. Not many characters are capable of scaring the (figurative) shit out of Lestat, and Enkil is one of them. So he needs to be able to look intimidating before he can speak or even move. Granted, some of Lestat’s flipping-out was more about the fact that they might be paralyzed inside their bodies (if you haven’t seen @remarried’s fanart of that moment you really must), but still. The near skull-crushing certainly gave him someone to be scared of in Enkil. Normally I defend all actor’s abilities over their physical characteristics, but in this case, he starts out as a statue, and needs to look intimidating without the help of fancy moves and lines.

So I imagine him looking more masculine, a hint of grimness (he orders some pretty cruel stuff if you remember!) and some mystery in his face, and I happened to see Ranveer Singh on my dash just today… and yes. Yes yes. Yisss.

image

Difficulty: Finding pics of Ranveer NOT smiling. I don’t know his acting, whether he does Serious at all, but physically, Ranveer matches my headcanon better than Rami. Rami might be a good Khayman, though.

I’m also not of the Social Justice Warrior contingency that demands ethnic conformance of the actor to the character. I am not politically correct *shrugs*

And Enkil does love Akasha, and I would want some snuggles like this:

image
image

I am confused… so people who follow Anne on facebook do so slavishly? Maybe we just follow her because we like certain things that she posts? I don’t mean to sound whiny, but lumping all her fb followers together hurts. If that’s not what you meant and you were only referring to the people who /do/ follow her obsessively, then I apologize. I just can’t tell from your words in that post, so here I am.

Leave a comment

TL;DR

I struggled with this answer, because, while it would be diplomatic to simply apologize, I won’t apologize that it was hurtful, because, as you’ll learn in this post, that group of “more obsessive” people have been and are much crueler to their victims than I was with that one word about them. 

~Here is a picture of Our Lady of VC for the more obsessive fans to frame and worship~

image

Side note, before we go any further: Anon, why do you care who I lump anyone in with? I could say everyone who follows X is “a gullible baby,” and everyone who follows Y is “a perfect cinnamon roll, too good for this world,” but that doesn’t make either true. Obviously, if you don’t think you follow AR “slavishly,” then you don’t! Take a breath, this is tumblrland, this blog is for VC fandom love and fanworks (and fandom etiquette and education sometimes), it’s meant to be an outlet, an escape from reality, so don’t take things personally.

This is actually a great opportunity to educate you, Anon, and anyone else who might not be aware of the history between Anne Rice, her “People of the Page” (her phrase, not mine. ”POTP”) followers, her fandom outside of POTP, and outside people who have had opinions on her works. I could write a dissertation on this topic but it’s not worth the effort; this post will be TL;DR for most people. I’m doing this so I can tag it and use it again the next time this topic comes up. 

The short answer is: In the beginning, all of AR’s FB followers were POTP. No distinction needed to be made, because they were ALL highly obsessive to the point that they were her online army she could rally to attack people/reviewers who dared to have an opinion on her works. There have been many instances in which something critical to AR came along – or something that she INTERPRETED as critical – and AR makes a statement on her FB page about it, which is a thinly veiled order rallying her troops to inundate that source with their “discussion” on that review. Sometimes her POTP simply made so many personal attacks in the comments on the offending critical post that the victim is forced to withdraw/delete their review. This whole cycle has happened too many times. In fact, AR has recognized this pattern and actually said that she will no longer link to negative reviews of her works (½/14):

“Guys, I am always open to publishing negative reviews of my work for consideration, to balance the many positive reviews to which I link. But the negative reviewer must bring the review here and request it. When I’ve linked to negative reviews for discussion, some of the reviewers in question have felt that they were unfairly targeted; and they have objected to some of the comments made on their reviews. It just doesn’t work. So I no longer volunteer any negative review, no matter how well written, for discussion. Again, reviewers are welcome to bring their reviews to the page, and post links and offer them for discussion. Same with blog posts. I might not repost every single one; but I’m happy to see them posted on the page and to read them and consider them for reposting.”

“… if I link to them for discussion, some of these people get very upset. They accuse me of “demonizing” them. They call the People of the Page “hell hounds” for their comments. And admittedly, some people do make very unpleasant comments…”

She has 1.1 million followers as of this posting, and I, myself, am one of them. So, of all 1.1 million, at least one of her followers is not an obsessive “hell hound,” as described above.

I actually think she has moved past much of the drama, and now her POTP (both our kind, Anon, and the “more obsessive” kind) are more focused on news items, poetry, VC adaptations & casting ideas, headcanons/canon requests for AR, and other good things she likes discussion on. I enjoyed her #Fan Questions for Lestat, and the 15 yr old inside me still gets excited when she posts something about “Where are they now?” like Lestat doodling on a napkin, or the whole coven all flopped together on a couch watching Hell on Wheels, that’s good stuff *u*

Hit the jump for links to examples of POTP vs. reviewers clashing, etc.

1. War on Fanfic

So this is before the POTP’s time, but it’s worth noting that Anne Rice waged a War on Fanfic in the 1990′s. She had every right to do so, but it destroyed the fandom. She sicc’d her pack of lawyers on all VC fanfic authors, and forced speculative fiction (old-timey-wimey word for “fanfic”) sites to shut down. The fandom was driven underground; fanfic could only be shared very privately, possibly through email exchanges or carrier pigeons.

This experience taught AR a valuable lesson: Anything that she didn’t approve of could be shut down by forces she could marshal. Lawyers cost money, and take on only legitimate legal cases, and legal battles can get messy (she’s had other legal issues but I won’t go there, you can use your newfangled googley-woogly machine for that).

2. The Pandora story

Here’s where the POTP became AR’s army, and they didn’t cost a penny, and there were no legal ramifications in sending them forth on her behalf.

“Kayleigh Herbertson found Pandora to be a poorly written novel where the vampires didn’t act like vampires… after Herbertson was done writing the review she took the book, which was already falling apart, and turned it into decoupage.”

“[AR] chose to respond by posting a link on her Facebook page (where her 740 thousand Facebook followers could find it) and appended the invitation: “Comments most welcome.”.“

Her POTP left an enormous amount of harassing comments on that page, and eventually, it was taken down. Here are my two favorite POTP comments from that article:

  • HOW DARE YOU EVEN COMPARE SHITTY ASS STEPHANIE MEYER TO THE QUALITY WORK THAT IS ANNE RICE HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU FUCKING HAG, I HOPE YOU GET HERPES
  • You bitch! 😡

Here’s a link to another article on this situation, with more context.

3. Mess of Links

Here, have at it. I can’t read through these all, but you can!

Hope this helped! I think we’re all coexisting pretty well these days, her People Of The Page and her – what I like to call ourselves – People Off the Page. Let’s just all take a chill pill and enjoy this series together, and if not, let’s just do it in our own way. Live and let live.

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?

Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

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)

Leave a comment

marius-de-romanus:

ooc: btw this is p random but i felt the need to voice my opinion so if you’re not interested feel free to ignore it!!

See, I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about Marius’ personality, not only here, but among good part of VC fans who I’ve came across in the past regarding his book Blood and Gold. I would like to point some things that I find important and that maybe would help you to have a second thought about it.

I reblogged from the source and cut it for length, but give this a read, this is very well-said, and applicable to many of the problematic characters in the VC.

They were human once, they’re not perfect creatures. I think if there was one message AR really wanted us to take away from the entirety of canon, it would probably be: These characters are like us, imperfect, searching for answers, longing to belong, to love, and be loved in return.

Some choices made in pursuit of those things are impulsive, some are well-planned, some had terrible results in retrospect, but hindsight is 20/20. We can only learn from the past and try to make better choices, moving forward… ask for forgiveness for our trespasses and strive to forgive those who trespassed against us ❤

marius-de-romanus:

When I read Blood and Gold for the first time, I felt a slight emptiness, and that familiar feeling of disappointment in the pit of my stomach after knowing closely some of his choices and attitudes – and more than that; his true persona, after all. But after a while thinking about it, I realized that no matter how wrong he was by some of his choices, each one of them made who he truly is: selfish, yes, but compassionate, an artist, melancholic, and undoubtedly proud, but good and gentle at heart.

He is far from being perfect even though we enjoyed to believe that he was due to numerous descriptions we had of him in TVA, TVL, QOTD and Pandora. But he isn’t. He commits mistakes as everyone else, and if we were to compare him to Louis, Lestat and Armand, for example, judging by all the years that Marius is alive, I honestly don’t think his mistakes were so numerous. Some of them were intense, and most of them regrettable, yes, but I do not think that makes him a “bad character” or that he is any less of what Lestat, Pandora, Armand, etc, describe in their respective books.

Only because he was described by many as a “sage”, a “philosopher”, etc, it doesn’t change the fact that before he was turned, he was also a human. And Marius, in my opinion, is one of the most “human” vampires among the coven. His mistakes were in it’s majority also ridiculously human, being driven by the impulse of his emotions.

So I think that instead of focusing only on the bad things, you also should remember how wonderful his good side is. How loving, caring, compassionate, intelligent and cultured Marius is. 

Marius was not the only one to commit mistakes. And it is good that he did because it’s a nice reminder that not even “immortal beings” are perfect, no matter how godlike they appear to be.

Therefore, my point is: instead of simply judging and saying that he is a shitty character because he was not what you thought he was, give it a second thought. No one is made only by their good sides, nor by their mistakes alone.

To like him or dislike him is personal, though. Yet, to say that his character sucks only because you don’t like it…. it’s hella stupid and makes me hella pissed.