#Lestat and his portrayal is just so interesting to me

[zeb-z]

watched s1 of iwtv, and im insane actually. whenever there were moments of Lestat in his element, almost loving and entirely seductive, they were always quickly followed by moments of startling brutality. one moment he’s ass out, or smiling all pretty with gifts to give, or sexy while covered in blood, and the next he’s exploding a head with his fist, or dragging Louis by his literal throat. something about showing that sort of fantasy of danger before ripping it away with real danger yknow what I mean. like there’s this inherent seduction of the dangerous, of the taboo, and Lestat is all of that, power and opulence and the threat of danger even in the way he moves - but it’s more than an illusion or fantasy, and he is truly controlling and cruel and dangerous. the show doesn’t shy away from that allure or sort of eroticism just as it doesn’t shy away from the brutality of his violence

[dilfdyke]

as much as assad will always be The Armand to me. i do love seeing art of book armand i think hes fascinating and seeing him makes me upset in fun New and Different ways. the same does not apply to louis however any time i see white louis i get the overwhelming urge to throw him out a window

[nalyra-dreaming]

Regarding future season structure, I do see the show moving away from a narrated format after TVL but I do hope we get some flashbacks of other characters (not full seasons) bc I do hope we get some TVA moments and if they are doing past DM🤞. And Marius.. hate him or love him he is an interesting character.

I know they keep calling S3 TVL and I might be wrong but I got the sense that they are doing TVL/QOTD at the same time with TVL as the focus for S3. Tbh I always thought of both books like a duology bc they go together so well.

I'm torn on TVL being one or two seasons bc I do think there will be some pushback if past Lestat takes up more than 50% of the season. I am not downplaying Lestat's popularity but if Louis is missing for more than 50% of the season? Yeah won't be a good look. I also don't really see the show going back and showing too many previously established scenes from Lestat's pov in Nola.

So imo it makes sense to me to stretch TVL to two seasons but to also do QOTD as the current story going on at the same time.

Either way I'm beyond excited bc I love both books.

Arguably, I think they have already started on QotD (in combination with Amel, imho). Because we have the ever increasing vampire population, the "great conversion". "Those who must be kept" have been named, several times, the importance of the blood of Akasha has been pointed out.

TVL and QotD were always a story that went together, and I am not sure how much episodes they will give us, but I do think TVL will end on the show with the same cliffhanger the book does: namely Akasha coming in and kidnapping Lestat right after the (a) last? concert - and worse here, I think it will be from Louis' arms.

S3 will not contradict or reshow all of S1&2. TVL doesn't do that either. And the season 3 press release has been clear:

“In season three, resentful of the perfunctory portrayal in the trashy bestseller ‘Interview With The Vampire,’ the Vampire Lestat sets his story straight in a way only the Vampire Lestat can—by starting a band and going on tour. Gabrielle. Nicholas. Magnus. Marius. Those Who Must Be Kept. They join Louis, Armand, Molloy, Sam, Raglan, Fareed and others we can’t tell you about yet on a sexy pilgrimage across space, time and trauma.”

There will be Louis. Of course?! The show is built on Loustat. But we are not on IWTV anymore. This has also been stated:

"Sam worked really hard for two years as a supporting actor, and I think Jacob is very excited to do the same thing for him, and put Sam front and center," Jones tells EW. "We've just scratched the surface with Sam, who's an incredible actor."

To repeat in what I said in my recent PSA (reblog): I don't care about actual screentime percentage. Or top billing, or whatever. They said they would keep Jacob and they better(!).

IWTV was Louis' story, narrated by him. TVL, QotD, TtotBT are all narrated by Lestat (for the most part). That will reflect, but I also think that there is no way we will not have a LOT of Louis in the story.

[jellybellyblimp]

I don’t know what’s not clicking with people that this all from LOUIS’ perspective, and therefore all colored by his perception of events. Like I know he explains to Daniel that “this is the more nuanced portrait” of Lestat, but it still is very clearly biased by Louis’ own emotions. This is far from an accurate portrayal of events “it’s an admitted performance” and there are several very clear examples of Louis misinterpreting Lestat’s actions.

The most clear example to me is the opera scene, where Louis is forced to act as Lestat’s valet in public. Louis interprets that moment STILL IN 2022 as manipulation. He sees Lestat expressing his loneliness and desire to be with Louis forever as Lestat preying upon Louis’ emotional weakness at being forced to act below his partner. BUT Sam Reid’s acting in that scene makes in clear that was exactly the opposite of what was happening. Lestat was attempting to comfort Louis. He was attempting to express that he saw them as equal, he was sorry that was happening, he loved him, and they had forever to not always be trapped by these racist social conventions. He wasn’t manipulating Louis, he was expressing his own feelings in an attempt at comfort, but Louis’ own tumultuous emotional states causes him to view that moment as uncharitably as possible. And it’s interesting and sad that even 50 years after the original interview, and having clearly reevaluated much of their initial relationship to try to see Lestat’s perspective of it, he still views moments like that as manipulative.

This isn’t a defense of Lestat necessarily, but this show has gone to great lengths to express, what always should have been obvious, THAT THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE RETELLING OF EVENTS. This is Louis’ version of the story and we have no way of knowing Lestat’s version of events.

And I think people need to carry this with them as they continue on with the story. Because as much as we joke about Lestat “Baby trapping” Louis, when I initially read the book it was my view that that had never been Lestat’s true motive. Lestat hadn’t turned Claudia to trap Louis or even to have a child, it was because he knew Louis would never be able to live with himself if Claudia had died. Lestat would only lose Louis even more than he had already. It was his version of making the best out of a bad situation. It was still selfish and fucked, but Louis was just as complicit in her fate as Lestat was. It’s only Louis’ recollection that colors Lestat as more villainous. And I know people are going to disagree here, but seriously I am begging you to remember that all of the original Interview with the Vampire Novel is the uncharitable, bitter recollections of LOUIS. And that the more we see of Lestat in the rest of the books, the more obvious it becomes that IWTV was inaccurate portrait.

We already know the Claudia story has been altered. And I know speculation is predicting that Lestat will become violent, and that will prompt Claudia and Louis “killing” him and fleeing to Europe. I’m not personally fond of that if that’s what will happen, but I’m willing to suspend judgment because I was skeptical of some of the other changes and so far have been in love with every one of them. I think aging up Claudia changes her story, but also opens up a lot of new avenues of exploration. And frankly given how well they’ve handled the changes so far, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So barring it being clear cut domestic abuse. I think we all need to remember that this is Louis’ perspective, and in the novels Claudia was canonically manipulative, (admittedly I feel understandably). Claudia intentionally worsened the wedge between Louis and Lestat. It’s absolutely possible Louis is interpreting any given moment as uncharitably as possible and his perspective of Lestat’s motivations have been skewed.

[ca-suffit]

I don't get why some people refuse to accept that Louis was abused. Him having been a victim to Lestat doesn't negate his grief. He's clearly still grieving Claudia, and from what we can tell of S2, we WILL see that too. No one is saying he's a saint either - he did fail Claudia. Him being a victim doesn't overshadow his grief or make him a saint.

And as you said, this isn't just some cheap story of abuse for shock value either. I wrote a whole wall of text about the complexities and layers of the abuse here but that would have been too long of an ask ajdhwj. Basically, there's the race aspect (which converses with the other aspects), there's that Louis couldn't leave him for many, many reasons, there's the emotional aspect, there's the power aspect (in more than one way)... I'm probably missing something, but this is very good portrayal of abuse and also something that happens irl.

This is also something that loustat will have to touch on in the future and will make for a very interesting story (again, as you said).

His arc is different in the book because the show has a different version of Louis with added struggles that book Louis didn't have (mostly due to his race and era, but also the dynamic that is shown with him and Lestat, if I remember the book correctly - partly also due to the former). Grief is still a part of his story, though.

Sorry for the long ask, it's just that reading that really made me go "??"

thank u for all of this!! I am not ignoring all u wrote but I wanted to elaborate on one point specifically tho and it's gonna be long. thank u for everything u wrote in full tho, I appreciate it. "I don't get why some people refuse to accept that Louis was abused."

they did it when he was white. it's because he's black now and lestat remains white. the vampires mention shit like slavery outright to each other when it's all white ppl, but it suddenly holds a LOT more weight once u make the "fledgling" a black person. AMC has done nothing but enhance what was already there, ppl just don't want to empathize with a black man.

anne rice fans are not critical thinkers but they like to think they are because they're proud they read a lot of books at prbly young ages. books they felt were rly "adult" and "mature." they've never grown up and taken a second look. anne rice's encouragement of parasocial relationships made that worse too. most of these ppl can't separate themselves from these characters and now feel bad seeing themes brought more to the surface about these relationships. they have to blame the writers and keep looking stupid instead of getting some self-awareness.

I know the fight does not happen in the books but I've seen enough passages from book IWTV to know physical and emotional violence between louis and lestat is v common. I've seen parts of lestat's books too where he's also violent to other partners. it's in the character, they've just been too busy wanting to fuck him the whole time to notice ig. that's what it is too. lots of this before the show was a sexy game to ppl and now they're mad u have to think about the story and consequences for things so much, mainly in ways that interfere with lighthearted shipping stuff. anne rice didn't ever talk about anything in depth so they're used to having awareness of topics but never exploring them. they feel stupid in many, many ways now and somehow that's everyone's fault but their own. it's practically *two years in* and they're still doing all this instead of doing some self-reflection. they keep reapplying the clown paint and then want to say it's ppl like me "ruining" it for others here like that's even remotely true lol.

anyways, u are welcome to visit my inbox any time and write whatever u want on this btw! I'd luv to hear it all.

[ch3ri-ch3ri-lady]

Vampire chronicles ask for u (if you’re still interested ofc!) what do you think about Claudia as a character?

Ofcccc! Tysm for asking and I have a LOT of thoughts on Claudia (how can you not??). Brace yourself for a whole dissertation.

First and foremost, I’m the BIGGEST Claudia defender. I genuinely think she was completely justified in killing Lestat and being a dick to Louis about it. She genuinely has one of the most tragic stories in all of tvc and despite only being a main character for one book, she really stuck with me. Being eternally trapped in the body of a child, never being able to live on your own, take on a lover, basically have any autonomy or respect in society-all because of your drama queen fathers’ shitty baby trapping and toxic married couple bullshit? I would be a VILLAIN.

I hate when people say they dislike Claudia because she “abused” Louis or was “just as bad as Lestat”. Firstly, she was LITERALLY the child lmao. I think we as readers have a very biased portrayal of Claudia and her actions because it’s told from the eyes of Louis and Lestat. If it was from Claudia’s POV, I think absolutely no one would be complaining about her revenge quest against her shitty dads. I know it’s a topical debate on if Louis was a bad father or not, and while I think he definitely tried and was maybe more of the stereotypical nuclear-family-reads-bedtime-stories-to-his-daughter “good dad” in the early years, his hypocritical self loathing and perpetual martyrdom definitely inhibited his ability to provide Claudia with the support system she needed. Weeping dramatically about how bad of a father you’ve been doesn’t make you a better father lmao. To be honest, when it came to Claudia’s personality, I wasn’t a huge fan. I didn’t find her as entertaining to read about as say Lestat or Armand, and she was never emotionally or vibe wise one of my favourite characters. However, I think she is one of the most interestingly written characters and I will always ride or die defend her regardless.

As for AMC’s Claudia, I ADORED Bailey Bass’s portrayal of her and can’t wait to see Delainey Hayles in s2! While I think the aged up Claudia was definitely well executed and interesting (and I get why they did it), I still think it’s a bit of a shame that’s she’s not explicitly a “child” anymore. AMC Claudia can effectively live on her own and with some makeup pass for 18. Even this slight more access to adulthood places show Claudia leagues ahead of book Claudia. One thing I wasn’t a fan of was her sexual assault-I’m glad that they did the bare minimum of not showing it onscreen, but it felt very unnecessary to me. Like they could’ve just made Bruce attack her or something. Also Lestat (sexual assault victim) using Claudia’s against her as a fear tactic?? I get Lestat was very villainized in s1 from a mix of Louis and Claudia’s unreliable narration and Armand’s mind control mumbo jumbo, but I found that rather distasteful. Speaking of Claudia and Lestat, she’s literally his mini me! I really hope AMC shows more of this, and more moments of Lestat doting on Claudia. He was always the father who spoiled her with excessively bloody killing sprees or luxury brand clothes, I feel like we hardly saw that in the show. Like Claudia is his BABY! The parallels between Lestat/the Marquis and Claudia/Lestat…absolutely soul-crushingly diabolical I love it.

I’m curious as to how they’re going to change/approach Claudia and Madeleine’s relationship in the show. One of my favourite changes the show made was getting rid of the Claudia/Louis incest stuff because…DEFINITELY one of my least favourite things about the iwtv book and made me extremely uncomfortable. People always joke about Gabrielle/Lestat but Claudia/Louis is like a fandom taboo lmao (rightfully so). Probably because joking about Lestat’s mommy issues oedipus complex is funnier and more acceptable then acknowledging the fact that book Louis was like a straight pedophile about his 5 year old daughter. Wtf Anne.

This was SO much I’m so sorry lmao

[prouvaireafterdark]

I think people are taking this unreliable narrator stuff WAY too far. like we might be missing some details here and there (whether it rained one night) and it might purposefully omit scenes but the show so far has NOT indicated people are straight up making up scenes that didn't exist. I think if the show goes there then it just cheapens everything cause if nothing is real, then why am I watching this shit happen.

Yeah that's valid, but I have a few thoughts.

One of the issues of the series' continuity between IWTV and TVL is that Lestat is a completely different person in each book, right? Anne Rice explains this by telling us via Lestat's narration in TVL that Louis straight up lied about a bunch of shit in his book. And not just misrepresenting things either, he accuses Louis of wholesale making shit up and not mentioning anything about all of the positive memories they shared, such as how they used to walk and talk and go dancing together and would act out scenes of Shakespeare plays for Claudia's amusement.

Now, we can (and probably should) hurl the same accusation of being an unreliable narrator at Lestat too, and likely the truth (if such a thing exists) of their relationship was something in between their two recollections. But my point is that there being vast differences in the perspectives of each narrator on the same events is kind of baked into the series this show is based on, and that Louis originally lied to Daniel is the basis of even having the second interview at all. I think we're--like Daniel--meant to be critical of how and why Louis' story has changed so much 50 years later.

That being said, I don't think we're supposed to call Louis or Claudia liars as we watch scenes told from their POV. Their perspectives and the emotions they felt while these events were unfolding are valid and, for all intents and purposes, true because it's how they experienced them.

But that doesn't mean that other characters, if asked to recount the same event, would have seen it the same way or would even remember and think to mention the same details. That's why I think it's interesting to think about how different Louis is through Claudia's eyes than his own, for example, and I think this same thing can extend to how they each portray Lestat.

Here's a real life example to illustrate my point: When I was 12, my dad wouldn't let me go to a music festival that I was DESPERATE to go to and if I had written about it at the time I would have written a scathing account of how cruel and unfair he was, and if he had written about it, he probably would have seen himself as entirely justified and me as a whiny brat who he felt was not old or mature enough to handle going to a music festival with rough crowds where I could have gotten myself hurt.

Same conversation, two perspectives, each of them wildly different. This is why I wonder how much of Lestat's cruelty/callousness to Claudia in episode 4 was an objective portrayal of his actual words and behavior vs. how his words and behavior were interpreted by Claudia in that moment, because those two things are not really the same, are they?

And the same thing goes the other way too! I remember verbatim some pretty heinous shit my parents said to me when I was a kid and any time I mention it, they have NO recollection it even happened because what was a formative and traumatic memory FOR ME was not for them. It's possible that if someone asked Lestat if he called Claudia a mistake, he would deny it, not because he's trying to lie, but because he legit doesn't remember saying it because it was a heat of the moment type of comment and not something he'd stored in his memory.

The theme of memory as something mutable and suggestible and subjective is huge in this show, and I think for us as viewers it's less about nothing being real (because it is real to the narrator) or accusing narrators of making up scenes that didn't happen and more about being aware of how the perspective of each narrator significantly impacts the way they tell their story.

[nightcolorz]

Hi! I loved your post on gender in the vc vs show conception. Could you write your thoughts on Gabrielle?

AAAA tysm!! I would love to !! I love Gabrielle so much I have Thoughts. Tw v in-depth talk about gender dysphoria and excessive use of the word perceive 

With Gabrielle Anne Rice wrote the most accurate depiction of gender dysphoria I’ve ever come across in media. Of course there’s been portrayals of trans ppl and gender dysphoria that come from an educated and purposeful place, but with Gabrielle it’s so visceral that I find it more relatable and meaningful then any intentional trans representation I’ve ever seen. Because, Anne Rice didn’t write Gabrielle as a trans person, and yet she ended up creating a character perceived vastly as trans by readers just by projecting her own discomfort around femininity onto her. 

I’m thinking about the scene in tvl where Gabrielle cuts all her hair off her first night as a vampire and has a horrified meltdown when it grows back the next day. I was so shocked by this when I read it bcus I Felt That, and I couldn’t stop thinking, “did Anne Rice just write the most compelling and affective piece of trans horror I’ve ever read BY ACCIDENT?” Bcus,,, that feeling that no matter what u do with ur appearance you will never be seen as how you see urself in your head. You’re free now (vampirism in Gabs case), you can do anything u want with ur appearance, nobodies stopping u, but it doesn’t matter-bcus your hair is just going to grow back the next day. Any kind of euphoria induced alteration u make will just be undone. You’re trapped in your own body.

Gabrielle is a “woman” turned into a vampire at her frailest state, right before death, after a life of being forced into the role of wife and mother, and even tho she’s free of those expectations now, her body will always reflect that past. Isn’t that just the most literal embodiment of the fear gender dysphoria instills into you? That no matter where you are in your gender journey and how you perceive yourself everyone will just continue to perceive you the way they have in your past? Bcus damn, chilling. 

Not only that but the euphoria leading up to that scene, Gabrielle joyfully putting on men’s clothing and cutting her hair as Lestat watches her in bafflement. She tells him to not call her mother anymore, and that she rejects that role. Only to be smacked in the face by reality telling her she’s just going to look the way she always has, for eternity. AAA! It got me good.

And I think that Gabrielle’s perspective on what the vampire existence should be is very much colored by all this. Her lifestyle is so strikingly unique in comparison to all the other vampires. Gabrielle rejects society and civilization, and wants to spend her eternity away from humans and other vampires and find meaning in the wilderness. This comes from a place of already having lived a human lifetime and no longer finding interest in human relationships, but also, I believe the desire to not be Perceived. As a trans person I find the urge to go off into the woods and live like a creature oddly relatable. I think other trans and gnc ppl can relate, lol. I  desperately wanted to do this when I was a child and deeply unhappy with how I was perceived and treated as a little girl, but I’ve grown out of it now that I’m happy and confident in my gender presentation. 

Gabrielle unfortunately, may never get that. She can’t alter her appearance in anyway she finds satisfactory, and this is worsened by her community (the other vampires) who are very unhelpful when it comes to supporting how she wants to be perceived. They all just see her as Lestat’s Mom™️ despite her very vocal dislike of being seen as a maternal figure. (Then they have the audacity to bitch about how she is always absent lmao, like huh maybe she’d be more present and less cold if u mfs were more considerate 🙄)

In conclusion, Gabrielle trans masc real. I’m a lil scared about how the show will portray her bcus if they get it wrong I will be sooo disappointed. Side note it felt slightly weird referring to Gabs with she/her pronouns for this even tho those are what are used in the books, but whateves pronouns don’t = gender anyway. Leave ur Gabrielle gender and pronouns headcanons in the tags friends projection is encouraged actually.

Also thank you sm for sending this ask! And for all the asks I’ve been getting recently. I love answering asks they’re so fun

[hapireads]

The Vampire Lestat Review

Reading this after Interview With The Vampire was an absolute whirlwind. I feel as though one book should not be read without the other. If you read Interview With The Vampire, you should immediately pick up The Vampire Lestat and read it. They couple together so well that I will forever be in awe of Anne Rice.

I will first discuss the shocking alteration in Lestat's character between the two novels. Where I was left confused and underwhelmed by the cold, unfeeling portrayal of Lestat in Interview With The Vampire, I now understand it was all in Rice's careful plans. Lestat's portrayal in the first novel is undoubtedly a product of modern-day Louis' feelings and biases.

What I found most interesting about this new exploration of Lestat's character is his intense desires to be good. In both the present-day and the flashback scenes, Lestat almost completely devotes himself to trying to be good, even though he's a monster. In the opening pages of the novel (during the 'present-day' in 1984), he explicitly states that he lingered for killers to appear to feed on, and eventually states that "more than ever, I was resolute that I would not drink innocent blood" (p. 11). But these cravings for goodness transcend the act of hunting for blood. When Lestat begins to tell the audience of his life as a young mortal boy, he explores his love for the brief time he spent in a monastery, which was all just a result of the instructors there believing that he had the capacity for good, something he did not get at home with his family. This concept of goodness in Lestat all comes to a peak for me through a conversation with Gabrielle. When Gabrielle brings up ideas of dictators and chaos, Lestat immediately rebels, stating that "it is petty to destroy anything for the mere sake of destroying" (p. 336). This is a far cry from the hedonistic, and borderline cruel, picture of Lestat that we receive in Interview With The Vampire.

Lestat's explanation of Louis' portrayal of him in his novel was absolutely amazing. Building up the novel in order to explain the dissonance between the two different accounts of what really happened between Louis and Lestat was excellent and Anne Rice managed to do it in a way which was almost effortless. I was utterly seduced. What I particularly enjoyed was Lestat's explanation of how all the people he 'cruelly' hunted and murdered during their time together, were really evildoers, which was unbeknownst to Louis. Louis "told the tale as he believed it" (p. 501), and Lestat is unconditionally accepting of that fact. This was a fantastic way of Rice explaining that Interview With The Vampire still retains value and is just as valid as Lestat's account of what happened, even if what Louis relayed was not 100% true. It was true to Louis, thus, it matters still.

Moving on, I really enjoyed the random little moments of Lestat being a weird little guy. I'm not sure if Rice intentionally wrote these things to be funny, but I could not help but laugh whenever I came across them. For example, when Lestat is still newly turned and settling into the incredibly heightened senses and abilities he's gained, he picks up a rat and stares at it like the sweet baby he is: "All I could think was that the rat had very tiny feet, and that I had not yet examined a rat...I went and caught the rat...and looked at its feet. I wanted to see what kind of little toenails it has, and what was the flesh like between its little toes" (p. 120). I wanted to see what kind of little toenails it has. I wanted to see what kind of little toenails it has. How fucking endearing! Lelio, the wolfkiller, the fiercest vampire, picking up a little rat to look at its little toes. Somebody sedate me. Another example is when Rice is attempting to explain how abnormal vampires act and states that Lestat once "sat down beneath a tree, drew up [his] knees, and put [his] hands to the side of [his] head like a stricken elf in a fairytale" (p. 124). That's some cute fucking shit.

It was also really beautiful to see how unabashedly confident Lestat was in expressing his love and his queerness. When I read Interview With The Vampire and wrote my review, I was shocked by the lack of romance in the text. Retrospectively, it makes perfect sense. Louis is a patchwork of shame, suffering and self deprecation, of course he would never openly admit that what he had with Lestat was an enduring love. Or maybe he didn't even come to terms with it himself. Almost from the very beginning of The Vampire Lestat till the end Lestat is painfully open about how much he worships Louis. His vulnerability paired with Anne Rice's literary genius worked to completely ruin my life. It's been days since I finished the novel and I cannot stop thinking about the sweetness of it all. I find myself consistently picking the novel back up, flicking to the dog-eared pages I know contain Lestat's confessions of love for Louis. I read them over and over and hold each word, each letter close to my heart. Anne Rice is a master of language.

Moving onto other characters in the novel, we arrive at some of my only dislikes of the novel. I didn't dislike Gabrielle (Lestat's mother), per-se, she just made me incredibly uncomfortable. Although Anne Rice is undoubtedly talented, she had a weird knack for hyper-focusing on weird and inappropriate concepts. While many Vampire Chronicles fans have discussed how the relationship between Gabrielle and Lestat is not incestuous because they are vampires, I simply cannot abide by it. It is fucking weird. All their conversation is tainted by strange, erotic thoughts and actions and it does not matter that Gabrielle was liberated from the conventions of humans when she was turned into a vampire, she was Lestat's mother and Rice had no business having them french kiss each other every other sentence. Don't even get me started on how many times Lestat referred to his mother as his lover...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Why can't they have a non-incestuous relationship? I feel unsure of the value of their incestuous relationship to the novel. I definitely could have lived without it.

In regards to the other major characters, such as Marius and Armand, I thoroughly enjoyed their involvement in the novel. Many people have stated that the chapters regarding Marius' story were boring but I found them absolutely enthralling! It was so interesting to see how Rice plotted out her vampire lore. In many ways I could see how this worldbuilding inspired current vampire media and in many ways I saw aspects which were completely unique and strange, but in the best way! It was also really sweet to see how Lestat came to depend upon Marius, the only person in the world he felt he could relate to. I don't know yet how I feel about 'Those Who Must Be Kept', but I guess that's something I will discover when I move onto Queen of the Damned. As for Armand? I love that nutcase, and always have! His desperation to have Lestat love him (and more importantly, have Lestat admit that he loves him) was heartbreaking, but also paralleled how Lestat behaves toward Louis, which is even more heartbreaking. There is so much I want to say about Armand but I will keep it behind closed doors until I read The Vampire Armand!

P.S. I loved that one of the sacred rules for vampire covens was that you shant turn someone who was not beautiful. That is so bizarre but I am obsessed with the stupidity of it!

Overall, I give The Vampire Lestat a 9.5/10! I can't wait to continue this series.

[nalyra-dreaming]

hi!! before i ask my question i just want to say i ADORE your blog. your analyses are so interesting and genuine and i love reading them.

my question is pertaining to armand in the show. in the show they have him coming from a muslim background. what impact or bearing do you think this will have on the portrayal of les innocents?

sorry if this is worded strangely i wasnt sure how to word this 😅

Hey!

So glad you like! *hugs*

And all good, I think I know what you mean^^

Okay, so, back when the show aired someone (unfortunately I couldn't find the post, but if someone remembers who and has that post...?) remarked that the prayer Armand was shown to do was slightly wrong. I am not Muslim, so that did not click for me, but there was a discussion about it.

Now I believe Assad would know how to do that prayer and I think the show doing it just a bit wrong might be another hint. I think Armand is probably converting. Has converted. Wants to convert. We'll see.

The area Armand is from was heavily contended back then. It will be interesting to see if they give him a muslim original background or a christian one, because depending on how they spin it, it might change the character story (of being captured and sold as a (sex) slave) a bit. I believe they will keep that part of the story, because Armand can be seen to react to Daniel's flippant "save it for the rent boy".

But, either way, he was eventually picked up by Marius, and educated in Venice (I don't think they'll change that). I do think that the rest of it (the attack on Marius and him, the capture by Santino and the Children of Satan etc) will then play out no matter the underlying religion he had.

And eventually... he will be sent to lead the coven under Les Innocents.

Now the show has shifted Lestat's turning into the time of the "Reign of Terror", to 1794. That is important, because then Lestat cannot have encountered Armand and the coven under Les Innocents, because Les Innocents was closed in 1785 and that closing of the cemetery plays a part in the story.

Lestat will have to encounter the coven somewhere else already. And they still will need to relocate, or are prompted to relocate through the events with Lestat.

So I think... the muslim part (if originally his religion or not) might not play that much into the Les Innocents part after all. Because the importance of Les Innocents has been somewhat removed through the time shift already, and I also think that Armand was never the big believer in the cause. Oh he led his coven, true, he followed the rules. Enforced them. But believe? In the sense of the word?

I think Armand held onto it all because there was nothing else to hold onto for a long, long time.

In the books the events of Memnoch are a kind of wake up call for Armand. IF Lestat is really in his coma in modern Dubai, as theorized after some kind of Memnoch-type event, then that wake up call might have happened there as well.

And Armand might have decided to convert / return to his (chosen?) religion.

To return to the portrayal of Les Innocents: I think the coven under Les Innocents will have happened, and will be mentioned. We know there will be someone called "Andrei" in s2, so we might get a flashback to Armand as a child. I think Les Innocents might be a flashback like this. Who knows, maybe they went with the bones into the catacombs after.

(Or, of course, the show ignores the cemetery being relocated, buttttt they've been so good with these RL events so far? I doubt it.)

So these are my thoughts on this. Hope it makes sense! :))

[lioncunt]

"send me a character" Armand?

YESSSS

first impression: my first impression of him was from the movie when i was a freshman in high school, and i honestly wasn’t super into him. i love antonio banderas but he just didn’t grab me as armand, especially since i hated brad pitt louis so much and all of his scenes are with pitt. when i first read the book after watching the movie, i at first didn’t trust him with louis, but i loved their scenes together and their discussions and i really wished the movie actually adapted them properly. then by the end, once i was finally on board with their relationship, louis didn’t care for him anymore and i was heartbroken for him. so i had an interesting start with armand!

impression now: i would literally die for him, i’ve felt such intense love for him ever since i read tvl and now after reading tva i think he’s one of the best written and absolutely the most complex character in the series. his arc is PHENOMENAL, the depth of sympathy i have for him is enormous despite all he’s done, his character voice and style of writing is so mesmerizing and the tragedy of all that’s befell him makes me want to cry. at the same time, the way he writes around certain incidents and explains his wrongdoings is so fascinating; he never mentions the interactions with lestat in paris, and he glosses over his reaction to marius being alive, and you just have to wonder WHY. he is an enigma and my best friend and all that i adore and my god i am so excited for assad’s portrayal of him

favorite moment: there’s like……so many to choose from but i will always love him pushing lestat off the tower it was the first moment that i was like. oh he’s a BITCH . thank god. from tva it’s the swordfight with the guy he slept with it’s just such a cool scene and i loved how brave he was 🥹

idea for a story: i want to see a comedy where he lestat and louis try to live together in book verse i think it would be v funny. like the odd throuple

unpopular opinion: in the show he is not mind controlling louis he’s just saying “your ex is a piece of shit” over and over again and failing to disclose his stint with human experimentation. in the book pretty much all of his acts of evil are so understandable from his mindset, it’s so clear why he does the things he does and i could never hate him for any of it, he’s just so interesting to me

favorite relationship: it’s a really solid tie in the books between devil’s minion and armandstat. for a while devil’s minion was my second favorite ship, but honestly i think armandstat has overtaken them for the time being. in the show idk yet!! i project a lot of my book feelings onto him cause that’s all we have to go off of, but i’m excited for all his relationships in the show

favorite headcanon: he likes to crawl around on the ceiling and just stay there until daniel comes in and turns on the light and then he screams

[licncourt]

I swear it's not for starting discourse or anything of the sort. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on the show now that the first season has ended (and we have a more global view of the first season) regarding the plot, the reveals at the end, the characterisation of our fang family, the themes etc. I find your book metas very interesting and what you shared so far has been well structured and refreshing.

thoughts on the finale?

Oof, apologies for the wait, but I think I've gathered myself sufficiently. Thank you so much for reading my rambling!! It's so flattering to know that people care about what I have to say! I'll throw out everything I can think of now, but I'll rb with more if I think of anything else later.

I also want to preface this by saying it really seems like we're missing a lot of context and plot developments from s2 that will affect everything we saw in s1 quite a bit, but I'm just going to take this season at face value for now.

I thought the costuming, SFX, and cinematography was wonderful in the finale. It made me sad that my enjoyment of the show has been so ruined because it was stunning and really scratched the period drama itch I'd been missing with the era change. Claudia in particular looked gorgeous and the gore was really fun and well executed.

Overall, I'm very disappointed in Lestat and Claudia's relationship portrayal/arc. Like I've mentioned before, the tragic impact of Claudia's attack on Lestat is so lessened if they never had the bond of father and daughter in the first place. It rings so hollow when we never saw Lestat LOVE Claudia, adore her and want her with his whole soul before slowly succumbing to his own trauma and perpetuating the cycle of abuse. Book Lestat WANTS to fix things with his daughter, he trusts her without hesitation and that's what makes it so brutal when she quite literally stabs him in the back, but at the same time you feel her pain and her rage. We lose that in the show. They're just enemies, plain and simple. There's no agony of betrayal and broken family without love there first and it does both Lestat and Claudia, originally very complex characters, a disservice. Family, the good and the bad, is at the heart of IWTV and without Lestat and Claudia, that's largely lost.

The pacing of the episode was a bit strange to me. I felt like too much time was spent on the party planning aspect rather than the dissolution of the family dynamic and crescendo of tension. I get that they wanted a longer episode for the finale, but I don't think it justified that extra fifteen-ish minutes.

I think the fucky memory thing was better utilized in ep 7 than it has been up to this point, and given what we know of Armand's mind gift from the books, I think it would make a lot of sense that he had something to do with that. That would be my preference in general because otherwise I feel like we're delving into victim blaming territory with the implications of this take on an unreliable narrator. I thought the implementation of the whole concept was clunky, but this was the best moment it had.

The sort of tableaux of Louis slitting Lestat's throat and then the flashback of crying over his body was also fantastic, so striking and emotional. Again, Sam and Jacob are such good actors with great chemistry, so it's really a shame about the everything.

All my thoughts on ep 5 (and 6) stand. Nothing from the last episode changed my opinions on how that played out and I can't think of anything that would. I won't harp on my issues with the characterization that stem from these episodes, but they definitely carried over into the finale.

I liked the Armand reveal! I think it was fun how they dropped hints and Easter eggs for book fans all season in regards to his identity. Enrichment for the vampirefuckers. Assad definitely captures the Weird Little Guy energy but also the incredibly sinister overtones we expect from Armand. My only concern is that Armand will be treated the same way as Lestat and turned into a one-dimensional monster that they can never properly redeem. If they go the route of making him a new diabolical abuser for Louis who we're supposed to forgive, I'll chew glass.

NO SWAMPSTAT??? Honestly very disappointed. As funny as putting that bitch in the trash is, it doesn't hit the same as Lestat getting gnawed on by an alligator. Lord knows AMC Lestat deserves the death roll.

This is completely inconsequential, but I have to mention how forced that namedrop of Those Who Must Be Kept was. That was so clumsy and stupid that it made me laugh out loud in what was supposed to be a very tense moment.

The handling of the racial aspect of Louis' character was so good in the first four episodes and even in parts of the finale that it made eps 5 and 6 that much harder to swallow. I'm honestly baffled at how horrible and insensitive that was out of nowhere before everything went back to normal. I'm sad that was ruined before it could have its full impact. Louis and Jacob Anderson deserved better.

Daniel had a lot of great moments, but I feel like his dialogue was too obviously viewer insert and on the nose a lot of times. I also found myself soured to him after his comments about Claudia in ep 5. Still, he has good chemistry with Armand from what we saw and I'd like to see more of them together going forward.

[cvntdracvla]

I personally think louis saying in the present that he doesn’t seem himself as a victim, and arguing with Daniel over that is something more fans need to consider! like yes episode 5 is horrible and lestat crossed a line (or 10) but Louis—with years under his belt, having already done the og interview of the book (so it seems), with time and perspective on his side, having reflected extensively on this relationship, does not view himself as a victim in this relationship, and did not before we as viewers knew about the scenes from ep 5.

I think it’s likely going to be a combination of flawed recollection on Claudia’s part—she is developmentally 14, incredibly angry with lestat, traumatized, and (I think) projecting her own feelings about lestat onto Louis and even her feelings about vampirism onto lestat too, as her maker and a more accurate portrayal of vampire nature than Louis. I even think it’s possible that in Louis or lestats own recollection of this fight, lestat was not completely unscathed physically, as Claudia remembers (this is based solely on my interpretation of how the actors have spoken about the relationship, how Louis has interpreted it in the present, and how clouded Claudia’s version might be). For much of Claudia’s version, Louis is emotional, vulnerable, and kind, while lestat is cold, distant, and secretive. And she is going to kill lestat, and I think she’s probably started planning it from the moment lestat made her watch the body of her lover burn—this is now the justification she needs, not for her sake, but for Louis’, as Louis would need much more of a reason than she does.

(also interesting how she knows Louis loves her unconditionally—especially given that her love for him is not so; she is aware that she will be forgiven for ALOT, more than even lestat, who cheats and manipulates and is cruel with his words and actions)

yeah u pretty much ate this Up! theres no need for me to add literally anything cuz id just be repeating ur words, agree completely

[danlous]

So. I need to rewatch and mull this over but i think this was for the most part a good episode. I absolutely understand people who dislike it, especially ending, but i personally found it fairly well-written. It’s not that i want Lestat to be violent against Louis and Claudia but to me in the context of the story it felt a realistic course of events and in character within his establised characterization. I know this is an unpopular opinion but i don’t think it’s automatically ooc for Lestat to be physically abusive. Framework for it has been clearly established even in the books were he was often very emotionally abusive and manipulative and sometimes also physically fought with Louis (just in much less extreme way), and even more so in the show. I think it was effectively depicted how utterly hopeless and miserable their situation was and had been for years and years and this was the ultimate breaking point. Despite involving supernatural beings i felt it was also rather realistic portrayal of abusive dynamics to the point where i found it triggering even though i’m not usually easily triggered by fiction. Again, i know i’m in the minority and everyone who feels differently are very valid.

What i absolutely hated though was the decision to have Claudia raped. It felt unnecessary and exploitative even though it was not graphically shown. As i said earlier no adaptation has ever been improved with adding rape that didn’t exist in the source material. I think the writers’ motive was probably to connect it thematically to other metaphorical and actual sexual violence that exists in the story. Claudia was forcibly turned by Lestat and Lestat was forcibly turned by his maker, which in the books is an explicit allegory for rape and i’m increasingly certain they’re going to change it so that Lestat was literally raped as well in this version. You can see he immediately knew what had happened to Claudia. In some ways it’s really interesting, Claudia and Lestat being so similar in so many ways and disliking each other partially because of it, but it also makes what happened to Claudia about a male character’s arc rather than her own. I feel like you could’ve told almost the same story without making Claudia a rape victim. Nothing much was gained from it.

[prouvaireafterdark]

Ok this may be a controversial take, but hear me out: I'm 100% sure that a big part of fandom that slanders Lestat for domestic abuse (rightfully!) will eventually forgive him if his redemption arc is good enough. Take Adam Groff from Sex Education for example. He bullied his fellow schoolmate Eric (black openly gay Christian student) for five long years, pushed him into lockers, called him names, stole his lunches, intimidated him to the point that Eric was afraid to cross paths with him. On top of that, Adam was depicted as a typical school bully - tall, menacing, ill-mannered, homophobic, generally dumb, and the list goes on and on. I vividly remember that Adam was the most despised and hated character back when S1 aired. And then season2 gave him more background, his own plotline, it showed his inner struggles, and the audience slowly started to warm up on him. Showrunners continued this trend in S3, where Adam stopped being "bad" alltogether. He acknowledged the need to change not for some other person, but for himself, and started to make real active efforts. Guess what happened next? He was voted 2nd most beloved character in the poll on Reddit. The audience adores him now. Does anyone even remember how Adam was portrayed in S1 - a bully without any nuance? I don't think so. Memory is a beast indeed, and now people only think of this new nuanced version of Adam, and literally nobody cares about his old portrayal. What I mean is: the audience will eventually forgive Lestat if his redemption arc is good enough. The point about memory being a monster easily applies to the real life: the viewers are usually willing to forgive if forgiveness is truly earned, and all the bad stuff just slowly fades away. Once the show is finished, we'll be able to appreciate Lestat's journey as a whole, and people won't be complaining about him being a "typical abuser" in S1. (I have to disagree here, he still has a ton of layers, being abusive doesn't cross this out). Ofc school bullying and DV aren't same things, but the general point still stands. We're talking about vampires here, and they have eternity to reflect on their experiences, forget harmful things and forgive each other. Personally I'm expecting to see a prince-Zuko-level of redemption arc, and considering that the IWTV team loves Lestat so much, I'm willing to believe that they'll pull this off. (btw I don't understand why everyone's talking about only Louis going to therapy, Lestat obv needs it too)

I haven't watched Sex Education, but that's an interesting connection!

[cakegatedisaster]

Where are they all from? Assume I know NOTHING about them

OKAY OKAY OKAY

SO I am not telling you shit about Jason or Percy, we're both already experts, BUT FOR THE REST:

Laurent de Vere is from Captive Prince, a dark fantasy novel set in medieval times with two warring kingdoms that mirror the medieval nations of France and Greece, and feature a whole cast of lovingly wicked characters, including Laurent who is actually the love interest of the main character, Damen. It's a fantastic enemies to lovers plot, with soooo much political scrambling and a wonderful narrative about redemption and endurance. SOOO completely recommend it.

Lestat de Lioncourt is from Interview With The Vampire, a book series originally published by Anne Rice that spans 12 books. Lestat is introduced in the first one as a vicious, beautiful, horrible vampire mentor/love interest to the first books protagonist, Louis. I haven't actually read the books, but I HAVE watched the AMC TV show of the same title and fallen in love with Sam Reid's portrayal of this incessantly complicated complex individual. Amazing TV show, go watch it.

Draco Malfoy is another one that doesn't need much of an introduction. However, I find myself wanting to justify my love of him by presenting not canon material Draco, but rather the much changed, much beloved fanon Draco, portrayed as such in the literal hundreds of drarry fanfic I've read over the years. Come ask me for recommendations, and be fed.

(humiliatingly, these last three have been blond and French to some degree. It appears I have a type.)

Now Magnus Bane might be a little less known, but he is the fanciful warlock from the Shadowhunter Chronicles, a books series that now spans over 20 books and six different series, plus a movie and a three season TV show. Set in a world where angels and demons are constantly at war, the angels tasked a specific group of people to lead the charge against the demons on earth and protect the innocent, unknowing people of earth. These are called Shadowhunters, or Nephilim. Now, there is so much lore and backstory to get into for this series that it is actually insane, especially considering I've read every book and watched the show at least 4 times. I would highly recommend the show, it gives early 2010's cheesy monster movie for the first season but gets a lot darker as it goes on, AND it has the world's best portrayal of his majesty Magnus Bane, played by the lovely Harry Shum jr. (He's also in a committed queer relationship which is universally agreed to be the best thing in the entire series)

DAEMON TARGARYAN. What a man. He's unhinged, he's insane, he's in love with his niece, he sired three children with her, he almost choked her out, and he's currently being haunted by a really old castle and a freaky witch. What a guy, I love him.

Andrew Minyard is such a guy. He's so unbelievably traumatized that he flips between manic as hell and apathetic. He's from All For the Game, so I can't say too much else about him or I might spoil you 😅 but you'll see.

And finally, Hannibal Lecter. Played by the extraordinary Mads Michelson, Hannibal in the TV show is HONESTLY the best performance I've ever seen in my life. He is so pretentious and gentle and vicious, he eats people but he does it in ways that make you want to eat what he's eating, just all around an extraordinary character, go watch Hannibal, it will be so so worth it.