"But I only like Twilight vampires. Edward is so dreamy. I can't wait to see the movie." I think I actually sobbed.

I... I...

AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

::stomps off snarling::

I may pick up my Buffy fic writing again just so I can have Spike snarl at some baby-Slayer who keeps trying to see if he glitters.

In a music history class, we heard a really old recording of the last surviving castrato from the twenties and it was eeeeeeeerie.

The project I am working on is (for class) is a poster for YBCA's hosting of Monsters and Prodigies: A History of the Castrati by Teatro de Ciertos Habitantes - the same production was on Broadway a couple years ago. The gentleman playing the castrato - Javier Medina - had leukemia as a kid and has a hybrid larynx, and has a soprano voice as a result. From the clips on YouTube, he sounds like the real deal. It's fucking eerie.

I know I was muttering something about the lack of education in today's baby bats!

Not to be all Gothier Than Them, but those kiddoes aren't babybats. If they're not interested in anything beyond Twilight, they're just interested in the dreaminess du jour.

Brenda! Yay for Lucy!!!

Do it!!!

I think Rice was actually a very skilled and evocative writer early on, before the purple prose gobbled her up and ran away.

It wasn't the purple prose gobbling her up; it was her loudly, proudly stated vow to not allow an editor to touch her precious baby words. You can see exactly where it happened (after Queen of the Damned and The Witching Hour, IMO), because the delineation between "fun, over-the-top, sensual prose" and "what fresh hell IS THIS?" is so clear that anyone with the ability to read can see it.

was surprised going from Interview (which was very densely written, languid and sensual) to Lestat (which flies along like any old airport read).

Yes, this. It was hard to grasp they were the same writer.

I have to disagree on Interview; I thought it was slow as hell and plodded along, and I adored Lestat (the book, though not necessarily the character).

I actually think it was rather brilliant that Rice gave us a whole book where we thought Louis was the hero, and fell in love with him (at least I know I did) and THEN gave us Lestat as hero. Because I hated Lestat and then there was this enormous switch which I went along with, despite that.

I'm pretty sure I always thought Louis was a whiner, but it's hard to remember in retrospect.

I actually think it was rather brilliant that Rice gave us a whole book where we thought Louis was the hero, and fell in love with him (at least I know I did) and THEN gave us Lestat as hero. Because I hated Lestat and then there was this enormous switch which I went along with, despite that.

I remember thinking that! "Why the fuck would I want to read about Lestat? Oh? He does WHAT? Huh. And then WHAT? ...okay, let me borrow it."

(Although Louis drove me bonkers. Most whiny, emo-tastic vamp EVAR. t edit Heh. Whiny Louis x-post!)

The thing is, to be completely fair *trying not to choke on the words because this argument means giving Meyer's interpretation weight* the concept that the little ruggers are completely missing (and what I suspect has GG wanting to bash her head against the stage) is that there is no One True Vampire. That the mythos of the vampire is dense and layered and open to a world of interpretation and above all, should not solely be based on one example of a 108 year-old vampire who was turned as a 17 year-old virgin who's got some serious obsessive/compulsive/stalker issues coupled with a deep, deep sense of self-loathing and who fucking sparkles.

Not that I have deep feelings on the matter or anything.

wrod. I want to drabble Spike and Bella now. Or maybe Edward in Willy's Bar.