#i think a lot of what interested me in the VC books was like the philosophical/moral questions that come up for them

[13eyond13]

gotta say i tried watching the iwtv series but the tone just seems off somehow. there are good things about it sure, and i do love sam reid (?) as lestat, but the tone issue is similar to why i think vampire diaries is so off-putting for me. like, it focuses on sex and blood so strongly in a way, and sort of misses the elements that made the books so interesting to me. i wish i could explain this vibe better, lol.

that being said, i would be interested in your opinion on the show if you ever watch it! often when i happen to know the piece of media you're talking about you voice things about it that i haven't been able to put into words myself but strongly agree with, haha.

I'll try watching it today since the books are still fresh in my mind and see what I think! Curious to know instead of just judge mostly based on clips and gifs...

[monstersinthecosmos]

kacy i wanna know how much of a perv you think daniel is LOL so much fic centers on armand dragging him through an experience *armand* wants. so like what's the ratio of daniel being a freak in his nature (and knowing this about himself) vs armand nurturing this trait into him?

My friend, I’m so glad you asked.

THE THING IS IVE GIVEN THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT and in some ways it’s like, what all of my Devil’s Minion fics are about LOL. And yet! I don’t have a simple answer to this question, the way real questions of nature vs nurture are complicated in the real world in real people!

But let me sketch out a framework of the way I’ve questioned this, and everyone might come to different conclusions and that’s the fun of fandom, because there can exist several thousand versions of Daniel based on the same text! AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS STUFF, I HOPE IT DOESN’T COME OFF AS MANSPLAINING LMAO but I’m excited to talk about this topic. 

Here’s what we know unequivocally from the text:

Daniel is 20 years old in IWTV.

That’s it, that’s the whole list.

And here’s some fanon that people often try to extrapolate from the text: 

💦 That he met Louis at a gay bar. UNCONFIRMED, but I think it’s likely? In the short story the bar is named the Pink Baby, I think that might be a gay bar or a dick reference idk lol. 

💦 Whether or not the Pink Baby was a gay bar, he and Louis essentially cruised each other and left the bar together! Daniel has the excuse that he’s hunting for interviews for his job, Louis has the excuse that he’s an apex predator who preys on people, but ? Take this wherever you need to. (Also blah blah Ricean biting=sex symbolisms.)

💦 Was Daniel bisexual outside of the assumption that most of the VC characters are bisexual/omnisexual? The only clue we get is that when he and Armand practice voyeurism, he hooks up with men and women. There’s a lot of interesting information packed into the voyeurism paragraph, like this line: Yet he lay empty afterwards, staring at Armand, resentful, cold. and I’ve seen the “resentful, cold” comment dissected many times in fandom. Is it the general resentment of their whole relationship? Is it because he wants to fuck Armand and not randos? Is it because he only wants the Blood? Does he not consent to being used like a zoo animal? Is he gay and doesn’t want to fuck women? Is he straight (minus the orientation-defying vampire attraction) and doesn’t want to fuck men? I’ve seen all kinds of takes on this LOL. But still, no real definitive answer about his orientation in the text.

💦 What did the “roaming the bars of the world” comment mean? Sometimes I read Anne Rice’s language as being kinda lofty and exaggerated but was he ACTUALLY traveling the WHOLE WORLD or is he hyping up that he trolled bars in the Bay Area? Is he FROM the Bay Area or was it a stop in his travels? He worked for a radio station (not in the book, but mentioned in the short story + The Vampire Companion and The Alphabettery) so did he live here, even if he traveled a lot? Was he wealthy before vampires if he was traveling this much, if you think he was a traveler?

AND AFTER ALL THAT, here’s some extra questions where Daniel is FREE REAL ESTATE that every fan has the freedom to make the fuck up:

💦 How much sexual experience did he have at 20? Do we assume that by default as an Anne Rice character he probably had ample teenage sexual experiences, and if he did, is there a quality over quantity aspect to consider? Is the sex we have as teenagers like, all that to write home about LMAO. Do we really understand kinks yet, or do we need to grow up and gain some perspective first? 

💦 As an Anne Rice character, by default, do we assume he & everything else is sexually charged LOL, are the interviews and cruising and taking people home a code for bringing partners home? What percentage of his interviews were also hookups?  

💦 When we talk about nature vs nurture for kinkiness, how micro and macro is this? As a fellow Off the Cuffs fan I know you understand the “radioactive spider bite into kink” concept, and some kinks are so specific to our experiences. But BEING KINKY in itself IS nature, isn’t it? I’ve read some sex & kink theory that kink is (psychologically) more like an innate orientation. IE: in the way you can be straight or gay, some people are also by default turned on by being smacked or by whatever paraphilia. Whatever that thing is, the way it takes shape, is the nurture half. But like, many people can have the same experience and 99% of them don’t develop a paraphilia right? So I think that capability exists in kinky folks at all times, especially when so many of the radioactive spider bites are things that people discover in childhood. ANYWAY I RANTED but I say that to say; DANIEL MOLLOY IS A MONSTERFUCKER, IWTV IS THE PROOF THAT HE IS A MONSTERFUCKER. IT WAS THERE THE WHOLE TIME. 

So I bring up all those questions to encourage everyone to make up their own story with this, but I’ll tell you where I personally landed and how I approach it in my fics!!!

The Daniel in MY OWN fics is 20, single child, estranged from his parents, dropped out of college because he didn’t have ADHD support and was struggling, bisexual and promiscuous! I wonder if he went through that like college freshman thing where he got out of his parents house for the first time and partied a little too hard because he COULD! I like to read “bars of the world” as an exaggeration, I like to think he was a normal guy NOT globe hopping, sticking to the Bay Area, maybe he was out there for college, and guess what! There’s a thriving gay liberation culture there, so he finds some safe spaces to experiment with that! 

However, I think the text leaves space to think he didn’t have a lot of close friends, or wasn’t close with his family, due to the way that he simply ✨fucks off ✨ after IWTV. NOW, that’s just me! Because there’s potential here for a TRAGEDY of people looking for him or grieving him! But idk I just like thinking that he was already on the outs and the interview pushed him over the edge.

So I ask like, does the 20 year old have a ton of kink experience? Is he good at sex? WHAT DOES RESENTFUL, COLD MEAN? Was he celibate during the chase years? Are the voyeurism sessions the first time he’s had sex since his old life? Even if he had random hookups during the chase years, was this qualitatively good sex? Can you truly get into good BDSM on a hookup or do you need a trusted partner? (This is subjective, idk, but!) 

Also, how much kink is theoretical and private (to masturbate to) vs stuff you actually try? Especially if we believe that kink is nature, someone isn’t less kinky if they’re celibate, the way someone isn’t less gay if they’re celibate, or even a virgin. As Daniel becomes more and more obsessed with vampires, and with Armand, does it take over how he jerks off? Does he think about getting bitten? HE LIKES SNUGGLING WITH DEAD THINGS.

So like, there IS an element of Daniel being the unwilling witness of Armand’s rapidly shifting hyperfixations, and it’s natural that fandom pervs would extend that to sex acts and kinks. I LOVE IT, yes! It makes sense. 

But when you say like, which one of them is in charge, I wonder if it’s relevant if we assume Daniel enjoys it. (Does he? Would he? Resentful, cold?)

Here’s some points that come to mind when I imagine it as purely Armand’s doing:

💦 People sometimes misunderstand BDSM dynamics when it comes to power and control, because BDSM is a consensual fantasy between two adults. The sub is just as in control, because they allow it. In that sense: Do we believe Armand respects Daniel’s consent? Would he force Daniel to participate if he wasn’t enjoying himself? 

🩸 (How much can we compare this to Venice and how Armand was prepared for vampirism? I’m putting this in parentheses bc I’m putting a pin in this one, I CANNOT ADD A SUB-ESSAY INTO THIS POST ABOUT COMPARING VENICE TO DEVILS MINION but thinking of this too. Returning to the under-negotiated kink in Venice and how much is diegetic to the text, how does experiencing a spectrum of sexuality benefit someone’s last years alive ((sub-parentheses: does Armand flip-flop on turning Daniel as much as Marius did with Armand, does Armand subliminally know he’ll turn Daniel one day, does he go through these experiences as a precursor to turning Daniel eventually?)) are these experiences more for Armand to process the way he was groomed for asexual immortality vs being purely selfless and for Daniel’s benefit?)

💦 Armand uses Daniel as his usher into the modern age, and is it fair to assume he could sense Daniel’s kinkiness and knew that this was the person for him? 

💦 How dubious is Daniel’s consent here? How addicted to Armand’s Blood is he by the time they start fucking around? Is he already within the throes of Ricean Omnisexuality where he’s down for whatever? Does the Blood influence this as well? Is there a secret subliminal violence creeping into your body when you’ve been drinking it again and again? What about less violent kinks, like your feederism fic? Does the Blood encourage all types of excess and consumption??? 

But if DANIEL is the driving force here, I still must consider:

💦 He meets Armand and his life essentially ends when he’s 20 years old. Was he really self-aware of his kinks? Did he know himself very well sexually yet? 

💦 While exploring kinks can be mutually beneficial by sating Armand’s need for WEIRD HUMAN STUFF, maybe it IS something Daniel wants. It’s something he’s missing out on, because he checked out of regular human life when he was 20. Like, everyone’s different, so, I’m not saying that people can’t be sexually articulate at 20, but I know I fucking wasn’t! And I personally never fucked anyone that age who was good at it LMAO. So like how old would Daniel have been before he experimented enough to really know what he liked, and how much of him getting to know his sexuality involved Armand during the next decade?

💦 And this ties into Armand being his sugar daddy! That’s canon! Armand is his sugar daddy! If Daniel, at 28 years old, starts lamenting “I wish I’d gotten the chance to try watersports when I still had a normal life :( “ wouldn’t Armand have arranged that for him? 

🩸 (Again let’s talk about Venice and what did Armand learn there about being the vampire lover, how much does he process and repeat on Daniel, and for whose benefit?)

💦 If Daniel is an innately kinky person, and realizes as he’s approaching 30 that he never really got to explore it properly, wouldn’t Armand usher him through that experience? Even if Armand didn’t plan to turn him, I wonder if he saw the window of Daniel’s mortal experience closing, maybe he worried that this is the type of thing people need to be wild about while they’re still so young. And outside of stigmatizing Daniel's age, it's also about how he was becoming less and less healthy, dying of alcoholism at 32, so there was a small window here for them to have sex adventures.

So basically, I’m saying that the nature half feels very much like Daniel being a monsterfucker, the nurture half is the actual experiences he got to have. And I don’t think he’d be in this situation in the first place if he wasn’t a bit of a monsterfucker, and wasn't a innately into danger and pain. Like, we don’t get a TON of examples but Gretchen and Babette didn’t try to fuck vampires! We know that vampires give humans the heebie jeebies! What kind of sick fuck is into that?!?!?!? 

I don’t really have one single answer here. When it comes to the large library of kinks I think either of them can be blamed, and I also think it 100% makes sense to use Armand as a vehicle to write fic about them as if they’re another collection of human oddities for him to explore. But even using Armand’s weird bullshit to process that doesn’t mean it’s not mutually beneficial, and I think it gets into a fuzzier area that’s up to the writer when it comes to their take on the relationship, how dubious the consent is, how much do they actually like each other and get along? Can it be mutually beneficial in the end even if one person is driving? (see: the conversation about the second whipping scene in TVA and how it works out in the end.) Is it something they have fun agreeing to and negotiating in advance? 

I can totally see how someone might write this as a fun thing that they talk about beforehand as easily as it could be Armand forcing mystery adventure on Daniel and suddenly he’s tied up in some shitty apartment in Hells Kitchen with some man pissing on him, and did he ever even reveal this kink to Armand or did Armand pull it out of his head? 

The ship dynamic is so fucked up and coercive and resentful and toxic, even though there is real love here, so there’s this whole spectrum to use when you build your fanworks and headcanons!!!!!!! AND LIKE

IF IT’S COERCIVE AND FUCKED UP, DOES IT DRIVE THEM FURTHER APART OR BRING THEM CLOSER TOGETHER? IS DANIEL RESENTFUL AND COLD AND DOES THIS CAUSE FIGHTS? IS THIS A WAY FOR THEM TO PROCESS SOME OF THEIR COLDNESS AND RESENTMENT BECAUSE THEY AREN’T GOOD COMMUNICATORS? DO THEY DO BETTER AFTER THESE SESSIONS AND FEEL CLOSER BECAUSE THEY BROKE THROUGH SOMETHING NEITHER OF THEM KNEW HOW TO SAY?

Gosh idk.

Anyway I apologized in the beginning for mansplaining but I also want to apologize for this non answer LMFAO. I hope it doesn’t feel like a cop-out to not have a real answer, it’s just that I think there is such a rich context with a MENAGERIE of possibility !!!!!!! 

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hello! Interested in your encyclopaedic knowledge on this. Skim-rereading the VC now for first time since I was a teenager and have to ask - does Louis ever, like - do anything for Lestat? This prompted particularly by TOTBT which my god is so savage. I can’t believe he’s happy to just… let him die?!? He doesn’t lift a finger, he doesn’t even try to protect him? It’s IWTV all over again, only supposedly their relationship is much better by this point.

It got me looking for examples where Louis does anything whatsoever proactive for Lestat and I’m really struggling. At the end of QotD, it seems like lots of the other vamps are trying to look after traumatised Lestat a bit, but I don’t think Louis comes to him? He just wanders off to New Orleans? Maybe I’ve missed a bit though. He looks after him a bit in his coma? Although not moreso than anyone else. But in the end it is Lestat who ends up waking up to save Louis. Even that bit in PLaTRoA where Lestat is about to have his heart stopped - Louis sitting next to his coffin - but Lestat reaches out to take Louis’ hand, not the other way round. Aside from verbally saying that he loves him, other than being generally nice and calm and polite, does Louis ever do anything to show it?

Hey nonny!

(Not sure about the encyclopedic but I‘ll try 😅💕) I do see a lot of the mentioned events a bit differently, allow me to explain (this is gonna be long^^):

Soooo to address your mention of TtotBT first off, I personally do think Louis thought of Lestat first and foremost when he sent him away in that scene.

Louis was tempted. It's no surprise imho that Jacob really wants to do that scene with Sam, because the power dynamics are inverted of course, but it is also emotionally very raw.

I want to pause here and recall a quote from QotD here, which is important:

Louis, the watcher, the patient one, was there on account of love pure and simple. The two had found each other only last night, and theirs had been an extraordinary reunion. Louis would go where Lestat led him. Louis would perish if Lestat perished. But their fears and hopes for this night were heartbreakingly human.

Louis... would perish if Lestat perished.

For Louis to send Lestat away... is to resign himself to death also. I think that has to be taken into account for the scene you mentioned, where Louis decides that Lestat deserves to save his soul, before Louis himself deserves to save his own. His rejection of Lestat there is done in full knowledge that he condemns himself there to a very lonely, cold, and ultimately fatal existence. He rejects Lestat there, knowing he will lose his greatest love.

I wouldn't call that happy to let him die? And I, personally, don't see it as a parallel to IWTV either, though it might feel a bit like that for Lestat, but the Louis here knows how much this will hurt. He knows what he is doing. He is condemning himself, hoping it will free Lestat.

And, while we're on TtotBT, in the beginning of the book there is the mention of Louis coming by Lestat's, to 'Netflix & chill', to share space and spend time, watch movies (for example "Company of the wolves", just being there. Talk. Discuss. Being together. So Louis did come by, for Lestat. And Lestat visited Louis, in his shack, had his own chair there. They were in each other's lives.

And... in the end of that book - when David show's up? What does Louis do? He takes David in. Makes room for David in their old home in Rue Royale. Accepts David - for Lestat. Accompanies them, too. Honestly, given David is David... that is a HUGE sacrifice! He let's David, the new fledgling, into their home. Because he is Lestat's. Later on, in PL, he will do the same for Antoine, which is obviously something that had to grate quite a lot as well, and I have always seen that as a rather conscious decision to allow it. To allow Antoine into their lives, because he is Lestat's.

Louis also tries to protect Lestat before the concert.

I know a lot of people read that from Lestat's POV and are just happy with the reunion (and of course it is beautiful and I really want to see it on the show!!) but... it's not only that.

Louis comes, to Lestat, not only because he can do so. But he pleads for Lestat to stay safe, too, to not do the concert. Because he is afraid for Lestat. He wants to keep him safe, wants to keep him with himself, too. He pleads with him not to go on stage. Offers to talk, to make plans, to 'Let us have each other in this century the way we never did in the past'.

You mentioned the end of QotD, and... in their universe, all that happens right after this reunion. A few days, a week at most. And then Lestat hides himself away again, in a room, trying to cope. Because he has been used again, abused, too, in a way he himself can only cope with by reframing it as love.

Louis knows it isn't. Wasn't. And he knows that he and Lestat cannot talk freely with the others there. He and Lestat are not able to use the mind gift directly. And... he is deeply unsettled by Jesse's report, the report she gives Lestat. Claudia's ghost. Deeply, deeply personal and something they share, very painfully. They go by Louis' tombstone, and then they can talk. A bit. Louis trusts Lestat and in his new powers. Falls asleep in his arms.

And that... is a rather powerful statement.

Louis (admittedly begrudgingly) enters that "adventure" with Lestat, fully trusting in Lestat. Kissing, embracing. Sleeping in his arms. It's a statement.

A statement that, despite Lestat feeling changed, and alien, that Louis still trusts him. Trusts in him, too.

And it is Louis, who tries to take Lestat home in Memnoch, Louis who pleads, begs for Lestat to be released. Louis who cries out when Lestat is locked up. Louis is the one who saves the books, Louis is the one who tries to comfort Lestat. Louis is the one who holds the proverbial fort at Rue Royale, with David, for long, long years. Louis is the one who despairs, eventually, when Lestat goes back into that half-awake coma, his soul taken away by angels.

Though there is more to that, too. You say Louis did not look after Lestat more than others, and I'd beg to differ. Louis was the one in the chapel, guarding Lestat. Holding his ground with the ancients, and the riff raff that Armand hunted down (even once with Lestat later). Louis is the one who keeps Ruy Royale, and makes sure Lestat is kept clean during his episodes of stillness, and it is only when he breaks, eventually, when Merrick takes his focus... that that... stops. When the Merrick events start, David visits Lestat, and Louis is 'there, seated on the marble beside Lestat, reading in a hushed voice from an old book of English poetry'.

Louis never leaves Lestat's side for long. Armand notes how he seems emaciated, hungry when Armand comes by in his version of the tale.

It is only when Merrick's spell unfolds that Louis leaves Lestat's side, that his focus shifts. And with the shift to Claudia and her ghost... the despair takes hold.

And it is when Louis heartbeat stops - that the "angels" lose their blackmailing material.

Lestat later tells of how he was forced to do "their bidding" by them threatening to take the eye... and though he doesn't elaborate... it is very clear what that means wrt Louis.

Because there simply was nothing else they could threaten him with anymore. Nothing else was more important than Louis. Not his eye, not his soul.

This always sends a shiver down my spine.

But that just as a note.

Louis is the one who accepts Lestat's judgment, after Merrick's creation.

He also accepts Lestat abandoning New Orleans, eventually, because Lestat cannot stand it anymore to kill the riff raff, those who "offend Armand", something Lestat calls "autocratic, ruthless" wrt to Armand's killing of them.

Louis accepts Lestat's decision there, and goes to Armand. Something that Lestat in turn accepts and supports(!):

My beloved Louis de Pointe du Lac left soon after, and from that time on lived in New York with Armand. Armand keeps the island of Manhattan safe for them—Louis, Armand, and two young blood drinkers, Benjamin and Sybelle, and whoever else joins them in their palatial digs on the Upper East Side.

And when Lestat is finally ready, it is Louis who apologizes to Lestat for the "past" by hunting a woman who wanted to murder her husband - in front of Lestat.

Personally, I find that a very poignant "doing-it-for-someone" :)))

But there is more.

Louis is the one who rescues Rose! Rose, Lestat's charge. Louis knows about Rose. Lestat's lawyers know about Louis. Louis takes over when Lestat is unreachable.

There is so much in these simple facts!

Like, they must have talked about Rose. Louis knows about Rose, knows she is important to Lestat, he takes the responsibility, saves her from fire, kills the ones who harmed her. Brings her to him. And he is the one Lestat's lawyers reach out to when Lestat is gone? Unreachable? What a statement is that in and by itself?! Louis is the one Lestat trusts with that child, the girl he saved and who will become his immortal daughter. Their immortal daughter.

And then, when Rhosh is there in NYC, at that table, and the axe scene happens... what does Louis do?

He smiles.

Now I don't know if you know that scene well, but it is quite the scene, and I honestly cannot wait to see it on the show.

And Louis... smiles. Shows support.

Quiet. Steadfast. The support Lestat needs, probably more than he consciously realizes.

And then, of course, later on - knowing what "Lestat cannot confide". They are finally sharing blood again, and Louis becomes Lestat's confidant. To all the things Lestat cannot speak about, all the things he has hinted at but cannot put into words. All the things that are too heavy to address.

That is no trifle.

And the silver cord, where Louis pushes the matter against Lestat's (not) better judgement. Where Louis is there, for Lestat to reach out.

Your ask made it seem (a bit) as if being there and offering is not sufficient, but strength shows itself in very different ways. Lestat is more direct, "flashy". Louis' strength is more subtle, it is an offer for support, unwavering support, whenever Lestat wants it. For as long as Lestat wants it. Not taking agency from Lestat, which is like the worst thing that could happen again... because that is something that has been taken from Lestat again, and again, and again. And Louis knows that.

And so he doesn't.

He doesn't take. He offers. It shows he knows Lestat. And he accepts him, and their respective pasts, and all the shit that has happened.

Again, that is no trifle, imho.

There is more. Little mentions, in the books.

A "grotto" they once shared. For example. Louis wearing the clothes Lestat chooses.

But for the most part you have to "read between the lines" as Lestat says, for the juicy details - however, I think when you consider the arcs? The arcs that span all the books?

The things we are told actually speak for themselves, imho.

Louis does a lot of things for Lestat. The important things, actually.

He is there for Lestat to turn to when Lestat's strength fails.

And yes, that includes the rejection in TtotBT - because Louis thought he had to be the one to show the strength for Lestat - to hold fast to the initial belief. The initial hope that drove the body switch - because Lestat had just found out he could not die anymore. Even if he tried. And he had tried. And it had sent him spiraling.

Would Louis have held out indefinitely? Probably not :) But that's another discussion.

[lananakay]

Have you been watching AMC's adaptation of "Interview With the Vampire?" Have you read the book(s)? If not, you may not know that Anne's vampires are on the Asexual spectrum! You also may have noticed that in AMC's adaptation...them vampires be F***in on the regs! This is one part of the adaptation that I don't mind, but don't necessarily love. You may be thinking "but Lana! I read the books and those vampires are NOT asexual, they have sex all the time!" Are you sure about that? Are. You. Sure. About. That?

Like everything in this world, asexuality is on a spectrum. Different orientations fall under the asexual umbrella. If you are interested, here is a short introduction. If you would like to see a more in-depth list of orientations, you can find it HERE.

Pictured Above: Lestat Rejecting the sexual advances of groupies before draining them. (Circa the 2002 adaptation of "Queen Of The Damned")

I am Graysexual.

Sometimes referred to as “gray ace” people who are greysexual are primarily asexual. However, these members of the asexual community may enjoy sexual behavior under very specific circumstances, or they might experience sexual interest on rare occasions.

IMPORTANT: Please Read Below

“Asexuality is different from abstinence, where someone chooses to not have sexual contact regardless of their sexual urges. Someone with an asexual identity is not necessarily someone who has never engaged in sex...(asexuality)is also considered a type of sexual orientation. It is important to clarify that asexuality is not a medical or mental condition or diagnosis. It is a sexual orientation in the same way that homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality are.” – Talkspace therapist Bisma Anwar, LMHC

I've gotta work on having long ass intros. Anyway...I've always loved that Anne's vampires were on the spectrum. I loved how the connections, romances, and intimacies weren't predicated on sex.

I find it surprising whenever I run into VC readers who've missed or not picked up on the asexual themes in the series because 1. it's explicitly stated in almost all the books in one form or another, and 2. It makes me realize how many people don't fully understand what Asexuality is as an orientation.

May times people will cite that there is sex in the books and thus negates that the vampires are Asexual. What they are forgetting is that not having sexual desire does not mean you can not or do not have sex. I know we've all heard of people having sex when they don't feel like it. Just because you consent and willingly participate does not mean you are aroused or even want to.

Some asexual people have allosexual partners and engage in physical intimacies up to and including intercourse to satisfy their partners. On the flip side of that, others may not enjoy intercourse but enjoy other forms of physical intimacy that don't include genitalia. Again, it's a spectrum. I like the idea of sex but don't like engaging in it. I enjoy watching, reading, and listening to porn, and any sexual satisfaction need I'd prefer to address on my own.

It also seems that a lot of people don't know the difference between sex and romance. Sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things. Just because a person is asexual does not mean that they aromantic. I am Hetero-romantic. Most of the vampires in the books are Bi/Pan-romantic.

Romantic Orientation: also called affectional orientation, is the classification of the sex or gender which a person experiences romantic attraction towards.

Romantic Attraction: attraction that makes people desire romantic contact or interaction with another person or persons.

Going back to people not knowing the difference between sex and romance, this is one of the reasons why I loved the asexuality of the vampires in this world. For me, when reading the books there was an extra layer of truth in their emotions knowing they weren't forged in lust, but something deeper. It made them seem that much more non-human. More, in control. More above a mortal life. It also deeply enhanced the physical displays of affection that did happen.

Also, It really frustrated me soooo much when Claudia was raped by Bruce. It broke some of the fantasy of the VC world in my view...That there was at least one thing you wouldn't have to worry about with a vampire. Yeh, they might kill you, but they would never violate you. Plus it's lazy writing. You can have a female character go out into the world and be traumatize without raping her. It reinforces the whole "you need a man around to stop other men from hurting you" thing and it's kindaicky.

It also kind of...cheapened the love between Lestat and Louis. At times it made Lestat's actions seem sexually motivated, which isn't how he operates. Especially when he did the whole "Let's have an open relationship so I can screw who I want but when you do it I'm going to get jealous and have a problem with it." thing. It reduced Lestat to a stereotypical asshole that thinks with his dick. Mixing love and sex always leaves you wondering if the love is true.

Now that last statement has gotten me in trouble a in the past so uh...

I do not think that relationships are diminished, illegitimate, or otherwise untrue inherently because they are sexual. I say this from an asexual point of view where I've regularly heard people say/post the following:

"if you're not having sex with them, then why are you with them?"

"If you're not having sex then you're nothing more than friends."

"if they stop having sex with me (or if the sex isn't good) I'll just divorce them or cheat."

"if you're not having sex with me, you don't love me"

As a person (specifically a woman) who has very low sexual interest but still has romantic interest, it makes me side-eye people a LOT. Movies/books/TV and even real life put sooo much emphasis on sex in relationships that it makes one question their authenticity. The books were a nice departure from that.

Now some people have suggested that there hasn't actually been any sex in the series thus far and that I'm just assuming there is based on context. But, no. It was said several times. Here are 3 examples:

annnnnd everybody's favorite!

Now, to cite my sources! Here are several references that brought me to my conclusion of asexuality in the books.

After drinking Akasha's blood in QOTD Lestat looks himself over and notes the following-

"And the organ, the organ we don't need poised as if ready for what it would never again know how to do, or want to do, marble, a Priapus at a gate."

Which means one of two things to me. Either strong vampires always have an erection 24/7 or it just happens after they feed because of the blood flowing through them...either way, it explains this quote from chapter 2 of "The Vampire Armand".

"I put my hand between his legs. Oh, he was so wonderfully hard." -(Human Armand about Marius) 

Then in chapter 3: when human Armand tries engaging in intercourse with the vampire Marius, Marius says:

"haven't you lain with me enough to know what I can and cannot enjoy?"

When first brining this up online, several people pointed out that in the book "Pandora", Marius and Pandora have penetrative sex, and thus dispelling the asexual theory. However, Anne Rice is quite consistent, even this novel. During this scene Pandora asks Marius to:

"Fill me and hold me".

Marius responds with

"This is stupid and superstitious"

She then very clearly states that it is not for pleasure but the symbolism of connection.

"it is symbolic and comforting"...our bodies were one, connected by this sterile organ which was no more to him now than his arm.

Others also point out that in "Tale of the Body Thief" one of the first things Lestat does is have sex. He also eats. lmao! My point is that the whole reason for switching bodies was to be mortal again and do mortal things. Sex for pleasure is a very mortal thing.

In conclusion. I'm ace and I think that's one reason why I loved Anne's vampires so much. I was a little disappointed that they didn't stick with that in the adapted series but whatevs, it doesn't ruin the show for me.!

[leliosinking]

Hot take I guess but the fandom was way too hard on this book (and still is tbh) and for what? Because it isn’t interested in fan service? If anything Anne’s writing was at its best when she ignored what fans wanted, and I think it’s time for a reevaluation of my boy Vittorio the Vampire.

I just think this was such a promising start to New Tales (more than Pandora, even) and I sort of hate all of you for boycotting it or telling new readers to skip it. (as far as i’m concerned TVA, Merrick, B&G, BF and BC are all unofficially New Tales anyway.. TVL-MtD are the only proper vampire chronicles, everything else falls into different categories, but I digress).

With regard to Vittorio, however, we were given a true blue Ricean vampire hunter novel (the only one mind you) with an actual, functioning plot and some of the best action she’s written since TVL… and you all shunned it. And I get it, we don’t read these books for conventional, commercial plot contrivances, but for the florid language and richly crafted characters; but this is the rare Anne Rice novel that’s just.. fun for the sake of fun?

And no, I’m not blind to its problems. It absolutely needed another draft or two (as do a lot of the later VC entires) and no, Vittorio is not her strongest protagonist by leagues. But what we got was still filled to the brim with good ideas?

The Court of the Ruby Grail cult, especially, is one my favorite of Anne’s inventions. Like their dynamic with the local human villages feeding them their castoffs was legitimately disturbing and IMO better executed than most of the times she retreaded the Children of Darkness post-TVL.

And while Vittorio the character might be kind of boring, Florian and Ursula carry this novel and deserved to enter the larger narrative tapestry on their strengths alone but “waaah Lestat and co. aren’t here” so “it’s bad” or whatever.. I really can’t stand some of y’all.

Anyway, this is long enough and I really didn’t set out to write an essay in defense of what is ultimately a mid-tier entry into this series. But. I still feel that much in the way that MtD and Blackwood Farm have been recently reassessed as good novels that happen to be bad VC entires I think it’s time for some of you to similarly reevaluate Vittorio the Vampire, because this is a good vampire novel, it just isn’t a good vampire chronicle (well I think it is and yet and yet and yet). But it’s still part of the series and it does fit into the larger picture despite what some will have you believe.

If this is your first time, I personally like to read VTV between Body Thief and Memnoch. I think it is better thematically situated there than between TVA and Merrick as initially published. The archangels that enter later in the story build nicely upon David’s vision of God and Satan in TTOTBT and make for a strong intermission full of angels and demons that assist in setting up the Dantean finale of MtD. (I have more suggested reading orders btw, some other time perhaps).

I dunno.. if you like this book please let me know lol like I could use the solidarity because I feel like I’m the only one (I have it ranked #6 out of 15). But yeah, I think Vittorio is probably the most underrated and most unfairly slandered entry in Anne’s entire catalogue if I’m being completely honest.

[desertfangs]

I feel for people just getting into the books lol. But I agree and I think it's fair to ignore Merrick since Anne also ended up disregarding it herself. I remember during the book tour for The Wolf Gift, Anne did an Q&A talk, she said she didn't consider Merrick, Blackwood Farm, or Blood Canticle canon by the time she began writing Prince Lestat.

Which I found confusing because she mentioned Quinn in Prince Lestat, but she felt that just because the character exists doesn't mean the events that unfolded are canon. Which I found more confusing. I also recall Anne saying (maybe in the same interview maybe in a different one?) she tried to merge her witches and vampires together, but she never felt like she managed to reach the right tone. Which I do agree with.

Oh anon!! I also feel for people just getting into the books! In some ways, it's probably nice to just binge the books back to back and not wait years wondering (like after MtD came out and it was like... Is Armand really dead?????? Where is Daniel???) but also a lot gets shifted or retconned and it must be jarring to go from one to the other with the discrepancies and changes so apparent.

For me, I feel like canon has always been sort of nebulous. Like you can just pick the things you like, you maybe explain away the things you don't (Armand was TOTES lying when he said he sold most of Night Island! 😒), and you can also just sort of ignore stuff if it doesn't really work for you. But that said, I also totally get the desire to be as true to canon as possible and trying to reconcile all of it the best you can, which is a total valid approach as well! I do think canon has a lot of little unexplored nuggets and things to unpack and try to figure out. It's like the crossword puzzle of book series which is part of why I think it has so much staying power for me personally. There's a lot left off the page to explore or explain or try to work out.

It's so interesting to hear she didn't consider Merrick or Blackwood Farm canon anymore!! I don't think I'd heard that, although I am not surprised about Blood Canticle, that book feels like a failed experiment and I agree it did not succeed as a VC/Mayfairs crossover. I think the Talamasca's existence and maybe Quinn was enough of a crossover, tbh, I don't know anything more was needed. (Granted, what I remember about BC is Lestat being in the midst of a manic episode and Rowan being involved, and that's pretty much it.) I do recall she was trying to build up to some war with the Talamasca and I guess that never really came together.

Prince Lestat definitely felt like more of a return to form and trying to get all of the vampires in one place and even wrap up some loose ends from previous books and tell us where everyone ended up. Well almost everyone. I agree it's funny Quinn gets a mention.

As for Merrick, I'm sure there's some interesting stuff in there, at least about Louis, but I've never been able to convince myself to reread it. I do like the implication that he and Armand came together after the events of that book and he moved in Trinity Gate because of shared trauma over suicide attempts, and that they found some healing with each other. But overall, it wasn't a book I enjoyed.

Thank you for sharing, anon!! This is really good stuff! Also LMAO thank you for reminding me The Wolf Gift exists. That book was a wild ride for sure! 💖

[5centz]

hOJtel au ramble: something something oj can appear in tvs n other electronic stuff if he so Wants. somewhat easier to commuicate that way. i know test tube must be going Craaazy over this too, tt vc i knew i should have never read that house of leaves book.....

shes pacing back n forth and trying to figure out How is this possible From what shes heard OJ never acted like this Did the merge w/ the hotel screw with his mind Did the role he assigned himself to Finally consume him

and then lightbulb is secretly taking notes of some of the weird places because Wow these are good things to use when im in paintys class!

its so interesting wondering how some of the characters would react to this ... i know paper must be all sorts of stressed out

I think ab the idea of imagery of OJ manifesting around the the Hojtel a lot, it's very cool to me on some level it could be like it messes with Test Tube's devices (intentionally or not on OJ's part), or maybe a music player just starts blasting his favorite music sometimes too (I saw someone say he like elevator music along with the party music so, u just got some jazz or easy listening type stuff randomly echoing through the building) Lightbulb would try to make the best of the situation/try to keep activities going for the sake of everyone's sanity in all this, but she might even have her limits here, also might have a better grasp of the non-euclidean spaces/the Hojtel shifting paths than most the ppl trapped there

speaking of i should think ab how other characters are handling all of this situation (Both in and outside of the Hojtel)

[exoticalmonde]

LUNDInium Outskirts /but it's her insane doodles/ PART IV

Me: *Casually watching my operators work on ZT-7 farming* Me: *Looks away for a second* Lessing: "Du kannst rennen, aber ich werde weiter jagen." Me:

I forgot I set all the Leithanien characters to German the day before...

--- Me: *In the base* Poz: "Doctor, if you insist on spending time together, how about we talk about your favourite books?" Me: *Pushes everything off my desk to clear space* "You just need to ask!"

--- There is no doodle for this one, but since it's HorseUncleTM merch, I wanted to show it off because the last part didn't actually feature what I was shown and how insane it looks knowing she has her entire desk COVERED with them.

---

How is RI-13 not broke yet living in holes, who knows...? Perhaps the rumours are correct and Dr. Lundi really dealing secretly with firearms on the black market of Sargon. ---

The event of Dr. Lundi half-crying on the bus back home because she couldn't stream to us BUYING the SKIN will be a core memory created based on eternal friendship. I will never be happier to wake up than I am when I see an 'Eve, can I be soggy again?' before being bombarded with Mlynar details and ramblings regardless of what I say.

There's a lot to unpack but I can't possibly ever talk about Mlynar the same way Lundi does in VC. She pulls up receipts proof of her words as well every time she mentions something.

--- We also have a new Pinkie sticker! Wahoo team!!!

Based on this --- Based on this post about our Arknights Yumeship's kid being bullied, I had a little spiral and was just thinking about different scenarios. Out of all the answers given, Kryo's is most direct and... very in character towards his sarkaz/draco child.

Lundi's also leaning towards physical aggression, instant retaliation for their little baba horse.

And then I just... imploded... (This was on the basis of the parents trying to justify their child's behaviour)

While Pinkie is not too interested on the aspect of children we've been trying to involve them more in the Yumeship questions just because their relationship with Swire/Chen is SO wholesome but they're shy to actually indulge. It's alright, we will always be there for the sugarbaby ultramind that is our friend.

You can see this conversation was very important to me.

Which is why this ART IS SO CUTE IM CRYING I LOVE THEM

---

Vigorously searched for the video, but basically, me and the Team were watching Unusual Memes from this one channel and one of them was of a guy who walked up to his neighbour/friend's home camera and said 'Well, you DON'T get to decide when to party, I want you around now.' And well... if that isn't Lundi pulling Dr. Eve out of bed during some of her emotional episodes.

In reference to this, Dr. Pinkie was upset Lundi wasn't just breaking down my door because she usually does that without asking. So some edits were applied and a part 2 has been added:

We all loved everything about this. Thank you Pinkie for always being some of the best designers and always editing things in the funniest way possible.

Me: "It looks like I'm getting kidnapped." Lundi: "Child napper."

... ... ... I JUST NOTICED THIS GIF WAS CREATED??!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'M GETTING TURNED INTO SOURDOUGH HELP ME --- Pinkie stealing Dr. Lundi's food.

--- God forbid I ever sneeze in call

--- And as some of the final doodles there's for this part, allow me a little TW about bugs because I am absolutely terrified of this thing and I am afraid that its arms are longer than mine so I can't even come into reach to kill it.

It's not my fault people make shelves so high up.

[licncourt]

begin again COOKED as a post-qotd fix-it (fave fic! <3) but i need to know your thoughts on prince lestat/how you would re-do it in the correct way. to this day i still think LESTAT becoming prince monarch of all the vampires is one of the craziest decisions made during the novels. to me lestat is a prince in the same way that jack skellington was king of halloween (that includes the running away to cause delusional hijinks that ultimately jeapordize everyone)

Aaahhh thank you!! That fic is my child that I birthed so I appreciate it more than you know! It's actually BA's one year finished-iversary next week, my baby's all grown up.

I've talked about that before actually in this post about how I would rewrite the whole series, but I can expand a little here!

Firstly, this could've been two books instead of three. There was nothing going on in there that required three entire novels

Things that have to go entirely: aliens, test tube clone baby Viktor, Atlantis. Sorry, not salvageable

I think rather than the Amel thing, it would have been cool if the sacred core had started corrupting Lestat and altering his behavior as host, maybe changing him gradually into a animalistic, violent folklore-like vampire, making him slowly lose his mind like Mekare, or erasing his sense of self to become a blank host. Then it's a race against the clock and vampire magical biology to save him. This could be the first PL book

Ideally, I think this book should be narrated by Louis and focus a lot on his growth as a character as he finishes his personal. It would bring some happy ending closure to the IWTV version of him without being a jarring change. I also think having his POV for the best of his and Lestat's relationship would be a nice full circle moment from seeing him describe their worst. The idea of Lestat losing himself to the core and them potentially coming together too late would add good drama as well. Maybe this is Louis' follow-up memoir describing how they fixed things

The Rhoshamandes conflict can stay for the second PL and final VC book, but I think it could've been less boring if the drama between him and Lestat had been better fleshed out. They have a lot of similarities that weren't used to their full advantage. It would really highlight Lestat's growth to have him defeat what he could've become

When Lestat reunites with Louis, they would actually have some long, hard conversations about their past, ones that continue throughout the PL trilogy

Hopefully an explanation for why Lestat has made this 180 is included, even if it's just the crushing realization of his own loneliness and longing reaching critical mass after twenty years of who the fuck knows what

The cast is pared down to the strongest written and most interesting characters so the story isn't spread so thin, probably Lestat, Louis, Armand, Gabrielle, Marius, Pandora, and maybe a small handful of new characters with significance in the story. I think Seth, Fareed, Sevraine had the most potential to be good additions to the primary roster if she wanted to add on

Cool characters from the original like trilogy like Maharet and Khayman are expanded on rather than killed offscreen to make room for more Anne Rice NPCs. If we're going to kill someone from the trilogy, please God let it be David Talbot

This goes without saying I think, especially from me, but Louis would be restored to his former glory as a true main character alongside Lestat instead of relegated to lobotomized housewife. There was so much potential for him in an active consort role. We also don't get to see how he got to such a peaceful place at the end of PL, so I would like to see him work through some stuff on the page

I would either cut the Rhoshamandes/Benedict storyline because of how redundant it is with how it mirrors the Marius/Armand dynamic or do something to differentiate it as its own relationship. At the very least, maybe the similarity could be highlighted to become a character beat for Armand

As far as Armand in general, I would make him a much more prominent player. I think he's a great fit for a court setting and could create a lot of intrigue as well as adding coolness factor. I'm always torn about whether I like the reveal of his romantic feelings for Lestat, but in the interest of keeping SOME things intact, I would just play it differently. Primarily, I think he becomes way too agreeable (similar to Louis) in how he submits to and idolizes Lestat, so I would love to see him come into more conflict with Lestat in spite of those feelings. Maybe we can see him make some peace with their history and let go of that intense emotion for something healthier

If we're going to keep the sex injections (IVs, whatever), I think we should do more with it than have Lestat prematurely ejaculate into a random woman. I think there's potential for a very interesting new dynamic with Louis and Lestat. It would be cathartic and maybe an interesting part of their healing process and of becoming a real couple for the first time

That's what I can think of for now, but I might update later!

[runningwithfangs]

Vampire Chronicles Book Review/Rant #1

Interview with the Vampire

Overall:

I mean, what can I say, it’s the OG. It’s what started it all, it’s pretty dang good. It’s just a little odd how the whole book is in speech quotes because it’s almost all Louis speaking, but I got used to it after a while. So dramatic, so melancholy. 

I didn’t realize that Louis and Lestat actually fight each other, the violence is brief and not very graphic, but it’s there. 

Claudia’s arc of becoming a grown-up is so good, the way Louis describes it, she’s playing with dolls one day, and reading advanced literature the next, the way something in her expression changes over the decades, where one day he has to come to terms that she is not a child, and has not been for some time. Also, her murdering Lestat was a bit too “super easy, barely an inconvenience” even though she very thoroughly thought it out, but still. 

The Théâtre des Vampires vampires are kinda gross. The way Armand paralyzes/hypnotizes Claudia so he can talk to Louis is so creepy. 

OMG Lestat getting dragged in for a “trial” and Louis begging him to defend their murder attempt by basically admitting he was a piece of shit to them is WILD. 

Louis’s grief is so real, if you take him at his word (which, in this book, I suppose we should) he was stuck with a demanding, rude maker, the small attempt they made at a “human” life was so short-lived and they all ended up worse for it, making vampire friends is hard because vampires are largely gross and violent, his daughter was murdered, and the one guy who crushed on him didn’t stop the murder of his daughter and the love died out over the decades. So, not a lot of fun to be found (in human or vampire activities). Louis seems so lost and I did feel bad for him.

It makes sense he’d wish to warn the world, but I’m kinda with Daniel though, Louis, baby, you did it wrong, I’d be out there dancing in Paris, swimming in the Caribbean, falling in love with vampires and humans, eating child predators, like, having a time! Clearly I too learned nothing.

Favorites:

Louis giving his neighbor Girl Boss advice once her dumb brother got himself killed in a duel so she wouldn’t lose her money and societal standing.

Claudia! Everything from her yelling at her parents to making Madeline build her a mini room in the hotel room complete with tiny rocking chairs and tiny gowns. 

Louis burning down the Théâtre and slicing anyone that tried to come at him. It’s not just cool and exciting, but it’s written well! I get confused by written action scenes easily, and this didn’t feel confusing. 

Least Favorites:

The plantation. I mean, Lestat feeding on the enslaved people there, it’s . . .uncomfortable, to say the least.

Louis and Armand being together but Louis clearly being very done with Armand but just stringing him along while Armand shittily tires to cheer him up/make him feel anything again is sad and anticlimactic for a book filled with so much adventure/chaos/action/death. 

Smutt:

Claudia asking Louis about what sex used to be like and Louis freaking out about it was so funny to me.

Armand and Louis’ little date at the top of the tower! Armand trying to tell Louis about Venice and his master who loved him, Louis barreling past Venice to be all wait you loved someone else :(  OMG Louis, pay attention! 

Nonsense Meter:

Pretty low, I think the most nonsense part was Santiago imitating everything Louis did like some kind of mime.

Misc:

The whole thing with the revenants and the peasants using the horses to find what graves held vampires was really interesting. I’m nearing the end of the VC series and still wondering if these revenants will ever show up again.

[monstersinthecosmos]

🔥 + Marius and Santino in TVA

[ 🔥 asks! ] LORD HELP ME

(tldr it’s the saddest thing ever and I’m obsessed with it)

first of all lets take stock of these two important moments they share in between Santino nearly having Marius killed and Marius having Santino killed:

Santino arrives with Pandora to rescue Marius from the Shrine in QOTD

Santino helps Marius clean up the Vampire DNA after Armand's attempted suicide, before they know he's alive.

I find this tension VERY VERY GOOD, it’s horny, it’s heartbreaking, it’s devastating in that trademark VC way where it’s so so so so fucking dark and just throbbing. I’m obsessed!!!

It’s interesting to me bc I have many many times yelled about how vampires have all the time in the world to grow past grudges and how they aren’t as constrained by human emotion and YET. There are are a few characters we meet in the series who are petty bitches until the end and can’t ever get past the grudge. (Marius, Rhosh, perhaps Eudoxia or the twins). So it makes me think back to this quote from TVL

“None of us really changes over time. We only become more fully what we are.”

So I wonder how much of this quality is innate; maybe if you aren’t capable of growing past a grudge, you simply won’t.

At the same time I don’t think it’s ever fair to talk about people in absolutes; certainly not real humans but also characters in a universe with so much emotional texture. Because this isn’t a condemnation of Marius to never grow or be better; I don’t think that’s the case with him at all. But I think he’s an incredibly injured person who has a lot of healing to do, and it feels like every time he almost gets there in the books, something catastrophic happens to retraumatize him and set him back.

And I think because he tries SO HARD to be an old Roman stoic that he never really gets time to be honest with himself about his own emotions. Even in B&G he talks about this often, like the “I have lived lies” quote—he KNOWS he’s got unhinged emotions on the inside that he can’t process. And he’s never quite ready to process them.

Like, maybe he was almost there but he lost Pandora. Or maybe he was almost there when Rome fell and he had to have a depression sleep. Maybe he was almost there in Venice and Santino raided the palazzo. Then he healed with Bianca and fucked it up. Then he was ready to invite Lestat into his home and Lestat woke up Akasha. THEN AKASHA ROSE UP AND BETRAYED HIM. THEN ARMAND KILLED HIMSELF. THEN HE FUCKED UP WITH SYBELLE & BENJI. THEN HE KILLED ARJUN IN A FIT.

But like. There’s this violence and anger inside where he’s not processing his emotions, and how much of it is like the human half of him and how much is vampire nature? I think it’s really powerful that Blood Communion ends with him painting a mural and finally accepting vampires as their own people and their own subculture. It makes me think he’s ready to be kind to himself and honest about what he needs to do and who he needs to be.

Anyway I say all that because like. It’s just so fucking sad dude.

We don’t get a lot of information about Santino so a lot of this is like backward engineered and blanks I try to fill in but like, we know he was religious, and within the framework of VC there’s so much Catholicism just baked into the universe anyway. So like, him working with Pandora to save Marius, and him being with Marius as they try to grieve Armand together feel so much like an attempt at atonement that just doesn’t sink in for Marius. He just can’t get there.

And like. I JUST THINK OFTEN ABOUT HOW FUCKED UP ARMAND’S INDOCTRINATION INTO THE CULT WAS, but Armand STAYED and he was a LEADER. So it makes me wonder if a similar level of depravity is what brought SANTINO into the cult, as well, like if this is a cycle of abuse. And I feel that Santino is trying hard to break that, to be someone else now, to apologize to Marius through these actions. And I think he knows he fucked up and I think he’s willing to be patient and do the penance for everything, but he’s up against such a seriously injured, hurt person who is not ready to accept.

But gosh like. Santino is so gentle and comforting even in those scenes when he first takes Armand, and it’s so much like Marius. THEY ARE HIS TWO DADS OKAY. And they both are such calm energies and it’s so disarming!

And like I wonder too if Marius sees that. I FEEL LIKE I’LL GO INTO A SIDE ESSAY DON’T LET ME GET CARRIED AWAY ON THIS TOPIC so put a pin in this but: Does Marius realize how similar they are? Does he lash out because of self loathing? I often wonder if he chose Lestat to share the secrets with because Lestat reminded him of himself, as well, so I wonder how often he’s compartmentalized parts of himself and lashed out at others who embody these things???? But he and Santino truly have so much in common, almost like funhouse mirror versions of each other. And I think about like, in family units how the ones who are most alike are always the ones at each other’s throats. (See also: Lestat & Claudia.)

So anyway I think like, BACK TO UR QUESTION. The scene in TVA is like one of the most absolutely devastating moments in VC for me. Santino trying to do his penance, be supportive, trying so hard in these few decades to apologize to Marius for everything that happened. Marius playing the role he’s supposed to play, trying to be chill about it, trying to cooperate. And if we never went on to B&G it could be happily ever after and maybe we’d never know that his progress collapsed afterwards, or that it wasn't progress at all and he was just going through motions that he felt he was supposed to.

And it’s just so heartbreaking and ironic that like these two are maybe the only two in the world who know Armand in a certain way, and maybe Santino would have been someone who could help Marius grieve if they could just share it and help each other, but it’s not how it went.

(also I hope this isn't tacky and arrogant but I wrote a fic about this one time that I think sums my feelings up 😭😭😭)

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi Nalyra, thank you for always being there to answer questions from new readers of the books, it means a lot!

I've seen people (book readers) disliking David and wishing for the show to erase him, even a small role would not be well received. And so I wanna ask... what do you think of him? From what I can read in the books, I like him, his steadfast belief in Lestat's ability to choose for himself without backing out from the need to point out the truth to him. He's not a doormat, but he still is very protective. What's your opinion of him and do you think we'll get to see him in the show if we get a third season? Thanks ❤️

Absolutely, hope you like the answers :)) I love talking about them, so.... :)))

David... is a beast of his own.

Because ... Anne tried to replace Louis with David.

I have talked about her need to let Louis behind (I understand her need to do so, the grieving part of her was weighing her down), but her trying to replace him did not sit well with the fans, and we have the FB fans to thank for always pushing Louis back into the narrative whenever she would ask them.

That is one aspect of it all.

The other... is that David is, like almost all other characters of the VC as well, at first charming, interesting, and then you dig deeper... and there's an abyss of... not so savory aspects to consider. Most notably maybe found in Merrick.

That's another aspect.

I, personally, find the way Anne was able to find other's voices fascinating, the narration of Merrick is very much "David" (and a lot of people hate it because of that^^), but that in and by itself is so interesting to me. But it adds to the general dislike I have seen, totally apart from the content and the... tendencies David exhibits throughout the tale (and where Anne's own, more than questionable stances wrt this came through).

I think a combination of all of this is why most do not like David.

Personally though I find David fascinating.

He is not my favorite character, and I'm not sure I would mourn it if the show would skip him, or replace him, but his later dynamic with Lestat is fascinating to me.

Because David is made like Lestat, from a Lestat who tries to convince himself with it that he is evil (and fails at that, in stark contrast to Magnus' reaction back then). And though David arrives at the intellectual realization that it has spared him the capitulation much sooner than Lestat himself can accept it, it results in a very interesting dynamic in the later books. Because David challenges Lestat. Fights back - gives back as good as he gets, too, most noticeably maybe in that force-feeding (rape?) scene in "Prince Lestat". He is no "doormat", as you put it.

So that is the book aspect that I for one would like to see explored, because it ties in so much with Lestat's character journey, and his own journey of acceptance, too.

But for the show itself I think there are things to consider wrt the "Immortal Universe".

David Talbot is the Superior General of the Talamasca. A show spin-off they supposedly still develop, if the hints in "Mayfair Witches" and at the SDCC 2023 are any indication.

He is a link between the shows. He and Jesse, and Merrick, and Aaron Lightner, who MW seems to have replaced though.

So that leaves David, Jesse and Merrick.

Somehow they will have to connect, at least if they really want to build that "Immortal Universe" properly. If QotD really has not happened yet in the show that gives it a breather until that introduction can be done, even if the chronicling is given to Daniel on the show.

Given the existence of all the diaries I am not sure if we will get Jesse (who went to Rue Royale after all) or Merrick herself... Though, of course a witch and a member of the Talamasca... (I still don't understand why they didn't introduce her in MW already, I really don't.) Maybe she or Jesse is that "interior designer" :)

We'll see.

I think character-wise there is an interesting dynamic that can be explored, and universe-wise it might not make much sense to omit him.

He could also know about their origins, without the need to introduce Gregory, or Teshkamen, maybe. There is a huge cast of characters in the later books, likely too much for a show. David could theoretically make the connections there as well.

[loelett]

sorry if this seems random but a little rant in response to what u reblogged about the new tv show.

TBH IT MAKES ME SO MAD THAT THEY ADDED *FORCED* RACISM (and by that I mean Louis taking lestat calling him his fledgling as "slave" like stop thats not what vc is about at ALL?????) AND HAD TO MAKE ANTOINE INTO ANTOINETTE TO SHOW HES BI 💀 I feel like the writers missed a lot of important points about the book and WHY Louis stuck with Lestat and was infatuated with him but hated him at the same time. they really changed character dynamics in it tbh. dont get me wrong, its a decent show, but I just can't see it as the same Louis and Lestat compared to the 1994 movie which I think did a good job in recreating what Anne wrote.

anyway hi 😍🥰😇...

I'm not really sure what forced racism means in the context of the iwtv show ngl. I mean I've really only seen the show through one and a half times but I do know that even Louis himself in the books labels himself as a slave to Lestat's whim (Claudia does as well; she also calls him a slave to Armand) (Lestat also does this in respects to Himself so even he agrees hrejgh) so even in the context of the books I don't really think it's forced or ooc for this connection to be made. Obviously the intention is different considering Louis' blackness in the show, but since this is a theme the show goes with (meaning the racism that Louis experiences in his time period) I don't really have a problem with that wording. I'm not black myself so this is just my opinion by the way, but I've always been pretty interested in the way they decided to change show Louis' race and backstory. It's probably the most interesting change they made imo.

Um yeah the Antoinette thing still sucks, I really don't know why they decided to go with that ?? Idk i always forget abt her so I guess I'm a hater. Agree 👍. We never needed to prove Lestat was bi esp in the first book so wharever? go off showrunners i Guess?? idk bout all that

Loustat's dynamic is completely different in the show and it's one I've rlly never been interested in. I know a lot of people enjoy it and I don't wanna take away from that, so no hate there idk do what you love. I'm just not an enjoyer of the abuser/abusee thing they kinda have going on. Um and the cheating stuff it's all just really exhausting to me. I just really like Louis' reaction to Lestat's actions in the book ! They aren't canon BECAUSE Lestat is abusive and controlling and manipulative and they don't even kiss until book 2, let alone express emotional/physical affection. Show Louis goes back to Lestat even after everything that goes on in ep 5 and. As a self proclaimed Louis self insert I just can't ever see him doing that in the books, at least not with Claudia still in the picture. IDK!

I'm really not a hater of the show, and I want all the Louis fans out there to really think about the way they react to the changes in his character from book to show. There are personality changes that I don't agree with either, but this is a different story and the original one has already been told. I don't have to like the show to respect it and its fans, and the whole pick a side thing between book and show is exhausting to me :/ there r things I like and things i don't like about both versions !

Sorry I know this goes really off topic HGFSHg.. love love

[notbecauseofvictories]

I saw you mention Flowers in the Attic- did you read that, fresh, as an adult? I was given that book at twelve and reread it every so often, and I've always wondered what in the world someone would take away from it if they read it as a grown-up and it didn't burrow into their brains during puberty, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. It feels like the sort of book that's almost unreadable if you didn't get to it early

I did! I read it for the very first time about eight months ago, on a total whim---I think I saw the ebook was available through the library? And of course I knew it by reputation, so curiosity did the rest.

As an adult, I was actually very impressed by it as a novel. It's extremely readable, with a lurid, almost soap opera feel that leavens what might otherwise be out-and-out tragedy. It actually reminded me a lot of Michael McDowell's pulp horror novels, like The Elementals and Blackwater---all three play with the same gothic themes of generational sin and clannish infighting in the American South, though McDowell uses monsters to make his point.

I will say that I was unprepared for the sheer degree of neglect and abuse VC Andrews put on the page. Everyone talks about the incest, but there's so, so much gutting tragedy leading up to it that it felt like a natural response to the trauma these kids are asked to endure. (I was much more horrified by the shriveling, anhedonic twins than anything Chris and Cathy did.)

That being said...I can absolutely see how it would burrow into a young reader's head. The lurid soapiness, the forbidden thrill of it all, would be devastatingly effective for a reader who hasn't encountered it before. Gothic is and remains a fun genre, there’s a reason it’s branched off in a hundred different directions. But also---as an adult you spend the whole narrative conscious of how young these kids are, how grossly unfair and tragic it is that they are being asked to endure the cruelty around them. That awareness imbues the book with tragedy and robs it of some of its thrill. 

As a younger reader, though, I can imagine their suffering takes on an almost heroic cast. I grew up on (and adored!) wilderness survival books, where a boy or girl survives in nature by dint of their courage and cleverness---same thing with books like Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E Frankweiler or the Boxcar Children, where the adults are removed from the picture and children rise to the challenge. Cathy and Chris do the same, even if their mountain/arctic tundra/uninhabited island is the attic and social roles they're forced into by their grandmother's cruelty and mother's selfish neglect.

I would have loved to read some scholarly articles about the role of incest in Flowers in the Attic specifically, and it was even namechecked in the afterword of one of the books I skimmed! But unfortunately it seems like the academy’s focus has been on the European Romantic/Gothic literature of the past---so I’ll have to wait for my essay on what incest in pulp novels, holiday commercials, and fantasy television, says about the modern American psyche.

[desertfangs]

🎤 If you could ask Anne Rice any three questions about tvc, what would they be?

This is really hard because while there are things I'm curious about (Why isn't Daniel mentioned more in PLROA when he's supposedly there the entire time? Why is he left out of BC2 entirely?) I feel like the answers would be unsatisfying. The truth is, I think she just didn't care about him and he was an afterthought. Armand and Daniel returning to Trinity Gate is meant to show that Armand is unhappy with how Court is going and how his concerns are being ignored, it's not about Daniel, it's just giving Armand his boyfriend back to travel with because who else would he go with? No one else is going to leave Court at the moment, certainly not Louis, whom she wants with Lestat.

And she just didn't have any interest or use for him after that. He's not in BC2 because she didn't care about him. Maybe she forgot he existed. Maybe she pictured him house sitting TG. IDK.

And this goes for all questions of that nature. Why is Louis so absent from the books for a while? Because she wanted to make David Talbot happen. Why does Eric disappear? Eric who? Etc etc. So I don't know that those kinds of questions would be worth asking, at least to me.

I guess what would interest me most are her thoughts on her work, and these are the questions I would ask:

Is there a book or event in The Vampire Chronicles that you regret?

I don't know that she'd have one, although it does seem like Prince Lestat comes in and kind of paves over the Mayfair crossover pretty quickly, and I wonder if she later decided that wasn't the right way to go. I like Quinn but I never liked the idea of the crossover, or Rowan in the VC. Did Anne? Did she think it was a mistake?

Maybe she'd say something else! There were certainly things she did that were not well-received and we know Anne took criticism hard. But enough to regret her choices? I don't know. Maybe she'd say she had no regrets! She often followed her own bliss and wrote what she wanted to write, and I admire that.

2. Is there something in the books that you feel people constantly misunderstand or misread?

Anne definitely had a deep understanding of the stories she was telling (or trying to tell), even though I get the impression that she was an exploratory writer - I think she plotted somewhat but I think a lot of her story ideas formed as she wrote. And I think sometimes that means you, as the writer, only really understand things after the fact.

I would love to know if there's an element or a character or a plot point that she always felt people didn't "get."

3. Which book are you most proud of?

I do believe she really loved Memnoch and was sort of aghast at its reception (which was not good when it came out). But which one does she really think is her best work? TVL? QotD? BC2? I'd love to know which one she was most satisfied with.

Also maybe I'd ask what inspired the alien idea. Too much X-Files? 😂

Anyhow, maybe not the most insightful of questions, but I'd be curious to hear her answers.

Thank you for the ask!!

[rapha-reads]

So I've decided to ignore sleep tonight (though it's already 6am so whatever), because several reasons I won't get into. Anyway I'm reading Prince Lestat and I am LOVING it. There is just so much lore?! So many new characters, fascinating characters?! A whole world of vampires whose stories are connected or totally not to the Coven of the Articulate?! There's just so much.

In my last post, about how I skipped quickly Blackwood Farm and Blood Canticle, I wrote that I was finding it academically fascinating to read several decades worth of an entire literature world in the span of a month only. To continue in this vein (pun intended), reading PL after having binge-read the original VC books is a deep dive into how history has sped up since the 80s.

I'm not just thinking about because I'm reading Gregory's chapter and that's what he's observing, and also because the changed world and what it means for vampire society ("the tribe", and how I adore that terminology) is the big main theme of this final trilogy. It's something I've been thinking about since TVL at least. How for how these novels pertain to the horror and the fantastic genres, they are also a mirror of the society and time during which AR was writing. And because she kept writing decade after decade, and kept observing the world around here, each new book is its own little observation about the early 80s, then late 80s, then first half of the 90s, second half of the 90s, and now we're right smack in the middle 2010s and these immortal characters are feeling the weight of this rapidly changing world.

And it makes me think of actual human beings born in the 40s or 50s, or even 60s, or my own grandfather born in 1931, and how, just like a lot of these vampires recounted in PL, they sometimes can't follow all the changes brought in the last three decades (the biggest thing is technology, intradiegetically Lestat himself saying he keeps forgetting how to use his smartphone, but extradiegetically, it's how AR writes "to go on the computer" and other phrases like that, that sounds weird to the ear of someone who's grown up with this tech). And AR was over 70yo when she wrote PL, so I'm imagining that she was also writing her own impressions of this 21st century world that she saw developing under her eyes.

And in light of all the historic events we live week after week these past handful of years only (the 2020s want to bury us), it's quite interesting to apply that way of thinking to our generation too (millenials and younger, the 80s-90s-early 00s kids). Saw a post earlier saying "do you think one day we'll get to live in precedented times", in answer to the classic "we're living in unprecedented times", and I think of how the VC are the stories of one handful of characters in a world full of other characters who are not or relatively not concerned by these big stories. And how the Coven of the Articulate is considered as legendary amongst the rest of vampiredom, while they themselves don't really realise their fame, or when they do, they reject it. And how in the actual world, there are still a huge percentage of the world population that's not concerned at all by things that here make us all go frothing at the mouth because "omg we're witnessing history". Yes, "we" are witnessing something that will appear in the history books, but it is so because we have decided to put ourselves in the narrative. So many people are not even caring a little bit about big news that seem so important to us, because their lives have other matters to care for. And it's not that they're wrong or we're wrong, it's not about that, it's mostly about how the rapid changes of the world in the 21st century has made a category of people (all ages all nationalities alike) the Main Character, concerned by the narrative and trying to control it or change it (voting, protesting, activism) while so many others are still going on about their lives as usual, maybe seeing the same things as the first category, using the same tools, but not seeing the connection between it and them (the "mavericks" as AR calls them), or others starting to realise and not knowing how to join the narrative (Antoine, Gregory), while yet others have picked up a whole other way of being part of the narrative while not being part of it (Fareed).

I don't know if that makes sense. Maybe I do need to go lay down for a couple of hours after all.