some other thoughts on abuse apologia in tvl. like i said before, in my opinion the writers took abuse-centric stance, either because they find this type of the narrative more "brave" and "interesting" or because they have certain beliefs they wanted to express through the fictional characters without facing much backlash.
i'm trying to connect everything from iwtv and tvl and see the statement they tried to make, and obviously iwtv is a little more careful in that regard, most likely because the writers' room had inner disagreements, and the political/cultural climate was a bit different. tvl has a more straightforward vision. not a great one of course.
tvl says that there are "real victims" and "performative victims". and the distinction they make is not based on any kinda proper research, but what looks like personal opinion festering in minds of older generations probably since early 2000s. basically tvl says that people are way too sensitive and there's some kinda rational truth, while the rest is delusional. it says that "real victims" are those who were physically assaulted without any reason by strangers. "real victims" are those who were used and weren't loved. these people deserve sympathy and support and can talk about their pain in any form they want.
and then there are "performative victims": people who carry partial accountability in relationships with their family members or partners but "blame others" for harm that was done to them. therefore, idea of material power doesn't matter at all: tvl says that you have free will, so you brought that harm on yourself either by provoking someone, by treating them coldly or by staying with someone who could be dangerous to you. and the narrative not only criticizes people who position themselves as the wronged side in such relationships, it holds immense hatred for them.
"you talked about it and it's worse" is basically the main philosophy of tvl. it asks the questions: "if it was our personal relationship and we both did wrong, why you act like you're allowed to talk about harm done to you and i don't? why you think you allowed to kick me out of our shared home?". it reads to me as something very personal and very frustrated.
and obviously in this philosophy we can see some fascinating conclusions tvl makes: lestat is a victim of magnus, but he only becomes victim of gabriella when he realized she used him (otherwise "he didn't mind"). louis is not a victim of lestat and especially armand, because spousal abuse is "always mutual" and he was emotionally distant and mean, so he "deserved it". claudia is bruce's victim, but not louis' victim because she used him and hated him (so louis needs to move on from his guilt, you see). she's potentially lestat's victim, but she retaliated, so they're "even" now. daniel is not armand's victim because armand loved him. and again, what being a "victim" even means in tvl is that these people are allowed to complain and talk about their trauma, but if you aren't "real victim" you should shut up about your feelings and admit how equally selfish and awful you were.
basically, we talked a lot how much this fandom enjoys abuse apologia and victim-blaming and never realized that the biggest enemies are the writers themselves. people who found perfect time and place to voice their personal opinions on so-called modern sensibilities and wrap it up in the show about vampires (because "they're monsters!") so no one cancels them online. all that research they allegedly did on abuse wasted, i guess.
sugurugetos
titsay
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
gamechangershow
romaincrisis
blakekathryn
2087
