Racebending and Adaptation

Introduction Struggles over representations of gender, race, and sexuality in American popular media date back decades. Organisations such as NAACP and GLAAD have demanded that the entertainment industries increase diversity in terms of casting as well as address racist, sexist, and homophobic stereotyping with the creation of more complex narratives and character development. In the context of non-White racialised representation, the 2023 State of the Media Report, compiled by the Representation Project, indicates that these efforts have resulted in parity with the US population, with more than 40% of characters in box office successes and top ten-rated television series being BIPOC (Cooper 4, 10). That said, BIPOC actors are rarely cast in leading roles, and as such account for less than ten percent of all Academy Award winners and just over five percent of Emmy winners (4, 10). In the case of Black representation, being visible is also about not being seen. Black characters written by predominately White showrunners and producers do not foreground non-White racialised experience in any meaningful way (Smith 779-797; Warner 12-25). The handsome Black doctor of the hospital drama, the dedicated Black detective of the crime procedural, the hot Black Duke of Bridgerton—such characters are typically isolated from community and primarily seen surrounded by White friends and coworkers (Smith 784). Contributing to this in/visibility is the practice of colourblind casting (blindcasting). Adapted from a theatrical hiring practice that was founded on a liberal discourse of meritocracy and equal opportunity, Black actors are hired to play roles written originally as White and/or traditionally played by White actors (Warner 16). Kirsten Warner notes that such performances are based on the “non recognition of race” and requires buy-in from not only producers and performers, but audiences (14). As a result, the Whiteness of the text remains unmarked. To be fair, some of these productions include elements of what Jason Smith refers to as colourconsciousness (780-782), in which Blackness and even anti-Black racism is acknowledged and validated in a few scenes. Despite ongoing criticism by media studies scholars and activists, as exemplified by campaigns such as #oscarssowhite, ratings and box office successes certainly suggest that these approaches to representation and diversity have been accepted or at least tolerated by the majority of predominately White audiences. The rise of the alt-right in the past ten years—a constellation of reactionary politics steeped in racism, white nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia (Ouellette anyone who is a member can set up and moderate a subreddit in a way that lines up with their political orientation. Moreover, Reddit has become a site of participatory culture, succeeding older platforms such as listservs and Web-based discussion fora (Bury “Small Christmas” 44). Given the established association with progressive politics, it should be assumed that the subreddits dedicated to adaptations with more diverse stories and casts in terms of gender, sexuality, and quite possibly race, will attract such fans, not just hostile, white male fans. To conduct my analysis of fan engagement with a racebent text, I reviewed and saved a selection of comments made to the discussion hub of r/InterviewVampire, the subreddit set up for the series. The subreddit had 16,000 subscribers at the time of data collection, and has since grown to 50,000 subscribers, which is relatively small in relation to juggernauts such as Stranger Things with several million subscribers. Due to word limit constraints, I will present data samples primarily from the premiere that focus on Louis, but also from the finale in which Rashid is revealed to be another major book character, Armand. Now You See It The first episode revealed three radical changes to the novel and the film. It adds a new contemporary time period, in which a middle-aged Daniel Malloy conducts a “second” interview with Louis de Pointe du Lac in Dubai, where Louis now lives with his Muslim lover, introduced as Rashid. Instead of a White slaveowner on a plantation in the 1790s, Louis is a Black brothel owner in 1900s New Orleans when he first meets Lestat de Lioncourt (Sam Reid). The producers also queer the relationship between Louis and Lestat and include scenes of a passionate sexual relationship. The majority of comments were positive, which is broadly indicative that the portion of the Rice fanbase that came to the subreddit to share their reactions did not align themselves with reactionary politics. Much of the praise for the premiere focussed on the quality of the production and did not directly mention the racebend: Redditor01: As a big fan of Anne Rice and of the first film adaptation, I was really put off by the big changes – to the time period and Louie's (sic) background – in the first few minutes. But damn, this show is incredibly compelling and I ended up really enjoying the changes! Redditor02: My favourite show of the year without a doubt, the chemistry between the leads, the acting, costumes, soundtrack, writing, etc all top tier. I love all the changes they have made, it adds so much depth especially to Louis' character. The first comment points to an initial resistance to the racebend being overcome by other aspects of the production that taken together created pleasures. The second comment references the quality of the production and only indirectly refers to the racebend in terms of “character development”. Others compared their impression of Louis with that of Lestat: Redditor03: The Lestat of the show is the Lestat of the books, it's the pure essence, yes Louis is different from the book, he's "changed" but for the better, still melancholy but with a touch of more intensity. Redditor04: I love everything about Lestat, he's absolutely perfect. Louis' manner I like; his melancholy narration is exactly what I wanted and is very much channeling Pitt's Louis in that sense. This comparison signals the interpretive footwork needed to appreciate AMC Louis. That Sam Reid can be read as “pure essence” of the book character, is, in part, due to his Whiteness. By only partially recognising Blackness, these fans can establish continuity with White Book Louis and White Film Louis and thus extend their pleasure to the series. The final sample presented on this theme is from a Redditor who states their decades-long love of Anne Rice and her work. Redditor05: I only cared that they got the characters right. The time, the little details… didn’t matter. I just wanted to see Louis and Lestat true to the books in their movements, power, sexuality, and motivations. I cannot believe how wonderful this first episode is. Perfection. In stripping race out while still referring to sexuality, this appreciation relies on what I argue is colourblind reception of a text which offers full recognition of Blackness and anti-Black racism. A few Redditors, however, did directly address the racebend: Redditor06: I've always been a big fan of the books, and so far I'm loving this new...reboot? Louis is a much more interesting character in this new series. The racial commentary is a new angle that I appreciate. Redditor07: I'm so pleased that the writers weren't afraid to not only make the changes to his background but use those changes to draw new notes across his character, as well as showing us the impact of racism and homophobia and the deep generational scars of the slave trade. Redditor08: It's a perfect example of how to change the race of a character and do it right. It's not just a pallet swap. Louis' race impacts the lens through which he sees the world, it changes how he reacts to things, how people react to him and is an actual part of his character. He's not just a white character being played by a black man. These comments line up with a progressive politics in which the foregrounding of structural racism and its effects is interpreted as improving and enriching the original text. The last sample also offers a critical take on blindcasting and its limitations. A similar pattern emerged with those who expressed dislike and even hate of the adaptation. I did not find any racist vitriol directed towards the cast or the producers, which was not surprising given the subreddit’s “no hate speech rule” that states that “racism, homophobia, sexism, or bigotry of any kind will lead to a ban” (/r/InterviewVampire/). That said, the expression of reactionary views does not necessarily involve toxic language or behaviours and instead can be framed as a complaint about a lack of what William Proctor calls “canonical fidelity” (160): Redditor09: The original story was fine. If audiences want more diverse stories, writers and creatives need to go write original stories that are diverse. Changing older IPs is becoming tiresome. I don’t know are they doing now intentionally to anger racists or what but tv and film has become of a cesspool of inferior remakes with a total lack of original stories. Redditor10: So people are gonna just ignore the fact that they didn’t follow Ann’s description of Louis? The only part I’m salty about is the race swap for him, and she was quite specific about the descriptions of each character and where they’re from etc. Just putting that out there…. Like yeah she agreed to let them continue her story, however, did she know about their ulterior motives for political agenda behind it? By calling out the “race swap” as not only unnecessary but associated with a progressive politics with which they clearly were not aligned, these Redditors, like the Star Wars fans referenced in the introduction, effectively position Whiteness as foundational to the story. Interestingly, a few Book fans suggested that they might have enjoyed an adaptation with colourblind casting: Redditor11: I absolutely hate it. I’m really surprised how many people are saying they like it. They changed the story so drastically that it’s unrecognizable. I like the actor who played Louis (he’s great) in they might don’t think the way they wrote him is good at all. They could have used a black actor and still kept the same personality and backstory with a few tweaks. It would have been unusual but at least it would have been the story from the book. Redditor12: Unpopular as this opinion seems to be – I agree with you. They have changed too much. I like the actors playing Louis and Lestat. But why couldn’t they leave it in the same time period? Why change so much about the story? What would have been “unusual” was the casting of a Black actor to play a slaveowner in the American South, rendering non recognition almost impossible. Even Shonda Rhimes, a showrunner known for her boundary-pushing approach to blindcasting (Warner 72-77), avoids the subject of slavery in her immensely popular Netflix series Bridgerton. Set in the Regency period, the wealthy members of “The Ton” would have almost certainly had business interests in the slave trade. The last sample on racebending displeasures foregrounds the function of unmarked Whiteness in the process of signification: Redditor13: Yep, Louis was a plantation owner and had several slaves. No clue why they decided to change it. These Redditors could not see how race and race relations were relevant to a story that involved slavery; it was its removal from the adaptation that rendered it visible. The reveal of Rashid to be Armand in the series finale was intended to catch viewers by surprise, the racebend of a character from a White Eastern European Orthodox Christian to a Middle Eastern Muslim, making it less likely that book fans would make the connection until Daniel did: Redditor14: When I heard Armand I hit my thighs with both hands and screamed "Oh Hell NO, God Fucking Dammit!!!" I quickly realized it wasn't a negative reaction to the choice of actor but to the shock that Assad was Armand. Armand has always been one of my favorite characters in the Vampire Chronologicals and I couldn't wait to see who they chose to play him. They did not disappoint! Minus the lack of red hair this is the perfect choice. This type of response suggests that elements of Book Armand’s character had been captured when AMC Armand was impersonating Rashid (his human assistant) and that Whiteness is not seen as essential, its absence marked by hair colour. Others, however, took the opposing position: Redditor15: I'm going to be honest. I'm extremely disappointed by the rewriting of Armand's character. He's always been a fan favorite and fans have literally been waiting decades for a book-accurate depiction of the character. We didn't get a book-accurate Armand in the original movie either which makes this a real gut punch. Why was it so impossible to cast a young red-haired boy for the part? Hair colour here becomes fetishised, a stand in for a certain type of Whiteness. Just as Sam Reid, an American actor, was appreciated as the “essence” of Lestat, a French vampire, it is likely that the casting of a red-headed White actor who was also not European would have generated similar comparisons. The casting of Antonio Banderas in the film, who is White but not light enough, was also seen as unacceptable. As was the case with the casting of Anderson, this final sample indicates a willingness to engage in non-recognition with the casting of Zaman. Redditor16: Knew they were gonna drop Armand right at the end of season 1, but I really, really did not think it was going to be Rashid, and to be honest I’m pissed. Granted, it’s too early to tell in what context any of this has come to pass, but this changes so much about Armand (and Louis’) character. I want to be patient with the show but god, I was really hoping for a book accurate Armand – in backstory and plot, if not in casting, and it really looks like that’s just not gonna happen. Sigh. Already displeased with the racebending of Louis, Armand is effectively a racebend too far. Conclusion As I hope to have demonstrated, the pleasures and displeasures of AMC’s racebent adaptation are directly linked to the political views of the fans who participated in discussion on r/InterviewVampire. Praising the racebend for foregrounding Black experience and anti-Black racism or dismissing it as a race swap that ruined the original to further a diversity “agenda”, are clearly linked to progressive and reactionary politics respectively. Less obvious, but also linked to a reactionary politics, was the confusion expressed about the decision of the producers to talk back to a narrative revolving around a slaveowner, one that relies on unmarked White Supremacy. While both positions were expressed on the subreddit, the majority of Redditors were more closely aligned with a liberal politics that informs colourblind casting. Anderson’s acting was praised, and the changes to the character of Louis were discussed in ways that avoided fully recognising Blackness. A few disappointed fans who could not unsee Blackness were nonetheless willing to engage in colourblind reception, had the text given them the opportunity. Similarly, Armand’s non-White ethnic/religious identity was seen, but both acceptance and disapproval were framed in terms of a lack of red/auburn hair. Thus, the fandom that formed around the AMC series shows traces of alt-right “culture war” influence, but it certainly cannot be categorised as reactionary. In the absence of a robust embrace of the racebend, however, neither can it be categorised as progressive. While this is only one subreddit and fan fora on Reddit cannot necessarily be taken as representative of American audiences, my findings gesture to a reluctance/discomfort to move beyond the familiarity of colourblind approaches to representation and take up the challenge of engaging with the long and fraught history of race relations and racism when an invitation is extended. References AMC Networks. "Interview with a Vampire Casting News." 4 Mar. 2022. 5 June 2025 . AMC Talk. "Jacob Anderson to Star in 'Interview with the Vampire'." 26 Aug. 2021. 7 June 2025 . Blodgett, Bridget, and Anastasia Salter. "Ghostbusters Is for Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity’s Role in the Alt-Right." Communication, Culture & Critique 11 (2018): 133–146. DOI: 10.1093/ccc/tcx003. Bury, Rhiannon. Cyberspaces of Their Own: Female Fandoms Online. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. ———. “'A Small Christmas for Me': A Study of Binge-Watching and Fan Engagement on Reddit.” Binge-Watching and Contemporary Television Studies. Ed. Mareike Jenner. Edinburgh: U of Edinburgh P, 2021. 40-58. Cooper, Rebecca. The State of the Media Report Card 2023. 15 July 2025 . Fiske, John. “Moments of Television: Neither the Text Nor the Audience.” Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power. Eds. Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabrielle Kreutzner, and Eva-Maria Warth. New York: Routledge, 1989. 56-78. Gray, Jonathan. Dislike-Minded: Media, Audiences, and the Dynamics of Taste. New York: New York UP, 2021. Jenkins, Henry. "Negotiating Fandom: The Politics of Racebending." The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom. 2nd ed. Eds. Melissa A. Click and Suzanne Scott. New York: Routledge, 2025. 151-163. ———. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. Massanari, Adrienne L. Participatory Culture, Community, and Play: Learning from Reddit. New York: Peter Lang, 2015. McClellan, Ann. "A Black Sherlock Holmes (1918): A Case Study in Racebending." Adaptation 14.1 (2020): 23-42. DOI: 10.1093/adaptation/apaa007. Ouellette, Laurie, and Sarah Banet-Weiser. “Special Issue: Media and the Extreme Right: Editor’s Introduction.” Communication Culture & Critique 11 (2018): 1–6. Proctor, William. "‘I’ve Seen a Lot of Talk about the #Blackstormtrooper Outrage, But Not a Single Example of Anyone Complaining’: The Force Awakens, Canonical Fidelity and Non-Toxic Fan Practices." Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 15.1 (2018): 160-179. . Smith, Jason. "Between Colorblind and Colorconscious: Contemporary Hollywood Films and Struggles over Racial Representation." Journal of Black Studies 44.8 (2013): 779-797. DOI: 10.1177/0021934713516860. Warner, Kristen J. The Cultural Politics of Colorblind TV Casting. New York: Routledge, 2015. Williams, Rebecca, and Lucy Bennett. “Editorial: Fandom and Controversy.” American Behavioral Scientist 66.8 (2022): 1035-43. .