#am I still an Armand apologist? yes

[duriens]

did the show just.... butcher devil's minion completely??

I didn't mind Armand's characterization in the show so far (well, kind of, except the fact that they turned him into a supervillain vs. saint Lestat) but the sudden reveal that Daniel Molloy was turned by Armand "out of spite", leaving him all alone to fend for himself apparently, really put me off. so not only there is little to no chance that devil's minion ever happened in the 70s or 80s, but also it's not gonna happen in 2022? because Daniel has already been turned, and the turning of Daniel is the culmination of Armand's and Daniel's relationship arc together, one that is for sure unhealthy and codependent and obsessive, but that was also tender and sweet in a very special way - no wonder that chapter has been a fan favorite for so many for so long. and they just.... discarded it like that?

Daniel's a vampire, he's been turned out of spite, it's heavily hinted that it happened either immediately after Dubai or very little time later. I really doubt there has been time/interest to do any sort of chase, or one that culminates into the sort of feelings Armand and Daniel develop for each other, at least. Daniel destroyed Armand in the eyes of his lover and I really don't think there's any sort of love story brewing there. Doesn't seem it happened in the past either, cause there's not a single hint at the Alice theory in this episode and I thought that if it was true, we'd have another little crumb before the season was over.

What about Armand's line that making fledglings repulsed/repulses him? That was a really important piece of characterization and they didn't even let us see him work through that when turning Daniel. Book Armand sees the process as something worse than killing, and that is why he never did it. He finally concedes because of love for Daniel, however obsessive it is, because Daniel is begging him on his death bed, because he needs him forever and Daniel needs him, too. From repulsion to acceptance because of a pure, absolute sentiment. Show Armand turns Daniel Molloy because he's full of spite. Why would they take the 'Armand is a super villain and theres nothing else to him' route and give him a petty vedetta for that one act that is so important for him in the book, as a character? Why??

and why did they have the talamasca guy tell Daniel 'you should be scared of the other one' when literally they made Armand the dude who kills and turns Daniel, whereas Louis is his best friend?? It just doesn't make sense. There's quite a bit that doesn't make sense to me in this last episode. But I gotta admit, the treatment of Armand's and Daniel's characters has baffled me. even if I weren't a devil minion's fan or a fan of these two characters specifically, it would've rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't know. I guess we'll see what they do next; hoping that there is more to that event than a simple 'oh he turned u cause u ruined his life' and Armand fucking off into the sunset forever (not quite, lol). maybe we'll find out it was all an elaborate plot from Daniel who knew he was paying with fire and counted on Armand to be so mad he would do the one act he found repulsive: finally making a vampire. maybe that's it, and Daniel had decided at some point during the sessions that he didn't want to die, that he wanted the gift. maybe he never changed his mind about it since the 70s. maybe he played Armand. manipulating the manipulator? makes sense in a way, I guess, but boy is it a waste to not serve on a silver platter all those sad and tender and raw and odd feelings that the devil's minion chapter already had prepared for us.

[pun-already-taken]

Given what we know now, it's sooooo much nastier! Despicable!

Out of all the insane things said in this episode, "my daughter was my sister was my throw pillow" was perhaps the craziest. Armand my favourite meanie 🤗

[bamboozy]

I think we are just interpreting the terms "hero" and "villain" in different ways. To me, they aren't moral judgements at all. Like I said, I am talking about narrative framing. You can call them protagonist and antagonists, if you want, but every story has them. Every story has a narrative with characters that we are meant to like and dislike. We may come away disagreeing with the narrative, but it needs to be there.

While everyone is morally gray in the series, we are definitely supposed to sympathize with some characters more than others. When I think of the term hero, I'm thinking about who the author wants us to like the most. Who are we supposed to root for?

Lestat was Anne Rice's Mary Sue, we are supposed to love him, flaws and all, the way she loved him. She thought he was super cool and awesome and she wanted her audience to feel that way too. Many people did and still do, obviously. He has a tendency to actively call himself out ("I don't know if i'm the hero or villian of this tale, but either way, shouldn't i dominate it"), which makes it easier to accept him as the hero because the narrative is saying, "yes he's a mess, but love him anyway."

So while I agree that Marius's bad behavior is obvious, to a degree, I don't feel like the narrative frames it particularly well. He doesn't get called out in ways that feel satisfying.

I admit there's a reason I feel this way.

When I first read these books as a teen, Marius was one of my favorite characters. Second favorite after Louis, actually. I admit, I was not inclined to think critically about things at that age. I was just accepting what I saw on the page, and Lestat (the character we are supposed to like the most) thought Marius was cool and so did I. The long suffering father figure, who sacrificed everything to take care of the OG vampires. Yadda, yadda, etc.

I've talked to others who read the books as teens and liked him a lot too and then when they re-read them as adults they were like "WHOA WHAT THE FUCK" and went from loving to hating him.

He's a character that seems to, somehow, appeal to teens, while repulsing adults. Teens and preteens also happen to be the demographic he victimizes. Like his relatationship with Armand started when Armand was really young.

I know there's an argument to be made for them all being bad, and Marius isn't any better or worse than the rest of them. In a way that's true, all the vampires commit atrocities. And if fans of Marius feel that way (because i do think he probably has some), that's fine. I'm an Armand apologist so like, I get it. We all have our problematic faves. And yeah, me loving Armand means I am biased about Marius and his crap. I know. I'm not judging anyone for liking him, though. That's not what this is about.

I just feel like there's a disconnect between what Anne Rice thought she was doing with Marius vs. what people actually see. Because a lot of people seem to hate him (except teenagers, maybe. It was certainly true 20+ years ago, but idk how todays teens feel about him) He seems almost universally loathed in a fandom full of characters that are raging dumpster fires. Why is that? Why do people have no problem loving Lestat and Armand and even Akasha, but Marius is where they draw the line.

I think it's because the narrative around him is so weird and murky. Are we supposed to love him? Hate him? Love to hate him? He makes people uncomfortable in a way that seems unpleasant rather than compelling.

And I know that you could argue, well, doesn't that make him a villain? And, I guess. But a villain isn't necessarily unlikable. In fact, the best villains are actually kind of likable. Even in the first book, when Lestat is being clearly framed as a villain, he was compelling and even likable in spite of everything. Marius just isn't, for most people.

So I want the narrative reframed in a way that feels like it is aware that he is loathsome. Because i just don't often get that feeling much from the books. And I mean, considering Daniel exists to call out everyone's crap, I assume that yeah, we will see it with Marius too one way or the other.

It's either that or make him less loathsome. But I don't really want to sympathize with him now, which is why I said my big wish for the show is for him to be fully embraced as a villain. I want to love to hate him.

But like, either way, I'll keep watching the show. I'm sure they'll do something interesting with him. I'm not going to get mad if it doesn't cater to me, personally. It's just a wish! That's all!

People out here arguing that Lestat is worse than Armand or Armand is worse than Lestat.

No, shut up, listen.

They're both trash. Let them be messy.

You know who's ACTUALLY the worst?

Marius.

I really hope the show frames him as a villain. The kind of villain who doesn't realize he's a villain because he's so full of himself he honestly thinks he's wise and noble and tragic.

But actually, who started this cycle of abuse? By grooming, turning, and then abandoning Armand to a cult for centuries? By telling Lestat to withhold information from his fledglings?

Marius, the Roman colonizer. The slave owner. The pederast.

There is so much to be mined there. Especially with the themes of race the show is exploring and with Armand being Muslim. It adds layers to Marius' playing favorites with Lestat, like choosing to seek him out and save him after ignoring Armand's plight for literal centuries.

I've seen some people speculate that since Armand is older in the show, that his trauma with Marius will be softened or abandoned somehow. But I think there's still plenty of room for Armand to have been groomed and used as a sex slave in his youth. And judging by Armand's reaction to the rent boy comment, i assume they are going to run with it somehow.

Assad looks young enough to pass for early to mid-20s, which means Armand still could have spent his teen years with Marius before being turned. There's still room for all that abandonment trauma.

But anyway that's really all I want. For the show to call Marius and his bullshit the fuck out. Repeatedly. And for it to be framed as the villainy it is.