#god what a moment that will be in iwtv history

[sophsun1]

Interview With The Vampire – 2.08: Episode Insider

[ariaste]

[rolls around gloriously in IWTV s2e6] this show makes me insane, we are so blessed to have such DELICIOUS television

but listen though Daniel "maitre in the bedroom, maitre only when it's hot or convenient? 🤨😏" Molloy had more domtop energy in that moment than all of Louis' grumpy effortful posturing combined, YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT. Armand's out here BEGGING to be properly dommed with that "are you asking me or making me 🥺" thing, like he is clearly dying for Louis to Make Him Do It so it'll be easy, and Louis just pats his face and walks away?????

cmon man. break up with ur boyfriend so daniel can love him right. Armand is an apex predator and also a delicate traumatized bottom with daddy issues who gaslights and manipulates like he's breathing, he NEEEEEDS specifically a ferociously competent investigative journalist to cross-examine and fact-check every claim he makes from now until the end of time, and who will not take any of his shit and not believe a single word that comes out of his mouth unless he has cold documentation to back it up, and who will catch him in every single last lie, and then take Armand's beautiful face in his hands like "BABE I'M ANNOYED YOU CHANGED THE DECOR WITHOUT TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT, THIS ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME UP WITH ELABORATE LIES ABOUT WHY YOU'RE ACTUALLY A GOOD PERSON FOR DOING IT SO I'LL STOP BEING MAD AT YOU. CALM DOWN. now I'm gonna go be annoyed in the other room for another hour or so and then I'll be done, ok!!! Don't give me that look, I've been to a lot of couples counseling from those two marriages I ruined, so I know all the scripts and tools now. very cool that i get to be not-the-bad-guy this time, actually, i see why you enjoy victimhood so much. ok i love you but i'm annoyed at you right now, talk later, bye. you look hot in those pants by the way"

anyway in all seriousness i loooooove the delicacy with which they're handling Armand's manipulation as a VERY clear trauma response. Like yeah that kind of frantic impulse to covering up mistakes DOES come from a history of pain and abuse and having to placate an authority figure. It's fawning (as in fight/flight/freeze/fawn) is what it is and GOD i feel for him

god i love this show. they are feeding me. WHAT A GREAT SHOW, YOU GUYS

[isabellehemlock]

Kat's Catholic Commentary - Part (I've lost track)

My focus for this episode will be on Lestat's speech in his parting letter to Louis.

The purpose behind the letter may vary depending on when it was written (before or after Lestat knew of Louis’ plan of betrayal).  However, my focus is on the language used - specifically “the veil” - and why my Catholic senses were tingling.

But first - the disclaimer:

This is purely a fan meta/theory.  Even when I talk about character motivations with some certainty, remember it's just my take, not a fact-based declaration.  This helps keep things brief rather than saying "in my opinion" before every other sentence.

All points and takes are valid - this is just one of them.  I'm exploring one potential aspect of Lestat and Louis' relationship, not the whole picture or even trying to suggest it as the main foundation.

Also, there are frank references to the Catholic Church, its history, practices, sacraments, and some Bible verses.  If at any point you need to take a step back for self-care, please do.  Your well-being comes first.

Before diving in, I’ll share why I see a potential for a secondary meaning behind it because I’d like to add some weight to my personal fan theory that Lestat is conscious of how faith is still an integral part of Louis’ identity and how he might use it (however the purpose of this, I’ll leave to the reader).

Several moments in the first season, and some from the books (spoilers ahead if you’d like to avoid events after IWTV), reference Lestat and Louis’ relationship and his faith (and especially with a context of Catholicism):

The entire monologue at the end of episode one as Lestat declares his feelings for Louis in front of the altar.

Lestat’s monologue of Saint Louis (both as an off hand reference in ep 1 and the expanded version of Ep 2 that ends with: “You’re challenge every sunset St. Louis, and I’d have it no other way.”)

After Louis asks about Antoinette in Ep 3, when Lestat is describing the need for various forms of pleasure for “anything that wards off the dungs of the everlasting road we walk” - pauses to point out Louis’ form of pleasure as “Pleasures of the Good Book by the fire for you.”

And then in Ep 6, when Lestat arrives to gift Louis something from his favorite bookshop: “‘The Book of Hours.’  Extremely rare, 15th century.” - the Book of Hours, is also known as the Liturgy of Hours, or Divine Office, used by both clergy, religious and laity alike for daily devotions on a rotating cycle for uniform prayer.

And from the books:

In IWTV, Louis’ reference to following Lestat as a kind of personal Jesus: 

I allowed myself to forget how totally I had fallen in love with Lestat’s iridescent eyes, that I’d sold my soul for a manycolored and luminescent thing, thinking that a highly reflective surface conveyed the power to walk on water. 

“What would Christ need have done to make me follow him like Matthew or Peter? Dress well, to begin with. And have a luxurious head of pampered yellow hair. 

Later, in Prince Lestat, when they are reunited, Louis says (from Lestat's POV): 

He leaned close to me, and he put his hand on my arm. “ ‘Wither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people’; and because I have no other god and never will, you shall be my god.”*

* This quote Louis is saying is from the Book of Ruth: She answered, "Do not be against me, as if I would abandon you and go away; for wherever you will go, I will go, and where you will stay, I also will stay with you. Your people are my people, and your God is my God.” - Ruth 1:16 CPDV

I’ve also shared metas and commentary on Tumblr and Twitter about Louis and Lestat's relationship to faith and the little nods I’ve picked up here and there (more on that below).  But this isn’t intended as a comprehensive summary, just a soft recap to add context for anyone wondering, “how did she read that in this scene?”

Now, onto the main point!  For anyone needing a refresher, here’s the letter in full:

In the event that you are reading this, something dreadful has occurred.  Which is not my own death, but rather, the fact that we both now exist in two different worlds.  Do not waste your life seeking revenge on the person or persons who did this.  Do not give them the satisfaction of the hunt.  Let treachery eat away at them from within.  And you, you go carry on with your living.  Know only this, mon cher: you are the only being I trust, and whom I love, above and beyond myself.  All my love belongs to you.  You are its keeper.  A veil will now forever separate our union.  But it is a thin veil, and I’m always on the other side, face pressed up against your longing.

Setting aside the beautiful writing, the language used, and the sentiments declared (it fed my Words of Affirmation love language meter well), my second thought upon hearing “A veil will now forever separate our union.  But it is a thin veil, and I’m always on the other side, face pressed up against your longing.” was what my Catholic senses were tingling.

In a previous meta I discussed how I viewed the scene of Louis’ turning as a nod to the Sacrament of the Eucharist (though I can also see the other fan theory of the Sacrament of Matrimony).  This furthers my idea of Louis viewing Lestat as a kind of personal Jesus.  Given the examples above, I believe there might have been some intention behind Lestat’s words to reach Louis on a vulnerable level through his faith.

But why would former Catholic altar boy Louis catch that meaning, and what would it mean to him?

In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is veiled in order to symbolize the mystery and sacredness of the Sacrament.  The veil represents the separation between the divine and the mortal, indicating that the true essence of the Eucharist (Christ's Body and Blood) is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine (and it’s a practice that dates back to early Christianity, where the veil also served to protect the Eucharist from desecration and to enhance the reverence of the faithful during Mass).

As Catholics, we believe that Jesus, at the Last Supper, instituted the Eucharist, when He said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).  He also said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20).  They were declarations to emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist but also to serve as a message of hope - that there would be an intimate connection between Jesus and His followers, despite His physical absence after His death and resurrection - “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).  

Though death might separate the physical presence, the Eucharist provides a continuous, though veiled, connection with Christ.  This then allows the veil to symbolize hope and assurance that, while there may be a separation, it is thin, with the promise of a deeper, spiritual communion that transcends physical boundaries.

So, if Louis potentially viewed the Dark Gift as a kind of Eucharist that nourishes the soul, given to him through Lestat, then their spiritual interconnection and the nourishment it provided could continue.  His devotion to Lestat would not need to end.

I believe Lestat “I went to a monastery to become a priest” de Lioncourt, knew exactly what he was doing when he used those words to describe how interlinked they would remain.  

This furthered Louis’ (perhaps even subconscious) view of Lestat and Jesus - and himself as potentially Judas (meta here, and here), though I personally enjoy the view of Louis identifying with Mother Mary the most (visual reference and poem, art and another art piece here).

Whether intentional or not, or perhaps a completely different point that I read too much into (which can definitely be the case lol), it spoke to me on a deep level when I heard it.  I’d like to believe it did for Louis as well. 

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

Hi hello I watched all of carmilla in a weekend when I was 17 because a student teacher who in retrospect I had a bit of a crush on mentioned that she knew one of the actresses. also I am pretty invested in all your recent vampire stuff because I watched iwtv in 2 days last week because your edit intrigued me

oh hiiii 🫶 thank you for indulging me. thats so cool that you watched iwtv! did it live up to the expectation?

i also watched carmilla at 17! or like, 17-19. i found it when s2 had just started and followed it to the end. did something permanent to my brain but i think it was a good thing. on rewatch now im like, i was right to like this. like it's a solid show, it's good. it has its flaws obviously but it's well written, the emotional moments still get me, i can see why i liked it and i still like it now even when it's not anymore, you know, meeting every need that baby gay me didnt even know they had

what it doesnt reaallyy do though - i dont remember if i posted abt this or if i left it in my drafts but - is explore vampirism as a concept. their subject matter is more lesbianism than vampirism. which is great! thats what they wanted to do and they did it and it's very good. but reading interview with the vampire the book rn im realising how much potential vampires have to be metaphors for like so many things and i started wondering like 'wait, did carmilla just not really engage with it or did it all go over my head'. but it just didnt really engage with it all that much. which again is fine bc that wasnt what they were doing. im glad they were more about the lesbianism than the vampirism

but there's this interesting difference in framing, because in iwtv they keep calling armand 'ancient' right? and emphasising how old he is. and he's like 500? and i was like 'wait isnt carmilla like 400?'. she isnt, shes 340, but still, thats getting there, you know? and we know quite a lot about her history, but kind of just the Big Events. when she was turned, the events of the novella, coffin of blood, silas. thats sort of what we know. but none of the long lonely slog of history day to day you know? with armand i feel like we can really feel how much time everything takes. how every one of those years is made up of single days. with carmilla i dont feel that as much. i keep kind of thinking about daniel, when louis calls him a boy in the first episode, saying "im an old man, with all the triggers that come with it"

because carmilla might look 18 (or mid twenties at this point) but she has lived all that time. shes also seen her native land be claimed by like a succession of ruling powers, right? like armand. shes been buried alive, like louis. when lestat is born, shes already 80 years old, shes lived a whole human lifetime, and the entire adult part of it shes been a vampire. shes lived through 1680-1870 being a lure. i compared her to abigail hobbs in some tags on a post, i dont know if youre familiar with hannibal the tv show, but i do also kinda keep thinking about that comparison

if youre not familiar, in the first episode of hannibal the murderer of the week is this guy garrett jacob hobbs who kills and cannibalises girls who resemble his daughter. and later on it turns out she was made to be his lure. like they'd go places and he'd sent her to the victims to make friends and maybe get them back to their home or smth. not sure if they specified all the details. but that's what carmilla did for mother. and in s2 we hear from mattie that while every couple of decades carmilla had to lure victims for the fish god, she also seemed to just enjoy humans between those times, right? like the doctor, gets lonely, gets a new companion. but we've only sort of got mattie's mocking word for it ("dont eat him, hes a poet! or her, shes got such a wonderful voice. or that one, shes just too pretty to ruin"), we don't know exactly from carmilla's point of view what she was doing or why. if mattie's talking about stuff that happened after the blood coffin, 1950-now, then i think it's a fair assumption based on what carmilla says in the s1 sock puppet show that after she'd figured out what the real situation was and what her role in it was, when she'd started trying to save girls from being sacrificed, that she mightve been doing the same trying to save people from becoming mattie's victims. it's probably more likely that she was just trying to find excuses to stop mattie from sucking someone dry rather than actually having like an aesthetic based morality. but it might be a bit of both. im still trying to figure out what her philosophy actually is, like i dont know what existentialism actually means ghkfjghkj but i will

i also found it pretty striking in the movie when shes turning back into a vampire she says like "this was supposed to be done, you know? the blood lust, the self-loathing, the sleeping tied to a chair in my own bedroom". thats what defines her vampirism, wanting blood and hating yourself for it (the third part is a joke/reference to s1 but also i think meaningful for how she sees her relationship with laura when she IS a vampire. little bit of that 'she will reject me for my monstrousness' shining through). and thats what defines vampirism for lots of vampires across the genre obviously, but i dont know, it struck me. we dont get a lot from carmilla's pov, we know a fair amount about her, but the story is always told through laura. we get laura's diaries, but just snippets here and there from carmilla, what shes thinking, how shes feeling

and i love that shes a philosopher. i love that thats how she seems to try and find something to hold onto, in a world that kind of moves around her, having been murdered, kidnapped, turned and groomed to be a lure on the cusp of adulthood, never having been properly loved (the relationship with her father wasnt good she says in s3, and her mortal mother i dont think has ever been mentioned (like laura's)). the only good relationship she seems to have had for the better part of 3 centuries seems to have been mattie, and mattie seems to love being a vampire. i can imagine carmilla just sort of going along with anything mattie wants to do just because shes so desperate for that friendship. not like, against her will necessarily really. but more like, she hasnt even had the space to develop her own will, you know? and philosophy lets you do that. philosophy gives you frameworks to understand the world and to develop your own opinions on it. and by the 21st century she seems to have developed those opinions, she has a sense of her own values, but shes also still stuck in that same situation. shes jaded and cynical in the face of laura's optimism and strong moral code a lot of the time in s1 because she feels probably pretty powerless. like she does what she can to save some girls but at the end of the day shes scared of her mother and she has nowhere else to go really, right?

i like how she grapples with that over the course of the series, in tandem with laura grappling with her black and white morality. she sort of jumps ship from her mother to laura bc theyve fallen in love, but then laura still stuck in her hero thinking refuses to see her monstrous side. not literally bc i think the biological vampirism never seemed to be a problem for laura, but morally. the having murdered. carmilla needs laura to see that and love her while seeing it bc the last girl she loved rejected her for being a vampire.

but you see her kind of swing back and forth in s2. she softens first with laura but then they break up and she leans back hard into the sarcastic cynic defense mechanisms, leans hard into "im a monster, dont expect heroism from me". but thats like, it's sort of learned helplessness i think. it's powerlessness, resignation. bc morally shes not a monster. maybe she doesnt have as strong a drive to help other people as laura does and is a little more selfishly hedonistic in that she just wants to enjoy her/their life, but she doesnt hurt people for fun, she never has. she just sort of didnt have another option for a Really long time. so she pretends she doesnt care. "im a vampire, this is what i do, this is who i am". but clearly from the way she talks about it when she turns back into one, she doesnt enjoy it

and i like how she goes even further in s3, where she starts swinging even more to the heroic side, bc she sees hope. shes like "wow if we kill my mother, i'd be free". theres hope and she becomes like a lot more active. and shes like that at the start of the movie too, a lot happier, a lot more relaxed, and then vampirism is back and bam depression gfhgkjh like shes immediately more gloomy, ashamed of her past and her self, retreats into herself

sorry i just took this as an opportunity to dump all the carmilla thoughts floating in my head on you. you didnt ask fhkghgjh consider this an open invitation to you or anyone else to come talk to me about carmilla

[i-want-my-iwtv]

If Anne R. decided to publish another VC book in the future, how would you like it to be? What topics would you like to see explored? What's your ideal ending to the saga? L̶e̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶s̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶r̶e̶w̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶

This is interesting, and possibly some very well-wrapped bait. The question about what we want to see in canon is usually framed the other way around, in the form of a statement about what we’re disliking about canon. I’ve seen so many salty posts and hot takes that criticize the series for lacking in many ways, and I can’t remember a time when I’ve had any interest to write one of those myself or engage in them. 

Those statements are often about the issue of representation in published fiction, whether it be LGBT+, POC, etc., “[Author name]’s long history of discussing X but not depicting X in canon” is itself an accusation (deserved or not); that [Author] should do something about it, now! Representation is a nuanced issue, essays have been written on it by people more educated on it than I am, and out of respect, I’m not going to discuss this further publicly. For more on this topic, I would recommend @olderthannetfic​. 

>If Anne R. decided to publish another VC book in the future, how would you like it to be?

Fanworks have fed me so well over the years that there’s not much Anne herself could give me that I can’t find elsewhere. If she can’t or doesn’t want to make the content I want, I’ll write it myself or see if someone else is writing/has written it.

I would say that my favorite fanfics, fanart, and the parts of VC canon (which are all basically sequels of IWTV in some shape or form) that I’ve enjoyed have all landed somewhere in the sweet spot briefly described below.

From “Star Wars - How To Kill A Franchise,” by The Closer Look:

“Imagine exploring the elements from an original story in the sequel like a gradient. On the left, you’ve got ‘Not enough change,’ in the middle you’ve got that ‘Sweet spot’ where they’re different but it feels like a natural development in their character... In a perfect sequel, everything carried over from the original story should be in that Goldilocks zone where they’re still the same characters... but they’ve been developed in natural, interesting ways that allows for entertaining new directions in the follow-up story.”

Then there’s further to the right... ‘For the love of God stop!’  Which is where we use the phrase “jumped the shark,” “Moments labeled as "jumping the shark" are considered indications that writers have exhausted their focus, that the show has strayed irretrievably from an older and better formula...”

>What topics would you like to see explored?

A return to the sweet spot, some ideas would be:

The hypothetical book she might have written thirty years ago as a follow up to QOTD instead of TOBT.

A story, any story, from Louis's POV where he has more perspective in the wake of TVL and QOTD. That last scene of QOTD with Lestat and Louis flying together and so on... Lestat wondered what it had done to Louis to finally learn all these secrets, after being told for so long they didn't exist. Currently, Louis is characterized primarily by his obvious top-level traits, which get exaggerated and turned into the entire depiction, which is so flat, and he has so much more to offer. 

Discussions about the consequences of Merrick, and how that’s changed the way Louis sees things and navigates his existence, whether he and Lestat have the intimacy they were unable to achieve from the end of QOTD to Merrick.

I would prefer that certain characters that had died were allowed to stay dead, and could be talked about and mourned.

The exception being - I’d be open to a Nicolas return! He died off-screen after all.

>What's your ideal ending to the saga?

Ultimately, every problematic thing can't be addressed and tidied up. All of the vampires in VC have killed tens of thousands of people. There's no reparation for that. It's weird to try to apply any kind of human-standard morality to them, because you start from "First of all, they're all mostly-unrepentant killers."

While it would count as possibly Too much change, I think it could be intriguing to make all the vampires mortal and human again; they age together; now that their lives are finite they realize they need to sort out their shit, they get therapy and learn to communicate, and resolve all their many and varied interpersonal problems.

I’m ready to see what Christopher does with it when he takes over. I haven’t read his writing myself, but I’ve been told it’s good, so we’ll see. Maybe he has the Ricean spark✨

>L̶e̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶s̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶r̶e̶w̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶

You know, over the years, especially when there was more of a sense of humor and people could get away with hyperbole, I’ve made it publicly known that some of the books were not my cup of tea, but there are fans who come to the series from every one of the books. They don’t have the same calibration as I do, IWTV may not be the original material at all for them! One could argue that any of these books could exist as standalones, because AR never promised us a forge weld to them all, 40+ yrs and 10+ books later. It’s not delamination of the stories splitting off from each other and conflicting accounts of events (”unreliable narrators”) if the intention wasn’t a fused weld.

In some respect, AR has reflected, she often asks her FB followers what they like about certain books/characters/etc. and I think she does read those responses... and while I wouldn’t say she admitted she “screwed it up,” she has said the Mayfair/VC crossovers “did not age well,” even though she is proud of them:

So I think AR’s point is that she tried a direction, and now that years have passed, she decided that it wasn’t worth pursuing further, and it will impact her choices in future books (in this case, not to do more crossovers). I think it takes a lot of guts for her to post that publicly, and it gives me hope that whatever she writes next, I think she’s trying to capture her older and better formula. 

But just because she made us a magnificent cake once, I don’t expect her to make anything like it for us again, ever, and it gives me peace of mind not to expect her to.