This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed." This means book spoilers **do not require** spoiler tags! If you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InterviewVampire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like how the show has found a way to make Anne Rice's conflicting depictions of events in the first and subsequent books (based on Louis and Lestat's perspectives and narratives) an actual plot in the show. But blaming it all on Armand? Now, that's cold. Not like the covetous wretch doesn't deserve it ...
I truly think it’s such a fun way to work in the very disparate depictions of Lestat from Interview vs TVL and QotD. I mean don’t get me wrong, he’s still the brat prince, but he’s def a different guy in books two and three.
I think, understandably, we all feel concerned about the facts of what physically went on during the fight & about how it will be handled that there was violence & it wasn’t the whole truth without making Louis seem a liar…
The revisit will show what really happened of course. But most important will be how we feel about it. So a big thing will be how it ends & how things are left. A big difference will be it absolutely won’t end with an utterly broken body of Louis on the ground, while a pristinely uninjured Lestat hovers, seemingly uncaring: like an Evil Avenging Angel.
No: we will feel what’s between Lestat & Louis very differently. I’m just relieved we can see it 100% is going to be revisited now. Because, I think we would all agree - the way we saw things so far is absolutely not ok!
Some points:
- All of the vampires are monsters. They all exist in shades of grey and all have bad and good to them. There will be no 'one good vampire' and no 'entirely evil vampire' and their psychological complexity is the entire point.
- The point of retelling events is not to portray Louis as a liar. The retelling is FOR Louis. For Louis to uncover his own truth.
- On the above note, Lestat isn't telling the story in S2, so we are not getting "Louis said", "Lestat said"
- The eventual place the story is going to is for us to love both Louis and Lestat both as individual beings and together, so whatever is told needs to serve their arc, and in terms of Lestat we need to reach a place whereby he will be the more main protagonist in a S3 (hopefully!) TVL, though excitingly, I am sure there will be much more Louis than in TVL
- In terms of events, I'm pretty sure the bit in the trailer here is immediately after Lestat pins Claudia by the throat because we hear but don't see fighting in S1E5 at that point
- BUT the point of the retelling will be to alter how Louis feels about himself, about Lestat, about Claudia, about his feelings towards Claudia and Lestat and theirs to him. And how we feel about it all. So what matters most is where were they at the end of all this?
- And then, does the truth of what actually happened in E5 have impact in a different way on E7? Does it alter if Lestat needed to be murdered? And what actually happened there?
If the show wants its audience to feel as Anne Rice wanted her audience to feel from Interview with the Vampire (& that’s totally without any future context from any later books from Lestat’s perspective), you shouldn’t feel like Lestat has to die or that he deserves to die. Not to say that you should be sobbing that he is attacked either! Just that you should have complicated feelings about it & a nagging sense that it was a terrible, horrific wrong…
I don't think in the TV show it will be Louis having repressed his memories. I think it has shown now that Armand has altered Louis' and Daniel's memories in some way. I think he will have partially done it for them both and partially it will be for self-serving reasons.
With Daniel, I think Armand will only have the options: kill Daniel, turn Daniel into a vampire, keep Daniel mortal. Since Armand chooses to keep him mortal there is then only the option either to leave Daniel his memories and he will be mad and likely die anyway or to alter his memories. So Armand will be trying to give Daniel a mortal life in the only way he can by altering his memories. (Of course, he could have turned him!)
With Louis, I imagine it's quite a complex mix: Louis could even be suicidal if he has guilt over Lestat (I’d say &/or Claudia except that Armand has left Louis with guilt around Claudia, soooo.) He is clearly haunted by Lestat. Or it could be that Armand just needs Lestat out of Louis' mind as he needs Louis as fully his. Armand's role in Claudia's demise and Armand's feelings, actions, history and experiences with Lestat also play into it all.
I think motivations are somewhat different to the books, but I hope the show will get to a similar place.
In the books, Louis' narrative is impacted by the fact that he was only drinking the blood of animals as a new vampire, which leaves him in a bad place mentally (surviving on the blood of animals isn't used the same way on the TV show though.) And it's also affected by repressing and disguising his feelings towards Lestat for the purposes of the interview, which he no longer does in 2022. And there's obviously the impact of guilt & shame Louis feels (about many things!) Louis' feelings for Lestat gradually, occasionally reveal themselves in the second half of even of Interview with the Vampire itself though and Anne Rice said she already knew before completing Interview that Lestat's story would be different.
"Lestat sprang to life in the corner of my eye, an antagonist of tremendous seductive power, who truly did take on a life of his own as I was focusing on Louis and his tragic tale in "Interview With the Vampire."
By the time the book ended, I had it in my mind that Lestat would have an entirely different interpretation of events and maybe someday I could explore that. But eight years passed before I did.
Lestat was very much based on my husband, Stan, on Stan's physicality — Stan being a lithe, athletic man of great strength and self-confidence and also an atheist who shook his fist at the stars.
But Lestat really became Lestat. And you could say, by the time the second book was finished, Lestat was me."
It's added to, when we learn about Lestat by elements such as we know Lestat has been told by Marius that if he tells his fledglings any knowledge at all, Marius will kill them, so Lestat has to withhold. And then, after literally every circumstance of Lestat's life, he has learned he is *too much* and so he is afraid to verbalise some of his big feelings, due to what he has perceived is the result of that (people abandoning him, hating him, driven to madness, killing themselves.)
Anyway, I just hope we're all happy when we've watched S2. It's going to be emotional! We know that!
I think Louis' memories have been tampered with to protect him from his grief and his guilt. Armand is not innocent in any way, of course, and we don't know how much Louis actually knows about what Armand did to Claudia and Lestat in Paris so there are also selfish reasons for him to mess with the truth, but I do think in the modern day setting he believes he is protecting Louis from himself. Louis' memories are currently a version of events that are meant to make it easier for him to mourn Lestat and Claudia, but it isn't helping him in the long run, and it isn't working.
That makes sense. Book Louis was tortured to his very soul. Deeply unhappy. I was maybe 11 when I read Interview, and the difference between Interview and Lestat blew my pre teen mind. I thought Lestat was horrible, until I read his version of events.
Memories really do mess with you sometimes, especially a looooong life like this.
We still do not have the full scene. But from the glimpse we got in this trailer, I presume Louis fought back behind that wall in S1 when Louis was reassuring Claudia "that everything was ok, stay back".
This new scene/angle doesn't change anything for me. It's still Lestat choked Claudia and Louis intervened to defend her. People seems to forget that just before they disappeared behind that wall, Lestat was throwing Louis around the house like he was nothing. He then put himself on top of Louis and repeatedly punched his face until Claudia jumped on his back to make him stop.
The beating in ep 5 happened (I'm glad the writers didn't erase it because the show would have been a joke to me). Louis was able to give some punches, seeing the state of Lestat face. What happened after, well the scene isn't complete, but we can assume Lestat snapped again and we got the dragged by the bloody neck + the drop. There was this quote by the writers that was saying "Louis will always be seen as a victim" or something similar. A victim can still fight back and be a victim. I believe this is what we are witnessing. So was Lestat a monster? Yes.
I think most have agreed since it aired that the fight happened. The show obscured the fight in the house deliberately, but it was clear it was a back and forth fight. Louis does describe a couple of mutual fights in the first book though that is the only time there is that sort of violence between them in the book series.
The outside portions are what has been most highly questioned for a lot of reasons including it not being from the books, the continuity issues, and the similarities with Lestat and Armand scenes.
That being said, revisiting ep 5 will have to be for a reason. There was no reason to present it the way they did originally and revisit it now when Louis wants all of his true memories back if there isn't going to be new information for Louis that changes something for him. We just have to wait and see exactly what those changes for Louis will be. Narratively, you don't go back to something like that if the story will just be exactly the same and there are no consequences for the person uncovering memories.
None of this is Louis lying about anything either. It is about Louis uncovering the truth for himself and the fallout from that.
Edited to add: The quote from the writer is that Louis will "never be not believable as a victim," which is true because regardless of what is revealed he isn't deliberately lying. [Source](https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/canadian-creators-tease-season-two-of-anne-rice-s-interview-with-the-vampire/article_0a0fbc46-c392-5e5f-aeca-cd951dc2507e.amp.html)
Narratively, to me, the flagrant reason to revisit ep5 is to show Louis' strength which was downplayed in s1. Which comes in handy for s2 aka Louis killing a whole coven of vampires by himself. It shows a valid explanation as to how it was possible for him to do so. Lestat is his maker, a vampire who had the strength to also destroy a coven by himself. And while Louis isn't as powerful as Lestat, he still has enough power to handle random vampires at once.
Regarding the similarities between Armand and Lestat, we will see. I lean more into Lestat has inflicted the same trauma he was put through by Armand to Louis. It is more compelling to me than Armand manipulating Louis' memories. But again we will see.
EDIT: re Lestat and Armand. The drop did happen in Paris so after Louis' drop. My point still stands though about Lestat's trauma. Because of his past traumas/abuse and being stuck in a never ending cycle, he does the same to Louis. This is the only way he knows how to react, cope. I'm against Armand having a hand in every characters memories and manipulating them at will because it's just too on the nose, too easy. Yes, he did use it a couple of times but don't make it a permanent plot point. To me, it shows a lack of effort on the writers part to dump everything on Armand, especially after the beautiful writing of s1 (unless Louis asked him to do it which would be much more interesting to me, but this for another day). So *cross fingers* they give me complexity and stay on track with the compelling story.
The theme of the season is Louis uncovering his real memories though. Both trailers repeated "Memory is the Monster." Louis keeps talking about not remembering things, wanting to remember, wanting to tell the true story. I just don't see how it makes sense to go back to ep 5 to just show him fighting Lestat just to prove Louis is strong. They could do that in ep 1 with Louis killing the revenants that attack them.
As for Armand and Lestat, Armand drinking from Lestat against his will happened when they first met in Paris, but the drop where Armand pushes him out of the tower, which results in Lestat being severely injured, and happened because Lestat doesn't love him (Armand's own words), happens in Paris after Claudia's death.
I don't think Armand messing with Louis' memories is just him being a monster either, though I am not ruling out him wanting to hide exactly what he did to Claudia (and Lestat) from Louis. I do think Armand believes he is helping to protect Louis even if what he is doing is hurting him in the long run.
Jacob Anderson talked in interviews already about Louis in the first book making Lestat out to be a monster because he couldn't cope and couldn't accept Lestat as his great love. He was, strictly speaking, talking about the books, but the interviews were during and after S2 filming, and I think it is very telling if that is how he views the books. The show seems to be giving Louis much better reasons for why he does any of that though, and they are making it about Louis' journey of uncovering the truth for himself and his memories.
I just saw your edit.
I think even Armand's actions are going to be complex. He does terrible things to Claudia, Louis, and Lestat in Paris, and I do think he probably tried to hide the true extent of it from Louis and was hoping eventually he would just "get over" Claudia and Lestat like Armand hopes he will in the books. I think what is going on in the present is more complicated because at the end of the day, Armand does love Louis and Lestat. I think he truly believes that he is helping Louis and possibly protecting him from hurting himself. I don't think his actions are all selfless by any means, but I don't think he is just an evil villain either. The show needs to maintain a balance of main characters doing monstrous things to each other while also making the audience still willing to believe they all love each other in the end and can be happy in each other's lives. It is possible that at some point Louis even asked for some type of help to be able to live with himself and the losses of Claudia and Lestat and the roles he played in those losses.
I have also seen a really compelling theory that Marius was involved with what is going on with Daniel, so while both he and Louis have had their memories messed with, the situations are going to be a bit different. Regardless of who it was who did it, Daniel was about trying to give him a mortal life because they thought it was the right thing to do if Armand was going to continue to refuse to turn him.
Louis never realized the strength he had from his maker until many years later. Lestat drank from Akasha as a fledgling. He is one of the strongest vampires ever created other than the originals.
Amc Lestat is every bit the monster Louis and Claudia said he was. They will try to clean it up though so ppl will be okay liking that loser frenchman. (which they will do anyway)
Book Lestat on the other hand didn't violate nearly as much as his show counterpart, in the books, it was a matter of what each of them found important to emphasize.
I still go with the original Louis interpretation as far as the books go because Anne Rice retconned the story. I side with her original understanding of the story, not the one in which she decided that she wanted Lestat to be someone worth a damn. Unpopular opinion on here, but its mine and I'm sticking to it.
Anne Rice decided to make Louis an unreliable narrator when she developed The Vampire Lestat book. However, this was 40 years ago and 99% of The Vampire Chronicles were developed and written after this. She also put a lot of herself into both Louis and Lestat in the books, so this was her choosing how she wanted to continue the story for herself.
The show has taken this element of the story and expanded on it and given Louis better developed reasons for being unreliable. This was set up in the text of S1 and they have been talking about it in interviews for awhile now.
The first three books set up the basis for the entire vampire chronicles outside of the Prince Lestat trilogy (which retconned the entire Queen of the damned book damn near)
I know Anne had a change of heart about the direction of the story. As a fan though, I disagree with it and believe it did a disservice to her original book which was wildly successful and changed the course of her life as an author. I choose to believe her original interpretation. The retcon is trash. Still enjoy the rest of the books for the other characters. Book lestat is much more tolerable to me than this show version in any regard.
>The show has taken this element of the story and expanded on it and given Louis better developed reasons for being unreliable.
Respectfully, I interpret this move by the AMC writers as “Let’s just call Louis ( & Claudia) a liar and say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about b/c we have to preserve Lestat’s reputation so this show can continue."
The truth of the matter is Anne threw her original main character Louis under the bus, the show proceeded to drive the bus over him then backed up and did it again.
There is nothing that AMC Lestat could do to make me enjoy seeing him on my screen. But I’ll watch for other characters I enjoy like Enkil, Akasha, David, Marius & Pandora.
It’s a weird place to be as a fan but it’s ok. This universe Anne created is so fascinating and i love it still despite my issues with how things go.
I disagree that the Prince Lestat books retconned all of Queen of the Damned. It basically just retconned some of the supernatural elements of the origin story. I can totally understand not liking that element of it, but otherwise I don't think it really affected the characterization of the main characters. Blood Communion kind of moved away from the >!aliens!< A bit anyway and ended more on a note of the vampires are monsters, but they are monsters who deserve to love themselves and be happy.
The way you describe it almost makes it sound like they decided in between seasons that Louis is an unreliable narrator. He was always presented as one in the show though. Ep 5 was always questionable and full of holes that needed to be addressed regardless of how they end up filling those holes and what they ultimately reveal. Ep 7 made it explicitly clear that Louis' memories aren't right and tied Armand to the entire situation. I am certain the goal is for audiences to love and feel for both Louis and Lestat (and Armand and Daniel ultimately as well. Daniel helps make Armand more sympathetic.) They aren't trying to lift Lestat up to make Louis look bad. What happened between them originally was a tragedy, and it was a tragedy that they both caused from their various mistakes, but they don't have to be a tragedy forever.
I think everyone has the right to like whatever characters they do and for whatever reasons they do because they are fictional, but I have to admit that I am a bit confused by your list of characters that you like considering how much you seem to dislike Lestat, especially based on the actions he was presented as doing in S1. Your list of characters you enjoy consist of people who order rape as punishment, want to attempt genocide, and literal groomers. All of the characters do monstrous things though, and that is just part of enjoying this series. I am not judging, but I am curious how you decide which characters you enjoy.
For the record, I don't think they are going to try and say Lestat was actually a perfect husband and father. He just didn't deserve or didn't need to be murdered, and that is why Louis feels so guilty he is imagining Lestat all over Europe and Armand eventually felt the need to intervene in order to try and protect Louis.
>but I have to admit that I am a bit confused by your list of characters that you like considering how much you seem to dislike Lestat, especially based on the actions he was presented as doing in S1. Your list of characters you enjoy consist of people who order rape as punishment, want to attempt genocide, and literal groomers.
By that logic, no should one should like anybody in this series. I also disagree with your assessment of some of those actions (particularly the grooming statement), but its okay. You have your view and I have mine.
>I am not judging, but I am curious how you decide which characters you enjoy.
I decide who I like based on 1. Personality and 2. How they treat other characters they claim to care about and love. 95% of the characters are monsters as you acknowledged. Therefore, **the interpersonal relationships of the characters** is what I love most about the vampire chronicles. So when they violate each other in the way Lestat did Louis (in the show more than the book) it hits harder for a fan like me. I hope that offers some clarification cause I often see the argument of "Well you like other awful characters so how can you dislike lestat so much?"
>I don't think they are going to try and say Lestat was actually a perfect husband and father. He just didn't deserve or didn't need to be murdered, and that is why Louis feels so guilty he is imagining Lestat all over Europe
Unfortunately, DV victims often have survivors guilt and a form of Stockholm syndrome. Louis wishes things could have been different. Also we have to acknowledge that since Lestat is Louis's vampiric maker-- Louis is drawn to Lestat whether he wants to be or not. Its sad. Thats why he's thinking of Lestat all over Europe. What he did to Lestat was more than appropriate considering the hell Lestat put him and Claudia through during the latter part of their time in Louisiana.
The good times don't outweigh the abuse. At least in my view. Maybe it does in yours, I don't judge you for believing so if that's the case.
I absolutely agree that it is much more difficult to see characters hurt someone they love and that does make a difference. I just see a lot of comments from people that seem to specifically hate Lestat for a lot of seemingly real world reasons no matter what he does or is revealed about him or how much Louis himself loves Lestat.
(On a different note, I don't hate Marius, but I would be curious to see the argument that he did not groom Armand. He engaged in sexual acts with a child that he literally bought.)
I really believe the show is going to settle on Lestat and Louis both having hurt each other and made terrible mistakes that they both need to work on just like in the books. They both made mistakes with Claudia as well, though she also isn't just a victim (see her diary entries from Merrick). Louis isn't just a Stockholm Syndrome victim who just wants to believe Lestat wasn't as bad as he was. To me, that actually takes away more of Louis' agency and complexity. Loustat aren't going to immediately fall into each other's arms with a revelation they had a perfect marriage or something. They both have issues and traumas and they both have a lot of self-loathing to deal with. However, I also don't believe the rest of the show is going to be about Louis forgiving his abuser. Granted, there are arcs in the books that involve characters loving and forgiving their abusers, but I completely disagree that one of these is Loustat. Jacob Anderson's take on the books is that Louis made Lestat into a monster in his narrative because he couldn't cope, and the show seems to be shaping up to be the same way though with Armand added in to play a role in it.
I am pretty sure he is just Lestat's little stalker. They already established that Magnus is Lestat's maker. Armand wouldn't turn him anyway because he has vowed never to make another. Armand only has one fledgling ever, and it is a major plot point.
Oh interesting, but I think that's just underground coven Armand getting a peek into actor Lestat during his time at the Paris theater before he is abducted by Magnus.
I hate everyone, including Anne Rice, twisting the narrative to exonerate Lestat and absolve him of all the horror and torment he caused Louis and Claudia just because people find Lestat entertaining.
Anne Rice made that change for herself though. Louis and Lestat are basically different parts of her (along with Lestat being a bit of her husband). The show also didn't just decide to change directions because Lestat is entertaining. The fact that things were off in the narrative was built into the text of S1. This was always the plan. It doesn't mean Lestat was the perfect husband and father by any means, but he also wasn't a villainous monster either.
This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed." This means book spoilers **do not require** spoiler tags! If you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InterviewVampire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like how the show has found a way to make Anne Rice's conflicting depictions of events in the first and subsequent books (based on Louis and Lestat's perspectives and narratives) an actual plot in the show. But blaming it all on Armand? Now, that's cold. Not like the covetous wretch doesn't deserve it ...
I truly think it’s such a fun way to work in the very disparate depictions of Lestat from Interview vs TVL and QotD. I mean don’t get me wrong, he’s still the brat prince, but he’s def a different guy in books two and three.
I think, understandably, we all feel concerned about the facts of what physically went on during the fight & about how it will be handled that there was violence & it wasn’t the whole truth without making Louis seem a liar… The revisit will show what really happened of course. But most important will be how we feel about it. So a big thing will be how it ends & how things are left. A big difference will be it absolutely won’t end with an utterly broken body of Louis on the ground, while a pristinely uninjured Lestat hovers, seemingly uncaring: like an Evil Avenging Angel. No: we will feel what’s between Lestat & Louis very differently. I’m just relieved we can see it 100% is going to be revisited now. Because, I think we would all agree - the way we saw things so far is absolutely not ok! Some points: - All of the vampires are monsters. They all exist in shades of grey and all have bad and good to them. There will be no 'one good vampire' and no 'entirely evil vampire' and their psychological complexity is the entire point. - The point of retelling events is not to portray Louis as a liar. The retelling is FOR Louis. For Louis to uncover his own truth. - On the above note, Lestat isn't telling the story in S2, so we are not getting "Louis said", "Lestat said" - The eventual place the story is going to is for us to love both Louis and Lestat both as individual beings and together, so whatever is told needs to serve their arc, and in terms of Lestat we need to reach a place whereby he will be the more main protagonist in a S3 (hopefully!) TVL, though excitingly, I am sure there will be much more Louis than in TVL - In terms of events, I'm pretty sure the bit in the trailer here is immediately after Lestat pins Claudia by the throat because we hear but don't see fighting in S1E5 at that point - BUT the point of the retelling will be to alter how Louis feels about himself, about Lestat, about Claudia, about his feelings towards Claudia and Lestat and theirs to him. And how we feel about it all. So what matters most is where were they at the end of all this? - And then, does the truth of what actually happened in E5 have impact in a different way on E7? Does it alter if Lestat needed to be murdered? And what actually happened there? If the show wants its audience to feel as Anne Rice wanted her audience to feel from Interview with the Vampire (& that’s totally without any future context from any later books from Lestat’s perspective), you shouldn’t feel like Lestat has to die or that he deserves to die. Not to say that you should be sobbing that he is attacked either! Just that you should have complicated feelings about it & a nagging sense that it was a terrible, horrific wrong… I don't think in the TV show it will be Louis having repressed his memories. I think it has shown now that Armand has altered Louis' and Daniel's memories in some way. I think he will have partially done it for them both and partially it will be for self-serving reasons. With Daniel, I think Armand will only have the options: kill Daniel, turn Daniel into a vampire, keep Daniel mortal. Since Armand chooses to keep him mortal there is then only the option either to leave Daniel his memories and he will be mad and likely die anyway or to alter his memories. So Armand will be trying to give Daniel a mortal life in the only way he can by altering his memories. (Of course, he could have turned him!) With Louis, I imagine it's quite a complex mix: Louis could even be suicidal if he has guilt over Lestat (I’d say &/or Claudia except that Armand has left Louis with guilt around Claudia, soooo.) He is clearly haunted by Lestat. Or it could be that Armand just needs Lestat out of Louis' mind as he needs Louis as fully his. Armand's role in Claudia's demise and Armand's feelings, actions, history and experiences with Lestat also play into it all. I think motivations are somewhat different to the books, but I hope the show will get to a similar place. In the books, Louis' narrative is impacted by the fact that he was only drinking the blood of animals as a new vampire, which leaves him in a bad place mentally (surviving on the blood of animals isn't used the same way on the TV show though.) And it's also affected by repressing and disguising his feelings towards Lestat for the purposes of the interview, which he no longer does in 2022. And there's obviously the impact of guilt & shame Louis feels (about many things!) Louis' feelings for Lestat gradually, occasionally reveal themselves in the second half of even of Interview with the Vampire itself though and Anne Rice said she already knew before completing Interview that Lestat's story would be different. "Lestat sprang to life in the corner of my eye, an antagonist of tremendous seductive power, who truly did take on a life of his own as I was focusing on Louis and his tragic tale in "Interview With the Vampire." By the time the book ended, I had it in my mind that Lestat would have an entirely different interpretation of events and maybe someday I could explore that. But eight years passed before I did. Lestat was very much based on my husband, Stan, on Stan's physicality — Stan being a lithe, athletic man of great strength and self-confidence and also an atheist who shook his fist at the stars. But Lestat really became Lestat. And you could say, by the time the second book was finished, Lestat was me." It's added to, when we learn about Lestat by elements such as we know Lestat has been told by Marius that if he tells his fledglings any knowledge at all, Marius will kill them, so Lestat has to withhold. And then, after literally every circumstance of Lestat's life, he has learned he is *too much* and so he is afraid to verbalise some of his big feelings, due to what he has perceived is the result of that (people abandoning him, hating him, driven to madness, killing themselves.) Anyway, I just hope we're all happy when we've watched S2. It's going to be emotional! We know that!
I just wanted to say thank you for this well explained post.
Thank you so much 😊. That means a lot, both as I felt a bit confused writing it 🫣 & as your posts are always so helpful & well thought out.
I think Louis' memories have been tampered with to protect him from his grief and his guilt. Armand is not innocent in any way, of course, and we don't know how much Louis actually knows about what Armand did to Claudia and Lestat in Paris so there are also selfish reasons for him to mess with the truth, but I do think in the modern day setting he believes he is protecting Louis from himself. Louis' memories are currently a version of events that are meant to make it easier for him to mourn Lestat and Claudia, but it isn't helping him in the long run, and it isn't working.
That makes sense. Book Louis was tortured to his very soul. Deeply unhappy. I was maybe 11 when I read Interview, and the difference between Interview and Lestat blew my pre teen mind. I thought Lestat was horrible, until I read his version of events. Memories really do mess with you sometimes, especially a looooong life like this.
I have a feeling were going to get a very different version of Lestat this season away from the Louis version that's obviously been tampered with.
We still do not have the full scene. But from the glimpse we got in this trailer, I presume Louis fought back behind that wall in S1 when Louis was reassuring Claudia "that everything was ok, stay back". This new scene/angle doesn't change anything for me. It's still Lestat choked Claudia and Louis intervened to defend her. People seems to forget that just before they disappeared behind that wall, Lestat was throwing Louis around the house like he was nothing. He then put himself on top of Louis and repeatedly punched his face until Claudia jumped on his back to make him stop. The beating in ep 5 happened (I'm glad the writers didn't erase it because the show would have been a joke to me). Louis was able to give some punches, seeing the state of Lestat face. What happened after, well the scene isn't complete, but we can assume Lestat snapped again and we got the dragged by the bloody neck + the drop. There was this quote by the writers that was saying "Louis will always be seen as a victim" or something similar. A victim can still fight back and be a victim. I believe this is what we are witnessing. So was Lestat a monster? Yes.
I think most have agreed since it aired that the fight happened. The show obscured the fight in the house deliberately, but it was clear it was a back and forth fight. Louis does describe a couple of mutual fights in the first book though that is the only time there is that sort of violence between them in the book series. The outside portions are what has been most highly questioned for a lot of reasons including it not being from the books, the continuity issues, and the similarities with Lestat and Armand scenes. That being said, revisiting ep 5 will have to be for a reason. There was no reason to present it the way they did originally and revisit it now when Louis wants all of his true memories back if there isn't going to be new information for Louis that changes something for him. We just have to wait and see exactly what those changes for Louis will be. Narratively, you don't go back to something like that if the story will just be exactly the same and there are no consequences for the person uncovering memories. None of this is Louis lying about anything either. It is about Louis uncovering the truth for himself and the fallout from that. Edited to add: The quote from the writer is that Louis will "never be not believable as a victim," which is true because regardless of what is revealed he isn't deliberately lying. [Source](https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/canadian-creators-tease-season-two-of-anne-rice-s-interview-with-the-vampire/article_0a0fbc46-c392-5e5f-aeca-cd951dc2507e.amp.html)
Narratively, to me, the flagrant reason to revisit ep5 is to show Louis' strength which was downplayed in s1. Which comes in handy for s2 aka Louis killing a whole coven of vampires by himself. It shows a valid explanation as to how it was possible for him to do so. Lestat is his maker, a vampire who had the strength to also destroy a coven by himself. And while Louis isn't as powerful as Lestat, he still has enough power to handle random vampires at once. Regarding the similarities between Armand and Lestat, we will see. I lean more into Lestat has inflicted the same trauma he was put through by Armand to Louis. It is more compelling to me than Armand manipulating Louis' memories. But again we will see. EDIT: re Lestat and Armand. The drop did happen in Paris so after Louis' drop. My point still stands though about Lestat's trauma. Because of his past traumas/abuse and being stuck in a never ending cycle, he does the same to Louis. This is the only way he knows how to react, cope. I'm against Armand having a hand in every characters memories and manipulating them at will because it's just too on the nose, too easy. Yes, he did use it a couple of times but don't make it a permanent plot point. To me, it shows a lack of effort on the writers part to dump everything on Armand, especially after the beautiful writing of s1 (unless Louis asked him to do it which would be much more interesting to me, but this for another day). So *cross fingers* they give me complexity and stay on track with the compelling story.
The theme of the season is Louis uncovering his real memories though. Both trailers repeated "Memory is the Monster." Louis keeps talking about not remembering things, wanting to remember, wanting to tell the true story. I just don't see how it makes sense to go back to ep 5 to just show him fighting Lestat just to prove Louis is strong. They could do that in ep 1 with Louis killing the revenants that attack them. As for Armand and Lestat, Armand drinking from Lestat against his will happened when they first met in Paris, but the drop where Armand pushes him out of the tower, which results in Lestat being severely injured, and happened because Lestat doesn't love him (Armand's own words), happens in Paris after Claudia's death. I don't think Armand messing with Louis' memories is just him being a monster either, though I am not ruling out him wanting to hide exactly what he did to Claudia (and Lestat) from Louis. I do think Armand believes he is helping to protect Louis even if what he is doing is hurting him in the long run. Jacob Anderson talked in interviews already about Louis in the first book making Lestat out to be a monster because he couldn't cope and couldn't accept Lestat as his great love. He was, strictly speaking, talking about the books, but the interviews were during and after S2 filming, and I think it is very telling if that is how he views the books. The show seems to be giving Louis much better reasons for why he does any of that though, and they are making it about Louis' journey of uncovering the truth for himself and his memories.
I just saw your edit. I think even Armand's actions are going to be complex. He does terrible things to Claudia, Louis, and Lestat in Paris, and I do think he probably tried to hide the true extent of it from Louis and was hoping eventually he would just "get over" Claudia and Lestat like Armand hopes he will in the books. I think what is going on in the present is more complicated because at the end of the day, Armand does love Louis and Lestat. I think he truly believes that he is helping Louis and possibly protecting him from hurting himself. I don't think his actions are all selfless by any means, but I don't think he is just an evil villain either. The show needs to maintain a balance of main characters doing monstrous things to each other while also making the audience still willing to believe they all love each other in the end and can be happy in each other's lives. It is possible that at some point Louis even asked for some type of help to be able to live with himself and the losses of Claudia and Lestat and the roles he played in those losses. I have also seen a really compelling theory that Marius was involved with what is going on with Daniel, so while both he and Louis have had their memories messed with, the situations are going to be a bit different. Regardless of who it was who did it, Daniel was about trying to give him a mortal life because they thought it was the right thing to do if Armand was going to continue to refuse to turn him.
Louis never realized the strength he had from his maker until many years later. Lestat drank from Akasha as a fledgling. He is one of the strongest vampires ever created other than the originals.
What if Armand is swapping Louis’ trauma with Letsat’s, dropping people is an Armand typa thing
Amc Lestat is every bit the monster Louis and Claudia said he was. They will try to clean it up though so ppl will be okay liking that loser frenchman. (which they will do anyway) Book Lestat on the other hand didn't violate nearly as much as his show counterpart, in the books, it was a matter of what each of them found important to emphasize. I still go with the original Louis interpretation as far as the books go because Anne Rice retconned the story. I side with her original understanding of the story, not the one in which she decided that she wanted Lestat to be someone worth a damn. Unpopular opinion on here, but its mine and I'm sticking to it.
I agree with every word you said. I don't even like book Lestat, I read for the other characters.
What book did she do the retcon?
The vampire Lestat
Anne Rice decided to make Louis an unreliable narrator when she developed The Vampire Lestat book. However, this was 40 years ago and 99% of The Vampire Chronicles were developed and written after this. She also put a lot of herself into both Louis and Lestat in the books, so this was her choosing how she wanted to continue the story for herself. The show has taken this element of the story and expanded on it and given Louis better developed reasons for being unreliable. This was set up in the text of S1 and they have been talking about it in interviews for awhile now.
The first three books set up the basis for the entire vampire chronicles outside of the Prince Lestat trilogy (which retconned the entire Queen of the damned book damn near) I know Anne had a change of heart about the direction of the story. As a fan though, I disagree with it and believe it did a disservice to her original book which was wildly successful and changed the course of her life as an author. I choose to believe her original interpretation. The retcon is trash. Still enjoy the rest of the books for the other characters. Book lestat is much more tolerable to me than this show version in any regard. >The show has taken this element of the story and expanded on it and given Louis better developed reasons for being unreliable. Respectfully, I interpret this move by the AMC writers as “Let’s just call Louis ( & Claudia) a liar and say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about b/c we have to preserve Lestat’s reputation so this show can continue." The truth of the matter is Anne threw her original main character Louis under the bus, the show proceeded to drive the bus over him then backed up and did it again. There is nothing that AMC Lestat could do to make me enjoy seeing him on my screen. But I’ll watch for other characters I enjoy like Enkil, Akasha, David, Marius & Pandora. It’s a weird place to be as a fan but it’s ok. This universe Anne created is so fascinating and i love it still despite my issues with how things go.
I disagree that the Prince Lestat books retconned all of Queen of the Damned. It basically just retconned some of the supernatural elements of the origin story. I can totally understand not liking that element of it, but otherwise I don't think it really affected the characterization of the main characters. Blood Communion kind of moved away from the >!aliens!< A bit anyway and ended more on a note of the vampires are monsters, but they are monsters who deserve to love themselves and be happy. The way you describe it almost makes it sound like they decided in between seasons that Louis is an unreliable narrator. He was always presented as one in the show though. Ep 5 was always questionable and full of holes that needed to be addressed regardless of how they end up filling those holes and what they ultimately reveal. Ep 7 made it explicitly clear that Louis' memories aren't right and tied Armand to the entire situation. I am certain the goal is for audiences to love and feel for both Louis and Lestat (and Armand and Daniel ultimately as well. Daniel helps make Armand more sympathetic.) They aren't trying to lift Lestat up to make Louis look bad. What happened between them originally was a tragedy, and it was a tragedy that they both caused from their various mistakes, but they don't have to be a tragedy forever. I think everyone has the right to like whatever characters they do and for whatever reasons they do because they are fictional, but I have to admit that I am a bit confused by your list of characters that you like considering how much you seem to dislike Lestat, especially based on the actions he was presented as doing in S1. Your list of characters you enjoy consist of people who order rape as punishment, want to attempt genocide, and literal groomers. All of the characters do monstrous things though, and that is just part of enjoying this series. I am not judging, but I am curious how you decide which characters you enjoy. For the record, I don't think they are going to try and say Lestat was actually a perfect husband and father. He just didn't deserve or didn't need to be murdered, and that is why Louis feels so guilty he is imagining Lestat all over Europe and Armand eventually felt the need to intervene in order to try and protect Louis.
>but I have to admit that I am a bit confused by your list of characters that you like considering how much you seem to dislike Lestat, especially based on the actions he was presented as doing in S1. Your list of characters you enjoy consist of people who order rape as punishment, want to attempt genocide, and literal groomers. By that logic, no should one should like anybody in this series. I also disagree with your assessment of some of those actions (particularly the grooming statement), but its okay. You have your view and I have mine. >I am not judging, but I am curious how you decide which characters you enjoy. I decide who I like based on 1. Personality and 2. How they treat other characters they claim to care about and love. 95% of the characters are monsters as you acknowledged. Therefore, **the interpersonal relationships of the characters** is what I love most about the vampire chronicles. So when they violate each other in the way Lestat did Louis (in the show more than the book) it hits harder for a fan like me. I hope that offers some clarification cause I often see the argument of "Well you like other awful characters so how can you dislike lestat so much?" >I don't think they are going to try and say Lestat was actually a perfect husband and father. He just didn't deserve or didn't need to be murdered, and that is why Louis feels so guilty he is imagining Lestat all over Europe Unfortunately, DV victims often have survivors guilt and a form of Stockholm syndrome. Louis wishes things could have been different. Also we have to acknowledge that since Lestat is Louis's vampiric maker-- Louis is drawn to Lestat whether he wants to be or not. Its sad. Thats why he's thinking of Lestat all over Europe. What he did to Lestat was more than appropriate considering the hell Lestat put him and Claudia through during the latter part of their time in Louisiana. The good times don't outweigh the abuse. At least in my view. Maybe it does in yours, I don't judge you for believing so if that's the case.
I absolutely agree that it is much more difficult to see characters hurt someone they love and that does make a difference. I just see a lot of comments from people that seem to specifically hate Lestat for a lot of seemingly real world reasons no matter what he does or is revealed about him or how much Louis himself loves Lestat. (On a different note, I don't hate Marius, but I would be curious to see the argument that he did not groom Armand. He engaged in sexual acts with a child that he literally bought.) I really believe the show is going to settle on Lestat and Louis both having hurt each other and made terrible mistakes that they both need to work on just like in the books. They both made mistakes with Claudia as well, though she also isn't just a victim (see her diary entries from Merrick). Louis isn't just a Stockholm Syndrome victim who just wants to believe Lestat wasn't as bad as he was. To me, that actually takes away more of Louis' agency and complexity. Loustat aren't going to immediately fall into each other's arms with a revelation they had a perfect marriage or something. They both have issues and traumas and they both have a lot of self-loathing to deal with. However, I also don't believe the rest of the show is going to be about Louis forgiving his abuser. Granted, there are arcs in the books that involve characters loving and forgiving their abusers, but I completely disagree that one of these is Loustat. Jacob Anderson's take on the books is that Louis made Lestat into a monster in his narrative because he couldn't cope, and the show seems to be shaping up to be the same way though with Armand added in to play a role in it.
The fact that Armand watches Lestat act...I don't want him to be his maker...But can we really trust Armand?
I am pretty sure he is just Lestat's little stalker. They already established that Magnus is Lestat's maker. Armand wouldn't turn him anyway because he has vowed never to make another. Armand only has one fledgling ever, and it is a major plot point.
Oh interesting, but I think that's just underground coven Armand getting a peek into actor Lestat during his time at the Paris theater before he is abducted by Magnus.
I hate everyone, including Anne Rice, twisting the narrative to exonerate Lestat and absolve him of all the horror and torment he caused Louis and Claudia just because people find Lestat entertaining.
Anne Rice made that change for herself though. Louis and Lestat are basically different parts of her (along with Lestat being a bit of her husband). The show also didn't just decide to change directions because Lestat is entertaining. The fact that things were off in the narrative was built into the text of S1. This was always the plan. It doesn't mean Lestat was the perfect husband and father by any means, but he also wasn't a villainous monster either.