#it just feels victim-blaming to me

[dxxtruction]

Louis' "You're boring!" Could mean so many things, but I think what's most apparent about that line is that Armand takes no initiative just for himself. He's not really anybody, because he never goes out and finds himself or gets attached to anyone but Louis. Without Louis as his guide he's literally just sitting on a couch picking lint! That's the thing.

He orbits constantly around what would make Louis happy, and never really fully going what would make me happy? Ultimately that drive to please Louis is what drives him to torturing Daniel, not so much that he'd care to just do it. Ultimately, not giving proper care to Louis is just a way to make sure Louis knows he has to orbit around him as well, with shoving Lestat onto him just that other nail on the coffin. So, even if he fails to figure out how to make Louis happy with him, he still knows what Armand is good for, and better than.

That dependency is what drives Armand's abuse. It really just comes down to that. Armand doesn't even realize how suffocated he is by his own dependency. This is just how life is to him. (It shouldn't be lost either that dependency is a theme considering this episode also deals with addiction).

Daniel's fascinating because he's just so driven to be somebody. He's largely independent, he seeks things because he wants them. It's his drug to poke and prod at all the things that he shouldn't. Daniel's exciting because he lets Louis in to something different, lets him in to all this potential in another person that he can also do the same with for himself. It's a real connection. A two way street. It's easy to tell how Armand can be smothering then because he's never introducing him to anything really new, and most the ways both of them connect are all painful and traumatic. It's never just fun because there's always that layer of that pain. Fun died with Claudia.

50 years on they've gotten to a lot better place, both of them, but it's still that same shit. No seriously, "How is this any different from last time, Louis?"

Well... Because Armand's going to be, at the very least, making one [1] decision only for himself - and that's to hold power over Daniel's life. Fucking sick foreshadowing.

They aren't driving each other to the brink anymore but "The vampire is bored" STILL. Maybe it's even worse, despite being in better places, because Louis' sort of just been defeated by it. (I mean, can he even really leave this either?). He's accepting the dependancy cause he kind of has to. He'd literally ended up letting all the enjoyment be up where he can't reach [The book shelves]. Armand so desperately wants Louis happiness but what really ends up happening is that Louis ends up having to give Armand all his own. He's got no one or anything else to get it from. But like an iPad and an over the top eating ritual. Two extremes of what's just more lint picking.

This whole relationship is one I find just tragic inside and out. You have to just pity it, really. There's ways in which you can find yourself feeling bad for both of them. But you can only really be mad at Armand for any of it. Armand, who isn't even 'free' in any sense, having so little concept of his own independence, but is at the same time so controlling over other's. It's a tragic cycle. It's an infuriating one.

Louis at least has the mind to know when enough is enough. If just needing that extra push to get there. Armand's too scared of it being over to even try.

[transmascutena]

people framing their discussion about utena being groomed as her "making bad decisions" i am hitting you with several large rocks

[covertblizzard]

Maybe I'm being sensitive but this whole scene just frustrates and annoys me because like

comparing Steph and Tim so callously with comments that he's "better" and a "quick learner" after her death

having Cass lowkey victim blame Steph for her own death "But she chose--" and "She messed up." plus trying to convince Tim that it's not Steph's fault

the "Maybe it's time I gave you a lesson" like I don't really have a good reason for this one it might just be a personal thing but the tone of that whole sentence makes me feel frustrated and talked down to

[writterings]

the thing they don't tell you about most mlm romance books is that they fucking suck ass

[revvethasmythh]

Some aspects of Laudna's behavior from the most recent ep have really started to stand out to me re: her backstory. We're told basically that after leaving Whitestone she roamed to different cities and was subsequently run out of many places by the townsfolk for being...well, a creepy undead witch. This is really all we know of thirty years of her life, we have nothing more detailed than that until Gelvaan, which is also not very detailed on what exactly she was doing there. And it's interesting because this backstory feels like it's meant to elicit a lot of sympathy on Laudna's behalf--i.e. she is being wrongly chased out of places for the crime of being/looking different. But something about the way she approached Imahara Joe's establishment--sending in the creepy whispers, specifically making a bunch of terrifying "rattling noises", and responding with a smile and saying "It works every time" when they heard a noise in response--really has me like. okay. Laudna, did you get chased out of places because you were terrorizing people in those places? because it sounds like you've done this before, potentially many times, and what's "fun scary" to one person can so very easily be "scary scary" to the people on the other end of the schtick.

Laudna clearly loves people, but I do have to wonder if she experiences a certain amount of dissonance about the effects that her actions cause. She very much has this Manic Demon Nightmare Girl persona thing going on, and that delighted, manic energy mixed with her penchant for the macabre, often directed at other people where she enjoys their freaked out reactions? I think, perhaps, there were reasons she kept getting run out of places that we have not, uh, unpacked as of yet.

To go deeper with this, Laudna is a character who rarely feels like she's in charge of her own destiny. Some of this is intentional, like the repeated puppet imagery re: Delilah. But I wonder if, perhaps, Laudna is someone who has had so many things--bad things, terrible things--happen to her that she had learned to erase her own role in her life. There was nothing she could do when the Briarwoods took over Whitestone, there was nothing she could do when she was murdered by Delilah, and there was nothing she could do when she was resurrected as the undead creachure that she is today. But there are thing she could have done in the intervening thirty years to change her situation. She could have pursued threads about getting rid of Delilah for thirty years, long before meeting Imogen. She could have (somewhat) altered her behavior so she wasn't freaking people out wherever she went and maybe she could have stayed somewhere. She could have been proactive in making changes and pursuing things in her life and I just wonder if she has forgotten that she can do that for herself and that the things she does do have consequences. In ep 49, she told Imogen, "The gods have never kept us from our ability to have a choice." But she only says this to Imogen. When does Laudna finally make an active choice? When does she realized that her behavior and the consequences of the behavior are in her control? When does Laudna decide that it's time to stop being a spectator in her own story, a person that things happen to? Soon, I hope. She should be the main character of her own story, and right now she simply isn't

[uncanny-tranny]

Don't be afraid of being the trans person who's "the reason transphobia exists." It's genuinely so infuriating how people weaponize the existence transphobia to accuse people (even facetiously/as a joke!) of being the genesis of it.

[winepresswrath]

what louis did to lestat and what louis did to armand are connected and that's important to the story but also. it is simply not the same. nothing louis did excuses armand's behaviour, that's not how anything works, but he did not "cross a line" or "poke at armand," he weaponized armand's history of abuse to belittle and demean him. nothing armand said to louis came close- the equivalent would have been "oooh, i'm such a stupid bitch that my husband can beat me half to death and i'll keep crawling back for more even when it endangers my daughter!" it's retraumatizing and deeply destabilizing to hear that shit from your partner. and in response armand should have been like "well this man sucks when he's high and he's high all the time, so i'm bouncing" but if he'd done that we wouldn't have a story, would we?

edit: i've come back to give armand credit for "claudia didn't love you like we did/do. ps. u used her to distract from your own hurt feelings" that shit does hit in a similar way. however "the ways someone hurt you have left you contemptible and weak. they scrawled 'dirty and annoying' all over your soul in red ink and it's never coming off" is just outstanding work. timeless

[altschmerzes]

i've never understood the rising attitude i've seen since the invention of the ability to turn off reblogs that anyone who previously asked people not to reblog posts was somehow fundamentally misapprehending the nature of this website or acting in some kind of naive or ridiculous way that flies in the face of internet safety and common sense and is deserving of mockery.

like, yeah, it was always gonna be possible for people to reblog your posts no matter what, before the ability to turn reblogs off. no, a tag that says 'don't reblog' or 'dnr' or 'donut rebagel' (or any other iteration given people would SEARCH for posts tagged dont reblog specifically to reblog them) was not going to stop that. yes the internet is public and it's good to be aware of that.

however, that doesn't mean you should inherently know better than and refrain from ever saying anything on an online platform that you're not Totally Cool With potentially being spread around by people you don't know? a lot of people here use their blogs as personal blogs. which is like... fine. it's part of the function of the platform. and just because it is possible for someone online to do something doesn't mean it's normal and fine for them to do and anyone asking them NOT to do anything they want forever is being a naive idiot who doesn't understand internet safety.

obviously asking someone not to do something mean and shitty is not a guarantee they won't do it but i do not understand the attitude of "well what did you expect, the mean and shitty thing was POSSIBLE. why the fuck would you put yourself in a position to have that thing done to you in the first place. that's on you for just asking people not to be an asshole. this is the INTERNET."

[nothinggold13]

I said in the tags of my recent screencaps of Nick and Daisy dancing, "do you ever think. that all daisy really needed was a friend?" and apparently those tags resonated with more people than I thought they would. Now I think they call for a little elaboration.

On their first meeting in the book, it is established that Nick neither attended Daisy's wedding nor met her baby (who is 3 years old). Daisy says herself, "We don't know each other very well, Nick. Even if we are cousins." And yet in this same scene Daisy says that his arrival has her "paralyzed with happiness" and refers to him as "an absolute rose." She speaks of him and to him as if they are dearly close despite her own admittance that they hardly know each other at all. (Of course, this is easily explained when Nick says, "[She looked] up into my face, promising that there was no one in the world she so much wanted to see. That was a way she had." Daisy has a way of drawing people in, and making them feel important. I'm sure people make different things of this, some positive and some negative, but I won't dwell on it.)

But, perhaps more telling than the way she talks to Nick, is the fact that the first thing Daisy does when she has a moment alone with him is to confide in him. She says, "We don't know each other very well," and then, moments later, begins a story asking, "Would you like to hear?" She says she's grown cynical. She says she felt abandoned. She says — famously — "That's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."

And then she laughs it off.

Nick himself calls it insincere, "[...]as though the whole evening had been a trick of some sort to exact a contributory emotion from me."

But... I don't know. I've been a Daisy defender since high school, and that's never gone away; Nick's perspective may communicate a lot of truth that we wouldn't know otherwise, but he is not infallible. And, personally, when it comes to the depths of what's going on with Daisy, I think he's rather blind.

Daisy has a philandering husband who a) physically abuses his mistress and b) canonically bruised Daisy in a way she brushes off carelessly but confesses, again, within her first meeting with Nick, so I don't believe it's a big jump to say he's likely been physically abusive towards her, too. And with that in mind, I think it's strange to expect anything Daisy does to be perfectly and infallibly sincere, when, at her core, she is always in a fight for survival.

(It's the same reason I believe she stays with Tom at the end, and lets Gatsby take the blame. Tom is the only security she knows. Gatsby hangs in the balance. She can't run away with him, now.)

So, to get back to my point, I don't think Daisy was being dishonest in her confessions to Nick. I think she was being painfully honest— so painful, in fact, that she had to cover it up with that cynical mask she's gotten so good at wearing. Daisy is not a beautiful little fool; she only wishes she was.

And then Nick appears, and they're not close, but they could be, and she jumps to trust him: to tell him everything she's scared to say aloud: to have him listen. "Would you like to hear?" she asks. It's more than a question. It's a plea.

I think of Daisy knowing her driver's name, and thinking it important to use it. I think of Daisy knowing Jordan's name when they were younger, when Jordan was two years her junior and admired her desperately. I think of Daisy calling Nick "my dearest one" along with every other kind word she ever said to him. I think of Daisy reaching and reaching and reaching, clinging desperately to anyone who might hold on to her.

And they all let her down.

I guess those who see Daisy as disingenuous at her core wouldn't read it this way at all, but I do. I think Daisy loves desperately, trying to fill a hole that is never filled; I think she's looking for someone to save her, and nobody ever cares enough to listen.

Not Jordan. Not Nick. Not even Gatsby, despite his obsession.

And maybe none of them could have saved her, but they could have listened. They could have cared. They could have asked her about the letter that made her nearly call off her wedding to Tom, instead of dressing her up and pushing her to go through with it. They could've supported her, and not gone out to party with her cheating husband and his mistress. They could've stopped asking for too much and accepted the fact she couldn't give it. They could've done something.

Because all Daisy really needed was a friend. And she never truly had one.

[last-in-line-for-hell]

Sometimes I think about the long term side effects that could have happened to Wei Wuxian after being strangled by Jiang Cheng and my heart aches at how he just laid there and accepted it

[sukibenders]

A female artist/celebrity: Hey, while I'm really happy for all the support you guys as my fans have shown me, can we please establish some boundaries? Some things are starting to make me uncomfortable. Again, I'm grateful but--

Said people the response was aimed towards: Oh so now she thinks she's too good for us? She's so ungrateful, letting all the fame get to her head. Doesn't she know that without us, she wouldn't be as famous? She should just suck it up!

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

one thing i realized about fandaniel's dynamic with xande that really fucks me up is, like.... there are the obvious parallels that canon draws between meteion and xande, and their roles in hermes/fandaniel's lives. and there are also the parallels between fandaniel and meteion. there's a lot to unpack.

but it hit me recently that one of hermes' deepest, most devastating regrets is having failed meteion, with abuse and hypocrisy and the project he had the authority to make her a part of.

he was painfully aware that he wasn't fit to be a father; that he'd put them in a bitch of an unsatisfactory situation with his lack of foresight; that he was currently fucking things up in ways he did not know how to understand or articulate, much less address. he knew that there was no support system for this; not just for his mental health issues in general, but to educate him and hold him accountable about how to be decent to her, because he knew no one would give a fuck. the closest thing anyone would have given him to advice would be to just kill her and start over.

he says he hopes she'll find a better parent out there in space somewhere, because he knows there is not one to be found for her anywhere on this star, including him. she was one of the most helpless, vulnerable people in their society, and there was no backup for her if he mistreated her, if he failed. and he did.

so of course his next attempt to find a meteion would be an emperor. of course he'd be at the very top of the most powerful empire in the world, at the time. of course he'd position himself as his servant, devote himself to him utterly, and value his authority above all. he wanted someone he could never hurt the way he hurt meteion again.

[lem0n-a1d]

Hey guys my hypersexuality is not hot or sexy I feel fucking disgusting because of it and I literally cannot help it please do not fucking enable me or joke about it even if i joke abt it first it does not fucking help/dir

[bunnihearted]

🍜🍥🥢

[volfoss]

it is beyond infuriating how anne rice seems to insist on marius being a positive force in anyone's life ever. like she can't fully commit to exploring the fact he groomed armand and has repeatedly taken away his consent for what marius thinks is best (take the end of TVA as an example) and just kind of flatly puts it in the narrative. there's not really much interest in how these horrific events make marius come across as the worst because EVERYONE loves him. for gods sake, lestat learns from armand exactly what marius did to him in TVL and then proceeds to go find marius and be super friendly to him in the same fucking book. even armand and pandora, two of the people who have MORE than enough right to hate him, do not. it doesnt feel like shes trying to explore the toxicity of the abusive dynamic he traps them in, it just is there. and like yeah ofc the toxic vampire romance series but i think that this should be handled with more care. and it is not ever really framed in a way that she is interested in exploring how marius should easily be one of the most horrific characters in this series because it kind of feels like sa/rape/grooming/other things of that sort are just put there to further plot and not to really get the respect that they deserve in a medium.

[weareuniqueandimportant]

EMPATHY GLAMORIZATION IS NOT ABOUT EMPATHY BUT SUPERIORITY TORWARDS APATHETIC PEOPLE BIGOTRY TORWARDS THEM TYPICAL BIGOT EVIL. SIMPLE AS THAT. IF YOU SEE THEM AS LEFTIST YOU'RE NO LEFTIST YOURSELF. HORRIBLE. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE ONLY EMPATHY AND BAD TO THINK EVERYTHING YOU DO IS SUCH ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE CLEARLY BEING APATHETIC IF ANYTHING WHEN THEY DO THIS...

COMES TO SHOW BIGOTRY TORWARDS CRAZY AND DISABLED PEOPLE ASWELL AS PARAPHILIA PEOPLE ISN'T TAKEN AT ALL THE SAME AS SEXISM RACISM AND QUEERPHOBIA... OR PERHAPS... LIKELY... THEY ARE ALL THE BIGOTED THINGS EVIL AND TAKE NONE THAT SERIOUSLY... BELITTLING DOWN THEIR PAIN AND DAMAGE...