#armand apologist you say????

[duriens]

i know everybody has their opinions on why armand 'couldnt/could prevent it' and it is very interesting to read the various interpretations. the way i see it, there are three possibilities (and i'm for the third, spoiler alert):

one, armand couldnt prevent it because, even as a centuries-old vampire, he genuinely doesn't have the power to stop 13 vampires from eventually coming after him/him+louis if he didn't accept their ultimatum. he can make them faint, he can freeze time, he can sway the mind of the audience (with some difficulty...? true or false?) but how long can he keep these powers up and can he do it forever, for however long vampires' grudges last? he might have thought it was possible for him and louis to run away, but that eventually the coven would've found a way to manage to kill him. there's power in numbers? how powerful are centuries-old vampires, exactly? is the combined power of 13 angry vampires enough? armand himself says at some point 'they might've killed me' or smth along the line, meaning he at least believes them capable of trying to kill him. is he that afraid of confronting the coven, of doing battle with them, of failing and dying? (this is the blandest possibility)

second, armand couldnt prevent it because he didnt want to prevent it. armand is a master manipulator and he likes to manipulate others into destroying the things he's bored of/he's lost control over (the children of darkness, the theatre des vampires... his relationship with louis?) cause he doesn't want to take on the responsibilities that come with that destruction, and the eventual guilt/sorrow. armand is minimizing his role in deceiving louis and claudia and is portraying himself as helpless, a centuries-old vampire with limits to his powers, so much so that even the act of making the audience say one thing over the other takes a toll on him, cause it was so hard to just do that one thing, owwie, of course he saved it to when it came to louis' turn for the sentencing.

this is the armand we think of when we see the memes about his inaction, thinking he's smirking to himself bc he knows he could end it with a snap of his fingers.

now we all know that armand is manipulative and that he likes to be in control even when he cedes control, but is he always and in constant awareness of the degrees of his own manipulation and scheming? is he in control of all that, all the time?? does he do it purposefully, with evil intent, consciously selling out louis and claudia and agreeing to a plan involving lestat to get rid of the coven/santiago and consciously pretending to be weaker than he is to get rid of claudia? so this leads inevitably to

third, armand couldnt prevent it because he convinced himself long ago that he is completely helpless and no word or action of his could ever, ever, change a thing. this state of mind he's fallen into has obvious ties to his past, his slavery, his submissive tendencies, his inability to act and decide for himself. he's created this image of himself of someone weaker and powerless that he fully believes to be true, he manipulates others the same way he manipulates himself. his many expressions of grief, of sorrow, of guilt throughout the episodes are genuine because, at some level, he genuinely believes he 'could not prevent it', because he decided long ago he's the kind of person who simply can't on his own--that can't ever, ever be accused of serious stuff because in this narrative he created for himself he can never be a hundred percent at fault, he doesn't bear all the responsibilities. (he's still a manipulative and controlling individual here, just not as shrewd and consciously cunning as in option 2). in this light, the memes about armand doing nothing when he has the power to act become tragic in their own way, because it's tragic that he truly thinks of himself, a centuries-old vampire leader of the paris coven, as powerless and helpless as he had been when he was still alive.

[atlasblue85]

just copying this mostly verbatim from the dms but I think the difference between armand and louis that I really haven't seen anyone talk about yet is that yes they are both lying and deeply unreliable narrators but

we've seen time and time again with Louis that he believes exactly what he is saying at any given moment, believes it 100%, and only retracts when there's another source disputing it. we see it way at the beginning of the season with Claudia and her being able to dream, we see it in San francisco which admittedly his memories were fucked with there but still, and we see it again this episode with Lestat's version of how Claudia was made. I don't necessarily trust that Lestat's version is true either because Louis will just claim whichever he believes at the time. Even though lestat was lying about so much of what happened and their relationship for whatever reason Louis was willing to take at face value that this other version was correct. Louis WANTS to be telling the truth, the absolute truth, at all times, but unintentionally makes himself a liar by wholeheartedly believing incorrect memories.

whereas Armand, on the other hand, is a fully aware liar. he knows exactly what lies he is telling and when and where, and is deploying them with purposeful reason. A lot of people want to say he is lying all the time but like, the best lies contain the truth and armand knows that better than anyone. I would argue that he is actually the most reliable character because he's not prone to rewriting history to his own benefit the way Louis and lestat are. this next bit is from @doux-amer "does he do it [rewrite history]? yeah, but he's much more meticulous and does it more sparingly or at least does it in smaller doses whereas louis and lestat like to do sweeping changes (they are also super dramatic lmao vs. armand who's much more collected even if he's just as emotionally ruined)" Armand is telling as much truth as possible in order to more convincingly sell the lies when he does tell them.

[rustingways]

I’m hesitant to wade into the potential discourse here, but I’ve seen a lot of talk about abusers and abuse and excusing abusers and who is enacting the worst violence against whom.

Here’s my thing. Anne Rice does a lot of work (in my opinion) in her novels to show how far removed vampires are from humanity and human morals. I think some of that is shown in relationships like Louis and Claudia’s relationship (post vampirism), or Lestat and Gabrielle’s relationship (post vampirism). I think some of that is shown in great acts of violence (Armand’s proclivity for dungeons, Lestat in That One Scene, Akasha…as a whole). There’s pages and pages and pages of Tale of the Body Thief where Lestat complains about how much being human again sucks ass.

These are beings who, more often than not, murder at least ONE thinking, feeling, sentient person each night to sustain their preternatural bodies. I’m not going to split hairs about their morality towards each other. They’re all mass murdering, blood sucking fiends. They were each conscripted into an inherently violent existence. And not ONLY is their existence inherently violent, the greatest pleasure they experience is intrinsically linked to literal murder. Their joy and their lives are explicitly sustained by death. And they propagate from loneliness and desire, which is frequently suggested to be of greater depths and intensity than the breadth of human experience. And they frequently commit abhorrent acts against each other for those same reasons.

I guess what I’m getting at is, I don’t know if it’s fair to use “who’s your favorite monster” as a litmus test for someone’s morality. Rolin literally described us as “beautifully unwell” like yesterday.*

And I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss or explore these themes; I think fiction is (generally) a low stakes place to contemplate and analyze these themes. I think it can be a way for victims to explore their trauma in a safe and controlled environment. I think it can be a great opportunity for introspection. But at the end of the day, I’m not going to assume someone is an abuse apologist or something because they enjoy a character who did an awful thing or are a fan of a specific ship.

*((He also described us as “rabid” and I definitely recognize some people are using “I like this character” to condone, vehemently excuse, or deny wrong doings, which isn’t really what I’m talking about here. If you have a favorite vampire, your fave is problematic.))

[amadeoapologist]

i also think armand fundamentally does not know how to make people happy because he himself is unhappy. i was talking with my friend about louis and how louis still uses human markers of wealth and success that lestat and claudia and armand don't understand. louis wants to own things, he wants to invest in profitable endeavors. i don't think he wants to laze about in his wealth, but he wants to work hard and have it pay off and he wants to see the tangible products of his efforts.

and i'm bringing this up in relation to armand because i think this mindset explains some of the disconnect in dubai, beyond just the circumstances with lestat that got them there. because louis feels lobotomized to me in his cold modern penthouse where he's disconnected from his food, he's disconnected from other vampires, he doesn't work. he buys and sells artwork he appears to have only a passing interest in, he's tempered his accent. he sleeps in a bed and not a coffin, he eats at the table.

and i've been trying to wrap my head around that and how he ended up there, but i'm starting to think a lot of that is armand trying to give louis what he thinks louis wants to feel satiated. louis wants independence and nice things and obvious markers of wealth. so. have this penthouse with the most coldly, impersonally stylish decor. acquire this expensive artwork and then sell it so you can buy something more expensive. if you won't hunt, then here--dine on fine china.

i'm not saying armand holds all the money or anything, we don't know their finances. but i could see him continuously providing louis with expensive things in the hopes that will satisfy louis' desire to feel successful (and also because he has a metric fuckton to make up for and this is one way he tries), but it doesn't because what is louis doing to earn it? money makes money and it seems like louis doesn't have to do anything any more but coast, which is, as armand fears, boring. but idk if he knows how to address that because armand doesn't understand louis' perspective in the first place.

i think i love and empathize with armand so much because he's the one character on the show who feels, at his core, like he isn't good enough. i don't think this is as much a struggle for louis or lestat or claudia, but i think it is for armand. armand is pathetic. he's morally void, and he's too damn weak to grow a fucking backbone and stand by his choices without couching them in lies, because he can't accept being perceived as someone who would make those decisions. he wants affection. he craves approval.

(lmao old school a/n here--i wrote most of this before the finale and damn......i was spot on re: armand couching choices in lies lolololol)

people keep making posts about how armand seems a bit too invested in daniel's opinion of him. and obviously there's an armandiel bent to those, but i also think it's because daniel is the most objective person in the room. he isn't objective because he's tangled up in their story, too, but he's outside of the partnership. he's a journalist. he's an archivist of some version of the truth. and i think he wants daniel to see him how he wants to be seen. he didn't want daniel to think he was boring in san francisco, and he doesn't want daniel to think he's boring now decades later. he wants the external validation from someone outside of his unit to tell him he did the best he could. which obviously daniel won't do, which makes armand want it more.

there's a very good chance i'm completely wrong and talking out my ass and just a pathetic armand apologist myself, but idk. every episode makes me more curious about him. i started season 2 really disinterested in armand and lowkey put off by his presence. but the season has shifted things for me slowly but surely, and now i think armand is one of the most interesting characters on the show. and that makes me love him even more.

[saintarmand]

Hi! Do you think that s2 big reveal will be that Armand manipulated Louis memory? What do you think the "disastrous consequences in Dubai" mean? Louis attempting suicide as many books fans expect?

no. i think the "big reveal" will be that armand didn't have to. louis knows armand did the thing and stayed with him anyway like he did in the books. they very well may lead the audience to believe armand is doing that to louis, when it was actually daniel who got his memories wiped (and daniel may have agreed to it.) and i think any inconsistencies about the events of s1 that may or may not be revealed will be because of louis repressing memories the old fashioned way. at most armand helped a little. and i'm not saying that only because of the racist and abuse apologist implications or just cause i'm an armand stannie or whatever, although that's all also true. i'm saying that because i think the story is better for it.

to me, armand having significant overarching influence, especially though literal magic, on the story we've been told (specifically LOUIS's story told BY louis), undermines the theme of "memory is a monster." they told us the fallibility of memory in this story is the real life kind; how memory naturally changes every time we remember events in our lives, how our present self affects how we look at the past, etc. this is a fantasy story, yes, but it's very much grounded in reality. the racism isn't "fantasy racism", for example. having the twist be that a crucial element of the story that we were told was real was actually magic would lame and disappointing as hell. i think daniel having his memories wiped magically will be a parallel to louis. but the thing about parallels is that they're not meant to be literal or complete, and they emphasize differences as much as similarities, in order to reinforce the ideas and themes of the story, not replace them. so i think that while louis and daniel's memory issues can look similar on the surface, they have different causes and the show will make it clear which is which.

hell, they've even shown us magical manipulation vs regular manupulation before. we saw lestat entrance several humans including louis himself ("his gaze tied a string around my lungs and i found myself immobilized") but it was done in a way that made it obvious when it was happening, so general audiences weren't speculating lestat was using vampire magic to make louis fall in love with him or agree to be turned or whatever. he was shown to have powers he could have used at key points but didn't, more often using very basic human manipulation tactics, which were actually even more effective. even the idea of lestat causing paul's death was brought up only to be discarded. i think they'll pretty much do the same thing with armand, only teasing us a bit more with it. and sure, some people will still speculate, but i think this is what the intention of the writers is, and hopefully they do it well.

i assume the "disastrous consequences in dubai" is an interview quote and i've heard something like that but since i don't have the full context in front of me it's hard to say much about it. if you could tell me the whole quote and who said it and where and in what context i could probably talk about it in more detail lol. link me if you'd like?

what i will say right now is that i think there's gonna be a lot of arguments and accusations and revelations in dubai, i think louis will go through a hell of an emotional rollercoaster, i think daniel will find out about the eternal sunshine of the devil's minion as i like to call it, will ask to be turned again or at least realize he still wants it, i think louis and armand will break up, and i think there will be a book released by the end.

the louis suicide attempt theory i believe is based on merrick, which i still haven't read (i need to get my shit together and read it before may 12th lol) so it's difficult for me to say much about it? i know he attempts suicide at the end and that him talking to claudia's ghost who's fucking furious with him is a thing that happens. something like that anyway, i've read some quotes from it. i highly doubt louis has been talking to her literal ghost at this point in the show, he's just doing that metaphorically. i would love to see it in the future though.

honestly to me just the fact that armand said out loud that he thinks the interview is basically louis's suicide note indicates that's probably not actually what's going on. that's usually how it works in stories lol. when the character tells you what they think is gonna happen it never happens like that. (on the whole "other vampires will paint the walls with his blood" thing, i think the human world will assume the book is made up bullshit or daniel is senile or crazy, and because of that most vampires won't care that much. would be pretty dumb to kill him since it would only draw more attention to him and the book. i do like the idea of lestat, inspired by louis, going on to more or less successfully prove the existence of vampires, causing a big ruckus, and the whole "great conversion" thing that was mentioned, being a part of the show version of the queen of the damned somehow.)

louis attempting suicide could still happen i guess but i just don't think it's that interesting or particularly good writing in the context of the story being told in seasons 1 & 2. not only because it's kinda predictable and basic and boring to me but like. if he tries kill himself and fails, that's basically him being forced to live. to me, louis choosing to live on in this continuous state of mourning is much more compelling and devastating even, than him having no choice in it. it's like with him staying with armand, isn't it waaaayyy more fucked up and sad if he's doing that of his own volition as opposed to being kept there against his will? that's a story about who louis is, the choices he makes, not about how he's a victim. of course he still is an abuse victim etc, and that's certainly not his fault, but him blaming himself and seeing himself as just as bad as lestat or armand because he "let" it all happen is, to me, a core part of his character. in the book he monologues about his passivity being his biggest fault; in the show he insists "i'm not a victim" even as he's telling us a story about being abused. abuse culture & catholic guilt baby!

also. the thematic note the book ends on is, to me anyway, about the human spirit clinging to life even in devastating circumstances. armand tells louis how so many vampires resort to suicide, but louis doesn't (in book one.) he keeps going, haunted by his past, dead inside and out yet still alive, unable to let go. and he spends the whole book telling daniel the boy reporter how awful immortality is and yet daniel still wants it, thinking it will be different this time. choosing the horrors life throws us, even the cursed half life or unlife of a vampire, over the horror of the unknown that is permanent death. etc etc etc. i love this part of the book too much to want to let it go!

hell, armand only tries to kill himself after finding out what hell is "really like" in memnoch the devil, and while i don't know cause i haven't read merrick yet, i bet that influenced louis too. death isn't as terrifying when you know what to expect.

and i'm also just not a fan of the idea that actually most of the other books' events have also already happened. because then that influences the characters who are telling us the story, in ways that we won't find out until seasons later. like if louis tries to kill himself at the end of season 2 and then in like season 7 or some shit we find out actually it wasn't because of what happened in s1-2 it was actually because right before the interview he was talking to claudia's ghost who said horrible things to him and also because he found out hell is real but it's actually a bit more like purgatory where if you prove yourself you get to go to heaven eventually and also because— like you can see how that would be bad storytelling right? lmao. not that revealing new information about characters or events later is always bad, it can be very interesting and beneficial even, but not if it undermines or completely changes the whole story before that point. not shading AR's retcon habit here at all not at all of course not i would never do that

anyway i think i've rambled enough. thank you for asking!

[aryastark-valarmorghulis]

Two reasons why I'm having a hard time connecting with the Iwtv / VC fandom and I went into a major blocking/unfollowing spree 🤦🏻‍♀️

1. Hardcore Lestat stans-apologists (psa: I'm not a Lestat hater by all means, I like and enjoy book Lestat, I love Samstat and Loustat) rejoycing because Lestat will finally be the lead and we'll discover he's this special snowlflake of a tortured hero and the narrative did him dirty so far, he isn’t a villain, he's a poor victim and the abuse towards Louis was a mutual abuse etc etc

Some stuff, I admit, is actually a lot more nuanced than this and not completely wrong per se, but it's worded in a way that makes me realise some Lestat fans don't care about Louis at all and want the show to be only about Lestat and his white manpain. Which. Um, ok, I know it's exactly like this in the books but they're not doing the books page by page (and thank heaven otherwise we'd have Blood Canticle on screen). It would be a terrible decision to sideline the black main character in favour of the white special prince etc etc not to mention nonsensical since the show has been color-conscious in its approach and very much interested in exploring racism, black queer characters and identity so far

2. VC book purists that despise the show have been enraged about many things during the last 3 years but the worst were: Armand not being a 17 y.o. redhead and Daniel being old. They're now saying this horrible show gaslighted us (seriously?) into believing DM would happen and this "thing" isn’t the real DM. You know, the one where Armand looks like a kid and Daniel is a hot 30 y.o.

Which. Again, yes, it's in the books and I love book DM (best thing AR ever wrote imho), but they're adapting the books and a lot of those scathing complaints sounds a lot like racism & ageism to me

Sorry. I'm done, got it off my chest, now I'm free 🤷🏻‍♀️

[cuntylouis]

people on the reddit sub for iwtv are a special kind of breed. there is such an interesting discussion to be had about louis' abuse and neglect toward claudia, but no. that's not what these people mean. that whole sub is a cesspool of "lestat is so cute and innocent and is actually the one suffering abuse". anne rice lives on in that sub and those fans and i hate that that's the part of fandom the show caters to with promo and early screen invites. (there were threads on there wanting to see assad get lynched ffs. the post dressed at up as armand but used assad's name and in the comments they straight up said people like assad should not be on this show and need to be removed. that thread was up for a long time, but the second you mention racism in the fandom, the thread gets locked within a minute)

It definitely has some of the most stupid, racist and abuse apologist shit i've seen in fandom. Another recent example that made me baffled how can anyone can willingly say something like in public was one user making a post how Claudia hating that she doesn't age doesn't make any sense since she should be happy that she'll always be a 'sexy teen'. At least with that post other users were calling it out for being gross and weird but many other shitty posts and comments get upvoted like that 'louis is abusive to lestat and armand' one earlier. There are 37k members in that sub so there are lots of different users of course but i def feel it has proportionally more white book fans compared to other sites, and also people lacking basic knowledge of things like dynamics of abuse and racism that are pretty essential for understanding the show

[licncourt]

What's your opinion on the iwtv movie?

I really like the 1994 movie! It's visually stunning, absolutely immaculate costume and set design and quite faithful to the book aside from a few changes that makes sense for the sake of the transition from book to film. The practical effects are so much fun and even the CGI is very well-applied.

It's not a perfect movie, there are some cut scenes I think should've stayed from the book and from the original script, plus the fact that it's pretty clear the story has been a bit straightwashed with things like giving Louis a dead wife and child instead of a brother and cutting the Only One Coffin scene. It was the 90s though, and it's honestly very impressive how much they managed to get onscreen, so props for that. It can't have been easy to get even what they did into a big Hollywood movie with A-list actors.

As far as standout elements, the casting of Kirsten Dunst in particular was absolutely perfect, she's incredible as Claudia, truly the standout performance in my opinion. Tom Cruise was fantastic too and that's still wild almost thirty years later. I hate to give the scientologist credit, but he did his homework and really put his whole pussy into playing Lestat. He deserves the praise he gets for sure.

Brad Pitt...okay listen. I am a Brad Pitt Louis apologist. I think if you look at his performance as a reflection of Louis' dissociation and apathy during that time in his life, it reads quite well. I just wish there were more emotional peaks and valleys, even just a few, to offset and highlight that monotone approach and make it feel like a character choice rather than BP sulking (which is what it was). However, anyone who's followed me for any length of time knows how I feel about the sewer scene. That was the serve of the century and I was so glad Jacob Anderson resurrected that expression in the show. That's a little baby your honor.

My main gripe with the movie is how flattened Louis' character was. He's presented as a direct opposite to Lestat, the stick in the mud who simply objects to feeding on humans because it's wrong to kill, no more and no less. I really missed the hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Louis LOUIS. We only get it in the (brilliant) prostitute scene and that's a shame.

I also wish they would've kept Louis' religious trauma as a focal point of the story rather than a single mention with Armand. It's so integral to his character that its absence is really noticeable. Still, I understand that it's a movie and there's only so much depth you can include. I think it could've been done a bit better in that regard though.

The highest praise I can give the movie is that they actually added a few things I wish were in the book:

Louis eating some lady's poodles

GRAPE THROWING

Lestat's retort where he yells "why should I know these things? Do you know them?" I think it really hits at the heart of Lestat's pain regarding his turning and provides a great moment of vulnerability

Claudia's line "why do you say such things?" It doesn't fully change the scene, but it drives home the father-daughter relationship in a really poignant way.

Generally speaking, I think it's a great, if inevitably imperfect, movie and definitely one of my favorites. I always use it as an entry point to get people to read the book and it's never failed me.

[appendectomy]

i have this very very specific vision of show marius in my head, which i may adjust as i continue to read the books. and i am trying to temper my expectations so im not dissapointed when the writers inevitably can't read my mind lol. but basically

i want marius to be a middle aged white guy. i want him to be charming, handsome, generous. i want him to have moments of genuine tenderness with armand. i want the audience to be lulled into a false sense of security with him, just like armand was. i want the audience to understand why armand feels such attachment to him, and the safety he thought he had found in marius. and i specifically want him to be cast as a white guy because i think that dynamic would specifically inform a lot of show armand's current identity issues especially in regards to his ethnic identity (or lack thereof). but at the same time, i want the show to be unapologetic in their depiction and damnation of his abuse. i want his charisma AND his abuse to exist hand in hand. i know inevitably this will breed marius apologists but i think this would be such a good opportunity to continue the abuse commentary and racial commentary the show has already engaged in regardless. if the show does it right, most people won't think that way and will instead come away questioning their own biases.

i think because of the show's explicit pivot of armand from a very young white boy to a young indian man, an avenue has opened up which explicitly allows for marius' abuse to become an allegory for European colonial violence. like it would already serve as a commentary on interpersonal abuse anyway, but engaging with the racial dynamic could add another interesting layer to it all. this would help explore armand as a character too. i understand that in the books, anne rice kind of portrayed marius as this tortured, largely sympathetic character who was emblematic of white Roman society, something anne rice saw as romantic and noble. and so i think by engaging with orientalist theory when writing armand and marius' dynamic the writers could easily interrogate this textual depiction of whiteness, which is something they've already shown they're interested in doing with seasons 1 and 2. by leaning in to and not apologising for his abusiveness they could esentially say yeah anne rice thought this was ok but WE DON'T! she excused his abuse by making him 'likeable' but we're going to show you that's not how it works!

i think by making marius appear both charming AND abusive, not only are you deconstructing stereotypical depictions of abusers as one-dimensional cartoon villains, but you're also creating an allegory out of the interpersonal abuse between marius and armand; marius genuinely thinks he is good for armand, saving armand, and other people think that too because he comes across likeable, just like those who enact orientalist colonial violence believe they are acting in the best interests of those they are colonising due to the delusion of a 'civilising mission.' i think this cognitive dissonance being written into marius on the show could easily symbolise the cognitive dissonance that is at the heart of a lot of orientalist fantasy.

i think characterising marius as someone who engages with orientalist fantasy, someone who views himself as a saviour, a civiliser, an appreciator of asian cultures, while he enacts such horrific violence on armand also already fits quite well with what we already know of show armand's backstory. he was 'rescued' by marius from a brothel and abused by him while still a child. he believed marius to be his merciful saviour, even hundreds of years later. he has a severe disconnect from his ethnic identity, doesnt even remember for sure if the name he had as a child was the name his indian parents gave him. this not only paints the picture of a complex abuse victim, but also could be used to symbolise the wider material and psychologically consequences of colonial violence on a person.

I'm gonna need the entire iwtv writers room to read orientalism by edward said before they start writing armand and marius' show dynamic Tbh

[emtmercy]

the ep 5 loustat scenes didnt bother me much and i never thought roland jones was aiming for an earth style human abusive relationship although i get why people were concerned about that. fiction just does work with different rules than real life because characters can act in ways that are inconsistent with real life implications especially once everyones a serial killer vampire

i really felt that based on everything in the show and his quote of "this is the interview [holds up book one] and this is the show [holds up the entire VC series]" that they were attempting to achieve and expand on the experience of reading the series where book one has you being like wow lestat is the devil and then the rest of the books written years later during anne rice's lestat stan period the canon is changed to reveal that lestat is still an evil crazy vampire but not on the irredeemable one note villain level that louis wants to portray for his own emotional security + to achieve whatever he feels he needs to with daniel

but i didnt expect to have them drop the hammer with the reveal so hard in the finale it was so good

roland jones saying this version of events has likely been fed to him by armand asdkjasdklasdjkasd

obviously totally understandable to be upset with ep 5 regardless because even though they were trying to just do a Fucked Up Vampires Being Fucked Up (as told through the warped lens of a man telling a story with an agenda) it is definitely questionable to do that POV game with violence between partners because of the way the real world we exist in is

this post is so long but great episode and great win for lestat apologist sam reid

sad they didnt get to dump him in the swamp but you gotta do what you gotta do lmao

[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.

[sofipitch]

You know it’s bad when the audience is hoping for Rashid (Armand?) to French kiss Louis in front of Lestat and proceed to rip Lestat’s head off. Yeah, he kills Claudia ;_; but at least he doesn’t horrifically beat Louis to a pulp? (I mean there’s still time so who knows ☹️) See! We’re down for our fucked up little characters but there’s a line when fantasy becomes eerily too similar to real life horror.

Yeah I think you summarized it perfectly with that last sentence. There is a difference between horror horror of being like tortured by Pinhead that can serve as a metaphor versus like just straight up seeing something happen and wonder if the writers are abuse apologists or having to block tons of VC fans for being abuse apologists. Bc that's what has come out of episode 5, whereas if someone says that they like Michael Meyers it doesn't activate my fight of flight response the same way

[rueroyale]

Marius/Armand

Imagine:

I’m a pre-teen, 20+ years ago, having borrowed Blood and Gold from the library and my immigrant parents completely ignorant of what I was reading, and I myself not understanding that I was reading basically softcore erotica.

I really liked Blood and Gold.  I was just beginning to get into Classics at the time and all the Roman and Byzantine stuff really just stoked the infant classicist in me.

So my impression of Marius was, from an early time, very positive.

Ever since I was a kid though, I was just confused by Armand.  Am I supposed to like this character?  I mean lots of people are Armand-apologists because he’s got trauma, but in my opinion no amount of trauma can justify (a) killing everyone in your Satanist coven just because you’re no longer their leader, or (b) trying to kill the hero multiple times, including when he’s at his weakest, or (c) pretending to care about Louis when you’re just afraid of dying alone (and killing Claudia in order to get him!).

But I digress...

The point is now that I ship Marius/Armand.  As much as their relationship is idealized, romanticized, and fantastical, it is also just so nostalgic and comforting.  The idea of a lost Eden pops up all over the Vampire Chronicles - Lestat in Paris as a mortal, the Rue Royale years, even in the new generation of novels with the Atlanteans.  In the “modern era”, for Lestat at least, that lost paradise has been regained, in some form.

What hasn’t been restored is Marius and Armand’s paradise in Venice.  Maybe Armand is right that Marius no longer feels the fiery passion that gave us, the readers, two different perspectives of that scene where he jerks off Armand for the first time (did we really need to see that, Anne?).  And Armand ... well, that guy is broken.  I can buy the religious redemption, but even religious redemption can’t undo a fundamentally distrustful and nihilistic disposition.

What I want to see - wildly idealistic, I know - is for these two characters to restore each other to optimism, to quicken themselves and each other with a zest for life.

Considering their relationship was the most explicitly romantic in the VC, why should this, of all relationships, be forever lost?  Let it not be so.

"Master, I love you, but now I must be alone," I said. "You don't need me now, do you, Sir? How can you? You never really did." Instantly I regretted it. The words, not the tone, were impudent. And our minds being so divided by intimate blood, I was afraid he'd misunderstand.

"Cherub, I want you," he said forgivingly. "But I can wait. Seems not long ago I spoke these same words when we were together, and so I say them again."

UGH JUST KISS.

[corruptmalice]

Thank you @spiced-wine-fic​ for asking me these same questions! I really enjoyed reading your answers!!

A - Ships that you currently like a lot. (They don’t have to be OTPs because not everyone has OTPs.) Friendships, pairings, threesomes, etc. are allowed.

@spiced-wine-fic​, I actually agree with the Angbang opinion. Though I’m an adamant shipper of the pairing. It’s highly twisted, but most of my favorite ships are and that’s the sick draw haha. A few of my favorite otps from different fandoms for instance:

Melkor/Mairon (Silm)

Annatar/Celebrimbor (Silm)

Maedhros/Fingon (Silm)

Feanor/Fingolfin (Silm)

Beleg/Túrin (Silm)

Erestor/Glorfindel (Silm) is about the most tame lmao

Armand/Daniel (VC Chronicles)

Hisoka/Illumi (HunterxHunter)

C - A ship you have never liked and probably never will.

I can’t say I dislike any pairings. There’s just some I have very little to no interest in reading. Not a big fan of crossover pairings. Nothing worth mentioning lol There’s some very problematic pairings in the HxH fandom I’m not even gonna mention because we all know what they are. Not even I would touch that with a ten foot pole and no one else should. 

N - Name three things you wish you saw more or in your main fandom (or a fandom of choice).

In the lotr/silm fandom I wish Beleg/Túrin had much more content! I mean it’s out there but I’ve read and seen everything out there and I need more haha A bit more Feanor/Fingolfin would be nice as well, but that’s just me. It’s controversial, just the way I like it. 

T - Do you have any hard and fast headcanons that you will die defending? 

Melkor did no wrong! Haha I kid, but my headcanon is that he was a creator with imposing checked powers. Why give him the urge and ability and then suppress it? Of course that’s going to set someone off the rails. Not an apologist. My dude was dark to his core and was wildin’ most of the time. But his story is so biblical.  A typical fallen angel. The parallels are highly amusing and that sort of thing just rubs me the right way haha

[spaceandfiction]

Hey, just to be clear this is my post and whatever comments I leave on it...that doesn’t mean I entirely agree or need to co-sign what everyone’s saying. I’m fine just letting everyone have a little add-on. What’s weird to me is your comment on what I think is clearly the response to my post as if I am the one that said it, assuming my opinions on the show and experience with canon based on something I never said.

The reason I was shocked Due didn’t know Armand's background is that she’s talked about Anne Rice being influential in the pursuit of her career. I assumed that meant she’d read the book, but I'm totally fine with the fact that she hasn't. Hell, maybe she has and forgot! In fact, the tone of my original post is excitement, and I can't WAIT to see what she says when she watches s2 and meets Armand again. I wasn’t confused by the idea that people wouldn’t read the books in general or don’t know who Armand is. In fact, if you look at the replies to this post I even explain that I am glad that the host Naomi hasn't read the books, since it keeps the podcast focused on the show as its own unique thing. I myself only began reading the books because I am a fan of the show. I in fact PREFER the show and its adaptation to the source material. I started reading the books so I wouldn't see a bunch of spoilers, since I know how Tumblr works. I'm reaching the end of book 2 now. I would never attempt to "school" anyone on the vampire chronicles canon since I don't know that much about it.

If you ask ME "any reasonable viewer" might have a number of responses to the reveal. Based on Louis' current situation, as well as the framing of the scene, I can see why some people would be suspicious. His not being Lestat doesn't have to mean he's better. That’s just MY interpretation. I can also see how a viewer might enjoy what we've seen so far between them like you have. I am not a Lestat apologist or completely a hater. Lestat is an abuser full stop. If you hate that relationship and explore Loumand, good! It's definitely a compelling relationship, but I don’t think anyone has to be mad about people’s focus being on the dynamic between Lestat and Louis, either. As fucked up as it is, it's clearly compelling. My primary focus when I watch the show is Louis. I fell in love with his character and Claudia. I want to see where they are headed in this version.

Letting people talk on my post is not me agreeing with every word they say. It's just letting people blog. I honestly don't even think the comment is meant to be as exclusionary or book purist as you're making it seem; that's why I didn't reply to disagree. Please feel free to make your own post to speak about/to book purists or Lestat obsessives, as I am neither. Sorry if this comes across as rude, but you seem to have left a very long grievance on my post assuming a lot about my interpretations and experiences with the show/books that aren’t true. I just wanted to make my POV clear.

The podcast for IWTV has been a full joy to listen to and I deeply admire the expertise of Tananarive Due in black horror but she must not know who Armand is. She’s VERY pro Armand and Louis’ relationship “it just seems more healthy” and saying “the love part is done” for Louis and Lestat… She’s in for it in season 2

[monstersinthecosmos]

if you don't mind, what are your most esoteric armand headcanons? your armand is one of my favs, since my own armand headcanons are Not really in alignment with most fandom? which pretty much seem to be 'sad feelings twink' vs my own thoughts of 'sad feelings twink will never be a slave again and will gut you if necessary'. like, its not Super different but i feel like people sort of stop before they make it all the way to Why armand is Like That?

I’ve been mulling over this for a few days and trying to come up with a proper response for you because I really enjoy the fuck out of this question and sentiment in general, but to be honest I don’t think my headcanons about Armand are all that remarkable.

This is going to sound so fucking pretentious but to me, my approach to Armand comes from a more instinctual place and I’m not sure I can necessarily quantify my feelings in the form of headcanons. What’s more relevant to me is that I tend to put him in scenarios and wonder how he would react.

IT REMINDS ME OF THAT BIT IN QOTD WHEN HE’S LIKE I DONT FUCKIN KNOW DANIEL!!!! 

“What was it like in Paris? Ask me if it rained on the night of Saturday, June 5, 1793. Perhaps I could tell you that.”

But genuinely I don’t think my headcanons about him are necessarily esoteric or even special, I just think they’re more to the point that I like to have him say and do things that a lot of people are afraid to. I mean, granted? There’s not a lot of fic in this fandom to judge, so it’s hard to know. But I also say this based on, like you said, sad feelings twink fanon that we see floating around.

Fandom these days can be very hostile to people like me, who want to explore fucked up shit and revel in terrible characters. Between people who can’t cope with the idea that their fav is problematic or people who are afraid to express themselves cause they don’t want to get attacked or push any buttons. You tend to see these polar opposites of like “THIS CHARACTER IS A PIECE OF SHIT AND YOU’RE AN APOLOGIST IF YOU LIKE THEM” and then you also see people sort of woobifying their favs to feel better about it.

And that just.. isn’t me. Fuck are not given in these parts.

SO that said. I wouldn’t say I have “esoteric” headcanons as much as I love to shine a light on what a twisted sick fuck he is lol. I also really enjoy the dynamic between him and Daniel where it’s my personal belief that Daniel is a complete danger slut with a humiliation kink so being pushed and harassed and humiliated constantly totally gets him off, and I enjoy the ambiguity of whether or not Armand respects his boundaries. Still, here are a few I did come up with:

He’s a comfort eater and chronic napper. He gets especially vicious and violent with his victims when he’s in a comfort snack mood and doesn’t feel bad about it. He’s very much a “pull the wings off flies” kinda dude and plays with his food.

His ideas about consent are shaky at best. He’s an “act first, apologize later” type, and probably forgets to apologize. I think he also tends to “apologize” in weird ways, using symbolic gestures that he assumes other people can read and they probably can’t.

He tends to tell himself (and Daniel) that if Daniel is ever ACTUALLY really uncomfortable he’ll feel it psychically and know to back off, but he’s very complacent with the idea that Daniel barely knows wtf he wants anyway and is usually too much of a mess to parse his own feelings, so even taking Daniel sincerely at face value can never truly be trusted. This is sort of the dom/sub two-way street in which a dom has to trust that their sub will safeword if they need to, and Daniel is hard to trust on that front. Armand should know better.  

He knew how reckless he was being with Daniel.

None of this is to say that he doesn’t CARE about Daniel or other people, he just doesn’t always have an appropriate sense of the type of damage anyone can handle.

Because I do think he does care deeply and love people and he’s shown himself to be very generous with people he respects. Still, of all the characters in VC I think he’s arguably been through the worst that life has to offer, and I think part of him doesn’t understand what a normal range is for human emotional pain.

He really loves to do drugs with Daniel in the form of drinking them through his blood. I think all vampires have experienced this to an extent, especially because so many of them have a penchant for killing drug dealers and etc, but I think that there’s an intent that can go into recreational drug use, moreso than you can experience as a regular human. Like, amirite that we all know that feeling where the mood and attitude you bring into your drug trip can kinda stay with you? I like to think that Armand has some semblance of control of the parts of his brain that activate under drugs so when he’s in the mood to enjoy them recreationally he can sort of let go and let it happen. This is, of course, at Daniel’s expense, and comes back to his ideas about consent, about being reckless with Daniel’s health, and about treating Daniel like his toy.

And although he can be reckless and endanger Daniel, he’s fiercely protective of him. (Or any of his pets.) Meaning that it’s one thing if ARMAND pushes Daniel or frightens him, if someone else does it he’s not gonna be happy. And Armand is fucking dangerous. He might be the most dangerous. He can be a complete animal. It’s something he adopted to get through the coven years and it’s never gone completely away. I might call this side of him “feral”.

I don’t see this part of him as a thing that snaps, though. I think he’s completely in control of it. Maybe he even enjoys it. 

He doesn’t regret his relationship with Marius and doesn’t have a problem with the way he repeats a lot of those behaviors with Daniel. I don’t think the patterns are subconscious. 

Despite all of this he is a good person and deserves love.

^ Because, to that last point? Sad feelings twink really is only half the equation. People tend to see Armand as one or the other, there’s like a cinnamon roll/complete sociopath monster binary at play here and I’m here to say that one can be both. 

Listen, he’s trying.

Anyway I was listening to my Armand playlist while I was writing these out and now I’m emotional LMAO