discourse amirite 🦇

side-blog to @starrylayle for my new vamp obsession

[louisdulacofsin]

Sideblog for vc, iwtv and general vampire content. 18+

I watched the amc show first, then the 1994 movie, then finally read the books (just finished tvl). I enjoy all adaptations and the differing themes they discuss, and my blog reflects that. However, I am on an amc tvl hate-train rn, so be warned.

book series tags -> vc, tvc, anne rice, the vampire chronicles, the vampire lestat

show tags -> iwtv, iwtv meta, amc iwtv, interview with vampire, tvl, tvl critical

movie tags -> iwtv 1994, iwtv movie, interview with vampire 1994

Also, i like to discuss other vampire-related media on this blog (e.g. wwdits, sinners, midnight mass, etc)

[failvillain]

"it's lestat's narration" i'll kick you

[failvillain]

[louisdulacofsin]

unreliable narration should further the plot and the story, not the story and plot being vehicles to drive unreliable narration

i think the tvl creators and the folks up in amc misunderstand what makes "unreliable narrators" as a trope so interesting. unreliable narrators as a plot device are good because the audience don't expect them!! We become so caught up in the narrator's head and the story that we forget, that we are in fact, listening to story. When the interrogation of what we are conditioned to believe as reliable narration occurs, it catches us off guard ("was it raining louis?" "did you eat the baby louis?"). When we encounter a different perspective of the same events (e.g claudia's turning) — It helps us recontextualize the narrative and get a clearer picture of The Character™ at large.

Tvl handed us the unreliable narrator trope and beat us over the head with it so much so that we no are longer surprised when there is a reveal of unreliability within the narration. We expect it. In fact, we expect it so often that we are sceptical of everything that is told to us. we assume that the narrator is constantly, at best — slightly bending the truth, or at worst — outright lying to us. we expect that a future a scene can retcon a scene that is currently occurring. we expect that characters can become completely different people — multiple times — when the narration is interrogated once again ("the blood of Akasha [possibly] made lestat do it" "Claudia lied about the train scene")

How is this good television? I've said this before, but what is the point in watching a fictional show with fictional events where even the events within the show, are fictional also? How can I let the tale seduce me when the tale itself does not even trust itself to be told?

[louisdulacofsin]

@ghentlambrusco I'm just going to reply to ur comment here because it was too long lol.

The amc show has made some significant writing and character changes, and when they adapt scenes from the books, they have to take in mind the already established continuity in their show.

Claudia is a white woman in the body of a small child in the books who has a different relationship with louis in the books, who is is a white slave-owner. These are already some significant changes. Louclaudia in the show has a very different dynamic, one which being that despite their being at odds with each other's morality in killing people, they have a shared dynamic in their Blackness and their abuse suffered under lestat (such abuse is not as excessive in the books mind you, and show claudia even compares them to slaves under lestat in s1). Louclaudia in the books, despite their connection, decidedly do not have that dynamic, and i think it makes sense for book claudia to need louis to get around the world, something show claudia did not need as much as she was old enough to leave on her own. I think it's fair to say that contextually and narratively speaking, they are different characters in regards to these circumstances.

You also mention that instead of threatening Claudia, Lestat may have just told Claudia that Louis cannot go on without her and to that I say... that means that Claudia would have liked louis enough to stay anways, which contradicts her motivations in the seance scene that she was just "using him") Regardless of contradictions, as nice as this theory is, it is just pure speculation within the context of the show. And if it is canon, why was it not shown to us? This brings me back to my issues with unreliable narration in this tvl season. Apparently we cannot trust any of the scenes shown to us, any scenes can be retconned at any moment, etc, etc. I do not think this makes for a good story and I think it is a lazy plot device (re: my previous reblog).

However, if you want to discuss book accuracy, in the book, Louis is alone in that scene and not with lestat, so it makes sense for for Claudia to release all her on bridled rage on louis! However, in the show, both louis and lestat are there, but for some reason Claudia decides she has no vitriol for lestat and she likes him better??? for some reason??? (he made her life hell!!! he participated in the trial that got her killed!!!!) (also claudia hated his blood so the lestat's blood comment was really weird)

Additionally, in the books Merrick is actually an undercover talamasca agent and it is confirmed that any spirit, such as Claudia, lies when called upon. So even in the books, Claudia is lying!!! Does this mean show Claudia was lying too? Is this seance scene one of the many scenes that will later be revealed to be untruthful?

Also, why are we adapting a scene in Merrick (not even a good chunk of the book), when we are supposed to be adapting the vampire lestat??? something the show barely touches on in favour of rockstar lestat, abusive incest and a random chapter in merrick for some reason???

Anyways, u can enjoy these writing choices and believe they are more accurate, as I know a lot of people do. I personally just cannot get behind them.

[louisdulacofsin]

can we talk about how the amc tvl season seems to be making a conscious effort to distance themselves from any forms of gender-exploration Gabrielle did in the books. Even things as a subtle as name changes — Gabrielle to Gabriella — from being covered and presenting as a man to wearing super feminine clothing and having cleavage on display. it feels so insidious.

also, the dig at pronouns in the first episode feels so random, and with all that they have done to Gabi, it feels like there's a little transphobia...

[louisdulacofsin]

okay so, i understand that this may just be a me thing, but I truly do not understand how someone can watch a show if they do not like the main character.

if i'm ever interested in a book/show/movie, assume my favourite is the main character. I understand that having the main character as a favourite is boring, but I truly do not understand how people can watch so many seasons of a show and despise a main character. like,,, surely u at least like them????

the reactions i've seen from other iwtv fans at the tvl season, as "i'm so glad louis is exposed for the horrible person he is!!! I've always hated him!!!"..... like,,, vitriol aside i'm just confused. how could you watch the first two seasons of iwtv and hate that man like we were with him the whole time 😭.

[also side note; louis is has already been shown to be horrible in many ways. why did they have to write him as horrible in ways that is inconsistent with his character]

[louisdulacofsin]

unreliable narration should further the plot and the story, not the story and plot being vehicles to drive unreliable narration

i think the tvl creators and the folks up in amc misunderstand what makes "unreliable narrators" as a trope so interesting. unreliable narrators as a plot device are good because the audience don't expect them!! We become so caught up in the narrator's head and the story that we forget, that we are in fact, listening to story. When the interrogation of what we are conditioned to believe as reliable narration occurs, it catches us off guard ("was it raining louis?" "did you eat the baby louis?"). When we encounter a different perspective of the same events (e.g claudia's turning) — It helps us recontextualize the narrative and get a clearer picture of The Character™ at large.

Tvl handed us the unreliable narrator trope and beat us over the head with it so much so that we no are longer surprised when there is a reveal of unreliability within the narration. We expect it. In fact, we expect it so often that we are sceptical of everything that is told to us. we assume that the narrator is constantly, at best — slightly bending the truth, or at worst — outright lying to us. we expect that a future a scene can retcon a scene that is currently occurring. we expect that characters can become completely different people — multiple times — when the narration is interrogated once again ("the blood of Akasha [possibly] made lestat do it" "Claudia lied about the train scene")

How is this good television? I've said this before, but what is the point in watching a fictional show with fictional events where even the events within the show, are fictional also? How can I let the tale seduce me when the tale itself does not even trust itself to be told?

[hes-brad]

I don’t understand the flattening out of Louis’ character. Surely if it’s due to a pov shift that makes it even worse. The redeeming factor of lestat and louis’ relationship was that lestat saw all these beautiful things in him and didn’t want him to conform to roles. Now we have lestat pov dumbing down Louis’ vocabulary and making his prevailing trait “business” to the extent that we don’t see him reading, storytelling, designing, pondering art and artistic movements, taking photographs, making literary criticism, dancing, enjoying music, experimenting with fashion, philosophising, poeticising, crying at opera, romanticising or any of those things, just being fucked up about grief and making money. Is the idea that Louis is once more trapped inside the racialised/gendered/heteronormative roles that he played when lestat first met him? Or has the series abandoned Louis’ complexity in favour of creating a redeemable lestat. The irony is that despite lestat’s inability to see the ways that race and sexuality factored into Louis’ difficulty with being authentic, lestat’s redeeming feature in s1 was his attention and care to the multifaceted dimensions of Louis’ personality. Louis fell for him because he felt seen. Why does tvl lestat not see Louis?

[louisdulacofsin]

i hate that the common defense of seance scene writing is that: 'oh this is the real Claudia instead of louis' coddled version of her!' like i'm sorry are watching the same show??

this take is rooted in the idea that louis is an unreliable narrator, which to some extent he is. but also louis is very much aware of his biases that's why 1) he is doing this interview with daniel in the first place. he's trying to piece together his story and process his grief. and 2) that's why he brings in claudia's diaries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he doesn't trust himself to tell claudia's story accurately so he uses her diary!!! he also brings in armand to help tell the story. Like this man is aware of his biases and for some reason fans and s3 writers hate him and make him grovel at lestat's feet constantly.

why does claudia say she liked lestat more than louis. holy fucking mischaracterisation. look, if it was just louis in the room, i can understand claudia saying that to hurt louis. because she is angry at him! BUT…. lestat is right there!!!! he abused her. he made her life hell. he participated in the fucking trial that caused her death in the first place!!! she killed him gleefully and wrote his last words in his blood. how tf does she have barely has any anger towards lestat. it makes no sense for her.

also, in regards to: 'claudia is evil louis just couldn't see how vicious she was.' um yes he could. that was a huge point of contention for him!!! but ultimately he'd waiver his morals when it came to her because he loved her so much. I was fucking terrified of claudia in the first season!!! she was a teenage vampire who seemed to have no remorse for killing humans (besides for charlie) and she collected their body parts. like louis doesn't agree with this part of Claudia but he doesn't hide or lesson it. even daniel comments on how evil she is. armand comments how vicious she is. everyone knows it!!! but seance version of claudia is not how claudia would react like i'm sorry that's not her

even if it WAS revealed that the scene wasn't really Claudia's ghost. Louis de pointe du lack of a reaction is terrible writing!!! wdym he isn't on a suicide watch and actively searching for madeline's ghost so that she and claudia can be togther. what the fuck. how is he smiling?????? this is not the louis of the previous seasons

anyways that scene mischaracterises both louis and claudia for the sake of propping up lestat,,, and retconing his past actions

[chiefmuffinmuncher]

I thought that the whole conceit of season 3 is that everything we're seeing is Lestat's recollection? There's a reason that some of the scenes end with the line 'you have been listening to the failures'. It's to remind us that everything is a story that Lestat is telling to a microphone. I imagine the scenes that are Armand and Daniel are things he found out about later that he's tossing in for context.

Louis is off because this is the version of him that Lestat sees. When he recounts what Claudia says he's likely putting words in her mouth. The scene afterwards is likely hazy because he and Louis get decapitated, so he fills in a reconciliation. There's no Daniel to ask the probing questions, and as we saw with the documentary, Lestat never engaged with Daniel in good faith. Louis wanted to tell the story, but he misremembered things. Lestat doesn't want to tell the story. He wants the audience to love him. This is an entirely different relationship that the subject has with the narrative.

[louisdulacofsin]

If you’re correct, and in ep7 it is in fact revealed that lestat’s narration is a false interpretation or misconstrued version of events…. I will be very relieved because the characterisations from the first two seasons are safe lol

However, I think I’d also be disappointed. You’re telling me that the fictional events that transpired within the fictional show are…fictional too?? Why am I wasting my time watching a show where nothing is real anyways??

I enjoyed the way they tackled the whole “memory is a monster” concept in the previous seasons (less so in season 2 but it still worked then) but I’m not liking it this season. Events being straight up retconned with an “unreliable narrator” sticker plastered on it if the writers decide it doesn’t serve them anymore. There’s only so many “omg he was an unreliable narrator all along” twists I can take before it becomes boring and cheap.

I also think that the modern day shouldn’t be told from lestat’s perspective, as it is a huge disservice on all the characters. I liked in the previous seasons where the modern day was just…objective.

Anyways, this is just my opinion. A lot of people seem to like the ambiguous writing but personally it’s not for me. I actually preferred lestat’s narration in the books a lot more as, although it did provide more context to lestat’s previous actions and air some grievances towards Louis, it didn’t outright contradict anything major that Claudia and Louis said.

[chiefmuffinmuncher]

The only scene that happened in the 'present day' is the auction. Everything else has been Lestat's narration of the events, there is no past and present, it's all past right now. Lestat recorded a verbal diary explaining what was happening in his personal life while he set the apocalypse in motion.

The early episodes did a pretty good job of showing that Lestat was being fanciful with the narrative. The way his family looked unkempt aside from him and Gabrielle and Magnus' music video were both clear examples of him taking some creative license with the retelling.

[louisdulacofsin]

I know. I’m saying that I don’t like the choice to make everything in the past and from lestat’s perspective (aside from the auction). I wish it was structured like the past two seasons where the present day/documentary was told from no one’s perspective and thus objective. And that the past was told from lestat’s perspective but in a more linear narrative. [side note: the trailers and clips led me to believe this was the direction the show would be taking - I wonder if they decided to change it later on to ‘the failures album’ and amp up the rockstar thing. Either way, I don’t like the choice they made].

Tbh the family’s cheap wigs in the flashbacks pissed me off. To me if felt less like a narrative choice and more of a budget issue - I think they spent way too much effort on the marketing and rockstar element.

I was also actually very annoyed with how they handled the Magnus scene. It was very rushed in my imo and I didn’t like how they paired it was Claudia’s SA scene. I think they should have dedicated an entire episode to Magnus and Lestat’s turning and not have it interfere with Claudia’s scene. I understand they were going for a parallel but I didn’t like it. I think it cheapened both scenes. (Side note, I also hate how much they cut out lestat’s backstory - Louis got two seasons to tell his but lestat can’t even get a whole episode for his turning, for his relationship with Nicki, for his relationship with Armand. Even the wolf killer scene was so abrupt).

So yeah, I’m aware why the creators made the choices they did in this season. But I don’t like them. I wish they either 1) stuck to a faithful adaptation of the vampire lestat book or 2) continued in the same tone as the previous seasons. I can understand why people are enjoying this season but personally, I am not.

[louisdulacofsin]

i hate that the common defense of seance scene writing is that: 'oh this is the real Claudia instead of louis' coddled version of her!' like i'm sorry are watching the same show??

this take is rooted in the idea that louis is an unreliable narrator, which to some extent he is. but also louis is very much aware of his biases that's why 1) he is doing this interview with daniel in the first place. he's trying to piece together his story and process his grief. and 2) that's why he brings in claudia's diaries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he doesn't trust himself to tell claudia's story accurately so he uses her diary!!! he also brings in armand to help tell the story. Like this man is aware of his biases and for some reason fans and s3 writers hate him and make him grovel at lestat's feet constantly.

why does claudia say she liked lestat more than louis. holy fucking mischaracterisation. look, if it was just louis in the room, i can understand claudia saying that to hurt louis. because she is angry at him! BUT…. lestat is right there!!!! he abused her. he made her life hell. he participated in the fucking trial that caused her death in the first place!!! she killed him gleefully and wrote his last words in his blood. how tf does she have barely has any anger towards lestat. it makes no sense for her.

also, in regards to: 'claudia is evil louis just couldn't see how vicious she was.' um yes he could. that was a huge point of contention for him!!! but ultimately he'd waiver his morals when it came to her because he loved her so much. I was fucking terrified of claudia in the first season!!! she was a teenage vampire who seemed to have no remorse for killing humans (besides for charlie) and she collected their body parts. like louis doesn't agree with this part of Claudia but he doesn't hide or lesson it. even daniel comments on how evil she is. armand comments how vicious she is. everyone knows it!!! but seance version of claudia is not how claudia would react like i'm sorry that's not her

even if it WAS revealed that the scene wasn't really Claudia's ghost. Louis de pointe du lack of a reaction is terrible writing!!! wdym he isn't on a suicide watch and actively searching for madeline's ghost so that she and claudia can be togther. what the fuck. how is he smiling?????? this is not the louis of the previous seasons

anyways that scene mischaracterises both louis and claudia for the sake of propping up lestat,,, and retconing his past actions

[chiefmuffinmuncher]

I thought that the whole conceit of season 3 is that everything we're seeing is Lestat's recollection? There's a reason that some of the scenes end with the line 'you have been listening to the failures'. It's to remind us that everything is a story that Lestat is telling to a microphone. I imagine the scenes that are Armand and Daniel are things he found out about later that he's tossing in for context.

Louis is off because this is the version of him that Lestat sees. When he recounts what Claudia says he's likely putting words in her mouth. The scene afterwards is likely hazy because he and Louis get decapitated, so he fills in a reconciliation. There's no Daniel to ask the probing questions, and as we saw with the documentary, Lestat never engaged with Daniel in good faith. Louis wanted to tell the story, but he misremembered things. Lestat doesn't want to tell the story. He wants the audience to love him. This is an entirely different relationship that the subject has with the narrative.

[louisdulacofsin]

If you’re correct, and in ep7 it is in fact revealed that lestat’s narration is a false interpretation or misconstrued version of events…. I will be very relieved because the characterisations from the first two seasons are safe lol

However, I think I’d also be disappointed. You’re telling me that the fictional events that transpired within the fictional show are…fictional too?? Why am I wasting my time watching a show where nothing is real anyways??

I enjoyed the way they tackled the whole “memory is a monster” concept in the previous seasons (less so in season 2 but it still worked then) but I’m not liking it this season. Events being straight up retconned with an “unreliable narrator” sticker plastered on it if the writers decide it doesn’t serve them anymore. There’s only so many “omg he was an unreliable narrator all along” twists I can take before it becomes boring and cheap.

I also think that the modern day shouldn’t be told from lestat’s perspective, as it is a huge disservice on all the characters. I liked in the previous seasons where the modern day was just…objective.

Anyways, this is just my opinion. A lot of people seem to like the ambiguous writing but personally it’s not for me. I actually preferred lestat’s narration in the books a lot more as, although it did provide more context to lestat’s previous actions and air some grievances towards Louis, it didn’t outright contradict anything major that Claudia and Louis said.

[reticentdulac]

ldpdl you will always be famous

[louisdulacofsin]

i hate that the common defense of seance scene writing is that: 'oh this is the real Claudia instead of louis' coddled version of her!' like i'm sorry are watching the same show??

this take is rooted in the idea that louis is an unreliable narrator, which to some extent he is. but also louis is very much aware of his biases that's why 1) he is doing this interview with daniel in the first place. he's trying to piece together his story and process his grief. and 2) that's why he brings in claudia's diaries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he doesn't trust himself to tell claudia's story accurately so he uses her diary!!! he also brings in armand to help tell the story. Like this man is aware of his biases and for some reason fans and s3 writers hate him and make him grovel at lestat's feet constantly.

Claudia doesn't want anyone reading her diaries....why would she lie (1) time in them. makes no sense...

why does claudia say she liked lestat more than louis. holy fucking mischaracterisation. look, if it was just louis in the room, i can understand claudia saying that to hurt louis. because she is angry at him! BUT…. lestat is right there!!!! he abused her. he made her life hell. he participated in the fucking trial that caused her death in the first place!!! she killed him gleefully and wrote his last words in his blood. how tf does she have barely has any anger towards lestat. it makes no sense for her.

also, in regards to: 'claudia is evil louis just couldn't see how vicious she was.' um yes he could. that was a huge point of contention for him!!! but ultimately he'd waiver his morals when it came to her because he loved her so much. I was fucking terrified of claudia in the first season!!! she was a teenage vampire who seemed to have no remorse for killing humans (besides for charlie) and she collected their body parts. like louis doesn't agree with this part of Claudia but he doesn't hide or lesson it. even daniel comments on how evil she is. armand comments how vicious she is. everyone knows it!!! but seance version of claudia is not how claudia would react like i'm sorry that's not her

even if it WAS revealed that the scene wasn't really Claudia's ghost. Louis de pointe du lack of a reaction is terrible writing!!! wdym he isn't on a suicide watch and actively searching for madeline's ghost so that she and claudia can be togther. what the fuck. how is he smiling?????? this is not the louis of the previous seasons

anyways that scene mischaracterises both louis and claudia for the sake of propping up lestat,,, and retconing his past actions

[louisdulacofsin]

aside from being bad and racist and homophobic... this season is just so fucking boring. like i've rewatched s1-2 countless times in a row. now i can barely get through one ep of tvl

[louisdulacofsin]

i'm sorry but what version of lestat is this fucking season basing him off of? Becuase it certainly as hell isn't the from seasons 1-2 or the one from the books.

[disclaimer: i've only read the first two books in the vampire chronicles]

Look, coming into this season, I did expect to see a shift in lestat's portrayal. From s1-2, he was told from the perspective of louis, armand and Claudia's diaries. The way he acts irl, the way he perceives himself in his head, is going to be a little different. i understand that.

but i'm sorry. this season is a huge shift. they retcon some of the worst of lestat's crimes (e.g. that train scene) for what reason exactly?... to make him more empathetic?? are they gonna retcon the sky drop too and say it's because of akasha's blood??

lestat in the books, though still bad, wasn't as horrible to louis and Claudia as he is in the show. The creators at amc CHOSE to introduce a racial element to their relationship. They CHOSE to make lestat a perpetrator of vicious domestic violence and fucking drop louis from the sky (to my understanding armand does that to lestat in the books)

they made all these decisions themselves. And i'm not disparaging these writing choices and book changes -- s1-2 were incredibly well-written. idc they why aren't following through with the choices they made. it feels so cheap and insecure.

also yes, lestat is mentally unwell and does not process his trauma very well in the books, but not to this extent. In the books, he wants his story to be heard. and he tells it!! in a very non-disjointed fashion mind you. I don't know where this ooc version of lestat is coming from but it sure as a hell isn't "book accurate."

[louisdulacofsin]

"tvl is structured like that because this is from lestat's perspective and that's how the book is. the second book is a huge tonal shift from the first"

no...no it's not. have u guys read the vampire lestat??? this criticism and other "book accuracy" takes frustrate me because they're not true. the tvl season is nothing like the book. we barely get any of the flashbacks that are shown in the book, and when they are, they are incredibly rushed.

also,, i see plenty of people discussing how how the tonal shift from iwtv s1-2 to tvl s1 is accurate to the shift from books 1 to 2,, but i'm sorry i have to respectfully disagree. imo, the vampire lestat book is actually structured very similarly to the interview with the vampire book. it's even told in a decidedly not disjointed narrative, with a a large portion focused on the vampire's past. I'd say the most jarring difference is Lestat's narration -- but that's because he's a different character to Louis.

also also why the fuck is the rockstar element and the that fuckass band such a central element of this season. never really cared about them in the book and didn't have to. this season is trying to force me to care about these characters. like. i cheered when that ginger died can we please cut back to the actual characters.

[louisdulacofsin]

me when expecting to see gay sex or intimacy in my gay vampire show is apparently too far:

[louisdulacofsin]

i'm sorry but wtf did they do to Gabrielle. she was my favourite character. also why is she called gabriela??

[iunmadeher]

louis de pointe du lac — denial is a river