#i wanted to be what daniel was to armand and what armand was to daniel | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

murfpersonalblog · 1 day ago

Text

Sincerely, thank you SO much for all of the input you (and @alleyskywalker) have been giving me; talking to y'all has really raised a lot of excellent points that I hadn't considered. I'm definitely doing a revised Trial Timeline Pt2d, to make a few changes based on everything we've discussed together.

Sam's presence by Armand's side

"When Daniel points out the inconsistency of the memory of Sam’s role in the trial, Louis experiences cognitive dissonance, because Armand has told him and most likely wants to believe that his companion of 77 years was also a victim. To resolve this dissonance, Louis ends up blaming himself by saying he’s the one remembering things wrong."

Yes, y'all have convinced me that Sam was probably NOT a fake memory from Armand or a hallucination from Louis' thoughts. Sam was just moving back & forth b/t Armand's box to watch the Trial play out, and the Wet Room to torture Louis.

Which is a theory I really like, cuz it makes Louis' excuse that he never went after Sam cuz "time heals all wounds" seem even more sus, cuz this is the man largely in charge of writing the play & all of the horrible things about you & Claudia. You killed the frikkin musicians, but not the actual writer?????

Same with when people point out Louis' strange personality changes b/t 2x4 & 2x5, how he's mad one second and hearteyes the next, like...?

So I'm VERY excited to get Sam in S3, cuz he's got SO MUCH explaining to do.

Coup & Script

From the show, Santiago went to Louis’ apartment to find evidence they could nail him on. Before that, they didn’t really have anything to put Louis on trial: the maitre had given him dispensation from joining the coven; he’s not the one who turned a child. They could kill Claudia based on her being ‘deformed’ alone, and I think until Santiago knew about their killing of Lestat, that was the plan. So can we assume that Sam started writing the play in April 1949, but it was a meatless play, which is why Santiago went looking for something and ended up finding Claudia’s diaries in June/July, a time when Armand was heavily distracted because Louis had committed to a companionship with him.

No wait, Santiago went looking for the diaries in late 1947/early 1948, way before Sam wrote the Trial script in 1949 (AND Godot). Sam already knew they'd tried to kill Les in 1949, he already had the diaries by then.

But it was still a meatless play, agreed, cuz they wanted LESTAT'S testimony. Which is why we then get Roget's interrogation in 1948ish, and them climbing the Eiffel Tower in 1949--they wanted the drama of Lestat being on the stage, "swearing on his own blood" that "his" version of (scripted) events was true. Cuz they're vicious; it twists the knife to have Les' testimony be the thing that condemns them.

Maybe what we saw of Celeste and Estelle's conversation on the bridge was one of those times the audience got a rare objective reconstruction of events. But since Louis is the one doing the retelling at this point of the story, let's assume he was privy to their conversation, and that Santiago’s insistence that he was Maître probably convinced him that Armand was telling the truth about his involvement. (I think the show was doing that thing where they’re trying to tell us Armand wasn’t the mastermind behind the whole thing, but it was done so clumsily that it feels out of tune with the tone of the show).

Celeste & Estelle give 2 reasons--the London coven targeting their weakness, or Eglee being mad that Santiago dumped her for Celeste. So yes, their convo speaks to the coven's insecurities about their tenuous loyalties to e/o--no honor amongst thieves, a group's only as strong as their weakest link. Santiago insisted that he was the mastermind of the whole Trial the same way he wanted everyone to follow him as Maitre. Louis was right about him in the park, "He wants your job."

So I have no doubt that it was Santiago's plan from the start--he wanted Louis dead the second Louis fell asleep during Santiago's performance in 2x2 & didn't wanna watch anymore of their plays, "persona non grata." This whole Trial is about Santiago's beef with Louis ever since, and he dragged Claudia, Lestat, AND Armand into this mess. I was shocked that more people blamed Armand for Claudia's death than Santiago, like wtf? He literally said IT WAS ME!

But the juicy question is: WHEN did Armand agree to follow Santiago's schemes? WHEN did Armand start lying REALLY? 🤷

Loumand

Did Armand lie to Louis about Gabrielle and Nicki, or was he lying/not telling stuff to Daniel?

Louis said in 2x3 "He abandoned Nicky. He abandoned Armand. He abandoned the coven. Lestat is, was, and will always be, for Lestat." So Armand has obvs lied by omission TO LOUIS before about Lesmand's past, cuz that is NOT the full truth, as I explained in the post I linked--Sam even says in the article that Rolin deliberately wanted Gabrielle's absence to be a red flag about Armand's unreliable narration.

Which makes me think Armand can’t just snap his fingers and rewire a memory. It’s probably easier when someone is ‘half in love with easeful forgetting’, but even then, a vampire who’s feeding human every other day, as Louis is in Paris, isn’t so easy to memory wipe to the extent of never remembering anything despite interacting with the memory wiper every day compared to a drugged up, drained human who manages to retrieve important memories while dying of a neurodegenerative disease. I guess this is me coming out as the person who believes that Louis asked Armand to erase the memory of him going into the sun (Armand took advantage, of course, and painted himself as a saviour, but I’m convinced the initial decision to erase those memories was Louis’).

Agreed! It could very well have been Louis' decision to ask Armand to wipe his memories.

BUT.

That loops us back to this:

Same thing with the pages he removed from the diary. Louis knew what was in those pages, he’d had access to them for a while, he was okay with them being shown/not shown to Daniel. He also knew that Armand had made the unilateral decision to remove some of the diary pages because he didn’t want Daniel to know certain things about him.

SOME of the pages Armand removed WITHOUT Louis' knowledge and consent/permission, behind Louis' back, "on my own", Armand admits this himself:

Cuz like I've said 1000x times, Armand abused Louis' trust, and took advantage of Louis over & over again, and played him for a fool. YES, Louis ripped pages out (eg: Claudia's rape). And yes, Loumand obvs agreed to the Rashid ruse together, to protect Armand's true identity from Dan cuz of what happened in SanFran.

But the pages Armand removed "on my own" were NOT part of their agreement--Dan would've just read Armand's name & been like WHO? And Louis & "Rashid" would've just been like: Oh, the coven master, move on. Armand didn't cover his tracks well enough--he was sloppy. And revealing himself "this time I won't save your life" blew that whole "Rashid" plan out the water. And ironically, revealing himself was the string that unraveled this whole web of lies. Cuz Dan had his scent at that point, and followed it all the way to Sam & the Talamasca & the rest of Armand's lies.

It ain't a good look, and it casts Louis' agency asking to be mindwiped in SanFran into HIGHKEY question. No mental health expert who works with traumatized neurodivergent victims of abuse would EVER agree that Louis was in the right mind during that time:

fresh off a suicide attempt and STILL burned from it (even when they took Dan to the drug den he's got the burns on him in the Talamasca photos; so Louis wasn't even healed at the time & was still in incredible pain)

AND a mental breakdown (triggered by drugs, Dan's rudeness demanding to be Louis' Lestat, and Armand's deep cuts during their fight)

AND a traumatic phonecall he did NOT ask for (thanks Armand) with the Maker he was told (by Armand) had sentenced him to death in the Trial

So yes, I also believe Louis asked Armand to mindwipe him. But Armand should've never done it, cuz Louis wasn't mentally well to make that kind of decision with full consent, and his anger about it in Dubai strongly indicates that if he HAD been more cognizant, he wouldn'tve wanted it done either.

Again: Armand is well aware that it makes him look better in Louis' mind to have those memories removed--not just that Louis tried to kill himself, but also the entire fight Loumand had--Louis admitting how he was bored to dangit death being with Armand & hated having sex with him; and Armand mocking Paul's suicide (a la SanFran) and Grace burying Louis alive (a la Paris) and Claudia resenting Louis (a la Merrick). Their whole fight was about Louis' deep discontent being with Armand anymore, and by erasing Louis' memories of the fight, it allowed Armand to rewrite history so that Louis never even remembered that he didn't like Armand anymore & that Lou was READY to call it quits with Armand in 1973--even if it killed him.

Which ofc brings us back to the complex self-preserving/self-sabotaging choices Armand makes. Cuz on one hand, he's terrified of being alone, and is not above lies & mindewipes to keep someone with him; but on the other hand, he's also not above throwing them to the wolves like castoffs the second he has better options. Which is KINDA book accurate...but kinda NOT book accurate. Which is my personal beef with AMC!Armand vs book!Armand.

But, we’ve seen Armand distracted and unable to use his powers in Dubai, like when Rashid and Daniel lie to him about what went on in the restaurant, or when Rashid brought Daniel a fat-ass newspaper, or when Daniel was plotting to reveal everything at the table. The only person who used mind reading often in Dubai was Louis, not Armand. Now, maybe it was the show not knowing what to do with Armand since they’d made him too powerful and if he was a Master Plotter, there’s no reason why he wouldn’t be able to see the plotting around him in Dubai. But let’s go with what the show has told us: when in love, Armand fails to see what’s happening around him. Let’s say he was so in love with Louis, that he not only lost interest in the coven and broke the rules he’d enforced for centuries, but he also deluded himself into believing that other coven members wouldn’t rebel against his selective tyranny.

That's been my deep suspicion since Day 👏 Effing 👏 ONE. 👏 I'm convinced Rolin never intended for Armand to get so popular in the fanbase, and was fully prepared to throw him under the bus with the "Banishment" plot twist & make him the bad guy & look even worse than he was in the books; by helping to plan his own companion's murder, and lie about saving him for 77 years.

Cuz IMO book!Armand is MUCH easier to defend; he's my fave character in TVC, BECAUSE to a large extent he was right: toddler!Claudia was an abomination, she was the ONLY one who stabbed/poisoned Les, Louis was 100% oblivious to her plotting, and Armand never had any intention of killing Louis. The effed up part was killing Madz, who had nothing to do with anything. The whole duplicitous backstabbing aspect of the Trial only pertained to Armand torturing Les to force him to condemn Claudia, and lying to Lou that Les had died after the Trial/fire. Armand was THE most powerful vamp, and Santiago was more in the background. AMC!Armand's actions against Louis are skeevy AF, casting into question how he could be so painfully oblivious, both to Santiago AND Daniel plotting. book!Armand loyally stayed with Louis until Louis was literally too depressed to be around anymore. He never wiped Lou's memory or anything, he just left Lou to his own devices, which was the SMART/BETTER thing to do--regardless of if AMC!Lou asked him to erase the memories or not (post-suicide attempt & mental break; the dubcon is through the ROOF 😩).

I'm in the same position as Lestans who hate AMC!Lestat, cuz I find AMC!Armand SO much worse; I don't like or trust him AT ALL. And I see no logical explanation for AMC changing so much, other than that that's what AMC intended us to feel about him here. 🤷 Only difference is that Loustat's still endgame, so there HAS to be a redemption arc for Lestat, "can I cry and say I'm sorry, too!?" in order to make Loustat getting back together palatable. Lestat's the new MC, and Lestat's endgame for Louis, period, Rolin's said it 1000x. AMC has zero obligation to make Armand look any better, cuz Loumand's not endgame; Armand's not a focal point going forward. I reckon fan pressure from the Devil's Minion side will be MOST influential for getting AMC to give Armand a redemption arc--but that would be making a Armand better person for Daniel's sake as his Maker, NOT Louis' sake as his ex. But who knows, time will tell.

Loustat

Did Lestat do this literally, or did he recount the events out loud from his point of view, and Louis remembered? Because Claudia saw/heard the same things: it’s why she told him that Lestat was doing the retelling to hurt him further and what made her get on her feet to mock the audience for believing him.

I like your earlier point that AMC is obvs. adding objective POVs, where I responded about my own suspicions wrt 3rd person POVs AMC has included.

And I also like @alleyskywalker's point that maybe it's Armand sharing/projecting images/memories to Louis & Claudia--although that still leaves the door open for him to interfere with things.

Another thing that bugs me about the extent of Armand’s memory wiping powers is, if he’s time and time again used this power to paint Lestat in a negative light: 1: What purpose does softening Louis’ perception of himself serve? From what we’ve seen, Louis’ belief that he’s unable to control his temper and often causes grave damage to himself or others is crucial to the control Armand has over him. Making him believe he was helpless to stop Lestat’s turning of Claudia or unable to go through with burning Lestat because of Claudia doesn’t serve Armand in any way because then Louis would think he’s incapable of causing harm when he’s not under the power of stronger forces (older vampires, a child he loves unconditionally, etc). Having Louis believe he has self-control wouldn’t do Armand de I Need to be Needed any favours.

The Trial's EP4 revisit wasn't about softening Louis' perception of himself or making Louis think he could/couldn't stop Lestat. It was about implicating Louis in being aware of the coven's Great Laws forbidding turning children, and him making/manipulating/forcing Lestat to do it for him anyway, deliberately breaking the law & thus being guilty & deserving to be put to death. It painted Louis negatively to the audience AND the IRL fanbase. It wasn't about benefiting Armand per se; rather, it was just another coal on Louis' head to guarantee that he would be found guilty & killed. (And I've spoken sat length about why I think the revisit's scripted AF, even though SOME parts of it DO match with what we already saw in 1x4.)

I don’t think is entirely true. I think Louis blames himself for minor things or stuff he knows he didn’t do. But not about the things that would make his worldview take a 180-degree turn. Louis’ One Thing, Only Thing, has been Claudia’s death. As we saw in 1973, he cannot live with the memory of what happened to Claudia. In episode 5, when they start to talk about the events that directly lead to the trial, Daniel calls Louis out for using language that distances him from the narration, because it’s a difficult memory and one he’s never actually had himself recount, ever. Raglan said 3 or 4 other journalists had tried to get the full story out of him and ended up dead or undead. Even in 1973 we see Louis and Armand use ‘Her’ instead of Claudia’s name when talking about Paris. In Season 1’s finale, we see him remember that it’s not Claudia who stopped them from burning Lestat; he was the one who used violence to stop her from finishing the act. Armand tells Daniel that he’d be ashamed of calling Louis a liar for his faulty memories after learning the full extent of the repercussions for not burning Lestat. I say this also applies to Louis. He is ashamed/cannot live with the fact that what he failed to do in NOLA is what led to the events in Paris (I’m speaking purely about the character’s mindset. I don’t think burning Lestat would’ve changed anything; it might have made things worse). Cognitive dissonance again, and this time he resolved it by blaming Claudia. He’s believed the kinder version of events because he can’t face the fact that his refusal to burn Lestat is the reason why he could come to Paris and testify in the trial that ends up killing his daughter. To know himself as the man who picked Lestat and ended up condemning Claudia? That would send him to the sun 10 times over. And it’s easy to blame Armand for this again, say that he messed with the memory of Lestat’s killing and that’s why Louis blamed Claudia for the failure to burn him (which okay, if it kept Louis from the sun, is almost a sympathetic and loving edit, as messed up as that is lmao). But, Louis has read the diaries and knows Claudia hated him for 5 years while they were going through Europe. Daniel also mentions this in Season 1 iirc. So it’s not like Louis doesn’t know it wasn’t all roses between them after leaving NOLA.

Agreed.

Revisiting the Trial

2: Why would he leave his involvement with planning the trial in there? If he can basically snap a finger and rewire a memory forever (or drone on and on about a version of events until the victim fully believes him), he could remove himself from knowing about the planning altogether. If he can even make his victim hallucinate something (like Sam being next to him during the trial), he could’ve made Louis hallucinate him next to them on the stage during the trial. Why doesn’t he? Why leave the memory of his culpability in there despite knowing it’s the one thing Louis wouldn’t forgive Lestat for, let alone him?

EXCELLENT questions. 😂🤣

AMC's Trial changes very important bits from the book, that bring all of Armand's actions into question, and make him look either sinister AF (malicious!), or incompetent AF (in love!), or both (nuance™???). IMO he just grossly underestimated Daniel's ability to pick his lies apart (more on that below)--and for some strange reason, he never went after Sam (or got Louis to kill the last person involved in Claudia's murder, which is ALSO wildly OOC for Louis--unless he's been brainwashed with that "time heals all wounds" BS), to make sure Sam kept his mouth shut, let alone ran blabbing to the Talamasca. I've seen some fan theories that Sam was an agent for the Talamasca the whole time, which is WIIIIILD~! I can't WAIT for S3.

Louis prefers to believe a version of events that paint him in a kinder light, and so he wouldn’t willingly upset his worldview by reading an account that challenged it (“I knew who I was without those pieces.”) I don’t know whether he does this deliberately or by not fighting against Armand’s (supposed) control of the archives. I say deliberately because, once he gets the memory of Lestat’s non-burning right, he needs very little prodding to remember what happened next..... ....it’s Louis who decides what memories he carries and which ones he forgets or edits to maintain his self-perception. He doesn’t do this maliciously. I think everyone believes they’re better than they actually are. Not many people are willing to look in the mirror and truly see themselves, flaws and all. Louis “I didn’t put those there - You sure about that” de Pointe du Lac has gone through life refusing to look in the mirror. What likely happens is similar to what happened with Claudia’s turning: he made the story gentler for a child’s mind, like how mothers do with their kids’ birth stories, and likely retold it to her enough times that it became the full truth to him too.

Louis' lost pieces come from A LOT of different places; and his triggers don't ALL react to the same stimuli or amount of prodding:

I think THE BULK of Lou's lost pieces are cuz of his own repressed memories & coping mechanisms from decades of trauma & PTSD & grief. He just doesn't WANT to remember bad things in his life ("I want to die!"), so he mindwipes himself; cuz suicidal tendencies & mental illness BOTH run in his family. (Dan has to GRILL Louis in 1x7 "was it raining; what murder? You don't need a memoir, you need 100 sessions of EMDR!"). Ofc by 10 sessions (2x8), we learn the truth about "Banishment," which changes the trajectory of the whole interview (Louis goes from toasting Armand across the table; to setting Dan's laptop on fire & running to NOLA)--

--because other lost pieces are predicated on The Seismic Lie that said "Lestat wanted US dead," (ie: Banishment); which have THOROUGHLY confused Louis wrt Les' motives, going alllll the way back to NOLA--"And then something real. This is Lestat." He's unsure if Les EVER loved him, or if Les EVER felt anything real for Lou beyond having "all the emotional acuity of A MONSTER~!" (a la ranting in 1973; a la book!IWTV)

And some are memories/lies Louis fabricates for himself, cuz he KNOWS Loustat shared real love (a la Dreamstat--did Les REALLY have Lou's initials monogrammed, or is that something Lou WISHES Les did for him?). Which makes the Banishment lie the deepest betrayal, cuz he's been operating for the past 77 years thinking Les hated his guts. He KNOWS that can't be true though, which is why he's so determined to get this 2nd interview right in 2022, where the 1st one in 1973 went wrong; "the more nuanced portrait."

Some are cuz of faulty memories & GAPS in his knowledge--during the Trial he was in & out of conscious cuz the coven kicked his head in & knocked him out cold in the Wet Room and he had a bleeding head wound the whole time he was on stage; and he was mind fogged so bad he was hemorrhaging from one eye; and had all these different versions of events thrown at him that had him confused even in Dubai 77 years later.

And ofc others are cuz he's been mindwiped ON; some of his memories are tampered with, and we'll NEVER know the full extent of what Armand did & didn't remove/replace; "I had a hunch."

LDPDL is the dictionary definition of Mentally Unwell, ("If I had been an actual journalist and, you know, not fried on coke and ludes, I would have realized what a dangerously unstable psyche I was with").

So I wouldn't say Lou needed "very little prodding"--he needs the entirety of S1 to even START the process of properly unlocking all of these memories, once Daniel realizes that the ravages of TIME aren't the problem with Louis' odyssey of recollection ("I never owned a Buick; you don't need a memoir!"). There's a bunch of other internal & external factors affecting Louis' memory, and it all goes back to the seeds planted when Dan said in 1x1: "I do my best work 1 on 1," without "Rashid's" constant interference.

The memories come flooding back, including and especially the more correct version of NOLA events that Lestat showed him during the trial re: Claudia’s turning, the fight, etc. If Armand had maliciously edited these memories, then he’d stop Louis from recovering them (kill Daniel and make Louis forget he even thought of doing an interview). But he doesn’t. He’s right there as these memories come back and, aside from suggesting Louis stops during emotionally charged moments, doesn’t prevent the remembering, despite this making it more likely that the extent of his betrayal would be uncovered. Why?

Both revisits were intended to show Louis in a bad light & condemn him to DEATH.

The 1x4 revisit was supposed to implicate Louis in breaking the Great Law against turning children. Neither Louis not Claudia could corroborate these events, and Louis gave up and just accepted it, "you should go with Lestat's version."

The 1x5 revisit was supposed to push Santiago's narrative of "mutual" abuse--"what's as bite between paramours; remember that we are monsters~!" and diffuse the brutality of Lestat's actions by minimizing Louis' pain "it was a hard fall, nothing more!" Claudia wanted Lestat dead after his actions in Ep5 proved to her that Les was no better than Bruce.

"I refuse the idea that Armand is some passive “I couldn’t prevent it” character. If he’s been editing Louis’ memories at will, then he’s a very actively malicious creature (even if he doesn’t think so). Moreover, the renewed memories paint Lestat in a much kinder picture, which doesn’t serve Armand de Possessive. "

The Trial was deliberately designed to prove that Claudia & Louis had NO right or reason to kill Lestat, and that NOTHING Lestat did warranted him being killed by his fledglings ("The father, duped by his ungrateful and diabolical children"). The Trial was meant to end with Claudia AND Louis DEAD. The malicious edits to the revisits are embedded in the script itself, with all the deflecting Santiago does to keep the narrative on track that Lestat is NOT the one on Trial (LESTAT: "I broke the Second Law. When you sentence them for their crimes, you sentence me too." SANTIAGO: "Ha! But you were manipulated into it...teased until you toppled!").

Armand doesn't HAVE to hide the Trial events from DanLou, cuz the Trial still ended with the seismic lie about "Banishment." By painting Lestat as the ultimate betrayer, Armand expertly diffused any & all forgiveness Louis could give Lestat; painted HIMSELF as the ultimate hero. Like, YES, Armand took care of Louis, and allowed him to stick to his vegan diet, and was never physically abusive (beyond NOT putting Louis in his coffin for hours (days?) on end in 2x5 so he could sleep & heal). But the decades of psychological manipulation are Armand's misstep, when he had SO many chances to come clean & never did--what hides in the dark comes out in the light! Louis tagged Daniel in for the 2nd interview & Dan came in clutch ("it's his job" "it's his drug" "I know. It's my job. I'm built this way!"), cuz Louis knew in his SPIRIT that something wasn't right about Armand; Jacob's talked about this several times.

What makes Armand de Possessive "more likely that the extent of his betrayal would be uncovered" is NOT the Trial proceedings being recounted to DanLou & Armand letting it happen (a la Lesmand in 2x3). It's Daniel's snooping with RAGLAN. If Dan hadn't gotten Sam's script from Raglan at the last minute, that interview would've ended with Loumand STILL together & Louis STILL lost in the sauce for another 77 years. 😬

Dan would've died from Parkinson's Disease, and NO ONE would be able to get close enough again to help Louis--god, when I think about how things could've turned out for Louis I get chills. Which is why I keep comparing IWTV to Get Out--the HORROR of psychological abuse & trauma effs me up way more than physical abuse--physical wounds heal, but mental damage can last forever; esp. when you're rewriting entire histories.

Cuz 100%, Armand should've killed Daniel the second he threw the real script at Louis. 😭🤦 Armand underestimated how much Lou would side with "insignificant" Dan over him ("She was a destitute little girl, destined to live an inconsequential little life!"); and Armand overestimated his ability to KEEP Lou & keep him mind-controlled.

I suspect that he was actively TRYING to mindwipe Louis when they ran into the living room, and that Louis was being mind-fogged offscreen.

"One night, 70 years ago. You are over this, Louis! The pain of it has left you. Don't let an insignificant detail, delivered from am insignificant mortal… You have forgiven me for what part I played in her death! And time has opened back up to us and we are once again teachers of one another. Louis, everything that gives you happiness gives me--Louis!"

But we've seen in 2x7 that even a BARRAGE of mind fogging CAN be shaken off if a vamp tries hard enough--Claudia did it several times, and even Louis managed to do it, even though it made his left eye start hemorrhaging.

So yeah, as to why Armand didn't rip Dan's head off, IDK. 🤷🤷 I think the DM fans might be onto something, that even then Armand was "hedging his bets" and kept Dan alive as a contingency plan to make his own fledgling if Louis left him. Which IS book!Armand's pattern of behavior.

Armand’s hold over Louis isn’t because of some insidious memory edit, it’s the ‘prison of empathy’. He doesn’t challenge Louis’ version of events, mostly because it puts his position as companion at risk. And Louis stays in this prison of empathy even as it suffocates him because he doesn’t want to face memory, the monster.

AGREED. Armand's "maliciousness" isn't cuz he HATES Louis & wants him dead (a la Santiago); it's cuz he's fatalistic to a fault and has twisted ideas about the world AND about love-as-service. He selfishly thinks he's doing Louis a favor/kindness/mercy by having his mind stay as scrambled as eggs, cuz Armand is thoroughly unequipped to handle ANYONE'S mental illness--not Louis, and as we'll likely see in S3, definitely not Nicky's. 💀 Lestat's fledglings keep ending up either suicidal or dead under Armand's watch ("Does he want to lick my boots or chop my hands off? Is it the gremlin or the good nurse tonight?" ).

Even Armand torturing Nicky & chopping his hands off was what Armand thought was an act of kindness/mercy, when he thought Nicky's obsessive violin playing was unhealthy. But violence isn't the answer. 😭😅 He does the wrong things for the right reasons; the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as I've constantly said about book!Armand.

But AMC's twisted that by having Armand actively trying to have Louis killed & lying about it, which takes the wind out of the sails.

TL;DR: My problem with blaming Armand for everything/most things Louis remembers wrong is that 1. It removes Louis’ agency and flattens his personality, and 2. Turns Armand into this Big Bad who plans and executes shit meticulously but somehow doesn’t do anything to stop people who’re 1000X weaker than him from unraveling these plans. I think most of these problems are because the show fucked with Louis’ and Armand’s characters in favour of Lestat’s, but that’s a story for another day.

So IMO, defending Louis' agency & autonomy WITHOUT addressing the roles played by Armand (and even moreso Lestat) in ABUSING Louis' agency/autonomy misses the point wrt this story's overall point about the abuse of power.

Who is ARMAND to determine the trajectory of Louis' life? He was all up in Daniel's face, "Why did I owe YOU my shame? Why did I owe YOU my one act of cowardice? The series of abhorrent consequences that followed?" Well, why does LOUIS owe ARMAND his life or sanity?

Cuz Armand's brand of empathy IS a prison--Louis built it, yes (as I said: the BULK of Louis' lost pieces is him coping with trauma & grief); but Armand holds the keys. Armand equates companionship to covenship, as if there has to be a master & a slave--same way Lestat did. (Only Claudeleine saw e/o as EQUALS.) And Louis' been beat down all his life that he comes to just accept when certain roles present themselves, even when they make him miserable--esp. when they're twisted to use his strengths & weaknesses against him.

Louis can stay in his mind palace of delusion all he wants--it's HIS life, and it should be HIS choice, HIS agency & HIS autonomy if he kills himself or starves himself or wtvr.

Armand treated Lou like a possession the same way Les did ("I GAVE you to Armand"), and not like his own person; it's ableist AF.

Only once Daniel exposed everything was Louis FINALLY able to "LEARN to live honestly." Lou can't learn or grow or KNOW himself, if Armand's ENABLING his worst habits, and SUPPRESSING Louis' identity, by REFUSING to "allow me my odyssey [of recollection]," just cuz YOU'RE too scared to be alone if I kill myself or leave you. Armand POUNCED at the opportunity to wipe Louis' memories, and LEAPT at the chance to remove extra pages from Claudia's diaries, taking undue ADVANTAGE of the trust Louis had in him.

Also, by lying about Banishment, he simultaneously ROBBED Loustat of the chance to grieve for their daughter properly. 77 years have been stolen & wasted on helping Louis AVOID uncomfortable truths about himself, rather than facing everything honestly. It's a childishly immature act that is in line with 17yrs!Armand, so I get what AMC was tryna do, but I agree that it doesn't do AMC!Armand any favors, when we see this uber-powerful vamp CONCEDE power to people 1000x weaker than he is--

--at least not without adequately contextualizing those concessions in ways the audience can understand/accept; what with the convoluted chronology and muddy motivations blurring the lines between clever plot twists & cheap plot contrivances.

But like I said, IMO S2 wasn't interested in exonerating Armand or painting him in a good light. IWTV's been about the abuse of power, and the various ways that ALL vampires have wronged e/o, Louis & Lestat & Armand included.

But it's also about the mishandling of power--not realizing the ways that ALL of these vamps really COULD have prevented the bad ish that happens.

BUT also also, the ways that all these vamps are doomed by the narrative to some extent ("But the suit changes nothing!"). Innocent children end up dead. Abuse victims either get back with their abusers; or they start the cycles of abuse in other ways. Guilty parties (like Sam) get off scott free for no reason.

IMO, saying Armand & Lestat are abusers is not flattening Louis' personality--it's the avoidance of Armand & Lestat's culpability and the overt insistence by Louis-antis/Lestans/Armstans that because Louis DOES make bad decisions that everything IS his fault that flattens Louis as a character. Louis can be a naive effing idiot AND his husbands can abuse him--both things can be true--and ARE. The denial of which is what I see as Santiagoisms, that strip away all context behind WHY Louis makes the decisions he makes; by deflecting/diffusing/minimizing the damage caused by the agents, factors & forces at play that move & direct & shape him in very specific ways:

from his homophobic godawful mother making Lou think he "failed my brother" (THE domino effect that set this whole story into motion in the first place)

to the white racists "It was the call and response of my entire life. I had let them talk to me like that so long, I stopped hearing it. 'Yes, sir. Of course, sir.' Subject, verb, agreement, 'sir.' Smile, nod, 'yes, sir.' They all came from the same organ inside me, an organ unknown to science at the time. Because what scientist would look for an organ found only in BLACK MEN who use their weakness to rise?"

to French White Lestat's constant God Complex rhetoric ("you need to show restraint, fledgling!")

to the obligations Lou felt towards Claudia conflicting with his love of Lestat despite all the heinousness Les had done to BOTH of them ("You want to kill him too, and you will enjoy doing it!")

to Santiago ("I handled folks like Santiago both my lives. I don't need you flying in like vampire papa.")

to Armand ("You think I need to be coddled, hyped up, lied to?")

to Daniel disrespecting Louis at every turn, up until 2x6 ("I could be your Lestat, your Claudia, but better! I mean, I got a little bit of both of them in me, plus a few things they don't.")

And it's using one's weakness to rise that I love most about Louis, cuz I've been saying since Day One that Louis has POWER IN SUBMISSION; playing INTO people constantly underestimating him; ESPECIALLY Lestat & Armand, by NOT seeming like a threat. It's not that he's victim = weak = helpless damsel = blameless = victim, it's that he's weaker → vulnerable → victim → unreliable narrator → weaker. And the TRIUMPH of Louis' story arc completing in S2 (that CELEBRATES the fact that he is NOT a flat & hollow shell that's had his whole identity scooped out of him by BOTH his p.o.s. husbands) is that he's FINALLY able to break the cycle & Get Out of this Sunken Place!

He shoves Armand into a effing wall & throws the script at his effing face & reconciles with Lestat & declares he's "companion enough FOR MYSELF" & redecorates the whole penthouse & puts Paul AND Claudia on his wall in places of HONOR--to HONOR their memory, and all that that implies; cuz Memory is NOT the monster--ABUSE & DENIAL is. The bloodstains are still on her dress; he didn't get it cleaned off--he didn't remove the rocks from his feet for 70+ years. He's WANTED to fully remember the good AND the bad this entire time, and Armand ("you're lingering, Rashid!") never let him. He tells Armand "you need to be GONE," so Louis can FINALLY start healing & relearning who TF he is bless and amen I LOVE this for him. 😤👏❤️

IWTV S2 Tentative Timeline (Pt2c) - Unreliable Narrators, Armand & the Trial

Thanks for the response to Pt2b, @usuallydeepalpaca-blog! I really want people to talk to me about the IWTV timelines, cuz this show is SO confusing! 😩😭

"I think if you create the timeline with info the show doesn't provide, i.e. Armand was involved from the start, then you're bound to get it wrong."

Absolutely. I fully expect that I got some stuff wrong, which is why I said it's a TENTATIVE Timeline.

I've in no way said it's THEE CORRECT™ timeline, cuz chile IDKWTF is going on. 😅 I openly say what confuses me, questions I have, and how I come to the conclusions that I draw. I'm being as transparent as possible to let y'all know that I DON'T know. 🤷 The show doesn't provide EVERYthing, so I'm just piecing things together in a way that makes an iota of sense to me, following the logic of what the show HAS provided. The only solid details we have are diehard IRL dates, that gave us a time range when certain events can/can't happen. AFAIK I'm working with the same set of details everyone else has, until AMC gives us more info in S3+. And unfortunately, the 2 biggest unknown variables are Lestat & Armand, and to what extent they were/weren't involved in the Trial that got Claudia killed & Louis buried alive.

"saying Armand messed with Louis' memories re: the trial is also something not supported by the show."

The show obvs. wants us to assume that Armand made Louis hallucinate Sam guarding him in the theatre box (thus painting Armand as a "captive" along with Louis & Claudeleine).

Even if Armand didn't use the Mind Gift on Louis, he lied at least twice:

lies by omission: letting Louis think a hallucination of Sam was real

lies to Louis' (& Daniel's) face: going along with the premise that he was Sam's "captive" & Armand sat there the whole time thinking of a way to rescue Louis

And we KNOW this is a lie, cuz Daniel calls it out explicitly, asking how Sam can be "in two places at once," allegedly "guarding" Armand, but ALSO helping to torture Louis in the Wet Room.

Armand never denied or contradicted Louis saying Sam was in either place. Maybe Louis really did misremember Sam being in the wet room--the ONLY one who can corroborate all this is SAM--whom Armand ALSO lies on, throwing Sam, Daniel & the Talamasca all under the bus by saying the script with his handwriting all over it was forged! No honor amongst thieves I guess! 🤣

(Eff Lestat's POV in S3--when is SAM gonna give HIS POV of the Trial?!)

So I'm operating on patterns of behavior, and the logic that if he's deliberately lying about one thing (a VERY BIG THING, actually), then what else is he lying about? How are you "atoning" for anything, when you're just heaping lies on top of gaslighting on top of manipulation?

Armand has used Louis' obvious confusion to his advantage, just going along with whatever will make him look better & more sympathetic. Which ofc, is the exact same thing he does with the "Banishment" lie. "They gave me a choice...I could not prevent it" is the truth and a lie all rolled into one incredibly manipulative cocktail, cuz if it was just a simple matter of Armand selling Claudia out to save Louis, that would be one thing--but Armand KNEW the script planned LOUIS' death the whole time. The "seismic lie" about "Banishment" effs up Armand's whole defense.

Cuz Sam already wrote the script in April 1949 (and I said this is confusing, cuz if it's the WHOLE script, then this implies Lestat's half was written by then, too, and NOT in September after the Eiffel Tower crime--which means he was ALREADY in Paris & working with the coven; inc. Armand (which would also explain WHY Armand took Louis to the library so much--perhaps anticipating that Loustat would feel e/o's presence if Louis was around the theatre too much? But that doesn't explain Claudia)--omfg I'm confused). Wtvr--we KNOW that at some point b/t April & September 1949, Armand made his edits & directed the entire production--from Santiago to Lestat to Tuan's projections--ALL of it. And we know Tuan's projections started being made in June/July 1949.

Armand KNEW Daniel had been given the OLD script from the archives, WITHOUT Armand's edits & directions, and LET Daniel AND Louis think that was the truth--

--same way he went behind Louis' back and removed extra pages from Claudia's diaries that would reveal MORE of his shenanigans--

--and the same way he lied about Nicki (& Gabrielle) in 2x3.

The show ALSO provides us with quotes like this:

And this:

Which in retrospect make Armand look even more insidious, esp. when we wonder to what extend Louis' been "driven to form new conclusions about myself" when he doesn't even KNOW himself; let alone WHAT memories he has that are real or false.

It's so effed up, and it makes me side-eye all the insistence that LOUIS is the one mostly at fault, when he's got literal double-hypnosis Brain Scramblies from WWDITS. 😭🤦

Ofc there are unknown-unknowns when dealing with unreliable narration. But there are also known-unknowns, too, that also make Armand sus.

Sure, Loumand was away at the library in July (IF that memory's even real, Mr. "I Had A Hunch")--but how on earth would Armand have NOT known that the coven was working on the Trial right under his nose for MONTHS prior & after July--Luchenbaum sewing new barrister costumes & wigs; Tuan painting projections & testing new lens/film tech; and Sam writing a new script (when we already KNOW Sam can't multitask when his "head's in a hat")?

July is only ONE month in over HALF A YEAR of Trial prep. Louis was never around the coven to know what was going on--but ARMAND was; it's where HE lives.

Whose POV was it that showed the whole coven passing around Claudia's diaries? Whose POV was it that revealed Santiago being called Maitre in every scene that ARMAND was also in?

Armand was in the park with Tuan when Tuan called Santiago Maitre; and Armand was in the theatre with Sam when Sam called Santiago Maitre--so this is clearly either Armand's POV telling on himself; or it's AMC screwing with us.

It's TRUE that Turning Madeleine was the straw that broke the camel's back, as Armand was like I can't keep THAT a secret from the coven, too (and ofc he couldn't--they're VAMPIRES; they'd FEEL a new vamp in their territory). But Loumand's problems PREDATE Madeleine; the same way Loustat's problems predate Claudia. I blame Les for not dealing with Lou's BS, just like I blame Armand, cuz THEY are the Coven Masters, NOT Lou--esp. cuz Armand had 14 other vamps in his coven he SHOULD be prioritizing over Lou. The same way Loustat's guilty of being bad fathers (which they BOTH admitted to), Armand's guilty of being a bad coven leader (which HE admitted to).

IMO, all this makes any & all discussion about Armand's trustworthiness difficult, when his "seismic lie" throws EVERYTHING else he's done into question. Esp. since the show ALSO provides us with the FACT that Armand knew from DAY ONE that Claudia lied about "Bruce"/Lestat; and that Louis was a terrible liar & terrible with the Mind Gift; and that he'd ALREADY planned on killing Louis in 2x3! Armand knew from the get-go that he couldn't do EFF ALL to keep Louis & Claudia out of danger, and TOLD Louis so.

"It also ignores that Louis softens his participation in certain things because he can't live with the guilt of his full participation, e.g. Claudia's turning, which he continued to lie to Claudia about even during the trial and only accepted the extent of his involvement in Dubai"

The Trial Timeline's purpose is to pinpoint when the preparations took place, NOT to hash out how bad of a father Louis was to Claudia. 🤨

And it certainly isn't meant to provide a timeline for the events in S1 wrt Claudia's Turning--we already know the dates for all of that, that she was made in 1917. I focus on the 1940s in S2, and the European dates, NOT the NOLA dates. LOUIS did not participate in the Trial's preparations, ARMAND & LESTAT did. My timeline has ZERO bearings on Louis' guilt for not warning her, etc.

But on the subject of Louis & Claudia, I've cussed Louis out for not telling Claudia about Armand b4 (x x), I don't ignore it at all. I fully understand & even agree with Armand being fed up with dealing with Louis' BS. But HE CHOSE not to kill Louis when he had the chance, and it's obvs that whatever arrangement they made when they had sex in 2x3/2x4 allowed Louis to TRUST that Armand would keep "the secret" & keep Louis & Claudia SAFE from the coven. (Which is a BOGUS claim for him to make, when Santiago'd ALREADY peeped that they were lying about Lestat & being from NOLA, but wtvr). I've called Louis a naive idiot 1000x for overestimating Armand, putting his life in Armand's incapable hands--just like he would AGAIN by trusting him about "Banishment;" and AGAIN by asking Armand to wipe his memories in SanFran (and LIE by omission about Les saying "I love you, Louis").

"Louis remembers the trial, he remembers what was said and what Lestat showed him."

HOW can Lestat have showed Louis ANY memories during the Trial (inc. the Ep4 revisit), when Makers/Fledglings CANNOT read each other's minds???????

I love this show so much, but I effing hate this show--they don't even give us an answer, Daniel just moves right past it, like wtf are we supposed to do with that, AMC? There's plot threads, vs plot HOLES. Louis' TOO unreliable, Armand's a shysty liar, white savior Lestat to the rescue~~~! "BANishMEnT~!" As if Lestat's any less impartial?

Esp. when at least SOME parts of the Ep4 Revisit were OBVIOUSLY Scripted lines written by the coven to implicate Louis in breaking the Great Laws that Lestat allegedly taught him AND Claudia to follow?

Like, Louis HATES himself, and is quick to blame himself for things beyond his control (a la Paul, a la the Ordinances; "Can we be forgiven if we do not forgive others ourselves?"); so if one is determined to see him bad faith then of course one can easily pounce on him Florence DPDL style / Santiago style, and blame him.

(Esp. since in 1x4 we literally SEE Louis admit to begging & emotionally baby-trapping Lestat into turning Claudia--the revisit in 2x7 is more (melo)dramatic & extended, sure, but it does NOT contradict Louis' account in S1. So I get REAL confused when people say he lied about 1x4 or wtvr.)

Louis invalidates his perspective cuz he KNOWS he's an unreliable narrator--he spends 2x1 sobbing about wanting to remember & "get every detail right"--and ARMAND is there constantly tryna STOP the interview; having directly contributed to his already deteriorated (& inherited?) mental illness, by bending Lou's trauma into "a Lestat shaped-effigy" with all that "I will not harm you" bullcrap.

TL;DR: We won't know for sure what the Trial timeline actually looks like, unless S3+ revisits it with more context.

But as things stand at the end of S2, NO, I don't trust Armand as far as I can throw him, cuz there are waaaay too many instances where he's deliberately lied & obfuscated & omitted in ways to deliberately confuse the narrative surrounding the Trial--that go beyond Louis' already confirmed trauma, PTSD, mental illness, repressed/faulty memory, and guilty conscious.

If y'all want a timeline of S1 events, those have already been made by other people in the fandom (this one is goated).

I wanted to know what was going on in S2; so I used every single date and IRL reference possible, and put them in chronological order in a way that makes sense based on how I TENTATIVELY understand things currently; NOT how AMC has confirmed yet--if they ever will.

If anyone has more relevant in-show references & IRL sources we can cite, to help make better sense of S2 than I did, let us all know!

#the vampire armand #louis de pointe du lac #interview with the vampire #loumand #loustat #lestat de lioncourt #iwtv tvc metas #get out #louis de pointe du black

77 notes · View notes

volkswagonblues · 5 hours ago

Text

@archive-z i didn't mention this when i first saw this post but oh my god, I swear this was a scene I wrote and cut from a fic draft, where Daniel and Armand talk about Ginsberg. Aw yeah Daniel and his vonnegut and his ginsberg like yesssss that is exactly what he would've been reading. I just want to say i see your vision and its incredible 🙏🙏🙏

Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time or, what was on Daniel Molloy’s bookshelf in 1973?

Inspired by @volkswagonblues’ and @islandbetweeenrivers’ reading list of texts providing historical and cultural context for Daniel Molloy as journalist in the 1970s and 80s

This is, pretty much in its entirety (bar one or two references throughout the show and its extant material), assumptions I’ve made about the character. But, also: it’s my blog so I can do what I want. Dating works is somewhat inconsistent, as I opted for the date a piece was published in a collection or translation rather than when it first appeared in print if it seemed more realistic to have been acquired in that format.

I’ve found the archives of Rolling Stone and Playboy have been helpful in piecing together a who’s who of literary life in the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially for a intellectually precocious teen from suburban Modesto, CA transplanted into the centre of countercultural life in Haight-Ashbury.

From what I can gather, being born in ‘53 means Daniel was just a year shy of being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, an experience that would have profoundly effected his peers just a year or two older than him. Throughout his teenage years, he’s got the spectre of the possibility of being drafted hanging over his head. It reminds me of pop-inspirational phrases like “you only live once,” which really puts his risk-taking, thrill-seeking behaviour into the perspective of yeah, this is someone who is trying to live life to the fullest every second of every day because the possibility of being drafted means that he might not make it past twenty. (Unfortunately! Louis & Armand also mean he might not make it past twenty either xoxoxo)

However, crucially, he did narrowly miss the draft, and despite that it would be horrible, I think there’s an acute sense of having missed out on this profoundly altering experience as well. Moving to Haight-Ashbury, he’s six years late to the Summer of Love ‘67, and the rose-tinted image of hippies, peace, and love is replaced by the grittiness of speedfreaks and serial killing (the Zodiac Killer being active throughout 1969, when Daniel would have been sixteen). He’s made it to San Francisco just a few years after its golden era, and i think this makes him even more determined to live, more determined to chase living life in order to make up for that, yknow?

i think the themes that he’s drawn to when reading are:

new journalism, and particularly when the journalist-as-rockstar persona is inserted into said reporting

the provocative, bacchanalian pursuit of pleasure, whether it be sex, drugs, or rock ‘n’ roll — and often sex mixed with violence in a way that is neither straightforward nor legible

travelogues and adventure stories that reflect his restlessness, particularly which let him romanticise far away places with thriving literary scenes like Paris and New York

a general aura of repressed queerness and crises of american masculinity (Capote, Tennessee Williams, Ginsburg, Hemingway)

war narratives as a vehicle for cold war/red scare anxieties

Without further ado, the actual book list:

Periodicals

Playboy magazine. People have long joked about reading Playboy for the articles, but it is the one piece of literature teenage Daniel is in-universe confirmed to have readily accessible, so I’m running with “Danny actually does read it for the articles, though” (and anyways, it’s Diana Ross’ Rolling Stones cover issue from Feb 1 1973 that he jerks off to). In 1973 alone, Playboy featured interviews with playwright Tennessee Williams; Huey Newton (co-founder of the Black Panther Party); news anchor and journalism’s elder statesman Walter Cronkite; science fiction novelist Kurt Vonnegut; and Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Vietnam war correspondent David Halberstam. Other Playboy interviews of possible interest: Fidel Castro, Orson Welles, Michael Caine (1967); Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, sexologists William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Paul Newman (1968); Martin Luther King Jr., Marshall McLuhan, Allen Ginsberg (1969). Also of note: between 1969 and 1971, Playboy was publishing faked letters to the editor that eventually developed into the Illuminati conspiracy theories.

In terms of reporting from major national newspapers in circulation, significant stories that come to mind are the New York Times publication of the Pentagon Papers (1971) and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate investigations for the Washington Post (1972-73). It’s harder to gauge the circulation of underground newspapers like the Berkeley Barb (CA) and the Village Voice (NY) but its entirely likely that a resourceful and enterprising young reader with a point of view in Modesto, CA could get their hands on a copy.

Prose, Fiction & Nonfiction

The Little Red Book by Mao Zedong. At Berkeley, The Black Panthers would raise money by selling copies bought in bulk at markup to students. Absolutely makes sense that daniel would acquire (and actually read) a copy. Growing up in the wake of McCarthyism/Red Scare nonsense def makes me think he would see flirtations with communism as provocative and cool/edgy, but never back that flirtation up with follow-through.

The Hell’s Angels, a Strange and Terrible Saga (1966) by Hunter S. Thompson. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, the Hells Angels had a sizeable presence in San Francisco and Oakland — from what I can find they lived dead centre of Haight-Ashbury up until ‘69 if not later. As a teenager in Modesto, Daniel would have been geographically quite close (if not actually in attendance at) the 1969 Altamont Festival Rolling Stones performance where a teenage concertgoer was stabbed to death by a member of the Hells Angels.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in ‘72 (serialized in Rolling Stone magazine) by Hunter S. Thompson. The quintessential text to understand ‘73 Daniel, imo. Fuck Nixon, Fuck Reagan, fuck the National Guard killing student protestors. Thompson’s other works include “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved“ (with illustrations by Ralph Steadman) and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

The New Journalism: An Anthology (1973) edited by Tom Wolfe. In addition to excerpts of Hunter S. Thompson’s work already discussed above, the anthology collects In Cold Blood (1965) by Truman Capote, Slouching Towards Bethlehem (1968) by Joan Didion, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968) by Tom Wolfe, and Armies of the Night (1968) by Norman Mailer. I won’t do justice to summarizing the New Journalism here, but it’s def important.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut. The quintessential Daniel Molloy fiction novel, to me. Exploration of post-traumatic stress disorder through an encounter with time travelling science fiction aliens. Takes on a new resonance for Daniel when he’s dealing with his own ptsd post-1973. Vonnegut’s other works include Cat’s Cradle (1963) and Breakfast of Champions (1973). On the subject of Cold War anxieties, there’s Catch-22 (1961) by Joseph Heller. I don’t have much to say about it as I’ve not read it yet, but it feels like the kind of thing teenage Daniel living in Schrödinger's draft call-up would take to. Maybe also John Le Carré’s The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1963) and The Looking Glass War (1965), the latter particularly for the palpable air of repressed homoeroticism and WWII nostalgia/Cold War anxiety.

A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway (published posthumously in 1964). Daniel absolutely spent his teenage years romanticising being an expat America writer in the Paris literary scene. Substance use, war, and crises of masculinity throughout. In addition to Hemingway’s reporting on the Spanish Civil War (1937-1938), other works include novels The Sun Also Rises (1926), A Farewell to Arms (1929), and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940).

George Orwell: Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), Burmese Days (1934), Homage to Catalonia (1938), Animal Farm (1945), Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949); and essays ”Books v. Cigarettes“ (1946), ”Decline of the English Murder” (1946), “Politics and the English Language” (1946), and “Why I Write” (1946). I think Orwell’s nonfiction writing would appeal to Daniel more than his fiction, especially when at the right age to romanticize the poverty-tourism of Down and Out. Also bonus points for Paris.

On the Road (1957), The Dharma Bums (1958), and The Subterraneans (1958) by Jack Kerouac. In particular, The Subterraneans is based on Kerouac’s interracial relationship with an African American woman in the 1960s. He’d also probably read Naked Lunch (1959) by fellow Beat poet William S. Burroughs.

Lolita (1955) by Vladimir Nabokov, both for its salacious notoriety and its unreliable narration. Like myself, Daniel feels like the kind of teenager who would read Lolita at sixteen as a provocation in a conservative environment, but come away genuinely enjoying it.

Poetry, Drama, Misc

Howl and Other Poems (1956) by Allen Ginsberg, particularly the edition published locally by San Francisco’s City Lights Books Pocket Poets series.

A series of miscellaneous titles I’d group together as “Daniel Actually Did the Assigned Reading in High School English Class” — The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger (“Get off that bench, brother”), Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, and “The Second Coming” by W. B. Yeats. Most significantly, I imagine high school is where he’d be exposed to the work of American playwrights Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller. The Glass Menagerie (1944), A Streetcar Named Desire (1947), and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1955) by Tennessee Williams. In the context of his relationship with Louis, I think it’s fun to imagine he’s familiar with/attracted to the Southern Gothic by way of Tennessee Williams (again with the crises of masculinity, the spectre of war, the repressed sexuality). Williams and Death of a Salesman (1949) by Arthur Miller, present the life Daniel could have had ie. the alcoholic husband, housewife vacuuming on Valium, etc.

If there’s anything else anyone thinks I’ve missed, feel free to hit me with a reply or a dm or an @ or whatnot. stay freaky & support yr local library x

#iwtv #as always fascinated by what the hell louis is reading all the damn time #wish i worked in John le carre somehow....

63 notes · View notes