we'll ruin each other like star crossed lovers

[gracerings]

the insane thing about the babytrapping storyline in iwtv is that neither louis nor lestat were actually trapping the other because neither of them really wanted to leave and the only one who ended up truly trapped was the baby herself

[charliewrites99]

I can't stop thinking how it would be like if Lestat had his interview with Daniel instead of Louis:

"He was the most beautiful man I've ever seen. He also hated himself, which always helps."

"And then he accused me of killing his brother. As if I didn't wait respectful three days after his death to ask Louis back to my bed."

"His mother was hateful. I could smell it. Great fashion sense though. Dark green was in season at the time."

"I turned him in a church. It was...Oh Daniel, the English language fails to capture the picture. Mainly because it's a garbage language."

"He was really freaking out about the baby, like they can't make a new one."

"And then he went into the woods with him. Like a common prostitute."

"So, Daniel, wanna fuck?"

"Naturally Claudia was an ungratefull little brat, who would be nothing without me. But she at least hunted people, which was more than what Louis was doing. Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to live with a vampire who hunts vermin? Like a glorified house cat. Which he also ate. I was disgusted and yet I never judged him for it."

"I record one duet and suddenly I am cheating. I mean I was and he did catch me in bed with her, but he was such an over-reacter Daniel I am telling you."

"She didn't want to finish THE GAME?!!! Who does that?!! What kind of self-absorbed, inffuriating- NO I WILL NOT CALM DOWN!!!! *French cursing*"

"So, I turned her into a vampire. In retrospect it was a waste of time and blood. She lasted like two months. And ugh, the attitude."

"Louis cried, he still loved me I could see it. I could feel it. Claudia just used me as an ink bottle. I had to respect the commitment. Follow through was something Louis always strugled with."

"No, but seriously Daniel, I think we should fuck."

"And he put me in a light oak coffin that opened from the inside. After I specifically requested Rosewood. I know it was Claudia's doing."

"In the end *dramatic pause* I ate the rats. When I was younger I thought I would rather have been dead than to stoop so low, but here we were."

"I miss him Daniel, he was the reason I wanted to survive. Claudia hopefully perished in Central Europe somewhere. With her mismatched skirts."

"I won't turn you, but I can give you a night you won't forget until the end of you pathetic little human existance. You can top I don't care."

[shinka]

When Louis narrates this whole passage about Paris but it’s actually about Lestat…… then you’ll see

[lestatdelioncoeur]

Louis told Lestat!

The king's heir has betrayed the king.

It was word play, a pun, referencing Claudia's plan. As Lestat put it:

[showmey0urfangs]

IWTV full HD logoless posters

[alibraryofconfusion]

[lioncunt]

why was anne bothering to write bad sex scenes when this existed

[nalyra-dreaming]

Okay so it's probably been said before but it's been rattling around my head, there's a lot of talk about how can louis ever forgive lestat and how can they ever be endgame after the dv of ep 5, but I think that's the point? These 2 are disgusting to one another but they end up together anyway, the bond, their love, transcends mortal morals. One beat the other, one murdered the other(i dont see this second one brought up half as much as i should), as humans we cannot begin to understand how to get past that and for me it's okay.

Perhaps we just have to trust the characters to make their own choices and remember when consuming this type of media monsters are inherently different, they don't follow the same thought process like we do, no matter that louis seems to, he's still one of those monsters at the end of the day!

I'll stop rambling now, that's probably not even coherent 😂

Hey dear! Well... the show (or Louis!) did their/his damnest to make sure that Lestat's killing was justified. :)) And that right there is the crux of it all I think, and that which Daniel has already started to call out in the last episode... it... probably?^^... wasn't. And in the book Louis slowly came to realize that and HERE he also had a few decades to reflect. (Totally apart from Armand.) And yes, for us as humans... this is likely not a relationship that could be saved. But then anyone with a cut throat probably is beyond saving already, and a beating like that, and a fall like that. Oh, and killing every night. You know. But they are vampires. And eternally connected, yes. And that does, totally apart from what we've been shown, change things. Louis can forgive Lestat imho (eventually) because he

a) will learn a few harsh truths still and

b) will learn a lot about the whys of Lestat's behavior. Even if he didn't... (how do I put it) embellish there for reasons.

As the audience will, too. As the book readers did, too. The show is simply following the books here, and I for one really wouldn't worry^^. None of the vampires in the Vampire Chronicles are saints... not even Louis, even though Lestat calls him that. He almost killed Daniel back then for being "disrespectful" (and Armand stopped him lol). Just sayin' :) And yes - art (any kind) is meant to challenge us. Too often in modern media it is all neatly put into boxes already, no thought processes needed. Easy peasy. 'Here's your moralistic summary, now go and be a good boy.' This show is - luckily - different. And if they continue to follow the books - they will continue to be.

[cbrownjc]

I’ve been thinking about this book that amc-Daniel wrote about the growing AIDS crisis. The back blurb says it was first published as a running series on Kaposi Sarcoma during the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, which was before it was even called AIDS. Which means Daniel would have been in his late-20s at the time when writing about it (circa 1981). 

This means that Daniel was writing a running series for some newspaper (or maybe multiple papers) about this illness that seemed to be infecting only gay men (which is what was thought about the disease at the time - the original name for AIDS was GRID: “gay-related immune deficiency.”) Given how Daniel frequented gay bars, plus lived in both San Fransisco and New York, he might have even known a person or two who contracted it.  

If Devil’s Minion did happen in the past (and the hints even from the showrunners and cast is that it did), and it happened for the same length of time that it did in the books, then that also means Daniel was still writing, and was specifically writing a lot about this topic, even when he was entangled with Armand (and possibly Louis as well too in the show’s version of it). 

[cbrownjc]

@shinka tags:

Also, if you look at the LinkedIn page the show set up for Daniel, he attended UC Berkeley, but he never graduated. He was likely in either his second or third year of college in 1973, and then it looks like he dropped out. The only degree he has is an honorary Master’s Degree from Columbia.

At the moment, it looks like Daniel’s life got wrapped up with vampires (i.e., Armand and possibly Louis, too) for the remainder of the 1970s. And then, in June of 1981, he started writing again, specifically about what turned out to be HIV/AIDS. 

Also, history-wise, the first news report about the disease was in May 1981, with the first clinical report about it in June 1981.

IIRC, in the books, The Devil’s Minion happened between 1973 to 1984/86 or something like that. It was around 12 years in total.   

[gracerings]

amc iwtv cast truly a cast of all time: you have the australian vampire-obsessed blond guy who performed a frankly incomparable yassification on himself where he went from looking like the most Just Some Guy ever to the most insane cunt-serving limp-wristed bisexual slut the likes of which tv had never before seen; the british guy who took a somewhat dull character and made him the most depressed doe-eyed toxic-men-magnet meow meow on earth giving a lot of people several types of different complexes; the older guy who has apparently decided to larp as his own character and reveal increasingly more insane pieces of lore about his own life with every new interview he gives and who also appears to harbor genuine enthusiasm for the psychosexual gay relationship his character is likely to have in the future with a guy half his age; and the cutest girl on earth who’s probably the only (mostly) normal one

[emeraldinerosefaedragon]

Armand is definitely one of my least favorite characters but Assad is such bby that’s adorable!

[viciousland]

Tumblr needs to put some respect on my girl Bailey. That kid read the book and put Rory Gilmore to shame with the amount of notes she took, vlogged the whole iwtv filming process, shed light to cast and crew, designed fang rings for Sam, Jacob and herself, helped Carol (who I think is the costume designer) gift Sam, a heart locket with the photos of Sam and Jacob, took the weirdest looking crystal ball I’ve seen ever, from set and had a physical Claudia-like reaction to the infamous “the love of my life” scene. She is as insane as her on-screen parents. RESPECT!

[actual-bisexual-trash]

Another important addition:

[purplebowties]

A few thoughts

The past few days in this fandom have been absolutely exhausting, depressing, disappointing and overall frustrating. I do need to get some stuff off my chest, and though I've already said something on Twitter, I want to elaborate further on how much the fandom is absolutely ruing the experience of the show for me.

Firstly, and foremost, I am a longstanding Lestat fan and a Loustat shipper. I do not, in any way, feel the need to apologize for this. However, I do feel extremely uncomfortable right now in the fandom, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one experiencing such emotions. Though by now I hardly ever interact with people on social media, I like reading what fandoms think and how they perceive things. To me, sharing passion and opinions has always been an essential part of the deal of loving a piece of media and, after years of very bad experiences, I truly thought this specific fandom was a safe place. I mainly thought this because I'm very familiar with the books and books canon, and I thought people were entirely prepared for morally corrupt characters and dark, though extremely fascinating, stories and relationships. I understood after episode 5 that this was definitely not the case. I accepted that and tried to move on. But the past few days, ever since it was revealed that Season 3 is planning to cover The Vampire Lestat, have been unbearable. It personally didn't happen to me, cause I hardly ever join discourse, but it hurt to see Lestat's fans shamed and put down, if not totally vilified, for the simple reason they rejoiced in the idea of finally seeing the book adapted and of finally getting Lestat's point of view. Though on one side I get the fact people fear Louis will have a less prominent role, on the other hand, I do feel confident Louis will keep on being a main character. It's been repeatedly stated and confirmed and there are several ways in which Louis can maintain his undeniable importance even in an adaptation of The Vampire Lestat. I also scarcely manage to understand why people did not see this coming: Lestat has been the most important and iconic character of this saga for decades. Furthermore, this is a saga based on the concept of the unreliable narrator: the natural progression of the story is to have Lestat's point of view of the events, in order to get a full picture of them. Lestat was always going to find his way on the main stage and tell us his story. It all fits within the essence of canon.

I do get Lestat can be an uncomfortable character to like or love, and I understand the show is portraying him in a very villainous light. There are several reasons why this choice was made: firstly, Louis and Claudia are unreliable narrators and their memories of Lestat are not necessarily accurate - most of the time, they aren't. Whatever Louis is telling us, it's bound to be a romanticized version of Lestat, and I use the term romanticized to mean that Louis is exaggerating everything about Lestat: because memory works like that; because remembering him in such a flamboyant way makes it easier for him to deal with his own guilt; because in picturing Lestat as a monster, Louis is also protecting his memory of Claudia. It's impossible to know for sure what actually happened between Louis, Lestat, and Claudia right now, because we only have one heavily edited point of view and because the narration has been cut in a half. Not to mention the fact Armand might have a key role in the way Louis remembers and tells things. Armand has the power to manipulate thoughts and memories, and canonically uses it to achieve his goals. It's a dynamic that must and will be explored and could change a lot in the way we perceive Louis' story. This is not, by any means, an attempt to denigrate Armand. I adore Armand. Being a sucker for tragic characters, how can I not love him? But I won't pretend he's a positive character because it fits the narrative of Lestat being the sole and only villain better, especially because it wouldn't be fair to Armand - or to Lestat, or to Louis.

But even with all this put aside and ignored, even if Lestat turns out to be exactly how Louis has depicted him (and it's one hell of an if), people still have the right and the choice to love him. Nothing, absolutely nothing, allows you to judge people and bully them, and shame them, and guilt trap them, over their preference for a fictional character. It's simply not justifiable. Here's a refreshing take: not everybody thinks of fiction as moral guidance. Not everyone needs their favorite characters to be positive, heroic, and ethical. Not everyone wants to see their favorite characters react to trauma (and Lestat carries boulders of it on his back) in healthy and pretty and acceptable ways. Some of us love anti-heroes, anti-villains, or simply villains. In different occasions, and sometimes even in the same moment, Lestat is all of the above. People who love him know it, and love him still - in spite of it or even because of it. That is FINE.

Lestat does not exist. And because he is a fictional character, he can absolutely be redeemed: it only takes a creative choice to do that. It's how fiction works. I do think Lestat will face a long and painful redemption arc, but I also do not see it as an absolute necessity. Redemption arcs are just one possible narrative choice. A character doesn't necessarily need to be redeemed for people to love them, to function better as people or to function better within relationships. Though it might not be the case, Louis and Lestat could choose to be fucked up together. Louis' journey might be a corruption arc. Again, we're too early on in the series to make assumptions about this. Choices will be made regarding this point, and viewers will decide what to do with them.

Which includes feeling uncomfortable watching Lestat. That's legit. Lestat, as I mentioned, is an uncomfortable character, and a rollercoaster of ups and downs. However, though he might be louder and unapologetic and dramatic, he is not the only one in the saga. Every single character in the saga is extremely problematic, tragic, and dark. That obviously includes Louis and Claudia. By refusing to see them as fully rounded characters, by reducing them to the role of tragic victims, by not accepting the possibility that their intentions, their reactions, and their actions might not be one-layered, you end up misinterpreting them and missing out on the satisfying journey that it is to love them with their contradictions, negative impulses, and darkness. This is a story about vampires and vampires are monsters. Rice's vampires especially struggle with their monstrous nature and face existential crises, and that is extremely interesting if explored in the correct manner, which really requires taking off the moral glasses and embracing these stories as the tragedies they are. The Vampire Chronicles are not about who's evil and who's not, they're not even about degrees of evilness. They most certainly aren't about who "deserves" to be with whom, and they are not about who "deserves" redemption. By real-life standards, none of them can be saved, redeemed, or involved in a relationship. This is not, however, real life. This is fiction, fiction about monstrous, semi immortal creatures with supernatural abilities.

So, please do not be mean towards Lestat's fans and Loustat shippers. Please be kind. Please don't try to discipline people over how they are supposed to enjoy fiction. Many of us find escapism in fiction. To many, fictional stories are a happy place - and often the only one. Discussions and different opinions are always welcome, but do not, at any time, give in to the urge of putting people in a corner and accuse them of vile things because they love a certain character or a certain relationship. Everybody is allowed to love and hate, to feel triggered, uncomfortable, or ecstatic and full of passion. Nobody, however, is justified to call people out because of their appreciation of a character. It's fiction. You can enjoy it or not, you can watch it or not, you can criticize it or defend it, analyze it or decide it's just not for you. You do not get to turn fandom, which is supposed to be a safe and welcoming place, into a toxic and suffocating environment.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Thank you.

Personally I haven’t seen much hate and apparently I‘m lucky in that. To anyone feeling the need to come at anyone for shipping - this is the wrong fandom.

The books literally have everything and the kitchen sink in them and as has been said all the characters are problematic and the show doesn’t even try to soften the blows, so far at least. And I, personally, admire them for it.

The coming seasons will be very uncomfortable imho for those who try to reduce the characters to good or evil. And fail to factor the narrative choices in.

And… if you hate on people for getting excited that The Vampire Lestat is likely getting adapted… the books have been around for decades. Check out the Wiki page, please.

Or ask. My DMs and asks are open.

[clowndensation]

louis is going down as one of the characters of all time btw. there's something about characters who are so deeply repressed in every facet of their lives continuously fighting for happiness, yet ultimately unable to achieve that happiness because they've denied themselves for so long that they no longer know what they actually want vs what they've convinced themselves to chase.

and it's fascinating, because that's so clear in the way that louis conceptualizes happiness by fighting for the things previously denied to him; the spectre of his perceived failures as a human haunt him and preclude the possibility at any new lease on happiness in the future. he wants to buy the fairplay because he links success with respect, and respect with fulfillment: the idea that as soon as his (white) peers are forced to admit he's a better businessman than them, he'll be happy. except he isn't happy, because there is no goal post at which point they'll accept he's smarter or more capable than them, and so instead he's forced back into a game that will never fulfill him, no matter how powerful or capable he becomes.

and then he tries to build a family, tries to surround himself with people who he can care for and who he can have a positive impact on, building connections for himself and bringing meaning to his life. which also doesn't work, because he's simultaneously haunting and haunted by his human family, and there's no way for him to reconcile what he's lost with what he's gained. he wants grace, and he could have grace, but he's spent his entire life knowing that every facet of himself is unacceptable to society, that he can't admit what he is without also being condemned for it. and it doesn't matter that grace isn't society, that grace would accept him - he is, to his own mind, an unacceptable thing. to admit what he is out loud could only lead to catastrophe, because to think anything less is dangerous to the very principles that allow him to exist.

and so instead of having grace in his life, he has claudia. and he can love claudia and he can adore claudia, but he can not find a connection to humanity in her, because she isn't and doesn't want to be human. he has, in his quest to find meaning and connection with humanity, surrounded himself with monsters.

and then he has lestat. lestat who, for all his grandiosity and hedonism and theatricality, is just as festering a pool of repression as louis is. he's a person who can be anyone, so long as anyone is someone who is seen and adored and wanted, because to be wanted is to be happy.

and so you have louis, a man who can't admit what he wants, because admittance is vulnerability, and vulnerability is death; and you have lestat, a man who needs to be wanted, because if you aren't wanted you're abandoned, and abandonment is a fate worse than death.

and then they both try to get happy.

[alibraryofconfusion]

Danny? Daniel, is that you?

[mariakrut]

Lestat and Armand describing each other:

Armand:

Lestat:

And more:

Don`t you think that it is, well, a bit not fair?

[sis-wut]

Listen, they were my old ship. Do not awaken it, please. DO NOT TICKLE SLEEPING DRAGON.🤣

[jon-lox]

nothing proved to me that lestat fell in love w louis fast more than the fact that he went to his family’s dinner and ate the vampire equivalent of dirt. lestat, a 180 yo vampire went to a human’s house, drank some piss, ate some dirt and said "nyum nyum, bouillabaisse!" like when i pretend to eat my nieces’ hairy playdoh creations at imaginary tea time, just so that he could impress his crush. lestat doesn’t even eat animals but dirt? he does everything for louis

[technotrousers]

Tags by @segretecose

[riinkanei]

when your boyfriend won't stop ranting about loving his toxic ex 😶

[showmey0urfangs]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, Costumes by Carol Cutshall

[sophsun1]

Bailey Bass, Jacob Anderson & Sam Reid ⚰ ⚰ ⚰