#and then 'armand really only loved lestat but comes to have genuine love for louis'

[thelioncourts]

+

[lizardkingeliot]

I took a ton of notes during my rewatch of 2x07 just now but the thing I kept coming back to again and again was Armand's framing of the entire narrative and how it plays with truth vs lies in such an insidious way it's honestly brilliant in its cruelty. Truth being used as a cudgel not only against Louis, but against Lestat as well. And against, us, the viewers at home.

We obviously all know Armand is a very powerful 500 year old vampire who is not going to be held back by an infant of a vampire like Santiago. Like… Armand. Babe. Let’s get real. But that’s the narrative set-up. The coven, now being led by Santiago, has Armand captive behind his little rickety baby gate with Sam and his prop weapon not letting the puppy come out to play. He cannot prevent it! Poor baby. Someone get him a juice box and a snack.

Enter Lestat. The vengeful lover come to make Louis and Claudia pay for what they did to him. What's interesting here is that everyone—Daniel, Louis, Armand—acknowledges in Dubai that the trial IS a sham from the beginning. A tool to allow Lestat his revenge. But the truth of why it's actually a sham is being hidden behind a thousand layers of gaslighting and deceit by Armand. Lestat is merely another prop on the stage. Being forced to use the TRUTH of his love story with Louis—and to twist essential elements of their beginning as a couple—as a weapon to drive the final wedge between them so that Armand might have Louis all to himself. That's what this is about. A farce so that Armand might have what he wants more than anything in the world. Someone who will be with him always. Without Claudia, without Lestat... who else is there for Louis to run to?

The trial as we see it is told mostly through Louis' POV. It seems to be a true picture of how it all happened but the cognitive dissonance watching him try to reconcile what Lestat was doing on the stage with the framing provided by Armand (who cuts in frequently to assure us that Lestat shapes things to suit HIS narrative) is painful. Louis sees and feels and hears the sincerity of Lestat. A Lestat who is defiant from the jump and refuses to paint the story as butchery. It's about LOVE. It is always always always about the love. An entire sham trial about vengeance and murder framed around... love.

Everyone who's familiar with the books already knows Lestat didn't want to be there. I won't go into that too much but the show did a good job of showing us just how unwell Lestat was during the entire process. But there are also some really interesting moments where we are TOLD explicitly through Louis' recounting of the events that Lestat was not actually there for revenge. Namely, the moment when Lestat says HE deserves to be punished alongside them. These are not the words of someone who is seeking vengeance. These are the words of someone desperately rattling the bars of his own cage trying everything he can to prevent what's happening. Because unlike a certain someone, in that moment Lestat is quite literally unable to prevent it!

The entire episode is Louis trying to reconcile the conflicting truths that exist inside him: that Lestat was there for revenge, that Armand couldn't prevent the coven from exacting their cruelty, and that the Lestat who was on stage WAS sincere and emotional and fighting with everything he had to let the truth ring as true as it was when he was able. He refused to refer to Louis as the accused every time Santiago insisted on it. He would only refer to Louis by name. He would NOT allow the narrative to frame him as someone who didn't also do monstrous things to his lover. He was weeping and flooded with shame. Sincerely, genuinely remorseful for the awful thing he had done to Louis.

There's also something else here about Lestat acknowledging he tried to crush what he could not own vs Armand deceiving Louis into the false sense of control that is the entire basis for their relationship. Owning something he does not crush, merely confines. He's not crushing Louis with insanity, he's locking him inside his prison of empathy. He quite literally has Louis locked in a cage while allowing him to believe he's truly free. Free from the insanity of Lestat. Evil, vengeful, gaslighting Lestat who only uses the truth to shape the narrative for himself.

There's a lot more going on here. I can't possibly get it all out of my brain right now and I imagine I'm going to be picking apart the nuances for a while. There are so many layers. The truth vs lies vs intentional reshaping of the truth of it all. But if you rewatch, pay attention to Armand's face, the score that accompanies his recounting of events, the passive way in which he holds his body in both Paris and Dubai. He's locking Louis in a dream world where the truth is present in such a way it only serves to amplify its own distortion. I don't even think he's fucking with Louis' memory all that much, just framing it in such a way that Louis cannot see past what is right there in front of him. What he already knows. If only he had just a few more tiny pieces of the puzzle...

But he's trying to get there. He is getting there. The truth of Lestat is breaking though. Lestat is still present there with him in Dubai, as real as if he were really in the room. After 74 years, Louis can still recall every detail of his face, still smile at him recalling the truth of his memories. The truth he wouldn't allow himself to look at all the way. The truth he himself had to distort for his own sake because it hurt too much. He's allowing himself to see not only the truth of himself and his own actions, but the truth of Lestat. All the complicated, sincere truth of him. The truth of the one who truly could not prevent it.

[lotstradamus]

i'm loving all your vampire posting lottie! if you're ever so compelled i'd love to hear what you make of the books vs the show and if there are any book things you'd especially like to see done on the show! (also, bookwise, are you a lestat girl or an armand girl or a louis/marius/david/akasha/claudia girl or or or)

as someone who tried to read Interview with the Vampire thrice (THRICE!!!) pre-AMC show revival and simply could not get through it (it is melancholy), I cannot BELIEVE how down bad I am for these books right now. I keep seeing bad reviews on goodreads and girding my loins for each new book expecting the quality to nosedive, but 1 star bitch WHERE? WHERE??? I AM HAVING THE TIME OF MY GODDAMN LIFE

in terms of books vs show, honestly after a point the books are kind of Unadaptable unless they radically change the main cast, vibe and format of the show every single season, and the changes they made to IWTV were good to the point of sending me fucking insane so they can just keep on doing whatever their little hearts desire with the source material imo!!! howmever I DO have some suggestions for the upcoming seasons:

Lestat crying twice an ep (non-negotiable)

I would kind of love it if Lestat is the only character who tells the truth. the most reliablest narrator and normal girl to ever live. and yet every time he says something like "I killed a pack of wolves single-handedly" or "I woke Those Who Must Be Kept by playing violin" or "I snog my mother with tongue" Daniel is just sitting there like "............riiiight."

Gabrielle. Gabrielle Gabrielle Gabrielle. mainly I would like to smash cut to Gabrielle in the middle of really intense Lestat/everyone else scenes and she's just like peacefully sleeping in the ground... strolling through a distant jungle... sitting on a mountain looking at the stars in silence...

EXCEPT that one scene where she pulls up to Lestat's concert like she's in 2 Fast 2 Furious

it'll be interesting to see how they adapt Queen of the Damned because so little of it is actually from Lestat's pov, and all of it is amazing and cannot be cut out: [Stefon voice] the Twins, Jesse, specifically Jesse being haunted in Louis and Lestat's old New Orleans house, everyone hanging out/playing out terrible interpersonal dramas at the Sonoma compound, NIGHT ISLAND...!

I cannot stress this enough: GHOST CLAUDIA.

I want them to do Body Thief. fuck it, why not. must haves are Mojo, a random hunk with a PhD in Sam Reid's mannerisms playing Lestat for 6/8 episodes, Lestat nearly dying 25 times cos he pilots his human body like a drunk muppet, and, most importantly, Lestat BEGGING David Talbot for some old man pussy

oh and an entire episode set on a cruise ship

my favourite scene from the whole of Body Thief was Lestat turning David at the end against his will cos it was genuinely quite awful and frightening but also. um. you know. awooga

if they include Gretchen, then I would like the opposite of my Gabrielle request for everything post-Body Thief: whenever there's a peaceful, quiet scene it smash cuts to the wilds of South America where Gretchen is absolutely stark raving mad on the floor of a chapel with stigmata

I can't even begin to think about how they'd adapt Memnoch, but regardless I want them to keep the scene where Lestat drinks someone's period blood. thanks

also his cunty little lilac-tinted sunglasses that he will not fucking stop talking about

and finally, human Armand getting drunk and falling into the Grand Canal

bookwise, I am a Lestat girl the house down boots... I love his over-dramatic idiot crybaby ass!!!!! although the final page of Memnoch the Devil made me burst into tears and cry my whole face off until I confirmed that Lestat comes back as the narrator in future books soooo maybe like calls to like. self recognition through the other, etc. I do also get a shot of pure joy every time Armand shows up, especially in Lestat's pov. 'ah, there he was, the Botticelli angel, so beautiful. I fucking hated him. we kissed.' sis THEE dopamine.

currently suffering because I want to a) stop reading the series immediately so I can go back and reread The Vampire Lestat, and yet also b) never ever stop reading the series for love nor money. please help me budget this my family is dying

[shamixlour]

IWTV - Louis, why?

I am really curious to know and like don't get me wrong, I'm not being sarcastic or judgmental, I really want to know why as this gets me quite baffled and dumbfounded and what I mean by this is people who are surprised or don't understand why Louis stays with Armand after Paris or even SF.

Like, sure, in a way I understand where you are coming from... like how can Louis stay after what Armand did to him and Claudia in Paris? How can he continue to be with him after SF even though their relationship has been nothing but decades of boredom? Why is he still with him, years later in Dubai? Why didn't Louis leave him after everything? Imho, regardless of the mind controlling and all that memory erasure that did happen between them, it is a rather simple answer.

Where do you want Louis to go?????? Like genuinely. What do you want him to do?????? Who do you want to meet??? Is there anyone else for him now???? Is there someone????? Same for Armand, really. They are both almost forced to hold along because who would want to be with any of them? Who would want to be with Louis? Who would want to be with Armand? They both think no one would, and so they hold onto each other, they've seen the worst of e/o anyways and so they stay with each other because that is the only thing they can do and there might have been love at some point, affection but when we see them in Dubai, only an empty shell remains or rather they are both a lap of resentment and unuttered feelings.

Louis's got all eternity spread out in front of him. He is immortal and he is all alone, or at least he believes so. Claudia is dead. He probably thinks Lestat doesn't want anything to do with him anymore or maybe they can't be together for some other reasons, the point is Louis is alone and has nowhere else to go other than stay by Armand's side. He has nowhere to go.

He's like a bird stuck in a really pretty cage.

Louis is all alone, and his hands are tied, and his heart aches, and he is half a world away from where he belongs, from where he really wants to be. Again, it is not complicated, it is that simple and tragic (for both of them btw) and so i don't get why it is such a big deal for a lot of people although I'm always open for conversations and speculations and all of that but for this particular thing, idk I feel like it is quite crystal clear. It is made crystal clear, it is painted very outwardly and it is utterly sad and purposefully expressed in subtle ways but it is here.

Daniel and the interview shine a big fucking spotlight on it, on the entire situation, on all the flaws and pain and bitterness of Loumand's relationship throughout the years but also the mere condition of being a vampire and coming in terms with it and all the struggles that comes with it.

Daniel and the interview also will be, imho, what will help Louis break free from this cage, from this golden prison and finally be himself, accept who he is deep down. It will free Armand too because they deserve better and it is definitely not each other.

But yeah, that is why they stay with each other all these years, because what else could they have done??? Who would have want their company? Would Louis even indulge himself in accepting said company? *crickets* yeah exaclty.

Anyways, this was way too long, so if you read all of this, heart on you! Also, in no way i'm trying to belittle people's interrogations and emotions, it was mostly just some brain splash of things i wanted to express but also because Louis is not to blame for staying...like there are plenty explanations as to why he stays just like there are some explanations as to why Armand does what he does for this relationship to keep going forward. Besides, i'm always curious to read how people view them ect so feel free to hop on the discussion!

[kaelio]

I haven't been talking too much about the IWTV show lately, and that's because I found Season 2 genuinely a bit disturbing. Not because of the blood (I love blood), or Claudia's death (necessary and done well), or individual changes to the book canon. It's disturbing because it gave us uncomfortable answers about the perspective of the show, especially where the show varies and is thus differentiated from the books. The show has some fairly repellant views about vulnerability which bleed into issues in how it handles sexuality (which is less important with how it interprets pathos overall).

The show seems to take the view that you're annoyingly "not allowed" to be mad at someone for "being weak", but that you are expected to feel contempt for someone for being weak.

Like when Louis is listening to Armand talk about his past, and "Dreamstat" huffs at it. Dreamstat is Louis, guys. It's not Lestat. Louis was a pimp and views the pimped-out with contempt and this is never challenged. Hell, the only way Daniel ever comes close to challenging it is saying that Armand might have been lying about his abuse. Louis listens to Claudia recount her rape again. This storyline doesn't have any closure for her, and now she's dead; it can't. It only exists for Louis to look uncomfortable having to hear about it. He's disgusted by it and the scene exists to remind us he's disgusted by it. Like the annoyance he felt when we first met him, chewing out Bricktop for responding to being raped (because yeah, using a hole without permission is... rape). Bricktop, who was a real person who really moved to Paris, who we never hear or see from again. And not much sympathy for Lily, really, was there? Or Jonah, a poor man, who Louis even admits he saw again in Paris but feels no need to mention, because that's a weak person to him and the narrative has nothing but contempt for the weak. Louis is our viewpoint character, and though he also lies and misremembers, and isn't presented as perfect, his view of weakness is reinforced by Daniel (who despite his brief crisis of spine in S1E8 basically serves as his fluffer) and it basically gets to stay intact. When Armand follows him, fearfully, in Episode 8 because the last time Louis stormed out it was to try to kill himself, Louis smashes him into a wall and holds a rolled paper like he's about to beat a dog.

In the book, Armand wants Claudia out of the way and she says as much. He very much could have "prevented it" and he knows, and Louis knows. In the show, he doesn't seem to particularly dislike Claudia, personally, or have any motive to kill her once she's moved away. He wants her to follow the rules everyone else follows, and sure he puts his hands on her, but no more so than other characters who the narrative forgives for it. He's strongarmed into playing director. And yet, this is a weakness Louis can't forgive. You can have it one of two ways; Armand can be a more willing participant in the play or Louis can break up with him about it, but making both of those changes is revealing. The show hates characters who are put in a corner; it has no love for them. It also fundamentally misunderstands the appeal of many of the characters as they appear in the books. We love them because they're sincerely flawed. Because they do bad things. We're not just "not allowed to be mad" at them because bad things have happened to them. We choose to love them. But the show views it like we do so under duress. It thinks it's a relief to us that Louis is giving the Batman monologue at the end. And to some viewers, this seems to be the case! But frankly, I do find it disturbing. And again, this bleeds out into the show's view of sexuality and, to be honest, of women overall.

The only sex scene we ever see that seems basically equally enjoyed by both participants and isn't loaded down with "psychically agonizing with one's sister while it's happening" or strongarming or killing a trusted confidant who had also been involved or some very poorly-negotiated and worrying power dynamics is... Santiago and Elgee! Which on its face (though their actual ages are different) is heterosexual sex between a white older-looking man and a white younger-looking woman! What on Earth! And even then it makes the point that Santiago dumped her not long after. Every time the show adds something or makes an adjustment, it's towards a rigid and regressive view that is completely at odds with the books.

Season 2 was the opportunity to be critical of Louis' narrative in Season 1; how he truly views living people and how he assesses his relationships to others. How he treats others! Hey, in this version, Armand doesn't punch Lestat off a tower, but Louis does openly use him to hurt Lestat in a way that makes explicit to Armand that he doesn't really care about Armand at all. That no one ever has. Hey guys, that actually wasn't a badass power move. That sucked.

Mistreating your partner sucks. This isn't a kink, this is sad. And if it is thought to be a kink, the show certainly doesn't respect taking particular roles within that kink. Thus far, we only have what the show has displayed to us: an Armand under duress to go along with the trial and a willing Lestat. How come Armand gets beaten for it and Lestat gets a hug? Because Armand is weak (by Louis' account specifically because of his grooming) and weakness is disgusting. Deserving of scorn. And in S2E5, Armand certainly didn't want Louis out fucking strangers and doing drugs! But this is portrayed as him being a nag. A drag. A bitch. A good partner, a cool partner, one who isn't so dull and boring, would not have "driven" Louis to this, clearly.

But instead of any real incisiveness on this, or anything, Daniel basically just decides Louis is cool and that Armand is a loser and that obviously "Lestat would never--" even though, in this telling so far, Lestat still didn't attempt to save Claudia. (And Daniel seems to take vampire-status as basically just an upgrade, because now he can exert more power on others. Doesn't even seem to care about his family anymore, probably because they were uncool people who thought it sucked their dad was a self-absorbed bad father.) Oh, hey, didn't Daniel finally recall that what made Louis blow up was the implication that Claudia didn't love him enough? By what standard did Claudia owe Louis anything? But, you know, Claudia died because she was small and couldn't be independent (that gets you raped, you know), so implicitly she also owed stronger things her love, and Louis' woundedness is righteous, I suppose.

[gallierhouse]

thinking about how 2.05 was the realist 'armand' we've seen. everything else is a performance, especially dubai. wonder what it takes for him be willing to break through that facade and expose himself for someone else to see.

I think that’s half-true. Dubai is a performance, Paris is a performance, San Francisco is the closest we get to seeing cracks in that facade. But the thing about Armand is that he doesn’t really have a personality. He has desires (and duties) and he’s goal-oriented about fulfilling those desires (“”). He thinks Louis wants someone safe, someone who’s not like Lestat, so he becomes that person for Louis. I’m not really sure if I’d call that a performance, though. It is a role he inhabits, it is a mask he puts on, but it’s not really like he’s obscuring other parts of himself on purpose. This isn’t really a wolf in sheep’s clothing situation. It’s more like the wolf has successfully deluded itself into thinking it’s a sheep. He’s a method actor. He’s embodied the role. There’s no real differentiation between the role and who he is. He’s not really attempting to obfuscate who he “really is,” because there’s nothing besides the method. He’s a black hole of desire and duty. Everything else follows from that. How do I accomplish my duty? How do I fulfill my role as maitre? How do I be what Louis wants? How do I make Louis stay with me?

In San Francisco, he’s upset because Louis has broken their arrangement that, to Armand, implicitly states that Louis is free to do whatever he wants as long as he comes home to Armand. He’s upset because Louis isn’t home on time, both physically and emotionally. He shared his life with someone who isn’t Armand. It was a betrayal. Therefore he punishes Louis (and Daniel). It’s true his emotions boiled over and he found himself unable to continue playing the role of Louis’ gentle, safe partner (“gremlin or the good nurse”) but it’s also a rational response within Armand’s framework of understanding relationships. Louis wants security. Armand provides security. Therefore Louis should stay with him. However, despite him providing security, love, devotion, etc., Louis has been disloyal. And how do you respond to someone breaking a contract? By enforcing it. Louis also calls him boring, which is the insult that stings the most. Armand’s purpose in his relationship with Louis is to be what Louis wants. So if Louis wants interesting, wants conflict, wants Lestat, well, he can be that person too. He is emotional, and he is hurt, and angry, and fraying at the edges, but it’s not inconsistent with “the role.” It’s part of it. He’s the same person. Nothing’s changed.

If you’re talking about wanting to see an outwardly emotional Armand, I’m sure we’ll see it in the finale. Armand really does believe in his performance as a method actor, so I don’t think he goes for outright falsehoods and lies. For him it’s closer to obfuscation. He’s all very self-controlled, so even though it’s obvious that there’s a streak of genuine sadism that runs through him, it’s not any more or less real than the self-control. I guess my point is that there’s not really a “real” Armand. He’s dedicated to the performance. He embodies his character. Anything that seems out of character is usually a rational response to someone not following their part in the script he’s written in his head. If only he does what this person wants, then they’ll do what he wants too. It’s contractual, maybe sometimes transactional. It’s duty. So I don’t really think we can peel back all that to find the “real” Armand when he believes in the authenticity of what he does. I don’t think the “real” Armand is his worst moments. It’s the good, too, and it’s the patience, and the devotion, and the need for love, and all the other things he can be. I do get what you mean, though. I’d also like to see him unstable and anguished. It’s fun.

[thenatco]

It's weird that I don't ship loumand, but I find the ship compelling. I'm interested in the tragedy of it. To me the biggest obstacle wasn't Lestat, but the death of Claudia. For a brief shining moment there was a chance for Armand and Louis to build something genuine, but Louis withholds, and Armand didn't believe in his love. Then the trial happens, Claudia is killed, and Louis and Armand's relationship becomes a codependent mess built on a foundation of spite. Louis can't forgive himself, or Armand, for the trust he put in the man who let his daughter die. Armand in a futile attempt to regain Louis' love turns himself into someone he thinks Louis could love again, but it only bores him. They carry on this way for two decades and some change until it all comes to a head in 1973. Then the memory wipe and over 50 years of false contentment. Could they have made it if Armand had said, screw the coven and left France with Louis before the trial? I don't think so really. They both have a mountain of issues. One major issue being Louis' unresolved feelings for his soulmate Lestat, but it still makes me wonder how long they could have been happy together.

[cbrownjc]

I apologise in advance for the length. I wanted your take on one specific part of 2x5 that bothered me a little and is partially why my little DM shipper hope wavered (that and being burned by ongoing shows in the past). Both you and @nalyra-dreaming have brilliantly pointed out how the episode does a great job at recreating the horror origin where Daniel is kept in the cellar and I wholeheartedly agree. However, what has bothered me about it is that, in the episode, it is not Armand that chooses to let Daniel live. Granted, in the book it's more a stay of execution than anything else, but it's still his choice alone. In 2x5 that choice is now Louis'. And while I know that in the novel Armand considers Daniel a gift from Louis, part of me is bothered by this slight lack of agency. It felt to me like just another thing Armand did to comply to Louis' wants in his desperation to not lose him. And that any Chase that happens is not necessarily out of genuine curiosity but because Louis called Armand boring and Armand just wants to know what set Daniel apart for Louis.

And then my brain goes "fruit of the poisonous tree" and am then afraid that Daniel's meaning wrt Armand (which, to my great frustration, I have already seen other book readers diminish) will literally be: oh he's just the scraps Armand gets because he couldn't have Louis or Lestat (because of the horrors, he did all of it, etc). I don't WANT it to be that and I guess I'm a little terrified about it.

Idk what to make of any of it and I'm nervous because I REALLY want to see this pairing develop as they deserve. So please, tell me what I'm missing in my rambling and borderline incoherent concern. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my sanity's only hope. ^_~

Hi!

Okay, well, I will try to be your Ben Kenobi here, but remember, even he failed to see what was going on with Annikin before it was too late . . .

Yeah, okay that isn't very confidence-giving, is it? 😬 🙃

Anyway! 🤭

Okay, so on the first point:

I have actually seen one or two people point out the fact that it was Louis who basically intervened and stopped Armand from killing Daniel, and Armand didn't do so himself. And I'm not going to say I can't see yours and some other's point about this. All I can say about that point for now is that we don't know what happens right now between Daniel and Armand after Daniel was let go and dropped off at the drug den. Because there might actually come a point when Armand thinks he very well could kill Daniel and Louis would have no idea, as Louis only requests that Daniel live out "this night." There was no request from Louis to Armand for Daniel to live out his whole life.

So we might actually get a moment, in the future, where we see a time when Armand decides to just kill Daniel -- but, just like with Louis in the tunnel back in the 40s -- stays his own hand via his own decision to do so.

So, I think on this point right now, the only thing any of us can do is take a "wait and see" about it. But there are still doors open to Armand deciding on his own to spare Daniel's life in a significant way I think. With him not even being in love with Daniel yet at the time too IMO.

So, on to the second point:

No, I very much do not think Daniel is going to be seen as "scraps" that Armand gets because he couldn't have Louis or Lestat. And I think what is going to come into play to make that clear is the slight change the show has done wrt Armand's character and the Great Laws. After the Children of Darkness/Satan coven busted up, Armand in the book really didn't hold those rules in any high regard anymore. But the show has very clearly changed that, to where Armand was ready to kill Louis because Louis broke many of the Great Laws.

Assad himself made this clear that Armand really was going to kill Louis and only didn't do it because he chose love instead.

And if you take a look at the full list of the Great Laws that someone was amazingly able to translate, as well as this gifset of a specific scene from 2x03, a vampire being with a human in such a way is a direct violation of those laws that Armand in the show clearly holds to.

So for Armand to break that rule and choose to be with Daniel? Will not be a small thing.

So I think that alone will show that Daniel is not just a scrap. Armand's love for Daniel will be so much that he will, once again, ignore a rule he once held fast to in order to, once again, choose love.

And then, of course, there is the fact that Armand chose to actually break his biggest rule of all for Daniel, which is to never turn someone into another vampire -- which is also one of the laws the cult drilled into him. Yes, Armand's main reason for not doing so in the books was because he didn't want to damn someone into vampirism, as well as not believing that the Maker/Fledgling relationship can ever really work. But the other reason that I feel the show will also touch upon will very much also be because of the Great Law that older vampires should never work the Dark Trick upon someone, less that fledgling be too powerful in the blood.

But Armand's love for Daniel will be so great that he will not bear the thought of Daniel actually dying. And so, when the moment comes, he will not only break that Great Law, but his own personal reason why he doesn't want to turn someone. And he would rather face having to truly put his fear and belief about Markers and Feldglings to the side (and maybe still lose Daniel that way -- which in the books, he actually did for a time!) than lose Daniel forever via death.

Again, that has never seemed to me as Daniel just being a "scrap" to Armand, even when it comes to the books. But I expect the show will put an even greater emphasis on this, both when it comes to Armand's backstory and how now Armand in the show actually holds to those laws in a serious way.

So yeah, just some of my thoughts on those two points. I hope they can calm you somewhat but, if not, just know that, because of the format this story is now being told in, that will very much lend to things -- the characters and their relationships with each other -- to be even more fleshed out, along with character arcs to be planned out overall as well. (Which yes, not every TV show does, but this one is clearly doing so.) We won't get every answer to these things right away, but I think there are many doors open to exploring these things in a satisfying way over the course of the show. 🙂

[toriangeli]

I get the impression that the writers didn’t expect people to be that invested in Armand which is odd bc he’s a popular book character but. It almost seems to me like they thought everyone would be invested in Lestat and Louis only and they can do whatever with Armand. I still think he was well-written for the most part don’t get me wrong. However.

I think his motivations are muddled in this version of the story and it’s weird that he had no strong relationships to anyone all season. The Louis thing didn’t matter to either of them that much bc he was willing to let him die (weird), nothing with Daniel yet, didn’t seem very upset with the coven members dying and didn’t even seem to hate Claudia all that much?

I feel like they didn't think we'd love him if he was as much of a maniac as he was in the books? Crazy time to start worrying about what their audience thinks. ffs, Rolin talked about how bad they felt for Armand upon rereading the second half of book 1 and then didn't even quote the line that made them feel so bad for him in the first place (the thing about how he's done everything for Louis and Louis doesn't love him and seems totally dead to him).

He was definitely very attached to Louis, but Louis' lack of attachment to him and Daniel's utter contempt guided the audience's opinion a lot more than the softening of his terribleness. Even if it's not their intent, he comes across as the least favorite child. Lestat dropped Louis from the sky and gets a pass, but Armand did...what, exactly? Louis forgave him for playing a part with Claudia's death, but being willing to let Louis die was unforgivable, even after he pulled Louis out of the sun? And Rolin talked about how these were genuine attempts from Armand to be better, to be good to Louis, only to be met in 2.05 with the bleak understanding that none of it meant jack shit to Louis, it was all just a sign of Armand being a boring person who did boring things. "As empathetic as possible," says Rolin, but the actual audience is taking its cues from audience surrogate Daniel, whose opinion isn't based on Armand's experiences or even Louis' experiences, but his own. His entire take on the situation is centered around what Armand did to him, so he ignores anything that could actually make him see where Armand is coming from. He even calls his tragic backstory into question. And don't tell me Armand lied so much he deserved that. Nobody deserves it. Anyway, according to Rolin, Armand lied about two things: who saved Louis at the trial, and how involved he was in the trial itself, and all subsequent lies were covering up those two. Do you ever see Armand bringing up his tragic backstory when he isn't asked to do so? He plays victim about other things, sure, but never about that.

And frankly, some of the things he plays victim about, he has the right to be pissed about. It feels like nobody really grasps 2.05 with any sense of compassion for both Louis and Armand--it's always one or the other of them in total wrong. Either Louis is emotionally abusive during their fight, or Armand tortured and neglected him and made the whole situation about himself.

What if both things can be true, but we understand where they're both coming from? That's the thing about dark fiction: we can actually look critically at relationships like these and see nuance. It's not safe to do that in real life unless you're the therapist involved, but in fiction? We can actually look and see and think. Don't do that if you're in a toxic relationship irl, just get out.

Louis is using drugs to run away from something Armand could have prevented. There's kind of a karma in Armand being forced to be his caretaker. At the same time, I know what being the codependent in a relationship feels like, so...yes, Armand making the situation about himself makes a lot of sense because no situation is ever about himself. He drags Louis out of the sun, and we never talk about how traumatic that is for both of them. Rightly, the focus is on Louis, because Louis is the primary victim in the situation, but he's not the only one traumatized by his own suicide attempt. We, the audience, have the capacity to have empathy for them both, but we seldom do. Instead, we see Armand doing something wrong--the secondary victim demanding understanding from the primary one--and focus way too much on that instead of why.

People feel sorry for themselves because they're overcompensating for the fact that only they ever seem to validate their own experiences. Judging by some of Sam's attitude, I suspect the last person who told Armand "you went through something fucked up and it's okay to not be okay about it" was Marius. Right before the attempt, Louis actively invalidated some of the worst shit Armand ever went through, so sure. I obviously don't agree with Armand's actions in the aftermath, but the important thing is, I'd consider it shitty, shitty writing if the writers decided everyone should immediately be able to act rationally about this. That's not how people work. It's the opposite of how Armand should work. Armand is so poorly socialized, he doesn't know the unwritten social codes, or even why he does what he does. And any time someone calls him out, they can't seem to do so without invalidating completely unrelated traumas he's had.

You can say, "Oh, well, this season was Louis' story, so of course they focused on Louis' perspective," but here's the problem with that: we are not getting a The Vampire Armand season. It wouldn't make sense. The only two main characters who are in those flashbacks are Armand and Marius. That means sidelining almost every series regular for an entire season if they did a TVA season. If every POV character (Daniel, Louis, and Lestat) has total contempt for Armand, exactly when is the audience supposed to have things cleared up for them?

[nalyra-dreaming]

I was reflecting on Lestat’s role as “pater familias” aka the autocratic Father of the unholy family in NOLA that was portrayed in the second half of s1, and I feel like that was not how Lestat was at first, at all. He was much more relaxed, him and Louis were equals and equal parents to Claudia, but that completely changed. It reads as if he took that role only after Claudia started acting up and asking questions he couldn’t answer to.

To only show watchers it reads as him being a controlling asshole that disliked the fact that his daughter wanted to be independent, but we know it’s not true. We know Lestat’s background. And based on that, I feel like Lestat began to unconsciously emulate his father to protect, but did the exact opposite. (Show watchers should kind of see it coming because Lestat talks about his shitty home life in the FIRST EPISODE, but oh well you can’t have everything now can you)

The fact Lestat broke many cycles of abuse is extremely overlooked. He didn’t have that many boundaries with his mother, but he did establish them with Claudia. He was given nothing unless he was severely hurt prior, while Claudia had all she wanted and he gladly spoiled her. Where his family didn’t bother to tell him what he did wrong because they didn’t care to, he tried to show Claudia that actions have consequences. He broke so many cycles of abuse coming from his family, because he genuinely loved Claudia, but also reinforced the one he had yet to recognize as abuse, aka the one at his father’s hands disguised as discipline. Lestat’s father was controlling and didn’t want his son to leave, but it was purely because he didn’t want Lestat to “shame” the family with a lowly place as a priest or as a disgraceful actor. Lestat kept Claudia with him and controlled her because he wanted to keep her in check and protect her from the outside, for her own sake. And lastly, the marquis was genuinely a shitty person. Lestat wasn’t. His father beat up a child because he could, Lestat had outbursts of anger because of the frustration of having to lie to his family and them hating him. And it’s genuinely heartbreaking to see a man who loves his family to death be reduced to emulate the abusive asshole that broke his spirit in a desperate attempt at keeping his husband and daughter safe, because he literally has no one else to emulate.

But going back to the main point, it really feels as if Lestat went from being the mother (life-giver and primary educator) to the Father (controlling and raging). There’s this huge tonal shift in him, which I think is also dictated by the fact Nicki too was acting like Claudia was in that moment, and he didn’t want to lose her too. I don’t know if it’s mostly because of what I’ve just said, because of his father, or because Claudia souring her opinion of him + Louis having the perception of past Lestat fucked up by Armand, that the viewer initially perceives Lestat that way. Personally? I think all of them. I think we’ll see Nicki go mad with some crazy parallels to Claudia that will explain why he was so set on being rough on her rather than gentle, as love didn’t save Nicki, and i also suspect that many of the scenes where Lestat was overly cruel to either Louis or Claudia or both were twisted to fit the “shitty ex” narrative Armand established. Not that Lestat didn’t act shitty at times, but the NOLA and dream versions of Lestat don’t feel like s1 him at all.

Thoughts? I really hope they show this part of Lestat’s character properly. I understand casual show watchers being unaware, but the abuse Lestat suffered is talked about in the first episode, that should be source of some sort of understanding of his character, shouldn’t it?

So for one, a lot of the reasons why Lestat acted the way he did will only be seen in season 3, and seeing is always different than just hearing three sentences of comment from a character.

And then the first two seasons were shaped to present Lestat as exactly that - an abusive asshole, which is also how the books go.

That was deliberate. Jacob said Louis "presented Lestat as a monster".

The tale broke at the end, and it will be different from hereon.

Of course there are parallels. With Nicki and Claudia, but also between Nicki and Louis. The feeding, the depression. The way Lestat acted out on temper, and tried to be the stern father, when Louis wouldn't be.

It will be immensely interesting to see this past you address here come to life, to see the parallels click into place.

To see the cycles of abuse in action.

I'm not sure if I have further thoughts on all this at this point - you laid out all the main points already, a lot of what we'll likely see^^. I just know the echoes and parallels will be ... uncomfortable.

And I bet rewatching after s3 will be give us quite a lot of "oh shit" moments.

[avelera]

I saw the IWTV finale early thanks to a kind soul sharing it with me!

A few (spoiler-y) thoughts:

Really interesting how they reimagined and framed the ending of this take on IWTV with Louis and Lestat mourning Claudia together. It feels like Justice For Claudia in many ways, it feels like a fitting homage to the origins of Claudia's character (the dead of Anne Rice's daughter from leukemia as a child), and in general was just a really interesting way to sort of give this closure the book never did and also use it to realistically allow them both to push forward past their toxic and abuse past into a somewhat plausible healed future.

It was also a decent reminder, to me, that these are vampires. These characters live forever. I would not condone Louis/Lestat in real life because life is too short to keep going back to an abusive ex. But these guys are vampires. Do not do as they do. But genuinely 70 years, a human lifetime, is realistically long enough to say, "Hey, we're new people now, we've learned and suffered a lot, we lost our daughter and it was fucked up. Maybe all we have is each other." And make peace with each other on that front.

BUT NOW I'M WONDERING HOW WE GET ROCKSTAR LESTAT - ok because Louis kind of got Lestat's book motivation for becoming a rockstar? The "Fuck you, come find me," to all the other vampires. Lestat I believe only speculates that as Louis' motivation, but they made it canon (or I could be wrong).

But that was Lestat's motivation for HIS book, making Louis and the others come find him. Since that's been solved with Louis coming to find him (lovely little homage to the IWTV movie with him playing the harpsichord) now I'm wondering if Louis is the one who encourages Lestat to become a rockstar and write down his book.

Thing is, it's not totally contradicted by the book. (SPOILERS) TVL does end with a beat where Louis and Lestat reunite and Louis is kind of his groupie for a bit. Moving that up so Louis is part of Lestat's rise is actually a really lovely touch, it gives them a bit more time together before shit goes down, and I could totally see this version of Louis as Lestat's agent since he's shown to have that business acumen.

Now that Daniel is a vampire (OMG OMG OMG MORE ON THAT IN A SECOND) the risk is no longer so bad for him to come interview Lestat and I'm sure he's salivating to do so and Louis would definitely invite Vampire Daniel to do the interview for Lestat's book, since there's no fear for his safety (or at least, not as much) anymore. And Daniel would jump at the chance. It would be a fabulous framing device, Rockstar Lestat with his agent, Louis, inviting Daniel to interview Lestat for his next book AND it means we get Daniel's snark throughout Lestat's story.

OK SO DANIEL BEING A VAMPIRE. Definitely leaves the door open for past AND present Devil's Minion WITH THE ADDED BONUS of Daniel not going insane after he's turned (likely owed to not being turned while still a drug addled young man so, hey, if there was past Devil's Minion where Armand said no, kudos to him for reading the situation correctly that vampirism would drive young Daniel insane but not Old Man Daniel).

I was SLIGHTLY, SLIGHTLY bummed to see Daniel as a vampire without getting to see the whole Daniel/Armand situation but only slightly. There wasn't enough room in the season, it would have been a distraction, and IMO we can now save it properly for its place in either TVL or QOTD, which I bet are going to be Seasons 3-4 or as many as 3-6 if we stick to 2 seasons per book.

A take on Devil's Minion where past and present Devil's Minion are intertwined would be AMAZING and I've got my fingers crossed that's how they do it. Maybe interweave a bit of Vampire Armand.

I don't think/know if we're going to get a full Vampire Armand season BUT I do believe the show is going to pivot its POV lens to say, hey, everyone's got a point of view, everyone's got a reason. At some point, we're going to get more of Armand's POV and why he did what he did because I imagine his version will be different from Louis', just as Lestat's is, that's the whole basis of the show. And in there maybe we'll get some past Daniel/Armand.

Ok this already got away from me but ANYWAY, those are my thoughts for now.

[covenofthearticulate]

hiii idk if you’ve ever discussed this before but i’ve been thinking about louis and marius interacting all day and so i’d LOVE to hear your take on what you think their dynamic would be like! what do you think it would take to get louis to engage with him on a more intimate level?

NO KENZIE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH I ADORE MARIUS AND LOUIS!!!!!

literally all my favorite quotes about Louis in canon come from that little bit in QOTD from Marius' POV! Like!!! I will never get over how IMMEDIATELY smitten they are with each other!!!

Like on the one hand we have: "Louis stood quite still looking at [Marius] as he had earlier, as though he were seeing a myth made real."

and then we see that the feeling is absolutely mutual with Marius: "He smiled at Louis. Something in the manner of this one made Marius happy, though he wasn't sure why."

I think their dynamic is just so especially interesting because they have so many connecting threads re: Lestat and Armand, so up until QOTD they really have this mythologized version of one another— to Louis, Marius is this grand figure with all the answers Louis had always been searching for, and someone who both deeply loved and deeply hurt some of Louis' closest companions. For Marius, Louis is this strange fledgling who had the audacity to expose these secrets he's kept hidden at his own expense for literal centuries. By all accounts there should be some tension there, or at the very least some awkwardness!

But just as Armand and Louis are sort of two sides of the same coin in a lot of ways, I think Louis is one of the only vampires who has an innate understanding of Marius' worldview. Louis is not the artist or philosopher or politician that Marius is, but he holds a lot of the same values. I mean— Louis is a textbook Libra for god's sake— he NEEDS order and balance in his life, and lord knows Marius is the only other person who prioritizes that as well!

So anyway this is all to say that I really don't think it would take much for Louis to want to engage with Marius on a more intimate level!

And like, I was talking to a friend about this the other day as well but I'd like to think that in their contemporary era, Louis could really be the pupil that Marius needs. Yes, Daniel's relationship with Marius is bittersweet and interesting and fun to play with, but I've always wanted to see who Marius is outside of being a caretaker, and I think Louis is just like the perfect middle ground where he doesn't need or want anyone doting on him or worrying over him, but he's still coming into his own in the new era, he's still finding himself, he needs a kind hand, someone to talk with about books and music and art and culture.

And on Marius' end, I think it would do him good to spend time with someone who is just so genuine. As much as Marius needs and wants his pupils to challenge him, I think he would really benefit from having someone who is willing to just listen and appreciate his philosophy (that's not to say that he and Louis wouldn't have disagreements— but even then I'm sure they hash it out Socratic Style and end up with enough intellectual stimulation to get them all giddy).

ANYWAY TL;DR: WE NEED MORE MARIUS & LOUIS CONTENT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

[pynkhues]

https://www.tumblr.com/pynkhues/763021215378079744/httpswwwtumblrcomnalyra-dreaming762934616351

I love how you mention in your tags here that Lestat is somewhat powerless in s2- or how he is used in the narrative and how different characters use him against each other. Sometimes it feels like Lestat is almost being objectified, if that’s the right word, or maybe things are projected on to him because he’s desirable and has such intense charisma. I do feel like loss of autonomy is such a big theme for him, especially in TVL but also QoTD and beyond, and I’m very interested to see how the show presents that and how seriously they take it (I expect very tbh). It’s pretty unique for a male character to go through some of the things he’s gone through, so I do sort of see the comparison to some gothic heroine characters for that reason, though I think ultimately he goes far outside that as a vampire.

(x)

Oh, he's absolutely objectified in s2, anon. Mm, so there's kind of two things happening, right? On the one hand, you've got Louis genuinely trying to tell this story authentically as he experienced it, but there is also this reality that Lestat has no genuine voice in it beyond a few tokens of love that Louis' held onto - a calling card, a record, a letter. Hell, even Claudia has more than that with her diaries, and so from the get-go we're seeing an impression of Lestat, but what the show does really well is that it lets different intent come into play in the second season.

Louis' retelling of Lestat in the modern timeline is one thing, but he has two alternate retellings, right? One is the goading, provocative, mean one that he tells Daniel in 1973, and the other is Dreamstat who is neither ghost nor memory, but rather a fantasy Louis can control. While it feels like he just pops up, we know a part of Louis does it intentionally because he lets him go intentionally. I've said it a few times, but it's his desire from the s1 finale wrought true - he wanted Lestat dead and he wanted him all to himself, and now he has both. This is a Lestat that he can seek comfort from, that can tell him what he wants to hear, and! Pointedly! Devastatingly! Fuck and kill again! It's not all sweetness for Louis, he wants to project Lestat's image onto other men - a process that's dehumanising not just for the men Louis fucks and kills, but for Lestat too.

At least Louis' is understandable if not justifiable as a trauma response, but Armand has a lot of intent in how he chooses to recount his time with Lestat in Paris, something I think the show does pretty pointedly by including Nicki but having Armand drop Gabrielle. The fact that he and Lestat only almost have sex in the books before Lestat's badly triggered with memories of Magnus, which I talked about a bit here, feels too relevant to the themes the show's exploring for them to change it much? The fact then that Armand would re-write their history so explicitly sexual, even beyond any other edits, definitely lends not only to the literal objectification of Lestat, but feels pretty icky to put it mildly. Again though, he's a fantasy.

But yeah! More to your point, haha, I think s2 did a lot about showing Lestat's perceived power and then deliberately undermining it in a way that both emphasises how much we don't know the real Lestat yet, but as you said, emphasises this throughline with him as not really having a lot of genuine autonomy. Which makes sense! The fact that Rolin wanted the writers to read at least the first four books when starting IWTV I think goes to your point about that, as it really is such a huge part of his arc, like:

IWTV: Voiceless and without a point of view as it's entirely Louis' recounting

TVL: His lack of autonomy in his mortal life then his turning as an abduction and rape allegory, that gets revisited as a trigger point over and over.

QOTD: Akasha abducting him to use him in her plot (and I believe assaulting him too? I'd need to re-read it before I feel I can dive into that tbh).

TTOTBT: Has his physical body literally stolen under misleading terms.

I wrote in my Byronic Hero post that I was going to go into this and then didn't, haha, but this is kind of what I'm talking about with the female gothic vs the male gothic. While rape and physical violation is a huge part of the male gothic subgenre, often being used pretty maliciously as a symbol of corruption and to amplify horror, the violation and desecration of the body is still a really central part of the female gothic too, and it's often explored in different ways.

The female gothic is generally considered to include elements of terror / dread more than horror, and it builds to things like loss of autonomy because it's an experience women know. Lestat's not 'woman-coded' as a character, and he's not a gothic heroine, but he is a protagonist in a female gothic narrative. The result of that is that Anne has included things in his arc that are specifically the most frightening to women, because that's what the female gothic is about, and I think that's what a lot of people get confused in the gothic heroine debates.

Some of Louis' horrors are going to resonate with women. It's not because he's the beaten down housewife, it's because Anne was writing for a female audience, and to build dread and terror for women readers is to utilise things that women specifically understand and find frightening. That's what the female gothic means, and it's why Louis and Lestat are both victim and perpetrator as male protagonists of a female gothic novel series.

[dykekingofhell]

Season 2x08 Thoughts (pt 1?): Armand

My biggest gripe with the finale (which also had a lot I loved) is the "twist" that it was Lestat who saved Louis at the trial rather than Armand and that Armand intended for Louis to die. I'll preface this by saying that I was not going into this episode deluded into thinking Armand isn't a monstrous creature. Hell, going into season 2 I was really hoping to see the frankenclaudia experiment as described in The Vampire Armand on screen. I also was looking forward to Louis and Armand's divorce; their simple separation after years of them both retreating inwards becoming shells of people, barely speaking to each other but being too cowardly to leave for 70 years is one of the fascinating parts of the book to me.

Yes, Armand always directed the play (in the book's case scripted Lestat in the trial), but his motivations have been greatly altered in the show in a way that feels less compelling and to a degree flattening, of course, though this is impacted by personal taste. In the book(s) Armand's actions during the trial (and beforehand psychically manipulating Louis to turn Madeleine) are done out of a warped perception of love in part based in ownership and isolation. Armand views Claudia as he does most others that he does not love, as an insignificant pawn, in this case, an obstacle for Louis' "growth" and and obstacle in the way of their relationship. He genuinely believes that by enacting the cruelty of Claudia and Madeleine's deaths he can isolate Louis into loving him entirely. He states plainly before the trial (when it's already been set in motion):

"She's an era for you, an era of your life. If and when you break with her, you break with the only one alive who has shared that time with you. You fear that, the isolation of it, the burden, the scope of eternal life." (pg 221)

and after the trial:

"I used to believe you would get over it, that when the pain of all of it left you, you would grow warm again and filled with love, and filled with that wild and insatiable curiosity with which you first came to me, that inveterate conscience, and that hunger for knowledge that brought you all the way to Paris to my cell. I thought it was a part of you that couldn't die. And I thought that when the pain was gone you would forgive me for what part I played in her death. She never loved you know. Not in the way that I loved you, and the way that you loved us both. I knew this! I understood it! And I believed I would gather you to me and hold you. And time would open to us, and we would be the teachers of one another. All the things that gave you happiness would give me happiness; and I would be the protector of your pain. My power would be your power." (pg 260)

Armand is desperate for Louis (bringer of change, embodying the 19th century) to continue to love him past their early infatuation to be Armand's new window into the world and a replacement for Marius (embodiment of the Renaissance) and Lestat (the 18th century which has already rejected him). His longing for that all-consuming companionship characterized by isolation, manipulation, and ownership becomes most implicitly clear I think when Armand speaks nostalgically about Venice, "I wish I had the artist's power to bring alive for you the Venice of the fifteenth century, my master's palace there, the love I felt for him when I was a mortal boy, and the love he felt for me when he made me a vampire. Oh, if I could make those times come alive for either you or me . . .for only an instant!" (pg 222) (in a way the trial and subsequent isolation IS him trying to make those times come alive)

Ultimately Armand's greatest transgression, the murder of Claudia, is born out of selfish and twisted love for a man (who he has incorrectly perceived as full of endless curiosity and wonder) who he has placed the weight of his world onto. Before the trial even begins he says, "No, I've had to wait and watch for you. And now I'll fight for you. Do you see how ruthless I am in love?" (pg 223)

However, in the show, his transgression is the attempted destruction of LOUIS along with Claudia, and Madeleine. Rather than being born out of selfish love and desire, it is instead born out of Armand's passivity to the status quo (which he clearly wavers on and struggles with as seen by the the Lourve scene, his look of regret outside the restaurant following the judas kiss, and his eventual taking Louis from the coffin). But to me, this aspect of Armand is just as well commented on and explored in an ending closer to the novel in that an orchestration of the end of the coven or a seeking for connection with the age can not be done through himself but only through another acting as a savior. Another compounding possible motivation for Armand's actions is the belief that Louis does not love him and never will love him in the way he needs, and this is him cutting his losses by preserving the coven. This would fit well with the look of guilt and regret outside the restaurant as it immediately follows confirmation from Madeleine that Louis does in fact love him but is withholding. His look could be read as a realization of miscalculation. However, frankly, I don't think that this angle is really explored or built up strongly within the season. And I think that's at least in part because I don't think that their dynamic and its strengths and flaws in the Paris era had enough room to breathe this season. In the last few episodes, their relationship in that era felt to some degree sloppily ill-defined. Ultimately I think that not enough was gained in the twist when it caused Armand's ruthless love to be lost.

Also, I HEAVILY dislike that the reveal comes by way of the Talamasca rather than organic probing from Daniel and Louis leading to a confession from Armand. (I honestly haven't loved most of the Talamasca use this season in general and think the organization is better suited to show up in more general investigative work like with Jesse Reeves in the books rather than in the context of interfering with the interview which felt much more intimate and contained without it). I find Armand's admission of his role in the trial to Louis in the book born out of an attempt to bait Louis into feeling SOMETHING even if it was rage at him after decades of them both living in monotonous misery infinitely more interesting than Daniel being given a file with the answers. I don't think that the reveal needed to play out exactly like in the novel, but if they were going to change it, I wish it had been to another equally strong character moment instead of Talamasca bullshit. Part of me wishes that this season had had another episode because the finale just had so much it needed to include and balance that this cop-out almost feels as if it was born out of necessity to keep everything within runtime.

Anyways, I adored the burning the coven segment, I'm happy Daniel's a vampire, and I really liked the Loustat reunion scene even if I don't love how we got there. I didn't originally intend to post any thoughts on the episode until after my second watch later tn with some friends but it was plaguing my mind so this is the initial ramble. Might have more to say late tn or tomorrow.

[faithandfairies]

It's interesting how in Interview with The Vampire everyone is an apex predator and yet there are nuances to that. A kind of hierarchy.

It's interesting how I'm inclined to think Louis got Claudia killed.

But if I'm honest, the entire narrative conspired to kill her. She kept journals she was not told she was not allowed to keep. Journals in which she incriminated herself. Madeleine suggested they go back one last time because Louis loved her and would want to see her. Lestat watched as Claudia died and did nothing. Louis kept secrets and refused to believe her.

When Claudia told Louis Armand threatened her my first thought to Louis was "Take the girl and run". They could have done that. Armand and his coven weren't the type to follow them. Not like Lestat. But maybe Louis couldn't have known that for sure.

But Louis was arrogant to think he was the one who was in control. Because instead he thought he could genuinely semi-take over a coven run for centuries by a centuries old vampire who was supposedly in love with him.

I wonder how he rationalized it. Did he tell himself he was doing it for Claudia? Taking over the coven she loved so much and wanted to belong in?

I call bullshit on all of it.

Because the way to control Louis is by making him believe he is the one in control.

Armand never loved Louis and Louis never loved Armand. Armand got played by Lestat. For a week or a month Lestat said and did all the right things to get Armand to teach him what he wanted to learn about vampirism. And then Lestat ran. Lestat was the one that got away. The one he couldn't keep under his control.

And then here comes this 30 year old vampire that actually managed to keep Lestat around for 30 years. Lestat actually mated him, actually treated him most of the time like he loved him and in his need to control Louis by letting him think he was the one in control Lestat actually gave up control. Not only that, even after that Lestat didn't want it to end and Louis actually had to (try and) kill Lestat in order to be free of him. Louis achieved with Lestat what Armand literally dreamed of when he first laid eyes on Lestat. Of course Armand had to have Louis.

He held on to Louis so that Lestat couldn't have him. Did Lestat try to find him and back off when he realized Louis was with a vampire that outranked him in age and power? Knowing Louis most likely would not come with him easily so talking him away from Armand before Armand found out was also out of the question?

Louis never loved Armand either. He didn't even consider Armand a companion. He tells Armand this. Lestat took the time to learn Louis. He knew Louis' history, everything about everything that mattered to him and could read him like a book. Armand couldn't even remember his mother's name. He didn't care to, because it was never about Louis. It was about holding onto what Lestat considered the love of his life.

Maybe the huge difference was that Louis did love Lestat. Against his better judgment he did. Even though he never verbally revealed it to Lestat himself, he did. Then again Antoinette loved Lestat too and Lestat couldn't really care less. Louis fell in love with Lestat when Lestat first courted him with the intent to mate him. And by the time Lestat revealed that he was a vampire, Louis could not undo that he loved him. That revelation was not enough to undo it. And it horrified Louis.

Louis knew Armand didn't love him though. I think he preferred it that way. Because look what happened when someone considered themselves in love with him. Armand did not care enough about him as an individual and never actually gave up control. Just made Louis think he did. I'm not sure Louis ever realized that Armand was more dangerous than Lestat. Just because as far as we know Armand never physically hurt him does not mean he was the safer choice.

Lestat knew this. But Armand also immediately showed Lestat who he really was. I wager that Lestat was terrified of Armand and saw him for what he was. And wanted to get as far away from him as possible so as not to become collateral damage to whatever Armand had going on. This is a man who brought in a stranger to take apart his entire coven he had run for centuries. People committed suicide. And he did it twice.

Interview with the Vampire, the title as in his original interview with Daniel Molloy, is literally Louis pulling a Lestat. When Louis said that the original interview is an admitted performance he meant it. Doing an interview that is almost exclusively about Lestat but in a way that is clearly a bold-faced lie meant to try to get a rise out of him.

You know Louis had a fever dream that Lestat would come find him on account of that book, not because he was appalled as being revealed to be a vampire, but appalled at the way Louis sketched their relationship and Lestat himself.

The way Lestat made Louis a song that involved Antoinette singing on it knowing that if anything would get a rise out of him enough for Louis to come find him, that would be it.

[gallierhouse]

Armand makes fun of Louis for having a hobby but apparently he’s picked up bartending (?) which is weird as hell considering he can’t taste anything

Well, it’s obviously because he’s in love with Daniel. Just kidding. I don’t really know what to do with that tidbit either. Daniel notes that he makes martinis like he worked at Dukes. That’s a bar in London famous for its martinis and it’s famous for being the bar that inspired the whole shaken, not stirred thing with James Bond. So it’s a nice bar. In fact, it’s a really nice bar, with stupid good martinis. Rashid makes good martinis. It’s just that Armand’s were better. I can’t imagine that Armand had some sort of random Jackie Daytona-esque stint as a bartender, so the only other option is that he’s intimately familiar with what Daniel likes. There really isn’t that much vermouth in a martini, BTW. The Dukes martini is specifically known for having a lot of gin (and by extension, not that much vermouth). So it’s curious that Armand would know in exact detail how much vermouth Daniel likes in a martini (Daniel tells Rashid that there should be more vermouth next time). Maybe he’s got an extensive file on Daniel’s preferences, down to granular detail. Maybe he just enjoys being good at serving (and playing a role). Maybe it’s the set up for a future dynamic. Maybe it’s a red herring. Maybe Armand is just, for whatever reason, a genuine savant when it comes to mixology.

It’s also worth noting that Armand said Lestat tastes like “vermouth and annihilation.” Dramatic way to describe someone. I don’t really know how these two things connect, but vermouth isn’t a particularly common spirit to reference in everyday parlance, so it was probably on purpose.