#in a show about crazy vampires i WANT Louis and Claudia to be complicated and crazy

[fayevalcntine]

I know some fans have expressed hesitancy towards Louis' given memories/experiences in season 1 not being fully true and I know that some of it boils down to racist fans "being given reasons to hate Louis/Claudia" but honestly, I feel like that would also strip them of any chances to be fully complex characters who are also vampires in their own right.

When I consider Louis as an unreliable narrator, I don't think about whether or not this will absolve Lestat of his wrongdoings (which it obviously won't because there were issues with him way before episodes 5-onwards), but specifically about why he's doing this now and why he would specifically need to have such a story to grab onto, so much so that being faced with even just a glimpse of the reality of what happened causes him to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. To me, Louis still carrying shame/guilt over the past, his nature and even his former relationships to Lestat or Claudia, make him a character that is filled with a ton to still deal with. 144 years of life and he still hasn't been able to even break down a small part of his own internalized feelings? That is not something that can be simply or easily fixed or dealt with, and that is what makes him an intriguing character that should be given the space within the show as such.

The same can be said for Claudia. I understand why some fans cling to the repeated notion that she only decided to kill Lestat for Louis (being his knight and savior), but that is frankly a disservice to her as her own person because it renders such a significant choice on her part to solely be Louis' aid/new guardian in his life. Claudia has her own reasons for hating Lestat, she has every right to despise him for condemning her to a life that she wasn't even warned about and for condemning her to a constant in-between state of being in a teenager's body. Add onto that his abuse and cruelly taught lessons to her. From Lestat's perspective, his approach may not seem as harsh as what he has faced, but from Claudia's, there still hasn't been a given reason for it. And even if there was, his approach is still horrible towards her. This is why her relishing in his murder should be for her own reasons for revenge and spite, because frankly she has every reason to be hateful towards him. Making Louis the center of her world and love within his own version of events frankly simplifies Claudia and her existence (and even apparent death) to begin and end with Louis, but even Louis isn't really honest about her or honest to himself about who she really was.

Also, I think it's slightly regressive to insinuate that only the white vampire in this ensemble so far should be as horrible, selfish, cruel and insane and yet still get narrative focus (even during his apparent redemption) whereas characters like Louis and Claudia should only ever have noble and pure reasons for existing and moving about in the past or present. The show obviously has a responsibility to give proper focus to Louis and Claudia, but I think that in such a show where vampires who've lived for so long have done things that seem insane to a normal person, they should also be allowed to be complicated, nuanced characters.

[shesnake]

I wanted to know your thoughts on this but do you think it's fair to say either Louis or Armand are abusive in their relationship? Idek if this is a valid angle to view the characters from because I guess they're all monsters or whatever but a part of me thinks that it's kinda lukewarm to refuse to engage with the complicated themes of the show, which abuse is featured heavily and pretty clearly imo. This isn't aimed at you btw. Something I noticed is people tend to use some of Louis's less favorable moments to justify the violence he experiences. Like that post about Armand just matching Louis energy in ep 5, most of the notes are taking the stance that Louis is a cold, unempathic pimp who doesn't care about sa victims, that Armand genuinely is completely right when he says he is always cleaning up after Louis that he was only worried and tenderhearted and Louis escalated in the worst way and that after Louis said that he deserved everything that happened after. And I may be biased but to me that is so fucking crazy. To me it seems like fans, specially nonblack fans, have zero empathy for black abuse victims, actively enacting abuse culture even. But idk if that is a too reactive view. I don't want to say Louis isn't flawed because he is. But I mean we are watching the season about Armand getting Claudia killed on purpose and somehow people are still like Maybe Armand didn't do it, maybe it was all Louis, maybe Louis really asked for it. All of it. I think there's a problem there but idk I kinda feel a little crazy too. Btw disclaimer I fuckin hate Lestat this is not about comparing Loumand/Loustat lol

hi! and wow there is so much to discuss here...

I think it is fair to describe the actions of both Louis and Armand towards each other as abusive by definition but it's always important to remember that it is Armand in the position of greater power over him. Armand is older, stronger, owns dominion. He can walk in the sun, manipulate memories, and live without constant debilitating hunger for blood - all of which are things that impede Louis from being his own person outside of Armand.

Louis also faced this same predicament when he was with Lestat, but unlike Armand who uses his own innate powers against Louis, Lestat mostly used his social advantages of whiteness, wealth etc in addition to withholding key knowledge about vampirism to keep himself in control and Louis dependent on him.

and sure Louis can lash out all he wants! He can mock Armand's sexual trauma (trauma which Armand himself already gets them both to fetishise... but that's a whole different conversation...) he can hit back when Lestat hits him but when he's with either of those guys he is always going to be the victim. Nothing shitty he does to his partners, or to Claudia, or to Daniel, justifies what is being done to him by these men.

There absolutely has to be anti-blackness involved in any argument that says Louis deserves any of this. (Of course Armand as a brown South Asian man is not immune from fandom racism but his treatment is racialised in a different way that is also a different conversation). Any negative behaviour from a Black man is going to be seen by racists as exponentially more aggressive than it is, especially the cross-section with those you mentioned who aren't engaging with the complicated themes of this show exploring abuse.

They can see that Louis yelling at Armand is bad, but don't notice that Armand is being manipulative. They can see that Louis stabbing Lestat that one time during sex is bad (and still sexualise it), but don't notice that Louis is disassociating in every sex scene he has with Lestat afterwards (because they're too busy sexualising it). They can see that Louis making Daniel upset is bad, but don't notice that Daniel has been leveling dozens of racist and homophobic micro-aggressions at him since episode 1.

Armand got a few minutes to tell his tragic backstory in Louvre, Lestat had 2 or 3 different scenes in season 1 to recall his own. It's just been words. Meanwhile racists erase Louis' experiences with trauma because they never had enough fucking empathy for him to begin with to even register it happening to him! on screen! in real time! right in front of us!

And yeah Louis and Armand and Loumand are incredibly complex and compelling, and I do enjoy seeing Louis' moments of cruelty towards Armand! But he's never going to win against him in the game Armand built for him.

And in terms of Claudia, I do think that Louis failed her, as he has always failed her. And is responsible for her death in that regard. But that failure involved letting those other two fucking sharks eat her!!! I personally haven't seen anyone pushing the blame completely off Armand and onto Louis but I wouldn't be surprised. This week I've more pissed off about people levelling it all on Armand and think of Lestat as an unwilling participant.... this is of course the blonde white vampire show....

anyways sorry this is so long! thanks for the message this was really interesting to think about.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hey. I meant about all the stuff going on in the coven- everyone acting out. Also the whole Daniel having flashbacks. I really don't understand wtf is going on with Armand (past and present).

I know you can't explain much, I'm just going crazy.

Ah. Okay, soooo the show is based on the books IWTV, The Vampire Lestat, Queen of the Damned, The tale of the Body Thief, The Vampire Armand, Merrick and Prince Lestat. Arguably the dance is from Blood Communion. Which makes it a mix-up of up to 8 books.

The show may follow the big emotional beats of IWTV, but it contains a lot of details from the other books. Claudia’s diaries are from Merrick, Fareed is from Prince Lestat. The dance from Blood Communion. The relationship between Armand and Daniel from QotD, the flashback to Nicolas and Lestat was from TVL. And so on. A LOT of little things.

So. :)

Without a lot of spoilers:

Armand is a big mind and spell gift user. There is history he shares with Daniel, history that Daniel has forgotten. Armand is a VERY complicated character (actually they all are). The coven is bound by rules that Louis refuses to follow and it grates on them, and the whole setup is a big powder keg.

...

Without giving more away this might be it - but please feel free to ask if you want to know more^^.

[bandedbulbussnarfblat]

Y'all I had a thought. And it's a little crazy, but I'm going to throw it out there.

So this guy (played by Justin Kirk)

some people (me included) are already theorizing that this is Marius.

This post got a bit long, so I'm slapping it under a cut. Crazy theories below:

In the books Marius does a lot of things that are not cool concerning Armand. Like he is not a great sire to Armand. (I'm not even counting the romantic relationship here. Like, just in general he failed as a sire.)

(One thing he does that is super fucked up, is to make Armand's human 'children' (that's what he calls them, even though one of them is a grown ass woman) into vampires. They were Sybelle and Benji, they were human and Armand wanted them to stay that way. Also Benji was only 13 at the time, which is fucked up, as Marius explicitly tells Lestat not to make kids vampires. Then does it himself to Benji. And like, Marius didn't force it on them. He offered and they accepted. But the thing is, he never should have offered without Armand's permission. And I know some people are like, it's fine bc they consented. But seeing Benji was literally fucking 13 yrs old that consent doesn't mean much. Marius permanently trapped that boy as a young teenager forever. (seeing as how much it sucks for 14 yr old forever Claudia on the show, it probably does suck for him) And Armand wasn't happy about it. But Marius did it for Armand. Like, I believe he was honestly trying to make Armand happy.)

I know that was a long bit to read, but I'm just trying to establish that doing something he thinks would help Armand, without Armand's input, is in character for Marius.

What I'm think here is that there is a possibility he was the one to erase Daniel's memories. Obviously, he would think he was doing it for Armand's own good. Maybe Armand couldn't let go, and Daniel couldn't resist coming back to him. So to give them a clean break, he erases Daniel's memories.

It would fit with his character from the books abilities. He was very strong in the mind gift. And he helped Armand retrieve his lost memories after he got total amnesia and forgot his entire life before he was 15. (Well, 15 was when Marius found him. The passage of time isn't exactly clear on how long it took from Armand being captured and transported and made to do the sort of things children shouldn't have to do.)

And then he doesn't tell Armand. Because if Armand knew, he'd just try to find a way to bring Daniel's memories back. So from Armand's POV, Daniel just left and never came back. At some point, it would become obvious he had his memories tampered with. Bc of course Louis and Armand kept tabs on him. Which could explain Armand's hostility towards Daniel, especially in that one scene where he's all like 'i wouldn't let you near my neck'.

It's just a crack theory. And probably not at all what is going to happen. Bc it would make more sense for it to be Armand who did it, and also it would give us that drama and angst.

But it could be fun to write about in fic, especially if you want to also dive into the complicated relationship Marius and Armand have.

[o0anapher0o]

Four theories about the Devil’s Minion

First off, I don’t claim this is in any way comprehensive or that I have come up with any of those.  I might have overlooked something really obvious, with this show that happens quite frequently. But these are ideas of what I think could have happened with Armand and Daniel in the seventies, based on the information we have so far, which is that they met in the seventies and Armand saved him from Louis, and that Daniel’s oldest daughter was born in the mid to late seventies (judging from the ‘seven years before car seats where mandatory‘ bit in Daniel’s autobiography).

1.       The Devil’s Minion hasn’t happened (yet). I would say unlikely given they did meet, Armand decided for some reason to save Daniel’s life and Daniel’s memory of the time is shot. None of that would be necessary if nothing had happened (and where would be the fun in that).  But it is of course possible that it’s all a red hering.

2.       The relationship lasted shorter than in the book. Considering the show is on a condensed timeline and all the other relationships are also shorter, it would make sense if the ten years Armand and Daniel were together in the book would have been condensed to two or three years. Personally I’m not a fan because I think to get to the breaking point Daniel reached in the end in the book it would take more than a year or two, but it seems very logical for the show to do.

3.       Alice is Armand. The theory that Armand twisted Daniel’s memories of him into memories of a first wife ‘Alice‘ and the reason Daniel’s eldest daughter doesn’t talk to him is that she doesn’t exist. Now I love this theory. I have written this theory. It’s fun and messed up and insane. But I don’t think it’s true. It seems like a neat way to circumvent enormous gaps in Daniel’s memories and it crazy enough that Armand would do something like that but. The sentence ‘my ex-wife reminds me I never owned a buik‘ indicates she was in some form consulted for Daniel’s book and that they therefore are  (or where at the time) still in contact.  Which makes sense for the woman he has a child with,  but not for the vampire who erased himself from his memories. There is also no reason for Armand to add a fake daughter to the story, a lie that is unnecessarily complicated and difficult to maintain longterm.

4. There was overlap with Armand and Alice. This one seems the most likely to me.  For one it fits the timeline. Two, it explains incoherent memories (maybe Daniel did own a buik with Armand that Alice didn’t know about). But most importantly it would explain why things went differently than in the book.  One of the main reasons Daniel in book could never get away from Armand (other than being addicted to his blood) was that in the end he had nothing/no one else left he cared about. He was alienated from friends and family and barely working anymore. The only future he could see was as a vampire with Armand. If Daniel had had another relationship and a child that would have opened the option for another future. Another future he might have wanted (or that Armand was convinced he wanted). A child changes everything. And Armand in the book already assumed Daniel would grow to resent him if he made him a vampire, if doing so also meant taking him away from  his child it makes a ton of sense for Armand,  especially given his very (for vampires) recent experience with Louis and Claudia to not want to repeat that mistake. If he’s going to lose Daniel anyway at least he can let him have a life.

[murfpersonalblog]

These nonnies are wild. Ok, AR said that what Lestat said is the truth. So when LESTAT himself is ON RECORD IN TVL saying that HE DESERVED Claudia & Louis tryna kill him IN IWTV, what's that? 😒

NONE of us knows wtf AMC's gonna do with the narrative, cuz they're adding new stuff every frikkin episode! Nonny MUST take that into account before tryna Gotcha! folks using sources that aren't even put into proper context within AMC's framework.

The controversy around Ep5 centers on the veracity of a fight/scene that doesn't exist in any of the books--it's brand new material that AMC--NOT ANNE RICE--put out into the mix. And cuz AMC!Louis is now a BLACK man married to a white man--whom both Louis AND Claudia said beat the bejeezus out of him--the CONTEXT is different than simply a matter of white woman AR getting over her depression & having complicated feelings about her husband Stan/Lestat after them losing their daughter & venting by angrily writing a book about WHITE!Louis just being pissed at Lestat for making him a vampire & being mean to their kid blahblahblah. The CONTEXT of Louis' account being contradicted by Lestat matters, cuz THE SHOW has added new layers to Loustat's dynamic!

AR never portrayed herself/Louis as a battered & disabled spouse, just an embittered & depressed spouse. book!Louis couldn't leave Lestat cuz he was paralyzed by his own spineless indecision. show!Louis kicked Lestat out of Rue Royale, but still couldn't leave NOLA cuz he was LITERALLY paralyzed--every bone in his frikkin body was banged up and he had to relearn how to walk & see.

On the show, it's NOT about whether Louis' a crazy unhinged lunatic whose brain is mush & Claudia's a spiteful little liar, so Lestat's the only sane person & his word is LAW, nyanyanya~! AMC's grappling with reconciling how Loustat was HAPPY together, but ended up "locked together in hatred" to the point that Lestat beat the hell out of Louis & terrorized Claudia & got his throat slit--and that Louis STILL hasn't gotten over him! Lou's been dancing around how much Lestat meant to him; putting up a front (as usual). AMC's pulling a Merrick, forcing Lou to face the lies "I told myself about MYSELF"--NOT lies about Lestat. WHO. 👏 IS. 👏LOUIS? 👏

AMC's been VERY honest & upfront about Lestat--uncomfortably so--even mentioning things that NEVER got brought up in book/film IWTV. It's the contradictions in how LOUIS FELT about HIMSELF in relation to Lestat that the show is turning the screws in.

Just cuz Louis' an unreliable narrator who omits/withholds doesn't mean he's categorically a LIAR™. Yes, Lou lies--show!Les does PLENTY of lying, too. But Lou's been SUSPICIOUSLY QUIET about the WORST parts of their time together and apart. THAT is what I want Lestat to reveal: the parts that Lou HURTS TOO MUCH to talk about. Louis said very firmly that he doesn't consider himself abused, cuz in his mind/perspective the fight wasn't what bothered him--it's the HUGE plotholes on either side of Ep5 that make him clam up.

Lestat does effed up mess that Louis HATES, but turns a blind eye to cuz Lou LOVES the man AND the monster and he can't handle it. He's desperate to show that he's hardened himself; ready to kill Les & run away to Europe to start anew. Otherwise how can Lou LIVE with himself, that he'd FAILED HIS OWN DAUGHTER & spared the tyrant who'd mistreated them for so long--only to fall into the arms of Armand, the man who'd end up KILLING Claudia.

"Memory is a monster," cuz Lou's been suffering from decades of repression, trauma, resentment, and more repression (and GOD knows what effect Armand's had on his mental health). Louis had a HARD time forgiving Les for everything that went down before, during, AND after Claudia--see: Merrick. Lestat KNEW he had to give Louis more space & time to make peace with his grief, anger & regrets. In PLatRoA it was LOUIS who proposed to Lestat and agreed to marry him & move into his Chateau as Lestat's Prince Consort & Blood Spouse. (I'll say this as many times as it takes: Lestat had to EARN Lou's trust & prove himself WORTHY of Lou's love and forgiveness.)

LESTAT AS "TRUTH"

In the books, the question about Louis' account vs Lestat's account was NEVER about whether IWTV as a body of work was a complete fabrication--oh, it's totally non-canon, nothing Louis said actually happened, moving on. Lestat's gripes in TVL were about the things Louis said that made Lestat look like a VILLAIN out to ruin Louis' life, rather than save him. Remember: Lestat is TVC's HERO after all.

When Lestat complains about how much Louis lied on him, it was never that Louis lied about how he was made, or how Lestat treated Lou & Claudia. Narcissist!Lestat was mad that all Louis did was complain, WHINE, and make Lestat look like the bad guy--a giant a-hole with zero redeeming qualities: a crude illiterate broke AF BUM foreigner country bumpkin pedophile Mr. Fancypants LDPDL never had sex with or was attracted to or fell in love with--just some rando who stalked Lou like some CREEPAH & yoinked him from a piss-stained backalley to drink his blood while having explained EFF ALL about vampirism cuz Lestat SUCKED as a Maker and his parents didn't love him and Louis wished Lestat had died in that swampwater and got nommed on by ALLIGATORS and Armand's sooooo much more interesting, HOT GIRL SUMMEEEEER~~~!

THAT'S why Les was pissed--who wouldn't be, after getting publicly EVISCERATED across the New York Times' bestseller's list? However, TVL is NOT the great tell-all that proves Lou's some crazed hack. There's actually VERY LITTLE about the IWTV years mentioned in TVL, compared to everything else Lestat talks about before & after--~25 pages in the EPILOGUE of TVL. What TVL does do is pivot who LESTAT is as a character/person--providing a more nuanced portrait about Lestat's perspective & history--which ofc neither Louis nor Claudia were ever privy to, as they couldn't read his mind, and he sure AF never told them much when they lived together.

Here's EXACTLY what Lestat said book!Louis lied about, omitted, or got wrong:

Lestat himself said IWTV still "captured the atmosphere" and "TOLD THE TRUTH about the eerie contentment" of Loustat's life, DESPITE Lou contradicting himself and MISUNDERSTANDING Les.

Lestat himself actually VINDICATES Louis in TVL, and says outright that Lou's account is still valid cuz it's what was true TO LOUIS, as he experienced/perceived things. Lestat himself said Louis didn't get facts right cuz Les just straight up didn't TELL Lou anything about himself--WITHHOLDING info that would've gone a looooong way helping Lou TRUST Lestat's stupid arse!

@dwreader breaks all of these "lies" down more thoroughly here.

A BIG thing AMC changed is the Evil Doer as Lou's pitch--I wouldn't be surprised if they go back & say it was Lestat's idea originally, with the Tenor as another criminal biscuit Lou "romanticized." But it was a retcon in TVL all the same, cuz logically there was no good reason for Lestat to torture the prostitute/tenor & NOT explain why (if only to just get Lou to UNDERSTAND him & better appreciate Les' efforts to get him to FEED); as opposed to just satisfying his sadism.

So PLEASE, LeStans, stop acting like Lestat is being unfairly critiqued by black people hating on him cuz he's white--whaaat!? 🤣Lestat himself said he deserved to go to Hell for what he did to Claudia. AR retcons A LOT, but she IS consistent about some things, namely: Lestat DESERVED almost dying for the crap he did in IWTV, QotD AND ToTBT, too--there ARE other books in TVC than just IWTV & TVL where Lestat does effed up mess. Look at what Memnoch THE DEVIL told Lestat, compare it to what Lestat himself said about his actions in IWTV, and understand that Louis lies about his FEELINGS, not about the effed up stuff Lestat actually did.

That is not where the consensus of Lestat’s version being the true version comes from. Anne would send private newsletters to her fan club in the early 2000’s & in one of those newsletters she addressed the discrepancies between IWTV & TVL by saying “Louis was the side of myself that was grief and anger. He was the side of me saying things in moments of abject sorrow. Upon having clarity and making peace with my grief, I realized the Lestat side of myself was the truth and the light. I never wanted to explicitly address it, because Louis’s grief is something tethering many together. However, we all know my Lestat doesn’t lie. His version was the truth, because he had the clarity and the facilities to see things for how they are unlike my sorrowful Louis.” 

But this is Anne Rice not Rolin Jones and his writing team. Rolin Jones and his staff don’t see Louis as their personal grief and anger nor do they see Lestat as their personal light and truth. Anne retconned the events of the first book due to her healing from her grief. What grief is Rolin Jones and co. healing from that will have them go back and retcon the tale that Louis relays to the audience? There are some things like Lestat’s death and the depths of Louis’s grief that will be looked into further in s2 and the DV scene of episode 5 will be revisited but it makes no narrative sense for Louis’s tale to be retconned to the extent that Anne did with the first book. Especially because this is the second interview and the first one, as Daniel pointed out, was Louis being angry with Lestat. There are still some cracks but he is more willing to open up about how Lestat made him feel in the past. He was already a “bitter ex” in the 70s as we hear on the tape and that phase is gone. Being so sure that Louis is lying about everything including his abuse is what is giving me pause here seeing as how I heard that Lestat gets worse. Even Hannah Moscovitch says that beating Louis is not outside of Lestat’s evil so what is the point and what purpose will it serve to the narrative for all of it to be back tracked?

[camellia-thea]

mm. okay i've now rewatched the show and i'm actually standing a lot firmer on this one. i really don't like the season 2 finale's presentation of psychosis. especially as a response of rage and vengeance.

in part, it's related to a conversation had a little while ago where a friend tried to defend a (completely different show's) representation of psychosis that was harmful and upsetting as "humanising", where the entire point of the psychosis was to show the character was a "crazy killer not in control" and that you should pity the crazy person, but they're still going to hurt people! there is nothing humanising about these types of portrayals. it just reinforces the already prevalent stereotype that we're going to hurt people. it gives people justification to hurt us; the amount of violence we receive because people see us and immediately think "that person is dangerous" rather than "that person is vulnerable" is unspeakable.

there are so many ways they could have changed it to remove the ableism and sanism. i mean, "are you schizophrenic, louis?"? it's played as a fucking joke.

and the thing that gets me -- and always gets me in moments like this -- is that louis could've been full of rage and wanting to avenge claudia without the psychotic elements and it would have been even more powerful. in every instance of psychosis being used to "give reason" or "justify" acts of violence, it is more interesting and impactful for there to be an entirely different internal or external reason. i mean, louis, who for a very long time has grappled with the aspect of himself that hurts people, in very complex ways. a significant part of his character is grappling with his vampirism and his acts of harm, and even in s2 we see him eating animals over people. and he wants to hunt and be a hunter, he revels in it! but then he's overcome by guilt afterwards! would this not have been a good moment for that to truly absolve him of that guilt? have him, for one of the first times in the show, commit an unspeakable amount of violence without the prompting of another?

hell, i said it before, i don't mind dreamstat being present! i don't! i think there's an established place for guilt and grief to manifest as visions or hallucinations in media that isn't always bad! and i think conversations with dreamstat haunting louis everywhere is really powerful, especially when you see the real lestat countering it at the end! but not when louis hurts people because of it. that's the line i'm drawing.

and again, they're vampires! you don't need to lean into these tropes to portray them as awful people and show the horror of violence. you do not need to justify that behaviour; it's the vampire show where they're all awful to one another! that's part of the enjoyment! they're all meant to be hurting one another and deeply complicated people. the moral quandary of the vampire is that they inherently cannot exist without harming others, and how does one deal with an existence which entirely depends on preying upon others.

i know i'm repeating myself, and i will keep repeating myself until people listen. you don't need to justify acts of violence by throwing us under the bus.

this isn't a meta thing or a condemnation, i just wanted to write down some opinions. but i've thought about it a bit more. i really really don't like the hallucination/psychosis elements within iwtv.

i think it's in part because i experience hallucinations regularly and i've experienced psychosis, but i don't find value in it being shown in this instance and i think it could've been completely left out.

hell, it could've been just louis seeing lestat (and fuck, maybe even claudia) as manifestations of guilt, but the beginning of s2e8 wasn't it. i don't think i can properly convey what made me uncomfortable, but i had to pause for a little bit to let myself get through it.

i wasn't very keen on louis killing someone he thought was lestat, as a way of showing instability and as a way to make him obviously unreliable. i think it did give the impression they wanted; the unreliability, and i've talked about that in regards to unreliable narrators, but it didn't sit right at the time, and having now seen the finale, i don't think it was necessary.

the erratic behaviour and the hallucinations of his victims within those moments just felt. bad. especially since it was an element of driving louis to get revenge. it's just another case of psychosis being used to "motivate" harm. especially since he's a vampire! you don't need to justify him wanting to kill people! claudia's death pushed him to the edge without any elements of psychosis, he could've just killed them! and yes, he was tortured and had come back from the brink of death in those moments, but even still. it felt like it went too far.

i don't really have a point here, i don't think. i guess it's just, you can do horror and violence and instability without leaning into those tropes. i think it was unnecessary.