Then there is the contracts themselves which usually state actors are not to make disparaging remarks about a production, and if they do they are liable to be sued. After that is the business, which is run on reputation. If you make yourself "difficult" if you annoy producers, of you say a word against the people who actually have the power good luck getting hired elsewhere. This is a huge threat held over pic and women's who suffer the loss of jobs and backlash more heavily. They are not booked and busy and landing lead roles left and right. You don't bite the hand that feeds in this industry.

It's already difficult to get hired if you're not white, which a lot of this cast is not. And a lot of the time these people are not treated well within production. How many bck women have said they've had to do their own hair in a production? Is the environment even a place they can speak up and not fear retribution? What happened to the black writers?We could go on but I'll leave that there.

These actors are not A Listers, this is not a huge production. They do not have the power to influence anything about this project or make themselves difficult to work with, lest stories come out in gossip rags and their work dries up. Using Eric as an example doesn't work because he's been in the game for so long, he's probably always higher on the call sheet and he doesn't care at this point. He has different power dynamics with production.

In particular, they seem particularly irked that Lestat's abuse of Claudia and Louis, and participation in Armand's sham trial (lynching), is still snapping at his heels when folk talk about him. And mind you, this discussion is happening among Black folks who like (camp a) and dislike (camp b) Lestat as a character.

To that end, they truly seem to be reacting, sympathetically, to the white folks who find this aspect of Black critical reviews of the franchise (in totality) bothersome or an obstacle to their particular enjoyment of the series (because they see it 'everywhere' on social media). In which case, a lot of yt commentaries on the show are particularly about needing Louis to do something they can pull up as an example of how Black fans are ignoring his flaws and deifying him.

Holding his past as a pimp against him (or refusing to evaluate his capitalist behavior as anything other than pimp, and not a standard businessman), and ultimately, some hope that Lestat's POV will definitively out Louis (and Claudia) as liars of some sort.

Bc, apparently, the showrunners have created a narrative amongst themselves that fans accused Lestat of raping or threatening to rape Claudia, vs. talking about the totality of his abusive behavior post-ep5 (s1). In particular, how he threatened to carry out physical harm and often did.

(Non-Black fans driving criticism is they believe Black fans of the show feel Louis and Claudia have done no wrong, or simply aren't as critical of them as they are of Lestat. When, if you're Black and you spend most of your time talking abt IWTV and TVL with other Black folks, that couldn't be further from the truth.

But seeing as they aren't invited into Black fan spaces, all the non-Black side of this fanspace can or tends to do is react negatively and or take the criticism of TVL/Lestat often as a personal attack.)

It reminds me of how the writers (and fans) reacted to how Black folks reviewed and talked about Sleepy Hollow during the second season. More than a few elements in that show post-S1 truly felt like a manifestation of their frustration that certain characters (Ichabod and/or his wife) or ideas (random white men showing up every other episode, then becoming recurring or supporting leads) weren't embraced, or that the show was being reviewed so critically (when it was clear Abbie was being shorted).

(But I'll say this plain so there's no misunderstanding: They are not Lestat's abusers. There is nothing they've done to Lestat that wasn't about protecting themselves (and each other) from him. There is no unicorn of "mutual abuse" involved in their former dynamic. Nothing for them to repent or make amends for regarding Lestat.

Louis' failures as a parent or brother to Claudia are not comparable to Lestat's harms. The only person Louis will ever have to make amends to is Claudia. Claudia's hatred of Louis is not the same as her contempt for Lestat (nor does it negate the love she carried for him, however soured it became), nor does it mean Louis is exactly like Lestat (or her rapist).

This is something non-Black fans (and even the writers themselves) need to make peace with and understand.

The purpose of the seance was to "close this chapter of grief for Louis (and Lestat).” Yeah. Because nothing provides closure than finding out your daughter is (a) trapped in hell without the love of her life and (b) fucking hates your guts and always has done.

And, if you're wondering about Armand:

“He wanted some complicated combination of atonement from Louis and Lestat, and to take a pained form of revenge on them,” she explains. “And that was winning Daniel over to him and fucking around on the edges trying to find his moment. We knew a part of the end of the season would be a taking back of the joy Lestat and Louis found, and a big ugly confrontation between our characters and within our characters, in their souls…”

So anyone speculating that Armand would be anything other than the Big Bad Villain in the finale (again), congratulations, once again they have played us for fools.

and that brings us to the critique of tvl's bigotry and where the cognitive dissonance kicks in- these are liberal(tm) and progressive(tm) viewers- they're good(tm) people. and they know a good and liberal and progressive person should notice and care about racism. they've probably retweeted or reblogged some posts about how representation matters or how good jacob anderson is as louis and they might even have blacklivesmatter in their account bio. but the reality is they don't actually recognize, or if they do they don't care about, the racism in tvl- and they love tvl and still identify with it deeply, to the point that any criticism about it stings and makes them feel like they're the ones being criticized, they're the ones being judged for enjoying it. and it's one thing when the parts of the show being criticized are about awkward scripting or bad pacing, but it's another when the critique feels destabilizing to their sense of self as a liberal(tm) progressive(tm) good(tm) person- and it's a lot more comforting in the moment to lash out at the person voicing the criticism about tvl's racism or queerphobia or misogyny or anti-survivor bias and say no, the show isn't bigoted (and therefore i'm not bigoted for uncritically enjoying it), you're the problem and what you're saying is completely untrue and meaningless bc you just hate lestat/you're a bitter armand fan/you're a bitter louis fan/this is all unserious ship and stan wars and there's no depth or legitimacy to what you're saying. even if the critique at no point suggests "you're a bad person for liking this show" or "i'm judging you for liking this show" (bc liking fucked up or flawed or "problematic" media doesn't make you an inherently bad or bigoted person, it's perfectly possible to go "yeah these parts had problems, but this work still resonated with me for xyz reasons") they feel judged, they feel like they're being called a bad person, and only by finding a way to dismiss the critique wholesale can they soothe the moral anxiety they feel.

ian danskin talks about this phenomenon in his series on gamergate (if you don't know about gamergate i really rec reading up on it bc so many reactionary currents online and in fandom can be traced back to it, it's foundational, and this video series is a good intro point to explain it). here's a relevant excerpt about the hate campaigns against anita sarkeesian for announcing her series talking about misogyny in video games-

"it’s all about perception, about what jack (context- "angry jack" is the stand-in figure ian uses for mostly-white-cishet men who participated in the reactionary hate and harassment campaigns of the gamergate movement) wants the world to *feel* like. it’s a world where bigotry of all stripes exists as purely rhetorical abstractions- they’re all just ideas to him, and he can choose the ideas that make him most comfortable. all jack needs is a reason for anita sarkeesian to be wrong- or better yet, lying. the reason doesn’t have to be good, it’s purely utilitarian. it only needs to serve its purpose, to insist the doctor’s a quack and justify getting a second opinion. this is why sarkeesian’s critics can’t politely disagree with her- they have to treat her with *contempt*. the whole point is to spare themselves from actually considering her arguments, so her arguments have to be *beneath* consideration…most of sarkeesian’s detractors are not trying to destroy her, although they do want her gone. jack is not a psychopath- since his only understanding of a sexist is shunning, shaming or incarcerating, he reads any critique of his gender politics as an appeal to shun, shame or incarcerate *him*. he’s a guy who’s terrified of who he is if the world sarkeesian describes is real, of how he’d be treated there, of what it would ask of him, of what his conscience would tell him to do."

I read ALL the books and probably before your daddy ever busted his first nut.

THEY MADE THOSE CHARACTERS BLACK OF THEIR OWN VOLITION. NOBODY BEGGED THEM TO DO THAT.

Either keep Black people in the writers room, or get called out by Black folks that don't have an appetite for the bare fucking minimum.

It's just another anti-Black thing in a long list of anti-Black things that this show served on a platter for people to gobble up like starved dogs.

My media literacy includes not loving media that revels in hating me.

But we all different, at the end of the day. There is no "one Black opinion".

But to continue watching for *me*?

That way lies madness.