#vc book quotes

[cbrownjc]

Hi there! I'm sorry if this feels super obtuse and it has been ages since I read the novels, BUT...

After this recent episode I was a little confused about what Armand had done to infuriate Louis and Daniel so much. If he simply wiped their memories so neither Louis or Daniel didn't remember everything that went down, that doesn't seem so awful, especially since what went down WAS awful. So I think I must have missed something substantial because I was distracted by my cat, or something. 😅

BTW I love your blog and all the fantastic insight you provide! I used to be ride or die with IWTV but haven't paid much attention to it in the last 15-20 years, so I'm finding it immensely helpful for getting back into the swing of things!

Hello!

So why Louis and Daniel are so angry at Armand isn't because Armand simply erased their memories. (And, to be clear, their memories weren't actually erased, but just clouded over and blocked). Armand rewrote them. Armand basically reprogrammed Daniel and Louis' minds after the OG interview, Louis' mind especially.

That was what that final scene was about, what it was demonstrating. The answer that Louis gave at the beginning of the episode, as to why Armand saved Daniel's life in 1973 was a word-for-word repeat of what Armand's own answer was at the end of the episode to that same question.

The answer wasn't something Louis truly felt wrt his own real feelings. It was something Armand put into Louis' mind to think and say about the incident after the events of it from Louis attacking Daniel on were blocked and clouded over.

As @virginiaisforvampires notes here, the way Louis speaks of Lestat in the OG interview vs the new interview is very telling wrt that reprogramming done. Yes, in the OG interview, Louis was talking down Lestat in spiteful ways, but it was all surface-level stuff. Just saying that the way Lestat spoke revealed how stupid he was and that he wasn't at all skilled when trying to play music.

That is all a far cry from the things Louis has said and spoken about in the Dubai interview about Lestat. Lestat's crimes, as they are being talked about in this second interview, are not just surface-level transgressions said to simply make Lestat angry and draw him out, as Louis was originally trying to do back in 1973. The crimes of Lestat laid out in the Dubai interview, in contrast, are very much there to justify the murder of Lestat.

Because without that justification?

Well, we see that starting when it comes to the false memory -- yes, false -- of Louis thinking Claudia couldn't burn Lestat. Louis thinking that -- that Claudia couldn't burn Lestat -- would take away Louis' guilt at having stopped Claudia from trying to burn Lestat if it was something they both couldn't do. Especially if the killing of Lestat had been justified.

But if there was no justification for killing Lestat? Then the reason Louis stopped Claudia from burning Lestat was because Louis knew that killing Lestat had been wrong. Louis knew it the night Claudia did it, which would be the real reason why he stopped her from burning him.

And because Lestat didn't burn, because he was still alive, that led to the events of the trial in Paris and what happened to Claudia there. And what is looking to be the show's version of the Merrick reveal about Claudia's true feelings wrt Louis. Which, in the book Merrick, the revelation of that is what sent Louis to try to destroy himself via sunlight exposure, as we saw him try to do back in 1973 -- which the cocaine and other drugs that were in Daniel's blood had Louis unable to either ignore anymore -- or lifted a veil that had been placed over his mind about it until then.

Do you see the cascade effect in all of this?

And look, maybe some will see what Armand has done here as not that awful, but Armand didn't do it just to try and protect Louis. That was very damn clear when he didn't relay Lestat's full "I love you" message to Louis after Louis' 1973 attempt to end his life. It's because part of Armand very much still wants to live with the illusion that he and Louis can be happy together, even after what happened in Paris and Armand's role in those events.

I've said before that Armand's flaw when it comes to love is that he will go way, way, WAY overboard to obtain or keep love. And this is all just, once again, him repeating that pattern. Armand rewrote Louis' memories of both Lestat and Claudia's actions all to try and assuage the true guilt and pain Louis has over everything that happened and Louis' own role (mostly due to his own inactions) in it all that has led to such suicidal guilt about it, but also because IMO Armand wishes to hide -- as much as he can -- his own role in everything that happened as well . . . and all of this so as to keep Louis by his side so that Louis doesn't leave him -- be it for Lestat, or even in death.

Armand isn't being altruistic in his reprogramming of Louis' mind and memories. Because really being so would have been not only telling Louis what Lestat was trying to relay to Louis back in 1973 but then probably having to let Louis go as well . . . let Louis go back to and be with Lestat, the person who Louis was trying to draw the attention of with that whole OG interview in the first place.

Honestly, I see the whole situation as kind of expanding on this line of Louis' in the book, as he and Armand are breaking up:

And when I came to Paris I thought you were powerful and beautiful and without regret, and I wanted that desperately. But you were a destroyer just as I was a destroyer, more ruthless and cunning even than I. You showed me the only thing that I could really hope to become, what depth of evil, what degree of coldness I would have to attain to end my pain. And I accepted that. And so that passion, that love you saw in me, was extinguished. And you see now simply a mirror of yourself.

With the rewriting/reprogramming of Louis' memories, this is very much what Armand has created with Louis in many ways -- a mirror of himself. The pieces of himself that Armand blocked and changed had Louis "knowing who he was" . . . but who that person is, isn't the real Louis. Just a reflection of the person who made those changes.

So yeah, that is where the anger is coming from. Moreso Louis than Daniel when it comes to the rewriting aspect of it all I'd say; Daniel is likely just angry that his mind was messed with in the first place. One thing you can say about Daniel is that he's brutally honest, even when it comes to his own foibles. He's the type who'd rather know all the horrible shit that happened to him, than not.

Anyway, I'm glad you like my blog and comments about the show, and I hope this answer explains some of it for you. 🙂

[in-kyblogs]

“You look good to me, you damnable little devil! Good to embrace and good to love”

Interview with the vampire (2022) // The Vampire Lestat, Anne Rice

brought to you by that baffling Twitter take about book lesmand - see it on this post by @lesbians4armand

[sam-reid]

Random moments of secret contact and recognition will never be enough, I’m afraid. - 𝕷𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖙 𝖉𝖊 𝕷𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖈𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖙

THE QUEEN OF THE DAMNED, ANNE RICE (1988).

[hekateinhell]

Armand sending Lestat images of erotic flowers in TVL goes so fucking hard:

He came into Lestat’s private dreams like a…

SUCCUBUS.

[cbrownjc]

So about that painting of Lestat being hung up there (Warning -- book spoiler incoming as well as for Episode 2x02 (9)):

:

:

:

Daniel was right. It was very soap opera-y that Lestat's painting was hanging on that wall when Louis and Claudia first met the coven. And that is because it was strategically placed there before Louis and Claudia first arrived at the theater. By Armand.

Because during that five-month period when the coven made no contact with Louis and Claudia? It was either before or slightly after that that Lestat -- the real Lestat -- himself arrived in Paris. Looking for help from Armand to heal himself.

From The Vampire Lestat:

In Episode 2x02 (9) Armand quickly clocks in about Lestat, Louis, and Claudia and basically tells Louis not to lie to him about it. But that wasn't just because of his superior Mind Gift skills in comparison to Louis'. It's because Armand already knew everything from Lestat himself.

And hey, I do think Armand is, in truth, very interested in hearing about everything from Louis' side of things. And that is partly what will be going on in Episode 2x03 (10). Armand will be trying to get Louis to tell him the truth about what happened between himself and Lestat. And using his own history with Lestat to draw the truth from Louis about it.

But yeah, Lestat's already in Paris too, locked up somewhere only Armand knows about and has access to. And that painting was only recently put up there once it was decided to finally make contact with Louis and Claudia, likely also by Armand. The coven, given the clues, very much wanted to make contact with Louis and Claudia during that five-month period, but Armand held them back from doing so. (Because the coven doesn't yet know about Lestat being in Paris.) It was probably only once Armand had all the info he could get from a weak Lestat, and then had him securely stashed away, then Armand himself made contact with Louis.

(And let me also just say no, I don't think Louis' hallucinations of Dreamstat are the real Lestat projecting himself to Louis or something. Mainly because Lestat is Louis' Maker, so they can't communicate mind to mind. But also because Lestat was mentally weak during this time, and likely wouldn't have had the strength to do something like that in the first place.)

So yeah, Daniel mocking that painting being hung there like that was the show hanging a lampshade about how soap opera in nature something like that would be by having Daniel directly say it. And also, it was, IMO, a hint that the surface reason given for why that painting was hanging there wasn't the real reason.

[desertfangs]

On the subject of how often Lestat mentions crying and weeping in The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned, this exchange between Lestat and Louis in Tale of the Body Thief always cracks me up:

Lestat: "I'm going to weep if you don't stop." Louis: "Weep. I'd like to see you weep. I've read a great deal about your weeping in the pages of your books but I've never seen you weep with my own eyes." Lestat: "Ah, that makes you out to be a perfect liar. You described my weeping in your miserable memoir in a scene which we both know did not take place!"

It's a great lampshade on all his weeping, and it's a moment that exists because the books exist in-universe. I will always be absolutely feral for moments in the series that refer to the books.

[cbrownjc]

Also, since this ask partly addressed my reblog, let me add some things:

1. Daniel in the show had never been implied -- by the actors, writers, or anyone else -- to only be Armand's "yes man" back in the 70s. All that has been said was that Daniel was "awkward" and a "bad writer" during that period (and that was mostly by Eric). There's actually been zero indication that Daniel won't stand up and talk back to Armand at some point back then.

But you know, even with regards to that point, Daniel in the book didn't even begin to stand up and challenge Armand until a year and a half after their chase first began.

Daniel wasn't challenging Armand in the ways he would later right out of the gate. Daniel was utterly terrified of Armand at first and, for months, just ran away from him without speaking at all -- after Armand had first locked him up in a cage for 3-4 days before letting Daniel out and telling him to start running. (The most Daniel did before that was ask for Armand to turn him, and that was it.)

2. Missing favorite scenes of a relationship's story isn't the relationship itself. The actual point of something like the Paris phone call scene was to show an example of Daniel and Armand doing what was described about their relationship before that Paris phone call moment was detailed which was as this:

Conversations, sparring matches, and downright fights became the rule.

The full moment from the book:

The point of that moment wasn't really about Armand's inability to use a telephone. The real point of the Paris phone call moment was to actually show -- and not just tell -- the reader how "conversations, sparring matches, and downright fights" had become Armand and Daniel's new dynamic by that point in time.

The same goes for the times, before this, when Armand would wake Daniel up to demand Daniel show him a city. It was about showing the reader what Armand and Daniel's encounters and dynamics were at that point in time, and not just telling the reader about it.

Whether you accept or not the things the show will do to show Daniel and Armand's dynamics when it comes to these kinds of dynamics between them -- and that are not things like the Paris phone call -- will be up to the individual. I think Episode 2x02 shows that the show can do comedy and humor to go along with the horror.

But it's also good to remember that the first few months of Daniel and Armand's relationship did not start out as funny or humorous it is important to remember too. That part of it was very much a horror movie.

And that is the main part of the relationship -- back in the past -- that I think the show is going to start with showing us, since we know the flashback in ep 2x05 will include the first interview. I don't think we're going to see much beyond this point in time of Daniel and Armand's relationship in the past during this season. (There'll be one flashback to what it ended up becoming after this point in ep 2x08, I'll bet. But that's it.)

And, just personally, I don't get the impression that Assad was only talking about the present when he was talking about Louis and Daniel making a connection. But we are just going to have to wait till Episode 2x05 for that to be clarified or not.

And honestly, in the book, Armand didn't keep Daniel alive because he was attracted to him at first. As said, he locked Daniel up in a cage for 3-4 days and only let him go because Daniel sparked his curiosity, mostly because Daniel was alive and knew Armand's real name. So for Armand at least, it never had anything to do with him being attracted to Daniel at first anyway.

And I think that goes into the reveal that Louis and Armand would sometimes pull and add a third -- a human man -- into their relationship. I think this practice was all very much instigated by Louis, and that Armand just went along with it to make Louis happy. As Aramnd said, he was the one who would "drain them dry" if those young men were not just let go. Because, and this is just my read of things, I don't think Armand cared one way or another about those young men. They were, as Armand said himself in the episode, amusements. At least in his eyes. They didn't appear to be anything beyond that for Armand. (Louis is probably a different story, but I don't want to go into that here.)

And, if you've noticed, none of the ones who may still be alive were asked to come back except Daniel. And it's clearly not just because Daniel's a journalist. There is an underlying reason he, and he alone, was asked to come to Dubai.

I agree with @nalyra-dreaming that Daniel will be shown to not be anywhere close to what these other young men were for them. Because I'm very willing to guess that not only was Daniel with Armand and Louis for the longest time out of any of those other young men, but I bet that Daniel was also the last human man they ever did this with as well. Some others may have been with them before Daniel, but no more ever were after Daniel.

And I don't think the fact that Louis and Armand would do such a thing with other young men before Daniel diminishes Daniel being "special" in any way at all, particularly with regards to Armand. Just like a person having a first love doesn't diminish the relationship that is shown to be that person's true love, even if they came after the first love.

So yes, I guess for me, things like the Paris phone call not happening are just surface changes. Because they were, at heart, examples that were being given to show the reader, and make a point, about the dynamic of Armand and Daniel's relationship during the times when they happened. As long as the same dynamics are still there during those stages of their relationship then, to me, it is all still very much Devil's Minion.

Hey, it's the DM anon. Sorry if I come off as too pessimistic, but I just want to address the reblog post

"Armand in the show doesn't need someone to introduce him to the modern world. He's already familiar with it."

This was kinda the point of my message. The main reason why the Devils Minion chapter is so popular is because it's not just a cat & mouse thriller; it's also a sitcom about a "normal" boy teaching a powerful 500 yr old immortal all about the modern world - the perfect blend of horror & romantic comedy. Logically I always knew that some of the relationship would be cut or altered when they adapted it to the show, but it looks like they're cutting all of the fan favorite scenes. (I will forever be bitter about losing 'Call Paris for me')

My fear is that the writers will change everything that made Devils Minion, Devils Minion. Whatever relationship Armand & Daniel have on the show will be brand new. I may be jumping the gun, but they've already changed the 2 reasons why Armand chose Daniel as his human companion in the first place:

1. He needed someone to teach him about the modern world and as the reblog stated, he no longer needs that. Which means we also won't get my other favorite scene: when Armand drags Daniel out of bed and demands he show him things in the city. He won't need to do that because he will already have explored these cities with Louis

2. He liked that Daniel wasn't afraid to stand up to him. But from everything the show, reviewers, and Eric has told us, '73 Daniel was just a bumbling idiot Yes Man. Where's the challenge?

And now we know that Loumand had several relationships with humans throughout the decades, some of whom got to live out their lives unharmed. So Daniel isn't even special, he's just the latest. Idk how the show expects to sell ArmanDaniel when they've erased everything that made them unique.

I know Assad talked about Armand's fear that Daniel knows Louis more than he does and the reblog thinks that might be the reason Armand falls for Daniel, but I'm nearly positive Assad was talking about Dubai Daniel not SanFran Daniel. The only connection Louis & Daniel seem to have in the 70s is their love of drugs, since one reviewer talked about how they're both fucked up during the first interview. I doubt young Daniel could stay sober long enough to have a meaningful conversation with Louis, let alone a meaningful relationship. So why exactly would Armand be attracted to him? I really hope the writers give us a real reason that's more than just "he likes him in the book. Y'all do the rest"

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to rant

:) All good.

But... I honestly would wait till the season has run. I do trust them when they say episode 5 and 8 are the game changers.

I know it's hard to stay calm when you have waited for so long to see a realization of something at all.

And... I don't think the "you can fuck them and I can eat them" humans (I hope everyone caught that line and that they attributed that to Lestat in s1^^) were anywhere close on the level Daniel will be.

I really don't.

Daniel is definitely special, as the interview in Dubai proves, imho. But... the timeline is different, that's all. Give it some time.

[hey-its-sybarite]

Now, I'm getting into the coffin, and you will get in on top of me if you know what's good for you.

Lestat, topping from the bottom in IWTV

[sam-reid]

𝕷𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖙 & 𝕷𝖔𝖚𝖎𝖘 INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE 1.02: AFTER THE PHANTOMS OF YOUR FORMER SELF.

[cbrownjc]

Hello!

Re the latest interview with Eric and Assad, to the question "What does Daniel make of someone like Raglan James and the Talamasca? After Louis and Armand, does anything surprise him?" Eric answered with "... I fell in love with the guy as soon as he sat down next to me in the sushi bar. He was pretty cool"

I'm not mother tongued in English, so I wanted to ask: Is Eric talking about Daniel or himself (loving to work with the actor)?

Because if he's talking about Daniel either they're going to change their relationship (probably more manipulation from Raglan) or maybe hint something else?

Like if Raglan is really Marius, would they hint at that? I know that Daniel went with Marius for some time because he went mad, but did they have a romantic relationship in the books?

Thank you for clarifying have a nice day

Hi!

So yeah, Eric is very much talking about Daniel's thought process here. And it's because of that I'm leaning more toward Justin Kirk's character not being Raglan James and actually being Marius. And any hints the show is doing that the whole Body Theif plot will happen with Daniel is just a red herring.

Because honestly, from what I've observed many book readers, including me, immediately thought Daniel would get David's Body Thief plot when it was shown that Daniel has been aged up so much. However, more and more I've begun to think that if Daniel does ever get switched into another body, it won't be done via Raglan James or that whole storyline, but in a different way (and for a different reason) completely.

Now, as to if Daniel and Marius become a couple, yes, they do. Now granted, I'm only on Chapter 15 of the Prince Lestat book right now but from what I've read of them together in that book they are very much a couple. Marius flat-out calls Daniel his companion in it.

And I also know that by the time they've split up and Daniel and Armand are back together, Marius has this moment of reflection in the book Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis where he laments having lost Daniel to Armand:

I don't know if there is any mention of Marius and Daniel's relationship in the final book, Blood Communion. So far, from what I've observed, there isn't. So I think by that point what companionship there had been between them was over by then.

So yeah, from what it looks like and what I know, Daniel and Marius do become companions -- maybe while Daniel is still healing from going mad (though them being one didn't feel like it to me when I read Blood and Gold), but they are for sure one after Daniel has recovered.

And so I think the show is very much setting up for that, if what Eric is saying about Daniel's reaction to Raglan James is what I think it is, which is actually a hint that Kirk is actually playing Marius, and Daniel's relationship with Marius. Frankly, I could already see the parallels that are being set up vis a vis Marius' relationship with Armand and Armand's relationship with Daniel. So the show already setting up for Daniel's time with Marius and what transpired during that wouldn't be a surprise to me either.

[6flowersintheattic6]

Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews

[ihaventcomeupwthanameforaheroyet]

Not to make everything about my blorbo, but I've seen people wondering whether B&G even exists in Anne Rice's world and if it does, who wrote/published this book. Therefore, I need to post these quotes from PL:

...

Yes, this book exists, and Lestat has read it, and it was David who published the story. I am awfully sorry, but it was my blorbo! That's what was written in PL!

Which brings us to a very interesting question: how could David, a historian (among other things), fail to notice the discrepancy between "Marius was born from a slave mother" in TVL and "Marius was a Senator in Rome" in B&G. I wouldn't be much surprised if Lestat or even Daniel failed to notice this, but David? Well. I have no explanation so far, therefore, I'll just leave this question here.

Yes, but also. (That's where the actual facts are over and it's just me trying to figure out how the book was written.) David probably wrote the story down exactly the way Thorne told it - it wouldn't be the first time David is writing something while the narrator is in chains, you know. (That's how MtD was written - Lestat was in chains, and David wrote the story down on his behalf.) But I am pretty certain Thorne could not provide the full picture, because, you know? Marius was heavily infodumping, and Thorne did not possess even the kind of cultural background every modern person takes for granted. I don't think Thorne is dumb, OK? But there were so many details to remember and all these names and places meant nothing to him. He probably was like "Venice where? Botichelli who?" all the time. Therefore, the story probably required a lot of factchecking, and David probably spent some time between Marius' and Maharet's households because Thorne had a unique, outstanding narrator's voice which added a lot of value to the book but the details had to be checked with Marius, and Marius was also the one who had the right to authorise the publication...

Please don't tell me the events of Blackwood Farm took place while David was still working on B&G. Please don't tell me Lestat called Merrick because David was out of reach, working on the book. Please don't tell me David came back to the world with something he very correctly believed to be his best book only to find out that Merrick jumped into the fire during his absence. Like, imagine: you have just finished your best book, but the price of this book was your loved one's life. And you don't know if you would be able to prevent it if you were not busy doing something else, but at least you would be able to try? But no, Merrick died in David's absence, just like Joshua. Damn. I would never try to write anything again after this. And you know what? David never published another book again, as far as we know. He gave the account back to Lestat and never tried again. Think about this. No, really.

Oh, I've made myself sad again. Great job, me.

[i-want-my-iwtv]

Hey, thank you so much for answering all my questions! It helps! Curious about you saying "he had been very secretive, which created frustration for Louis and Claudia about their nature as vampires". In the movie he says he doesn't know anything because his maker never told him. Do we think this is a lie then? Is it a lie in the books? Do you recommend all the books or only select few? Are they all canon? I'm def interested in L&L centric stuff (don't think all books are?). Anyway, thanks again!

Hey, thank you so much for answering all my questions! It helps!

You're welcome 🌷

In the movie he says he doesn't know anything because his maker never told him. Do we think this is a lie then? Is it a lie in the books?

Yes and No!

TL:DR; I think some of us Lestat fans forgive him for keeping secrets from Louis and Claudia, it was partially for their safety.

Well, when Anne Rice wrote IWTV, she didn't yet have much of a backstory for Lestat; since she didn't know the secrets he kept from Louis, neither did Lestat 😅 So I would say, no, he wasn't lying then (technically). If that was the only book in the series, then he was not lying.

Anne Rice also wrote the '94 IWTV movie script, and at that time, she HAD written Lestat's backstory in The Vampire Lestat, so at that point Lestat knew secrets that he withheld from Louis and Claudia. In fact, Tom Cruise had read the first 3 books in the series, so his performance is informed from this immersion in the lore; you can see the simmering beneath the surface as Louis asks him questions, trying to get anything out of him, and Lestat evading as much as he can, until he can't evade anymore and bursts out in frustration and pain. He KNOWS and wants to tell him so badly!

(Hit the jump, cut for length)

So in the movie, Lestat is lying to Louis and Claudia by saying he doesn't know the secrets, but it's kind of a partial lie, because his maker, Magnus, gave Lestat very little information. Magnus didn't tell Lestat about the origin of the vampires or what their place was in a religious context. Magnus just wanted to leave behind an heir to his wealth and power before he died.

However, Lestat did learn the origin story of the vampires from Marius. In order for Anne to solve the problem of why Lestat withheld this information from Louis and Claudia, she made a retcon: Marius threatens Lestat that if he tells the secrets to anyone, Marius would punish him, because he can't have anyone know where he is, which could threaten the safety of the entire vampire species.

Marius threatens to crush Lestat to death or set him on fire with pyrokinesis, and that this punishment would include anyone Lestat told the secrets to 😭. So it's partly out of safety that Lestat won't tell Louis and Claudia those secrets.

Marius underscores that Lestat's fledglings might not be ready for this knowledge anyway, it could be "a horror to them," so in not telling them, Lestat is also protecting them from the potential psychological damage.

I think there's also some fanon that Lestat was afraid that in telling Louis and Claudia these secrets, that they might leave him, and that's a giant separate discussion, whether that counts as a form of abuse to keep them against their will. By telling them the secrets, they would have the knowledge of where to start looking for other vampires 😭 Which, again, is a safety thing for Lestat partly, because they were pretty weak as far as vampires go, and therefore vulnerable to more powerful vampires' attacks. And there are worse things than death for vampires.

Do you recommend all the books or only select few? Are they all canon?

I usually recommend reading all the books, even though there are some I prefer over others. How do you know what you will/won't like without trying them? Technically anyone can make the argument that all of the books are canon, but I treat the series like a buffet, as many book fans do, and so not everyone agrees which books are Truly Canon 😅

But in general, if I had to choose, the first 3 used to be referred to as the Trilogy™ (derogatory), those are the most universally-loved, and some fans find that Anne Rice strayed from the parts that made canon so delicious after the third book. I would recommend reading them in order of publication because that's the order Anne Rice explored the stories and characters (even though the timelines do jump around and there are interesting discrepancies between different character's accounts of the same events!)

I'm def interested in L&L centric stuff (don't think all books are?).

Not all the books are L&L centric, but they often have a moment here and there even in books that are not specific to them, like Tale of the Body Thief. So, some shippers will skim through a book just to find any mention of their ship. Knowing the context of L&L's meetups in TOBT definitely enhances the flavor of their scenes together, so I would recommend reading that one, even though it's not considered canon for some fans 🤷 Delicious angst! The Feels! But that is one of the more Problematic books in the series, so it's up to you whether you want to give that one a try.

#Order of Operations for VC

[cbrownjc]

Armand changed into that white shirt at least to try and draw Daniel’s focus and attention. To try and trigger these feelings and memories within Daniel. Don't @ me, he did.

What if Armand’s pants are also white?

[desertfangs]

I love that despite Lestat being absolutely over the moon to be reunited with Louis at the end of TVL—he's so ecstatic to see him that he can barely contain himself!—he still manages to mock Louis’ vampire outfit from Interview with the Vampire *and* his current sweater and pants combination in the space of like an hour.

[hekateinhell]

"Maybe as the years pass," he [Armand] said, "desire will come again to me. I will know appetite again, even passion. Maybe when we meet in another age, these things will not be abstract and fleeting. I'll speak with a vigor that matches yours, instead of merely reflecting it. And we will ponder matters of immortality and wisdom. We will talk about vengeance or acceptance then. For now it's enough for me to say that I want to see you again. I want our paths to cross in the future. And for that reason alone, I will do as you ask and not what you want: I will spare your ill-fated Nicolas."

I gave an audible sigh of relief. Yet his tone was so changed, so strong, that it sounded a deep silent alarm in me. This was the coven master, surely, this quiet and forceful one, the one who would survive, no matter how the orphan in him wept. ~ Lestat, TVL