#what does louis throwing lestat's coffin from a window mean?

[pynkhues]

I’m confused by what you mean when you say that Lestat was “cast out of the house” after the drop in 1.05, as this is not what the show tells us. Lestat left of his own will — he wasn’t thrown out. He beat Louis half to death and then ran away, as evidenced here — “Lestat had disappeared after that awful night. Vanished out of a profound sense of shame he would later confess to” (Louis, 1.06). Louis was in no fit state to throw anyone out of anywhere: as mentioned previously, Lestat had just beaten him half to death.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but in instances like this you seem to paint Lestat as a somewhat of a victim — poor Lestat, banished from his house by his uncaring, domineering husband — when in actuality he was anything but a victim. He was the aggressor, the perpetrator of horrific intimate partner violence, and so to twist the narrative to imply that he was hard done to leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. 

Another instance of this is in your Byronic Hero post, where you suggest that Louis “decides when Lestat gets to live at Rue Royale”, in reference to him being “one of the monsters who’s controlling the household”. We’re talking about someone that has just spent months recovering from a brutal attack by their partner; Lestat chooses to not return because he is ashamed and he knows that Louis has not forgiven him. Louis is not forcing anything on him — and he certainly doesn’t have the power to keep Lestat from RR.

Can you understand why assertions like these are problematic? I understand you wanting to explore the push-pull power dynamic between L&L, but in doing so you seem to be missing the essential through-line in 1.06, which is that Louis and Claudia cannot leave while Lestat lives. Any power they may have once held is overshadowed by Lestat’s absolute control of the household, so to place Louis on level with Lestat as “one of the monsters controlling the household” is at best misguided, and at worst displays an unsettling disregard for victims of IPV. 

(x)

I mean, with all due respect, anon, you're responding to a series of tags I wrote last night that I specifically said I would later clarify and better articulate, so I'm not surprised you're confused and yes, you are misinterpreting me (again, I suspect, as I think you may have sent me asks like this before). I've been clear for months now that the drop is a singular act of violence on this show, and it's not one that I'd ever diminish or underwrite, and as a result, this feels like a pretty bad faith read of something I've both spoken about already and explicitly said I would be talking about again soon. Instead of paying me the respect I extend to all of you by giving me the time to reply in the way I've signalled I would, you've used my tags to make assumptions about what I will say and frankly made some pretty unkind accusations as to my character.

It takes me time and energy to write up replies, particularly replies on this sort of topic that require greater attunement, sensitivity and nuance than others. It's something I do for free, and at the sacrifice of other things in my life, and it's something I do with my name attached, unlike anons. And look, I enjoy doing it - I do - but if you follow me, you should know that my sister - a survivor of recent IPV and her two small children are currently staying with me, after I was a witness in her courtcase against her ex-husband in October - real people, not fictional characters - something I've also been open about, and so you telling me that I have an 'unsettling disregard for victims of IPV' feels like a particularly cruel thing to say to me right now.

I will answer the other anon's ask, as I said that I would, but I'll do it in my own time, and in the meantime, I'd ask that you perhaps don't put words in my mouth or mount arguments to things you yourself say you are confused about or feel you could be misinterpreting. I'll clarify, again, as I said that I would.

[emileesaurus]

AMC IWTV PILOT THOUGHTS, mostly critical, mostly unfiltered, bear with me if I phrase something clumsily

Calling the original interview (which they're implying is the original book, somehow, even if it didn't get published in this universe) "a fever dream told to an idiot" makes me want to 1v1 the showrunner. It's so disrespectful that everyone watching with me had a simultaneous "dude, bad look" moment.

The lore changes are honestly baffling. Loved Louis saying "it was my last sunrise" while doing a 10AM interview behind tinted windows. Why get rid of the death sleep! It's such a big thing! (Why do they still sleep in coffins in this, actually? I wonder if they'll explain next episode?)

Stealing the hover bite pseudo-sex from the 94 movie but making it way less hot in spite of the full ass? Also awkward. I liked the thumb bite, that was kinda hot, but the rest of the scene was… like a worse version of another scene in the movie! The one where they share the girl at the play! The blocking was even the same, but their positions were switched. Odd choice to reference it so heavily when they're claiming to be so much more faithful.

The dialogue was… not good. Anytime something was almost subtle, they made sure to have another character say something to undercut it. It doesn't feel like a show that trusts its audience to handle nuance or complexity.

BRO THE SHITBOX SCENE???? Why was that even there! It was so vulgar and crass and unnecessary and I don't know what it added other than showing what Louis has to deal with in his demeaning life, but between that and Lestat killing Lily, I'm pretty unhappy with the brothel material so far. And hearing the N word ten minutes in was jarring. Not sure RJ was more qualified to write this than he was the plantation storyline.

Lestat CONSTANTLY infodumped about his backstory, but not in a way that allowed any other characters to interestingly or meaningfully react to it, which was so frustrating. He told Louis more about his past before making him in this episode than he did during all of Interview, but there was zero emotional weight to it. It felt more like Rolin Jones trying to prove he read the books by throwing in easter eggs. Look! Lestat is mentioning that he composed this song for a violinist he knew! Ignore how nonchalant he sounds while saying it and how totally meaningless that is to Louis, our point of view character! It's there for the audience, but what does it mean to Louis? Textually, nothing. I'm devastated, as someone who's made her hobby trying to write those specific reveals. It was just… there.

And as someone with a PhD in Loustat, their interactions didn't feel authentic to me. Lestat's speech in the cathedral was so weird. He fell for Louis because he saw him threatening Paul with a knife in the street, and he interrupts Paul's funeral to neg Louis for ghosting him after they fucked, which is pretty awful even for Lestat — who should understand grief! He fell for Louis in the book because he was mourning Paul so intensely, and his sensitivity and strong (if hypocritical) moral center intrigued him.

Here, I'm less sure what appealed to Lestat; this is a very very different take on Louis, and it seems more like he was attracted to his capacity for violence and… idk, something about the way he's stifled by social mores? I'm not trying to be dense, I couldn't get a good read on Lestat's motives, in spite of his long-ass monologue. I don't think the extra bonding time deepened their relationship, and I don't know if we gained anything by having Lestat drop the L word right away. Where is my two century slow burn?

Speaking of that: Lestat appears to be the cultured one this time and I hate it? Lestat introduces Louis to opera (while Louis has to pretend to not get it); Lestat owns his own luxury townhouse in the Quarter (the Rue Royale townhouse belonged to Louis in the novel). Where is the conflict with Louis thinking Lestat is an uncultured hick? Where is the angst of Louis thinking Lestat only wanted him for his money if Lestat is a property owner who dropped the L word before he ever turned him? Louis is supposed to be able to hold his intellectualism over Lestat, but this AU seems more like Lestat introducing Louis to that world? I can see why that would appeal to this version of Louis, if that's typically not allowed to a Black man, and I don't want to ignore how his race and time period inform his relationship to culture.

But it feels like they took away so much of the character's gentle, intellectual, introverted nature to give him "more of a spine." He admits in the confession scene that he's run to the bottle and the card tables and etc. his whole life. Paul died the morning AMC Louis was turned, well after Lestat had decided he wanted to make Louis his companion; in the novel Paul's death was the impetus for Louis's moral decline. It's an odd reversal, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Why did they make his relationship with Paul so much more antagonistic and then make Paul's death so obviously not Louis's fault? Don't get me wrong, I'm not team "Louis did it" by any means, but it feels weird to have Louis PULL A KNIFE ON HIM but the day he dies they just have a nice conversation. He really just walked off the roof because he's cRaZy!

Does this Lestat kill mostly evildoers or not? I know in the books he's inconsistent about it, but this is supposed to be The Real Prince Lestat, so you'd think the writers would have a set idea of what his deal is, ethically speaking. So far his kills have been 1) a lamplighter; 2) a sex worker who Louis paid too much attention to; and 3) two priests. I want to know what he's going to claim he does! Also that exploding head punch was hilariously excessive!

Louis gives his whole monologue about the drumming of Lestat's heart while the music is a glorious swelling string section with absolutely no percussion. I thought that was marvelously bad sound design.

This take on Daniel sucks ass lmao

EDIT: I forgot to mention that between the cathedral scene and the dinner with Paul, Lestat is coming off as way more of an arrogant reddit atheist than he ever did in the books, where to me it seemed like he always had a strange sort of respect for sincere religious belief (as someone who lost his faith himself). idk, I know his thoughts on God fluctuated along with Anne's, but it struck me as out of character to have him so angrily fixated on this whole "religion is a lie" thing that he would trigger himself with it at the dinner table and self-righteously kill two priests.

idk dudes, I really wanted to say something positive, but I didn't enjoy almost any aspect of it. Maybe episode two will be less dour? These are just my initial impressions, maybe time and other perspectives will give me additional food for thought and I'll soften on some of it.

But chat with me if you've seen it! I'm curious to hear from other Loustat fans in particular, since it seems like a lot of us are really into it, and it just... didn't feel like my ship at all except in the most superficial possible way. I'm bummed! I wanted to be wrong, but most of my concerns have so far ended up being well-founded.

[bulbuli83]

prev tags

#i will say though i've never said louis and claudia cast him out#i said he was cast out#i think he cast himself out#but louis and claudia pointedly don't let him back in#like it's literally a huge part of the episode#he respects that line#it's his house#if he was the singular aggressor and controller you're painting him as what's stopping him from forcing his way back in?#louis doesn't have the power to keep lestat from rr okay#sure#then why isn't lestat living in the house for literal years?#what does that tell us thematically?#what does louis throwing lestat's coffin from a window mean?#what does it mean when louis stabs him and bites him and drags him from his mistresses house?#why don't they replace lestat's coffin in the house at rr?#they leave the damage so they don't forget the damage#but symbolically all that does is tie louis and lestat closer together#they sleep entwined in louis coffin#which is dented from where louis smashed lestat's face into it#these aren't real people these are characters and the decisions they make are deliberate writing decisions#intended to reveal character theme plot#louis IS one of the monsters in the house#does that undo the horror of what lestat did to him?#of course not#and that should never be undermined#but louis DOES control the household alongside lestat#he chooses when lestat gets to come home

I’m confused by what you mean when you say that Lestat was “cast out of the house” after the drop in 1.05, as this is not what the show tells us. Lestat left of his own will — he wasn’t thrown out. He beat Louis half to death and then ran away, as evidenced here — “Lestat had disappeared after that awful night. Vanished out of a profound sense of shame he would later confess to” (Louis, 1.06). Louis was in no fit state to throw anyone out of anywhere: as mentioned previously, Lestat had just beaten him half to death.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but in instances like this you seem to paint Lestat as a somewhat of a victim — poor Lestat, banished from his house by his uncaring, domineering husband — when in actuality he was anything but a victim. He was the aggressor, the perpetrator of horrific intimate partner violence, and so to twist the narrative to imply that he was hard done to leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. 

Another instance of this is in your Byronic Hero post, where you suggest that Louis “decides when Lestat gets to live at Rue Royale”, in reference to him being “one of the monsters who’s controlling the household”. We’re talking about someone that has just spent months recovering from a brutal attack by their partner; Lestat chooses to not return because he is ashamed and he knows that Louis has not forgiven him. Louis is not forcing anything on him — and he certainly doesn’t have the power to keep Lestat from RR.

Can you understand why assertions like these are problematic? I understand you wanting to explore the push-pull power dynamic between L&L, but in doing so you seem to be missing the essential through-line in 1.06, which is that Louis and Claudia cannot leave while Lestat lives. Any power they may have once held is overshadowed by Lestat’s absolute control of the household, so to place Louis on level with Lestat as “one of the monsters controlling the household” is at best misguided, and at worst displays an unsettling disregard for victims of IPV. 

(x)

I mean, with all due respect, anon, you're responding to a series of tags I wrote last night that I specifically said I would later clarify and better articulate, so I'm not surprised you're confused and yes, you are misinterpreting me (again, I suspect, as I think you may have sent me asks like this before). I've been clear for months now that the drop is a singular act of violence on this show, and it's not one that I'd ever diminish or underwrite, and as a result, this feels like a pretty bad faith read of something I've both spoken about already and explicitly said I would be talking about again soon. Instead of paying me the respect I extend to all of you by giving me the time to reply in the way I've signalled I would, you've used my tags to make assumptions about what I will say and frankly made some pretty unkind accusations as to my character.

It takes me time and energy to write up replies, particularly replies on this sort of topic that require greater attunement, sensitivity and nuance than others. It's something I do for free, and at the sacrifice of other things in my life, and it's something I do with my name attached, unlike anons. And look, I enjoy doing it - I do - but if you follow me, you should know that my sister - a survivor of recent IPV and her two small children are currently staying with me, after I was a witness in her courtcase against her ex-husband in October - real people, not fictional characters - something I've also been open about, and so you telling me that I have an 'unsettling disregard for victims of IPV' feels like a particularly cruel thing to say to me right now.

I will answer the other anon's ask, as I said that I would, but I'll do it in my own time, and in the meantime, I'd ask that you perhaps don't put words in my mouth or mount arguments to things you yourself say you are confused about or feel you could be misinterpreting. I'll clarify, again, as I said that I would.