#lestat is A Victim yes but he is also louis and claudia’s ABUSER. even in the BOOK he’s their abuser

[incandesang]

iwtv episode seven

[platoapproved]

Okay so I'm looking back on season 2 and having some Thoughts about Dreamstat.

In 2x01 Louis says "he came by invitation," which is be backed up by how he consciously dismisses Dreamstat in 2x04. But in my opinion, it all gets way messier when - in 2x07, deeply shaken by talking about the trial - Louis hallucinates Lestat in the Dubai penthouse. It's SUCH a jarring moment; Louis' unreliability is at the forefront of the audience's mind since he has just admitted his version of Claudia's turning from 1x04 was inaccurate. Then the audience is shown that Louis is omitting things, particularly continued hallucinations. (We also see him have further non-Lestat hallucinations in 2x08 when he is plotting his revenge).

With all that in mind, I'm inclined to think that he's way less in control of Dreamstat than he insists he is. Louis says otherwise, but this is the Unreliable Narrator Show™.

So. Why I was thinking about this in the first place...

I see lots of people bringing up Dreamstat's reactions to things, mostly in a context of being angry with Louis. And I get it! Dreamstat is mocking and cruel. But I also think it's wrong to blame Louis fully for those things? At least, to blame him in the way people seem to do.

These are not things he is choosing to think, or that he is saying aloud. They exist only within his own head. Dreamstat is all his Louis's worst instinctive reactions and snap judgments, vocalized internally (we just see and hear them as the audience).

His paranoia while being romantically pursued, an understandable response given how things went down with Lestat:

His self-loathing (always comes back to the self-loathing with Louis :c):

His frustration while having an argument with his companion situationship:

These are Louis' thoughts, yes. But they're gut responses, all emotion, without filter or reasoning.

And I just can't wrap my head around thinking less of Louis for having these responses. It's a very honest and unflinching depiction of someone whose response to trauma (both from his relationship with Lestat but also, like, his entire human life) is kneejerk resentment and pettiness that he very VERY rarely vocalizes.

Even as Dreamstat is mocking Armand's romantic overtures, Louis is continuing to have discussions with him, to ask him what he needs to be happier in their relationship. Armand wants him to come around more, he shows up to the disastrous dinner where he fights with Santiago. Armand wants to bring flowers and apologize, Louis hears him out. He is CHOOSING, in spite of the cruel automatic responses of his thoughts, to treat Armand with as much fairness and gentleness as he can.

As a side note, I really read Dreamstat's laugh in the museum scene much differently than others on here. A lot of people seem to see it as Louis mocking Armand's history of sexual abuse. But Dreamstat only scowls through all that (which is, again, not great but it is understandable, given how Lestat deployed his Magnus story to win Louis back after exploding in anger, and the whole setup for Armand talking about his past is him explaining why he is not like Lestat). Dreamstat's only real reaction comes when Armand has moved on from that part of his speech, to discussing the vampiric cycle of violence.

The line he reacts to is Armand saying "Magnus who begat Lestat, Lestat who begat Louis, on and on, and on and on." And Dreamstat... doesn't laugh? I see people describing it as a laugh. He yells 'HAH!' in the angriest, bitterest, disbelieving voice. To me this is not Louis being unimpressed or mocking Armand's trauma, it's him adamantly refusing to be included in the narrative as a part of vampire culture / as a victim. We know Louis does not like people labeling him as a victim or abused. We know he wants to opt out of all Claudia's searching for vampire culture and vampire history. To me this moment is not at all about Armand, it's about Armand implying that Louis is connected with the covens, with a larger narrative of vampirism, including a narrative about makers exploiting and harming their fledglings.

No, Louis isn't perfect, and his handling of Armand is not perfect. But I think people are way too harsh on him for this scene and just in general. He is not his worst thoughts. His actions are much, much, much, much more important. He chooses Armand. I think he chooses to be as careful with Armand as he knows how to be, given the tools at his disposal. Yes, there's a horrible gremlin (ha, see what I did there?) in the bottom of his brain that tosses up vile mean judgy nonsense, but Louis then elects to ignore all that and be as kind as possible.

[nightcolorz]

Something I can't stop thinking about when it comes to book vs show is that in the book Louis doesn't really blame Armand for Claudia's death, sure he killed her but he was just upholding The Rules™

The Rules™ say a vampire shouldn't kill their maker and it was Claudia's idea to kill Lestat

The Rules™ say children shouldn't be made vampires and Claudia was made very young

Therefore according to The Rules™ Claudia should die

Armand was just following The Rules™ (and the specific kind of trauma he has doesn't allow him to even consider bending The Rules™ even for someone who wasn't aware of them, if anything Claudia's ignorance is another reason she has to die, someone who is ignorant of The Rules ™ will sure put them all in danger)

So Book Louis doesn't hate Armand, but he does hate The Rules™

The Rules™ cost him Claudia, The Rules™ are awful and unjust, The Rules™ just suck

So when he finds Daniel and the opportunity to tell his story, her story, to have it all published, that's just the opportunity he was looking for to get back at The Rules™

He can't bring Claudia back to life but he can expose all vampires and The Rules™ which say he shouldn't can go to hell

So it's a bit disappointing to me that the show has decided to remove those layers of complexity and made Louis blame Armand instead and simplified Armand's reasons to kill Claudia too

(Also what are Louis reasons to tell the story in this version?)

I was expecting Armand to double down on his reasoning for doing it (she had to die, I was just the executor not the reason she had to die, she wasn't going to make it anyway, all vampires made that young go crazy and are a risk that can expose us all, she would have killed herself soon anyway, she broke The Rules™) I thought that was what Armand's "I could not prevent it" was getting to and was disappointed when he showed to be apologetic to Louis instead

ooooo yes this is so interesting I totally agree with this. In the books Armand and Louis make it very clear that Claudia’s death was the consequence of an abusive fucked up institution (vampirism) that Louis and Armand r bound to + victims of, and the show def misses that. What I like about the vampire chronicles is how vampirism is portrayed as this abusive cycle in a way that binds all characters to the same loops of inescapable abusive patterns, and what’s interesting about that also is how all the characters r aware of this and forgiving of each other in ways humans would never be bcus they know “vampirism just does that to u”. It’s such a unique premise, and it’s unfortunate that the show seems uninterested i. exploring the “vampire culture” aspects of Anne rice world that I’ve always really loved. Sometimes I get the impression that they’d rather make the characters have more generic human responses to their problems so that it can appeal to a broader audience (which is disappointing for a tv show adaptation of a book series that is iconic for how it’s shaped what being a vampire is in pop culture)

[streussal]

i 100% agree with u about the fight, my question is why do you think they even included that scene? i don't feel like it tells us anything we don't already know & it gives ppl who dont remember the original scene opportunity to believe louis was the aggressor.. don't know how to feel about it to be frank

I got this ask after I made this post. Responding almost 4 days later so I don't know if the anon will see this, but I have some thoughts.

First of all, no matter how strongly a piece of media demonstrates who is the bad guy in a situation, there's always going to be people who side with the abuser, ESPECIALLY if the abuser is a white male and the victim is anyone other than a white male. Louis straight up said in the scene (LESTAT'S VERSION) "like you wrapped your hands around our daughter's neck" so it's pretty clear he's responding to Lestat attacking Claudia. On stage, Lestat goes off script and insists that it was wrong of him to drop Louis from the sky, and that afterwards Louis was "a broken thing. I know, I saw, because I am the one that broke him". He then follows this with the admission that he did it because Louis hurt his feelings, not because of any threats or violence from Louis: “I couldn’t persuade him to return my affections. I could force him to love me. And so, I broke him.” If people don't get that Lestat was in the wrong here, I don't think there's anything else the writers can do.

As for why I think the show gave us that scene:

Playing around with different points of view is neat, and showing different recollections of the same event is a recurring thing in this show. (I'm torn on whether this is Lestat's actual recollection or just something the coven added to make Louis look bad - see my interpretation that Lestat is being coerced into participating in the trial - but either way it plays into one of the themes of the series.) Yes showing the POV of an abuser could backfire if it falls into victim blaming but I think the show handled it very well (and there is a portion of the audience that is always going to see Lestat as the victim even when he straight up says he was the bad guy in a situation).

It shows Louis physically protecting Claudia AND prioritizing her over Lestat. One of the major criticisms of Louis is his failure to do either of these things, so I actually think it made a lot of people like him better. Most of the twitter reactions I saw, from people who accepted the scene as 100% fact, was people talking about how great it was that Louis was ready to kill the guy who hurt his daughter.

It allows Jacob Anderson to do something different! One of the reasons I'm suspicious of this version of events with Louis cackling is that I have not seen Louis act quite like that before. But Jacob definitely sold it! Makes me wonder if maybe this is yet another side of Louis! I don't know! It adds rewatch value.

The acknowledgement that Lestat dropping Louis from the sky really did do long term damage to Louis. Not just physically. He became "a broken thing" - there was serious psychological damage. After he got back together with Lestat, we never really saw him push back against Lestat again. A lot of his time in Paris is a reaction against being in an abusive relationship. (And then he gets in another one, which happens a lot in real life.)

But I think it's also significant that right after this scene, we saw Lestat's remorse. And a much more real apology than anything we saw in s1. Now obviously this does not fix anything. (Claudia highlights this - "Can I cry and say sorry too?" - She and Louis tried to kill Lestat and are on trial, Lestat nearly kills Louis and just gives an apology.) But it gives the possibility that perhaps Lestat has changed or realized that he needs to change. And given that the showrunner has repeatedly referred to Loustat as the central love story of the series (link)... we need to see that Lestat is not going to do the same thing again. We want him to be better for Louis. Not that it would ever be an entirely healthy relationship (they are vampires), but not "drop him the sky requiring months of recovery" level awful. (@awildwickedslip wrote an interesting post relating to this here)

[hismercytomyjustice]

!IWTV 2.07 Spoilers Below!

TW for racism, racial violence, and everything already in the episode.

These are mostly just my thoughts on Claudia and Louis and the role of age/gender/race in the trial.

The writers and actors and everyone went for the THROAT with this episode and I am HERE FOR IT.

First and foremost, this is a public lynching. Played out for an almost completely white audience. The CLOSE UPS on the mostly white audience as Claudia’s charges are read…

The farce of a trial. They didn't need to go to all this trouble to kill Claudia, Louis, and Madeline. They CHOSE to. They made it a SPECTACLE, as was often done during lynchings.

Louis referring to himself and Claudia as props instead of characters. Because the audience and the vampire "court" would have to see them as PEOPLE to consider them characters.

Lestat warping the narrative to make himself out to be the victim for a good chunk of the trial and immediately being believed and sympathized with because this poor white man has a sad.

The only defendant shown any sympathy or empathy during the trial being the sole white person, and a white woman no less. Madeleine is treated like a poor naive soul who could never have known what “horrible monsters” she was in league with. BUT SHE KNEW. She heard all about Lestat and why Claudia didn't want her to have his blood. She watched Claudia kill three people in front of her without breaking a sweat. To SAVE her.

Moreover, Madeleine is the only one they offer absolution to. Yes, she hasn’t committed any “vampire crimes,” but she’s once again given the benefit of the doubt as a white woman. She’s perceived as inherently innocent and worthy of salvation. The implication being she’s just one more person that’s been swept up in the schemes of these “villains”. While Claudia and Louis are treated as irredeemable and inherently evil. Lestat confessed to breaking the same laws they’re on trial for, but he also receives a white “get out of jail free” card.

The way Claudia, for all intents and purposes, a 14 year old Black CHILD is portrayed as a monster in addition to a “child seductress” of sorts. The implication being she bent two fully grown men to her will. WE know Claudia is technically an adult inside (and that's how she sees herself), but the projection of maturity on a non-white child to justify violence and victimization against said child is excellently and devastatingly done.

The further “justification” of Lestat’s actions because he has his maker’s/father’s temper. Yet another excuse often bandied about by abusers. Like they "can’t help themselves". Obviously the cycle of abuse is a very real thing, I don’t mean to diminish that. But seeing him actually take a moment to be like “oh, no wait, I chose to do those things, that was actually all me” was a nice touch. Doesn’t absolve him of ANYTHING he did, but at least he finally acknowledges the role he played.

Claudia, the “youngest” of the group being the only one who fights against the compulsion to defend herself. We’re told over and over again through the series she’s unstable, too emotional, etc because she was turned as a teenage girl. And yet she is the only person there with an OUNCE of maturity. AND SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE. 

She’s only that way because she became parentified while trying to save Louis from himself and from Lestat. Even now, knowing they’re all about to die in a horrific fashion, she can’t turn off the part of her that cares about Louis. That doesn’t want to see him reenter the cycle of abuse, even in his last moments. She was his protector then and now while Louis is trapped in his own head.

Louis should be the one protecting HER. She is his daughter/little sister. He is older than her. He's been a vampire longer than her. He’s the one who got her turned in the first place. Not to diminish everything he’s going through as an abuse victim among other things, but she desperately needed him and once again he couldn’t/wouldn't/didn't step up for her.

Claudia saying “Can I cry and say that I’m sorry too?” Directly calling out the weaponization of white tears. The audience is willing to sympathize with a grown white man but not with his CHILD victim. Once again a Black child (in the physical sense) being held to higher standards than a grown white man who “just couldn’t help himself.” The audience laughs at Claudia’s pain while simultaneously sympathizing with her abuser.

Despite Claudia taking Paris by storm as Baby Lulu, not a single fan of hers steps forward in her defense. Santiago even acknowledges there are fans of her show in the audience! Because she’s not their beloved Baby Lulu anymore. She’s no longer performing for the entertainment and comfort of a white audience. Because she isn’t a person to them. Great post here about how the Baby Lulu play is a minstrel performance too btw.

We’re told again and again throughout the show that Claudia was too young to be changed, too volatile and therefore doomed to go mad and perish. But she’s the sanest and strongest of the three on trial. She fights back against an entire coven trying to break her mind. She walks of her own volition even with her ruined Achilles tendons. If everything they claimed was true, we sure as hell aren’t seeing any indication of that now. Claudia has proven her mental fortitude time and time again despite misery after misery inflicted on her in her undead life.

But no one in the audience and none of the vampire “justices” will ever acknowledge this truth. Because she’s a child when it’s convenient to their narrative (playing Baby Lulu and her standing in the coven), but she’s suddenly an adult the instant she advocates for herself and is now fully accountable for her “crimes.” They refuse to admit the Claudia before them now is the one and only real Claudia.

Even at the very end, Claudia tries to protect Madeleine from the sun. She holds her. She shields her with her body. She does what NO ONE has ever done for her. What Louis SHOULD HAVE DONE FOR HER. We know the pain she suffers is agonizing. We’ve seen Louis and Madeleine’s go through it. Yet she stands there head high, holding her love, and singing the song she hated so much to the lynch mob. Because no one there is ever going to think of that song in its original context again. Instead, it’s her final act of defiance, her last chance to declare her autonomy and insist she will never be what they tried to make her.

The death scene is such a stark contrast to her first death when Louis is pleading with Lestat to save her. She was catatonic then, but here she is so devastatingly vibrant and ALIVE. And it makes it hurt so much more to see that taken from her along with her life.

Claudia is such an amazing character in this show. Bailey Bass and Delainey Hayles are such phenomenal actors. I am DEVASTATED we have reached the end of Claudia's story and this is her legacy, but at the same time I will NEVER forget this episode or their extremely nuanced performances. Do I hope they'll find a way to reincorporate Claudia into the story? Absolutely. I'd love to see more. But at the same time, if this is how she had to go, I'm glad they centered the narrative so strongly around her.

[naivety]

sorry i'm still thinking about "are you asking or making me?" i do think like. obviously louis resents armand a little bit for saying no but i also think he resents him for NOT saying no. for instead saying are you asking or making me, a Complete opposite of the last time he asked a vampire more powerful than him to turn someone for him. but while with lestat, louis was the one begging, here armand absolutely puts him on his back foot with a single sentence in which he surrenders the power louis is asking him to wield to LOUIS. permission not to beg, a power that's also a reminder that that power is completely artificial. yet it's still there! we see in san fransisco when armand asks questions like this he will absolutely do what louis Tells him to. but it's something that's entirely dependent on armand. he can only concede that power because he has it to begin with, and when he asks are you asking or telling, it puts louis in a position of power in which he can also abuse that power, which. i do think he'd like to think of himself as someone who never would, not after lestat, while lestat in contrast was asked directly by louis to turn claudia, was begged to, and he absolutely did Not have to say yes. but he did, just because louis asked.

armand's single question tempts to paint louis in this light he'd despise at the same time as making armand exempt to actually answer yes or no. it makes louis seem like a bully for asking at all when armand concedes the power of his own free will to him. of course he can't make him! he wouldn't! but that's not what he was doing! he was Asking armand. to do this thing for him. because, well. love <3 and armand refuses to answer! instead he warps the function of a question at all into something he doesn't have to answer! to actually engage with as a person with free will and responsibility for that free will! i think he'd much rather be told what to do because then he can't be held responsible for it. life feels a whole lot safer to live when he doesn't have to grapple with his own innocence or guilt in his 500 years of living a life full of crossroads and judgement calls and decisions. every decision he has or hasn't made in 5 centuries. like even in this last episode, he's admitting his guilt to daniel in the same breath as saying he couldn't stop it, there wasn't anything he could do, but also louis forgives him! like just because he doesn't want power or responsibility he thinks it means.... he doesn't have it? just because he's willing to verbally and even actionably cede his power to someone else, it means he isn't culpable. even though he can only cede it Because he has it in the first place, arguably more than anyone else in the situation.

the mental gymnastics he will go through to maintain his innocence in a given situation is crazyyy like talk about victim complex personified. but i also think it's one of the few genuine things about him. he actually looks relieved when louis' answer to his question is that it's okay. i won't make you. the last time his free will was truly stripped of him was so so long ago but his victimhood is also frozen in time forever. that wound of a more genuine powerlessness was never healed, not in 500 years, and it's easier to just stay in the open, festering shape of it than try to heal and grow around it into something new, even though it already has whether he liked or not, also without his say. i don't think he knows how to exist in that shape because he never chose it himself.

it is just delicious to me. loumand power dynamics are crazy but they can be so much crazier when contrasted directly with loustat. with loustat, lestat is clearly the one with the power in the dynamic but he also more often genuinely gives in to louis just because. just out of love. he does abuse that power too just like armand, but with loumand, armand more often directly puts the power of their dynamic into louis' hands, but it's only By backing him into a corner with questions like this. are you asking or making me. i won't say no to you. you can either make me or keep your mouth shut. and, well. more often than not he just doesn't ask at all. better to remain silent than to put himself in a position in which he'd have to beg ever again.

[agathah]

Episode 8 spoiler!!

How do you feel about the fact that they made Armand too dirty in the series? I was ready for him to take part in Claudia’s fate, but it seems to me that his agreement with Louis’ death was a bad decision. It's just out of character. I don't even know what to feel about this. It looks like they decided to sacrifice the personality of a minor character in order to win Lestat back into the audience's good graces. I would like to know your opinion, as a fan of the books and Armand in particular.

Ohh now we're talking, i couldn't say anything about this on twt because i was afraid i was gonna get some kind of hate, but as you asked (I'm so glad you did), I'm gonna tell you what I think. You guys know i love Armand especially because he's a complex character, not entirely evil and definitely not entirely good, but also human, very human, ironically. First things first, I don't like what they did to loumand. Did you guys notice how corny they were? It's like they were written to be unlikable, to be tasteless. And I say this as a loustat warrior. And the way they connect in the books is so beautiful because they match melancholy, they want to find purpose in life with one another. It was never supposed to work, yes, but now we go back to the last episode. Of course, we haven't seen Armand's version of it all, but they definitely made him worse, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. It's off character if we compare this version of him to the book one, but if this is how the writers wanted to adapt Armand, then it's not necessarily bad writing. The thing I don't like is exactly what you pointed out, Armand looked like this manipulative cruel villain who trapped louis in this abusive relationship for decades by playing the victim in every single opportunity he had, all of this for Louis to go back to Lestat, and Lestat to seem less evil. Don't get me wrong, I love lestat, and I loved how we got to see that he's not this soulless monster they made up. But that had a cost: making armand look worse than him. My hope is that Armand is supposed to have the "lestat effect" next season (in S1 they villanized lestat in a very similar way they did with Armand in S2, and now lestat is likeable again, so maybe they're gonna show Armand's side of the story next season and things will be more understandable). But even if they do that, they painted Armand as really bad and cruel, and that's such a superficial take on his character. Also the fight between Louis and him was so anticlimactic. I think it's weird how the show emphasized how powerful Armand was, a 500 year old vampire, but he seems to be outsmarted by every single character in the show. And the whole "Armand directed the play" plot was so ??? I don't know, was the coven that important? Is he really supposed to have this machiavellian persona in this particular situation? And just to be clear I'm not saying that i want him to be more morally correct, i love to see these characters being evil. I just don't like how they made him look weak and unlikeable at the end (and in my opinion yes, i think part of the point was to elevate lestat's character :/) Anyway, sorry I WROTE A LOT LOL AKSJSK and I could write more, but that's basically what I think

[pirateshelly]

Obviously Louis's situation is pitiful but the point is Claudia did not deserve to fall victim to his self-pity. She's made it clear she would have preferred being taken to a hospital or anything else.

All that Louis did to rob her humanity and even then he could never prioritize her the way she deserved as a daughter or sister. It's Claudia's tragedy all the way and Louis did her wrong. They're all complex characters and Louis isn't a villain but he did her wrong.

And I'm absolutely not suggesting that Louis didn't do her wrong, in that particular moment or in others! It's complicated I guess, because yeah, Louis turning a 14 year old girl he didn't even know, without her consent, into a vampire was obviously a terrible thing to do. And Claudia of course had every reason to be angry with him over that!

But I also cannot look at the Claudia of late season 2; Claudia who has lived more of a life than she ever would have otherwise, who has embraced what she is (she genuinely loves being a vampire! Which doesn't negate the fact that it happened against her will, but it still matters), who is looking forward to a future with Madeline; and thinking 'none of this should ever have happened'. Yes there was horror in her life but it wasn't all horror!

And I dislike the way so many takes about how the episode 7 revisit made Louis look worse use that as a way to somewhat absolve Lestat of responsibility. He agreed to turn her, he didn't have to do that but he chose to! And then never took any accountability past that point beyond saying "see look Louis, I told you this was a mistake" every time something went wrong in her life rather than actually helping her in any meaningful way (along with, you know, abusing her and actively making her life worse).

All of these characters are fucked up and flawed but I just think a lot of people were far to eager to assign Louis all of the blame in that situation without any empathy or nuance.

[sharonccrter]

Do you think there’s still a way they can fully redeem Lestat’s character for those viewers that don’t get past 1x05? I’ve never read the books so it kinda annoyed me that they would add a scene like this and potentially ruin the future of the character without it even being canon. I felt there was a chance they could have retconned it as a memory manipulation or something (I was fully expecting the memory to be a mesh of what Armand did to Lestat in the books (presumably??)) but that’s not gonna happen now.

Tbh it doesn’t bother me personally, I loved the apology scene and that it was clearly shown as something inexcusable and Lestat himself acknowledges it, but im not sure if it’s enough.

Another thing that I think the writers were trying to portray but some people aren’t really seeing is that Louis is a bit of a hypocrite. He attacks Lestat pretty brutally for putting hands on Claudia, but he himself does it later in the show. And then he excuses Armand for threatening Claudia and also doing the exact same thing?? But a lot of the audience won’t see those things as wrong because of how graphic and horrible that drop scene was in comparison (Which it totally was, it’s just that the writers don’t seem to see that they’re not comparable?).

On the other hand, I like Lestat being a complex character. There’s a lot they can do in s3 with his back story (I. e. Cycles of abuse with his father and maker that they hinted at). But I feel like there’s a big portion of the audience that won’t be accepting of it.

Basically I feel like the writers are a bit out of touch with their audience and how they’re writing is perceived, which is worrisome going forward😬

Sigh. This turned into a a word vomit and I apologize lmao but I was curious on your take

Eh, some people will never get over it, and that's their loss; in my opinion, they haven't ruined anything about Lestat's character. Yes, the scene was not in the book, but I understand why they did it, even if I'm not in love with the idea. It was for shock value but also to give Lestat more of an 'arc'.

I think it comes down to the fact that none of the characters are good people, Lestat has always been a deeply morally grey character who's done fucked up things, but he's such a compelling and exciting character that Anne Rice literally made him the main character and wrote 14 books from his POV.

She never claimed he was a good person, but he is a good character to write and read about. And yes, while I don't excuse Lestat's actions towards Louis. I do agree it's hypocritical for fans to say, "Louis was justified to act violently to Lestat because he laid hands on Claudia," when Louis has also laid hands on Claudia himself. Not to mention, Louis sat back and let Armand treat Claudia badly, and when she called him out, he had the audacity to say, "That doesn't sound like him."

Louis has always centred himself as the victim of the story. He even admits in episode 2x07 that he made himself more passive in the telling of how Claudia was made. Because he wasn't ready to face the bad shit he's done, and that's Louis's whole freaking character. I have to be honest here, Anon. I hated Louis in book 1; I do love him in the show because Jacob Anderson has done a fantastic job, but sometimes I just meh about the character.

If Lestat has a lot to atone for, and he does, he's not a good person, then Louis has a lot to atone for, too. I mean, hell, I even love Armand, the messy bitch that he is, because they're all bad people; that's literally point. And Yes, some people may not be able to get past 1x05, and hey, I do think there is still more to the story since Sam and the writers hinted at it being revisited in S3; but that's their problem.

I don't think the writers are out of touch; I think media literacy is dead, and people just don't know how to have fucking fun anymore. They also clearly don't understand what gothic horror is. But honestly, anon, I'm reaching the point where I don't care. They can either get on board or get off the train.

Also never apologise for sending long anons, happy to chat as long as you like :)

[mech-bull]

IWTV musings

Particularly on Twitter, I see a lot of Louis fans constantly acting like he never does or could do anything wrong (and in contrast, Armand is a terribly evil abusive person who can never be redeemed. Somehow, Lestat never seems to get the same judgment or at least to the same degree…hmm…wonder why…). Now don’t get me wrong, I love Louis and recognize the many times he was mistreated by both of his boyfriends in the show. I also fully understand and agree that, even though I love them as characters, Armand and Lestat are abusive assholes who deserve comeuppance and would have to work hard for any sort of rehabilitation and even if they did manage that, Louis is under no obligation to forgive either of them (and ahem, neither are they obligated to forgive Louis for any of the ways he may have wronged them).

I also don’t want to imply that anyone in real life who is in an abusive relationship is weak or at fault for their circumstances or something, especially if they stay in it.

That said, taking into consideration that this is a fictional show that needs to tell a compelling narrative, I am not interested in the simplistic read that Louis was an innocent victim trapped in a loveless abusive marriage for 77 years. I also don’t think the behind-the-scenes people intend that to be the arc of the fricking protagonist of the first two seasons of the show. The guy had agency. He knew at least some of what was going on, and to a certain extent, he chose to stay in that life or return to it whenever they split, regardless of whatever Armand might have been doing to manipulate him. More importantly, he was actively engaged in a constant battle of manipulation (and arguably abuse) with Armand and knew exactly what buttons of Armand’s to push when he needed to.

There are numerous instances where this is clear, but one that doesn’t get talked about enough is the line “I had you covered” (might not be the exact quote) to Claudia (and the "or he's mine" line). To me, this definitely implies that he was purposely using his relationship with Armand to protect Claudia (and probably also because it allowed him to be the one with power at least some of the time). Not to mention the whole “I used to be real good at running things”/maître stuff. Btw, the most hilarious read of that particular scene to me is the interpretation that wonderful Louis was being kind to little baby Arun there.

Overall, do I think that Armand has the right combination of issues that would make him do everything in his power to keep a relationship even when the other person clearly doesn’t love him? Yes, honestly, I do. That’s both a terrible flaw and a tragedy.

Do I think that Louis left with Armand to spite Lestat? Yes, I do. Quite explicitly. I don’t think that’s even in question.

Do I think that Louis would stay miserable with Armand for 77 years to spite Lestat? Absolutely the fuck not. He’s not that big of a masochist. Do I think that Louis was cluelessly unaware of all their issues even if he didn’t know the truth about the trial? Absolutely the fuck not. Yet, Louis knowingly stayed in the relationship, which suggests to me that he was getting something out of it. Was it some kind of love, safety, occasional happiness, occasional kinky sex, penance? Who knows? I haven’t figured that out and he himself might not even be able to articulate it. Regardless, viewing their relationship as a complex, fucked-up mess is so much more interesting to me than “Oh, that evil dragon Armand has trapped poor defenseless Louis in his tower like a princess!”

[licncourt]

Licncourt you're right as always about female coding and you hit the nail on the head about Louis!

My opinion about Lestat is that he was portrayed as the stereotypical bad woman: vain, shallow, cruel and foolish but beautiful. But he was also a victim whom the narrative constantly forces to forgive and love his abusers because that's the only way he becomes worthy of being loved. It happened with Magnus, Akasha, Armand and also with his father (the only time Lestat didn't want to forgive someone... but was pushed to do so) It's frustrating if you think about it, because that's what society expects of women.

I'm really glad you think so!! He's so girl to me but in the right way, not the Anne Rice way.

I was sooo happy when I read this because !!! You are absolutely onto something here that should be examined further. There's some overlap between Louis and Lestat for sure when it comes to female-coding, both of them being portrayed as over-emotional and somewhat effeminate etc, but it's really cool how the rest contrasts in such an interesting way, like a Venn diagram. I've talked plenty about Louis being pretty directly analogous to the stereotypes of a lustful, weak-willed, hysterical woman whose primary assigned value is beauty, but there's a LOT to say about Lestat too.

I love what you said here because the first part really feels like a throughline tying Lestat to the women who helped established the Bad Woman archetypes in the literary canon like Medea (vindictive and treacherous), Lady Macbeth (power-hungry for personal gain), or Delilah (a calculated honeytrap for "righteous men"). In spite of his anger and mistreatment of Louis, most of Lestat's flaws in the trilogy are strikingly feminine in the literary sense. He's quite literally portrayed as a cruel, shrill gold-digger who dickmatized a rich husband and trapped him with a child.

Yes, he's an angry, domineering man, but it's the impotence behind his anger that pivots towards the stereotypically feminine. Throughout IWTV, he's all bark and no bite, yelling, whining, throwing books and sulking, even having an affair to punish Louis for his coldness and lack of affection versus anything more direct and aggressive. It really reads like the idea of a bitchy housewife tormenting her husband while trying to get her way and take revenge.

In addition, I really like the comparison of him with the wicked mother archetype, a maternal figure who poisons the daughter with her own trauma and anger (Clytemnestra-esque) and creates another monstrous woman in her own image. I've mentioned this before, but I think the creation of Claudia can be read symbolically as a conception, pregnancy, and birth, Louis draining her as a sort of insemination that's useless on its own but is "gestated" or made into a whole (a vampire child) by Lestat/his blood. In those terms, Lestat is immediately set up as a mother figure to Claudia, then again later when she's situated as a direct rival and narrative parallel to him. Generational trauma is passed from Gabrielle to and through Lestat and into Claudia as if he was also a daughter in the chain.

In terms of victimhood, what you said is also very interesting because it's one of the few places where this female-coded Lestat slips through and re-emerges really prominently in late canon despite AR's attempts to masculinize him. In trying to redeem him and make him "perfect", she puts him back into the feminine role with the societal expectation that a woman should forgive her abuser and take the high road, empathize with him even, especially in religious communities (interesting considering AR's wild rollercoaster ride with Catholicism). It's as if Lestat's disdain for Magnus is an unpleasant loose end she needs to tie up so he can be "good" now.

I think it's interesting too that the only abuser that the narrative doesn't ever give a sympathetic sort of pass to is Akasha, the sole woman who inflicted this kind of abuse on Lestat and a victim of bodily exploitation in her own right. Even the Marquis receives the narrative's sympathy as a repentant old man, even Magnus the monster. Not Akasha though. She's just a bitter man-hater and Lestat has to choose whether he wants to be also.

(Btw this is such @nasnyys business and what he screams into the void about every day so I'm making him a part of this. Everyone go talk to him about Lestat and evil woman allegories.)

[verysadlesbian]

What if Dreamstat is really just Lestat astral projecting from the depression slumber he has going on??!!! No, cause when he called Louis a little whore, I laughed and was like "girl why do you hate yourself?", but the bit about 18th century Armand got me thinking "what if this is the real Lestat?". Of course it could be just a reflection of Louis' doubt, but then again, why specifically 18th century? Why not "let me tell you something about Armand", it would get the point across well enough. If it is Lestat, he's still looking out for Louis, even though he killed him (tried, anyway. or somewhat tried... he went along with Claudia's plan... for the most part) and yes, Lestat had it coming (he only had himself to blame), but I don't think that he would ever accept that, in fact, I don't think he ever considered that the things he did were fucked up, except maybe after episode 5, but still, to me it felt like he thought Louis and Claudia were overreacting, like the domestic abuse wasn't that big of a deal (and honestly that's what i feel like a lot of people act like in this fandom. To the point of them saying it's a false memory that Armand put in Louis' head and so on and so forth, like, are we really doing that??? In 2024, we're doubting domestic abuse victims?! Is that what we're doing here?! Wow.). But like I was saying, you know, generational trauma and all that, Lestat's father was an abusive controlling piece of shit and he became just that, but failed to recognise it and to him his actions weren't as bad as his father's, cause he could never be like him (in his head), so surely that episode was like a fluke or something, not a big deal (again, in his head), to the point that he thought some gifts would fix everything. Anyway, what was I saying again? (I have adhd, don't come for me). Right, so, if Dreamstat is real Lestat's astral projection, then he really loves Louis (sometimes I doubt it, feels more like possessiveness than love, but i guess it can be both), or maybe that's just what Louis wanted to (cause real lestat would be crying, screamig, throwing up and killing jean-paul sartre as a form of protest if he saw louis on a date with another man, not just calling him a whore, so there is that). Also the fact that it's called "Dreamstat" it's kind of suspicious to me.

[emtmercy]

to be clear i do not care if someone stans lestat or whatever i like him myself i know he is pretend <3 but the allergy to even acknowledging his behavior as it is presented to us is just strange! im not saying lestat is an abuser therefore the show is eeeevil for making him a complex/sympathetic character. people who commit abuse are complex and sympathetic in certain circumstances in real ass life! “abuser” is not some ontologically evil category of person destined to do harm forever. “victim” does not mean faultless angel incapable of harm. i think it does the show a disservice to gloss over those themes in favor of well theyre just monsters its not the same. which is once again. literally what santiago (bad guy) says at the trial. also episode five had a domestic violence warning. also louis jumped lestat because he laid hands on claudia. imagine me saying all of this in a spirited but friendly tone of voice by the way i have no beef with you personally

Actually the episode very much premiered without a domestic violence warning and they added it after because people were mad. know your history before being obnoxious online

You’re again still missing what I’m saying

I’m not saying it is only not the same because they are vampires you are unwilling to contend with what I’m actually saying

I am saying harm and abuse aren’t one and the same

Lestat and Louis did great harm to each other. Period. You are interpreting my refusal to incorrectly assign real human labels not represented in this show as a refusal to acknowledge wrong doing on Lestats part and those are entirely separate things

Lestat did bad things to Louis. Louis did bad things to Lestat. They both had to make amends. That is not what abuse is.

Abuse is a cycle of violence with very real specific attributes not present in this narrative

You decided Lestat was an Abuser (TM) in season one because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the material

The show is based around the concept that happens between the first two books which involves the reveal that Louis has been running from his own culpability and thus unable to heal

And again, victims do not share responsibility for their abuse in real life!! I refuse to cede to you that victims are equally responsible for their abuse, and this show is presenting them as equally responsible for this shit show relationship

And I don’t need to argue with you about whether abusers are “ontologically evil” in real life. That’s fully irrelevant. I am saying in real life abuse there isn’t mutual responsibility for the abuse. And the show is very clearly presenting us with the idea that they were equally culpable for what happened hence the reveal with Louis beating his ass

Hence the Louis apology. These writers aren’t stupid.

And yes Louis jumps Lestat for laying hands on Claudia and then lays hands on Claudia himself because in reality it’s not about her it’s about him and Lestat

Not all harm has to be about abuse/victim

I agree that the harm between them was real and not excused because of vampirism. Your desire to slot me into the role of Santiago is not representative of what I am saying despite your commitment to imagining what I am saying. I am saying that not all harm, and yes especially magical harm, is not equal to human ABUSE. Harm can matter and not be an abuse cycle: I truly feel you may not understand that abuse is a cycle of behavior and specific dynamic and not just anytime someone does something cruel or bad

I’m not flattening the show by not applying these very specific real human dynamic labels to this relationship. You are flattening the show by being unwilling to engage with where the story is taking us and the way in which the portrayal from season one has been revisited.

I’m trying to explain to you that they’re not in an abuser victim dynamic in the human sense im not trying to tell you that none of it matters and no one possesses culpability

I don’t believe the writers chose to have the season end with Louis apologizing to his Abuser

It ended with Louis apologizing to a man with whom he had a mutually destructive relationship in which they both harmed each other

I’m not saying a vampire character on IWTV can’t be an abuser in the traditional sense, I’m saying they’ve gone out of their way both to have Lestat and Louis own their behaviors and harms and also not assign them that very real and specific role of Abuser and Victim

When I discuss Louis’ behavior I am not implying victims are angels. Im saying a mutual fight started by Louis isn’t an instance of ABUSE of Louis

Lestat acknowledging his harm is not the same as slotting it into this dynamic you clearly need it to be in

I simply don’t believe the writers are trying to write a story about forgiving and marrying your abuser

Its about mutual forgiveness of two flawed people who mutually harmed each other

Which is not what an abuse dynamic is

Like honestly your interpretation is rly sliding into a place that is offensive to victims and survivors

[ca-suffit]

So, I'm the anon that asked the "how do you rationalize the violence?" question, btw. Thank you for your answer. I personally believe 2x07's version of the events is closer to the truth (I don't think there's a POV that 100% accurate, but I think that's as accurate as it gets about it), but that doesn't excuse Lestat's violence. Louis might have provoked him, but he had just seen Claudia being chocked and stepped in to defend her. I don't blame him for lack of a better word, 'exploding'. I think I would've done worse if I saw my niece, that isn't even my own child, in that situation. And yes, Lestat has gone through a lot of trauma in the books and the show, and people can argue how that and being turned into a vampire shaped his mind and have this aggressive side he might not be proud of, but it doesn't excuse anything. Because Lestat himself caused a lot of trauma in both Claudia's and Louis' lives. I do hope if the show is going with a loustat endgame (haven't read the books, but from what I've heard, they're canon), they're gonna have Lestat using his infinite lifetime to reflect on that, really earn Louis' forgiveness, be the kind of companion he deserves and never even consider doing it again. If it's possible to redeem him. I don't know if it is, but at least they have the "they have all the time in the world to do that" card. I do hope they try it, though, because making this behavior normalized and recurring would be terrible. I just don't know if it will be convincing and satisfying, but I'll wait I guess. I hope the same for Armand too and that they give him and Assad the grace of flashing out the character instead of demonizing him to make Lestat look better. I hope they also know he'll need and deserve more from the narrative than a half-assed apology, because there will definitely be some double standards about Lestat and Armand. There already are. But I struggle with some other stuff too. Because I love Louis, but he's not innocent either. I also don't believe in punitivism and I don't want to be reducing him and feeding into people that want to stereotype and demonize him, but... Claudia really is the only character that has always been inferior in terms of power imbalances in the dynamics of the show. At least among the main characters. If we consider killing people to feed then it's basically useless because they're vampires and not even the human is innocent because Daniel didn't worry about Malik being lunch. I do think it's a good thing for Louis' accountability that he feels regret and remorse for his worst actions, but I don't believe the fandom does the best job at discussing that. Many times it feels like babying the white character, reducing the characters of color into racial stereotypes of abusive, comparing them, ignoring what's convenient to prop their favorite etc. Like one is always traumatized, misunderstood, trustworthy, ashamed, trying to be better and the other is always wrong, unreliable, overdramatic etc. There doesn't seem to be a lot of nuance on people's interpretations and a safe space to discuss the differences of each moment and dynamic without accidentally feeding characters you love to the lions... Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, I don't even know what I was trying to ask lmao. But thanks for the attention and the previous answer.

(context) u can ramble all u want here tbh.

there *are* a lot of questions to explore and this fandom makes it v hard to do it. despite what the racist side would have u believe, ur not going to get attacked for exploring questions. ppl know whether someone's being intentionally racist or not when trying to talk about these characters.

the thing that the fandom isn't understanding (on purpose) is that having black and brown characters have these complex personalities u can explore is a rly good thing?! racists want u to believe that there's topics we can't talk about bcuz of stuff like saying ppl "need" louis to be "a victim," but all that rly says is "I don't want to have empathy for black ppl but I'm gonna say it another way and blame others for it." nobody here is saying louis, claudia, or armand is off limits to exploring, just don't be fucking racist about it! ppl would rather run off and say the fandom is full of bullies who will call u racist instead of...looking at their own biases? half the time nobody is even saying the word "racist," these ppl apply that shit to themselves in a panic. it'd be funny if it wasn't so harmful.

things to ask urself here are....what is ur definition of "redeemable"? where does that belief come from in the first place? a religion? society? both? what is ur own relationship with abuse and trauma? have u explored what codependency looks like in real relationships? do u understand all the emotions behind these things the characters are doing? why is louis feeling regret and remorse important to u?

I think a lot of confusion and anger over the DV is that ppl only know of one response to it and that's to leave forever. a lot of society is built on v black and white thinking with no emphasis on forgiveness or growth. ofc nobody has to interact with anyone they don't want to or "owes" anyone forgiveness or help to rehabilitate and all that, but it doesn't change that the person themselves is capable of growing and changing. we tend to have strict ideas of what "abuser" and "victim" look like and don't realize how quickly those identities can switch on the same people. a lot of abusive behavior is learned from trauma and traumatized ppl tend to form relationships with each other and act just like these vampires do. it's hard to place anyone in single categories bcuz it's a spectrum. this is humanity reflected at us thru vampires.

all of these vampires carry their specific trauma and triggers and are living in ages where none of this even has been put into words yet, plus they're vampires on top of it. their rules *are* different from ours to an extent and a lot of it is bcuz they're also a v small group who is immortal. imagine someone u rly hate for having harmed u badly in some way (mentally and/or physically) and then imagine u knowing ur gonna run into them or hear their thoughts for the rest of eternity. are u supposed to kill them? could u live with that for eternity too? what if they're stronger than u? what if they read ur mind first and kill u instead? it's a lot to forever think about. idk what the show is going to do, but I have faith it'll be satisfying bcuz of knowing AMC's history with writing about traumatized ppl. Television has gotten rly good at writing about abuse and trauma in v nuanced ways. ppl tend to shy away from it tho bcuz they're not ready to confront these things in their own life and so they find an excuse to say it's bad. the racist side cannot get over calling it "shock value" even tho all the violence (physical, emotional, sexual) has been treated with great respect to the audience and characters. u see the violence move thru the characters, affect them for years, and nothing shown of the violence itself is meant to feel cheap and "shocking." these ppl simply do not want to engage so they find a reason to justify why and this story will never make sense to them bcuz of it.

[aranostra]

the thing is i do think louis should get some analysis and even criticism for some of the things he does that don't really seem to follow with his beliefs or his self images, yes.

but also i think sometimes he gets undeserved criticism for the defense mechanisms he has in place due to being in such an intense and abusive relationship with lestat.

feeling isolated and unable to leave is a fucking symptom. it isn't only caring about himself at the expense of claudia; it's literally not knowing how to take care of himself. it's something lestat actively did so louis wouldn't feel he had other options.

louis and claudia are extremely complex, but painting it as him not caring about her enough is wild to me, especially given her actual age when a lot of the bad stuff happened. louis is far from perfect, but i do sometimes feel that some of the criticism of him is straight up victim blaming.

[crazykuroneko]

When he lost control of his new human body Lestat felt awful about what he did and he tried to make amends for it. The writers made up a violent scene that never happened in the books and that was completely glossed over in the next episode, so much so that it wasn't even the catalyst for the murder attempt. Louis took him back and Lestat became even more abusive than before, so what's the point? And it makes even less sense if in s2 it will be revelead that's not what happened, cause it's even more obvious that they just wanted a shortcut to what they believe makes for a compelling TV show.

This will be the last ask I will answer on this because this has been going on for months, and if you still don't see what I'm trying to say after you read this then you won't ever see it.

Yes, it has never happened in the book because in IWTV book, Louis has never ignored Lestat for years and again IWTVbook!Lestat has never felt nor he needed to fear Louis would ever leave him. The show decided they would go with higher stakes the moment they made Loustat practically married. In the book, Louis' turning is an attack. Lestat attacked him, let him dying, showed him how awful a vampire could be, but despite Louis said he still wanted to die, Lestat turned him. There's no level of consent whatsoever there. Louis was too weak (physically and mentally) so he let Lestat did what he did. In the show, you have them go through a courting phase for months. They fell in love with each other since the beginning. Yes, Louis was half intoxicated and suicidal when Lestat offered to turn him, but he's still the one who reached out to Lestat. He did feel Lestat saw the real him. The consent is shaky, but compared to the book, Louis knew he committed into something with Lestat there. Ep 6 just proves he did see this as a marriage. So, no, they didn't "make it up", it doesn't come out of nowhere show-wise, and that violent tendency has been there in the book. Just because Lestat has never been in that situation in the book, it doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing that. (I could even argue book!Lestat could make worse damage if he's in the same situation with the same power as show!Lestat) It's basically like a math, really. They amped up the positives (making Loustat has even deeper relationship), so they needed to amp up the negatives. Otherwise we wouldn't get IWTV, but Twilight. And, this is what some people tend to forget; yes, the show is doing the books. yes, they use the books as the base of where the show would go. but the show is ALSO its own thing. Because that's the nature of visual media, it demands the story to be more visual, to be clearer, to be more intense. It's not just for Lestat as well, show!Louis is more abusive towards Claudia (the way he tried to invalidate her anger for Lestat in Ep 6, the fact he touched her in Ep 7. I bet it will only get worse from that despite Dubai Louis trying to hide it)

The show doesn't "gloss over" the abuse. It's Louis in Dubai trying to gloss over it because he doesn't like being called a victim. (And victims of abuse don't like to be called a victim is a thing. VC vampires don't like to call themselves a victim either) The show though? Oh, they don't let us to forget it for a minute. Heck, they literally put all injuries Louis had suffered right in front of our eyes. They have Claudia reminding us "three years ago". They has Claudia again said "when he hurts you again, and he will". Yes, this is Louis' narrative, but the show also tries to show you some things through that narrative so you can't take it on face value.

"It wasn't the catalyst of the murder attempt". Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it didn't lead to Louis okayed the murder. Louis was literally there in cuts and bruises, reading a book about marriage because he started to lose the meaning of what he has with Lestat after that; he sat there with Claudia in the park, watching Lestat going back to his mistress despite his effort to patch things up, saying, "I could see us become like him in a century or two" (I can't recall the quote completely, but you get the gist). What do you mean he meant by "like him"? Definitely not about becoming a cheater, it's about becoming a monster who is capable to hurt (mentally and physically) the people they claimed to love. And Louis wouldn't have come to that if that abuse didn't happen. Lestat's action made Louis lost any hope to go on living as a vampire, and by dragging Claudia back, Lestat unknowingly gave Louis a purpose to live longer: to see Claudia free even though it means he had to kill his own husband (or at least put him in the dump for some time). It's a whole chain of reactions.

I don't see they will say it didn't happen in S2. they only said they will "revisit" it. They'll probably do it by introducing another perspective. Or perhaps they will do say the dragging and flying part didn't happen. (That's the only part that I found meh because they went too soft on Lestat's murder compared to that. Idk, perhaps they assumed the gore from the murder party before it balanced it out 🤔, but my man deserves more, really. I hope they go physically harder on him in S2) But no matter what it will be, Lestat still threw him across the room and beat him to a pulp. No matter what, it's still abuse.

Lastly, I want to go back with "BUT he felt awful and tried to make amends" Yeah, i know right, by giving her an expensive rosary, as if money could solve everything (he's so stupid *affectionately*). And now in his own body, he found her beautiful again and had the urge to kiss her, even though he just raped her. Sure. That whole thing doesn't mean he's not a monster or abuser though. Or proves he's not capable to do it again (he did capable though. see: David's turning). I mean, I love Lestat. I imprinted on him. I relate to him on a lot of things, especially show!Lestat, and I will always have a bias for him. I'll always sit here, seeing parts of the show and scream, "Look at him, he is hurting. And he did try in the beginning 😭" But loving him doesn't mean denying his atrocities. Instead, we should embrace that. Every time someone going "but he is an abuser", we should go "and what about it?". To me, every one has the rights to like/love/dislike/hate any fictional characters, as long as they don't make it into anyone's problem 🤷‍♀️ (and hating a writer for doing her job is making it into someone's problem)