#iwtv 1976

[knightotoc]

Just finished IWTV book, so now I can say the differences between the book, movie, and show. The movie is quite accurate to the book, while the show is more original. I love them all quite a lot, but I think the show is my favorite since it's the most romantic. Long post with spoilers below the cut.

book:

The depth of Louis' interiority, especially his thoughts about religion, can only be found in the book. I am also ex-Catholic so this is high-key my shit. Especially knowing Anne Rice went back and forth later in life. I can relate. Louis wants to talk about his feelings with other vampires, but Lestat and Claudia aren't interested, which is the main reason Louis is attracted to Armand. Where is the Brideshead Revisited crossover?? Louis get in a bisexual love triangle with the Flytes for me🙏

I learned in the Matt Baume video on Anne Rice that she wrote IWTV while grieving her daughter, who died of leukemia just before her sixth birthday. This feeling of grief, reflected so clearly in Claudia, is the most moving and unique aspect of the book, far more than anything between the adult characters.

One reason this feeling is watered-down in both adaptations is that in the book, Claudia is only 5/6, the age of Anne's real daughter. In the movie she is 10 and in the show 14. Of course it would be impossible to find a 6 year old actress who could act with the maturity of an 80-year-old woman. But the character is even more pitiful and bizarre as a little child than as one nearing puberty.

In the book, Lestat is shown to have survived the murder attempt pretty early on, and he keeps jump-scaring Louis and Claudia on their adventures. I prefer the movie's version where they hold off on this reveal. Though of course I always love to see him, lol

In the book, I got the impression that Lestat and Louis are both bi, but Lestat prefers men and Louis prefers women. Still, their motivations aren't driven by sexuality in a straightforward way. For example, Lestat's ideal prey is a young man, because he loves to destroy their potential. Louis feels something like love for a few women characters, because he feels empathy for their misfortunes.

The adaptations soften/change Louis' status as a slave-owner; in the movie, he frees his slaves, and in the book he just flees. As much as Louis is a soft-hearted quasi-feminist, defined by his guilt and regret, he is still racist and close-minded in most ways. This seems realistic to me.

I did think it was interesting and cool that the enslaved people can tell Louis and Lestat aren't human, while the other plantation owners and even Lestat's dad have no idea. But we don't get their perspective, just Louis' racist assumptions.

Yeah in the book Lestat has a dad! It is rather confusing since Lestat explains nothing, but it creates some great melodrama. I guess I have to read the next one and hope for a backstory reveal.

Fun spooky detour into Eastern Europe! I hope the show goes there in season 2.

Louis and Armand's discussions are really cool. I especially loved Louis' monologues after Claudia's death. There wasn't room for these discussions in the movie, but I feel like it'll be a main focus in season 2 of the show.

movie:

Like I said, the movie is impressively accurate, and a beautiful work of art on its own. The best innovation is holding off on the Lestat reveal until almost the very end. This makes it look like their murder attempt really did a number on him, and it took decades and decades of rat-eating to even drag himself out of the swamp. I like that.

The movie also has a more exciting and ridiculous ending, in which Lestat attacks the reporter in his car and drives away to Guns N' Roses. The book ends with the reporter hurrying off to find Lestat himself. It's funnier and more awesome if Lestat is the one driving the plot and the car. Pleased to meet you :D

"How avant-garde." Best line in the movie, and it's not from the book!

Since the movie cut out most of the minor characters, there isn't as much evidence for Louis' bisexuality. Louis seems more like, gay but closeted. And Lestat seems more like, gay but misogynist, so he'll prey on women just for sport lol.

I'm a Fight Club guy so I love that this is, like, a reverse companion movie (this time, Brad Pitt is the pushover in a dangerous gay duo)

show:

This is the only version that is clearly gay. But this dynamic is the same: Louis wants to talk about things, and Lestat does not. In this case, the focus of these discussions is not vampirism or religion but their relationship. Louis points out that he is gay and Lestat is bi. Perhaps it's just because I saw this version first, but this is my favorite version of their sexualities. The show simply spends more time with this dynamic, and how it affects everything, including their interracial relationship and openness in society.

In the book, Lestat is a talented but soulless musician. He can play anything, but without heart. In the show, music is Lestat's one genuine connection to humanity (even if this connection just leads him to kill musicians who don't impress him). I believe later books go more into Lestat as a musician, so I'll have more thoughts on this later.

Since the reporter is cynical, old, and dying, this creates a much more compelling conversation within the framing device. He holds Louis to task with a forcefulness that rivals Lestat. It is a clever way of modernizing the story, since Daniel references their last interview in the 70s (when the book was published), and you are meant to wonder which version is more truthful.

Since Claudia is 14, she can pass as an adult, and she is able to go on her own rather disastrous adventure. It is exciting, terrifying, and sad, and a welcome addition for this character, though it is much different than the book's helpless, heartless Claudia.

The Catholicism in the show is flashier, but not as interesting as the book. For example, in the book, Louis is haunted not just by Paul's death, but Louis' failure to meet Paul's faith-driven monetary demands. In the show, Paul's ideas seem like more of an annoyance. Maybe there will be more religious doubt in season 2, but I don't really expect it.

In the book, it seems like Louis and Claudia throw Lestat in the swamp since it's faster and more thorough than fire. In the show, the oven they use is a major plot point, and Louis can't bear to put Lestat's body in it because he still loves him. Instead they throw Lestat in the trash, which is one of my favorite tropes (see: Maul in The Clone Wars, Soldier 1998). This is just one of the many ways the show complicates and deepens Louis and Lestat's bond.

I feel like the show is more believable and has more deepness in general, since it's a smart retrospective on an old franchise and a response to decades of vampire fun in pop culture. For example, in the show Louis has volunteer humans to feast upon, and it's very "safe, sane, and consensual," versus the universally predatory relationships in the book and movie. Because we all know now that if vampires were real, and they were hot and rich, they could get all the blood they want without hurting anyone. An ethical vampire like Louis isn't impossible anymore. Compared to other billionaires, he's a pretty decent guy.

So, I'd say the book has the most profound perspective on grief, the movie has better structure, and the show has the most complex romance.

[t0uchfaith]

“You have it all to live for, but you are as cold and brutal as I was then with the work always there and the cold and hunger! Lestat, you must remember. You were the gentlest of them all! God will forgive me if you forgive me.”

Anne Rice, Interview with the Vampire.

[erodingsinner]

CARRIE ( 1976 ) // READY OR NOT // ABIGAIL // THE MACHINE GIRL // LAST NIGHT IN SOHO // EVIL DEAD ( 2013 ) // THE SUBSTANCE // INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE ( S01E07 ) // THE DESCENT

[starrylayle]

differences between amc's iwtv and the original novel

*spoilers obviously*

full disclosure here, I watched the series first and fell in love with it, so I decided to read the book. I'm about half way rn (so up to the part where lestat sets the house on fire and Louis & Claudia escape).

differences i noticed in the novel:

Set in the 1700s

Louis is a white slave owner :///

louis has long hair??? tbh this was the biggest shock

lestat turns louis for no apparant reason. like mans saw louis one night and decided to jump him. fair enough. louis is a pretty boy in any adaptation

Lestat's father is still alive?? and lestat is taking care for him and makes louis do so as well?? dang

i feel like in the show lestat is louis' sugar daddy whereas in the book louis' is lestats which is so funny to me (I’m exaggerating here coz ofc show!louis is a successful business owner I’m just referring to the time lestat helped him buy the club lol)

small point but i was surprised to see how much lestat wanted louis' plantation thing where as in the show lestat could not give less of a shit abt louis' business interests he just does so to make his princess happy :)))

I'm assuming that lestat has just been recently turned so he's nowhere near the experienced vampire that show!lestat is when he meets louis -> I've heard ppl say that it changes the dynamic but i'd say that in the novel louis realises that lestat is just Some Guy almost immediately, whereas in the show louis doesnt realise that till later on.

their romantic dynamic (i know its not explicit in the books but it is) is very different. Show!loustat feels like a meet cute leading to a toxic on/off again relationiship, wheres as book!loustat feels like a marriage of convenience and forced proximity that eventually leads to a slowburn romance. It's different but i enjoy it.

The character of antoinette must be genderbend Antoine,,, I wonder why they changed the gender in the show.

lestat never drops louis out of the sky....which was nice. he does set their house on fire tho but ya know

Anyways that's it for now but i'm absolutely loving it so far!! excited to meet armand and the theatre des vampires. Plan on watching the 1994 movie after i finish!

also i think i'm gonna make a seperate post about claudia and the different iterations because its so fascinating.

[jaigeye]

MOTHER, WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME?

horror girls. / blood, flashing

[cowchickenbeefpork]

Got hungry for more Iwtv content so I’m reading a bit of the book and Paul’s death being so early in the book in the first few pages is hilarious. Instant slap in the face like woah man. And Daniel is so fucking shit at responding to this too I really shouldn’t find this funny but bro is like in his 300s trauma dumping so fast to a 20 year old. He’s literally a minor Louis you can’t do that to him 🥺🥺🥺🥺

[noahsartt]

My reservations with the 2022 Interview with the Vampire tv series:

My thoughts on amc’s Interview with the Vampire (2022) tv series compared to the 1976 source material and what I liked about the 1994 movie.

Some reflections before the second season airs. I watched the series as it was coming out in 2022, so these thoughts have been sitting for over a year.

This is a subjective critique of the show, not me hating on it. I liked the show a lot & watched it twice. Many of the key changes were extremely creative ways of exploring those characters from new perspectives, instead of just pointlessly remaking something that's been done before. Distinct creative change should be the basis of every remake, no point is making something 'new' if there's nothing new about it. This show knew that, and the changes for the most part were written beautifully. ...But the movie is still my favourite despite its many flaws. Camp classic right there.

Issues with the show:

Making it take place 100 years later, it ruins the specific aesthetic of the book for me. (But I understand they had to in order to re-write Louis & Claudia as black).

Aging up Claudia. The way Bailey Bass played Claudia was amazing, no notes at all for her. I just wish they kept her younger because that was a very symbolic part of what made Claudia’s original character so tragic. She suffers in an entirely different way to Louis because of her age. New Claudia is supposed to be in the body of a 14 year old, but the actress was 18/19 so she looks much older already,  and no matter how well she played it, the age factor can’t be helped. Being stuck eternally in the body of a 5 year old (book) is so different to a 14 year old, who looks much older (tv show). Kirsten Dunst who was 10 in the movie, was able to play the little child - adult vampire progression a lot better. People say Claudia's original age is too 'disturbing' to see on screen... but that's the character...

Daniel being old… WHY?? Just so they could tie together the storyline or him meeting Armand multiple decades before ???? I only read IWTV and some of the TVL so I don't know everything that happens down the line for him, or what amc plans for the character in the show... but I don't understand the aging up except for 'diversity' reasons. Which, ok, but just to check a box? Louis and Claudia's race change make sense as a creative decision. But the Daniel in the book and film is a 20-something year old which is why he's so fascinated by Louis' 'gift', and doesn't understand the message Louis is sending, instead wanting to become a vampire too. Why would old Daniel want those same things? Changing Daniel's age is such an inherent thing... it's like if they didn't make Lestat blond. Eric Bogosian plays him funny though, I will say that. Christian Slater kind of just sat there.

Louis having no money and needing Lestat's financial support for his business ventures????? When it’s supposed to be Lestat leeching off Louis' estate … WHY. Why did they change something so fundamental about their dynamic. Lestat moves in because he needs wealth and Louis has it. And then he starts acting like it's both of theirs and Louis just lets him. Funniest thing ever. But in the show Louis moves in with him instead. That's just wrong.

Louis asking (basically begging) Lestat to make Claudia when Lestat is supposed to be the one to do it in order to ensure Louis doesn't leave him. Another fundamental part of their relationship that just got flipped around completely... and for what? Why did it change the things it didn't need to?

Antoinette... girl why are you there... we don't need more characters. Go away.

The guy that Louis gets with to make Lestat jealous …. why is he there either? In the book they don't need to bring other people in to irritate each other.

One of the most perfect scenes from the film was when Lestat was tormenting that girl and trying to get Louis to kill her. The show’s version with the opera singer wasn’t the same. The original scene is such a good depiction of their dynamic with each other: Lestat's eccentric killing methods and Louis’ shame and guilt. The show’s version didn’t live up to it. That scene was so excellent in what it set out to do. It captured their back and forth in such a simple way. That dynamic follows them forever, even as Louis begins to accept his nature, that spark of annoyance towards Lestat is ready to become a full fire at any moment. That scene is enough to be a full character study. The show has little bits here and there which capture something similar. But they should have recreated that scene at least.

Claudia and Lestat's relationship evolving from enjoying each others company and similarities, to detesting each other and competing for Louis’ affection. They didn’t spend enough time on Lestat and Claudia’s relationship in the show to fully demonstrate that, only a few scenes of them driving together and hunting together at the beginning. Even the two hour movie found a way to intergrade that better. Their relationship and the way Claudia is so starkly similar to Lestat when they move to Paris, is one of the my favourite parts of the book to analyse. Louis leaving Lestat and moving all the way across the ocean, only to be reminded of him in everything Claudia did. The show did have some purposeful parallels between Lestat and Claudia in the dialogue which I appreciate, I hope that continues in season 2.

Louis being in on Claudia's plan to kill Lestat and even being the one to finish off Lestat when it’s supposed to be Claudia’s idea on her own...?? Lestat's death is supposed to be an "ok, I guess that was necessary, time to move on with our lives now," moment for Louis. But he wasn't supposed to have the courage or the want to be the one to do it himself. He was hesitant and regretful in the show, but he still slit his throat... it was supposed to be Claudia alone. Credit where credit is due, the scene was beautifully filmed, the red blood on white cloth looked incredible and the entire scene captured the tone of devastation that the movie didn't. It was all very quick and emotionless in the movie.

Even though I hate Br*d Pitt's acting, his Louis was way more accurate to the book Louis. He basically was the embodiment of book Louis. Just sad and whiny the entire time. New Louis had more to him, I think Jacob Anderson even said in an interview that it was a purposeful decision to give Louis more grit. It's not a change I appreciated because it alters the original character too much. You can't change something that fundamental. Just ugh. In the show, Louis is more angry than pathetically sad, it’s very different to how the character was originally written. 

Sam Reid’s Lestat is pretty on the nose but still more serious than the original Lestat & Tom Cruise’s portrayal which was the perfect level of camp and eccentric. Tom cruise was playing Lestat from just IWTV but Sam Reid is playing him with the baggage of his entire life as written in the other books, maybe that's why he is different. Maybe his performance is even better because of it. I haven't read the other books so I can't really say.

I won't say anything about Armand (yet) because he hasn’t had his time to shine. We’ll see after season 2. I loved Antonio Banderas as Armand, and even though he was very different from how book Armand was, it was a change I liked. New Armand is going to be more accurate to the books I believe, but i didn’t like how Armand was there the entire time Louis was being interviewed… why...

Maybe I am one of the few that doesn't overtly appreciate the 'fresh' take of this story. Many of the things that draw me to the book and the movie have been taken away in this adaptation.

---

I recommend this fan fiction that explores the idea of Louis being a person of colour in the context of the original book's 1700s timeline. It explores the intersectionality of Louis' struggle with vampirism, queerness & race while still being authentic to the book. Go read it.

In the Author's words: This is NOT a rewrite of the AMC TV show, nor does it intend to be. This is us making one (subtextually plausible) change to canon in order to 1) explore underlying issues with the source material and 2) see how it affects the way the events of IWTV played out.

Ok that's it. Will maybe add to this when the second season airs. For months, this was just for me in my notes app but what is tumblr for if not to air out my locked away ideas.

[biwonderland98]

The painful poetic irony of Claudia... the versions of her getting older when that was all she wanted.... the book, the movie, the show, continuing to age her up in a way she could never have....

[finalgrlpilled]

[feastofsnakes]

my girls <3

[susandsnell]

for the character asks - 2 for sue snell and 4 for armand!

thanks so much nixe dear!!! hope your day was good!!

Character Ask Game!

2. Favorite canon thing about this character? - Sue Snell

It's so hard to pick one thing I love the most about her, so I'll pick the fact that she published her own book about the events of the prom, My Name is Susan Snell. There's so much to be said in horror fiction (and, more broadly, gothic fiction) about the role of the archivist, the narrator, the messenger; the survivor who acted as witness, who brings us the tale, and how their agenda and emotional realities colour the way they tell it.

Sue is, for all intents and purposes, the Final Girl of Carrie while also being the unwitting instigator of the latter reaching Killer status. As a bully, she was her monster's monster, partaking in the incident that would precipitate Carrie's descent into villainy. But crueler still, it's her attempts to atone and go from stepsister to fairy godmother that set the final tragedy in motion. In any version, the compassion and regret Sue feels turns to love and an ironclad will to do right by Carrie -- but no good deed goes unpunished. Sue is put through nine circles of hell. Everyone she knows except her immediate family -- her teachers, her boyfriend, her soulmate, her friends both current and former -- are dead, and she was powerless to stop it. In the 76 movie, she's left as we leave many final girls - screaming, howling spectres of the trauma they've absorbed. In the musical and the book, she's the scapegoat interrogated by police and committee, forced to identify Carrie's body before given proper medical help.

And the existence of the book turns so much of that on its head. She's taking back the narrative into her own hands to communicate the truth of what happened, to reinterrogate her own experience and to honour the memory of her dead, not as heroes or villains, but as humans. She willingly plunges back into hell itself and then brings that hell to the public eye, to communicate the truth, and hopefully, gain peace and closure through disclosure. (And maybe help some other tragic telepaths along the way, we don't know and that sequel is not canon to me.) Less than 10 years after the fact, Sue is the messenger on her own behalf and on the behalf of all those who aren't there, admitting her sins and contextualizing those of others. I know the excerpts from the book say she will be "thinking until she dies", because there's no leaving what happens to her behind, but as messenger, she doesn't simply evoke the memory of the prom, she shapes the status it will hold in the public's consciousness. Sue's nightmare is compounded by the fact that her greatest suffering is in the hands of the public to judge and understand as they will, but through her telling, she is grabbing it back and giving it the shape and status that only one who lived it can; she is the witness to the horrors demanding in turn that the world be her witness. It's in the title: My Name Is Susan Snell. (A parallel to all that's made of knowing Carrie's name?) A whole, complete person with her own voice, and not the villain or victim you'd have her be.

4. If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in? - The Vampire Armand

Oh, here's a fun one! I'm actually working on a top-secret AMC!verse crossover with a friend (can't give away much, but it's with Tanz Der Vampire), but I will talk about other possible media I'd like to see him in. Honestly, the gremlin would do just about great in most psychosexual horrors you put him in; the biggest no-brainer for me would be that he'd absolutely rock it as a Cenobite in the Hellraiser universe, since we know that even if he never wanted the leadership role in the coven/cult, he does manage solidly well for centuries, adaptive-yet-stagnant as he is. He would probably take great enjoyment in the entire mindfuckery-aspect of corrupting someone, reshaping their will, and exploring the intersections of agony and desire in the process; it might even be something that would benefit him in a twisted way, given that it normalizes what the crux of his suffering is with respect to the ways his relationship to pleasure and trauma are so tightly intertwined. (I also think Armand could totally, easily Saltburn someone, but I don't think he'd keep the same ending; there's no way he'd want to be alone in a big house like that!)

On a completely different note, I think he'd do well in a Moulin Rouge or Sucker Punch style backstage drama films or stage musicals (hell, even Phantom of the Opera?), especially since Sucker Punch involves a lot of reality-bending and the director's cut directly has seduction to accepting one's death as a comfort. He's a theatre kid and a snippy, exacting director at that. I'd love to just watch him occasionally throw around his breathtaking elder-vampire powers when push comes to shove with the drama and tension and potential patrons/investors, but not half as much as I want to watch him get overly invested in micromanaging stage productions of increasingly questionable quality. Put Armand in The Producers or Something Rotten. I want to hear his Andrew Lloyd Webber takes.

Or -- just throw him into Derry Girls. I think if anyone could outwit him to his defeat and then befriend the guy, thus kickstarting the world's most bizarre redemption (?) arc, it'd be them.

Thanks so much for this! <3

[la-femme-au-collier-vert]

A List of Works Influencing and Referenced by IWTV Season 1

Works Directly Referenced

Marriage in a Free Society by Edward Carpenter

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen

Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert

Cheri by Collete

A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams

La Nausee by Jean-Paul Sartre (credit to @demonicdomarmand )

Complete Poetry of Emily Dickinson edited by Thomas H. Johnson*

Blue Book by Tom Anderson

The Book of Abramelin the Mage

The Savage Garden by Mark Mills credit to @speckled-jim

Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could by Adam Schiff credit to @spreckled-jim

America and Dissent: Why America Suffers When Economics and Politics Collide by Alan S. Blinder credit to @speckled-jim

Dairy Queen Days by Robert Inman credit to @speckled-jim

Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble by Lester R. Brown credit to @speckled-jim

Attila: the Judgement by William Napier credit to @speckled-jim

In A Heartbeat by Rosalind Noonan credit to @spreckled-jim

The Lost Recipe for Happiness by Barbara O'Neal credit to @speckled-jim

Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism" by Jacques Dupuis credit to @speckled-jim

Strawberry Hill: Horace Walpole's Gothic Castle by Anna Chalcraft & Judith Viscardi credit to @speckled-jim

Sailing to Byzantium by Yeats

The Circus Animal's Desertion by Yeats

The Second Coming by Yeats

Don Pasquale by Gaetano Donizetti with libretto by Giovanni Ruffini

Iolanta by Pyotr Tchaikovsky with libretto by Modest Tchaikovsky

Pelleas et Melisande by Claude Debussy

Epigraphes Antiques by Claude Debussy

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Nosferatu (1922)

The Graduate (1967)

Marie Antoinette (1938)

On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin

De Masticatione Mortuorum in Tumulis by Michael Ranft (1728)

Emily Post’s Etiquette

Bach’s Minuet in G Major (arranged as vampire minuet in G major)

Artworks referenced (much credit in this section to @iwtvfanevents and to @nicodelenfent )

Fall of The Rebel Angels by Peter Bruegel The Elder (1562)

The Storm on the Sea of Galilee by Rembrandt (1633)

Three Peaches on a Stone Plinth by Adriaen Coorte (1705)

Strawberries and Cream Raphaelle Peale, (1816) credit to @diasdelfeugo

Red Mullet and Eel by Edouard Manet (1864)

Starry Night by Edvard Munch (1893)

Self Portrait by Edvard Munch (1881)

Captain Percy Williams on a Favorite Irish Hunter by Samuel Sidney (1881)

Autumn at Arkville by Alexander H. Wyant 

Cumulus Clouds, East River by Robert Henri 

Mildred-O Hat by Robert Henri (Undated)

Ship in the Night James Gale Tyler (1870)

Bouquet in a Theater Box by Renoir (1871)

Berthe Morisot with a Fan by Édouard Manet (1872)

La Vierge D’aurore by Odilon Redon (1890) credit to @vampirepoem on twt

Still Life with Blue Vase and Mushrooms by Otto Sholderer (1891)

After the Bath: Woman Drying her Hair by Edgar Degas (1898)

Bust of a Woman with Her Left Hand on Her

Chin by Edgar Degas (1898) credit to @terrifique

Backstage at the Opera by Jean Beraud (1889)

Roman Bacchanal by Vasily Alexandrovich Kotarbiński (1898)

Dancers by Edgar Degas (1899)

Calling the Hounds Out of Cover by Haywood Hardy (1906)

Dolls by Witold Wojtkiewicz (1906) credit to @gyzeppelis on twt

Forty-two Kids by George Bellows (1907)

The Artist's Sister Melanie by Egon Schiele (1908)

Paddy Flannigan by George Bellows (1908)

Stag at Sharkey’s by George Bellows (1909)

The Lone Tenement by George Bellows (1909)

Ode to Flower After Anacreon by Auguste Renoir (1909) credit to @iwtvasart on twt

New York by George Bellows (1911)

Young Man kneeling before God the Father

Egon Schiele (1909)

Kneeling Girl with Spanish Skirt by Egon Schiele (1911)

Portrait of Erich Lederer by Egon Schiele (1912)

Krumau on the Molde by Egon Schiele (1912)

Weeping Nude by Edvard Munch (1913)

The Cliff Dwellers by George Bellows (1913)

Church in Stein on the Danube by Egon Schiele (1913)

Self Portrait in a Jerkin by Egon Schiele (1914)

The Kitten's Art Lesson by Henriette Ronner Knip credit to @terrifique

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion by Francis Bacon (1944)

New York by Vivian Maier (1953)

Self Portrait by Vivian Maier (Undated)

Self Portrait by Vivian Maier (1954)

Slave Auction by Jean-Michelle Basquiat (1982)

(Untitled) photo of St. Paul Loading Docks by Bradley Olson (2015)

Transformation by Ron Bechet (2021)

(Untitled) sculpture in the shape of vines by Sadie Sheldon

(Untitled) Ceramic Totems by Julie Silvers (Undated)

Mother Daughter by Rahmon Oluganna

Twins I by Raymon Oluganna

@iwtvfanevents made a post of unidentified works here.

Works Cited by the Writer’s Room as Influences

Bourbon Street: A History by Richard Campanella (as it hardly mentions Storyville I think interested parties would be better served by additional titles if they want a complete history of New Orleans)

Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino (This was also adapted into an award winning opera)

poetry by Charles Simic (possibly A Wedding in Hell?)

poetry by Mark Strand (possibly Dark Harbour?)

Works IWTV may be in conversation with (This is the most open to criticism and additions)

The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, uncensored (There are two very different versions of this which exist today, as Harvard Press republished the unedited original with permission from the Wilde family.)

Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner

Warsan Shire for Beyoncé’s Lemonade

Faust: A Tragedy by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

La Morte Amoreuse by Theophile Gautier

Carmilla by Sheridan LeFanu

Maurice by E.M. Forster

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison (credit to @johnlockdynamic )

1984 by George Orwell (credit to @savage-garden-nights for picking this up)

The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner

Gone With the Wind film (1939)

Hannibal (2013)

Beauty and the Beast by Gabrielle Suzanne de Villenueve

Music used in Season 1 collected by @greedandenby here

*if collected or in translation most of the best editions today would not have been available to the characters pre-1940. It’s possible Louis is meant to have read them in their original French in some cases, but it would provide for a different experience. Lydia Davis’ Madame Bovary, for example, attempts to replicate this.

** I've tagged and linked relevant excerpts under quote series as I've been working my way through the list.

Season 2 here

Season 3 here

[talesfromthecrypts]

If I have to read one more posts about my dear friends Lestat and Astarion made by someone who’s one vampire media experience is Twilight I’m going to start killing the hostages

[orphicdusk]

Just a little something making its way through the swarm if you’re interested!! Link in the usual place ~

[elvesofnoldor]

Local vampire (Lestat) thought he snatched the young hot rich single in the area, got trapped in an abusive relationship instead. More at 7 as the story develops

[skyeateyourdonuts]

okay im gonna im gonna ramble for a minute about interview with the vampire so yeah spoilers ahead

so im reading interview with rhe vampire bt anne rice and the biggest critique that i hear (and that i actually Usually agree with) is that she rambles on for far too long about minute or unimportant details.

as i get closer to the end of the book (~100 pages left) i actually. i rescind this claim i made. the reason for this is that yes, oftentimes louis is prattling on about the beauty of france or the details of new orleans architecture but i find it. good? i like the scene setting and the descriptiveness to which louis (anne rice lol) describes his surroundings bc!!! bc i think it IS important!!! i think its vital for him to highlight the "first" few years of vampirehood to him and the differences between his human years and the struggle of conflict within him as to his place in the human morale system hes grown so accustomed to

i like seeing him compare his love of humanity and his desire to feast while also thinking of all the vampires that he comes across that treat him like "other" for having these thoughts and ideas and i ESPECIALLY enjoy seeing him ao clearly explain experiences that seem unexplainable like meeting other vampires in europe for the first time and describing it as haphazardly as he remembers experiencing it like!!!! hes grown so complicated and yet so simple over the years and the ways he talks of his younger vampiric self and the mindset and struggles he experienced is so intriguing to me!!!

how otherWORDLDLY!! like anne rice has her issues but this is some good fucking writing to me like im not even saying i enjoy any singular character to label any one as a "fav" (i lied its claudia u deserve better my dear this shouldnt have happened to u) i just think theyre so three-dimensional and detailed in ways some ppl to forget to make their characters detailed and im!!! eating this shit up ikay ill hush