horriblestare

[horriblestare]

On Armand's use of Language

I started going on a tangent about this in that other ask, but then I realized nothing I was saying had anything to do with the question anymore lol and this doesn't rly apply to any of the other asks I still need to respond to so I'm just ranting on a new post instead!

The way Armand uses language is so fascinating to pay attention to. I first noticed it wrt how he describes his relationship with Louis. Where Louis speaks about Loumand as being (at first) a more equally-balanced relationship compared to Loustat, which he describes as more predatory, Armand frames Loumand very differently. He rarely misses an opportunity to frame Louis as the active one, and downplay his own agency in pursuing the relationship.

"Louis lured me in"

In the early stages of their courtship, Armand is already de-fanging himself, framing himself as a 'failed predator'; unable to lure Louis in, he instead was the one being lured by the more powerful presence.

"Louis made me love him, it was so scary 🥺" Shattered, a deliberately forceful phrase. And the way Armand's eyes glow when he says how 'frightened' he was of Louis...

Armand locked "I love you" away after Lestat's abandonment of him, but Louis didn't inspire him to 'open up' - Louis shattered the lock, forced his way past Armand's boundaries. By Armand's description, Louis is the forceful one, the one who makes Armand change, and Armand is just the person Louis does these things to, and is 'frightened' of Louis's power to bring about those changes in him.

(Compare to Lestat basically expressing the same sentiment but more active in his language. After a century, Lestat "tried again" to find love - he was active in pursuing it/Louis, describes himself as having made a conscious choice to do so, rather than Louis making him)

Once you start looking for it, every other thing out of Armand's mouth is some variation of "I could not prevent it"; he doesn't do things, things happen to him, or around him, never because of him. He's always framing himself as a passive agent or helpless victim, with no, or very little, agency of his own.

Armand understands himself to be someone 'with power' (literally with the power of life/death over Louis in this moment) but cannot frame himself as 'powerful' - instead he's 'the weakest', unable to carry out the execution the coven wanted him to, but also unable to fully own the choice he is making. If Armand were to tell the coven "I'm the coven leader and what I say goes, I'm going to spare Louis and everyone has to deal with it" that would be an active wielding of power, not weakness. But since Armand refuses to frame himself as powerful, him not killing Louis is a failure of duty, a shortcoming, a display of weakness. He was supposed to do something and he couldn't rather than making an active choice not to do something.

He won't even take responsibility for walking Louis home (bc this would mean taking responsibility for defying the coven and sparing Louis's life); even though he obviously knew where he was bringing Louis, he barged into his apartment unannounced earlier that same episode.

When Louis asks if Armand wants to come upstairs, Armand doesn't answer outright, but counters with his own question, centering Louis as the active one in the situation. Armand won't come upstairs just because he "wants" to, because that would mean he is in control of what happens - he wanted something and took it. His instinct is to frame his own desire as something Louis is stoking and in control of. Armand didn't 'go in'; Louis 'invited him in' and Armand simply 'complied'.

The "asking or making" refrain is this in a nutshell. Asking vs making doesn't really matter, because either way, it puts the agency in someone else's hands, rather than Armand himself owning whatever he chooses to do (whether it's attending Madeleine's turning or sparing Daniel). Either he's just doing what someone else asked him to do, carrying out someone else's wishes (passive) or being forced to do something someone else wanted him to do (victim).

It's also giving Louis the illusion of choice (the false power Armand consistently imbues Louis with in their relationship) bc both options serve Armand's desire, which is making Louis responsible for Armand's actions.

I think it is telling that Louis opts out completely the first time Armand pulls out this phrase, and only plays into it when the stakes are dire (Daniel's life). And even then Louis never 'makes' Armand, only says he's 'not asking'.

Obviously the literal difference between asking/making is that with asking there is an implied freedom to say no - but I can't really imagine Armand whipping out "asking or making" if he was going to refuse Louis, because he tells Louis no all the time and doesn't need that framing to do so lol.

I think Armand uses asking/making to escape personal culpability when faced with something he doesn't want to do, but doesn't feel it's beneficial to outright refuse in the moment, both for himself (his own psychological/emotional needs) and in anticipation of reframing his behavior to others ('well *I* didn't choose to do this, Louis asked me to/made me') - it's not something Armand did, it's something Louis wanted, and Armand carried out on his behalf.

There's a lot you could say about this behavior as a trauma response/learned helplessness/victim mentality (which are not uncommon following childhood abuse), but tbh I'm not a psychology expert (and I assume ppl have already talked this to death?)

I also don't want to fall into the trap of downplaying Armand's agency as much as he does. The fact is, he isn't powerless in any of these situations, nor does he truly believe himself to be, because he wields his power (specifically over Louis) whenever he sees fit to do so (most obviously in 205 and the end of 107, where his 'servitude' to Louis is shown to literally be a costume he can discard whenever he pleases, and he does so, revealing himself to/threatening Daniel and bringing the interview to a screeching halt as Louis begs him not to).

And as soon as the mask drops and Armand is floating in the air above them, he assumes his rightful place as paternal authority over Louis, stops defending him and starts telling Daniel how Louis 'acts out' and needs Armand to control/mitigate his behavior (like a parent talking to another adult about an unruly child right in front of them)

I think Armand is more complex than just "acts helpless because he feels helpless" (bc clearly whenever helplessness no longer suits him, he throws it to the ground like his brown contacts and gloves), he understands how powerful a manipulation tactic it is to make everyone buy into the fiction that he is helpless/believes himself to be (so can never be truly culpable of wrongdoing/harm - "I will not harm you/I never have") AND I also think it is personally comforting/instinctive for him on some level to (falsely) claim a 'powerless' role because of his trauma. Yes, he is a deeply traumatized character, but also he does things deliberately and with intent; both can be true.

One way we can see this is how Armand's framing shifts after the choice has been made. When Armand wants to kill Daniel and Louis wants to stop him, its "are you asking me, Maitre?", putting responsibility in Louis's hands. But afterwards, Armand reframes his not killing Daniel as an act of benevolence on his part, not something Louis 'made' him do. In San Francisco, it awards Armand credibility as 'compromising partner' to spare Daniel only at Louis's urging; in Dubai, it awards credibility to Armand as Louis's 'caretaker' to take responsibility for sparing Daniel in order to 'preserve Louis's happiness'.

Armand's choice to present himself as passive agent or benevolent caretaker shifts based on what best serves him in the moment; it's a deliberate manipulation either way.

I also think you can see Armand's framing of Louis as 'active pursuer/seducer' in Loumand leaking into the depiction of Louis in the trial he directed (and made script edits to), which is another clear example of Armand understanding what he's doing/the deliberate manipulation/desired outcome in framing Louis this way to an onlooker (whether it be the trial audience or Daniel/readers of his book). But this post is already too long and I'm gonna hit the image limit 🙂‍↕️

[horriblestare]

Grace de Pointe du Lac, the gothic heroine

One might think that Interview with the Vampire the gothic story is all on Louis, Lestat, and Claudia and co… But in the background, there is a silent tragedy, Grace's one.

Her trajectory carries all the archetypes of a gothic heroine.

At first, she is the confidant sister, present they share secrets, she gentle and attentive where their mother was not.

She was meant to embody the continuity of human life : marriage, motherhood, building a home, everything Louis lost when he became a vampire (And he still tried to achieve

despite everything). But this continuity is gradually shattered : first, Paul's violent death by suicide on the day of her wedding, putting the whole family into grief. Then Louis who drifts away, absent, returning only as a shadow, and even more rarely as the years pass...She doesn't know what has happened to him, but she feels it, she knows it, her brother is no longer the same and she no longer recognizes him.

As Louis fades from the world of the living, Grace becomes the last witness of who he once was, the brother with whom she "had shared the dinner table her whole life. "

She is horrified, but also lucid. "You are not my Louis."

In all gothic logic, to recognize a loved one as gone while they still stand in front of you is already to be haunted, she in a way tormented by that ghost

Her final scene in the cemetery is a sublime and tragic conclusion. Her brother is there, physically, but all that remains for her is the ghost of who he was. She shows him the family tomb and reveals that she has already carved his name among the deads, for her Louis has been gone a long time ago already.

One might see this as a cruel gesture, but i'm sure for Grace it was also an act of love.

She gives him a burial. She is the last living member of the du Lacs and fulfills her duty; to give her brother a place among his kin.

She does it for herself, but also for him. Symbolically, she (she try to ) ends the haunting and allows the part of Louis that died long ago to rest in peace. (I'm not even sure she was ever freed from all the ghosts even after leaving Nola)

That is why Grace reads to me as a gothic heroine. She lives surrounded by ghosts,she carries the weight of grief, of all the silences, the  incomprehensions.

She is the last living du Lac, and her role as a sister was to seal the tombs for Louis

[horriblestare]

Kitchen Nightmares is really just like

Owners: i don't know why my restaurant is failing. Chef Ramsey please help

Ramsey: hello i am Gordon Ramsay. How is the food

Owners: we have the best food

*food comes out*

Gordon: this is an alive rat

Owners: our customers love te alive rat. We have the best food. Every day they order the alive rat.

*dinner service*

Customer: oh my god this is an alive rat

Waitress: is everything okay?

Customer: no it's an alive rat

*food is sent back*

Owner: this has never happened before. Fuck you Gordon Ramsay you should just leave. People love the alive rat

*Gordon goes in the freezer*

Gordon: there are 25 molds unknown to science. The rats have set up a lab to study them. Blimey. Scientist rats. They've unionized.

*later*

Gordon: your food is bad

Owner: no!!!!!!!!

Gordon: yes

Owner: oh my god our food is bad

*remodel, menu change*

Owner: oh my god Gordon Ramsay you saved my life thank you so much

Gordon: promise never to serve alive rats again, yeah?

Owner: yes of course

*end of episode*

Gordon: ratatouille ammirite? *He walks away chuckling*

End card: the restaurant was shut down three months later because they went back to serving alive rats.

[horriblestare]

Fandom aro culture is absolutely despising when people claim that not shipping their popular non-canon queer pairing is homophobia even when you frequently consume queer media and you're queer yourself. Like I understand the ship but I should be allowed to see it in a way that's not romantic, y'know? It's not like I'm denying a queer pairing that's canon, I just want to explore this dynamic in ways that don't fall into an amatonormative romance. My interpretation isn't less valid because it's not about romance.

.

[horriblestare]

Hey if you ever worry that your art is too self-indulgent and weird, consider the following:

You know Franciso de Goya? Yeah that Goya. The one who painted "saturn devouring his son" and the other 13 of what are called his "black paintings", which are dark, creepy, and while you might not know all the other ones, if you only vaguely recognise the name Goya, the first image to pop into your head is probably this one:

Unless you've got an art history degree. This post isn't aimed at people with an art history degree. Anyway, those of you who aren't into art history probably only vaguely know the story, of how he was a painter and these 14 were his private paintings, only painted for himself, not commissioned by a customer and never intended to be publicly displayed. People were shocked when they were first discovered, due to how starkly different they were from his other, more traditional and conventional paintings.

This is the part I want you to meditate on: Goya also made plenty of normal art for normal people. A whole bunch of perfectly normal paintings.

How many of those can you name?

[horriblestare]

it's crazy that you used to be able to look up specific clips from a tv show on youtube. now regardless of your search terms you get 6 unrelated promo reels from the show's official account, 6 unrelated clips of literally anything else youtube thinks you might click on, 6 unrelated promo reels from the network's official account, 6 more completely arbitrary recommendations, 6 show trailers and publicity videos of the actors by content mills called 'pop glutton' and 'comedy chunk' and finally raw gameplay footage of a mobile freemium slots game and a video essay called Liberals Can't Belive It: 10 Times Hitler Was Shockingly Woke

[horriblestare]

you need to understand that i have two sets of headcanons. there's the set of realistic headcanons based on my genuine reading of the show, and then there's me playing pretend with my dolls.

[horriblestare]

EDIT: This meme is not about aroace people who are sex/date favorable. It's about the people who are constantly using "aroace can still date/have sex" to erase the representation of aroaces that don't feel that way. I don't believe romance/sex repulsed aroaces are better or "superior" to those who are.

[horriblestare]

sam reid the people’s princess of delivering lines of dialogue in a way that has all of us rotating them like hot dogs in our heads

[horriblestare]

Are you schizophrenic louis?

🧿-🧿 no

[horriblestare]

i waited. i wanted him to beg.

[horriblestare]

hyper fixation is so bad rn that i'm paralysed with indecision. do i rewatch the show, continue reading the book, read more fanfiction, overanalyse scenes in my head, talk to myself about it or daydream

[horriblestare]

being a sex positive asexual is so weird because ill be actively campaigning for sex equality or whatever and people are like "mnehhh youre asexual it doesnt matter why do you care" SHUSH YOU MOUTH LET ME HELP

"porn shouldn't be banned" "you watch porn?? i thought you were ace" no um i just think porn shouldnt be banned

i hate it smmmm especially when they use it to call you fake

[horriblestare]

a very fucking special shout-out to aros who have been the token "weird queer" friend amongst a queer friend group, only to have the novelty lost and find yourself left when they all decide their romantic relationships matter more than you, or your aromantic worldview becomes off-putting because they don't (and don't try to) understand what amatonormativity means.

i have many qualms. this happens to a lot of aros, and it just speaks to the infantilization of aro folks (and ace too!) when all we're seen as is the weird one who doesn't feel love, there for the amusement of "normal queers" and then cast out when they find something more interesting.

if your friend group did/does this, it may mean they weren't truly seeing you, or doing their best to be actual allies to aro and aspec people.

it's the gay best friend trope all over again. everybody loves the gay best friend because it's trendy to have one and not treat them like a person outside the stereotype.

and it fucking sucks. ive been there.

it's not your fault you're not "palatable". let them choke.

[horriblestare]

I don't think we talk enough about how often Nazi book burnings get mentioned and how few people know what the first one was about.

I saw this picture (or a similar one) in a book when I was in third grade. Roughly two decades later, I learned that the books being burned were looted from the library at The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Berlin, explicitly because the institute was helping people medically transition. You can surprise 100% of cis people by explaining that we've had HRT and gender-affirming surgery longer than nuclear bombs. and that makes me so fucking angry.

[horriblestare]

[horriblestare]

people (my friends) are always like do you want updates on my fanfic? is sending pics of my dog annoying? am i sending too many videos? you could send me an eight minute voice message of complete silence and i would listen to the whole thing without complaint and with joy and love in my heart. don't fuck with me. ily