#what marius did with armand was just abuse because armand did not want it and said no the entiiiire time. just to be pavloved afterwards

[collegeboysam]

one of the most upsetting details of the scene where marius whips armand in his book is not only the violence and abuse, but also what marius does afterwards. armand is crying and begging him to stop the entire time, he hates what's happening, but only by the end marius puts his blood on the wounds he left on armand, which he knows is pleasurable for humans. armand hated the punishment, he did not want it, but marius forces him to enjoy it at the end by giving him something armand can't help but like because of the effect vampire's blood has on humans. marius is conditioning armand to think he likes the whipping by giving him his blood only after being so vicious he opens wounds on armand's skin. he's basically doing stimuli based pavlov mindfuckery with armand. i want to strangle marius until he's foaming at the mouth.

[dreadfuldevotee]

I'd like to discuss the elephant in the room. Why did we get zero Loumand sex scenes? We got hints and implications, but season 1 was pretty explicit. Do we think that that's a creative choice or something else is happening?

I'm glad I ended up ruminating on this for about a week because episode 7 & 8 really solidified my opinion on it.

I do wanna start by saying that it's very clear to me that there was supposed to be more explicit scenes between them. There has been some thoughts tossed around that censorship happened with the 9 pm timeslot (as opposed to the 10 pm timeslot of S1). I believed this hearing Assad and Jacob talk about the BDSM dynamic between Louis and Armand, but what really sold me on this was Production Designer Mara LePere-Schloop talking about the bedroom set and more specifically about their beautifully carved custom headboard. (If you're a production nerd like me or just want to know more about the design philosophy of IWTV I recommend giving the entire thing a listen!).

I think there are several reasons I think as to why they decided to leave any more explicit scenes on the cutting room floor but above them all is: you cannot separate Armand's sexuality from his abuse. I am really against pulling a "well if you read the books" card but reading just the first couple chapters of "The Vampire Armand" makes me understand so much about not only Armand as a character, but the care being taken to his adaptation. It's clear to me that alongside Rolin & Co.'s commitment to not watering him down to a one-dimensional villain they are also trying to not fall into Anne Rice's tendency to romanticize his trauma.

Sex and sexuality is not the same pillar of Louis and Armand's relationship it was in Louis and Lestat's and so I don't believe their story suffers from the lack of on-screen sex. But I also firmly believe that maybe we don't need to be slutting out the character who we literally just watched talk about how he doesn't remember his life before being sex trafficked. And even when he was "freed" he was still being repeatedly assaulted at the hands of, and under the eye Marius de Romanus. Like it is extremely important to remember that Armand's craving for dominion in his relationships is a manifestation of trauma that deserves the same level of care and depth given to every other trauma portrayed in this show.

I think people have gotten too comfortable calling IWTV a romance when it has always been Gothic Horror. Romance and sex are pivotal to the story but I have found the demands for sex scenes this season a bit absurd and also? unfounded? Loustat share more kisses on screen but there are two sex scenes and both are very plot relevant. I truly figured we were all in agreement that the eroticism of this show is found in the various displays of power, and the dynamics it creates and not the actual clapping of ass-cheeks...which also wasn't happening in S1 either. S2 does not suffer because of the lack of sex-scenes, but the likelihood if it suffering trying to make one work is

[bloodfestgf]

I think it’s really a somewhat unfortunate thing for people to be so weird and racist about louis exploring his sexuality and kink as a black gay man in paris (and jacob talks sooo extensively about james baldwin’s influence on his character this season) after escaping his abusive white father-maker-lover (one of the first things he tells people in paris is that he’s still trying to discover himself). why wouldn’t he want to step out of the role of the subservient suffering wife that lestat forced him to play and enjoy pushing against the constraints forced on him by the maker-fledging + white master-black lover dynamics without those specific power dynamics overshadowing his romantic relationships. there’s a lot of conversation about armand’s trauma informing his sexual preferences but you have to understand that this happened with louis too to a certain degree even if I personally feel it just comes down to his personal preference at the end of the day. the show is explicit about one thing - armand did feel safe sharing his history and ceding control to louis under consensual circumstances which are probably not things he’s ever done even when he had sexual relationships with other members of the parisian coven. a relationship with louis gave him the freedom he needed to extricate himself from the confining circumstances of coven life and the job he didn’t particularly enjoy.

the relationship having undercurrents of complex issues that inform their dynamic and lay bare their vulnerabilities and flaws isn’t something to comment upon uniquely just because they have an established dom/sub dynamic. there are a lot of angles informing the dynamic they settle into besides just their trauma because the show is specifically trying to make a lot of other commentary. armand seeking a master and lover and god in louis in vain because of his history with marius (and probably informed by the part he played in claudia’s death) is just as significant as him constantly micromanaging louis who’s treated like the metaphorical mad woman in the attic with mental illnesses who’s confined for her own safety. louis’ own worship of lestat’s masculinity, his desire to ascend the capitalist hierarchy, and his familial roles often acting as an extension of the patriarchal ones you see him engage in with his mother and sister and claudia are just as useful tools to examine the subtext in their relationship besides just. trauma lol.

at the end of the day it’s literally fine for louis to enjoy being a dom in their relationship. I think I hate the concept of louis being a suffering dom enduring the dynamic for armand even more because it seeks to apply moral judgement to anybody who takes on a more dominant role during, what is after all, just sex. a lot of people didn’t really absorb louis really enjoying cultivating a dom/sub relationship with 70s daniel, I guess.

[chaotic-multi-fandom]

WHERE DOES IT START? ARUN, AMADEO, ARMAND

- My personal reflections on Armand's names in Interview with the Vampire (show version)

“Who am I Louis?” Armand asks while staring at a painting of a boy that only he would ever be able to recognize as himself. He stares at what is supposed to be his essence captured forever on a canvas, and yet the kneeling boy is a stranger to him. When he asks Louis this, he is earnest. Armand does not know who he is, and this lack of identity crushes and torments him. Armand seems to constantly define himself by his attachment to other people or things, such as a “servant”, as “the job (he) did not want” or as someone’s “companion” because he has never known anything else, he is never just “Armand;” he does not know who that is.

This is further reflected in his names, and the fact that despite having several none belong to him. First there’s Arun. This is supposedly the name he was born with, but even he is not sure of this due to his memory being clouded as a consequence all the horrors he suffered as a child. This name is not his, it is a name so linked to the abuse he endured that it has become the name of said abuse rather than the name of a person. His use of third person when talking about himself as “Arun” signals both a coping mechanism to distance himself from those experiences as well as the disconnect he feels from the identity attached to the name.

Then, there’s Amadeo. A name given to him by Marius, not only linking him directly with his maker and master but with God and worship, the name meaning “lover of god”. This name is also not his, but rather a projection of what Marius saw or expected in Armand. This is what we see in the painting, an ideal: a submissive, worshipful, whitewashed Armand degraded to kneel at the same level as the dog behind him, “basking in (his) worshipful mercy.” Regardless of how Armand did embody this role of worship and servitude during his time with Marius, that painting is not him, it is the fantasized construct that is Amadeo, who doesn’t really exist. When you think about it, Amadeo being a projection of those around him is not entirely different to “dreamstat” being a projection of Louis. This is of course largely my own interpretation and not fact, but I think anyone can agree that who is being portrayed in that painting is Armand only in name. It is simply another example of his body being used for a purpose, an artistic one in this case, his true essence and even features entirely forgotten and replaced by Amadeo’s. So, that name and the identity attached to it wasn’t entirely Armand’s either. Much like “Arun” being tied to his parents abandon and the brothel, Amadeo is trapped in the painting: just another property to be “sold” or “donated;” what Armand has always been treated as.

Finally, there is the name we call him by now: Armand. A name given to him by the Roman coven before sending him to the Paris coven, a collective that he is now supposed to lead and put before himself as an individual. It is a French name, a place he had no connection to before-hand and that only further distances him from who he might have once been, forcing him to adapt and assimilate into the new role he has been chained to. The name is a role in itself, as it means “soldier.” Furthermore, he is not a simple leader to this coven, he is the somewhat paternal and religious figure through which the coven; his “children,” serve Satan and through him, God. He is part of a “murky trinity” as Lestat calls it, a twisted parody of the holy trinity. So, “Armand” is once again much more than a name; it is another projection the lost and abandoned coven latches onto. Of course, they mostly refer to him as “maitre,” the implications of which I’ve already discussed in a different post. In this case, the dual titles “Armand” and “Maitre” are parallel to “Amadeo,” they both link Armand to the concepts of owner and God, except the roles change from being the owned worshiper to the worshiped owner. It remains someone else’s image, someone else’s name, one that prevents Armand from exploring who he is without it.

Armand does not have a name; how can he know who he is?

Even now he seeks the answer in Louis where he will not find it. There are, however, moments in which this seemed to be challenged. For example, shortly after meeting, Armand asks Louis to address him as such instead of “maitre” as his coven does. It is a moment in which he takes agency over what he wants to be called, a privilege he has never had before. Later, Louis calls him Arun as a way to indicate that he can see the person that lies behind the roles he plays, and that he can be himself around Louis. Yet these moments are still tainted. The name Armand does not reflect who he is, and in the conversation with Louis, Armand falls into his old patterns by addressing Louis as “maitre.” Plus, Louis too will go on to misuse this, but that’s a whole other topic. These instances, though revealing a more loving and honest side to Louis’ and Armand’s relationship in which they allow themselves to be open, they can not give Armand a sense of self. No one but himself can, and yet he doesn’t know how that is. It is a tragic never-ending paradox as immortal as he.

[massiveharmonytiger]

Anyone ever think about the fact that Armand probably hated the hell out of Claudia for having what he never could.

Claudia gets rescued from death as an innocent. Armand gets rescued from death as someone whose innocence died the day those slavers captured and raped him.

Claudia gets Louis and Lestat's love and takes it for granted. Armand craves their love but gets their scorn.

After she is made a vampire, Claudia lives with two caring fathers only to pine for a mortal life she'll never have and run away from the situation when the cruelty of being a vampire gets to be too much for her.

Obviously this isn't how I see it. Claudia had every right to run away after how she was treated and seek out her own answers. And her child/fledglinghood definitely wasn't all sunshine and roses. Her aunt abused her, Lestat was extremely cruel to her after Charlie's death, the Loustat brawl, Lestat dropping Louis from the sky, Bruce's abuse - all of these were extremely traumatizing and hard to live through.

My point is that Armand could know all of this and still see Claudia's past as the rosy childhood he never had because his was just that fucked up.

Also, I think book Armand is enslaved around a similar age to when book Claudia is turned (I read it this way, although I'm struggling to confirm this, can anyone confirm?) and I can see him wondering why he couldn't have had the dark gift to protect him then. Why does Claudia get it? Why is she any more worthy than he is?

Where Claudia doesn't have to do a thing, Armand has to prove his cruel streak to earn the dark gift and after he is made a vampire, he lives with his groomer, Marius, who is set on fire and Armand is captured by a coven that teaches him to hate himself until Lestat steps in.

So yeah, why would he stop the coven from killing her when she's had everything he's ever wanted?

Side note because I've seen some really bad takes on the Marius/Armand relationship.

Yes, Armand was in love with Marius and Marius loved him too. Yes, Marius rescued Armand from the brothel. Yes, Marius was kinder than Armand's slavers and Armand enjoyed a lot of the sex stuff he did when he was living with Marius. Yes, pederasty was normalized during that time and Marius was just acting like any man in his position would.

AND

Marius was still a groomer and an abuser. Marius was still in a position of power pulling strings to get Armand to do what he wanted and throwing tantrums when things didn't go his way. Marius still got off on Armand worshipping him. Marius was still Armand's owner and his kindness was dependent on Armand doing what he said (like letting himself be donated when a friend came from out of town - some people will say Armand was lying about that, to which I say, fuck you).

The fact that Armand enjoyed sex, started fetishizing his own abuse and using his body as a tool of manipulation doesn't make him complicit, neither does the fact that Marius had redeeming qualities (beauty, kindness, wisdom) and Armand fell in love with him.

None of this makes what Armand went through any less traumatizing. He's 500 years old and we can still see him grapple with what happened in his childhood.

I have no idea how they're going to portray Marius/Armand's childhood in the show, but I feel that even just a fraction of this would make Armand's resentment of Claudia pretty real, and I really hope we get to see Armand confront this in later seasons even though I'm pretty sure a lot of it is unconscious and he may not even be fully aware that he feels this way.

[fascinationstreetmp3]

the thing about show Armand to me is that he has this relationship to Youthfulness that resembles an aging hollywood starlet. his Prime Years that he spent with marius that were objectively Not Great for him = the ideal hollywood youth, pampered and beautiful and being abused behind closed doors. then followed by Centuries Of Exile = the starlet losing fame and fortune, being denied the attention (read: intimate abuse & objectification by the media) she had in her younger years. armand was 'donated' to friends of Marius, his image was used in Marius's art, and even centuries later he can look at these portraits and see a time when he was cared for and loved on the condition of his beauty. his desireability. things that he would lose as he aged. and Marius didn't willingly turn him; Marius would've been willing to discard him as he no longer became a desirable model and prostitute. and I think he retains that anxiety even as an ageless vampire. that sense that he is just about to lose the closest thing he's ever had to security, which is his attractiveness. and the profound certainty that no one else cares about what happens to him once he outlives his youth.

oh that's a very good analogy! for him his youth = his beauty = being desired.

i do wonder how marius treated him as he got older. i've seen it suggested that the "donations" to friends started when he became less desirable to marius while he transitioned physically into adulthood. amadeo in the books was often treated like a combination of boy and man depending on how it suited marius, yet when amadeo asserts he is a man, marius denies it. i can see this pattern carrying on over the twelve years they were together, even as amadeo obviously physically aged, and this having a serious effect on how he views himself. men having sex with boys, not other adult men, being what was more socially acceptable could've factored into that treatment.

maybe marius didn't actually start to desire amadeo less, because we don't have a lot to go on yet, but marius either losing interest or amadeo believing that he was as the years passed (later being given to sexually service friends instead of marius himself) would fit with this idea of wanting/needing to go back to the relative "security" of youth, because that's when marius himself wanted him most and acted on it.

and the children of darkness made him celibate after over a decade of sexual slavery; like you said, taking away the objectification and sexual abuse he endured from marius before being abducted, but that went hand in hand with being loved and cared for by him (and he also feels a distinction between what marius did to him, and what he recognises as the abuse he went through in the brothel before being sold to marius). and with marius possibly distancing himself anyway, amadeo's turning being a last resort to prevent his death, and his youth (and therefore his beauty) fading before that, it just reinforced this idea he has about love and his own self-image. so the height of his desirability = the height of his happiness and ability to be loved and cared for, which was during his adolescence.

now armand eternally feels like he's on the perpetual edge of becoming completely undesirable, but he needs love and security to survive, so he turns to doing anything to obtain and keep it.

[armandposting]

I'm gonna ramble for a while about this actually so here's a cut lol

actually this is why I struggle with fics where (usually daniel) just like. explains to armand that Venice was bad, usually rudely, and that Works somehow. I get the urge. but I think it's misunderstanding the role of this period of armands life to act like this is how to address his trauma from it. he thinks of Venice as one of the best periods of his life because it was. not only were all his material needs taken care of, which was not true in his original home, when he was enslaved, pr with the children of darkness, but he's also able to be himself in ways he wasn't in any of those other settings. he certainly was his own person at home at kiev but he also had a lot of religious and familial pressures pushing him different ways. and while enslaved and with the cult he had basically no autonomy at all. in Venice he's being abused but he also has enough space to be coming into himself in a lot of ways. marius doesn't inflict unwavering obedience. there are consequences for acting out, but amadeo can and does anyway. (I'm NOT claiming this means marius was better at parenting him than his actual parents lmao. in the books his parents love him and I have no doubt that he would have been able to act out and figure himself out at home too as he got older. but he never got to find that out and his memories of that time are fucked anyway, so that possibility is not really going to factor very strongly in his self image.) and the cult is what completely kills armand's ability to think and act independently for hundreds of years.

so my point is, acting like he can't see that what happened to him in Venice is bad is like... missing the point, from armand's point of view. even if he was to recognize what marius was doing as abuse, that's not going to negate all of the other good parts about that time. and it's not going to negate that, even though he only existed for a few years, amadeo is the most developed in his personhood that armand is ever allowed to be until post-paris when he's finally independent again. thinking about andrei/arun, amadeo, and armand as splintered bits of personality, which I generally do, amadeo's influence is ESSENTIAL to that mix. andrei/arun exists in a fog, almost impossible to access, and even if he didnt, he was never more than a child. armand is tortured, indoctrinated, traumatized, and eventually, free of the structures that did all that, doesn't really know who he is. amadeo knew who he was and what he wanted. amadeo, while a teenager, was just starting manhood and saw himself as a fully developed man. he had friends and family and loved ones and a relative amount of freedom and safety. he was comfortable fighting for what he wanted and fighting back when he was upset. armand NEEDS some part of him who feels that way in order to get back to that place as an independent person. so of course he's never going to view Venice as unequivocally bad. because it wasn't! from his own perspective, it's not like he's viewing that time through THAT unrealistic a lens. it's really just that the rest of his life has either been That Bad or he doesn't remember it.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Omg I just realized the duality of Loustat over Louis killing Lestat.

Louis feels guilty for killing Lestat, and when he says “he had it coming” to Armand Dreamstat, aka his own thoughts, says “that’s debatable”. Like, should I have killed him? The guilt in Louis is so much.

Meanwhile Lestat, if they go by the book, is like “no yeah I totally deserved that, I was an ass”

Mhhhh. Forgive me nonny, but... That is not why he says that.

I know a lot of people dig that up to say he "deserved" it, but his behavior is actually not the point. In the books, there never was this level of abuse, and they ramped it up for the show, to make the "killing" of him seem justified beyond doubt - doubt that Louis has.

Because that is Louis, as you also point out.

So why would Louis feel guilty, feel doubt?

Because the kill (in the books at least, and I have a feeling we will get a lot more context next season, after all Lestat's written down last words do not match with what the tale gave us!) was not about his behavior. It was not about abuse.

It was about the crime of turning Claudia. Trapping her in her too young body, eternally condemning her.

Lestat reflects on that, quite clearly, in his book:

It was the crime that was to be my undoing: the creation with Louis and for Louis of Claudia, a stunningly beautiful vampire child. Her body wasn't six years old when I took her, and though she would have died if I hadn't done it (just as Louis would have died if I hadn't taken him also), this was a challenge to the gods for which Claudia and I would both pay.

and

I wanted to see what would happen, I mean, with a beautiful little girl like that! Oh, Lestat, you deserve everything that ever happened to you. You'd better not die. You might actually go to hell. But why was it that for purely selfish reasons, I didn't listen to some of the advice given me? Why didn't I learn from any of them-Gabrielle, Armand, Marius? But then, I never have listened to anyone, really. Somehow or other, I never can. And I cannot say even now that I regret Claudia, that I wish I had never seen her, nor held her, nor whispered secrets to her, nor heard her laughter echoing through the shadowy gaslighted rooms of that all too human town house in which we moved amid the lacquered furniture and the darkening oil paintings and the brass flowerpots as living beings should. Claudia was my dark child, my love, evil of my evil. Claudia broke my heart. And on a warm sultry night in the spring of the year 1860, she rose up to settle the score. She enticed me, she trapped me, and she plunged a knife over and over again into my drugged and poisoned body, until almost every drop of the vampiric blood gushed out of me before my wounds had the precious few seconds in which to heal. I don't blame her. It was the sort of thing I might have done myself. And those delirious moments will never be forgotten by me, never consigned to some unexplored compartment of the mind. It was her cunning and her will that laid me low as surely as the blade that slashed my throat and divided my heart. I will think on those moments every night for as long as I go on, and of the chasm that opened under me, the plunge into mortal death that was nearly mine. Claudia gave me that.

So, yes, Louis feels canonically guilty for "killing" Lestat - both show and book.

And yes, Lestat never blamed Claudia for trying.

But it's not about abuse, about having been "an ass". It's about recognizing that what he did to her, no matter the reasons, was unforgivable - a crime.

And, in the book - as in the show, at the trial - he accepts the blame for that, the responsibility.

[nightcolorz]

speaking about the parallel between Marius forcing Armand to take the name "Amadeo" (loved one) and keep calling him that even after it's clear he hasn't used that name in centuries (i saw somebody else saying he is like a parent using their kid's dead name in front of everyone and ignoring how uncomfortable their kid clearly is) and Armand calling Daniel "beloved" i was wondering what Marius himself thinks of this?

does he see the parallel too? is it clear to him that a part of Armand is modelling him and Daniel's relationship after the one he once had with Marius? And if so, can he understand Armand is trying to do things differently so he doesn't end up hurting Daniel like Marius hurt him?

What does Marius think of Daniel calling Armand "boss" not because Armand ordered him to but simply because he, Daniel, decided to start calling him that and even then, only sometimes?

the dead name comparison is so accurate oh my god 😭😭 that’s definitely the vibe I get. The way I see it, Marius is so self absorbed that even when acknowledging that Armand is harmed by his actions and is trying to break the cycle of abuse, I think he’d be able to understand that what he did was rlly wrong but still reflect on it in a self pitying, self absorbed way. “Wah wahh my fledgling would hate to become me and rejects the name I gave him in love wahh wahh bcus I hurt everyone i love wahhhh I hate myself and my life so much wahhhh I wish I could just have a good relationship for once wahhh everyone leaves me 😢😢😢😢”

In the books Marius is very aware of how he hurts people and he feels very bad about it, but it comes off as a shallow and self serving type of guilt bcus no matter how badly he feels he never changes his behavior. This is cuz Marius thinks that in any given situation he’s always right and his feelings and what he wants should always be the priority (toddler behavior). He is only able to recognize if smth he did was wrong when it begins to earn him negative consequences, and it seems more like he feels bad for himself and guilty for bringing about these negative consequences then he is about doing the thing. For example, he feels badly about turning Armand and knows it was wrong bcus Armand is a broken person who isn’t able to connect with Marius anymore, but meanwhile, he doesn’t feel badly at all when he turns Benji and Sybelle into vampires against Armand’s will (even when Armand is sobbing in grief) bcus this doesn’t result in anything badly coming to Marius, so Armand’s grief is an immature incorrect reaction and Marius knows best 😜.

I also think Marius would be very upset and jealous about Armand and Daniel and their pet names for each other bcus he can’t exactly place why they r so much happier and healthier giving each other names then he was giving himself and Amadeo names. It def pisses him off seeing Armand happy in new relationships💀Marius is a petty bitch before he is the benevolent teacher he thinks he is

[alwynwitch]

The toxic dynamic between Marius and his maker Teskhamen

Teskhamen wanted Marius to be kidnapped, raped into vampire existence and to save the vampire tribe/become the keeper of Akasha and Enkhil. Marius seems only to blame the druid priest Mael for this. Teskhamen seems fascinating and friendly to Marius, but I'm here to argue he is manipulative as well. I will analyze their reunion in Prince Lestat.

Marius thinks all those years (2000 years!!!) that Teskhamen is dead. His maker never let him know he actually survived the burning. Or offer any help with Those Who Must Be Kept. But then he approaches Marius. Why? Of course, you have the vampire crisis, Amel coming into consciousness and the changed structure of the Talamasca. But I think there is another layer: for the first time ever, Marius wants to sit this crisis out. He wants to hole up with Daniel (hunting together, watching movies) and wait till the storm is over.

But then his old maker is suddenly on his doorstep (again, after 2000 years of silence!!!). Because Teskhamen has chosen Marius for the task to carry the burden of vampire survival and he is here to remind Marius of his duty and the purpose he was made for. He does it with a lot of flattering and making sure no difficult questions are asked. Though soft-spoken and friendly, this creature is full of manipulation and bullshit.

This is how he approaches Marius:

"Marius," he said. "My beloved, my savior of long ago, my friend." "I know you?' asked Marius politely. Even as he clapsed the hand he divined nothing but what the agreeable and open face reflected: friendship. No danger.

During the conversation he is constantly flattering Marius, saying he is his savior, that he never had known a being like him, he compares him to the sum of sunshine on marble floors. Just friendly? Or a tactic to de-escalate the situation so Marius will not be angry with him? And, even more importantly, will do what he wants him to do?

Marius is deeply emotional which shows how much this meeting means to him (so why did Teskhamen not get into touch earlier?):

Something quickened in Marius, something he had not felt in a very long time. [...] But Marius was changed. Changed forever.

Teskhamen tells his story, which includes the founding of the Talamasca in 748. But the important questions are not asked. Why did Teskhamen never tell Marius he was still alive? Why did he not share his knowledge with him? Why didn't he check in with him to see how the task of taking care of Akasha and Enkhil was going? Why didn't he offer his help? See if Marius needed anything to carry the burden? Clearly, it would have meant a lot to Marius. (And remember how Marius abuses Armand in a similar way, letting him believe he was dead for centuries.)

Marius doesn't ask these questions. Instead, he seems to react exactly like Teskhamen is hoping for:

Marius shuddered. He had so hoped somehow this would all pass without his active acknowledgment, that somehow his time of holding the survival of the tribe in his hands was past. Had he not cared for the Mother and Father for two millennia? But he knew now he could not remain on the sidelines any longer.

No, Marius, you only cared for Akasha and Enkhil for 2000 years, of course it is not enough. The vampire Teskhamen choose you to carry the burden and you cannot suddenly step out, take a break or retire. This is why your maker has shown up now. Marius probably doesn't notice, because of his vanity, need to be in control and savior complex (that Teskhamen is exploiting skillfully).

But Marius realizes:

"And you're not one of us?" Marius asked. "You are not coming yourself?"

No, Marius, he is not coming. This is not an emotional reunion after which you two will fight the world together. He is here to remind you of your duty, the task he put you on 2000 years ago. Not to get involved himself. Especially Daniel is grilling him over this and see how Teskhamen responds:

"We ourselves made no decision." "Because you didn't have to," said Daniel. "Isn't that so?" Teskhamen shrugged. He made a little gesture of agreement with his hands. [...] "I don't know," said Teskhamen softly. [...] Teskhamen put up his hands again but this time defensively. "Daniel," he said gently. "I honestly do not know."

No, he doesn't know, he doesn't want to make difficult decisions, he is just here to make sure Marius will act and make the decisions for him and the whole vampire tribe. Then he pulls a last trick, telling Marius about the ghost of his old friend Raymond Gallant:

Marius was astonished. He was almost moved to tears. "Oh yes, Marius, you will see your beloved Raymond again, I assure you," said Teskhamen. [...] "But allow us our old caution, our old passivity, even now." "I understand," said Marius. "You want us to come together as a tribe, the very same thing that Benji wants. You want us to do the very best that we can in the face of this challenge - without your intervention."

Teskhamen uses emotional manipulation to get Marius in a soft spot to agree with everything he wants. Even though just before Teskhamen couldn't defend his position of passivity to Daniel. If Raymond means so much for Marius, why didn't he bring them into contact earlier? Why not right now? No, it seems like there is a condition for this meeting. Marius first has to play the savior once again.

"You're a splendid being, Marius," said Teskhamen.

Of course, Marius is a splendid being, a good soldier, who will once again carry out your wishes and take on the burden of vampire existence. This is the reason why you made him a vampire and you will make sure he stays on this path. While you can just watch and observe.

[cloudabserk]

How's show Armand not racist though he did specifically write the trial to lynch them and added racial aggressions against Louis too

uhhh look. i don’t wanna definitively say armand isn’t or is racist both because i’m white, and because there’s so so much nuance there. how does armand view himself, or the non white members of the coven, or louis and claudia? after his history of being trafficked and sent to various majority white european countries, and ordered to rule as the master of the coven?

what does he think about louis & claudia’s history with slavery: being descended from american slaves, and louis having inherited his money from a slave plantation, claudia’s resentment of lestat as their white “master”. vs his own history: enslavement being the first thing he can remember, his being so conflicted over belonging to marius, wanting to belong to lestat (and being passed over for louis and claudia, who resent and kill lestat!) is he jealous? resentful? sympathetic? uncaring?

let alone the question of: did armand write the trial? we don’t actually know that. we know he directed it, but a huge amount of the behind the scenes details are ambiguous for now. (i assume by “racial aggressions” you mean the idea of louis being predatory towards lestat? i do think this could have come from armand, but we don’t actually know that. it could be a “see lestat didn’t really want him over me, it was all louis’s idea” manifestation of jealousy, which does rely on the audiences racist belief that a black man is more sexual & predatory… but the version of louis that armand sees, and likes, is dominant in bed & ran brothels as a human, whereas armand grew up abused in brothels. or is he aware of louis’s shame at both being gay and a vampire, and he’s pressing on that to hurt him? idk. as of now, it could’ve been armand or the coven imo)

my personal interpretation is that armand is actually… less racist than most of the characters? daniel has his modern day american biases, and lestat’s first words to louis were basically “how’d they let you in here?” which. christ lestat wtf. whereas armand has always felt like an outsider and an otherworldly being. by the time he meets louis, i don’t think he believes almost anyone is his equal.

anyway. i don’t think killing claudia and louis inherently means that armand is racist, and because his exact level of involvement in the trial is so ambiguous i would hesitate to draw firm conclusions about his character from specific lines just yet. and i would keep in mind that slavery is a big part of armand’s backstory and references to it aren’t always targeted at louis.

overall what i meant was i just think some people on twitter are being silly for saying armand is too evil to ship with lestat and louis specifically because armand might be racist. they are all evil. also he let their daughter die on purpose.

[loumandforyou]

I've seen book people saying that Armand (calling him 'amadeo' makes me a bit eesh cause it's a slave name) sees his time in Venice as happy (and from what I've gathered that was because of Bianca and Riccardo) and maybe that's where Marius fans find ground to say "see, Marius saved him, he wasn't bad, he didn't do anything wrong" (of course there are people that claim that Marius was a piece of shit and that Armand was happy back then), but... my opinion is that he had the illusion of happiness because of the illusion of safety Marius offered. He moved from a brother as a child, where all he had to do was being abused by several people daily, to a villa with art, education, food, better shelter. An upgrade for sure. He had friends there that perhaps he couldn't have in the brothel (do children survive for long there anyway). He had alcohol to distract him (how many sex trafficking victims turn to substance abuse) and he lacked that distraction before. But... is something happy and good because it was just better than before? Because he got to act out a little bit? (Is it a progress when a cannibal uses a fork?)

And of course we have to consider the copying mechanisms there. Aside from alcoholism, CSA victims (and abuse victims in general) sometimes try to romanticise their abusers because well, at least he loved me, he did it because he loved me, it wasn't all that bad, yeah he forced me to have sex with him & others, he beat me, but there were good times, too, he loved me, I loved him, it was happy, there was love---

Then Marius shows up and what he feels the most is dread, not longing, not happiness. You can see the signs. And perhaps Armand tries to pretend, because he doesn't want to break the illusion.

My point is that Armand might see his time with Marius as safe and happy, but I think that this is just what he is trying to tell himself to cope. Because if he didn't have that then... what did he ever have?

I am not sure if Rice was good at showing that something was problematic (from the little I've seen/heard she didn't seem to do so and that's one of the reasons I am not sure about the books, but that's just speculation on my side. but that seems to be a trend for 80s-90s books) and at least the show so far has done a good job at that and maybe we will see it with Marius/Venice time too.

[ca-suffit]

I was going to say this off anon but I have a second blog for iwtv and I don't want the og one out in the fandom kind of. But I never understood why people say Louis was abusive to lestat and the instances they point out are a) neglect b) not being affectionate c) withholding affection. Which like. Ok. Maybe my inexperience but I just don't think not giving love back in this instance is abusive. Because I genuinely do think he wasn't capable of love in those times. Like early on we see him lying to his family juggling 3 roles to spend time with lestat and shopping dates and what not. He was loving. And then HIS CHILD RAN AWAY. i don't think any caring parent is capable of love in that time. And then there's his malnutrition which ofc lowers his sex drive and the mental toll malnutrition takes is depression and anhedonia. But to call that manipulation??? To call that abuse?? Withholding affection as abuse in this case? Like mf What makes you think he was capable of love you can't deny something you don't have/aren't capable of!? His child is missing. His child is gone do you get it??? He's supposed to be making date plans??? Ik withholding affection and then lovebombing is a thing for abusers but ffs. He's depressed that's why he isn't loving when you're depressed you're literally not capable of it because your brain has drained all of it out WHAT DO YOU MEAN WITHHOLDING LOVE? Same with Armand. His child is dead. A part of Louis died with her. Is he supposed to be ffs. I don't want to type anymore. And ykw both these partners have the power to leave at any time. If you're not getting love that's what you do i get lestat why he wouldn't in America like he'd be pretty much alone and Armand always had that choice too. It's their specific personalities which made them stick with him but at the same time.my guy you're both more powerful than him fucking leave if it's so bad. But that's what love does and they stayed but at no point was it abusive on Louis' end?? At no point did it justify the abuse he's met with at lestat's or armand's hands??? And there's always intent behind abuse and if Louis' is not loving it's not because of some scheme. No his child is missing. The child.is also female and tiny we know what happens to them when they're alone how tf do you not get what state he'd be in?? And to expect love from him? And that's what's actually funny to me about both lestat and Armand like they really didn't think about what the loss of a child would mean to both their respective relationships with Louis. Like they really thought a parent could chill live laugh love with them while his child is gone. Ok. Sure why not. Um yea. Sorry for the long rant. Anyway I just don't think withholding affection applies to anyone here least of all Louis and never Louis no matter what the "pAtTeRn" is with him. No the pattern is depression brought on by the loss of his child. If you had actual brains you'd make that connection but no. No. Since this is the abusive partners yaoi show we have to see abuse where it isn't and minimize where it is. It'll be wonderful when Marius the guy who does loooooooove children will show up. Then we'll surely talk about love and loss and see the connections

ppl just made shit up bcuz they needed to soften lestat tbh. then armand to a degree too.

the angle never was "what are louis' partners doing to help him thru these bad times." it was always "louis isn't loving *them* enough!!" louis is also younger than *both* of them and comes from a different life experience which is still alive for him too, unlike their individual experiences and/or traumas. armand is still experiencing racism but it's not like the antiblackness louis and claudia face.......which then ends up in the trial too?! which *both* louis nb partners have a part in???

u bring up a good point for the marius angle too. this fandom makes me sick lol.

[massiveharmonytiger]

No, iwtv fandom. I won't be tagging my opinions about Marius as "Marius hate," to "avoid stressing people out."

Why? Because this fandom is not made up of people that are just "Marius lovers" and "Marius haters." Lots of people have mixed feelings about him and I take that into consideration when I post about him. Even as a so-called "Marius hater", whatever the hell that means. I mean, some people just straight up peg you as an anti or a self-righteous prude if you have one ounce of distaste for Marius, which hardly seems fair because a) Not once did I call for shaming, censorship or say that Marius shouldn't exist b) Have you SEEN my ao3 history.

I happen to think that Marius is a really important and complex character and I can't wait to see them portray that in the show. I just think so many Marius stans are so in denial about who Marius is or driven by repressed guilt because they know who he is and can't handle liking him despite that because they think it makes them a bad person (it doesn't). Ergo, they have to see him as this perfect father lover archetypal figure, which is depressing because we're all out here dragging every other vampire on the show, but please no dissing Daddy Marius. More so because of the associations tied to his blondness and whiteness and Roman-ness - god, I can't wait for the show's portrayal - I'm foaming at the mouth here. Ergo, they can't handle any negativity about him. I mean, we saw the same thing when Lestat slam dunked Louis through the clouds. Everyone on this website who couldn't handle the mark on Lestat's perfect white ass had a complete meltdown. There isn't half as much drama when Louis, Claudia or Armand get criticized for their shit behaviour.

I try to make my posts fair and balanced but I think a lot of the more hardcore stans that couldn't even handle that much. You know, because they weren't posts about the sun shining out of Marius' pretty golden ass. So many wouldn't be seeing my posts all that much anyways on account of them having blocked me after engaging with my posts or vice versa.

I just feel that my posts should be accessible to everybody and then they can decide how they feel about it. Whether they want to reblog it or hard block me. And that's not going to happen if my posts are excluded from a whole portion of the fandom that's simply trying to avoid drama and vitriol by blocking a hate tag. Furthermore, why should my discussions on slavery, pedophilia, racism, abuse, genuine themes in all iterations of Marius' story be classed as "hate" because some people are uncomfortable acknowledging that they are in fact, genuine themes in the media.

Hearing other people out is healthy. Creating boundaries and deciding to remove people from your curated tumblr space is healthy. What's not healthy, however, is splitting the fandom down the middle into this "Marius loving/Marius hating" binary and expecting people to cultivate an echo chamber where everybody shares your opinion and you won't have to learn how to deal with people that might disagree with what you think. TVC has never been the type of media for making people comfortable and I think it's weird that people would want to interact with this specific media in all its rapey, murdery, slavey, racist, colonialist glory and then be all surprised and butthurt when people engage with those themes like its a personal affront to them when nobody is actually personally attacking them. To the point that they don't even want to acknowledge the existence of the part of the fandom that engages with those themes. And you call that etiquette?

Although etiquette was pretty much associated with societies that would host lavish, "polite" parties on the one hand and colonize, enslave and discriminate on the other, so why wouldn't online etiquette follow the trend? Let's just say nothing negative about any complex or problematic characters, themes and issues and then we can all have a good time and pretend that everything is perfect.

[fascinationstreetmp3]

putting this all under a readmore and not tagging i just wanted to put my thoughts down somewhere .. talking about marius and his fans & tw for mentioning csa / sa

personally. i understand that the marius/armand relationship has been a popular part of the book series for decades and it's fictional and yes i get it. but. i dont understand those fans who encounter people who find it purely horrifying or upsetting and then get mad at them for it. just because of how it's framed in the books as a beautiful gothic love story (filtered through both the author's intention & the skewed perspectives of the two characters involved in it) doesn't mean EVERYONE has to romanticise it and it's only babies or idiots or show only fans who "can't handle gothic fiction".

and then the people who try to convince everyone marius is armand's saviour who only ever treated him with love and kindness really confuse me. like, is it a wholesome relationship built on mutual love? or is it abusive and awful AND loving and caring at the same time? aren't the people who deny marius did anything wrong to armand really the ones who can't stomach enjoying gothic romances and have to twist it into something else?

it's a story of a fully grown man, a millenia old vampire, rescuing a teenager from sex slavery by purchasing him for himself, renaming him, showering him with affection, sexually abusing him, genuinely loving him, treating him like a child and an adult and student and son and lover all at the same time, making his entire world revolve around his master, punishing him emotionally and eventually physically whenever he gets too clingy or aggressive. and it's all done, not under just the 'guise' of love, but from a place of genuine love, and that's how both characters see it. it's entirely damaging and fucked up and the aftereffects of it on armand's mind and sense of self are present for centuries, compounded by everything else he went through. he still draws both comfort and pain from thinking about his past now and even tries to partially recreate the dynamic with someone else both in the book (with daniel, armand taking the role of the master; and keeping young 'mortal slaves' for a time) and in the show (with louis, armand taking the role of the slave)

it is a super fucked up relationship & i'm not one of those people who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy those in fiction. there's a lot of them that appeal to me obviously, and of course everyone has their own boundaries when it comes to that too. AND i know it's not all marius fans or even all marius/armand fans. i literally don't care what people like in fiction and i think we should all just mind our own business honestly

but it's the people who act like they're the only ones who get that it's just a tragic beautiful romance, that nobody else can read apparently, that 'marius haters' are just looking for things to be mad at that make me go ???????

[danlous]

I just wanted to say, since you and the other anon are talking about it, about that dreamstat scene in the museum, even Sam said during an interview (it might have been at sdcc) that he had no idea why Lestat was there in the first place and there was no explanation in the script or to him why he was reacting that way. If you look at how people reacted to the scene and how the majority online describe it, the take away is that Louis does not give a shit about Armand. I think that's what your other anon meant, the show missed an opportunity to have this one single scene be serious between just Louis and Armand, but by adding Lestat they handed people who already dislike both Louis and Armand more "evidence" for their interpretations, because I agree with you, that the scene does not mean Louis feels nothing about Armand's sex slavery, but the same people who go on about Louis' pimp persona, him lying about Lestat's abuse, and Armand lying all the time, use this scene to back up their opinions. I think it's clear that this really comes down to amc wanting Lestat in every episode despite this particular instance not needing him at all and it did the overall scene and dynamic between Louis and Armand a huge disservice in my eyes. And going back to your original post about that Armand/Marius take from reddit, there was an interview with Assad where he said that the two truest scenes for Armand, basically dropping any mask or pretense, was this one and the one with Madeleine and people who are desperately trying to make it into "Armand bad, always lying" thing are just braindead.

Yeah i wish there would've been less dreamstat because i think it slightly weakened the impact of some scenes and also of real Lestat coming back (could you imagine how more impactful that scene at the end of 2.6 would've been if it had been the first or almost first time we saw Lestat after s1). Like it didn't ruin anything for me personally and i still enjoyed those scenes he appears in but i can understand why it annoyed people especially when it sometimes distracted from other things happening in the scene. We know there was some sort of 'Lestat in every episode' mandate from the network but they presumably didn't specify what scenes he should be in so the writers themselves chose to include Lestat in that museum scene and thought it would add something to it. Of course YMMV did it work. And yes Assad saying that about the museum scene and the scene with Madeleine being Armand's most true moments was interesting! I can really see it in Assad's performance how those moments in different ways aren't performative for Armand and are a glimpse of him under the masks