#but that’s the version of louis he likes to portray

[armandssawtrap]

there’s something about Louis’s voice when he’s monologuing to Daniel that makes me want to rip my hair out

[iamgonnagetyouback]

Idk if it’s a dumb thing to ask but can you tell me more about lorenzo Berkshire, Theodore nott and Mattheo Riddle!!!

I have seen these names a lot like A LOT and I know a lot of people say Mattheo is the son of Tom Riddle. Can you tell me who are they related to and like what is their personality like

it’s definitely not a dumb question, love! let me break it down for you:

so, lorenzo berkshire, theodore nott, and mattheo riddle are all fan-created characters that have become super popular in the fandom. there’s no right or wrong way to portray them; it all depends on what people want their personalities to be like!

lorenzo berkshire: he’s often written as a slytherin and is usually fancast as louis partridge. he was created by @/babynaomi on wattpad in her fanfiction 'filthy'. he’s known for being one of the sweetest, kindest slytherins out there—but don’t let that fool you! i like to think of enzo as a bit of a mischievous troublemaker. he’ll smile sweetly, but behind the scenes, he’s probably the one setting up a prank. you know, the “who, me?” type!

theodore nott: theo is also a slytherin and is typically fancast as lorenzo zurzolo. he’s that dark, mysterious guy that everyone is drawn to, mostly because he’s so quiet and brooding. his dad (who actually is canon in the books!) isn’t exactly “father of the year,” which is often why theo’s so closed off. i like to think he’s that guy who seems intimidating but really just wants to be left alone with a good book and some peace.

mattheo riddle: mattheo is another slytherin, fan casted as benjamin wadsworth. he’s often imagined as either tom riddle’s son or brother, but most people (myself included) like the idea that he’s tom’s son. he’s got similar mysterious vibes as theo, but mattheo’s more outgoing. he’s the guy who’ll drag theo out of the library and into trouble with a mischievous grin, like, “come on, let’s go cause some mischief.”

at the end of the day, these characters are all about how you want them to be! it’s all in good fun, so go with whatever version you vibe with most.

hope that clears it up, darling!

edit: okay, so after receiving many asks, replies, and reblogs, i realized i made a little oopsie! yes, theodore nott is canon, and i definitely should have clarified that while he’s a canon character, the way people portray him in fanfics is mostly fanon (meaning fans created their own versions of his personality and backstory since there isn't much detail in the books). i’m super sorry for the confusion!

what i meant to say was that while theo is part of the original harry potter world, his characterization in fanon is often where we get that quiet, brooding, mysterious guy we all love. again, my bad! 😅 thanks for pointing it out, you lovely people! ❤️

[mothmans-side-ho]

Armand called Lestat a clown in the most round about way

s2e3 hot wired the two passions in my brain into this info dump, however seeing as a central theme of this episode (and the season) is power, status, and their subversions, it seems relevant. for context, I have 2 degrees in theatre, specifically theatre history and how trends effect form. (I am in no way an expert though, and this is very simplified). long story short, I'm relishing in being a big ol nerd about this entire season

FINALLY, we got to see Lestat (a version of) strutting his stuff on stage in a scene with peak commedia dell'arte shenanigans. Commedia dell'arte is/was an originally Italian form of theatre which was defined by lazzi (comedic bits), improv, and stock characters. these stock characters have been around from Roman times and are still super familiar to us today - the young lovers, the pervy old rich man, the soldier with bravado, etc. It's been seen as a somewhat formulaic form of theatre which relied on quickly identifiable characters and situations so audiences can sit back and enjoy the butt jokes and servant beatings.

In the book - specifically The Vampire Lestat - our beloved Lestat RELISHES in playing a character called Lelio, one of the young lovers. It is in playing Lelio that he "found a tongue for verses and wit [he]'d never had in life" (TVL pg 31). It is in playing Lelio that Lestat first gets a taste of the person he can become, and it is in Lelio that we see the first glimpses of the Lestat which so fully seduces Louis. In short, Lestat casts himself as the suave and handsome romantic protagonist, here to sweep people off their feet. The young lovers are also notably some of the only roles portrayed without masks, to emphasize their youth and natural beauty.

SO IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN LESTAT SHOWS UP IN S2E3 DRESSED LIKE THIS:

He has a half mask! He's wearing all sorts of colors! He's clearly acting as a go between between two other characters who seem to be of a higher status than him! As I said before, commedia dell'arte can be very formulaic (especially by the late 1700s when it is being codified away from being improv focused to being cemented into scripts). From all of these visual and characterization clues, Lestat is not playing Lelio the young lover, he's playing a Harlequin! And his costume seems to be heavily based off of this Harlequin (Arlecchino, Arlecino, etc.) which is literally the wikipedia image of a Harlequin.

(note, if you give a fuck, this image is depicting an Arlechino from 1671, roughly 125 years before Lestat on stage. in my mind, this accounts for the changes in silhouette, styling, why Lestat doesn't wear the mask for the entirety of the performance, etc. Also, just while we're talking about costuming, I believe the late 18th Century was still a time in which actors would have been expected to provide their own costumes, which would explain why Lestat's version is made with expensive fabrics and includes cunty little details like the bow in his hair. At the very least, I can see him making looking good a priority as the owner of the theater and as...well...Lestat.)

Okay, okay, okay. Why does this matter?

Harlequins are not characters of any social status. They're servants who are quick witted enough to get into antics but stupid enough to be commanded by animalistic instincts (lust, food, you name it). The Harlequin being beaten by their master was ENORMOUSLY funny, and is the origin of the term "slapstick comedy". They a memorable iteration of clown.

In this scene, which I'm willing to bet was inspired by (if not outright) Carlo Goldoni's A Servant of Two Masters, Lestat plays a servant who interacts with two characters. One appears to be a young woman in a breeches part - another common trope of commedia performance. The other appears to be the young male lover! We see Lestat prancing between the two, seemingly facilitating some romance plot, being paid for his compliance, and doing a good ol fashioned butt lazzi. (Could he be presenting his ass for beating? Maybe.)

So why is Lestat not the young valiant lover, but instead A LITERAL CLOWN? Three potential, not conflicting, reasons. By the time Lestat is performing (mid to late 1790s, based off Armand's earlier comment about Robespierre's 1794 execution), the Harlequin characters were the most sought after roles! At this time, we are seeing the emergence of "Celebrity Culture" where audiences sought out actors for their off-stage personalities as much as their on-stage ones. This is an extremely fitting position for Lestat to fall into. Yay a semblance of historical accuracy!

Secondly, Lestat's ENTIRE ROLE in season two is to come between this season's new pair of young(ish) lovers: Louis & Armand. Lestat's function is to repeatedly detract and distract from their relationship through Dreamstat's antics (appearing at the piano calling Louis a whore, having Louis re-kill him, etc.). Additionally, simply put, Lestat (and Sam Reid as Lestat) is a lot of fun to watch. He is absolutely a stand out (if not THE stand out) of the show! His constant ability to serve cunt is often what your eye is drawn to, he pulls focus to himself, and often undercuts the more subdued, philosophical, and morose nature of others. Both on-stage and on-screen, Lestat continuously upstages his screen partners. He does kinda function as a Harlequin. But in the end, the Harlequin's antics are also what ultimately drive the young lovers together. If not for Lestat's actions, Louis and Armand would have never met nor bonded over knowing this fucked up brat prince.

But we also have to remember! This portion of the episode is presented by Armand the mind fuckery master. It is absolutely in his best interests to paint Lestat as some sort of ridiculous, lesser being driven by animalistic nature. Especially if - by extension of the metaphor - this frames he and Louis as the virtuous and optimistic young lovers, striving to cling to each other in a world of chaos. I would be EXTREMELY interested to see if, when recollected by someone else, Lestat appears in a different role or characterized differently.

Again, given the celebrity culture of the time and Lestat being himself, it is entirely believable that he would appear in the Harlequin role (Truffaldino, if this is Goldoni's Servant). However, I think it's extremely telling that in Armand's iteration of the story Lestat is not the dignified, refined, and sympathetic young romantic. He is instead a literal fucking clown.

[chaotic-multi-fandom]

WHERE DOES IT START? ARUN, AMADEO, ARMAND

- My personal reflections on Armand's names in Interview with the Vampire (show version)

“Who am I Louis?” Armand asks while staring at a painting of a boy that only he would ever be able to recognize as himself. He stares at what is supposed to be his essence captured forever on a canvas, and yet the kneeling boy is a stranger to him. When he asks Louis this, he is earnest. Armand does not know who he is, and this lack of identity crushes and torments him. Armand seems to constantly define himself by his attachment to other people or things, such as a “servant”, as “the job (he) did not want” or as someone’s “companion” because he has never known anything else, he is never just “Armand;” he does not know who that is.

This is further reflected in his names, and the fact that despite having several none belong to him. First there’s Arun. This is supposedly the name he was born with, but even he is not sure of this due to his memory being clouded as a consequence all the horrors he suffered as a child. This name is not his, it is a name so linked to the abuse he endured that it has become the name of said abuse rather than the name of a person. His use of third person when talking about himself as “Arun” signals both a coping mechanism to distance himself from those experiences as well as the disconnect he feels from the identity attached to the name.

Then, there’s Amadeo. A name given to him by Marius, not only linking him directly with his maker and master but with God and worship, the name meaning “lover of god”. This name is also not his, but rather a projection of what Marius saw or expected in Armand. This is what we see in the painting, an ideal: a submissive, worshipful, whitewashed Armand degraded to kneel at the same level as the dog behind him, “basking in (his) worshipful mercy.” Regardless of how Armand did embody this role of worship and servitude during his time with Marius, that painting is not him, it is the fantasized construct that is Amadeo, who doesn’t really exist. When you think about it, Amadeo being a projection of those around him is not entirely different to “dreamstat” being a projection of Louis. This is of course largely my own interpretation and not fact, but I think anyone can agree that who is being portrayed in that painting is Armand only in name. It is simply another example of his body being used for a purpose, an artistic one in this case, his true essence and even features entirely forgotten and replaced by Amadeo’s. So, that name and the identity attached to it wasn’t entirely Armand’s either. Much like “Arun” being tied to his parents abandon and the brothel, Amadeo is trapped in the painting: just another property to be “sold” or “donated;” what Armand has always been treated as.

Finally, there is the name we call him by now: Armand. A name given to him by the Roman coven before sending him to the Paris coven, a collective that he is now supposed to lead and put before himself as an individual. It is a French name, a place he had no connection to before-hand and that only further distances him from who he might have once been, forcing him to adapt and assimilate into the new role he has been chained to. The name is a role in itself, as it means “soldier.” Furthermore, he is not a simple leader to this coven, he is the somewhat paternal and religious figure through which the coven; his “children,” serve Satan and through him, God. He is part of a “murky trinity” as Lestat calls it, a twisted parody of the holy trinity. So, “Armand” is once again much more than a name; it is another projection the lost and abandoned coven latches onto. Of course, they mostly refer to him as “maitre,” the implications of which I’ve already discussed in a different post. In this case, the dual titles “Armand” and “Maitre” are parallel to “Amadeo,” they both link Armand to the concepts of owner and God, except the roles change from being the owned worshiper to the worshiped owner. It remains someone else’s image, someone else’s name, one that prevents Armand from exploring who he is without it.

Armand does not have a name; how can he know who he is?

Even now he seeks the answer in Louis where he will not find it. There are, however, moments in which this seemed to be challenged. For example, shortly after meeting, Armand asks Louis to address him as such instead of “maitre” as his coven does. It is a moment in which he takes agency over what he wants to be called, a privilege he has never had before. Later, Louis calls him Arun as a way to indicate that he can see the person that lies behind the roles he plays, and that he can be himself around Louis. Yet these moments are still tainted. The name Armand does not reflect who he is, and in the conversation with Louis, Armand falls into his old patterns by addressing Louis as “maitre.” Plus, Louis too will go on to misuse this, but that’s a whole other topic. These instances, though revealing a more loving and honest side to Louis’ and Armand’s relationship in which they allow themselves to be open, they can not give Armand a sense of self. No one but himself can, and yet he doesn’t know how that is. It is a tragic never-ending paradox as immortal as he.

[arrghigiveup]

I've seen some criticism of Metaphor along the lines of how it doesn't go deep enough and just does very surface level political implications and of how it portrays our world as the ideal world when it isn't etc. I feel like people really weren't paying attention.

This is one of the earliest conversations you have about the book. It's not the last such conversation either; several characters later also point out similar problems that would arise if applied to Metaphor's world, problems that, uh, very much happen in our world. "Does a decision made by the people guarantee it's right?" We know damned well it isn't always, and Metaphor SHOWS that: if not for our actions as protagonist, Euchronia would either have had the power hungry corrupt Forden or the blood thirsty "burn it all to the ground" Louis as king. These were the most popular candidates.

The game itself is the metaphor, in every sense, right down to the ideals we have that often are nice on paper, but much more complicated when actually applied. This is, after all, why Will leaves the book behind at the end: he's outgrown those ideals, seen them as nice but flawed and it's time to move on and keep working for and writing his own version of something better. What that might be, they don't know yet, but that's something for us to figure out.

[generallemarc]

TvTropes got a key part of Metaphor Refantazio wrong.

More's novel isn't supposed to be an overly rosy interpretation of our world for the sake of casting him as being too idealistic from the past. In fact, writing off the novel like that shoots down the central theme of the entire story in how powerful fantasy is. To a feudalistic monarchy where what little potential for social/economic mobility(which are always one and the same) exists is decided nearly entirely at birth by a person's race, is a 21st century first-world democracy not a utopia of boundless freedom and possibility? Democracy, trial by jury, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press-forget Euchronia, even in our world such things would have been borderline incomprehensible to someone living in feudal Japan or Europe, and those societies didn't have a race-based caste system that puts even India(well, modern India anyway) to shame on top of all the other feudalistic woes. Our world is objectively better than that of the game and MAJOR GAME SPOILERS BELOW

because our world is the past of Euchronia, this means that, regardless of how hard the people who wrote this tvtropes page want to push their weird agenda of liking the past being bad or whatever, the past that More wrote about is objectively better than the present day situation in Euchronia, and almost everything the protagonist and the party do after defeating Louis is in service to bringing Euchronica closer and closer to the way the world was before it ended, where people could govern themselves, slavery was considered abominable, and all were equal under the law. Yeah, More's version of our world is utopic in the sense that he leaves out, intentionally or otherwise, the fact that we still have problems, that just because we don't have the caste system from hell that Euchronia does doesn't mean that we have literally zero discrimination whatsoever. But this feeds into, again, the central point of the whole story: the power of fantasy. More's idealized version of our world isn't just meant to inspire the readers of his novel, it's meant to inspire us, the true seekers. It's meant to show us how amazing our world would look to someone in a world like Euchronia, to help us see how many things we take for granted, and how many things can still be improved.

Tl;dr-in Metaphor Refantazio the past was objectively better than the present and TvTropes is dumb for trying to twist things to portray More's flaw as being that he puts too much value on the past instead of his real flaw which is the exact opposite-that he gave up on his ideals of bringing back all the wonderful things we in the present, and their past, had, and that later he tried to escape into a lotus-eater-construct version of the past that didn't actually exist rather than commit to trying to bring it back for real because that commitment comes with risk and fear.

[v-e-l-v-e-t-g-o-l-d-m-i-n-e]

would you say Louis and Lestat are soulmates in the books or is that just the version on screen? I love Louis’s character as well and it seems a shame he doesn’t get as much storytelling as Lestat. I’ve heard Loustat are endgame though, even if not as romantically in the books, I hope it will be eventually on screen. Need Louis to admit to loving Lestat.

Honestly, you could make the argument that they are more romantic in the books, but this is not how I view it, in both medias their relationship is written with a lot of romance in mind. Even if Louis shows up less (it is a shame), in the moments that he is present is very clear how much they love each other.

The way the vampires have relationships are a bit different in the books, they are less restricted in labels and there's not a lot of jealousy in it, they often kiss other people and it's not considered infidelity, it's portrayed a bit different than it is in the show.

Soulmates are a bit of a tricky concept for me that I don't always like, but I would say that they are for each other the most important person of their lives, that they would chose each other always.

Anne Rice once voiced a similar idea in her facebook page.

(source)

I have high hopes for when Louis admits to Lestat that he loves him in the show, because his love declarations in the books are often very intense in feeling and heartfelt!

This one makes Lestat speechless:

This one also makes him speechless (also a pattern in the books)

[murfpersonalblog]

As Louis, Anderson has to be a mercurial actor, flexible enough to portray a man in his 20s, his 60s, his 80s, and, in the show’s present-day scenes, nearly 130. “We were able to shoot in sequence,” Anderson explained, “so I was able to sit down and think about who he was at any given time. I was able to talk to Rolin [Jones, the showrunner] a lot about every version of Louis.” He described some of the inspirations for contemporary Louis...people like Eartha Kitt, David Bowie, Grace Jones. “These are people that are deeply human, but there’s something that seems ethereal about them as well.” He described how often when Louis is vulnerable or upset, he slips back into his Creole accent; a Southern twang with a French lilt that Anderson has done a lot of work to get as right as possible. It’s a tell, and even Louis sometimes isn’t aware it’s happening. Anderson is British, and he manages the Louisiana cadence with more grace than he’s given credit for, in my opinion. “That’s fun though, that’s one of my favourite things about playing Louis, finding little moments to do that.”

[heliza24]

I have always been fascinated by the way that disability has been portrayed in this show (short version: I love it, esp Daniel), and after ep 3 I am thinking specifically about how the show addresses issues of eugenics.

The decision to set the Paris storyline in post WWII means eugenics is in the air. The coven members can criticize Louis and Claudia’s past burning of victims as “kind of German” and make a point to eat ex Nazis on stage (the victim this ep has a German name), but they themselves live by a code of conduct based around eugenics, a very Nazi ideal. It's right there in the rules: "never give the dark gift to children or cripples". (As a proud crip, all I can say to that is "FUCK YOU Santiago"). The coven is concerned with keeping the vampire species “pure” and “strong”, whatever the hell that means.

But I think it’s important to note the difference between flawed characters embracing an ideology and a work as a whole embracing it. The show tells us, over and over again, that the coven’s logic is wrong. It tells us this in the way that we are shown Claudia’s mental strength and power of endurance. (Delainey’s monologue this ep? Omg) despite her age when she was turned. It tells us that in the way that Daniel is able to sometimes best Louis and Armand, two supposedly all-powerful beings despite being medically fragile. (As Armand says to Louis, “those with the most power are often the weakest.”) Armand is also constantly becoming disillusioned with these eugenics rules he enforces, in the 1790s and again in the 1940s. Even the juxtaposition of the coven rules with reminders of Nazi practices is a reminder that *these are not good rules to live by*. They are the reason that Claudia and Louis’s story are heading towards tragedy.

This is another reason it is SO important that this show doesn’t erase the pandemic, and therefore rejects the most prevalent modern day version of eugenics (the belief that the pandemic is over, even though Covid is still killing disabled people and further disabling others) The waiter in an N95 mask this ep was a reminder of that, and a reminder of how the pandemic affects people (and vamps) of different classes differently. And all this makes me *very* interested in how the show will address Daniel’s diagnosis in coming eps, as well as the idea of the great conversion, which is as yet undefined but definitely feels like it has eugenics undertones.

(As a little side note, I was pretty interested in one of the coven members claiming allergies this ep combined with the emphasis on not converting disabled people into vampires. Those two things together seem to imply that disabled vampires could exist, or rather that accepting the dark gift might not immediately provide a magic cure to all disabilities, which would make me as a disabled viewer very happy. A magical cure erasing all disabled rep from speculative genre stories is the bane of my existence. I would LOVE it if the show proceeds with Devil's Minion (pretty please) and modern day Daniel does eventually get turned, he gains immortality and some sick ass powers, but doesn't lose all of the symptoms of his disease. Regardless I will be writing this into a fic!)

So in conclusion, at least for now, as much as it stinks to see Claudia become ensnared in this eugenicist trap, the way the show is framing it is very very smart.

[three--rings]

I'm really disturbed by the fact that I'm seeing people post S2ep8 of IWTV still talking about Lestat as an abuser and Louis as a victim, period end of conversation.

Because I feel like we are explicitly told in ep7 and 8 that that is not the case but some people haven't adjusted their thoughts yet.

Now this is a show explicitly about the unreliability of personal accounts and what we see on screen is often proven not to be how things happen. So, obviously things are always up for debate. But.

We are shown the extended scene of what happened before Lestat flew Louis up into the sky to drop him. In S1 we saw that scene from Claudia's perspective, and she just heard crashing and shouting, and then saw Louis thrown through a wall by Lestat before the whole flight thing.

Ep 7 we are shown Lestat's version of events which are Louis physically and verbally attacking him over and over, slamming Lestat into things, while Lestat begs him to stop, warning him that he will fight back and he's afraid of hurting Louis, and Louis merely eggs him on. Then we get Lestat turning the tables and throwing Louis through a wall.

Now, obviously this is Lestat's version and probably a bit biased to be sympathetic to him. But Louis admits Lestat's version of Claudia's turning is the more correct one than his account and he admits to portraying Lestat intentionally as a villain in the interview, so...well I think the show is telling us that our impression from S1 is at least not the whole story.

Ep 8 underlines this with the scene with Louis and Lestat when Louis apologizes for the way he acted to Lestat in the past, saying "I tried to make nights awful with you. I wanted you to suffer."

We also see him throw Armand into the wall in this episode, which I get people feel Armand deserved, but I feel like the conversation around that has been weird as well. Like, people talk about that being a sign that Louis is stronger than Armand, as if physical violence is impossible from someone who is weaker than their victim. But this is also another instance of Louis using physical violence against his partner when (justifiably) angry.

Look, abusive relationships are complicated. Mutually toxic ones even more so. Reactive abuse is a thing, when an initial victim becomes violent or abusive in response to abuse they've received. It's complicated, and I speak from personal experience.

But I very much feel like the show is SCREAMING at the audience that things are not simple and that no one in this scenario is blameless, ESPECIALLY not Louis. He's not blameless in the case of Claudia. He's not blameless in the destruction of his relationship with Lestat. He's not blameless in his relationship with Armand, for all it's built on a lie, because he entered it to fucking make Lestat mad for god's sake and that's a terrible foundation for a relationship.

Raglan James says Louis is the one to really be afraid of. Louis at the end of the season with his "I own the night" speech. Much of the second half of S2 is ABOUT this.

The entire heartbreaking scene with Lestat at the end is Louis owning his part of the responsibility, and that's huge. Lestat accepted his responsibility and apologized on stage in Paris, and now Louis is as well.

So yeah, I think some people need to rethink their attitudes when they call Lestat Louis's abuser and Louis a battered wife. I read that and I go wait, we're not gonna interrogate that at all?

I of course feel at this point I have to put in a bunch of disclaimers about how this is not an anti-Louis post or trying to excuse the violence done by Lestat, blah blah but honestly some people who can only see things in terms of Good and Evil and Guilty and Innocent are never going to appreciate that kind of thing anyway. I just don't know why those people are watching this show, which is entirely about nuance and complicated interpersonal relations that are messy and resist easy analysis, BY DESIGN.

[nightcolorz]

Something I can't stop thinking about when it comes to book vs show is that in the book Louis doesn't really blame Armand for Claudia's death, sure he killed her but he was just upholding The Rules™

The Rules™ say a vampire shouldn't kill their maker and it was Claudia's idea to kill Lestat

The Rules™ say children shouldn't be made vampires and Claudia was made very young

Therefore according to The Rules™ Claudia should die

Armand was just following The Rules™ (and the specific kind of trauma he has doesn't allow him to even consider bending The Rules™ even for someone who wasn't aware of them, if anything Claudia's ignorance is another reason she has to die, someone who is ignorant of The Rules ™ will sure put them all in danger)

So Book Louis doesn't hate Armand, but he does hate The Rules™

The Rules™ cost him Claudia, The Rules™ are awful and unjust, The Rules™ just suck

So when he finds Daniel and the opportunity to tell his story, her story, to have it all published, that's just the opportunity he was looking for to get back at The Rules™

He can't bring Claudia back to life but he can expose all vampires and The Rules™ which say he shouldn't can go to hell

So it's a bit disappointing to me that the show has decided to remove those layers of complexity and made Louis blame Armand instead and simplified Armand's reasons to kill Claudia too

(Also what are Louis reasons to tell the story in this version?)

I was expecting Armand to double down on his reasoning for doing it (she had to die, I was just the executor not the reason she had to die, she wasn't going to make it anyway, all vampires made that young go crazy and are a risk that can expose us all, she would have killed herself soon anyway, she broke The Rules™) I thought that was what Armand's "I could not prevent it" was getting to and was disappointed when he showed to be apologetic to Louis instead

ooooo yes this is so interesting I totally agree with this. In the books Armand and Louis make it very clear that Claudia’s death was the consequence of an abusive fucked up institution (vampirism) that Louis and Armand r bound to + victims of, and the show def misses that. What I like about the vampire chronicles is how vampirism is portrayed as this abusive cycle in a way that binds all characters to the same loops of inescapable abusive patterns, and what’s interesting about that also is how all the characters r aware of this and forgiving of each other in ways humans would never be bcus they know “vampirism just does that to u”. It’s such a unique premise, and it’s unfortunate that the show seems uninterested i. exploring the “vampire culture” aspects of Anne rice world that I’ve always really loved. Sometimes I get the impression that they’d rather make the characters have more generic human responses to their problems so that it can appeal to a broader audience (which is disappointing for a tv show adaptation of a book series that is iconic for how it’s shaped what being a vampire is in pop culture)

[the-breath-in-air]

So much discussion about the revisit in the trial to Louis & Lestat's fight and whether or not Louis made that very detailed threat to kill Lestat at the end of it and....my friends...it doesn't matter.

I mean, it matters in that it's a multilayered bit of storytelling. It matters in that it's another moment in which the coven uses racism to condemn Louis.

I mean, it could be real - we've seen Louis get quite unhinged before. We've seen him enact truly horrific violence - even by his own version of events. Always pushed to it by external forces (not just for the joy of it)...but still. It is not completely out of character for Louis to threaten to kill Lestat and feed his head to a lion. And previously in Dubai, Louis' had refuted (or corroborated) Letat's version of events - yet here we don't have Louis' perspective on Lestat's version.

However, we also have seen how Santiago and the coven have twisted events (and outright lied) in order to portray Louis as a racist caricature of a violent, predatory Black man. And although we've seen Louis get extremely violent, it's always in response to something...and here the trial has conveniently left out what prompted the fight. There's no mention of Lestat grabbing Claudia by the throat. Plus, we haven't seen Louis ever be quite that unhinged...and certainly not that unhinged with Lestat. It makes little sense for Louis to be quite so maniacal in his threats to Lestat after he'd told Claudia "it's over now."

So, did Louis threaten to kill Lestat and feed his head to lions? Entirely possible (though we know Louis wouldn't have been able to go through with it...not with Lestat). Did Santiago and the coven lie about and embellish whatever threats Louis may have made in order to portray him as a violent predator? Oh absolutely.

But also, like I said, it doesn't really matter in the context of the saga of Lestat & Louis' relationship.

Because the thing that prompted Lestat to go after Louis wasn't that threat. The thing that prompted Lestat to go after Louis and string him along by the neck and drop him from (at least) 2km in the sky was Louis potentially leaving with Claudia. Like, that's by Lestat's own admission. He couldn't control and own Louis, so he broke him. And what's more horrible than that?

[nalyra-dreaming]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To see the cycles of abuse in action.

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

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

[dropthedemiurge]

So I went to see the Korean version of Angels in America today, and Taevin was amazing, as expected!

I don't feel too good to leave a full review (seriously, going outside in 35 degrees heat should give me a sick leave for work) and it was only Part 1 (3 Acts) so I'll just talk about Taevin briefly, and if anyone's interested in hearing more, I can come up with another post comparing original and Korean versions later...

Anyway, LEE TAEVIN. I was so right to fall into him (the way he acts, but also I'm in love with his voice who knows why). He was very emotional, very bold, captured original Louis so well (and delivered such fast and complicated rants nicely xD) and also - yes, we had gay kiss and implied fucking on stage as well 👀 In Asian country, talking and showing AIDS stories - it felt very unusual but as an outsider to both cultures and histories, I don't have much ground to speak on.

Also of course, some wordplays were lost but some were added, but mostly the translation was sticking to the original almost perfectly (if only I was more fluent in Korean, I could tall about it even better but I'm really glad I watched the original play first so I knew the story and what they were supposed to say (huge thanks to @dragonsareawesome123 for providing me links!). But I could tell the difference where jokes in English were supposed to land and which comedic moments in Korean striked the best instead xD It was fun noticing. But the loudest laugh (twice at that) was during Louis x Guy hookup on street lol (yes I still can't believe I watched Taevin getting "fucked" on stage the guy really chooses the most queer and bold and interesting roles in the beginning of his acting career)

And there were slight changes in decorations and costumes, and I liked some things more than original, but some original moments got lost.

There are two actors for Prior and tbh I went to see the more popular one because everyone said he's been acting in dramas and other cast worked for me but... I didn't get enough tbh x) Like, Yoo Seungho was good and he was also emotional and delivered lines well - but I guess, I just didn't get the Sick Gay Drag Queen vibes as much as in the original xD I mean, man was so toned and had abs! But the actor himself is thin so it can't be helped Ig, Koreans aren't pale :D

Plus, he was supposed to be contrasting to Louis and Joe but he was less flamboyant so I guess that's the only flaw I can point out. I'll go watch second actor in the second part of the play to compare acting between Korean versions and not with western one, it's going to be interesting.

But still, Seungho himself did a good job with acting with his body and emotional delivery, I'm merely comparing to the original play. He was also very sweet when he came out to the fans after the play ^^

Anyway, the rest of the cast was great as well, the explicity from original - in both language and portrayed things - stayed there and only details ended up more smoothed iut (more Asian style?)

The Art hall was almost full on Sunday, which I was surprised to see for such story, and I saw a lot of couples and people in their 30-40s and nobody left mid-break which to me is a good sign xD

That was a nice experience, it was my first time seeing or knowing about Angels in America too, I'm definitely gonna go for Part 2 because that's where the most of the fun is :D

Tagging @doyou000me @non-binarypal7 who were interested in my review (if you watched the original, I can share more about the actual lines and moments xD)

[savagewildnerness]

E12

OK... I normally make notes on an episode when I rewatch, but I dunno... after watching S2E5, I just feel compelled to say a few things...  First... LOL...

Armand at the end!!! hahahaha!!!

OK, so first off - the acting is SO GOOD:

Jacob - especially the way he delivers his interview 1 take down of Lestat is SO MAGNIFICENT, OH MY! Jacob! You are DIVINE! (Also: Louis' see-through grid shirt: YES PLEASE!!!!)

Luke - is SO ERIC. OMG, he is SO GOOD!

Eric - is SO GOOD! The emotion. I want Ericasavampire and seeing as much of DM is still-to-come - Eric as a vampire - PLEASE!!!!?! Finally someone to love Armand for all he is. Write an entire NOVEL of your own invention writers please for Daniel!!!

Assad - I am at this point bowing down to my Assad shrine! I haven't the words for how perfect your Armand is. I only have love.

There is SO MUCH to analyse from this episode.  We must PSYCHOANALYSE the characters this week fully!!!

I utterly ADORED it!  One thousand thanks to the writers for creating something like this - not in the books, but totally feels like the books. 

And OMG, at this stage I will be devastated if Daniel isn't involved in this entire show from start to end... which also feels somehow some kind of a homage to River Phoenix, who would have played Daniel in the 1994 film had he lived...?

ANYWAY!  OMG ASSAD I LOVE YOU!  OMG WRITERS, I LOVE ARMAND!  Like this episode - how CRUEL Louis is to Armand!  And yet, Armand saves his life!  And not only that, he offers that pathway to Lestat... right until he is unable to utter Lestat's "I love you.."  And really, Armand, you did that in so much love for Louis - you sacrificed your self! Armand, Armand, Armand.

And Armand, seeking in Daniel what it means to be fascinating and special.  The irony is that Armand IS special!!!  He is absolutely the most complex vampire… he just doesn’t understand how to love or be loved… and Louis is NOT his "one"! But he is SO fascinating!  And special.  All of the edits to Radiohead's Creep PLEASE!!!!

I also find it WONDROUS in a show about vampires - where vampires are always a metaphor to The Outsider... yet... in art, The Outsider is often portrayed in imo an unrealistic way, as in "actually the outsider is infinitely special, really!", BUT IN ARMAND, the writers have given us a truly actually special character who feels like many outsiders do - AND is told by the person he loves SO much he would literally be a pathway to their other love that he is boring and not special and not enough... THAT is relatable! (Even though nobody has told me this, as I am simply isolated, personally! Yet, still, I feel it!)

Also - OMG it is both infinitely tragic and simultaneously hilarious that Loumand true sexy times cannot begin until Armand literally WIPES Louis’ mind of Lestat!!!  LOLOLOLOLOL (Poor Armand!)

Also LOL @ Jacob in the post episode thing - saying he can’t think of a bigger betrayal than rewriting the history of a person you love and that it makes him angry… referring to what Armand does to Louis… when IN THIS SAME EPISODE, that’s literally what Louis does to Lestat..!

Meagre thoughts as I didn't write notes during the episode, so just a few points I think of now (and I have had a glass of wine with this episode lolololololol!!  Lalalalala... GOTHIC JOY!!!!!!!!!!)

Lestat is my boy, but ASSAD'S ARMAND.  Armand was always my second favoruite vampire, but Assad - I do not understand how you are making me love Armand even MORE!  Be MORE evil, Armand.  And more tragic.  And more loving.  Be every thing you are.  I know you are fascinating!!!!!

Also, I cried A LOT in this episode! Though I did not note when. Like, that I feel compelled to do a post now with my random tipsy thoughts on a non HQ version with no subtitles I hope expresses A LOT about how I love this episode!?!??!!

[nicoleanell]

One change in the AMC IWTV show i really go back and forth on is the circumstances of Claudia's turning. The fact that in the novel - and it's something I vividly remembered from the '90s movie as well - Louis had drank from Claudia and almost killed her initially. Not in a "trying to make her a vampire himself" way which is how they ultimately portrayed it on the show, just purely in a moment of hunger and bloodlust and giving into the worst of his nature that he'd been repressing for so long. And that's what leads to his intense guilt over it and the emotional babytrap moment, though in the original source it's Lestat's idea.

I definitely DO like that it's Louis's idea in both ~versions of the scene we saw in the show... honestly the s2 version didn't change all that much to the sequence of events except in tone. We already *knew* it was Louis who begged him to turn her, the only thing the S2 remix added was it was all less heroic, more painful and desperately selfish, and that Lestat put up slightly more resistance and showed more emotion over it. (Not that either version was meant to be 100% accurate and I'll die on that hill. Why would anyone kill me on that hill?)

The motivation of him being the cause of her death to begin with is... you know what, it IS there in the show but in a much less direct way. In his eyes the fire that almost killed her was his fault, the racist massacre unfolding was his fault, he was more desperate than usual to prove he could be Good, etc. But truthfully, he's not actually responsible for any of that, murdering one deserving white dude or no.

Anyway, for season one I like the way they altered that. But part of me thinks about what it would've done for his character and the tragedy of his relationship with Claudia if *that* had been the reveal/alternate version of what happened that came out during the trial in 2x07. A nice little nod to the book as well that he'd essentially be telling Daniel to print that version. This is maybe the *one* instance where I almost relate to those fans who want anything that diverges from book canon to turn out to be an unreliable narrator/selective amnesia thing lol. Like, it actually might've been good for the story there, if not for the discourse.

I do question if it's one of those moments where the writers were a little afraid it would make him Too Unlikable or something and shied away from it, which is so much like where they landed with Armand as well. On the other hand, given how parts of fandom react to Louis regardless and will vilify him with stuff he didn't even do when all the stuff he Did is right there (see also how ppl react to Armand), maybe that was the right call??

Yeah I don't really have any conclusion here just... conflicted thoughts! It's a pretty significant change I haven't seen a lot of people discuss, and I don't think it's a necessarily bad one, but interesting that they went that way.