#but the main point from all of this isn't 'oh Lestat is a manly man who fakes his femininity'

[fayevalcntine]

My criticism has more to do with fandom wanting Lestat to represent the patriarchy strictly in terms of Louis' relationship with him, while at the same time neglecting the aspect of race. Lestat has privileges granted to him as a white rich man in New Orleans, I never disputed that. But when it comes to how he is shown, he also has characteristics that aren't typical for a regular powerful white man like Fenwick or Tom.

The same way Louis is a Black gay man but has to masquerade as a straight one in the beginning of the season, Lestat is also in some way defined by his sexuality and femininity that he in certain moments displays in terms to his own character. These are traits he shows in full view of other bigoted men like Tom and Fenwick, who easily clock that he and Louis are in a romantic relationship and call them slurs for it. I'm not saying this to make it appear as though Lestat "also faces bigotry", but rather that he isn't this standard for patriarchy that fandom wants to fit him under (and at the same time strip him of actual characteristics he has) in order to argue that Louis takes over the feminine/matriarch role in their family because he can be labeled as the damsel/victim in their story while Lestat never could be. Louis is a victim in their relationship, he has no greater power than Lestat in terms of race, vampire powers, money and you could also argue in some ways in terms of sexuality, because Lestat could technically pass for "acceptable" if he dated a white woman in public, but Louis never could. You don't need to try and fit him or Lestat in a box in terms of how they represent one specific gender when both have moments where they show masculine and feminine traits in order to make this clear.

The whole framing of Lestat as the sole symbol of patriarchy that fandom is so desperate to put him in doesn't work unless you deliberately ignore how he was also a victim of rape and abuse before he was turned. People want him to be fit into this strict role of "father figure/violent husband/perpetrator" that is only that and not even a whole person, and in doing so they need to push aside the fact that despite being his family's provider, he was also pushed into that role when his father forbid him from joining a monastery or gaining an education that he wanted. Lestat wanted to run away with a theater group as a kid, and actually managed to do so once Gabrielle gave him her blessing and monetary support in order to go to Paris. He didn't always want to be the provider, he was forced into that role and became despondent when he thought he would never get a chance to leave his home.

His new life prior to being turned is pretty much the antithesis to the whole "Lestat is a manly man who would sooner throw up than be compared to a woman" spiel: he lived with another man in Paris while also being an actor, having left his family and "responsibility" to them. The only family member he was ever close to was his mother, all the other male members shunned or ridiculed him. Add onto that the fact that his turning firmly placed him within the role of the damsel/victim: he's kidnapped from his bed by a stranger, taken into a tower and left to rot while being fed on for a week, before then being raped and violently turned all while never even being asked if he would consent to it in any normal circumstance. But you of course have to ignore all of this if you want him to only represent the aggressor/patriarch while Louis is the helpless unhappy matriarch of the family.

My issue isn't that I think Louis isn't a victim, it's that it's not unrealistic for Lestat to be an aggressor/abuser while also displaying traits that aren't regularly assigned to stereotypical depictions of male characters. He's abusive to Claudia while also having been a victim of abuse from his own family. He's not a good maker/teacher, but he also didn't even have one when he was turned. He's the provider/attempted protector of the family and seemed to like being that, while also having run away from his own family prior to this to act in a theater in Paris. He's a rich white man while also being obviously effeminate in public spaces, even to Tom's own bigoted humor.

Like Louis' own complicated story with being his family's benefactor and provider, you can't firmly place Lestat as being one thing or another in terms of gender ideals without deliberately ignoring parts about him that don't fit this. And I don't think it's an absolute necessity, when even in Louis' own story, Lestat isn't stripped of his effeminate mannerisms or behavior while also being the abusive maker/father/lover.