#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

[lestcat-de-lioncourt]

People are saying it's like watching paint dry with Louis and the Brad Pitt vs. Jacob in Interview With The Vampire, yes, because they cast roles for appearance and not to harness their full specialist potential. That was often as happy second.

It wasn't a character he could clearly do, a genre. There's loads of other material he's much better at. This is where casting just a cis white straight guy for his "looks" can stunt a performance.

Now, wild, Hollywood branches out to us minorities, who have grovelled in the dirt to tone our talents, who really want this, and not a person who is beautiful, with a lacklustre for the topic, the genre, it's not their Thing, they are a PERSON with their own interests, wow beautiful, okay, actually, "I really love Aerodynamics and I'm gadd awful at acting" kinda person, in fact, but.. yeah...

Hollywood: "ur prety so u must."

And all that.

•

Can you see where I'm coming from?

The act of acting has been lost in portion, due to film, ONLY, because people can fall back on the outtakes, which, makes it so much more accessible and I love that too, but, drumming out an acted, ingrained performance, if you will, is something else.

It's safer this way, so we don't get too hung out by the character we play to the point it becomes reality, I know, but still. People love to say they pick actors PERFECT for the portrayal, but they just look like the character/same skin colour as the character/gender as the character.

•

If you cared that much, why not get a person that totally encapsulated the character, and make them look like you envisioned?

It's complex, for sure, but, please, why cut corners for just the standard beauty trope at the time, the biggest names, and so on. I know you gotta sell. But..

It's all a building process though.

•

I would've said, just to make sure queer fiction managed to get the limelight it mutually deserves, but, I can't even go with that because it paints Lestat as a nasty scary queer guy who's after all yo' partners in IWTV(1994), and at the time of when it came out, was quite a remarkable thing in many ways.

Troped up as "gays are monsters" and, so on, ignoring all the straight vampiric action, many wish to see, 24/7, is what it also developed a presentation of.

But now the being a "vampire" is normalised to the point where we can have "why are all these vampires gay in this series, ugh?" On YouTube coming up, even for me, we can accurately spread our wings, playing queer monsters, without, y'know, the witch hunt cult actually treating us like one just for being born.

[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.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

Would you explain what you mean by IWTV being bad about abuse? Is it the Louis/Lestat relationship or something else?

I’ve had this sitting in my inbox for ages because the show just makes me that mad lmao

It is definitely that, but also so many other things. It’s Claudia’s handling as their abused daughter. How her death is treated. And then even how Louis and Armand’s relationship is handled. And I know no one cares because misogyny is fine when it comes to petty antagonists I guess, but it’s also the way Antoinette being mistreated by Lestat is framed like a fucking joke

I find AMC IWTV a story with shockingly little empathy for its main protagonists, or interest in their inner lives, despite the framing device of it being told through an introspective interview. I think it gets away with a lot of callousness because its actors are fucking fantastic and the story seems smart and dramatic and progressive on a surface level. But imo it completely falls apart under scrutiny and also just adds up to a very mean spirited narrative that only really exists to uphold Lestat

They really give him the NBC Hannibal treatment in terms of the narrative being so extremely skewed in his favor, and it’s only by virtue of Sam Reid’s understanding of the character and his sheer acting skill that his portrayal is still so likeable

Anyway I think the narrative goes out of its way to undercut Louis, to belittle him for being in abusive dynamics, take relish in how much he suffers because of it, and then to also blame him for that abuse

I think Louis is so objectively sympathetic, and Jacob Anderson’s performance is so good, that a lot of people don’t really pick up on the narrative malice. But I feel very strongly that the narrative choices made, especially adaptationally when compared to how his white counterpart is treated in the novel, are really fucking cruel and racialized. The same can be said, with an additional layer of misogynoir, for Claudia. A lot of my issues with the handling of abuse are basically inextricable with a consistent undercurrent of anti-blackness that runs through the story

It goes out of its way to show them both beaten, burned, and humiliated. There is a preoccupation with their suffering that feels more voyeuristic than actually concerned with how this impacts them as characters, or how it shapes their inner lives. I touched on this before when I was complaining about how flimsy the oft repeated “memory is a monster” theme is, but I find that the show is incredibly uninterested in Louis’ emotional state or what any of his changing perception of his own life story means to him. He’s treated more like an object to be batted between Lestat and Armand

The original novel has always been a story about abuse, about escaping an abuser. And despite novel Louis being a uniquely passive, apathetic, character, he was always allowed a great deal of narrative agency. None of the story would have shaken out the way it did if not for his actions (and inaction.) The novel is primarily concerned with the unraveling of his grief, his apathy, his relationship with morality, faith, his vampiric nature. Lestat and Armand are narrative tools to facilitate that emotional journey, as opposed to the primary players, and point, of the story

So it’s so telling that the show seems to have removed, with surgical precision, any instance where Louis may have impact on the fucking plot— except when it’s something for him to be blamed and belittled for. I already went into this in the memory post, but compare how he’s removed from all importance in Lestat’s “death”, and how little he has to do with it in actuality, despite being superficially more involved. He isn’t even given any space to emotionally process it beyond an apparent inability to ever let go of Lestat, and the Lestat hallucinations later (that go fucking nowhere) that seemingly exist only to affirm Lestat’s importance as opposed to offering any real insight into Louis’ psyche

The show’s understanding of what abuse even is feels incredibly blunt and lacking in nuance. S1 opens with an absolutely harrowing situation for Louis, where Lestat hunts him down and isolates him. But it doesn’t seem particularly aware that that’s… bad enough? It doesn’t seem to treat the dynamic as straightforwardly abusive until there is the episode five escalation into physical violence between them. Which itself felt incredibly clunky because of how it’s more of a caricature of typical domestic violence tropes taken to a supernatural, and imo frankly melodramatic, extreme as opposed to feeling particularly grounded in how these characters would be violent with each other

(I felt the same way, to an extent, about how Armand’s manipulation and mind wiping is treated. Even though that simply not having a straightforward real world analogue forced them to be a bit more character minded about it)

And then they had the audacity to revisit that scene in S2 and try to use the uncovered memory that Louis started that fight as some sort of reveal that Lestat’s not that bad actually

Meanwhile, second to Louis, Claudia is the most important character in the novel (because of her importance to him!) He chooses her over Lestat, and Armand multiple times. Lestat turning her into a vampire was itself an expression of his hold on Louis slipping, of him needing something to ensnare Louis with

In the show, Louis having to beg him to turn Claudia feels more like yet another affirmation of Lestat’s power— that it’s entirely up to his whims whether he deigns to grants this request. That doesn’t have to be a problem, but it’s part of a larger trend of blowing smoke up Lestat’s ass that I resent

And it sets up a running theme of Lestat dismissing, writing off, and being antagonistic to Claudia in a way that feels really weird. To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with depicting a more detached abusive dynamic. Like, I really love the original Lestat and Claudia familial dynamic and would be mournful of its loss regardless, but like it’s a choice that could work! But again, it’s part of a trend of demeaning Claudia and sidelining her

Her entire plotline and (incredibly complex!) struggles with vampirism feel very sanded down, and like an afterthought. Like the show runner was like “Uh... what do girls care about? Romance. Sure. She can be upset about not getting a romance” and then called it a day. Her writing feels by far the most uneven. And it continues into S2 with making an entire thing about Louis always choosing his romantic relationships over her, her being continually humiliated by the theatre coven, and then the abruptness of even her death, and how little it had to do with her as opposed to simply being a smaller part in how the Loustat vs Loumand dramas play out. It just feels so egregious that even her last moment is more used as something for Loustat to bond over in their grief. That Lestat was the one who gets to say that she was looking to him for help like a child looking at her father, as opposed to like… there being actual focus on her emotional state in the moment when that happens! Her death scene was literally so quick that I was fully expecting it to be revisited in flashback in the next episode and then it simply never was

Then they topped it off by framing Lestat as a hero for doing the thing Louis fucking leaves Armand over in the novel: saving Louis, but letting Claudia die? the extent to which the show did not fucking care about her is frankly horrendous. It’s tied up in so much misogyny and blatant disregard for all of her suffering that the show so gleefully went out of its way to depict her experiencing

And don’t even get me started on how the season fucking ends with Louis, apologizing to Lestat

[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

[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

[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

[nats-reads-reviews]

January 2025 Book Reviews ❄️ 📚

Icebreaker by Hannah Grace (3.5/5) This one had high spice levels! Lol I’ll just start out by saying that. I think Nate was a great portrayal of healthy behavior but he was almost too perfect - exactly like a man written by a woman but that’s just me. I think Ryan’s character was completely unnecessary. Stassie could have commitment issues without Ryan’s character and it would made her more endearing. I did really enjoy the emphasis on Stassie’s mental health which was great for readers. I liked it but not great writing beyond the spice - still enjoyable though!

The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender (3/5) This was a really neat book! I loved that the Rose could pick up so info much from the food she ate - including where the ingredients came from and the emotions of those who cooked it. It brought a lot of anxiety into her life around her mother’s cooking due to her family’s dysfunction and I thought that was so creative. It was definitely a one-of-a-kind and the author did well portraying the emotions and experiences of Rose’s upbringing.

We’ll Prescribe You a Cat by Syou Ishida (1.5/5) The concept of this book was so cute and I loved how the cats helped people work through the problems they were experiencing in their lives that brought them to the doctor. However, I didn’t really feel a connection to any of the characters and some of their problems seemed weird to me. Also, the doctor and his staff were supposed to be quirky but the way they behaved just didn’t land or come across endearing lol. Idk, I liked the concept but it wasn’t executed well for me.

The Paradise Problem by Christina Lauren (4/5) I loved this book. Christina Lauren makes such good romance books that are actually realistic in the sense that the characters are dealing with real life relationship problems. I loved that the couple was faking their marriage for a variety of financial reasons but ultimately found they were perfect for each other on a forced vacation together. They were really good influences on each other and they experienced a lot of growth together. Good spice too!

Not a Happy Family by Shari Lapena (3/5) This was an entertaining, fast-paced, and easy to follow murder mystery. However, of all of Lapena's books I've read, this was probably my least favorite. I felt like the big reveal at the end wasn't that shocking. Majority of the book was the characters just pointing fingers at each other and talking to one another or the police. It just wasn't a lot of suspense in comparison to some of her other books. However, I still enjoyed it and it kept my attention.

The Villa by Rachel Hawkins (4/5) I enjoyed this book and that there were two stories happening simultaneously. I liked that it took place in Italy and Hawkins drew inspiration from Fleetwood Mac, as well as Mary Shelly and Lord Byron’s relationship. It was a pretty cool book but best read as a physical book. The audiobook could get confusing with the multiple storylines within the same chapter.

The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice (5/5) Damn, Anne Rice was such a good author. Her story telling goes far beyond the world of vampires - she discusses religion, history, philosophy and sociology through her characters. After reading Interview With the Vampire, I thought there was no way I’d like Lestat or his story but wow, she really shows how we can misunderstand people through the lens of other’s experiences with them. I loved it!

Butts: A Back Story by Heather Radke (4.5/5) This was a pretty interesting woman’s studies book covering the role of butt’s through out history and the influence they’ve played in media and beauty standards through out time. You never realize how much butts influence us but this book really brought all of it to light. I found it very fascinating!

Infinite County by Patricia Engel (3/5) I felt like this book has a very accurate and realistic depiction of immigration and the trials that come along with that for both those who immigrate to a new country, and those who stayed behind in their native country. I thought it was a good book but also nothing happened that really got me hooked on the story either. I liked the message that despite time and distance, family is family and love always remains though!

[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.

[camellia-thea]

mm. okay i've now rewatched the show and i'm actually standing a lot firmer on this one. i really don't like the season 2 finale's presentation of psychosis. especially as a response of rage and vengeance.

in part, it's related to a conversation had a little while ago where a friend tried to defend a (completely different show's) representation of psychosis that was harmful and upsetting as "humanising", where the entire point of the psychosis was to show the character was a "crazy killer not in control" and that you should pity the crazy person, but they're still going to hurt people! there is nothing humanising about these types of portrayals. it just reinforces the already prevalent stereotype that we're going to hurt people. it gives people justification to hurt us; the amount of violence we receive because people see us and immediately think "that person is dangerous" rather than "that person is vulnerable" is unspeakable.

there are so many ways they could have changed it to remove the ableism and sanism. i mean, "are you schizophrenic, louis?"? it's played as a fucking joke.

and the thing that gets me -- and always gets me in moments like this -- is that louis could've been full of rage and wanting to avenge claudia without the psychotic elements and it would have been even more powerful. in every instance of psychosis being used to "give reason" or "justify" acts of violence, it is more interesting and impactful for there to be an entirely different internal or external reason. i mean, louis, who for a very long time has grappled with the aspect of himself that hurts people, in very complex ways. a significant part of his character is grappling with his vampirism and his acts of harm, and even in s2 we see him eating animals over people. and he wants to hunt and be a hunter, he revels in it! but then he's overcome by guilt afterwards! would this not have been a good moment for that to truly absolve him of that guilt? have him, for one of the first times in the show, commit an unspeakable amount of violence without the prompting of another?

hell, i said it before, i don't mind dreamstat being present! i don't! i think there's an established place for guilt and grief to manifest as visions or hallucinations in media that isn't always bad! and i think conversations with dreamstat haunting louis everywhere is really powerful, especially when you see the real lestat countering it at the end! but not when louis hurts people because of it. that's the line i'm drawing.

and again, they're vampires! you don't need to lean into these tropes to portray them as awful people and show the horror of violence. you do not need to justify that behaviour; it's the vampire show where they're all awful to one another! that's part of the enjoyment! they're all meant to be hurting one another and deeply complicated people. the moral quandary of the vampire is that they inherently cannot exist without harming others, and how does one deal with an existence which entirely depends on preying upon others.

i know i'm repeating myself, and i will keep repeating myself until people listen. you don't need to justify acts of violence by throwing us under the bus.

this isn't a meta thing or a condemnation, i just wanted to write down some opinions. but i've thought about it a bit more. i really really don't like the hallucination/psychosis elements within iwtv.

i think it's in part because i experience hallucinations regularly and i've experienced psychosis, but i don't find value in it being shown in this instance and i think it could've been completely left out.

hell, it could've been just louis seeing lestat (and fuck, maybe even claudia) as manifestations of guilt, but the beginning of s2e8 wasn't it. i don't think i can properly convey what made me uncomfortable, but i had to pause for a little bit to let myself get through it.

i wasn't very keen on louis killing someone he thought was lestat, as a way of showing instability and as a way to make him obviously unreliable. i think it did give the impression they wanted; the unreliability, and i've talked about that in regards to unreliable narrators, but it didn't sit right at the time, and having now seen the finale, i don't think it was necessary.

the erratic behaviour and the hallucinations of his victims within those moments just felt. bad. especially since it was an element of driving louis to get revenge. it's just another case of psychosis being used to "motivate" harm. especially since he's a vampire! you don't need to justify him wanting to kill people! claudia's death pushed him to the edge without any elements of psychosis, he could've just killed them! and yes, he was tortured and had come back from the brink of death in those moments, but even still. it felt like it went too far.

i don't really have a point here, i don't think. i guess it's just, you can do horror and violence and instability without leaning into those tropes. i think it was unnecessary.

[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.

[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! :))

[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.

[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.