Juggling chainsaws

[nalyra-dreaming]

About me

Nalyra ⏛ she/her/they I love complicated characters and relationships. Vampire lover of old. I like a lot of things, so do mind the tags, please.

Ask | Ao3

This blog is NOT Vampire Chronicles / IWTV / TVL spoiler free.

Life is too short for hate, be brave enough to be kind.

PSA

I reserve the right to be silent human, at least until I‘m turned 😛

[mckatkat]

People are talking about the books because of the show, so I'm going to do a countdown of my least favorite pieces of misinformation about The Vampire Chronicles that I see regularly on the internet:

10. In the second to last book in the series Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis, Lestat goes to the lost city of Atlantis! This is not in fact a thing that happens in the book. It's a fun book, you should read it.

9. Anne Rice hated [insert character here] which is why they aren't in the later books! No she probably didn't, she probably just forgot they existed. She cared much less about minor characters than any of us do. She also didn't feel like she could write Louis because of his headspace being so tied to a particular point in her life.

8. In Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis, you find out that the vampires are aliens! That's also not what happens in that book, go read it, it's pretty fun book.

7. Anne Rice hired a ghostwriter to write Blood Canticle, or any of a number of her other books! Literally what the fuck are you talking about, why would someone write that book if they weren't Anne Rice!? Also, you think Anne Rice let someone else write LESTAT!? A thing she famously had a weird problem with!?

6. Anne Rice disowned and denounced her former work when she reverted to Christianity! All of the actual quotes about the series from her after she stopped writing it because she consecrated her writing to Christ are much funnier than the thing you're hallucinating, go look them up, she said something about how even her pornography was probably divinely inspired.

5. None of Anne Rice's books after The Queen of the Damned underwent any editing! It's not editing she was talking about, it was developmental comments from her editor, her editor who would give her feedback as she was writing the book. All of her work was copyedited, some better than others, and she actually paid for additional editors for some of her books to catch continuity issues. If you're wondering why she stopped taking developmental comments from her editor, I can only speculate, but I can tell you from reading her diary that her editor thought she should scrap most of that Armand nonsense in the middle of The Vampire Lestat. So I can't be too mad about it.

4. The concept of an unreliable narrator is central to the series throughout! No it's not, well, that and most people are using the term wrong or using it inconsistently. The series is a bunch of books mostly in first person, they rarely contradict on actual external events and most of the places where the point of views diverge are purely the personal opinions and subjective experiences of the characters. You are almost never supposed to assume a character is lying in the narration, and there are only two points in the series where anyone is actually noted to have been false in their narration. Neither of the falsehoods is a significant plot point.

3. Anne Rice didn't write books with female leads because she had too much internalized sexism and was ignorant about it! Anne Rice had internalized sexism she was completely cognizant of and actively working through in her work, you can find a bunch of interviews of her talking about it. She also did write fewer female leads because they didn't sell as well, you can find a bunch of interviews with her talking about that too. You don't have to love the way she writes about women, you can't complain she didn't write enough female leads unless you actually read the books that she wrote with female leads in them. You should go read The Witching Hour, it has a great female lead, and if you don't have time to read half a million words, go read Pandora, which is also great.

2. The books aren't gay because she either had to censor them because she couldn't make them gay in the '70s, or because she was naive and homophobic! Neither of these things are true, Anne Rice wrote Cry to Heaven in 1982, she confirmed the queerness of her characters as early as in the first book in the second half, and if you really need it hammered home, it's also in the second and third books. For what it's worth she didn't try to make them less gay later on either. It's Anne Rice, if a character isn't bisexual that's an anomaly. The sex stuff is for thematic reasons in the lore, and there's a bunch of sex stuff that doesn't contradict the lore later on. It's crazy that people who have read The Vampire Armand think this woman was avoiding writing gay sex.

1. Anne Rice wrote [insert book here] on drugs! I know this is basically an expression, but I do feel like it's important to point out that she was sober for 42 years of her life. Exactly one book in The Vampire Chronicles was written under the influence of anything, and it's the first one, and it was alcohol. You can feel any way you want about the woman or her work, but she did and wrote almost all of that shit sober.

[schwarzholzhof]

From now on I will look up this post everytime I need something to piss me off. All of these points are soooo valid.

[sheisraging]

WTF OMG I AM WHAT [x]

[beaulesbian]

Rewatching s3 after rewatching all s1 & s2 made me think about the name of this Brooklyn diner where Louis (not-accidentally) found Claudia's look-alike.

Brick & Bacon

It seems to be a fictional diner, as far as google told me.

At the end of s3 we find out that it was never a coincidence that "Regina" was working there, but it was all Armand tugging on multiple strings in the background: 1, orchestrating consequences within Lestat's band and trying him to cancel the tour, and 2, taunting Louis with a person who resembled Claudia, who, on top of that, was a grifter who knew how to get into character and under the skin of her mark, which as Armand said, gave him more time to scheme and work on his other plans.

"I’ve known for some time Claudia was the aperture through which I could rip his innards out. I understood his obsession for forgiveness. I lived it with him. He was my Claudia."

-this Louis mentioned (or was Lestat narrating only, maybe) in 3x1:

And it was Armand's other words that made me think back to s2 and trying to connect all the meaning that's surrounding the diner named Brick & Bacon:

in this moment in 2x8, bricks and foundation visible, making a dent, crumbling away the facade of their lies.

The "supporting wall of their penthouse in Dubai" where, previously, this piece of art occupied the very same space: The Bacon Triptych:

Was it too on the nose in retrospect for Louis to suspect something about the name of the diner? Maybe. Maybe he was too lost in the vision of finding his Claudia again and forgot everything else. Maybe it's a total coincidence, but let's choose to believe it.

I haven't studied much of this painting besides reading the wikipedia page for now, but I like even the color-similar connection between the painting and the front view of the diner, red and golden/yellow tones, and inside hiding something controrted and un-human. Something about the painting could also be connected to the murder-trial in s2 and how Armand "could not prevent" Claudia's death, however sincere or insincere those statements were from him. The stoning, the crucifixation, the furies...

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944)

Bacon's principal mode of expression is introduced: the subjects are anatomically and physically distorted, and the mood is violent, foreboding, and relentlessly physical. Although Bacon stated that he modelled the creatures on the Furies, the visual link to the sources is barely perceptible in his finished work. In 1985, he observed that Aeschylus' phrase brought up in him "the most exciting images, and I often read it ... the violence of it brings up the images in me, 'the reek of human blood smiles out at me', well what could be more amazing than that."

For Three Studies, Bacon did not approach the Crucifixion as a Christian image per se, but rather found that the scene reflected a particular view of humanity he held. As he told David Sylvester: "it was just an act of man's behaviour, a way of behaviour to another."

The painting seems very connected to Armand and Louis relationship arc within the overall structure of s2 besides the plot. It was given a lot of focus throughout the season:

First, in 2x1 Armand tells Louis they got "an agressive offer for it" and "number he wouldn't anticipate", surprising Louis who doesn't even know they (or just Armand?) put it out for sale. Armand doesn't know the possible buyer. He tells him that in their bedroom that seems more like a gilded birdcage.

In 2x3 they get a phone call from the possible buyer's lawyer, discussing more details about the painting:

[cont.] 'Witnesses to Christ's agony. Mr Bacon also referred to these as the three "Furies", punishers of human wrongdoing.'

and we also got this information that the buyer "she wants it for her husband"

It is after 2x5 and them reminiscing / remembering the 1973 San Francisco week, and also after Louis found the Fred Stein's (and others) photographs among his works, that they have the conversation what else to put on the wall, or if they should --

While the paintings are prepared for sending to their new owner, already packed and still visible in a few scenes. It makes me think it moves parallel with the story and with how fractured the relationship between Louis and Armand was becoming throughout the season, ready to depart by the end of the season.

Circling back to 2x8 which brings the revelation and truths. The wall is bare, bricks on view. An idea forms in Armand's head, possibly, as he watches Louis telling him to leave before he comes back.

Supporting wall of their relationship? Broken. Brick & Bacon.

It was interesting too see how Armand was making his "Armends" throughout s3, and I wonder how sincere it was, but at the same time he was seeking out the same from those that wronged him too, an acknowledgement of their lies and mistakes.

Might have worked for Daniel, we haven't seen most of the acceptance of his maker, killer, lover? companion, yet.

He didn't seem to be successful with Lestat, who admited he never spoke up in Magnus' crypt in 1950s as it served as torture for both Louis and Armand, because he knew the lie would be eating Armand alive. It worked, and Armand tried to let Louis know he could let him leave, to abandon that lie if Louis wanted Lestat back. But Louis decided, in 1973 that Daniel had to survive as a testament to Louis and Armand's relationship, thus cementing them staying together despite the feelings waning and losing whatever they once had there. Memories scrambled, continuing the terrible-pretend play.

So it seems it was only here in 3x7 and talking with Louis' severed head while his soul was fighting to keep on staying alive, that Armand could reach some truthful depth of Louis that'd offer the words he has been chasing from him, despite their companioship ending about three years prior.

And at the end, Armand was satisfied, left into the daylight again (about 10am on Saturday, November 1st, 2025. Fareed's study having new results that more powerful vampires of Lestat's breeding could really survive decapitation for 5+hrs.), while Rashid from Talamasca was already probably waiting outside to collect both Lestat and Louis bodies so they can go on with their concert tour plan and bringing in the Akasha apocalypse. Fake-Claudia gone into the wind once more, and I really hope she got to cash out the checks they've been promising her from both sides.

Lastly, Lestat narrating episode 4 titled The Devil's Road, was interesting with how these words were spoken in front of the diner:

Rest.

Now the only other thing about this I'm curious if we ever get to know the name of the new owner of the Bacon Triptych paintings, if the whole subplot of finding a buyer and seeing it send off was plot related with perhaps some new type of consequences.

[weardes]

[nalyra-dreaming]

One thing that’s really nagging at me upon rewatch is the complete shift in how Lestat seemingly views Armand in relation to Nicki’s death.

I honestly went into season 3 not at all worried that they would veer too far from Nicki’s book-canon death bc of what was established in s1 abt Nicki dying after they parted ways + the trial where you have a very disdainful Lestat correcting Santiago saying Nicki took his own life to note the “help from others” provided by Armand.

So I’m struggling to see how we got to a modern day Lestat saying that Armand “did a brave thing for him” by “mercy killing” Nicki??? He quite obviously didn’t view it that way during the trial. And I can’t imagine a post-trial Lestat would suddenly view Armand in a kinder light, so how exactly did we get here??

(Sorry, I know you don’t have actual answers to this, it’s just annoying me and I need to vent bc I can’t stop thinking about all the little inconsistencies when it comes to Armand. And I actually wondered for a bit if they were going to take the route of Armand mind-fucking Lestat at some point after Paris, but I feel like that can’t be the case with Lestat still so openly blaming him for the trial)

I don't think the "brave thing" is killing Nicki.

I think it is freeing Louis.

I think wrt Nicki... we have not seen everything that went down yet. I hope 😅

[nalyra-dreaming]

I was rewatching episode 5 of season 3, and while the song for Claudia was playing, I realized it would’ve been the perfect moment to include flashbacks of Lestat and Claudia from New Orleans — with happier moments that Louis didn’t know about. That would’ve made the scene even more heartbreaking, and it also would’ve shown that the father and daughter were really close and loved each other. Not to mention, we’d have gotten more scenes with Claudia, performed by Delaney and Sam.

... which would have taken more budget, unfortunately.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi! I’ve seen a lot of discussion surrounding budget cuts for season 3 and I was just wondering if we ever got any insight as to why the budget was decreased for this season? And at what point they found out about the cuts? Because it sounds like (at least based on interviews) they had a few scenes that were essentially placed on hold bc they didn’t have the money to do them justice this season. I personally am fine with that, so long as they follow through and actually give us the scenes or some iteration of the events that are missing/glossed over (cough cough… armandstat) in season 4.

Did season 2 underperform? Is that what led to the budget cuts?

I know this season over performed and that the numbers were better than season 2 (at least based on recent reports I’ve seen). So I’m hoping that means a budget increase for next season.🤞

I hope so, too.

And yes, supposedly the under-performance of s2 was the reason for the cuts, which is... well. Bitter. Given this story was never adapted before, and would have deserved to have the budget to do it properly.

Hopefully the numbers are well enough that AMC decides to do it justice next season.

[megancrow]

💔💔💔

[nalyra-dreaming]

Why did Akasha choose Lestat as her guardian in the series?

I think that will be part of the plot for season 4, nonny :)

[nalyra-dreaming]

I saw some posts tonight saying Eric told Autumn some s4 spoilers that she had to edit out of an interview I’m assuming. Do you think it’s possible they’ve already done some work on s4 or is it probably just general plot points?

I mean, a lot of our cast have spoken about them knowing the basic plots that will come up.

As such - it can be both :)

[nalyra-dreaming]

Do you think Lestat knows that Armand loves Daniel? Or that there's something between them?

Of course.

Lestat knows that for Armand to turn Daniel, he HAS to love him.

[tudvaseva-sasha]

[littlegirlinvisible]

THE SINGLE WORST THING THAT A VAMPIRE CAN FEEL IS LONELINESS.

Interview with the Vampire (2022—)

[virginiaisforvampires]

Finally! Full version of Sam and Jacob at the SAG-AFTRA panel for The Vampire Lestat! ♥️

[snowbuntingq]

Zero self-preservation instinct

[nasa]

Meet Dr. Nancy Grace Roman

A photo of Dr. Nancy Grace Roman holding a model of the Hubble Space Telescope.

You have to be a pretty big deal for NASA to name a space telescope after you, and that is certainly the case for Dr. Nancy Grace Roman — our Roman Space Telescope’s namesake. She’s sometimes called the “mother of Hubble,” but she’s really the mother of all space-based observatories and NASA science in general. As NASA’s first chief astronomer, Dr. Roman's vision and leadership supercharged space science and helped make NASA the world-class scientific institution it is today.

Nancy Grace Roman as a young child.

Nancy Grace Roman was born on May 16, 1925 in Nashville, Tennessee. She was naturally curious about the world, a trait she attributed to taking nature walks with her mother as a child. By seventh grade, she had decided that she was going to be an astronomer. 

She later recounted, “I certainly did not receive any encouragement. I was told from the beginning that women could not be scientists.”

A 1972 photo of Dr. Roman at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Nancy received her bachelor’s in astronomy from Swarthmore College in 1946 and her doctorate in astronomy from the University of Chicago in 1949. She specialized in spectral classification, which involves spreading starlight out into a rainbow to see the individual colors. She would decode these rainbows to learn about the temperature and brightness of the stars, and their distances and movements.

In 1959, just six months after NASA was founded, someone at the agency asked Dr. Roman if she knew someone who might be interested in creating a space-based astronomy program. She sure did — she applied for the job herself, and she got it!

Dr. Roman works with a model of the Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO).

Creating a whole space program from scratch was no small feat. Dr. Roman quickly set her sights on the stars, determined to make space-based telescopes a reality.

Scientists had been batting around the idea of Hubble for generations. Today, after more than three decades in orbit and thousands of discoveries, it’s hard to believe that Hubble was ever a contentious idea. But in the mid-20th century, a budget-starved NASA and a post-World War II government were hesitant to follow the ambitious ideal of a giant new telescope.

But Dr. Roman knew how transformative it would be to observe the cosmos from above Earth’s turbulent atmosphere, which blurs images from even the best ground-based telescopes. So she gathered astronomers from around the country and sat them down in a room with NASA engineers to hash out the possibilities. 

Then she championed the idea to Congress, saying that “for the price of one night at the movies each year, each American would receive 15 years of exciting discoveries.” (And she actually undersold it, since we’ve now received over 36 years of discoveries from Hubble!)

In this 1965 photo, Dr. Roman (center) conducts a demonstration with Smith College students during a visit to NASA.

With leadership experience stretching back to at least the fifth or sixth grade, when she organized her friends into an astronomy club, Dr. Roman paired a personable approach with unwavering commitment to the mission, regardless of who or what stood in her way. And now we have her to thank for not just Hubble but for every other space telescope that has followed.

A portrait of Dr. Roman with the Stratoscope II balloon in the background.

In less than a month, the observatory named in Dr. Roman’s honor will journey to the heavens to transform our view of the universe. Read more about the woman behind the mission’s name here: https://science.nasa.gov/people/nancy-roman/. Follow along with Roman’s road to launch at nasa.gov/roman, and virtually tour the Roman observatory here.

Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space!