#louis is only just getting a sense of how much he used claudia

[isthatacalzone]

it's baffling to me the lengths to which people will try to frame anyone in iwtv as being better than anyone else. everyone who says they love each other is doing it poorly. Lestat apologised to Louis on that stage and it was real and it was also a performance. Armand feels genuine remorse for not saving Claudia, claims that he couldn't prevent it but we all know he could have. Louis loved Claudia and wanted the best for her, and she was a broken doll picked up and used to soothe his guilt. Even Claudia, who did love Louis, has a specific view of everything that happened to them, to her, that made her messy, that made her angry and awful at times. why would you flatten them? why would you take away what makes these emotions real and complicated?

[lizardkingeliot]

I took a ton of notes during my rewatch of 2x07 just now but the thing I kept coming back to again and again was Armand's framing of the entire narrative and how it plays with truth vs lies in such an insidious way it's honestly brilliant in its cruelty. Truth being used as a cudgel not only against Louis, but against Lestat as well. And against, us, the viewers at home.

We obviously all know Armand is a very powerful 500 year old vampire who is not going to be held back by an infant of a vampire like Santiago. Like… Armand. Babe. Let’s get real. But that’s the narrative set-up. The coven, now being led by Santiago, has Armand captive behind his little rickety baby gate with Sam and his prop weapon not letting the puppy come out to play. He cannot prevent it! Poor baby. Someone get him a juice box and a snack.

Enter Lestat. The vengeful lover come to make Louis and Claudia pay for what they did to him. What's interesting here is that everyone—Daniel, Louis, Armand—acknowledges in Dubai that the trial IS a sham from the beginning. A tool to allow Lestat his revenge. But the truth of why it's actually a sham is being hidden behind a thousand layers of gaslighting and deceit by Armand. Lestat is merely another prop on the stage. Being forced to use the TRUTH of his love story with Louis—and to twist essential elements of their beginning as a couple—as a weapon to drive the final wedge between them so that Armand might have Louis all to himself. That's what this is about. A farce so that Armand might have what he wants more than anything in the world. Someone who will be with him always. Without Claudia, without Lestat... who else is there for Louis to run to?

The trial as we see it is told mostly through Louis' POV. It seems to be a true picture of how it all happened but the cognitive dissonance watching him try to reconcile what Lestat was doing on the stage with the framing provided by Armand (who cuts in frequently to assure us that Lestat shapes things to suit HIS narrative) is painful. Louis sees and feels and hears the sincerity of Lestat. A Lestat who is defiant from the jump and refuses to paint the story as butchery. It's about LOVE. It is always always always about the love. An entire sham trial about vengeance and murder framed around... love.

Everyone who's familiar with the books already knows Lestat didn't want to be there. I won't go into that too much but the show did a good job of showing us just how unwell Lestat was during the entire process. But there are also some really interesting moments where we are TOLD explicitly through Louis' recounting of the events that Lestat was not actually there for revenge. Namely, the moment when Lestat says HE deserves to be punished alongside them. These are not the words of someone who is seeking vengeance. These are the words of someone desperately rattling the bars of his own cage trying everything he can to prevent what's happening. Because unlike a certain someone, in that moment Lestat is quite literally unable to prevent it!

The entire episode is Louis trying to reconcile the conflicting truths that exist inside him: that Lestat was there for revenge, that Armand couldn't prevent the coven from exacting their cruelty, and that the Lestat who was on stage WAS sincere and emotional and fighting with everything he had to let the truth ring as true as it was when he was able. He refused to refer to Louis as the accused every time Santiago insisted on it. He would only refer to Louis by name. He would NOT allow the narrative to frame him as someone who didn't also do monstrous things to his lover. He was weeping and flooded with shame. Sincerely, genuinely remorseful for the awful thing he had done to Louis.

There's also something else here about Lestat acknowledging he tried to crush what he could not own vs Armand deceiving Louis into the false sense of control that is the entire basis for their relationship. Owning something he does not crush, merely confines. He's not crushing Louis with insanity, he's locking him inside his prison of empathy. He quite literally has Louis locked in a cage while allowing him to believe he's truly free. Free from the insanity of Lestat. Evil, vengeful, gaslighting Lestat who only uses the truth to shape the narrative for himself.

There's a lot more going on here. I can't possibly get it all out of my brain right now and I imagine I'm going to be picking apart the nuances for a while. There are so many layers. The truth vs lies vs intentional reshaping of the truth of it all. But if you rewatch, pay attention to Armand's face, the score that accompanies his recounting of events, the passive way in which he holds his body in both Paris and Dubai. He's locking Louis in a dream world where the truth is present in such a way it only serves to amplify its own distortion. I don't even think he's fucking with Louis' memory all that much, just framing it in such a way that Louis cannot see past what is right there in front of him. What he already knows. If only he had just a few more tiny pieces of the puzzle...

But he's trying to get there. He is getting there. The truth of Lestat is breaking though. Lestat is still present there with him in Dubai, as real as if he were really in the room. After 74 years, Louis can still recall every detail of his face, still smile at him recalling the truth of his memories. The truth he wouldn't allow himself to look at all the way. The truth he himself had to distort for his own sake because it hurt too much. He's allowing himself to see not only the truth of himself and his own actions, but the truth of Lestat. All the complicated, sincere truth of him. The truth of the one who truly could not prevent it.

[donnapalude]

i find something very interesting in what the show has done with claudia's ambivalent relationship with truthfulness, honesty, narrativisation, and storytelling.

claudia is, by and large, depicted as someone that feels some distaste at the idea of embellishing emotional truths by providing too much context, reasoning, or justifications for them. she is not blind to the existence of these things and in fact she is quite a good judge of character. but i believe she perceives it as a weakness to feel the need to organize them in a self-created narrative in order to give some meaning to life events. it feels deliberate that she enjoyed storytelling when she was younger (see, her semi-mythology about angels and devils) and then stopped after her father made her stare at the boy (who called her an angel!) she loved and killed while he was burning. i think she knows, from then on, that a story has no power and it changes nothing. to keep telling it would feel like intolerable self-deception. she would not disrespect what happened by painting a pretty picture about it and, from that point, she never does again.

this mindset, i believe, is also compounded by growing up around two parents extremely inclined to narrativisation as a method of obfuscation. she is perceptive enough to correctly guess this tendency stems from a fundamental inability to face their respective realities, although in almost opposite ways. lestat seeks to control his internal reality by attempting to warp his external one. which is to say, he lies to others to manage their perception of him because he is unable to deal with feelings of insecurity and rejection. louis seeks to control his external reality by attempting to warp his internal one. which is to say, he lies to himself to manage his own self-perception because it's the only way to survive the awareness of the coercions that society (and his various families) put on him. regardless, i think claudia sees how vacuous their attempts are in avoiding pain to themselves and others and she despises them for it. both for lacking the courage to do away with the attempts and for not being able to make them work (secretly, maybe unconsciously, it would be good to have some faith back).

at the same time, claudia keeps writing multiple diaries, loves theatre and loves acting. the diaries seem to become less cinematic over time and she is aware that when she watches a play or she is on stage there is no truth being tarnished, the story is all that exists. still, her intense search for these alternative forms of narration reads to me as a residual longing for the power of storytelling. it's no coincidence, i think, that in order to kill lestat, who had been initially responsible for destroying that belief and who she feels all-powerful, she needs and dares to tell herself one more story: the one about the vampires in europe that will love her, if she can just get through this. apart from that, i think theatre and her diaries represent the last refuge where she can relive the illusion that telling stories has some meaning and some impact. which makes it particularly cruel that the stage is then used as a place where stories become powerful again and they are deployed to first trap her and then kill her.

given all this. i think it's fair to say that claudia usually strives to be both truthful and honest: even the lies she concedes to telling are usually not flights of fancy but stick close to the truth. and they are borne out of a pragmatic need for self-preservation, not a desire to avoid uncomfortable realisations. she makes, overall, an heroic attempt to bear both her internal and her external reality, without trying (unless it's a matter of survival) to forcibly control them, but just accepting them and doing her best with them. the issue with her reasoning i feel, is that, while narrativisation can be a form of deception, it is also in many ways the only mean of creation of a sense of identity. i guess this point is debatable according to the philosophical tradition one draws from, but i would personally argue there is no ontological stable self that exists outside of our own perception. what exists are our thoughts and actions. and "identity" is the net that ties them together, created by the dialogue between the narrative we weave over them and our own reactions to that narrative. the moment the self begins a self-referential recounting, it is already in the realm of intrepretation. which does not mean truth and honesty don't have a role in this: there is, i believe, honesty in recognizing and accepting our actual thoughts and feelings and actions. but after that, their interpretation is always a truth created.

there are two consequence to this for me. the first, is that it becomes evident at some point that an abandonment of any recounting leaves you bereft of lies but also berefts of truths. claudia has no real tools to make sense of her interiority. in the few brief scenes where she explictly talks about her feelings regarding her traumatic experiences, she is merely able to make a list of facts and stark sensations. her conclusion about the "collision" in her, her sense of brokeness, being "i don't know". her conclusion over the retelling of her assault being simply "it fucked me up". i see in her a deep difficulty in re-elaborating her feelings and connecting them in a unitary vision, which deprives her of the possibility to consolidate an assessment over the impact of events on her identity and build something new on it. the second, is that her diaries by nature cannot escape being a form of narrativision. at least to some extent. even if she tries to describe "reality" as close as possible, the moment she puts pen on paper and decides which stories to tell and how, she is creating her own intrepretation. so yes the diaries are technically a truthful source, but the concept of truthfulness is not so uncomplicated that we can equate it to mean "objectively reliable".

as a final consideration i will say that i find claudia profoundly moving and brave in her decision to never close her eyes before life, and in the end, even before death. and even more so because hers is not a meek, passive stance. surrounded by liars and cowards, she is smart enough to see that truth is a very powerful weapon against people that can't bear it. when these people hurt her, she has no need to warp reality to hurt them back: she just puts them before themselves and lets them macerate in their own reflection. and this commitment to the truth stays with her until her final act and then transcends her in some way: as she fades, for once, it's lestat that cannot close his eyes.

[avalonia320]

IWTV Thoughts

I finally got to watch the finale last night and when I tell you I am SHOOK to my damn core. I don't know how to put it into words. I'm older than a lot of people here. I first read the Vampire Chronicles when I was 11; I found them in a box that belonged to my mother. When I tell you I devoured those books, re-read them over and over and over, fell in love with Lestat and New Orleans & Paris, cried over Claudia and Louis...I was totally besotted by the world Anne Rice created.

When the movie was announced when I was a teen (yes I'm that old), first I was so excited and then I was furious, as many of us Anne Rice devotees were, when Tom Cruise was cast as Lestat. I could not imagine an actor further away from how I had imagined Lestat. But still, I had to see it, and while it was still miles away from what I had wanted, I came away impressed with Tom Cruise. He still wasn't my Lestat, but he threw himself into the role in a way that made me believe he'd been waiting his whole life to let his inner Queen off the chain.

The movie itself...I had loved parts of it, but there was still so much more that I wanted. When the sequel came out (Queen of the Damned) I liked parts of that too and I actually enjoyed Stuart Townsend as Lestat. I hated most of it though, especially what they did with Marius (to this day I don't know what the hell that was about) but it was obvious at that point that I was never going to see the vampire world I was so enthralled with on the screen.

Then this series comes out. And while my expectations were low, I was still pretty excited. And then I watched it.

Holy fucking shitballs, you guys. I am normally so protective of my favorite books, resenting any little change unless it makes sense but everything they've done with this series, everything they've changed makes so much fucking sense. I don't want to try and break it down, I don't have the words. Lestat was always my big love in the books, but in this series, I've fallen in love with Louis and Claudia in a way I never imagined. I always loved their characters, don't get me wrong, but I never connected with them this way until now. And don't even get me started on Daniel, who I will admit I actively disliked in the books for the unforgivable crime of being boring. Um....that's a word I will never ever use in connect to Daniel Molloy ever ever ever again. And Armand and Madeleine and...I can't.

And Lestat. I loved him in the first season but in the second season, when he showed up with that long hair, I saw him for the first time like someone took the Lestat that has lived in my head since I was 11 years old and put him on the screen. He is EXACTLY how I imagined him. The way he looks, the way he talks, his emotion, his breakdowns, his unbelievable flair for the dramatic...this is HIM. I feel like I've been been unconsciously waiting decades for him to show up and for people to see him the way I saw him back then. I can't be the only old school fan that feels this way. It's just so surreal to see it so exact, it takes me right back to my childhood and the way I fell into stories then. The way you feel things when you're so young is something so hard to recapture but I feel like I'm right back there again on my bed, reading the books over and over again.

I'm just so grateful. To everyone involved with this series, the writers, the cast...I know i'm getting overly emotional but everything's been so shit lately and we've all needed an escape, a good one for once. I needed this so badly.

And I have to believe, wherever she is now, Anne Rice is so fucking proud.

[nalyra-dreaming]

to put all the cards on the table... (and now that we have that teaser... oooofff). i read the books, but i want to put my obsessive detail lover glasses on. anne is really nuanced in her writing, so yes i totally get lestat is not how louis described him (more or less 👀), but just in a vibey way. to make a specific list, what is that 20% that louis got wrong in your opinion?

That Louis got wrong? :)

Hmmm… So first off I do not think that what we saw of Lestat in that video (aka the rockstar persona) is how he looked when he was with Louis in NOLA.

Then again… Surprisingly close, isn't it?^^

So to get into this I need to explain my view of this a bit. Kidnap your ask, if you will^^

Louis describing Lestat: strands of hair down the sides of his face, unkempt a bit wild hair (at times at least). If his hair isn't done in some kind of fashion (opera, french pony tail etc)

I said it before, I think these strands down Lestat's face are indicative of Louis' POV (own) memories.

Which brings us to this small excursion on the subject. There's the evil step-mom bob, when Claudia comes in, and which is repeated outside in 1x05:

Hair lengths aside, we now know that Lestat was just as bloody as Louis from the trial revisit (see below), which was supposedly the truth, but in any case "no scratch on Lestat" has never made much sense. Meaning the force-feeding likely didn't happen either...

.... and the drop... well. Supposedly did. Even though he is quite clean again?

Because... that is still very far from what we (supposedly) saw as the "truth" of Lestat's bloody face in the coffin room just before, which we were shown at the trial:

I think the evil step-mom-clean-and-glorious-looking Lestat is Armand's tampered-with version.

Because... going through this because I think we got Louis' POV and actual memories of Lestat more in the beginning of season one.

There are a lot more instances of the "strands down his face"...

Btw, see this? Of what was used by Daniel to prove an "error" to the tale in 2x08? To prove Armand's manipulation?!

Right after the scene... he has them again:

Even Claudia's POV has them!

Even when she absolutely hates his guts:

I think every scene we saw with Lestat either in made up hair or with the strands down his face are ... "as real as it can get in a tale".

And the other scenes... the perfect blond hair ... is not.

Which brings us finally back to your actual question:

What is the 20% Louis got wrong?

And... I'm not sure Louis really got him that wrong?! I think Louis misunderstood some things, didn't know a lot of things, and Lestat fucked up others. They didn't talk enough. And sometimes love makes you desperate. They knew exactly how to wound the other.

And Armand... meddled with the tale. I said it before, the "train scene" cannot have happened as shown. The hotel likely neither.

I think every scene where Lestat is an "evil bitch with perfect hair.".. is a meddled with one. Given Armand's goal of influencing the tale? Namely making Lestat seem as bad as possible, while being unable to hide his own fascination with him? Makes perfect sense to me.^^

And there's actually not that many of them either. The outside of episode 5, the tractor salesman, the train, the paranoia driven one in 1x07 has strands again, while he does not have them the scene before and through a lot of the remaining last episode of the first season.

As such the little comment in 1x07, "the king's hair has betrayed the king".... takes on a third meaning, imho - not only a quip by Louis on both the "hair" on the floor and "heir" (Claudia)... but also that the "hair"... betrays the "king"... the leader - the coven master vampire meddling.

Layers, upon layers, upon layers.

So what did Louis get wrong?

Not that much actually, I think. But... some of the key scenes were not his. And those were therefore, in the sense of the words, wrong.

[justheretolurk003]

A long post on why Daniel is more fascinating than Armand (according to Louis)

Got you. In fact I’m a bit torn on whether or not Daniel is that different from other people that he is extremely fascinating. I think he has a risqué attitude that a lot of the people at the bar share: that willingness and unapologetic desire to live life and enjoy pleasure at maximum. A bit like Lestat’s answer in S1, when Louis asks him why vampires are on Earth, and Lestat answers he himself put Louis on earth for the purpose of pleasure and do whatever they want.

But I don’t think a resemblance to Lestat is the whole reason Louis didn’t kill Daniel that night. While being broken down by Armand, Daniel admits that he is good at getting people to open up, a trait that is more uncommon but not so much. Still, I think Louis picks up on that, even at the bar when Daniel says he is good at looking for people in the cracks. That sparks Louis’ interest. A way Daniel shows he is good at listening is the way he does not judge Louis when he shows him his own coffin —instead he just asks how it works. When Louis shows him his fangs, Daniel is scared af at first, then asks him to show his fangs again later on. This creates an environment of comfort Louis uses to rage against Lestat and mourn for Claudia. Their interview is not an interview based on accuracy, it is an “emotional upchuck” which can only be had in an environment where there is some level of trust, comfort and a non-judgmental attitude. In 1973 Daniel is not so much an interviewer, but a therapist.

And still I don’t think that is the whole reason Daniel was not killed by Louis that night cause Daniel is also unapologetically himself. Unapologetically horny, unapologetically weird, unapologetically chill, unapologetically idiotic, cringey and with no sense of danger when he offers to become Louis’ companion. I think this trait along with the previously touched upon ones are the reason Jacob calls Daniel “cool”. Daniel is cool in the sense he is unpretending. A dude that is chill, observant, with an angle and you can have fun with.

And still, these are not incredibly fascinating traits that few people possess. In fact, I know plenty of people who share these traits and embody them even more than Daniel. On top of that, at that point in his life, Daniel hasn’t lived a fascinating life. He said it himself: just a shitty kid from Modesto. In fact, Armand has lived a ten times more fascinating life than Daniel (argue with me in the comments if you disagree, bitch) and Daniel is right when he says Armand is more fascinating cause for fucks sake, he can actually read minds! But again, the comfort they offer to Louis is radically different. And that is why Louis prefers the night he spent with Daniel than the decades alongside Armand. On one hand we have Daniel’s non judgmental, unassuming gaze compared to the snobbishness and high horse attitude of Armand. We have Daniel letting Louis be messy and vengeful and emotional, and Armand who is composed and impenetrable and we’ll-adjusted, the whole time.

And yes, I think Armand looks down on Louis because Armand is giving a performance of how to be a well put together, good adjusted person. Armand looks down on Louis for picking up men at bars, he looks down on him for being a mess and opening up to Daniel, you can say he looks down on him for committing suicide (though this coexist with the hurt and betrayal Armand feels at seeing his efforts, cause yes, Armand sees it as efforts, be thrown away by Louis).

Whoever Armand is with, he tries to appeal to his partner and create an environment in which nothing is out of order, nothing is evocative, in which everything is to their liking. In this case, the environment is plain because the goal is that there is not a single thing that triggers Louis. Armand justifies this by saying he does it for Louis’ sanity and comfort. And the epitome of this place is Dubai.

Louis is cut off from society, in a place where everything is tailored to him to never upset him or trigger him. And I genuinely think this is the way Armand knows how to pay for what he did in Paris and show his love for Louis. This blandness and willingness to appeal to the desires of the other (“Is it gremlin or good nurse tonight?”) is how Armand expresses love. And it is tragic that is how he does it. Because what is sex work if not appealing to the desires of other people? What is a slave if not someone who is forced to appeal and is exploited to the greed of other people? What is a master if not a person you have to satisfy in every of their wishes? Armand caters to desire. That is how the dozens of people that exploited him taught him how to relate to them, especially Marius. The only way Armand could love Marius was by serving him, cause that was the only way Marius made himself available.

The power of Louis and Armand’s roles as maître and Arun is that Armand performs as a slave when he is the master and Louis performs as the master when he is the slave. Armand is recreating his dynamic with Marius, it is just that this time Armand has the power to be the master. Instead of outright being one, he is covert.

As a side note, I don’t think Armand is taunting Lestat when he contacts him to talk to Louis. I think he has that call with him out of the goodness of his heart — perhaps, to show Louis how good he himself is— but mostly because the role Armand forces himself to play is so suffocating, so unfair, so fucked up, that when Lestat says I love you Armand can’t deal with the pain of having to repeat that back to Louis. He just can’t. It is a genuine vulnerable moment of Armand. Ideally, it would be a wake up call for him to stop playing this role, but the events in Paris have him stuck playing that part.

It is intentional that they show us Armand letting Lestat come and destroy the coven, because he is letting Daniel do the same thing: come destroy Dubai, come destroy the catering to desire, come destroy the constant acts of service. And I hope this time is for good. I hope Armand and Louis are free from this dynamic that eats away at them. The space Armand holds for Louis to process his emotions hurts both Armand and Louis. Armand, hurt by always having to work relentlessly and never sit down with the truth according to Assad, which I argue is a lifestyle he inherited from his past as a slave. Louis, hurt by not having a non-judgmental space to cope, process and grieve as a victim of abuse, perpetuator of abuse, and the betrayal he committed against Claudia.

The reason Daniel comes across as fascinating to Louis is because Louis was begging for a listening ear, for somebody to care about his story, and Daniel has good the traits to listen to Louis and met him at the right time.

Sadly, centuries of trauma prevent Armand from being who Daniel is.

(Also didn’t Claudia say to Madeleine that there was something broken in her and Madeleine told her sometimes people go boom and then fine and then boom? To me, Louis in the 70’s embodies this so much).

Gif by @unicornspwnall

[whatshehassaid]

“I LOVED HER.” “BUT SHE DIDN’T LOVE YOU. Not like he did. Not like I have”

That isn’t Armand saying Claudia didn’t love Louis. She did. What he’s saying is that Louis was so fucking focused on PINING for Lestats love, superimposing Lestat on Claudia AND Armand that Louis refused to accept love from them. Because he didn’t want Claudia. He didn’t want Armand. He wanted Lestat and he couldn’t have him (whether it be because Louis convinced himself Lestat was bad, or dead, or because Louis is in denial). He tries to make villains out of Armand and Claudia.

“Speaking of mistakes…”

“Vintage Lioncourt.” “I’m not Lestat, Louis.” “Okay….”

“Picked ANOTHER ONE over ME”

“It was NEVER ABOUT ME. Another chapter in the FUCKED UP ROMANCE OF YOU TWO”

“If you want to escape this cage of empathy I’ve trapped you in all you had to do was ask, Louis.”

“Imagine me without the burden of her”

Louis can’t face the fact that he was IMPLICIT in what happened to Claudia in Paris. She wants a companion in Madeline cause she’s not getting in from Louis.

I feel like we may be going the route of Armand and Claudia (probably immediately after the trial and before her death) bonding over their experiences. Not just to do with Louis and Lestat… but their childhoods… being raped… being used… being turned so young…

I’m not 100% on this but if they do include the head swap thing (which is still fucked up, I’m still upset at Armand for that) I feel like Armand will frame it or believe that he can save her if he can just give her a woman’s body to match her mind. And I feel like Claudia will jump at the chance. Again, not 100% with that and it’s STILL super fucked up.. but I think if that happens Armand (AT THE TIME) would believe he was helping her. Like how he “helps” his victims. How he was never helped as a human child and as a vampire. They relate to each other because they’ve never been someone’s first choice… and I think the moment Armand hears her say those words (“it was never about me. Another chapter in the fucked up story/romance of you two”) he’s gonna realize how much they really have in common and feel empathy for her.

It makes a lot of sense with how Armand’s character (especially in the books) is. He has a thing about consent (it’s a bit twisted because you could argue he assumes he knows what’s best for people… and acts accordingly thinking that he’s helping them) But he needs people to consent at least somehow. Even if it’s coerced.

That’s also why I believe after Paris… Louis initially agreed to have the memories of his role in Claudia’s death suppressed. He couldn’t handle the guilt that he didn’t care enough to save her. Armand just took it to the point of constantly suppressing the triggering memories. Plus on TOP of that I’m 100% sure Louis is schizophrenic and it’s causing blackouts.

Armand wasn’t really lying when he said that “I protect Louis from himself.” He WAS being honest. It’s in a fucked up way, but I believe it’s true.

And then with Daniel, that’s a whole other can of worms because I don’t think Armand wiped his memories right after San Fran. I’m starting to believe it wasn’t just Louis telling him to keep Daniel alive. The minute Daniel admits he finds Armand fascinating… and tells him “you can read minds right?” Alluding to the fact that he ISN’T LYING. Daniel is intrigued by Armand… and that immediately catches Armand’s attention. We’ve only seen up to Louis attacking Daniel from an unbiased POV (the tape recording). The rest is MOSTLY FROM LOUIS. Who had had memories taken whether by Armand or by the blackouts… and remember he has a habit of trying to make himself look good in Daniel’s eyes. He tries to convince himself constantly that he’s not a bad guy - but in reality…. He’s done some shitty things too. So it wouldn’t surprise me if some of that was also lies to Daniel. “You’re a liar Louis. Whether you know it or not.”

Something happened in those 4 days with Armand and Daniel that I’m not sure Louis realizes. He may come in and out of actual remembrance where he KNOWS Armand and Daniel fell in love… and he uses it against them both… and then goes back into not knowing what’s happening.

I have a feeling we’re getting the trial/claudia’s death/a reveal about the blackouts etc/the fire from ARMAND. Hence the “imagine me without the burden of her” line that Louis says. He would NEVER in a million years admit to saying that. Definitely not to Daniel.

The Merrick storyline plays into this here. Finding Claudia’s diaries… realizing that Louis really treated her badly and that she hates him for it. And Louis not being able to take it.

I also feel like Lestat and Armand have teamed up in Dubai without Louis or Daniel realizing it. They may be trying to help cure him with the help of Dr. Bhansali.

(Also, devils minion definitely happened in the past… you can just see it in the way Armand sometimes looks at Daniel - and in the books even though he was a stickler for rules… his only exception has ALWAYS been Daniel. He loves Louis, he wouldn’t have put up with any of this if he didn’t… but Daniel? Daniel is really the love of Armand’s life. And Lestat is Louis’. I need them boys to figure this shit out - and with the fact that Daniel wasn’t listed in the Talamasca victims folder? Even though he was attacked, held hostage and tormented… means he is probably in ANOTHER folder - *cough* ARMANDSPARAMOURS *cough* I hope they have Daniel find his name in there cause THAT is gonna be J U I C Y.)

[avelera]

Gif courtesy of @apaethy

I just finished re-watching the first season of Interview with the Vampire because in light of what's going on as of 2.6 of S2, I felt I needed to, because this moment above is driving me crazy.

Why is Armand staring straight at Daniel during Louis' declaration? And why is it that, to me, he almost seems to plead with his eyes for Daniel to get him away from Louis?

My thoughts on the matter:

Doylist reasons (aka, out of universe, production, practical reasons): this is a big reveal that "Rashid" is actually Armand. It makes sense, from that angle, as an acting choice that Armand-no-longer-Rashid would look straight at the camera so we could get a good look at him.

Thing is, it's certainly a choice.

Because I would argue the more logical choice when having one character declare the other is the love of their life is for those characters to look at each other. Even a passing glance, a faint smile, a little bit of heart eyes.

Louis just gave a pretty romantic declaration. Actually, even more haunting as of 2.6, Louis just said out loud that he loves Armand in this straightforward, unambiguous, but frighteningly passive way that he refused to do back in Paris, what Madeleine had to cajole him into saying. Now Louis drops the L word all casual, almost as a challenge, right in Daniel's face??

Daniel Molloy voice: Nuh uh, I don't buy it, not for a second.

Ok, let's get into a meta reason this is a really freakin' weird moment and scene that they chose to use as the final note of Season 1, and therefore I think it's meant to be important and, as of Season 2, I think we're seeing the crux of why it's the end of one season and the set up of the next.

Metatextual reason: Armand is not the fucking love of Louis's life in the books. He's barely a footnote, unless that footnote is labeled, "THE VAMPIRE WHO KILLED CLAUDIA". Louis and Armand's relationship, such as it was, soured immediately after her death. They didn't stick together for decades, from the text they barely stuck together a few years after that. Armand wasn't at the Interview with Daniel (but he did pick up Daniel later, when kidnapping him when Daniel went to investigate Lestat's house and look for evidence to corroborate Louis' story).

So as a book fan, I sat up in my chair and audibly shouted, "What the fuck?" at that line. Because as I'm sure anyone who has read this far knows by now, in the books Louis is not the love of Armand's life.

Daniel is the love of Armand's life.

Daniel is Armand's only fledgling, ever.

So not only is there a weird declarative quality to the almost nonsensical (to book readers) statement that Armand is the love of Louis's life-- I don't know how else to explain it except it's like having a revival of Romeo and Juliet where they didn't die and Romeo's early girlfriend Rosaline show up to say that Romeo is the love of her life in Juliet's face. Do you see what I mean? Daniel/Armand is Romeo and Juliet, Louis the temporary fling. Having Rosaline tell Juliet that Romeo is her love would give a similar level of dissonance as I got hearing Louis/Armand was a thing over and above Daniel/Armand.

So to go back to Armand's creepy eye contact here (as if he has any other kind).

Watsonian Reason (aka, in-universe, what the story is going for): We are setting up the plot that becomes much more apparent in S2: Daniel was invited to Dubai to be the wrecking ball in Louis/Armand's relationship.

Which means the big canon divergence moments from the book are:

1. Louis and Armand didn't break up right after Paris, but stayed a couple for several decades longer.

2. Regardless of whether or not the Devil's Minion happened already (or if it's going to happen later in this story), Armand didn't turn Daniel into a vampire soon after meeting him a few years post-Interview with the Vampire. That event got pushed back.

My money is on Armand and Daniel had their fling but Armand refused to turn him. It's a fairly logical canon divergence beat because Armand didn't want to turn Daniel in the books either so in this universe, he just actually followed through and did the responsible thing.

But, I think Armand pined. And pined. And pined.

Whether or not Armand is Alice turning down Daniel's proposal (I at this point disagree with the theory) or if he was just stalking Daniel closely enough to read Alice's thoughts in that moment, he clearly has been keeping tabs on Daniel.

In my opinion, Armand is finally done with the relationship with Louis.

The interview is meant to passively accomplish these things:

Remind Louis how much he loves Lestat.

Remind Louis how much he loves Claudia and by extension if/when it "slips out" just how culpable Armand actually was (as the mastermind, not a bystander) for her death, it will give Louis the impetus to finally leave.

Bring Daniel back into their life. Because whether or not he'll admit it to himself, Armand has been pining for him over Louis for a while now.

I've kind of already explored this in another post but the more I watch of S2 and re-watch of S1, the more certain I am that this is Armand's actual goal. The pining looks he keeps shooting Daniel's way, the way Daniel seems to lose his train of thought whenever he looks at Armand, the palpable tension between them...

Basically, Romeo and Juliet are getting back together soon. We just need to get Rosaline out of the picture first, and that's why Romeo is having an interview that digs up what a shitty boyfriend he was to Rosaline so that Rosaline will break up with him first so he can get back with Juliet.

[theresthespark]

Okay Lestat is canonically a Scorpio and Louis a Libra which are both painfully accurate. I wanted to play Estelle and share my astrology headcanons

Claudia:

Leo rising – the hair, the general slayage, her association with yellow aka the sun

Aries sun – she’s so bold plus libra and Aries are sister signs so they share traits that present different which feels right for Louis and her’s kinship

Taurus moon – not prone enough to over emotionality to be a water sign but not overly practical in the way the other earth signs are. Very stubborn and does canonically enjoy beauty and luxury. Also if you know a Taurus I feel like it just makes sense

Madeleine:

Virgo Rising – She just gives demure when we first meet her and yet no bullshit either. Virgos just seems very put together almost unassuming which is funny since every Virgo I know is crazy lol

Aquarius sun – the decisions she’s made in her life feel the best suited for an Aquarian. Also her talking to Armand? That woman stopped giving a fuck about what everyone else is doing years ago

Cancer moon – Almost did Scorpio here but her loyalty and intensity didn’t feel suited there. Cancer still has some of Scorpio’s snap but its homey and soft too. I also can’t see Claudia gravitating towards someone similar to Lestat at all lol

(Bonus: suspected Aries Venus. The intensity of her!! Her directness when she cares! How she chases life and joy!)

Armand:

Pisces Rising – those big ole eyes are a big marker for this one. Also Pisces have big baby energy despite being the oldest sign which feels perfect for him

Gemini Sun – Please what else could he be? There’s the 27 different faces but more so, the love for technology and knowledge, the urge to always strategize. The near inability to ground into his emotions. The perpetual anxiety. Also Geminis are so funny without even trying but that’s just me

Capricorn Moon – Caps are ruled by Saturn which is in short a struggle bus placement. Fits well with the forever 27 thing (stuck in perpetual Saturn return) and his tendency to self flagellate. Also it being represent by the devil card in tarot. Iykyk

Daniel:

Capricorn rising – When you first meet him he comes off quite no bullshit in a way that only makes sense for Capricorn to me. Also fits for the workaholic tendencies (our risings tend to be a truest to self energy aka us at our best). Also feel that may be what draws Armand to him hehehe

Sagittarius sun – If you look up famous Sags all of them are silly goobers (and lowkey problematic 💀). Like him being a Sag makes SO much sense to me for San Francisco. Only a Sag would make that many dumb decisions just bc it was a vibe lmaoo

Aries moon – Thinking about Eric’s comment about Daniel not taking kindly to bullies. Also how similar him and Claudia feel to me I feel they’d share some major signage too

(Bonus: Gemini Mercury bc his got the gift of the gab, the quick wit)

Louis: (i couldn’t resist finishing their big three)

Libra rising – Ruled by Venus, Helen of Troy, Malena coded. What else could he be really?

Libra sun – Painfully canon

Scorpio moon – With how he talks about himself and his life versus how he moves through the world it makes perfect sense to me. So much emotion but also a lot of passion all bottled unless in the right company. Also he would loooove SZA (plus plus you’re more likely to become heavily attached to people who’s sun is your moon)

Lestat:

Aquarius rising – Leo’s sister sign (perfect for him and Claudia’s dynamic). She’s a rebel she does her own thing she does not give a flying fuck about the rest of yall. Only an Aquarius could be responsible for the events in Queen of the Damned

Scorpio sun – Again debilitatingly canon

Leo moon – Do I even need to explain it? Pull any TVL passage if you want an explanation lmaooo

I hope you enjoyed my analyzes I love astrology and would kill to get a proper birth chart for these characters. The house placements! The Aspects! The CHIRONS!! I need to chill

[toriangeli]

I get the impression that the writers didn’t expect people to be that invested in Armand which is odd bc he’s a popular book character but. It almost seems to me like they thought everyone would be invested in Lestat and Louis only and they can do whatever with Armand. I still think he was well-written for the most part don’t get me wrong. However.

I think his motivations are muddled in this version of the story and it’s weird that he had no strong relationships to anyone all season. The Louis thing didn’t matter to either of them that much bc he was willing to let him die (weird), nothing with Daniel yet, didn’t seem very upset with the coven members dying and didn’t even seem to hate Claudia all that much?

I feel like they didn't think we'd love him if he was as much of a maniac as he was in the books? Crazy time to start worrying about what their audience thinks. ffs, Rolin talked about how bad they felt for Armand upon rereading the second half of book 1 and then didn't even quote the line that made them feel so bad for him in the first place (the thing about how he's done everything for Louis and Louis doesn't love him and seems totally dead to him).

He was definitely very attached to Louis, but Louis' lack of attachment to him and Daniel's utter contempt guided the audience's opinion a lot more than the softening of his terribleness. Even if it's not their intent, he comes across as the least favorite child. Lestat dropped Louis from the sky and gets a pass, but Armand did...what, exactly? Louis forgave him for playing a part with Claudia's death, but being willing to let Louis die was unforgivable, even after he pulled Louis out of the sun? And Rolin talked about how these were genuine attempts from Armand to be better, to be good to Louis, only to be met in 2.05 with the bleak understanding that none of it meant jack shit to Louis, it was all just a sign of Armand being a boring person who did boring things. "As empathetic as possible," says Rolin, but the actual audience is taking its cues from audience surrogate Daniel, whose opinion isn't based on Armand's experiences or even Louis' experiences, but his own. His entire take on the situation is centered around what Armand did to him, so he ignores anything that could actually make him see where Armand is coming from. He even calls his tragic backstory into question. And don't tell me Armand lied so much he deserved that. Nobody deserves it. Anyway, according to Rolin, Armand lied about two things: who saved Louis at the trial, and how involved he was in the trial itself, and all subsequent lies were covering up those two. Do you ever see Armand bringing up his tragic backstory when he isn't asked to do so? He plays victim about other things, sure, but never about that.

And frankly, some of the things he plays victim about, he has the right to be pissed about. It feels like nobody really grasps 2.05 with any sense of compassion for both Louis and Armand--it's always one or the other of them in total wrong. Either Louis is emotionally abusive during their fight, or Armand tortured and neglected him and made the whole situation about himself.

What if both things can be true, but we understand where they're both coming from? That's the thing about dark fiction: we can actually look critically at relationships like these and see nuance. It's not safe to do that in real life unless you're the therapist involved, but in fiction? We can actually look and see and think. Don't do that if you're in a toxic relationship irl, just get out.

Louis is using drugs to run away from something Armand could have prevented. There's kind of a karma in Armand being forced to be his caretaker. At the same time, I know what being the codependent in a relationship feels like, so...yes, Armand making the situation about himself makes a lot of sense because no situation is ever about himself. He drags Louis out of the sun, and we never talk about how traumatic that is for both of them. Rightly, the focus is on Louis, because Louis is the primary victim in the situation, but he's not the only one traumatized by his own suicide attempt. We, the audience, have the capacity to have empathy for them both, but we seldom do. Instead, we see Armand doing something wrong--the secondary victim demanding understanding from the primary one--and focus way too much on that instead of why.

People feel sorry for themselves because they're overcompensating for the fact that only they ever seem to validate their own experiences. Judging by some of Sam's attitude, I suspect the last person who told Armand "you went through something fucked up and it's okay to not be okay about it" was Marius. Right before the attempt, Louis actively invalidated some of the worst shit Armand ever went through, so sure. I obviously don't agree with Armand's actions in the aftermath, but the important thing is, I'd consider it shitty, shitty writing if the writers decided everyone should immediately be able to act rationally about this. That's not how people work. It's the opposite of how Armand should work. Armand is so poorly socialized, he doesn't know the unwritten social codes, or even why he does what he does. And any time someone calls him out, they can't seem to do so without invalidating completely unrelated traumas he's had.

You can say, "Oh, well, this season was Louis' story, so of course they focused on Louis' perspective," but here's the problem with that: we are not getting a The Vampire Armand season. It wouldn't make sense. The only two main characters who are in those flashbacks are Armand and Marius. That means sidelining almost every series regular for an entire season if they did a TVA season. If every POV character (Daniel, Louis, and Lestat) has total contempt for Armand, exactly when is the audience supposed to have things cleared up for them?

[dxxtruction]

Thinking about Santiago.

How Armand was definitely appeasing Santiago to make up for killing his maker by colluding with him on the get go. Like Santiago definitely knew right when Armand knew about the two of them, and fair would only be fair. Santiago is someone who might act out frequently from all his resentment about his maker, and so Armand's probably thinking already that if he gives him this he'll finally cool his head about it. Stroke his ego a bit and give him a sense of power over something only Armand really has the power to do. But he doesn't follow through, as he'd caught feelings for Louis along the way. He's also realizing during this period of courting how much he really hates appeasing the coven all the time (he's notably bartered his body to them to solve arguments as this is 'how one endures'. and Coven life requires a 'letting of of the self'), let alone upholding all its laws with so much violence. He's not against either on principle, but is seriously questioning if this is who he wants to be at this period of time. Has honestly been disillusioned from the desire of coven life for the last century or so, because he's given the opportunity to see he can have other things. Like love.

With Claudia, Santiago's very much putting on a mask of innocence around her, scapegoating all the future blame onto Armand, anything that will happen will be Armand's fault. When really the only thing keeping this going is Santiago not backing down on needing the two of them dead so his ego is soothed. Santiago himself doesn't even care about all the laws. I'm not sure any of the coven or Armand do, let alone never indulging themselves in acting out in ways not tied solely to the group benefit. Which makes the fact they snitched on Claudia particularly interesting. They get to but she doesn't? Everyone hates Claudia to some degree and I think this just fuels Armand's hatred of her, because he's the one to always clean it up. And Claudia's going to act out, because, well she doesn't get along with anyone. I think the Baby Loulou play was a deliberate ploy to make the two of them buttheads, and what none of them, and their inflated egos, were expecting was for her to be a sweeping hit.

Armand knows if some coven members get to run rampant and some don't it leads to total chaos. So he can't just let Claudia have special privileges, but is technically letting her have them on a law the whole coven is in agreement on is something where a death sentence is entirely justified. (that of killing another vampire.) So this doubles over itself.

And to Armand, Santiago frequently emotionally degrades him, and publicly embarrasses him, in order to break him to a point where he has him where he wants him. He needs him broken so he can put him back together as he sees fit. Cause he can definitely easily coup and become the new maître, like he wants, but if Armand's all high and mighty, and feeling like he has any other choice, the whole plans a flop. Armand knows this sort of thing well enough to not see all this going on behind him (he does get lazy), even if he has a vague sense they'd probably get up to something, he's secure enough in Louis plan that they won't (which he calls love).

It's one of those things then where it has nothing to do with really wanting Claudia or Louis dead, at least for Santiago and Armand, but all about a clashing and contention between egos in a social contract that necessitates those bound to it be killed if they don't uphold, or fit into it well enough. Normally those who don't fit in are just prone to doing it themselves. It's a toxic work envoirment on steroids. Which Armand is in no small part apart of fostering the same as the rest of them. He does use a lot of their same tactics, and is normalized to them. (Such is a culture of toxicity). Then it's a little nation of vampires turning to fascism to get rid of the 'undesirables'. Which I think Armand does only come to sympathize with, because he felt he had no other choice (they'd broken him down), and it provided him with security. Much like Madeleine.

Moral of the story: never appease a fascist, and leave your toxic friend group at the soonest opportunity. Also leadership in relations where those who are in it do not have your best interest or values at heart, let alone if it's the group of the two of you, will likely want to undermine that leadership and relationship to serve their own interests (and visa-versa). This doubles as well for a larger community, or any person being against you, regardless of position. If they think they can get away with it, and desire to. And a lot of ways people think to do it is if it's already a normalized thought. I mean it's a big question when it comes to genocidal thinking, or really murder of any kind, how does an entire group of people, or person, become okay with the idea?

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV S2 Ep8 Musings - The Ep8 Script (Pt2)

Thanks to slitwrstsavior sharing the script and @memorian for digitizing it! <3

Had to do Pt1 in chunks, cuz of Tumblr's 30-pic limit.

DANGIT. So this was INTENTIONALLY vague, not just some weird choppiness or cut footage.

Ohhhh.... They added just a tiny extra line--

But it's a SPICY line, cuz it implies that Les wasn't fully cooperating/on board with the rehearsal. BUT! Like I said, there's no effing mention/emphasis/indication that he was INJURED, either, which is an L.

They changed it--Louis looks UP, into the middle distance.

I'm fine with it either way--this scene had me and my bff SCREECHING.

Pet peeve, but the crew really should've been spritzing these vampires with a spray bottle of red blood, so we'd SEE the BLOOD SWEAT. (I was thinking about this when that post was circulating about vampire sex in IWTV fanfiction, like, AMC didn't show visual vampiric cues like Blood Sweat or blood (ejaculate) stains on the coffin lining--Les' was WHITE, and we KNOW Loustat was going at it in the coffins, so were they just reupholstering CONSTANTLY?) The books mention Blood Sweat all the time, all over their clothes, but the show just focused on Blood Tears (and ofc Les' ear hemorrhages).

OOOOOOOO.....!!! 👀 That highlighted bit was cut out! "You have grown warm again, filled with the love which you first came to Paris with." WUUUUT!?! So Armand's mind-wipe gaslighting BS against Louis was in the exact same vein as Claudia "finding her childlike wonder again"--which was IMPOSSIBLE, since ARMAND was the one that beat it out of her, Mr. 500 Performances, Mr. Sleep In Your Costume; Mr. They Gave Me A Choice; Mr. I Will Not Harm You.

I seriously suspect that every time Louis had an "outburst" like he said in 1x2, or "acted out," Armand would be like "Go back to your first night in Paris--forget all the bad stuff, just be warm & happy [with me];" but then Lou would FIGHT it (or rather: Daniel's constant prodding would PUSH Louis to fight it), and Armand would have to do it all over again. (My question's why didn't he just kill Daniel? Arrogance, I reckon--he severely underestimated just how good Daniel was; and "You can get lazy," like Lou said, cuz Armand didn't even bother to read Dan's thoughts to learn that the Talamasca was feeding Daniel all this extra information).

They cut that line, too--was Louis parroting him (fighting hypnosis), asking him (for clarification), or challenging him (indignant)?

That might also explain the new couches, LOL, if he wrecked them from the impact or bled on them or something.

(We already know Jacob improvised shaking Eric's hand.)

MLS = LePere Schloop?

Too bad we didn't get this--I wanted to see the main door/lobby of the penthouse (certainly not for my The Sims Dubai penthouse layout, no sir~!) .

They added extra lines about the hurricane being pre-July.

Uhhh.... This might imply certain things. Cuz I've been saying that the post-Paris timeline makes no effing sense (X X), and now we have confirmation(?) that Louis' had an Amex membership since 1951.... Even though Amex credit cards were only started in 1958, as a competitor for the Diner's Card that started in 1950 -- so was Louis an INVESTOR who helped launch the Amex credit card!? XD STFU, AMC! I thought y'all said No Forrest Gumpness!? XD

Also: HOW does Louis qualify for all these credit cards? (We saw he had a regular Amex Green Card in 1973 SanFran). According to Amex application qualifications, you need a US SSN or ITIN; OR a foreign credit card to apply.

And France isn't listed. (Unless anyone's French and has an Amex card who can correct me?)

SSNs have been issued since FDR (1936), so Louis SHOULD have one...but it would be from 1936-40 (pre-Mardi Gras), or after Paris () . Meaning on paper he'd be in his 80s in 2022, so I don't imagine he'd be a Black Card carrier for too much longer, unless he's got someone on the inside cooking the books for him.

Omfg AMC I hate y'all. got me out here overthinking effing PROPS.

They added a few lines about the green "pearly gates" of 1132:

And took out a few lines:

And took out an interesting bit of tea:

So the people of ~1940s NOLA thought Claudia was Louis' daughter (Claudia DPDL confirmed???) but the grapevine ALSO rumored that she was his child bride--OOF! 💀 (Which tracks with the AR pedo/incest stuff. Thank goodness they DON'T remember his name!)

Rolin keeps mentioning this smashed piano, but I HAVE LOOKED, but I also have crap eyesight (curse you, midnight gaming sessions), and I just don't frikkin see any smashed piano. HELP.

DEFINITELY not the Mayfair mansion though! XD DANG, I wish they'd included a few frames of gangs tryna rob the Garden District homes, coming up on the Mayfair house, and IMMEDIATELY booking past it like they'd seen a ghost. CROSSOVER, AMC, COME ONNNN.

Drats, I wanted to see Millennial Fledgling try to square up against Lou, and get one of Lou's patented condescending smirks. XD

And Les looked dirty, but he didn't look malnourished, sadly; which I'm still mad about.

In the FLOORBOARDS? OK, come through, BRUCE--I been saying this about Lestat, yet people wanna call me names!

New rule, AMC: NEVER remove Loustat lines. We need ALL the angst. Les out here like: ain't no way a baddie like Lou is SINGLE! XD

S3 BETTER show us Les watching the most vapid ish on Youtube, omg.

LOL

Drats--it might have been cool to see him with those huge pupils he gets when he's mad/hungry, but ah well; he still looked like a gorgeous BAMF.

EXCELLENT SCRIPT, EXCELLENT SHOW, GAAAAAAAH!!! ❤️

[murfeelee]

IWTV Claudia's Celebration of Life: Spark in the Dark - Alternate Universe

As the title suggests, this event is to celebrate the wonderful Claudia; her personality, her aspirations, her journey. The heart for the past two seasons of AMC Interview with The Vampire. This is to take the narrative back to her, proving she's not just a shingle roof for us.

2. Aug 13th & 14th: Alternate Universe

“It’s chaos after you die. It’s a dream from which you cannot wake.” Armand says quietly to Daniel. “Imagine drifting half in and out of consciousness, trying vainly to remember who you are or what you were. Imagine straining forever for the lost clarity of the living—” Armand stops suddenly to glare somewhere to Lestat’s left. “Lestat, I beg you on bended knee to close your mind. I cannot bear to listen to her any longer.” “Listen to who,” Louis asks, sharp as fangs. “CLAUDIA!” Lestat shouts into the swamp, spinning in his inner tube. “These drugs are making me hallucinate our dead daughter. I’ve been listening to her explain exactly how I failed her with much virulence and creativity for the last forty-five minutes.” “What’s she like?” Louis asks, eager as anything. “Magnifique,” Lestat answers immediately. “She despises me. She’s wearing a yellow… I believe it is called a tankini. She has a margarita....” Lestat twists in his tube to glare at Armand. “Montre-lui/ Show him.” Louis squeezes his eyes shut, wrists limp in front of him. Armand’s mindgift transmission is jagged and blurry from the drugs, and Lestat’s view is all the more distorted by his own intoxication, but it’s her, it’s her. Claudia rises from the dead to berate Lestat from her very own inner tube, pausing only to take sips from her human drink. At least she is granted liquor in the hopeless afterlife that is haunting Lestat. Claudia’s hair is pulled back the way it was the day she passed, but her face is baby smooth, no trace of the injury the coven had subjected her to before her murder. She smiles at Lestat, dimple still adorable, no matter how old she gets. “And I don’t give one solitary sh*t if you’ve got him d**kmatized,” Claudia tells Lestat. “He says he forgives you for letting me die?” She brings her fingers together and gestures to her own chest. “I don’t f**king forgive you! ” Claudia starts singing in mockery, bitter as her daddy on his worst nights. She cups her hands (Her beautiful hands! The simple pleasure of her hand in his!) around her mouth like a megaphone. “I don’t forgivveeee you!” “Jesus Christ,” Louis hears Daniel say in the real world before exploding into choking coughs. In Lestat’s psychosis as translated by Armand on LSD, Claudia keeps at it. She urges Lestat to find new and innovative ways to kill himself, embodying Lestat’s senselessness and Louis’ sense in her rage. Their courageous, intelligent, honest-to-God hurricane of a daughter does not look Louis’ way the whole memory, even though Louis deserves the privilege of meeting her eyes again so much more than Lestat does. Even though Louis has spent a lifetime fasting and praying for it. But she is Lestat’s ghost, she haunts him just like she said she would, and Louis figures… He hears his own laugh—hysterical—as the memory ends, the tears wet on his cheeks. Louis figures he’s just too sane to see her these days.

-- Alligator Tears, @siahatha

MY THOUGHTS & CC CREDITS

MY THOUGHTS

A day late, cuz I was busy yesterday.

This post was directly inspired by the latest chapter of an extremely good & unhinged post-canon modern AU IWTV fanfic, where Loustat are back together, Devil's Minion is a thing, and Lestat's being haunted by the ghost of Claudia's memory. Louis' sad that he can only see her through Armand, cuz he can't read his Maker Lestat's mind, ofc.

CC CREDITS

-- IP EP pool floats by me

-- Lestat heatstroke tan line in gamma by me

-- Blood bags by @thebleedingwoodland (X X)

-- Louis swimsuit at MTS

-- Gators at Simszoo

[nightcolorz]

Show-only fan here.

I know people want a villain, which is ironic in a fandom that likes saying there's no villain here, these are all bad people...but I digress. People need a villain, it's how we make sense of bad things. And Armand is the audience's villain of choice.

But, that's not what the show is telling us imo. He's not the Big Bad Wolf, secretly planning and conniving and lying and manipulating to get what he wants. I think part of the point of the show, especially of this season, has been that every character has made questionable/bad decisions. Armand, most definitely. But Louis too and, unfortunately, Claudia. These decisions have been self-serving and if they happened at different points in time, they probably wouldn't have amounted to much. But, these characters are making them almost at the same time, sometimes in reaction to each other, and that's why things end up where they have.

It's shocking, upsetting, and honestly mind-numbing to see take after take after take after take of people just going on and on about Armand being abc and Louis being everyone's victim, and Claudia only being a victim like she isn't 40 years old. It's exhausting.

omg yesss so well said anon thank u!! Ur so right, for a fandom that loves to yap about how characters can’t be reduced to black and white villain vs hero roles they sure do love to do just that 😭 you put this so beautifully, theres no real concrete villain, most of the characters r acting out of fear or desperation or trauma and hurting each other and making bad decisions that pile on top of each other along the way. If u can’t watch a show without concrete morality or a concrete villain then don’t watch iwtv 😭😭 it’s not gonna give u what u want. And it’s doing a massive disservice to not just Armand but to Louis and Claudia to reduce them to simplistic black and white roles.

[mermaidsirennikita]

Louis de Pointe du Lac, as originally written, could be regarded as one of lit's most famous "also rans", someone who was originally positioned as Thee Tragic Figure of the series, only to be almost immediately superseded both in the readers' and the author's minds with Lestat. Like, you know Louis because of the original book, but Lestat is the one everyone talks about, Lestat drives the rest of the series, Lestat has all the best lines.

And the movie, as much as I personally don't like it, only sort of dug this further into the pop cultural understanding of the story. Brad Pitt is at his most "I am relying on pretty" boring and sulky; when there is a performance, it's largely annoying. And Tom Cruise... I mean, it's literally nothing next to what Sam Reid does in my mind, but it was at least very off-brand for him at the time, and he was doing SOMETHING, and he (and Kirsten Dunst) have the most iconic Moments, the camp, the arguably most memorable part of the movie (the very end with the Sympathy for the Devil cover playing us off).

So it's honestly SUCH a testament to the innovation of the show's writing and the brilliance of Jacob Anderson's performance that Louis has been reinvented, not only as a compelling protagonist, but as a character that is EASILY as complex and multilayered as more traditionally antiheroic/villainous types like Lestat and Armand and Claudia. He's more than the beautiful, tragic object of Lestat and Armand's affections, he's more than the guy telling us the story.

Louis is self-loathing and self-aggrandizing; he's victimized by Lestat, and he manipulates Lestat, very aware of his own emotional hold over him (might we note how much agency Louis had over Claudia's turning, and how Lestat in no way would've done that if not for Louis... and that act was arguably one of the most selfish in the series, if emotionally understandable). He's controlled by Armand, yet we get hints that he's actually quite dangerous and perhaps in some sort of self-delusion about just how dangerous he is (and Assad certainly plays Armand like he's nervous as fuck about Louis knowing the truth--and I don't think that's JUST about the possibility of Louis leaving him once he finds out).

Louis tells himself that he loved Claudia more than anything and that she was his "spark in the dark", when we see that in reality their relationship deteriorated over time and continued to do so, even after the person who was seemingly a wedge in their relationship was vanquished. We see hints, perhaps, that Claudia was no more the ideal daughter in his mind than Lestat was the ideal lover.

And that last scene in the premiere? When we're not sure who the "you" is? Sad and kind of horrifying, too. Because like--what will Louis do to Claudia to further his own love and obsessions? Who does Louis prioritize more--Claudia, Lestat, Armand? Maybe none of the above. Maybe himself and what or who he thinks will stave off his own loneliness, his need for love and validation and, yes, power.

None of this is a criticism of the character. The show already did something SO good and SO smart by turning Louis from a white slave owner to a Black man with money and social standing, still so held back by the laws and environment of his day. Vampirism gave him agency, yet the show, in season one, showed the potential for Louis to still be the perpetual tragic victim (in episode five especially). And maybe they'll still slip up and do that.

But increasingly, with the reveal in the s1 finale and the s2 premiere, I think we're getting the implication that the thing Louis could be protecting himself from mentally (with some help from Armand--I don't think Louis's memory issues are all Vampire Magic, though) is something horrible that he did. A choice he made. Because Louis does have agency, and the narrative allows him to be someone with conflicted desires and a complicated sense of self. Someone who doesn't love PRETTILY. Someone who is manipulated and manipulates.

Like, I've joked about him being this kind of like vampiric Helen of Troy because of the allure he holds for powerful figures like Lestat and Armand, but I also think it's so powerful to explore the way that Louis uses that appeal and ALSO makes fucked up decisions on his own because he is... into being adored, frankly. Even if the people who adore him also hurt him. He gets caught up in his own romanticized retellings of his life story, whether heartfelt or tragic, because in those retellings he can pretend that he had no choice, he had no ability to say otherwise.

But like--Louis could have stopped that woman from being decapitated, potentially. Louis didn't have to walk away from human affairs. He chose to do so, just like he chose to beg Lestat to turn Claudia. Just like he chose to deny her Lestat's true death.

And I think there's like, an attempt to reckon with this in the unreliable narration of the books, but I also think that this is so dependent, in Anne Rice's version, on spinning to Lestat... That Louis's culpability and untruths are overshadowed by his Everything. Here, the story lets us soak in Louis's mind, and Jacob Anderson's performance really seals that. I find it so smart.

[nalyra-dreaming]

IWTV s2... an (emotional) recap

Between the spoilers dropping before the last three episodes and the content of the episodes themselves we really have gone through the emotional wringer.

I think I have rewritten this three times over, because my feelings kept changing.

I had hoped for more, I got more than I wished for, I wanted something else, they hit the nerve precisely...

And now with the season 3 announcement:))))

Maximum emotional carnage - indeed.

Everything ... up to that NOLA visit in episode 8 and the actual ending... is not the truth. Let that sink in.

The trial: scripted (and Lestat breaking out of it for the important bits)

Claudia's turning: So much... more raw.

Claudia's death: brutal. That final look between her and Lestat was one of the most painful things to witness.

Her diaries (pages): mostly unused. I am a bit unnerved bc of that wasted Merrick reveal and aftermath implementation tbh. Louis is not freed up after it, but... he should have been, imho. Though, that said, with Dubai likely a stand-in for Trinity Gate... maybe the arc fits after all - BUT I still think they could have done more with her diaries. I get why they wanted to escape the “white savior trap“ but this way Louis did not get that power-up that will ultimately bring him to where it frees him. But who knows... maybe they will implement a version of it all still.

The broadcasting and Loustat's relationship in general: Armand putting a fantasy retelling into Louis' brain. Holy shit.

Flashbacks to 1790: Self-indulgent fanfiction.

Dubai: Stepford Wives via mind gift. 💀

Daniel: Supposedly(*) turned out of spite. I absolutely get why DM fans are besides themselves with this and the comments after.

The story itself: More or less ending exactly where the first book puts us. I do NOT know why they kept that title a secret, it's not hinting at anything other than that simple fact, imho. :)

So.

You know, them using the movie "Gaslight" for the poster reference makes more and more sense now, because that is how I feel a bit at least: gaslit. Just a little bit.

Because... Nice reunion that you had there... too bad it will turn out to be the contested NOLA one, I would bet real money on it. 😅

......

Sarcasm aside, this is a brilliant show. But I am NOT looking forward to another two years of bullshit accusations (by some) because they were mostly/only spelled things out in the episode insiders, and only broke things up in the last episode. Or of people confusing the meta and social commentary level with the in-universe one.

Which, by the way, I'm happy that they went there. And I am relieved that they spelled things out in the episode insiders. Truly. But as experience has shown after season ONE... implied manipulations, episode insiders and interviews, and cast/crew/writer statements don't mean jack shit to some people.

So yeah, where does this leave us?

This was a dark season. I think I'm not totally wrong when I say that most of us did not get what we wanted from it, neither DM, nor Loumand, nor Loustat. Or Claudeleine.

"Locked together in hatred" comes to mind, though "hatred" is obviously (way) too strong a word. (But that quote fits so nicely 😏🤓)

We DID get some of what we wanted. But for a show which built so heavily on other books... to follow the first book then so closely?? I don't know, it leaves me a bit unsatisfied(**). It feels as if they just shut the book, to be done with it, you know?

I still enjoyed the season, there were brilliant parts in it. But it feels... bloodless. Sexless. Empty of affection. Harrowing. Which is, of course, the point.

This... is a depressing, hinting at suicide-through-vampires note.

Which won't happen, of course.

Because here we get to (**), which is of course ™️ them announcing s3 just prior to the last episode;))) And thereby making some things clear by that fact alone :)) 🙌🙌🙌

I said it before, I expect them to revisit... again. Given that this will be in what, 1,5 to 2 years from now? Well. Hopefully still in 2025. And I hope the arc they spun over these three seasons will be done then. And we can move forward.

I do hope this show will get 10 seasons. But for the first time since it aired I wished we'd already be ahead, in season 4 or something. 😅 Because this heap of loose endings is... taxing^^. Though definitely coming very softened as a blow now with the s3 renewal that’s for sure^^

Can't wait to hear your thoughts, if you want to share them. But these are mine. For now.

I'm sure there will be a lot of details, and analysis and meta to follow, and I'm looking forward to it. 🥰🙌

S1 and s2 were a tale... I mean we knew. But I would have preferred a bit more... truth.^^

Because that Magnus‘ tower scene?! No way. The metaphorical push off the tower??? No way, sorry Rolin but if they let that stay… that’s not giving agency that’s removing Lestat‘s suffering for their weird “toxic masculinity arc“ that Sam hinted at and which was - IN THE BOOK!!! - a misjudgment of Akasha.

AND it is removing Lestat‘s suffering to give more nuance to other characters. -.-

Given Hannah‘s episode 5 comments I hope they do not make a misjudgment of his character there. The red flags are there though, especially after the recent interviews, have been ever since that DV drop, and I have people come to me via DMs now to tell me they’re leaving the fandom bc they’re scared of another GoT…. which I get.

I… still have some faith. I know Rolin tends to put his foot into his mouth at times, he is a troll, and for all her takes on ep5 Hannah also wrote other brilliant scenes.

And we have Sam and Jacob as trump cards.

I‘m determined to enjoy this - this is what we‘ll get. I waited 30 years. I won’t go anywhere. I will enjoy what they give us.

I won‘t like all their decisions. That I am aware of.

BUT I will enjoy it, going in open-eyed, nonetheless.

(*) okay that is obviously bullshit, Armand would not turn him out of spite. Which is another hint I guess. But I talked about that in asks^^ At length 😅