busted lestat doll commissioned by anne rice

he/him / mostly iwtv / stop asking about klimsdorf

[reticent-vampire]

[gruntsandpoetry]

Love of my life was him.

[aramblingjay]

#yearning 1x01 // 3x07

[nameless-and-joymaking]

the photography arc rlly is the rosetta stone for me to louis' whole character. but whatever.

[nameless-and-joymaking]

ppl love to be like ‘louis is a business major in a world full of theatre kids’ and its like well. most vampires in this world end up making art (i think bc anne rice likely had a sort of universalizing view that any being that lives long enough will eventually become an artist) and louis has clearly always been passionate about the arts!! He’s been deeply moved by it since he was a human (see: Iolanthe incident) He has opinions about it (he’s literally a prolific art collector, he gets degraded in a racialized way by Santiago for being ‘pretentious’ about art, he reads or sleeps through TdV’s work not bc he hates all theatre but bc he thinks their work is tawdry and bizarre.)

it makes sense that louis tries his hand at being an artist, and that attempt a symbol of profound hope! but he also happened to pick the artform most prohibitive to him as a vampire (photography requires light and patience, whereas he’s always outrunning the sun.) and he takes photos of humans that he cannot get emotionally close to (the photo he takes of armand is notably the only one an art dealer gets a lil frisson off of.) he completely stacks the deck against himself, putting himself in a position to reaffirm his prior belief that vampirism is a curse and a limitation.

when he realizes his art isn’t great he quits. but if he had waited for cameras to improve, or taken photos of fellow vampires, (and fwiw i think there was a post floating around about how if louis just ate more, things might be easier lolol) or just been content to suck at it for a while, there’s no reason why he couldn’t have continued (lord knows other vampires are out there being bad and weird at whatever they’re making, in part bc they’re v much out of step with the culture they’re attempting to contribute to. and louis actually seems a great deal more clued in to the zeitgeist based on what he says to claudia about the parisian modern art scene, and even up to 2022 where he knows what essencefest is like my girl still knows whats what more or less.)

i think louis stops not only bc its painful and frustrating to not be able to practice this artform the way he wants to, but bc he cannot deal with the idea that he isn’t Creating Value or contributing, he would just be enjoying himself.

And and and the most chilling thing to me has always been the stein-photo-replacement moment and subsequent crashout. (obv that story beat is abt armand being manipulative and undermining louis’ account of events, but) the way louis is so upset and so vehement abt insisting that he was merely adequate as a photographer, how important it is for louis that the readers know that is like Thee character detail of the whole season for me. louis is so ruled by self loathing that it feels central to his personal integrity and the integrity of the story he’s telling that he not say anything too nice about himself or his creative output. and its so fucking racialized bc truly louis still lives in fear of being called arrogant and haughty and uppity and pretentious by white people who do not want him to like himself !! like lets all kill ourselves fr

[elinordash]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE 2x07・I Could Not Prevent It

I was not worthy of the forgiveness you would give me.

[imwiremother]

every emotional fandom post is written like this

oscar the grouch, who lived and loved in a trash can

oscar the grouch, who ate rotten bananas because he didn't have the self esteem to try for fresh ones

oscar the grouch, who pushed big bird away because his love burned as bright as the sun and oscar the grouch knew he was the moon

[talesfromthecrypts]

Jennifer Ehle in The Vampire Lestat "New York"

[submersero]

[bustedlestatdoll]

On vampire blood and biological determinism

Let me preface by saying that his all might end up being complete nonsense and if that's the case then I guess I'm just boo boo the fool. Anyway, I've been noticing for a while, and especially in this season, that there's a real disconnect between what we hear some vampires say about vampire blood, power levels and the gifts versus what we actually see being depicted on screen.

Santiago says, about his maker, "His blood was exquisite. I'm a good mimic, and I can fly."

Daniel says, speaking as Armand, "You're not gonna get any of my special vamp skills because my blood sucks."

Marius says, to Lestat about Akasha's blood, "It already owns you. May madness or sunlight relieve you of the burden."

Lestat says, constantly, as explanation for his apparently incredible power, "I have the blood of Akasha in me."

But let's actually look at the evidence.

Santiago had the cloud gift despite being a young vampire, presumably because his maker passed it to him. At the same time, both Lestat and Armand had the cloud gift when they made Louis, Claudia and Daniel, and yet none of them got it when they were turned. Lestat told Claudia and Louis that it "isn't something you can teach. You're born with it, or you're not." So I guess that answers it.

Except - now it looks like Louis does have the cloud gift! So what happened? Did he learn it from someone? Did he practice it himself? Did it come with age? Was he able to access it once he accepted his vampirism? We don't know.

Lestat and Armand both have the fire gift, and yet being turned by Lestat and drinking Armand's blood recreationally did not pass it to Louis. He had to learn how to develop it on his own. Later on in Paris, he also used mimicry with Santiago - did he get that from Lestat's blood? From Armand's? As far as I'm concerned, there's reason to think so.

Akasha's blood clearly did something weird to Lestat's body, what with him flying in the air (in a potentially orgasmic state?) for three days. But is there any real indication that it had long-lasting effects, or that it has fundamentally changed him somehow? That it actually made him stronger, or that it influences his behavior in any way? At the end of season 2, Lestat claimed that he couldn't be killed with the fire gift because of it, but just this recent episode we saw him get absolutely fried by the sun after being outside for barely a minute.

In the tower, when Lestat first revealed that he had the blood of Akasha in him, Louis responded with "My blood is your blood". Lestat's response? "And yet." He didn't actually have an answer.

So like... I'm not the first person to point out that this all just reads like vampire eugenics.

After the band asks Lestat to turn them, he gives them a speech about why they shouldn't want his blood. This is occurring right after we saw Marius yelling at him that he shouldn't have drunk from Akasha and that her blood "owns him" now. In the present, Lestat remembers the way he dragged Louis on the ground by his jaw after he beat him, and he says, "This is the hell I unleash on all those near me. It cannot be restrained in the moment or tamed over time."

And I mean. That's a load of bullshit, right?

"I am trying to restrain myself", "I don't know what possessed me that night", "I have my maker's temper"... Lestat still clings to this idea that the violence he enacts is caused by something external, some corrupting force that takes over him for which he can't be held fully accountable. But what actual reason is there for him to believe this? Right now, it looks like he's just taking Marius' word and running with it. Marius, who seems to believe Akasha's blood is innately evil, destructive, violent. Why does he think that, I wonder?

So far, we've only ever seen characters claim that the blood a vampire is turned with (or even just the blood they drink) influences their power or temperament - but what we see in the show completely contradicts this idea. Vampire powers and abilities are consistently shown to be either learned, developed with age, and/or completely arbitrary. And who are the characters making these biologically deterministic claims, so far? Santiago. Daniel. Marius. Lestat. Who are the characters questioning them? Louis. Claudia.

I would very much like it if we got deeper into this subject, though I don't expect we'll ever get conclusive answers, what with IWTV's love of uncomfortable ambiguity. And like I said, I might end up being completely wrong about the entire thing. I can't help but hope that I'm not, though.

[muireana]

[bustedlestatdoll]

On vampire blood and biological determinism

Let me preface by saying that his all might end up being complete nonsense and if that's the case then I guess I'm just boo boo the fool. Anyway, I've been noticing for a while, and especially in this season, that there's a real disconnect between what we hear some vampires say about vampire blood, power levels and the gifts versus what we actually see being depicted on screen.

Santiago says, about his maker, "His blood was exquisite. I'm a good mimic, and I can fly."

Daniel says, speaking as Armand, "You're not gonna get any of my special vamp skills because my blood sucks."

Marius says, to Lestat about Akasha's blood, "It already owns you. May madness or sunlight relieve you of the burden."

Lestat says, constantly, as explanation for his apparently incredible power, "I have the blood of Akasha in me."

But let's actually look at the evidence.

Santiago had the cloud gift despite being a young vampire, presumably because his maker passed it to him. At the same time, both Lestat and Armand had the cloud gift when they made Louis, Claudia and Daniel, and yet none of them got it when they were turned. Lestat told Claudia and Louis that it "isn't something you can teach. You're born with it, or you're not." So I guess that answers it.

Except - now it looks like Louis does have the cloud gift! So what happened? Did he learn it from someone? Did he practice it himself? Did it come with age? Was he able to access it once he accepted his vampirism? We don't know.

Lestat and Armand both have the fire gift, and yet being turned by Lestat and drinking Armand's blood recreationally did not pass it to Louis. He had to learn how to develop it on his own. Later on in Paris, he also used mimicry with Santiago - did he get that from Lestat's blood? From Armand's? As far as I'm concerned, there's reason to think so.

Akasha's blood clearly did something weird to Lestat's body, what with him flying in the air (in a potentially orgasmic state?) for three days. But is there any real indication that it had long-lasting effects, or that it has fundamentally changed him somehow? That it actually made him stronger, or that it influences his behavior in any way? At the end of season 2, Lestat claimed that he couldn't be killed with the fire gift because of it, but just this recent episode we saw him get absolutely fried by the sun after being outside for barely a minute.

In the tower, when Lestat first revealed that he had the blood of Akasha in him, Louis responded with "My blood is your blood". Lestat's response? "And yet." He didn't actually have an answer.

So like... I'm not the first person to point out that this all just reads like vampire eugenics.

After the band asks Lestat to turn them, he gives them a speech about why they shouldn't want his blood. This is occurring right after we saw Marius yelling at him that he shouldn't have drunk from Akasha and that her blood "owns him" now. In the present, Lestat remembers the way he dragged Louis on the ground by his jaw after he beat him, and he says, "This is the hell I unleash on all those near me. It cannot be restrained in the moment or tamed over time."

And I mean. That's a load of bullshit, right?

"I am trying to restrain myself", "I don't know what possessed me that night", "I have my maker's temper"... Lestat still clings to this idea that the violence he enacts is caused by something external, some corrupting force that takes over him for which he can't be held fully accountable. But what actual reason is there for him to believe this? Right now, it looks like he's just taking Marius' word and running with it. Marius, who seems to believe Akasha's blood is innately evil, destructive, violent. Why does he think that, I wonder?

So far, we've only ever seen characters claim that the blood a vampire is turned with (or even just the blood they drink) influences their power or temperament - but what we see in the show completely contradicts this idea. Vampire powers and abilities are consistently shown to be either learned, developed with age, and/or completely arbitrary. And who are the characters making these biologically deterministic claims, so far? Santiago. Daniel. Marius. Lestat. Who are the characters questioning them? Louis. Claudia.

I would very much like it if we got deeper into this subject, though I don't expect we'll ever get conclusive answers, what with IWTV's love of uncomfortable ambiguity. And like I said, I might end up being completely wrong about the entire thing. I can't help but hope that I'm not, though.

[bustedlestatdoll]

i get the jokes about louis being a badass while not even having akasha's blood in him but like he literally does have akasha's blood in him. like i get what you're trying to say but he literally said it to lestat last season. "my blood is your blood". and he was right?

[failvillain]

the critics before the show were like "armand fans are going to see the real UGLY him in 3x5...are they still going to like him after that??" meanwhile literally there is not one person on my dash who didn't cheer and clap when he made that guy kill himself

[picsthatmakeyougohmm]

hmmm

[cassandrva]

love between vampires can be one thing, or it can be countless things. however you want me, i can be that for you. you said you want me to be present as your maker? i can be a maker for you. i want to be your maker. disregard the last 500 years in which i was repulsed by the idea. i don't have any complicated feelings about that at all. you said you want cool vampire powers even though you're a three year old fledgling? i can help you become a daywalker, a skill that apparently takes centuries to develop. you're an investigative journalist, don't you want a scandal on lestat? i can give you a scandal. i want to help you finish that job. lestat fucks his mom. isn't that good? aren't i useful? aren't i worth keeping around?

[fiercestpurpose]

There’s a quality that certain books/movies/TV shows have that leads me to say, “Yeah, I can see people making fanfiction of that.” It’s something to do, I think, with how tight the story is, how much feels open-ended or like it could be elaborated on.

Something like Breaking Bad, for example, has low squiggability (that’s what I’m calling this quality). It’s tightly written, the characters are consistent, there’s little left to interpolate or extrapolate. Obviously, people DO write fanfic of Breaking Bad, but it still has a low squiggability score. Whereas something like Supernatural has a high squiggability score. Fantasy and science fiction often have high squiggability scores. This suggests squiggability could also be related to worldbuilding and potential for people to borrow a premise or setting.

And sometimes you’ll read or watch something and you’ll say, “Ah, low squiggability,” and then you’ll open tumblr and find out that everyone else seem to think its squiggability was very high indeed.

[i-know-the-enddc]

not to expose my freak and over analyze a two word sentence but: GENUINELY so many layers to Lestat bringing up Armand and Marius muttering “rotten boy” under his breath. Like rotten??? Boy??? I saw some people say they felt like that was out of character for Marius to openly + casually insult Armand like that and I One: highly disagree, and Two: think that those people and I are picking up on different implications.

Because yeah what a nasty mean thing to say, it definitely is an insult, but also, not really?? I mean it’s more than that. That one line functions fundamentally as a substitute for what amounts to paragraphs in the vampire lestat of Marius and Lestat talking about Armand. this one line in the show has so much subtext doing the heavy lifting. Here’s a telling bit from the book that I feel is relevant:

“Rotten” as an insult is so so specific. “Rotten” infers that something that is now decayed and putrid was formerly fresh, pure, unspoiled, ripe, gleaming with potential. but it was left out to spoil, abandoned, or ruined, and now it’s gone bad, moldering, sour, repulsive. there’s no coming back from rot. a rotten fruit is tainted beyond redemption, it would’ve been delicious once, but now it’s sickening, it’s foul, it’s rot.

And not just rotten, Rotten boy. boy. “boy” that is a 27 year old man that has been alive for over 300 years. It’s belittling, but it’s belittling in the way parents are towards their children. I would go so far as to say there’s an undercurrent of affection in it. Oh Armand, that rotten boy, that grimy little devil. Rotten because Marius left him to rot, rotten because it's too late, the food has already gone bad. Marius made a horrible mistake, making Armand, and now he’s gone bad, he’s no good, he’s to be thrown out for the rats and the flies. But he’s a boy. He’s his boy, was his boy, his fruit, his seed that he grew and flowered and would have eaten if he hadn’t let it go rotten.

Whats so sad about how Marius thinks of Armand is not that he despises him, it’s that he pities him. He pities him like you pity a dog who you take out back and shoot. Immortalizing Armand was the worst crime Marius has ever committed against his own kind. He was a mistake, there’s no going back now. It’s too late.

[angrybubbles]

"The loss of his loved object..."