#armand is alice theory is interesting

[botticellibabyy]

alice molloy ❦

[danlous]

"Armand is Alice and Daniel's wife/s and kids aren't real" has become a popular fan theory (even Luke Brandon Field said he liked it!) but i'd be surprised if it was right. I think it's definitely possible that Devil's Minion will be adapted in the show (though probably not exactly like in the books), but i personally think this whole imaginary family thing would be a poor way to handle the storyline for a variety of reasons. I think a twist like that would probably come across convoluted and (as Daniel might say) like something from a telenovela.

We see children's toys in Daniel's house and he's public figure who many people know with an autobiography and everything. Creating decades worth of false memories for Daniel and somehow also maintaining that imaginary life story for decades wouldn't be enough, Armand or whoever did it would also realistically have to have an absurd level of control over the physical world, public records and many other people's minds to sustain an illusion like that. I also frankly think it would be difficult to avoid having some sexist and biphobic undertones to the idea that Daniel's relationships with women were unreal and meaningless and only his relationship with a man matters.

However, the most important reason why i think Daniel's wives and children should be real is that they make him a richer, more nuanced character and are actually central to understanding him and his motives. He has lived a full and complex life that has been influenced and to some extent defined by his encounters with vampires, but those vampires still weren't his whole life. I think it's more interesting to see Daniel's human life and his relationship with Armand and Louis as something connected and overlapping that both affect each other. We actually learn quite a lot about Daniel from what he says about his partners and children.

This scene - as well as how Alice in general is discussed - reminded many people of how Daniel in the books talks about Armand, such as this famous passage:

Parallels between Daniel's relationships with Alice and Armand in the books are obvious but i think they're just that, parallels. Both the sweet little scene where Daniel is talking about Alice's eyebrows and the book scene where he's talking about loving Armand not despite but because he's a monster reflect in different ways who Daniel is as a person; he feels drawn to unconventional and strange and sees beauty where others might not. He ended up in this situation with vampires too because he wanted to interview people who're rejected by the society.

If Daniel already had some sort of relationship with Armand in the past it makes sense that it would be associated with Alice in his mind. There may be an overlap between the timelines of those relationships. A memory of Armand rises when Daniel is reminded of Alice rejecting his marriage proposal, in the books Armand rejected his wish to be turn him into a vampire, which would've been something akin to marriage. I think Alice being real is much more compelling for Armand's character too, with Armand expressing surprising understanding and sympathy toward Daniel's wife rather than just speaking about his own experience through an imaginary woman.

Completely putting aside Devil's Minion and is it a thing in the show or not, i think Daniel's family is particularly important to Louis' and Daniel's relationship. Something that hasn't technically been explicitly said but to me seems obvious is that Louis and Daniel strongly relate to each other as fathers. Many scenes where we see Louis and Daniel show vulnerability in front of each other have something to do with their partners and children. In 1.02 as one of the earliest examples of this Louis replicates the dessert Daniel had with Alice, trying to connect with him and his humanity through it, Daniel shares personal memory and they eat together in companionable silence.

I would argue that Claudia, her memory, and Louis' relationship with her is the heart of the story in these first two seasons. Claudia entering the story in 1.04 marks the shift in the interview and Daniel's approach; he becomes both more combative and more emotionally invested. He has a strong reaction to reading Claudia's diaries, and it's not difficult for any parent to guess that he's also imagining her own daughters in similar circumstances to Claudia.

I think this conversation at the end of the episode (alongside Louis' speech to Daniel in San Francisco and them remembering it in 2.05) is the most important scene between Louis and Daniel. They share the understanding what it feels like to have children and love them so much you don't even have words for it, but still fail them. It's not a coincidence that in the original interview in San Francisco what leads to Louis attacking Daniel is Louis telling the story of Claudia leaving alone and Louis going back to Lestat, and Daniel acting dismissively and clearly not understanding why this is so painful memory to Louis. Daniel was young, stupid and high - and he didn't have children yet. Daniel now wouldn't act like that when hearing this story, and he doesn't in 1.06 when hearing it again. And notably when Louis says that he would now agree to turn Daniel, Daniel says he doesn't want it anymore and specifically mentions his daughters as one of the reasons. Having to watch your children die before you is the most horrifying thing in the world. It's something Louis had to go through and Daniel wishes he never has to, even if vampirism still intrigues him.

Daniel realizes quickly that it all comes down to Louis' feelings of guilt and shame about failing Claudia and his inability to protect her, because he has similar feelings about his own daughters. Louis' story unravels in s1 finale because Daniel recognizes that Louis' more palatable narrative around what happened with Claudia isn't fully true. Daniel carefully read through Claudia's diaries and tried to learn to understand her, and he positions himself as someone who's trying to defend her integrity and reveal the injustice that was done to her. This is again about Daniel's own children as much as it's about Claudia. He knows that he's a bad father, his daughters don't talk to him anymore and it's implied that he neglected them when focusing on other things that interested him more. When Daniel defends Claudia he's on some level trying to rectify his own mistakes and when he calls Louis out he's also voicing his own self-loathing.

Eric Bogosian remarked that the scene in 2.01 where Louis cries and thanks for Daniel for helping him to remember that Claudia could dream is another shift in their dynamic. Daniel looks at Louis with genuine concern, and after that he tones down his usual sarcasm and jabs significantly. Daniel, again, can sympathize with how important this is for Louis. There's a new sincerity and empathy in their interactions. Sometimes the audience forgets that this story is ultimately about Claudia, but Daniel hasn't forgotten it since he first realized it. They're trying to understand together what happened to Louis' child and everything that led to it. I think if Daniel wasn't a father he would've acted differently, and Louis wouldn't have trusted him in the same way either and been able to share his and Claudia's story. I think this shared sorrow, love and guilt they feel as fathers is one of the most crucial parts of their connection.

[loumandforyou]

another interesting little thing: Armand's reaction to Daniel telling him he didn't forgive him for erasing his memory

He didn't have to mention the drugs. That little pause. How his expression changes from before.

This just feeds my theory that Armand erased Daniel's memories because when they broke up because Daniel was killing himself with the drugs, and couldn't stay away from Armand because of his addiction to his blood. Maybe Daniel went to him a couple of times high (bonus if he was already sort of with Alice) and Armand tried, begrudgingly to take care of him. Promises of getting clean and all that. Until one day...

As @failvillain said on my gifset

[loumandaniel]

won’t ever ride the “alice isn’t real or armand is alice” theories but it’s so incredibly interesting to name her such when the most famous alice is in wonderland, an unreal world and a possible hallucination

[straycatfish]

i fucking love seeing all the different alices people come up with in their fics. how fun to have this kind of negative space character where essentially what we know is a) their name b) that they were a major presence in an established character's life, for a time. and it's an interesting space to explore wherever you fall on armand/alice theories, because even if armand=alice, that's a persona we haven't directly seen yet. i get so excited whenever i come across a new alice or armand-alice in my reading. let 10,000 alices bloom in the meadow of this hiatus ✿✿✿✿✿

[iwtv-theories]

All hints of past Devil’s minions (analysis)

Ok, before I get started I’ll preface this by saying some of this evidence has obvious (and literal) counter explanations and some of the easter-eggs could simply be foreshadowing for a reimagining of future d.m. But, in case they did have a past together , I might as well mention all the possible hints for fun.

1)Armand mentions “Tabula rasa”(Latin for a 'blank slate’ ) and then he turns his head to Daniel .

In philosophy 'tabula rasa' is a theory that says : at birth the mind is hypothetically a blank or empty slate before receiving memories that shape them into who they are. The term “tabula rasa” linguistically is derived from a wax-covered tablet (tabula) used for written notes, which was blanked (rasa) by heating the wax and then smoothing it to be reused and have new words written on it. Yeah , certainly sounds similar to someone's powers (memory alteration via words). What's very telling is the fact Daniel in response to this says annoyed: " disregard... as Armand remains off the record." It seems very tongue and cheek. Because Armand was taken out of Daniel's narrative as well (by the writers). Like Daniel said in ep 5 : "Armand redacted himself. which is why I don't remember." In qotd, Daniel & Armand would also often watch 'blade runner', and in that film , the 'maker' was able to manipulate/create memories in the ‘short- lived’ replicants’ lives.

2)[Let’s talk about the Alice proposal]. First we have Louis talk about his time in Paris (as the camera pans to Daniel and Armand) : “she was giving me permission to explore a life apart from her” .Armand: *tilts his head*: and then mentions Alice.

Armand may have let Daniel explore other romantic relationships like Alice (if he was with Louis) to make the dynamic more fair . So Daniel may be conflating fragments of his lost memories of Armand with memories of his ex Alice (since he was with them at the same time).

Armand may have replaced himself with Alice. Or he may have 'redacted' himself and Daniel's brain tried to fill in the gaps in memory naturally, since they were both romantic partners to him (around the same time). Daniel already had to be reminded by his ex wife ( Alice) that he didn't own a buick with her (which he probably drove in the past with Armand) . Daniel already "conflated events" : mixing up Louis for a human he met at a rehab , so it wouldn't be the first time he's mixed people up in his head.

-Louis about Daniel &Alice: “you were talking past each other “.

-Daniel to Louis : "Did you gravitate to San francisco as a hub for homophiles? " Louis: “ Paris was the more formative LIBERATION for me...you felt FRERER to hold her hand in Paris, I wonder why that is?

Then of course we see the framing of the proposal scene. Daniel says almost proudly that he did surprise Alice , which if he surprised a mind reader I could see why he was proud. Then Daniel has a flashback of Armand silently looking at him. Louis : “and what did she say when you finally asked her to marry you? " Daniel turns and looks at Armand confused as they both stare at each other . Daniel now hears Armand’s voice from the past . Armand: “Louis, perhaps we should- “. Daniel: “She said , no” . Armand : “she wanted to say yes, but she didn't trust you yet .”

Also, isn’t it interesting that an episode later Armand says it’s wrong to go into Daniel’s memories. So why did he (allegedly) go into Alice’s? And if so why is Daniel an exception? Is it really just because he’s a “guest” in the house (like Armand claimed) ? Did he really go into Alice’s mind or was he just admitting how he felt at the time of the proposal? Also if he supposedly didn't read Daniel's mind how did he know he was thinking of Alice initially? Either he knew he was taking about Alice, because he was around during that time. Or he read Daniel’s memoir that referenced her and Daniel in Paris (which would already be a hint Armand is more interested in Daniel than he lets on).

Also, Armand says Daniel was thinking of “Alice” after Daniel says “she’s tired of your dilettante vibe.” Alice may have said it , but the word ‘dilettante’ is considered an archaic term that originated in 1733 and is borrowed from the Italian word "dilettante" meaning "lover of music or paintings”. Given Armand’s old fashioned vernacular, and origins in the Italian- art scene . It makes me wonder if he actually said it (not Alice)

And … before the proposal flashback, Louis says in relation to Alice and Daniel in Paris : “I SEE I triggered a memory.” But for Daniel , when thinking of the proposal, the only visual memory he SAW was of Armand . Which begs the question why did a failed marriage proposal trigger a memory of Armand (for Daniel) ?

Lestat asking Louis to be his companion and turning him was already compared to a wedding at a church. Daniel may have “finally gotten his shit together “ (got sober) and asked to be turned and be Armand's companion and Armand said "no" . And this still subconsciously hurts him deeply. In the books, armand's refusal to turn him was the biggest issue in their relationship. It could be a similar pain to when Alice first rejected his marriage proposal (or his pain from Armand's rejection was displaced on to Alice's rejection, in his distorted memories). Similar to him thinking he drove a buick when married to her.

Also , isn’t it interesting that in Daniel’s first flashback of Armand, the first thing Armand says as he looks at Daniel is , “no.” And the second flashback is: “(s)he said no.”

I also find it interesting that Daniel first remembers Armand via a dream and of course Alice (could be a ref to Alice in wonderland which is a story heavily associated with dreams). A hint he’s mixing the 2 up? (Alice and wonderland series) : “In the garden of memory, in the palace of dreams, that is where you and I shall meet.” *Literally remembers meeting Armand (in his memory) via a dream….

3) This next scene could have a lot of logical explanations. And it could be heavily symbolic and foreshadow that past d.m did happen. But if past d.m did occur it’s also possible Armand wasn’t simply worried about the talamasca showing Daniel the trial-script (which Armand may or may not have assumed burned in the fire). But, was worried about Daniel learning about their affair and telling Louis. Daniel to Armand: “you could read any mind you want. Why didn't you?" Armand: "I was in Love". Daniel snears at Louis: "you believe that?" Louis: I believe... he could have gotten lazy. Armand: "It was love." Louis sarcastically: "Sure, and Love. I suppose he was loving in those times... (angrily)Love!"

Armand then immediately turns away from Louis and asks three times if Daniel was left alone to talk to anyone (talamasca) during dinner . And Louis looks visibly confused on why he's harping on Daniel, and not the fact he just alluded to the fact that he thinks Armand doesn't love him anymore. And louis say exasperated : "WHY do you ask, LOVE?" There's a lot of symbolic weight in that last sentence. He literally is referring to Armand by the nickname 'love', but he's once again alluding to his doubts of Armand's love by emphasizing the last word. He's also asking why on earth is he bringing Daniel up in this conversation??? The dramatic pause between the 2 lines, may symbolically tell us the answer : " Why do you ask (about Daniel)? (Is it) LOVE? ".Armand may have been trying to figure out if Daniel found out about the affair, and told Louis.

And to answer Louis' question on ‘why he’s asking about Daniel’ we hear a drink being prepared and Armand is shown in both shots as the drink is poured...

And what does Daniel say shortly after : "Rashid, more vermouth next time.It's just HIS (Armand's) were better (*smirks)." Armand's odd look in response is possibly because he's wondering if this was or wasn't a subtle jab at their past relationship. “ They were not compatible / He tasted like Vermouth."

The drink symbolism could be a hint that Armand was asking cause he was afraid an ex-romantic relationship had been exposed. Not to mention, this whole scene was spurred on by Armand saying he doesn't read minds , cause of "love". And in an earlier episode he apologized to Daniel (for Louis going into his mind) saying "it was wrong to go into your memories ." Maybe Armand feels guilty about what he did last time he went into Daniel's memories?I mean …during this whole scene he could have just read Daniel's thoughts/memories to know what he actually knew or if he met up with the talamasca during dinner. Instead he openly admits he tried to hack Daniel’s computer : “you have everything we have , unless you're HIDING something on your encrypted laptop.”And funnily enough the only thing the Talamasca agent said to Daniel, at dinner, was he 'shouldn't fear Armand'. Sus.

The agent says this AFTER Armand just killed Malik. And before this convo with the talamasca, Daniel said himself: “1000s of kills, when has Armand ever spared a life ?” Yes, exactly, so why does the talamasca agent seem so confident that Armand isn’t a threat to Daniel? . Are they really just that bad at keeping their assets alive? I guess Armand usually only targets certain types of people, but still . And why does Raglan warn Daniel about Louis??? Louis hasn't killed anyone since 2000! Even agent Rashid says Daniel shouldn't have accepted Louis' invitation if he wanted to get out alive. Who knows maybe they're like, Daniel if Louis finds out about your little affair - you're going to die (just like Antoinette).

Not to mention that in the episode commentary of the scene, Assad says that Armand was suspicious "that they knew" . And I mean -after they both question Armand's 'love'. It makes sense he’d jump to the conclusion that they might know about the affair . Anderson (Louis) then says about the scene: " Louis known for a long time something is wrong. A lie is being told. I think Louis and Daniel have been sort of like kept things for Armand." Which yeah- sounds more like d.m proof than Armand simply trying to figure out if they know about the trial script.

3) louis : “we’ve been TOGETHER 77 years . Should we let the MATH of that settle.” Well, that’s certainly interesting math, given the fact Armand said in the prior episode they’ve been “TOGETHER” for “ 70 years.” Logically ,I know Armand is simply “rounding down” (which is already out of character tbh). But SYMBOLICALLY I find it really interesting that Armand when Daniel is in the room says “77 years”, but when Daniel is in another room he always says “70 years “ . Maybe a symbolic hint their affair lasted 7 years ?

Think about it, what did Lestat say when explaining his affair with a human who he later turned into a vampire : “ For 7 years …if your companion no longer wishes to share his body with you. If every word out of his mouth is disinterest or vitriol for 7 years ! You still hope ... that he'll love you, like you love him . But, what do you do? (picture of Antionette pops up).Do you find affection elsewhere? “ . Santiago: “Antionette Brown, ladies and gentlemen, later the vampire Antoinette . 7 long years . “

Also , Daniel had to be reminded by his ex wife Alice that he didn’t own a Buick while they were together . His publisher also had to remind him the dates must be wrong for when he owned the car - cause child car seats weren’t even mandatory until 1985, the year he got Alice pregnant . Daniel told his publisher he owned a Buick 7 years before 1985. Cough it was probably Armand’s car (and the timeline is jumbled in his head). And they were together for 7 years. Daniel didn’t even own a credit card in the 80s but he thought he drove a luxury car in the 70s???? Sus

Louis while with Daniel , also says to Armand : “do you care to Join us?” Armand to Daniel: “Mr pointe du lac will join you at course 7.” Daniel: “7?... wait “(Armand rushes away from Daniel). Maybe that's symbolic?

who knows , Lestat (was separated from Louis) and lived with Antoinette for years- only to later get back with Louis. Is it possible that something similar happened between Armand, Daniel, and Louis ?

Not to mention when Armand says to Daniel “77 years and it still feels like a slight.” (it pans to Daniel, and I can’t help but think the real slight would be to Daniel, if they actually were together during that 77 y long marriage). Daniel in the last episode screaming : “77 years based on a seismic lie!” (Makes me wonder if the trial isn’t the only seismic lie). I'm sorry, I still find it interesting that ‘home-wrecker’ molloy destroyed their marriage “almost to the day” of Louis & Armand's anniversary.

In the show they also changed Marius/armand’s relationship so it now lasted 12 years. Which in the books is also how long Daniel/Armand were together . I could see Armand/Daniel having the “chase/get to know you phase “ for 5 years and then actually be together for 7 years. Since in the books they knew each other for 4 years before dating for 8) .

4) This next scene could also be heavily symbolic ,when Louis is discussing his courtship to Armand (the camera lingers on Daniel cause the dialogue may have also applied to him): "Some of my most pronounced feelings and thoughts were taking shape. When my mind was being touched by Armand's I became deeply excited and driven to form new conclusions about myself and vampiric life in the abstract." / Louis: "Is something wrong, Daniel?" Daniel: Something you were saying made me think of, um... Louis : "Think of what?" *Armand turns to look at Daniel* Daniel:" It just flew out of my head. It's gone." *Camera pans back to Armand looking at Daniel* Who may or may not be wondering if Daniel almost remembered something. Also the fact during this whole scene Daniel is clicking on the “escape” button over and over as Louis describes his romance with Armand (it may also be symbolic that young Daniel would not want to hear any of this ).

4b) We already know Daniel’s memories have been slowly coming back in relation to Armand (when something or someone triggers a memory). They’re not completely lost- he can get some of them back. Another proof d.m happened in the past is what “triggers a memory (of Armand).” There's the examples that have an obvious explanation: he searches on his computer the painting of Marius which he already discussed with Armand, and when he asks about Armand’s diet ( he remembers when Armand almost made him a meal). But the other things that trigger Armand to flash in his mind… are very suspicious. The first time he remembers Armand in s1 was when Armand placed a blanket on him (*which book Armand has done for Daniel before) . And in s2 Daniel also has a flashback occur when Armand (for the first time in Dubai) says “Daniel” . This whole convo occurs because Daniel was asking Louis about hallucinating his ex (and then Daniel sees a vision of Armand from the past ,HMMMM). And he also has his memory of Armand “triggered “ when he sees a photo of a Parisian couple near a fountain + thinks of how he was rejected by his ex-wife in Paris. Daniel’s subconscious is reminded of his past with Armand - when he thinks of a combination of France , romance, and heartbreak.

5) Armand says about Daniel: “the boy…he’s still in there .”If young Daniel knew about Armand/louis I could see him being jealous and resentful of that relationship in the 70s and 80s. And so older Daniel (subconsciously) just needs to shit on their relationship , whenever the opportunity presents itself . Louis: “ I’d like to introduce you to the vampire Armand, the love of my life…my love ran a theater troupe for over a 150 years, Daniel.” Daniel: “the love of your life (Lestat) was in a box “. Daniel to loumand: lestat , lestat, lestat… love of my life or ‘rebound of my life ‘, with you two? “ Armand and Louis mentioning first meeting in a park: “with a habit of chasing after the wrong kind of love”. Daniel (sarcastic): “oh, what better place to find the right kind of love than in a public park. “ Louis who has told Daniel about dream- Lestat for multiple episodes, but then dream Lestat mocks Louis’ “ I love you” to Armand . Pans to Daniel squinting and then spitefully smirking : “Are you schizophrenic Louis ?”Louis: “we’ve been together for 77 years, Daniel.” Armand : “47 more than he did with lestat”. Daniel (smirks and looks at Armand): “keep selling it.” Louis talking about his and Armand’s romantic library dates . Daniel deadpan and sarcastic : “hot.” Daniel pressing the “escape’ button over and over as Louis describes his romance to Armand. Lestat to Loumand : “let’s see how long (your relationship) holds” . Daniel sarcastic and smug : “interesting phrase , what do you think he meant by that Louis? “ Daniel :*breaks them up “almost to the day” of their anniversary. *

It’s so funny how often Daniel questions their “love “ for each other . Like ,great job keeping a professional-objective lens, Daniel.

And speaking of “love “ I have to mention something else . The fact Daniel (in the 70s) uses the term "homophile" is VERY telling about his true desires. "The homophile movement was a collective term for the main organizations and publications supporting and representing sexual minorities in the 1950s to 1960s around the world.Proponents of the term 'homophile' hoped to emphasize the romantic rather than sexual aspect of same-sex relationships by replacing the -"sexual" suffix with the Greek root "philos," meaning LOVE. " In the books, when they first got together Daniel called Armand his "LOVER" and Armand called him "BELOVED" and “My LOVE.” Daniel deep down wanted "love" from a man , but before the interview in the 70s he only acted on his sexual desires (where there was no emotional intimacy and it could more easily be dismissed as just needing a fix, experimentation, etc). So yeah… Armand and Daniel both were hyper sexual but deep down they both wanted the same thing- Love . And young Daniel may have really LOVED Armand ,if they were together . Armand would have been the only man he ever loved.So yeah , even with amnesia , his bitterness may slip out (subconsciously). I mean, imagine Armand chose Louis over you: and you had to hear Louis talk on and on about his ex Lestat, mention while he was courting Armand that a hallucination of Lestat mocked Armand repeatedly . Hear how Louis didn't even want to call Armand his “companion" and just wanted to be friends with benefits, and in the end Louis chose to be with Armand to spite his ex Lestat. Then he proceeds to hook up with 100s of guys a year while being with Armand (despite being devastated Lestat slept with 1 other person). And it is made abundantly clear that Armand was just a “rebound” for Louis- and Armand still chose Louis over you! I’d be bitchy and want them to break up too . XD

Obviously, Armand was toxic as hell to Louis through out their companionship though. No debating that.

6) so again, this is a crack theory, I’ll admit . But remember how Daniel tells Louis . “Memory is a monster.WE forget , memories don’t .” This I believe is a reference to repressed memories . Because irl when you’ve repressed a traumatic memory : your emotions and behavior still reflect that forgotten trauma ( you just don’t know and understand the root cause of your behavior). Why Daniel suggested Edmr to Louis (it helps recover and recontextualize lost memories to better understand your behavior ). So my point … Daniel and Louis may be acting in certain ways that they don’t even understand (because of their repressed memories). So What if Louis found out about the affair and Armand erased it ? It would possibly explain some of Louis behavior toward Daniel.For example, whenever Daniel gets distracted from Louis's story because he's looking at Armand - the camera pans to Louis and Louis' expression is certainly... interesting whenever this occurs.

It would possibly explain some of Louis behavior toward Daniel. Louis laughing about Daniel’s heart break about Alice (*which may actually be about Armand ). Louis smirking and side eyeing Armand, when Daniel said he wasn’t interested in Armand’s blood ( *Daniel as a human used to drink Armand’s blood). Daniel in s2e5 interrupting louis to say 'follow up with Armand' and Louis side-eyes the hell out of him XD.

In s2e5 Louis also says very angrily : “who would care if another drug addicted homophile disappeared. The Berkeley barb?” (Alluding to Daniel being closeted ,mocking his past drug habit+ college newspaper, and implying he was insignificant). Now even though that was technically part of the reason he initially approached Daniel in the 70s (and Louis sadly does have a habit of saying mean stuff to people he cares about) … it’s still odd how much venom he said it with in the present . Especially in contrast to the speech flashback in the same episode (that had the opposite sentiment).

Also something else I always found really strange. In the last ep of s2, Louis verbally defends Daniel from Armand (telling Armand not to hurt Daniel). And right after this Louis moves in to shake Daniel's hand - Daniel immediately backs up afraid . We also see Daniel be afraid of Louis in the s1e1 script : “ The attack on the tape is horrifying … begging and screaming … suddenly Louis transports himself across the room and presses the stop button. Molloy tries to hide his fear as Louis towers over him.”The strange thing is- if it's simply just a human reaction because Louis' a powerful vampire & Daniel has a subconscious fear of Louis after he attacked him in the 70s. Then WHY wasn't he even MORE afraid of Armand (after all the shit Armand did to Daniel in the 70s)?? Why does Daniel not even flinch after he destroys Armand's 77 y long relationship (and theoretically created a perfect reason for Armand to attack him)? Is it because he subconsciously knows Armand wouldn't actually harm him???

7) [Armand brainwashing Louis]. So remember how Armand ‘s memory powers work- by repeating a phrase over and over again until the victim believes the memory or thought implanted? Even if this was completely unintentional/accidental on Armand’s part. I do find it interesting (and strange) that Armand essentially implanted in Louis mind that he was “partial “ to Daniel. Partial means you like someone OR you have a bias in favor of someone over other people in a conflict. I just find that kind of ironic cause before s2e5 , Daniel/ Louis were constantly beefing while Armand was essentially the referee trying to get them to chill the F-out . And at least for a good portion of the show it seemed Armand was the one actually “partial” to Daniel. It just made me wonder , if we’re missing something . Also , if Armand really only met Daniel once, and was still jealous and resentful of how much attention he garnered from Louis, why did he implant the thought in Louis' head that Daniel could be "fruitful in later times'???? Wouldn't he never want to see this guy again? (Even if he's supposed to be a symbol of their companionship enduring, idk, I still find it weird. Even Daniel questioned the reasoning in the beginning of the ep) .

8) I’ll be honest , I’m probably wrong about this (and it’s a crack theory). Like 90% chance It's not true … but it’s been bothering me ever since s2e5 aired. And yes, there may be some symbolic reason I’m missing (like the dialogue is similar to show the contrast between Louis and Armand’s treatment of Daniel in the 70s ) . But … something about the speech Daniel recites at the end of ep 5 is very strange to me. Not only because Louis, in Dubai, in e5, says the opposite sentiment (to said speech) . But because the words echo what Armand says or heard in e5 .

Daniel to Armand in e5: “I’m a bright young report with a point of view .” The speech repeats this line , and when Daniel says it in an earlier ep the camera pans to Armand looking at Daniel, then turning away to smile . speech : “ If things ever get bad again, these are the words you’ll hear LIKE a tape playing over and over in your mind , LIKE a song.” Armand about the tapes : “ I played the tapes twice … over and over until it was pounding in my brain LIKE a hammer ...(to Daniel) LIKE a bath … LIKE honey on your tongue .” Not to mention Armand’s powers work by repeating the same words “over and over again” . Speech: “Listen as though I’m the voice of god or an angel“ (literally in ep 5 we see Armand taken aback when Daniel is scared and starts saying “oh , my god” over and over again.And in the books Daniel described Armand as his “dark god”. )

Speech: " There are stories that need to be told." Armand: " Do you want to hear my story?" speech: You’re not insignificant " Armand to Daniel : “That makes you special.” Speech: “these words will lift you up and carry you.” (lmao, Armand’s words literally lifted and carried Daniel off the ground too ). Who knows, the line “what will it be tonight the good nurse or the gremlin?” may have a deeper meaning.

But again what really threw me off was that Louis (in Dubai) said about young Daniel in ep5: “who would care if ANOTHER drug addicted homophile disappeared? The Berkley Barb?!” speech: "You’re NOT insignificant or a junkie. you're a bright young reporter with a point of view.“ They’re literally opposing thoughts?? Not to mention it was Armand in ep 5 who called him a "reporter" & Daniel told Armand he was good at getting "angles" as a reporter (hello, 'perspective' is a synonym for 'angles').

Also , maybe just a huge plot hole but Louis later claims that when a “vampire commits to coffin” it’s nearly impossibly to wake them up , even if a “jet engine” flew by. So how did Louis wake up to save Daniel after Armand closed louis' coffin (and Armand told louis to "rest') ? Was it just because he was in so much pain that he couldn’t fall asleep? Was he fighting his instincts to save Daniel? Was Louis just over exaggerating how powerful a vampire’s sleep in a coffin is? Idk maybe it’s just a plot hole or I’m over-reading it . We do see Louis help Armand move Daniel later (so he obviously was awoken at some point). Maybe all the lines in the speech were a coincidence or just meant to juxtapose Louis and Armand's behavior. And Louis just heard the convos between Daniel/Armand from the other room, before saying the speech. But I always found ep 5 odd because of the discrepancies .

Heck, the ep prior we have Louis and Armand fighting as Daniel tries to listen to the San-Fran tape of Louis /Armand . The first thing Daniel hears on the tape is his younger self essentially yelling at him : "You've forgotten man! You don't even understand the meaning of your own story!" (Which may or may not have more symbolic significance than we realize). And then the whole ending scene (of ep 4 & the audio of the tape) is abruptly cut off and the preview of ep 5 plays . Maybe it’s a hint Armand cut off and changed the ending to the following ep of San Fran too ??? “Same precise edit on 2 brains.” Who knows maybe Armand changed it cause he was afraid that certain details may start jogging memories of the affair .

And technically it would be a parallel to how Lestat let Armand take credit for saving his ex’s life (which generally changed how Louis saw the 2). And , s2e5 greatly changed how Daniel saw Louis. Armand may have done something similar to Lestat . But again it’s a crack theory … and I’m super happy with Daniel and Louis just having that nice moment (and becoming friends) . But those details always just threw me off , so I had to mention it (just incase there was some crazy plot twist in the future).

Also, if this is the case, I don't think Armand saved Daniel for romantic reasons at the time (but a different reason entirely). We see in episode 5 after Claudia's death Louis is spiraling due to grief and not abiding by his usual diet. Every night, in the 70s, he'd have sex with a young-queer male sex worker and then kill them . In the Parisian flashback we see Armand not eat but select bad guys for his coven to drain, as Armand tells Louis : "I understand you supplemented your diet (with animals)... I like how you withhold. It's alluring, it's practiced, it makes me wonder what's in there." One of the reasons Armand was attracted to Louis in the first place was because of his diet!!! But in the 70s , Armand every morning had to clean up the dead bodies of young boys whose backgrounds eerily resembled Amadeo's ( that would probably mess with anyone's psyche especially when Armand rarely ate and generally only chose shitty people or those who wanted to die). In s2e5, Armand and louis literally fight over who Louis chooses to kill (and it's implied to be an ongoing issue). Armand: "With a BOY! Things got heated with a BOY… And once again I'm here with mop and mindlessness to clean it up!” Louis: “so the room’s dirty, I’ll clean it up.” Armand: “NO! YOU make the mess I clean it up … unfortunates and broken CHILDREN. FINE!" Louis sarcastic : "Oh, FINE! the 'fine' that doesn't found like fine!" Louis later says to Armand : "sorry". And Armand retorts: Meaningless word, meaningless, a neighbor saw you while he was taking out the trash. I had to chase him down." ( Armand's face looks almost... guilty? And then the camera pans to Daniel looking at the body).Louis , surprised that Armand hasn’t killed Daniel yet : "He's alive?" Armand : " Oh, the BOY? The fascinating BOY?He's fine. He's just fine. Oh, he's fine. You're fine!This is fine! We're all FINE!"

I think Armand just snapped on Daniel since he had no one else to lash out at (and he knew he should just kill him like the neighbor). Plus, he high key mentally snapped over Louis saying 10 hours with Daniel was more ‘fascinating' than decades with him. But, unlike most of Armand's victims Daniel's 'transgressions were ordinary' and unlike Malik who was 'begging for it in an hour' (Daniel fought for days) . Daniel was not Armand's usual target. Armand usually just cleaned up the dead bodies of the young sex workers (not kill them) . Armand: “128 boys and you’re the first he hasn’t consummated and drained, that makes you special.”Armand says Daniel was "special" because he was the 'first boy’ that ended up still being alive by the time Armand got there with his "mop". The fact Armand literally counted EVERY ‘call boy’ he was forced to clean up is probably an indicator Louis' choices in victims bothered Armand more than he lets on.

Also the show keeps on implying over and over that Armand doesn’t really drink blood very often (in the Parisian flashback louis asks if Armand is going to eat with his coven which he doesn’t) . Then Louis mentions twice to Daniel that Armand ‘rarely eats’. In the books, ancient vamps could go years without blood. Then we’re told later in Dubai by Louis that Armand generally only targets certain humans who cause a lot of harm to the world , and this is backed up by the flashback in Paris .Armand in Paris describing his target: “while their country men starved and clutched their ration cards, they made quite a killing on the black market . Enjoy yourselves .” But in front of Daniel he says : “ they (humans) were all the SAME to us, cattle for our DAILY suppers .” And he also says to Daniel that in Paris he often drank the blood of young men , like Daniel “for sport.” So what’s the truth??? The books say Armand (usually) only killed humans that were “evil doers” or that wanted to die. So … is he lying or exaggerating a facade to Daniel? Is he trying to look worse (and more bloodthirsty) in front of Daniel for some odd reason? Why? Well, maybe he’s trying to say things that would decrease the chance of Daniel remembering him. Armand even says to Daniel: “He had taken a mortal lover ! Hah, more heresy!!!” Armand just had to slip in his backstory that he personally finds the idea of banging a mortal sacrilegious and that he’d never EVER do it ! Though protest too much, maybe !

9)Throughout the present storyline we have Armand constantly protect Daniel. Which is narrative whiplash from what we saw in the flashback of the 2 first meeting. It begs the audience to question what changed from the 70s till now ? Is it really just because Armand thinks Louis likes Daniel? We have Armand stop Louis from exacerbating his Parkinson’s symptoms, and immediately apologize for what Louis just did. Then, when Louis goes into Daniel’s mind and mocks him over his failed proposal. Armand tries to stop it and then comforts him. And the next day (while Louis is asleep) Armand apologizes for Louis using his powers against Daniel for a second time. And throughout the present storyline we never actually see him use his powers against Daniel (despite all the jabs and provocations). Perhaps not using his powers and apologizing for Louis doing so - indicates his guilty conscious over what he did to Daniel? He wishes he could apologize but he can’t do so sincerely without exposing the truth . He has to stay in character (or else it could destroy his relationship with Louis).

Before s2e7 Daniel never verbally acknowledged any of Armand’s apologies . But when Armand says Louis “forgave (him)” for Paris . We then have Daniel say: “I didn’t forgive you.” And for some reason , Armand looks hurt that some ‘ insignificant mortal ‘ doesn’t forgive him. And then he tries to put back on his calm facade . But it’s fake, because he immediately changes the subject away from Paris to something personal , and mentions how Daniel’s past addiction did far more damage to his mind than his memory wipes in San Fran. Which ...(after Daniel's vermouth line) maybe Armand brings up the memory wipe cause he's not sure how much Daniel knows and whether Daniel is secretly alluding to ‘not forgiving him’ for memory-wiping their relationship. Or perhaps he's (lashing out and bringing up the memory wipe) because he knows if Daniel knew the truth , he probably would not forgive him for the 2nd larger memory wipe . Then he sits back down and backtracks : “fine , you want an apology . I’m sorry. WE thought it was the right thing to do“ passive aggressive or not… It’s interesting that he's even willing to say it at all, when he won’t even dignify Louis with one. “ you’re mad I erased it? You have no right to be.” The last time Armand said "sorry" to Louis was in Paris. Ever since Louis laughed and sarcastically said he was “sorry” for leaving him multiple times a year. Armand has never apologized to Louis, again. Armand :” tri-annual fuck off and find me, with apologies to follow.” Louis laughs and says sarcastically : “I’m sorry”. . Louis : “so-so. “ Armand: “what’s that? “ Louis: “sorry” . Armand : “meaningless word . Meaningless .” Hmm, then why are you constantly apologizing to Daniel??? Is it really just an empty gesture/manipulation tactic ? or is there a deeper reason?

10) Armand brings up Lestat (his and Louis’ ex) asking: “Did he BREAK you Louis? Are you broken?" Later Daniel says " That's why I go after you real Rashid . YOU (unlike Armand) I can fucking BREAK!" Then Armand whispers 'excuse me' and storms out . The only other time Armand asked to be "excused" and stormed out was when Daniel called him a "rent boy" (which would obviously be triggering regardless but even worse if Daniel was his ex).So the whole "BREAK" line may have a deeper meaning than the literal interpretation. Maybe that line hit a nerve cause he actually felt like Daniel 'broke' him. Armand talking about Daniel: "He wants YOU in pieces." Armand to Daniel, the supposedly 'insignificant mortal': " I did it to protect me… from YOU, Mr. Molloy. Why do I owe YOU my shame. Why do I owe YOU. "

Note , in s2ep7 he says he ripped out Claudia’s diary pages that had his name in them (aka memories of himself ) from Daniel’s viewing . And literally yells that he did it to protect himself from Daniel. He pretty much admitted he may have erased himself from Daniel’s memory to “protect (himself).” Meanwhile he may have rationalized erasing Louis attempt in San Fran as “protecting him from himself.” Begrudgingly he apologized for erasing Daniel’s memory but immediately shuts down Louis concern . Weird priorities ,Armand .

11) If Armand was overthinking , and contemplating whether or not Daniel knew about the relationship because of : the 'vermouth' line, 'I don't forgive you', and saying how Louis' romance with Armand 'reminded him of something', etc. And then he sees Daniel has the trial -script which was given to him by the talamasca . And the talamasca has surveillance on all vamps … is it that hard to believe that Armand assumed Daniel already knew about the affair (because of the talamasca) ? And did this partially as “pay back” ? Especially when Daniel should only remember him torturing and trying to kill him. And all Daniel does (after blowing up his marriage) is adjust his glasses and stare into Armand’s eyes, with apparently no fear . He may assume Daniel already knows , and just doesn’t tell Louis (cause Daniel isn’t sure if Louis would be angry at him). When Armand looks at Daniel , at the table, this might be when Armand thinks *it's officially confirmed Daniel knows about their past relationship*. In a show that already has the motif of “pov changes the perception of a story” . Anything is possible …

12) Armand to Daniel (who he supposedly only met once): “It’s in your nature , Mr . Molloy . Can’t get OUT THE DOOR before lobbing one MORE bomb.”

But, in the novels, Daniel was infamous for leaving Armand over and over again. This was because Armand would constantly refuse to turn him, leading Daniel to feel unloved , leaving, doing substances , and mentally begging for Armand to come and find him again. This also echoes Louis’ behavior in the 70s too: “tri-annual, fuck off and find me. With apologies to follow ( after a drug binge).” But maybe the last time Daniel left - he dropped one last bomb , on their relationship. In the books , Armand turned him in 1985 , the same year that show-alice was pregnant. It’s possible this was the bomb Daniel decided to leave Armand with . But here’s the thing. Armand was a child whose whole life was negatively affected by his parents abandoning him . He may not want to contribute to that. As Armand said “children” are “innocent.” He was abandoned by his parents, abandoned by his maker /lover who raised him as a teen and called him “son”, he felt abandoned by Lestat. And he probably felt abandoned by Daniel & Louis walking out on him over and over . And he may not have wanted some “innocent “ kid to deal with that cause of his & Daniel’s relationship . In the books Armand had a soft spot for human kids . It could make his words as he turned to Daniel have more symbolic weight : “the sleep of an infant . Blank slate (tabula rasa).”

And (after turning him) he may have left cause he couldn’t deal with being abandoned AGAIN. Not after Louis just left and Daniel has done so - many times before. So he “abandoned“ him first. In the books he even said he left Daniel after turning him cause he just assumed Daniel would hate him for turning him (like Armand hated his own maker) . Armand in the show saying “those we make ourselves are bound to despise us “ (is a quote directly from TVA where he mentions Daniel). In the unpublished draft of one of Anne rice’s books , Armand reunited with the vampire-Daniel and says “I didn’t mean to abandon you." Note 2 eps prior , Armand talks about memory wipes , turns to Daniel and says “a few days after we abandoned him.” And then he almost cried (now could he just be crying about Louis attempt that he mentioned right before, of course. Assad even said that event traumatized Armand and there is narrative proof for that) . But I only mention the scene for two reasons. 1) the timing of him crying the second he turns away from Louis ,looks at Daniel , and says he ‘ abandoned him’ (makes me wonder if he’s thinking of the last memory wipe where he actually abandoned Daniel). And 2) “Abandoned” is such a strong word for someone you barely know , don’t care about , and find ‘insignificant’ . why not say ‘ditch ‘, ‘dump’, etc? Even Daniel an ep prior says “your boyfriend (Armand) is ditching us.” When Armand does say this line we even have Daniel close his eyes , turn away, and blink rapidly like he’s trying to emotionally process something (but just doesn’t know what ). Then Armand puts back on his calm mask and the next thing he says is “continuing on the record , I was a coward, Mr molloy. “ As Daniel just stares at him.

So, in conclusion… If Daniel ever wants Armand back he’ll actually have to find Armand after he’s run away (just like Armand always did for Daniel). Daniel: “Have you heard from my maker?”

13)People always question how Daniel and Armand could have had the affair - if Armand was with Louis. But there’s several possible explanations. This scene alludes to one possibility . *pans to Louis sleeping in the day*. Armand : “he’ll awaken when the sun sleeps. We should probably wait for him.” Daniel smirks : “probably” . *prolonged silence as Armand smiles at him and then looks away. After this, he breaks the silence, and brings up "blenders" ( possibly recollecting his time with Daniel , during the day) -in the 1970s he would constantly wreck Daniel's blenders .

I mean… think about it, guys. Armand has been shown to be able to go out in the daytime since the 70s, he hunted in the day in s2 , and in the day he did not “wait” for Louis to talk to Daniel ( about “ fetishes”, and his sex life). Armand literally could have just had the affair in the daytime while Louis was none the wiser sleeping. And Armand also mentions in s2e5 that Louis would leave him for prolonged periods of time “tri-anually." So 3 times a year he could have just been with Daniel (on night island). And of course it’s also possible they had a “brief separation” similar to how Lestat was separated from Louis for years and lived with his human lover…

Other possible eastereggs:

-Daniel seemed very upset after reading about a failed relationship between a vampire and human . And if Daniel is mixing up Alice with Armand . There’s a possible parallel between Charlie/claudia and Armand/Daniel. Aka both eating pink & white ice cream with their vampire lovers. In the books Armand would often take Daniel to restaurants and cafes too. And, the way Louis mentions he knew the street that Daniel & Alice went to and the strange look he gives Daniel , as Daniel describes the moment .... makes me wonder if he found out about them , when Armand/Daniel were in Paris .

-It’s a little weird Armand (a vampire who can’t even taste alcohol) is so good at making Daniel’s drinks. Daniel even writes in his notes that it’s weird that the drinks taste like ‘ Rashid’ was trained at the Dukes.so yeah- why is a vamp that good at making Daniel’s drinks just to his liking . Experience? Also when Louis mentions that Daniel was curious about how Armand’s blood tasted . Daniel asks for a “refill” - hinting that maybe he has had Armand’s blood in the past and that he will get a refill (once he’s turned in s2). Also, it’s ironic when Armand says to Daniel “I wouldn’t allow you near my neck if-“ and human Daniel literally bites his neck while being turned, in the books.

- In s2e1, Armand says " The boy from San francisco" ( and he speaks normally until 2 Lines in particular.He then takes 2 large pauses with a pained expression as he says: " He's still in there... we can find him". Not only is it suspicious on Armand's end but it could also allude to the rest of s2 having hints in the narrative that 'young Daniel' (who was with Armand- is still in there) . Like Daniel getting upset thinking about the 'proposal' along with other scenes.

- Louis said having sex with a vampire ,as a human, is something you can never really forget . And Daniel “really” thought he had sex with a vampire . Maybe it just wasn’t Louis? I also find it narratively interesting that almost all the vampire couples meet each other when one of them was human : Lestat/louis, Claudia/madeline, Armand/Daniel . And , in the novels, the biggest issue for Daniel and Armand’s relationship was the fact he wouldn’t turn Daniel. I also would just find it ironic and funny if Armand who criticized Claudia and Lestat for being romantically attached to humans , ends up doing the same decades later .

- I just think having Daniel’s words bite him in the ass , would be narratively fulfilling and hilarious . Daniel : “This is great , you shared a boyfriend” (maybe you and Louis did too?) Daniel : “it’s a telenovela!” (You know a common trope of telenovelas and soap operas- amnesia causing you to forgot your lover ). Daniel to Louis: "you took (him) back... lover, murderer, maker (cough Maybe Daniel will take Armand back ). “you talk about him 50 years later like he was your soulmate. Locked together in some fucked up romance.” ( Well 50 years ago, Armand in both the show and books locked you up for a bit… but you still ended up dating him.) Louis: "He was MY murderer,MY mentor, MY lover, MY maker... death, rebirth, coming out." Daniel ('have you seen MY maker') Molloy judgey as hell: "coming out? What's sexuality got to do with it? "

- Daniel mentions how when someone wants to create emotional distance from a situation it becomes impersonal, “ going from I to oneself , himself.” This obviously refers to Louis’ words in relation to San-Fran , but the camera also pans to Armand looking uncomfortable (as Daniel explains this). Armand already did something similar when recounting his past “This is amadeo . He is …” But what Daniel said , had me thinking . Armand was plenty comfortably in s2e5 addressing Daniel by his first name. But now he (almost) exclusively refers to him as “Mr. Molloy” - maybe because he wants “emotional distance” from him? Armand about an ex: "THE NAME! THE NAME! unuttered in our home for... years!"

- Daniel in the show says terrified “ It’s you who’s fascinating ! You can read minds right?” (Aka he was terrified but was telling the truth- Which Armand sensed.)This echoes Daniel’s thoughts of Armand before they first started dating in the books (but were still getting to know each other post entrapment) : “in mute fascination, Daniel had watched Armand.”/ “Daniel found himself fascinated. sometimes trying to write down the things Armand had told him.”

- Armand says to Daniel : “you are going to teach me how to be fascinating .” And he also told Louis : “we are teachers of one another .” In the books once Armand and Daniel become a couple he says : “you will be my teacher .”

- Daniel asking Louis for the dark gift: “give it to me. “ Louis to Daniel: “and I paraphrase … you said give it to me, make me a vampire” . Daniel to Armand in the books : “give it to me, damn you , immortality as close as your arms . “

- In the books when Armand for the first time admits he loves Daniel in Pompeii … he “gently puts (Daniel) on his knees , using his hands” . This is after Daniel looks at a pompeii mural of a naked character kneeling . It contrasts the scene of Armand telepathically and aggressively putting Daniel on his knees when they first met . The visual storytelling of both scenes would show how far the relationship has changed since they first met (how could the show runners not do it? It would be a wasted opportunity!)

- Daniel’s apartment has a painted blue sky . In the d.m chapter Armand was said to be fascinated by blue skies and he’d also painted clouds in Marius’ paintings .

- Daniel & Armand talked about Marius’ painting and Daniel later remarks about the “stolen Rembrandt” (we see Armand smirk at the mention of this ) . It could be a hint because Armand used to steal paintings and give them to Daniel . We even see in s1e1 Daniel doing a puzzle of a famous painting- that in the books Armand showed Louis.

- Daniel also complains about Armand’s disguises as Armand stares and smirks again. Maybe thinking about how young Daniel enjoyed his human costumes. Armand literally impersonated a human attorney to get Daniel out of jail (could he have just used the mind gift? Sure , but that’s not as fun, is it? ) Bro prob loved his disguise when Armand bailed him out of jail, dropped him off at a hotel to sleep off his hangover , and filled Daniel’s wallet with multiple $100 dollar bills. Did I mention they weren’t even dating yet ? Also Louis’ excuse for Armand’s ‘Rashid disguise’ was : “my love was in charge of a theater troupe for over a 150 years .” So are human disguises just something he does on the regular for fun 😅 ? Or is Louis just that in denial XD ? Both? Obviously he may have just done the disguise so he could monitor the interview without being directly involved or mentioned in Daniel’s book (even ripping himself out of Claudia’s journal pages that mentioned him). But yeah… if he also wanted to be extra careful about Daniel not remembering him: pretending to be a 20 something year old human servant , using a different name (would help) .

- It may be a coincidence, but when Armand finally broke character in s1 (and started to take off his gloves to remove his contacts) he does so right after Daniel called himself a "wh*re". That's what caused him to break character. Which, given both their backgrounds, and if they did date- Armand may really dislike Daniel calling himself that.

- I feel if (in the show) d.m did happen in the past .They placed some interesting eastereggs to allude to it. In the show , Daniel interviewed Louis on divisdero street and then Armand kept him in the apartment for days and Daniel was eventually let go . This echos how in the book: after Daniel interviewed Louis on divisdero street , Daniel finds lestat’s house and meets Armand for the first time .Armand temporarily imprisons him there and then lets him go (saying he’s going to watch him and if he grows bored of him he’ll either eat him or simply lose track of him). But then he gets to know Daniel over the years and they eventually get together. My guess (if it happened in the show): Daniel with what little he remembered …and using his skills in ‘investigative-journalism ‘ found the apartment on divisdero street again and Armand was there- then the chase began. Armand in the book stalked Daniel until they became an item , and in the show he observed and stalked Louis and Lestat before they hooked up too ( a pattern of behavior ) .

-(Maybe just me coping) but sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons we didn't see Daniel's turning is because it would give too much away (and that it may be shown later, contrary to what the producers claim). For example, Daniel's turning in the books was "beautiful" . And in s2 Louis even says Armand could be a part of a "beautiful" turning. It's possible the turning was a lot less violent/'spiteful' than we expect (especially if Armand mistakenly assumed Daniel knew about their past). There's also a few easterggs in the show alluding to the book turning. For example: Armand putting a blanket on Daniel in s1 (is something he does after turning Daniel.) He put a blanket on him and said : “by the time you wake up you’ll be one of us.” Daniel says “quite the house plant” in reference to Armand’s purple magnolia tree which is similar to the purple wisteria tree Daniel sees when he's turned. Magnolia trees represent “everlasting love” and wisteria trees represent “enduring love”. Get it … immortality , everlasting love, ‘enduring’ being a word used often by the vamps . Armand also says he wouldn't let Daniel near his neck (which is ironic cause Daniel drinks from Armand's neck when being turned). Armand also says “I was a coward, mr molloy" which is similar to Armand telling Daniel "I'm a coward, I can't let you die." (before turning him). And before he's turned Armand tells Daniel he’s dying, and Daniel makes a sarcastic joke (that's very similar to something show Daniel would say): "yeah, yeah, as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death." And when Armand says he'll turn him (Daniel just goes silent in disbelief ). Also, Daniel not believing Armand hasn't turned anyone -is a callback to the turning where Armand says: "I've never turned anyone. I know you never believed me-" And then Daniel cut him off to say he "no, I believe you". Also there's the scene of Louis describing Madeleine's turning : "The lamb (pans to Daniel) smiling up at the wolf (pans to Armand) ." For all we know - the fact it wasn't a ' spiteful' turning may actually cause Daniel more confusion and questions regarding his maker. And it may make him wonder what else Armand is hiding . A possible reason Daniel is looking for him.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi . I was wondering if the Alice Armand theory is correct . Do you think the kids are real or not . Because we really don't have any proof of them other than two toys in the closet .

I think Daniel definitely has kids. And I think they're grown, which would explain why there's so little of their stuff in his apartment.

I do think the majority of his life is real. I even think Alice is real.

However, I think some of the memories Daniel thought pertained to Alice actually belong to the time he spent with Armand. Because, just from the logical perspective - wouldn't it be much easier to change existing memories than create wholly new ones?

There are hints already in s1, with the "odyssey of recollection" - Daniel's ex wife reminds him he never owned a Buick. Didn't he? Or did he while he was running from / traveling with Armand? Things like this.

I do think Daniel was married twice, divorced twice, and has two daughters, because he is a journalist in the public space, and these facts can easily be checked.

But I don't think all his memories of his first wife are actually of her.

It will be interesting to see what they will do with the daughters, because daughters and sisters are important in the VC. I doubt that they will be only staffage.

[nightcolorz]

spoilers for iwtv s2 ep2 but omg,,

I definitely believe the Alice is armand theory (or more specifically Daniel’s memories with alice have been crossed with his memories of armand) bcus dude Omg, first of all Louis mocking Daniel about his failure with Alice and it immediately cuts to Daniel getting sudden flashes of buried armand memories. the way Armand was looking at him, the longing sadness, the mediating, armand trying to stop louis from hurting daniel. Armand telling Daniel “alices” thoughts when she rejected him😭😭😭 not mockingly as Louis is doing but comfortingly?? Bittersweetly?? Full of grief?? “She wanted to say yes (to daniels marriage proposal) but she didn’t trust you, you didn’t give her a reason to.” Like daniel’s loosing of Alice when he proposes to her and she rejects him is definitely imo some sort of metaphor/equivalency for Daniel begging armand to turn him and armand rejecting him. Not even to mention how it’s all tied to Paris, her name is literally Alice 😭.Armand’s reasoning is so interesting to me, u didn’t give her a reason to trust you. Dude. Then louis telling Daniel they can tell him how Alice feels about him now and giving a little knowing look to armand 😭 Jesus. I’m wrecked

[the-quiet-youve-been-longing-for]

Saw this post about Daniel's mind being against mind reading due to frequent blood sharing while he was with Armand.

Interesting fact is also that he seems to have a sort of "shield" against mind reading or like a way to protect himself at the sake of his mental health, or at least that's how I interpreted it. It happens two times, and in those two times Daniel's mind retaliates so much with Armand's flashbacks (even if those don't have anything to do with Armand in the conversation) that his Parkinsons triggers and he has physical pain

First one is of course 2x02, Armand says "it's Alice, not Claudia", Louis goes with the brasserie memory but it's not in depth, it's a jest just like how he skimmed to see about how much Rashid weighted and how he tasted. It's harmless, so it doesn't do anything. Second time is brutal, it's a painful memory, he doesn't want this brought to light, and you can see how much it hurts. Cue Armand flashbacks as soon as it starts, which causes him to spiral and break under Louis's onslaught.

Second one is 2x04. Oh boy. First thing is at the "are you schizophrenic, Louis?" scene. Armand says Daniel's name, cue a flashback. Uh oh. He continues, slips up with the fire mention and you see Armand lean forward as if to see what is that about the fire, to see his reaction or read his mind I'm not sure, more flashbacks, audio as well now, just like before. This causes some confusion, but he manages to save his ass by moving the conversation back to Claudia.

Some time later, we get to the fight about the Steins. And it's... Weird as hell, but as soon as Armand says "Rashid must have confused them" and looks at Daniel. Cue flashback numero dos, so much in fact that he can't even bring himself to understand what Louis is saying and asks for aspirin, pausing the session.

Note that this is the ONLY time he asks to pause the interview himself. The only other time is when he offers Louis to take a break because he starts crying in 2x01. Other than that, he's vigilant and alert enough to never stop, it's his drug after all, why would he?

There are still weird holes in this theory, like for example why were the more violent flashbacks during the photo scene and not when talking about the fire? But that's what I managed to connect together so far

[avelera]

i agree with you and I don't like the Armand is alice theory. since Claudia died, we have 0 main female characters. This theory seems like an attempt to erase a minor female character who had an impact on a main male character life. Sometimes I felt like the iwtv fandom is hostile toward female characters. It also remind the fan that Daniel wasn't a good husband or a good father and a very flaw character who hurt a lot of women, not in a criminal way but he was surely an asshole. In fanfic, he doesn't have any flaw and is often victimize. The fan wants him to be a Marius hater, when himself forced a girl to put a paperbag on her head to have sex with her. She cried a lot but he didn't stop. I don't think he's aware of concept like "consent" or sexual assault. He was mostly a cheater with his wifes and an absent father to his daughters. And I feel like the fandom can't accept this so 1) they erased Alice 2) they made all his life about Armand when it wasn't. Because no matter how his life was, how he was a sexist asshole, it was the life he chose and Armand was a part of it but not the center. I like him, but not everything is about Armand and he's not Armand's savior or Armand's redemption or Armand's soulmate.

I think there's a lot of valid points in what you're saying!

I think fandoms in general have a tendency to polish off the rough edges of their favorite characters and Daniel is absolutely going to get this treatment by the fandom. It's pretty much inevitable but I don't blame people for doing it in their fanworks, that's just how fandom works.

I completely agree that a tendency to make Daniel's whole life about Armand would be a disservice to the character, especially Old Man Daniel who has lived a rich life on his own and if he had a relationship with Armand in the 70s, he's had half a lifetime or more since to live completely independent of Armand (perhaps thanks to Armand wiping his memory of that relationship, perhaps not). Regardless, it's a pretty common angle for fandom to take, especially when shipping two characters. The focus will be on the relationship and so the focus will be on making that relationship central to who they are often to the exclusion of all else. Certainly as maker/fledgling, these two ARE going to mean a lot to each other going forward too. But yeah I agree that erasing Alice or making Alice Armand is a denial of the long, independent and complicated life that Daniel lived completely without Armand.

But I also completely agree that Daniel was, canonically, not a good husband or father. He admits it himself. It's at the absolute core of who IWTV Show Daniel is. It's at the heart of his acerbic personality, his regrets, his terror at the thought of dying because he will be dying alone and unloved, and his relentless pursuit of the truth with Louis and Armand because he thinks the only thing valuable about himself that he has left is his skills as an investigative reporter. He has by his own admission fucked up every personal relationship he's had by being a complete asshole but that asshole flaw in his personal life was a virtue in his professional life. He is a relentless investigative reporter in part because he's a complete asshole. He wasn't able to shut that part of himself down when he was with his loved ones and that's why he has no one he loves in his life who wants to be around him, but he is still an award winning journalist. It's to me what makes him an interesting and complex character. If you polish that away, if you make him nice rather than a flawed man who is trying to do better (until maybe he's not, once he's a vampire) I'm not even sure why you'd be writing his character instead of an OC, it is what makes Bogosian's Daniel unique even as compared to the book version of the character.

The whole point of IWTV is that these characters are complex and they are ugly, they are monsters and they are human, and as Santiago says we should remember that when we put them on trial. This is a central theme of the show. This theme extends to Daniel too. Claudia is a victim of her horrible circumstances but she's also a bonafide serial killer of thousands of innocents. Louis is a soulful and tormented person who also murdered his way through the San Francisco gay population in the 70s as viciously as any epidemic. Madeleine was a collaborator during WWII and as much as we might debate how much of a choice she had in being one if she wanted to survive in WWII Paris, she was also completely unbothered by the idea of becoming a serial killer in order to gain immortality.

We are being asked by the show to hold the dichotomy of these characters in our heads, we are being asked to love them as humans and be horrified by them as monsters at the same time. Anyone who tries to polish the rough edges off these characters by having them be moral paragons is, I think, entirely missing the point of the gothic moral complexity of the show. No one is innocent, not even the interviewer. Daniel was an asshole to his loved ones. We can still feel for the fact he's afraid of dying, either to his chronic illness or to the vampires he's interviewing. That isn't something to be avoided by the viewer, that is the exact complexity we're being asked to engage with. Then again, fanworks serve a different purpose so people should do whatever they want with the characters there, this is just to say that the core story that I think is what attracted many people to IWTV is about moral complexity and it's a shame when that element is removed, at least when it comes to my personal enjoyment as I can't speak for others.

There are a couple things I disagree with though with what you said or want to address with a bit more nuance below the cut.

I don't think the fandom is hostile to women as such. I admit, I don't really know it well enough to say one way or another, but I'm always hesitant to apply such a sweeping criticism of a large group of people. M/M slash fandoms tend to focus on the male characters, it's just how it is. But IWTV gave us a beautiful f/f relationship with Claudia and Madeleine and I see a lot of appreciation of them and their relationship on my dash. Fact is, there's just not as many female characters as male characters in the Vampire Chronicles by at least 2:1. So naturally the fandom will focus on the male (and more importantly surviving) characters.

As for Marius, I don't think we have an answer about him yet within the show. What we have is that Louis called Marius Armand's pimp and we have show Armand telling us that Marius was his whole world but also that Marius prostituted him to visiting friends.

That is completely contrary to what we learn about Marius in "The Vampire Lestat" and "The Vampire Armand" books. If it's true, it's an invention of the show. Marius in the books specifically allowed Armand total autonomy in his sex life after he freed him from the brothel because he wanted Armand to have a full life before he became a vampire and Marius even then was very resistant to turning Armand or indulging in Armand's crush on him, and the only reason he turned him as young as he did was because Armand was dying. So until we get a more objective answer about what Marius and Armand's relationship was, not as it's told to us during a vicious fight between Louis and Armand or a very complex moment of self reflection tinged with bitterness, I am hesitant to say Marius is a villain in the way the fandom has decided he is.

However, if the show decides that based on Marius's actions in the book, the richer exploration in their reinterpretation of his character is that he had a highly questionable, even groomer relationship with Armand, I'd be all for it. It's a completely valid interpretation of the character in a reexamination of the text and one I trust these writers to bring a lot of complexity to. But I do think it's going to be more complicated than it appears based on the two mentions of Marius we've had so far because everything in the show has been more complex than it seems. Marius is 90% a protagonist in the book, he's one of the most universally beloved vampires in the entire vampire world for his wisdom, his humanity, his care for others, and for taking on the duty of caring for Akasha and Enkil when it was a very dangerous and tedious thing to do with little reward besides survival (and he was almost killed over it too multiple times). So it's a BIG change to make him a villain to a modern audience by making him Armand's abuser instead of his patron and inspiration (until they were cruelly separated) as he was in the books. I'm curious to see how they handle it once Marius is cast.

Now, how Daniel and Marius are going to interact is going to be based on the complexity of how we see Marius objectively in the show, outside of the flashbacks, in my opinion. I'm very curious to see how that turns out but again, remember these characters are monsters. I think assuming that Daniel's reaction to Marius will be 100% negative is premature.

And one more thing I disagree about is the idea that Daniel doesn't know what consent or sexual assault is (unless it was a typo and you were referring to him in the past, not in the present?).

I think Daniel has deep regrets about how he treated that girl when they were both teenagers, and he has deep regrets about how he treated his wives and his daughters. I believe he is haunted by these parts of himself. So I disagree with the characterization of him as being somehow unaware of consent or sexual assault. I believe that the incident with the girl when they were both teenagers was a particular shameful, ugly memory that Armand dug up specifically because it was an ugly, shameful memory of a time that Daniel was cruel and monstrous that he still feels shame about to this day. Armand dug it up not because it was something Daniel thinks is fine that he did, it's something that disgusts Daniel about himself.

But it's also, not to excuse it, but it's a story from when he was young and stupid, not a pattern of behavior we see coming up to the modern day. This is something that haunts him and that he's learned from. Old Daniel is a man who has been an asshole and who has learned a lot of lessons from it, mostly in that he gained many regrets in his life. But Old Man Daniel is introduced to us as someone who remains an investigative reporter because he wants to do some good for the world. It's the one thing he has to offer the world as he is dying. He views his job as a reporter as a sacred trust and we open with him talking about the ethics of investigative reporting. From that I think we can deduce that Daniel is very aware of consent and things like assault and just why what he did as a teenager was wrong. In his way, I think he sees being a reporter as him trying to be a good person.

[helianthus21]

call me crazy but to me the armand//alice theory was never about armand making up an entire person but about him taking an existing love interest/gf/later wife of Daniel's to overwrite some of his 70s/80s!DM memories with

[susandsnell]

For the character ask game 4; 8; 21 for Daniel Molloy and 10; 20 for Madeleine Eparvier? If that's too many, just pick which ones you're most interested in obviously :)

Hi anon! Finally sitting down to do these. Thank you for your patience with this, and double thank you for being the first person to ask me things about that old man and that spectacular queen. Let's go! I'll put it under the cut because boy I'm about to get long-winded -- I blame you for giving me so much to work with!

CHARACTER ASK GAME!!! 💫

Daniel Molloy

4. If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in?

You do not want to know the crossovers I've envisioned for this old man. Because of his meta role as the narrator, the messenger, and the archivist of the story, he fits surprisingly well into so many other pieces of media with the premise "what if he was the one investigating/interviewing the survivor". There are many other vampires I'd like him to interview (especially the ones from Tanz Der Vampire), and I'd love to see how a younger Daniel would fare in Fright Night (we all know how The Lost Boys would end for him..). But mostly, final girl that he is, I think he'd rock it in other horror media; the thing that has plagued him and enthralled him all his life. The thing he has begged for and run from. I wonder if The Ring's Rachel Keller was a former student or colleague of his, and if she'd enlist his help with respect to breaking the story on cursed video tapes. I want to see him in a Se7en or Longlegs type of neonoir slasher, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, and yet coming through when it counts. I think that I would want to personally beat him to death myself for the things he'd say to Dani Ardor (Dan to Dan communication), but he's actually proven himself to be solid at deprogramming someone subjected to intense gaslighting (and very good at ruining relationships, including those that aren't his own!), and if he can keep the insanely misogynistic comments to a minimum for more than five minutes, he might've been able to get her away from the Harga by talking sense.

And finally, in what must make me the greatest parody of myself fathomable, yes, I think Daniel Molloy should investigate and probably write the retrospective on the Black Prom of Stephen King's Carrie. I've frequently joked that for all the addiction trouble, marital and familial trouble, and insanely out of pocket offensive comments, he's a Stephen King author avatar guesting at Manderley or perhaps Wuthering Heights.

But all seriousness, you have Sue Snell, who wrote her own autobiography of the horrific and targic events for which she wound up both scapegoated and disbelieved. Given his nose for the supernatural/preternatural, Daniel would follow where that thread leads and maybe help her find some peace in the process. The two certainly have a lot in common; both did fucking horrible things as a teenager for which they later faced an insanely disproportionate retribution, both have curly hair (usually in Sue's case), both are heavily coded to be repressing queerness leading them to unfulfilling heteronormative relationships/plans for unhappy family life, both take the role of the archivist and messenger to shape the horrors they lived into a narrative - their narrative - before the world will make of it what it will. Both fell in love with their monster(s). Both are fucking SURVIVORS.

(I kind of want to write this now...)

8. What’s something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

Honestly, I don't want to rehash bad discourse from twitter, so I'll just say exaggerating his very apparent flaws to thoughtlessly trigger people in the interest of winning a morality contest in this of all franchises. On the flipside of that, reducing him to his ship with Armand -- I've been very vocal regarding how much I despise the Armand Is Alice theory, and so long as it persists I'll continue. Not because of this or that headcanon, but it's phenomenally misogynistic to erase women we haven't even seen onscreen yet for slash because eewwww no girls allowed. Like what in the circa 2007 misogynistic yaoi livejournal, TJLC ass theory are we doing here. But also because it would be terrible writing. The emotional impact of old Maniel as a character concept is that he's lived a full life, accomplished incredible things, and had relationships that were meaningful and that he also destroyed. He has these things because of Louis' rescue of him and Louis' words, and when they see each other again in 2022, the tangible impact of his great deed are written in every line on Daniel's face. I don't mind 'the Chase happened' truthers at all, but my God, you undercut everything when you suggest that it's Oops, All Armand, meaning Daniel never had a life fully lived and failings and triumphs he carries with him. You also ironically make DM less interesting by making him the only person in Daniel's life of any significance. Just. Take the character as we got him, my god.

21. If you’re a fic writer and have written for this character, what’s your favorite thing to do when you’re writing for this character? What’s something you don’t like?

I have a whole Thing about how I'm a strident feminist who somehow hitched her wagon to this geriatric misogynist, but it is a part of his very distinctive voice, so I do like to dig deep with "what's the thing a man could say that would piss me off the most", and then I run it through the canon content (since his character voice is very particular and distinct), plus some meta works with Eric Bogosian, to see if it fits, sprinkle in some Freak Shit, and bada bing bada boom, we've got our favourite asshole. It's weirdly cathartic in a way? Exorcising demons of shitty men I've dealt with or known of I guess lmao. I would say in sappier moods I like looking for the gentleness and the silver lining underneath the ten layers of Having No Limits, and when I hit on what's tender but still plausible, aka my favourite Daniel moments? No better feeling.

The flipside of this, being what I don't like, is that keeping that voice up is hard and it is a challenge to stay as sharp and ten steps ahead as he is. Need to brush up on some Columbo, I think...

Madeleine Éparvier

10. Could you be best friends with this character?

My heart would really, really, really love to say yes, but my gut and my brain say a definitive no. For one thing, while they make it very, very clear she's not a Collaborator or antisemitic in the slightest, the way her wartime affair came about and her later actions betrays an amorality in those circumstances that I probably wouldn't be able to look past, outsiders though we both may be. I'm also one for obsessive morality-related thoughts in general, so I don't think this would jell especially well with her survivalist mentality. I'm also fluent in French but it's not my first language, so that would likely get on her nerves. And while we'd share an interest in fashion and I'd commend her for her tastes in both clothes and women, I feel like she'd see me as a bootlicker for my legal education lolol.

And most importantly - Madeleine is incredibly mean. It's hot, it's funny, it's sexy, but I am profoundly oversensitive, and she would absolutely make me cry several times lmao. I don't really know if there's any character on this show I'd be able to get along with because everyone is so delightfully awful and also, you know, murderous. But that's why it's fun!

20. Which other character is the ideal best friend for this character, the amount of screentime they share doesn’t matter?

Well, Claudia is her companion and soulmate, so that's the easy answer; they complete each other in a way that no one ever quite has. Two outcasts, two people brutally mistreated in societies to which they were supposed to belong, two women carrying pain and humour and brutality and softness, and growing flowers over the corpses they leave in their wake. She is the X at the end of Claudia's long journey, the reason she doesn't leap in the fire who did not think twice about burning at her side; she is the only one who reads Claudia's diaries with permission. Claudia is her window to the wider world, her rescuer twice-over, and the only person who meets her where she is, in strangeness and violence and joy, in sucking the marrow from the bones you leave behind you.

So...'best friend' is probably a very light way of putting it lolol.

But also? I genuinely think she'd get along with Daniel. Two unapologetic amoral assholes who defiantly faced their past trauma to sacrifice themselves for the one they loved. And they both bully Armand, too!

Thank you so much for this! Apologies again for the length.

[duriens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brsb4hls]

Read your post about show DM development, it drew me in since I’ve also in the wake of the season two finale been thinking a lot about what the plan is/was with DM from Rolins’ and the other writers’ perspective.

The lack of anything solid in regard to DM, any clear hint made me wonder if the DM relationship was planned at all. The thing that keeps confusing me is that Rolins stated years ago, I think when attending a convention in connection to season one, that fans of DM shouldn’t worry. Confirming - at least seemingly so - that this relationship would play out in some way. I also don’t think he would have affirmed it so clearly if he didn’t mean romantically? I dunno. Have you seen the clip? Looking at season one I thought that Armand-as-Rashid’s reaction to Louis offering Daniel the ‘Dark Gift’ was the only real hint that there might be something there.

However after watching season two I felt that the show moved away from the possibility of a past-DM. The Alice stuff never convinced me, Armand didn’t seem to be comforting Daniel when he brought up the proposal. The only two aspects about that interaction which made me wonder was the show making a deal of Daniel 1) “feeling freer to to hold her hand in Paris”, but this could be due to Alice not being white, which would have added another parallel between Louis and Daniel (their Paris experiences mirroring each other). And 2) the fact that Daniel refers to Alice as his ex-wife, and himself as having been married twice. So did they get married at a later date? Or did Daniel actually lie about marrying her wholesale? Was this scene/reveal meant to be longer/a bigger deal at some point in the writing process? Alternatively maybe they got married later due to legal reasons/for the kid and that’s why the rejection to his proposal was so painful for Daniel still? I dunno. I don’t think there must be anything DM-related here but I’m not going to claim there couldn’t be. There seemed to be something here - or the old and discarded(?) blueprints of a bigger scene possibly?

However If the writers were going past-DM I feel that surely they would have hinted at it at some point - if not outright included that storyline in some small way to start/tease it. The interactions between Armand and Daniel were, imho, quite impersonal in S02E05. Of course the episode can be a good introduction to DM, standing in for Armand imprisoning and starting to hunt Daniel (the learning-to-be-fascinating angle is great) but the show clearly didn’t commit to the plot in the episode. Instead possibly(?) just leaving a door open. I was a bit surprised that their dynamic didn’t become a bigger thing after the episode.

So maybe DM was not planned to have happened in the past, what actually weirds me out more is the lack of present-DM in this season as well. Like the tension between Daniel and Armand is delicious and fun at times, especially in S02E01 and at some smaller moments (Daniel trying to rile Armand up in the wake up S02E05 with the drinks comment was interesting!). But if the show is going enemies-to-lovers or Armand deciding to pursue Daniel because he now finds him fascinating/Daniel finding Armand fascinating (which was my theory before S02E08) why wasn’t there any scenes between the two setting this up? Like I was very surprised and honestly a bit let down that the dynamic between Armand and Daniel didn’t become more insane after S02E05, of course Daniel cannot lose it on this ancient vampire but still honestly?! I realize that Louis is the main character, but I feel that the writers had more than enough space and time to include just a scene at some point during the season which would hint at or develop Daniel’s and Armand’s dynamic in any way. So I feel a bit weirded out that they didn’t? Seems like a deliberate choice, which is strange if DM is planned as a thing they want to dig into next season(?). Though Rolins have only affirmed that they will have scenes together, also some of his comments read as almost a bit defensive to me? Am I crazy or is anyone else reading it as that as well? They did make a big deal of Armand not turning anyone and did choose to have Daniel be turned this season rather than next. Could just have been a good cliff hanger. I don’t know, I’m very confused about their intentions at this point. Sorry for long ask - really wanted to hear your take on all of this.

I think there are a lot of different factors here, I'll try to organize a bit.

Fan perspective:

- first off, DM is book canon. So we book readers might be biased in interpreting scenes because we have expectations

- DM already being canon in the source material also makes it likely to happen in the show

Rolin Jones/creatives:

- they did change book aspects to appeal to a broader modern audience, but also kept the core themes and put in easter eggs.

So they clearly made the show with respect and love for the source material

-every season can be the last one, so everything has to make sense in one season

From that perspective I think RJ focused mainly on Louis and Lestat and the Loustat relationship as a red thread (hence the addition of Dreamstat), but put in small hints at other storylines from the books. Like Nicky and the mention of cut off hands.

With a season 3 focusing on Lestat's story there might be more Nicky, but in season 2 it was cut short (and it's not part of iwtv anyways but tvl).

DM is also not part of iwtv, it happens in the third book, as we all know.

In that Interview with RJ I think he was genuinly surprised people were this interested in DM (they should be mainly focused on Loustat at this point of the story) and got a) a bit defensive and b) genuinly thought he included some snippets/hints with the bottle ep.

So fans did get a pretty intense 70s interaction, just not like in the book.

The storytelling:

-Daniel has tons of issues obvi, especially in regards to relationships, which fits well with Louis' story and makes for a compelling dynamic between the two.

Which is important for the format to work.

I think the Alice mentions are supposed to highlight those issues, just like the paperback thing. And Daniel's daughters have to come from somewhere.

(Personally I'm open to all head canons and fanfic here, including mpreg, because why not, but I do think there isn't much to it in show)

-then there's the Daniel/ Armand dynamic, which starts of as enemies (somewhat) for tension.

There needs to be an underlying threat or at least uneasy feeling. Armand provides that.

And it's clear in their banter.

Also dialogue like: 'you tried to drain me, pal'

'belated apology no. 2' reads more like a frenemy buddy comedy dynamic.

So we have this rivalry between them that can be aggressiv but also compelling and funny.

The actors:

-in a lot of interviews Eric underlines the Armand being Daniel's rival/nemesis/antagonist dynamic.

So that was clearly planned.

He also seems open to a different dynamic, jokes about it and seems to discuss it with Assad (well, Assad brought it up).

-Assad has been joking and teasing the ship from the start. He is clearly personally intrigued by that dynamic and with him and Eric somewhat bonding over their work it might not be to challenging for them to act it out in one way or another.

To conclude: The creatives chose a different focus and did only plan on crumbs (bottle ep and Daniel's turning). The story telling supports that theory.

The fans have different interpretations because of their expectations.

They also voiced those expectations a lot and promoted the show via DM content.

The actors vibe pretty well together and seem to be open to a lot of different things and we know they get to make suggestions and add lib.

So DM might still be happening, if RJ changes his mind, but it will be now and with an enemy to whatever dynamic.

Which I'll take.

This is how I see it anyways.

[streussal]

listen i SO want to be with you on the whole devils' minion 'armand made daniel forget their relationship' thing being bs and unfounded and i mostly agree that it is BUT there is ONE line in this season that still drives me crazy because i simply cannot explain it and that's when louis is like 'you felt more comfortable holding alice's hand in paris i wonder why that is?' like........ WHAT was that about then ?????

One theory I like is that Alice is a woman of colour. Alternately, Daniel is just emotionally constipated about minor PDA in a place where people might know him.

The "Alice is Armand" theory drives me especially crazy. The man wrote a memoir that had a fact-checker. Also why are fans against him having a life prior to Armand?? Part of what makes Daniel interesting is having a life with mistakes and regrets. Being a shitty husband and father. (Also the parenting thing is something he and Louis relate to each other about)

[queer-is-future]

apologies if this has already been discussed

but in all the fantastic metas I’ve seen discussing the halves of faces for Louis, Lestat, and Armand in the s1/s2 promo posters, many have pointed out that we have no promo poster for Daniel despite him being an important character (it’s not his time yet in the story)

but he DOES have a very interesting image on the cover of his so called “brutally honest” memoir of a man (is it him or someone else??idk) whose “brain half” is covered with that weird grainy image you used to get on vhs tapes when they malfunctioned in the player or had their content erased

[and sometimes if you paused in the right place or played the tape slowly you could see some of those lost images]

and there’s a face of someone hidden in the black part by the dude’s shoulder who is looking directly at us

and that vhs malfunction thing continues on the back to Daniel’s author image who we know has memory loss around the original interview (lost of theories as to why)

so Daniel’s memoir has the same half face as the promo posters but is it him in that picture or someone else? who is the face in the background? curiouser and curiouser said alice.

[also is the roman weiss thing a nod to Marius?? idk.]

“Everything would go all right for months as Daniel felt compelled to move from city to city, walking the pavements of New York or Chicago or New Orleans. Then the sudden disintegration. He’d realize he had not moved from his chair in five hours. Or he’d wake suddenly in a stale and unchanged bed, frightened, unable to remember the name of the city where he was, or where he’d been for days before. Then the car would come for him, then the plane would take him home.”

The Queen of the Damned, Devil’s Minion