I found it very, very hard to stomach in the context of characters I know and care about and can't explain how creeped out I was by TVA.
That was my reaction - it felt profoundly OOC; it raised questions that it then insisted on ignoring; and for AFAIK the first time in the series, it generated a huge moral dilemma inadvertently. Normally these are books that pick obsessively over the right way of being; of treating others. It feels like a betrayal not to do that here, especially when the book is playing with things resonant to people's lived experiences.
One very significant thing in this is how hugely, hugely popular Armand is. I remember a poll for favourite character on the_elitist_vc which he won by a landslide - and there was no shortage of Lestat or Louis fans there. I wonder how much of his popularity is because the VC are books that are often discovered by, and taken to the hearts of, people who feel like outsiders; people whose lives have been difficult.
And if you're a young reader like that, and your life has been to a large extent determined by adults in positions of semi-benign or officially benign power over you, there's a lot of potential for identification with Armand. And it's natural at that stage to look for someone older to guide you, see your potential, whatever.
If that relationship turns into something self-serving for that mentor-figure, something abusive... it can be hard to see, especially if it also contains positive, nurturing elements, and especially if the younger/more vulnerable person has been conditioned by previous abusive dynamics.
So in Marius/Armand, there's this incredibly seductive dynamic which contains corruption from the get-go, yet it's almost an afterthought; a decoration. :/
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-06-02 05:17 pm (UTC)That was my reaction - it felt profoundly OOC; it raised questions that it then insisted on ignoring; and for AFAIK the first time in the series, it generated a huge moral dilemma inadvertently. Normally these are books that pick obsessively over the right way of being; of treating others. It feels like a betrayal not to do that here, especially when the book is playing with things resonant to people's lived experiences.
One very significant thing in this is how hugely, hugely popular Armand is. I remember a poll for favourite character on
And if you're a young reader like that, and your life has been to a large extent determined by adults in positions of semi-benign or officially benign power over you, there's a lot of potential for identification with Armand. And it's natural at that stage to look for someone older to guide you, see your potential, whatever.
If that relationship turns into something self-serving for that mentor-figure, something abusive... it can be hard to see, especially if it also contains positive, nurturing elements, and especially if the younger/more vulnerable person has been conditioned by previous abusive dynamics.
So in Marius/Armand, there's this incredibly seductive dynamic which contains corruption from the get-go, yet it's almost an afterthought; a decoration. :/