#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

[parvulous-writings]

You have so good taste in vampires, I swear

Thank you so much, anon!! Shall we have a highlight reel? I think we shall...

Number one for me has got to be The Vampire Armand - particularly the portrayal by Assad Zaman in AMC's tv show of Interview with The Vampire. He is just.... Hypnotic, to me. Complex, and just... Fascinating. I think he is the fascinating one. When s3 comes out I hope we get some more of him... I will eat that shit UPPP

2, 3, 4. Marko, Paul and Dwayne, from Lost Boys is definitely high on my list (though their placements could be interchangeable based on my mood.) I LOVE these guys, despite what little development we get for them. It's to the point where one of Paul's and Dwayne's interactions is now a vocal stim for me. I really wish we had gotten some more of them! ("Wait, whoooo wants to know?"/"Marko wants to know!")

5. Louis de Pointe du Lac - I just find his whole narrative incredibly interesting (Again, AMC's interpretation. Book Louis is cool too - and I have not seen the first movie adaptation), and Jacob Anderson's performance? Phenomenal - some of the revelations/flashbacks we see in s2 gave me actual chills. LDPDL they could never make me hate you.

6. Lesta de Lioncourt - do I need to say more. This diva is one of the 2 reasons I got into IWTV in terms of characters (the other being Louis). In a similar vein to Armand, I find him to be a complex man, I wish to study him under a microscope. Equal parts maddening, enchanting, and hilarious.

7. Claudia de Pointe de Lac - I love her. So fucking much. She's brilliant as a character and as a means to show how Louis, despite being our narrator and protagonist, also is not a good man. I saw a take recently on here where someone say that she was "insufferable" and "childish" in s2. And I just have to ask; are we looking at the same fucking Claudia? She grows up and matures, but still has a body of a teenager. She's wrestling with the fact that her body does not match her, and the fact that her closest friend/brother/father figure keeps deserting her in favour of pursuits of passion. Like come ON. (She's also hilarious like Lestat. The two are more and more alike the more I look at them.)

8. Astarion - this is where everyone goes "Oh brother, this guy STINKS" at me. But LISTEN!!! He is in fact a complex character - one who tells the story of someone who's been manipulated, used, and abused, as well as someone who can break that cycle if given the chance, or continue and perpetuate it under the illusion of ending it. I think he's very special - even if he's the centre of a few too many arguments amongst the fandom for my liking.

9. Dr Jonathan Reid - so he's a relatively new one for me, but he's already got me by the throat. What do you mean I get to not only walk around as a vampire, but I also am in charge of healing people or using them to further my own powers? And as a handsome vampire, no less? Watch him become my favourite blorbo in 10 days time.

10. Dracula (specifically Dracula from The Dark Prince) okay listen. He's only this low because I got distracted 30 mins into the film he's in. BUT what I have seen of him.... Ouughghhg.... Dracula, watch out, I'm scaling your walls.

[nalyra-dreaming]

So in season 2, Armand and Assad’s portrayal of him got me truly obsessed with the show and I was finally motivated to read the books. But when I first got into the show with season 1, I was truly fascinated by Lestat and Sam’s incredible embodiment of the character. But I’ll be honest, when I read the TVL book, I was trying to imagine how they were going to do rockstat and I just couldn’t wrap my head around it. It feels like something that could easily make the entire season fall flat unless they get it absolutely perfect. While reading it I thought “this is such a 80s storyline”. I’m trepidatious, but still excited to see if they can pull it off. And I do have faith in this team. As a longtime fan, do you know how you would like to see it portrayed? How do you envision it? As a full blown musical season? Cutting to Lestat on stage singing for certain scenes? Documentary style with Daniel? I feel like I’m flailing trying to imagine it. I know it will surely be a tonal shift from last season, but how strong?

And regarding Armand, do you think they will weave his backstory into season 3 and 4 instead of doing a whole season of the TVA? I think his backstory is imperative to understand the character and they need to dive deeper into it, but I can’t see them doing a whole season seeing as Lestat is absent from a lot of it and the story itself is ROUGH as hell and was described to me by more than one person as “trauma porn” and having now read it, I can’t say I disagree.

Oh god, no, please no musical season 😅

There is already a musical on it all, and it did not make it on Broadway, so...

No, but in all seriousness, TVL ... IS trauma porn, to put it a bit flippantly I guess. For all the characters. It's not just Armand's part, Lestat's whole story is a horror story, really, including Marius' and the origins...

I do not think they will do a whole season of Armand's backstory. I think they will continue to weave his backstory in, through Louis' eyes, like in season 2, through Lestat's at least in part in season 3, then maybe through Daniel's, in season 4?, and of course there's also Marius. That is not to say that I don't think that ARMAND will not have a say here, just that we might get different facets through different connections, and I think that would work a lot better than to do a season-insert.

As per how I envision it... I actually wrote that into a fic, if you're interested, but suffice it to say, I would love it, if they would pick up the (canon) music videos to tell a part of the story, the vampire bars and cafés, if they would put fragments out there in music, yes, but not as a musical. (I like musicals! But not as the main way of narration here.)

I want to see other vampires react to it, I want to see the threads they have already put into the show wrt Marius and Armand and Daniel come together. I want the Talamasca to be on high alert, I want Lestat not to care :) I want Louis worried and fighting, I want his energy that he showed us a glimpse of at the end of season 2 to be off the charts.

As per the style...

I used to envision 80s, yes, but also maybe goth metal, like Nightwish, maybe.

But I do think that the "camp glam rock" route they seem to go also fits sooooooo well. I mean, if we take "Long Face" not as canon, but as... well, a hint, then they will play around with expectations, and styles, and make the best use of Sam's voice that they can, and I do trust them to pull that part off, definitely.

I would also like the documentary to become real, and yes, to carry the meta level they only hinted at in the teaser, with the tattoos, and Christine already in the background, and and and.

I... try not to lock down my expectations too tightly though, because I KNOW they're gonna surprise me. And I ... just want to receive it, with open arms :)

That said - the tonal shift WILL be massive - the tonal shift in TVL was and is massive from the first book.

And I think... when it comes? We probably won't know what hit us, lol.

[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.

[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.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my Armand questions. I am always nervous about asking blogs about him because I tend to get my head bitten off for liking him as a character. I think just because you like a fictional character doesn't mean you condone all their actions. To me, this show is about many, many monsters who have had terrible things done to them, fueling their monstrosity. It is about the cyclical nature of abuse and how we can overcome it or be a constant victim to it. And I have always been fascinated by how different people react in similar situations based on their backgrounds. Perhaps that is why I am so fascinated by Armand - he is a survivor who has gone through some truly horrific shit but hasn't come to terms with it so the abuse cycle goes in circles. I don't see him as having these grand evil plans but someone who is flying by the seat of his pants, grasping at anything that will help him keep control of his life and unfortunately making every bad decision he can make and never taking time to breathe and fix is mistakes or try and figure out why he is doing what he is doing. I want to see the show explore that. Explore his abandonment (possibly or possibly not?) by his family, his life as a child sex slave, his life with Marius in a relationship equally filled with love and abuse, his life in a cult, and trying and failing to find someone to love him for who he his in all his gremlin glory. This show, IMO, has done an amazing job showing the extreme complexities of very traumatized people. I just get a little worried that because Armand is not one of the 2 leads, his very interesting story might just be regulated to a case book villain and that would be disappointing to me given how well they have done with the main 3. (IMO. I know a lot of people have valid reasons for not liking the portrayal of Lestat. And while I personally like the character and what they have done, I can't argue that it is its own entity separate from the book character people have heavily invested in over the years.)

Anyway, I like Armand and further more, I love Assad's portrayal. I really hope he gets the opportunity to dive deep into this insane gremlin.

I do think that Armand, while not one of "Loustat" :) is one of the four corner stones this show is built on (as of now), namely Lestat, Louis, Armand and Daniel.

I do think the two main relationships (and the history and ... well, entanglements between them) will remain focus, too.

The thing is, that... Lestat has experience both with Armand and Marius, for example. Marius wanted him to become his pupil - but Lestat never did. Why? I do think it has to do with what he knows about Armand and Marius and the experience he has himself, and there is an interesting tidbit in the last books, where another cult survivor, Allessandra, calls her maker not rescuing her from the cult a "moral failure". in this case it was Rhoshamandes, but this applies to Marius also, and I always felt this like a ripple-effect through the books, unsaid, unspoken - but there.

Because Anne was very good with unspoken things that have effect nonetheless, and even had Lestat spell it out in his recount: "you have to read between the lines".

The characters "live" within their universe. In their universe things have repercussions and effect. Armand and Lestat having a thing together (whatever that'll turn out to be) and Lestat drinking some of Armand's blood will transmit knowledge. In the book Armand does relay his story to Lestat, and in a lot more detail than what we got so far in the Louvre. That will - and arguably does - shape Lestat, in both book and show. As well shape his relationship with Armand and ... Marius.

There is also the aspect of Lestat's and Armand' relationship in the book, where Lestat refuses to become that which Armand thinks he needs, namely his "master" - and finds very clear words on this:

"I've been a rebel always, " I said. "You've been the slave of everything that ever claimed you. " "I was the leader of my coven! " "No. You were the slave of Marius and then of the Children of Darkness. You fell under the spell of one and then the other. What you suffer now is the absence of a spell. I think I shudder that you caused me so to understand it for a little while, to know it as if I were a different being than I am. "

I do hope that the show will manage to show this understanding Lestat has for Armand, and the (at the book age) surprising wisdom of rejecting him as such. And why.

Because this is a theme in the books - and I have a gut feeling they are going to go there.

Assad went and read TVA immediately when he knew who he was actually auditioning for - as with all our cast I cannot wait to see what he does with this, when we will get the "real Armand", too.

Because Armand, too... we have only seen in a tale, in a deliberate setup. The "real Armand" bleeds through the cracks though, and what we got so far is utterly brilliant, even if some of the choices the writers made will have effect and repercussions within the universe that I would have preferred to have differently. Alas, it is what it is :)

I am looking forward to more of our master gremlin coven master :)

[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.

[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.

[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