I just wanna say, as Parisians, the way we cackled with my husband. « Forcément qu’il est directeur artistique ! » « tiens prends ma carte, je suis graphiste et dj »
6 notes
·
View notes
I feel like many people have a fundamental misconception of what unreliable narrator means. It's simply a narrative vehicle not a character flaw or a sign that the character is a bad person. There are also many different types of unreliable narrators in fiction. Being an unreliable narrator doesn't necessarily mean that the character is 'wrong', it definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything even if some aspects in their story are inaccurate, and only some unreliable narrators actively and consciously lie. Stories that have unreliable narrators also tend to deal with perception and memory and they often don't even have one objective truth, just different versions. It reflects real life where we know human memory is highly unreliable and vague and people can interpret same events very differently
36K notes
·
View notes
Horrific psychological abuse and lynching plot aside, Armand was just not a nice partner to Louis. Always interrupting him, extremely dismissive of Louis’s concerns, super mean about his photography to the point where Louis became extremely insecure about in the span of 2 episodes, super insistent on a serious relationship when that's not what Louis wanted or something that was even feasible for the two of them since Armand slept on the floor with 16 racist roommates who hated Louis bad, mean as hell to his daughter, always made things about himself, stopped Louis from going to Rogets and gwtting his husbands money but had no money of his own, made shitty plays and made louis go see them, like the list is endless.
336 notes
·
View notes
ms reid calling dream lestat daffy is a huge win for my political stance as a top donor to the lestat not very smart party. so glad that we're all on the same page re lestat being utterly empty behind the eyes and not even in a psychopath way just in a truly and genuinely not a lot going on up there way
75 notes
·
View notes
"I have the blood of Akasha in me."
I have a lot of thoughts on this scene. I think the meaning of it is much less straightforward then it appears.
First, "he doesn't know what that means" had to have been said to Armand, not Louis. It would make very little sense for Louis to know about Akasha and Armand to be the one in the dark.
Much of this conversation was between Lestat and Armand, with Louis not quite understanding what's actually being said.
Even though he has Akasha's blood, Lestat is not invincible. Not even close. Lestat absolutely can be killed, Armand probably could have done it that night. If Lestat was as powerful as he's suggesting, the trial would never have happened. Claudia's plot absolutely would have succeeded had Louis let her toss Lestat into the incinerator.
Lestat knows it. Armand knows it. The point of Lestat name dropping Akasha is not I am so powerful you can't step to me, try and you'll die. The fight Lestat's putting up is entirely psychological. Lestat's tactic against Armand here is essentially the same one Louis uses against Lestat a few minutes later.
There is only one place Lestat could have learned the name "Akasha". There is only one person who could have taken Lestat to her. Marius.
Your Maker is alive. I've met him. He told me of Those Who Must Be Kept. He took me to them. He let me drink from them. He never did that for you. He never bothered to find you. He never loved you. Now go run off with Louis, I won't stop you. I don't have to. It'll end on it's own because just like me, just like Marius, Louis will never love you.
This is what's actually being said in this scene.
55 notes
·
View notes
there is a duality that claudia was a forty year old woman, who essentially joined a cult - louis warned her, but what else are you to do? she is not a child, though trapped in the body of one, that is to say that although it would come from a place of pride and claudia being an extension of himself as her maker: lestat would have never allowed her to be so ridiculed and humiliated
35 notes
·
View notes
It's funny looking back and listening to podcasts from Season 1 of IWTV, and hearing people say Louis's relationship with Armand was healthier than Lestat. Hilarious!
At least with Lestat, you knew up front what you were getting. Armand was just more clever with his control and machinations.
21 notes
·
View notes
i do love the fanfiction, but i don't think lestat would've gone with louis (neither to his hotel or to dubai) even if louis asked him to. lestat, even before his death, feared being abandoned, had massive trust issues and did the most to not depend on anyone: from the easy laced corset he wears to mardi gras he can put on by himself, to the secrets he kept, it's everywhere. he is not going to depend on louis' good will.
48 notes
·
View notes