so i mentioned it in the tags of this post but i want to elaborate on this line in particular:
because rachel reid uses âbitchyâ or âbitchinessâ as a descriptor of shaneâs behaviour in the long game, both by shane himself and ilya. what i find bizarre about it â considering that it is a derogatory gendered term â is that it is always used to imply shane is being unreasonable. shane is tone policing himself, even though his response to this situation (ilya telling him that heâs now close with troy barrett, someone shane knows as outwardly homophobic) is logical, and predicated on ilyaâs repeated failure to communicate. ilya replies âi might be busy having sex with troyâ and then hangs up. despite his tone, despite what he says, he is only described as speaking âtightly,â rather than âbitchily.â
to be clear, ilya and shane are both men, but ilyaâs behaviour is never described this way, even when he also acts petty, unkind, or bitchy. as another example:
ilya pokes fun at shaneâs diet, even after shane tells him to stop. shane loses his patience and reacts to something ilya started, but shaneâs behaviour is what is described as bitchy, not ilyaâs. shane is reacting unreasonably.
in the same scene â shane describes himself as an absolute bitch. shane is acting unreasonably. and again:
why is shane described this way? or more specifically â why is shane the only one described this way in the book? ilya is jealous of shane interacting with a reporter in a professional setting and shoots a puck at them from behind glass, something shane describes as humiliating, but reid doesnât describe this action as bitchiness. ilya antagonises shane, but shane responding is what is considered bitchy.
like i said, we cannot extricate âbitchâ from its origin as a gendered pejorative, but we also cannot ignore that it is racialised â reid exclusively uses it to describe the gay asian character (who is also a bottom) responding to antagonism. does that make sense? why are you using this particular language to deride shaneâs actions in this way, and why is it always utilised in scenes where ilya is an instigator? not to get heteronormative about it, but this dynamic feels like a reflection of the happy husband / nagging bitch wife dynamic. it is that deep.
it is important to consider the language we use to tell a story. reidâs depiction of shane is not magically unaffected by her own, obvious biases around race and sexuality. the fetishisation of his race, his feminisation, her use of ableist language all informs how she chooses to have him react and, in turn, how she chooses to describe his reaction. this is not meaningful commentary about shaneâs understanding of gender or his own queerness or his struggle to find community in a toxically masculine environment. he is not calling himself a bitch as an interrogation of shaneâs role as a professional athlete intersecting with his sexuality, or even how shane personally views women, it is more indicative of how reid views women. she codifies that shane and ilya fulfil gendered stereotypes in their relationship. ilya is tall and masculine and shane small and hairless. ilya is intelligent and shane is not. ilya is right and shane is wrong. ilya is a cocky asshole and shane is a bitch.
When you think you can just play around with antiblackness and play in Black people's faces like they didn't help you get your show the acclaim you apparently resented.
Taking a brief break from complaining about the writing to focus for a second on the blessing that is actors like Jacob.
Here he is in Variety talking about 'I own the night':
He found something in the writing that felt limiting to the character, and reworked it through his acting choices. It's making me reflect on how Louis is constantly being portrayed as either the (at-fault) victim or the perpetrator of violence--which strike me as the two things the white western gaze is truly comfortable seeing a Black person be---and how this move from Jacob to resist is so subtle yet SO impactful.
That also includes this bit from SDCC, where he dared to suggest that Louis didn't deserve to be decapitated and graphically tortured:
On top of all of the other stuff that we never see! (As per Radio Times):
I keep trying to articulate this thought I've been having about TVL. I don't know that this is fully formed but I keep returning to how the season seems to be engaging in a kind of "love is determined by a mathematical formula" logic.
Lestat abused Louis, so in order for Louis to get back with Lestat the show has to prove that Louis is actually just as bad as Lestat (via Claudia's condemnation and the things Louis engages in with Regina). Armand's abuse of Louis was less physically obvious than Lestat's, so in order for Louis to comfortably get back with Lestat, Armand's abuse needs to become physical.
Armand needs to be seen as evil, and Lestat needs to be seen as good, so they paint Lestat as uncaring and Armand as desperate. We can't see them hookup on screen or care about each other, because then that puts them on an equal playing field. Even though none of what happened in the 1700s should affect Louis's choice. It still feels calculated as a way to justify Loustat.
They decide they don't have time to explain DM's connection, so they create a vampiric bond for them that forces them to be connected. The apocalypse effect does the love math for them.
The bananas thing is that there was a very simple solution to this, and it was for Lestat *to become better* until he was worthy of Louis. There was no need to humble Louis to bring him down to Lestat's level. I've seen a lot of complaints that it didn't feel like Lestat had much agency or much of a character arc this season. THIS WAS THE CHARACTER ARC THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. It would have solved so many issues with the season- the feeling that the plot is spinning its wheels, the feeling of so much exposition, etc if Lestat had been actively changing the whole time. Him defying Gabriella is a good first step, but if the writers think this and this alone will make him a good partner to Louis, they are once again operating in extremely broken monogamist "love is a formula" land. I keep seeing Sam and Jacob saying "well who would have them other than each other" in interviews. That is not a compelling basis for a romance! That is not a connection I want to watch! I want to watch them fall in love because they like each other, and make an effort to be better for each other because they love each other. Loustat has this foundation already. They didn't need to reinvent the wheel. I don't understand why the writers forget how normal human emotion works in TVL.
Both Armand and Lestat openly say they fell in love and entered a relationship with Louis solely because he had that sadness in his eyes you only see in eastern european gay porn but then they DARE to complain and feel scorned when he's depressed and sad all time like "damn when will this bitch have a good day" um never that's why you wanted him in the first place guys these days (19th century) want a brooding tortured prettyboy but get upset when all he does is stand in the rain and gaze at the world in despair c'mon now what did you expect...you made your bed now lie in it
Still thinking about the way Those Who Must Be Kept have been written about in the show.
I genuinely think the writers did shit like making Armand walk in the sun in previous seasons for no greater reason than because it looked cool and was a shock plot twist. But to then double DOWN on that by making DANIEL walk in the sun and making every vampire and their grandma be able to fly? At that point it is not just a lack of foresight, it feels like the writers are taking the piss. What the fuck is "having the blood of Akasha" even going to mean for Lestat, actually, when everyone else is already so damn powerful? What difference will it make? How will they portray Akasha as so much more powerful than everyone else without making it seem like everyone just forgets to use their own powers?
Altering the timeline of the Great Burning this much from book canon is legit a MAJOR plot CRATER. Lestat should be TOAST. He should be dead and reduced to dust and ashes. Speaking of ashes! What the hell was the point of the instruction of only feeding TWMBK ashes? Why make up the plotline of Lestat being the Keeper (WHAT btw. Why even have Marius in the show at this point actually if this is how his role is going to be treated) and by extension the "worthy" judgement if not to explicitly bind the last one to whether he is allowed to drink Akasha's blood in the first place? By HER? Why have Akasha specifically request Lestat as her Keeper when he has done jack shit that would be remarkable to her at that point in time? When the playing of the violin is not even his idea? Why does show!Akasha not just squash Marius like a bug or order someone else to be her Keeper? Why make Lestat drinking Akasha's blood an accident rather than something he hungered for and desired beyond reason, with drinking her blood being the height of ecstasy and power?
Above all, the way they shot Akasha's monologue drove me up the wall. The actress is doing an amazing job but the episode is doing everything to undermine the performance by distracting you with other bullshit - Lestat is yelling, Marius is yelling, Marius is putting down Akasha for a statue nap as if she is a child and Lestat is still floating in the air in a way I cannot remotely take seriously. It is too frantic to leave an actual lasting impact on the viewer!
Akasha should be imposing. She should be TERRIFYING. We should instill a boundless fascination with her in Lestat as a queen, as a goddess, as a lover, because what else is the point! TWMBK and Marius' lair should have been a bottle episode with a laser focus on that location and storyline in the vein of 2x05, full stop. But NO, we get interrupted with modern band bullshit.
What are these CHOICES! How are you, Rolin Jones/Hannah Moscovitch, going to frame Akasha as the focal point of her titular season 4 when you have not laid any of the groundwork for her! For her dynamic with Lestat! For her backstory as a human regent and tyrant!
The Sameer Project desperately needs your support right now. Theyâve had to scale back some of their operations due to dwindling funds. Please consider setting up a recurring donation to help sustain their important work!
ALTERNATIVE DONATION OPTIONS
The Sameer Project, a mutual aid organization led by three Palestinians in the diaspora, are the proud directors and funders of three tent e
Translating Falasteen (Palestine), in collaboration with The Sameer Project, launched a fundraising campaign to support families in Gaza fac
"it's a romance novel!!! you can't expect a romance novel to realistically address systemic bigotry!!" ok so why is the romance novel using systemic bigotry as set dressing then đ¤
Like idk Iâve read books (especially books by queer men) thatâve primarily been romance/erotica that still take the time to delve into and depict the bigotry of the setting theyâre using as pretence for a story about âhot forbidden romanceâ. And they manage to do it without bogging the story down in trauma, or losing thread of romance/horniness! Itâs possible to do both!
One of my issues with TLG is that we are receiving extremely contradictory messages with Shane and Ilya's emotional arcs.
Ilya's arc in that story is all about the fact that focusing on his relationship with Shane didn't bring him the happy ending he deserved - he has a boyfriend but no support system outside of Shane's parents and maybe a couple friends, and he needs to have a community, to expand his circle of true friendships (and the narrative ties his inability to do that with the closet/secretive nature of their relationship). The importance of mourning a professional setback is also a major part of Ilya's narrative: we see how deeply the Centaurs' losing streak is affecting his mental health and making him feel aimless and powerless. We also see that the team's losses are not happening due to lack of talent, but lack of chemistry on the ice (which brings us back to, once again, the importance of community building). To sum it up, Ilya needs to stop seeing Shane as his sole source of happiness, and he can only do that by being vulnerable with other people, and he can only be truly vulnerable by coming out of the closet.
And then we have Shane, who, at the surface, seems to be having it all: he is on a winning team that he's out to, he has his parents and a small but tight knit circle of friends. Shane, unlike Ilya, seems to have a good community around him. He is, however, extremely afraid that coming out to the world (and, most importantly, revealing his relationship with Ilya) will result in the loss of both his professional success and his current support system. And Shane's fears are portrayed as really silly at first - Shane's team and his friends already know about his queerness, so why is he moping and freaking out instead of helping his mom with dinner? Why is he so reluctant to tell his good friend JJ, who is an enthusiastic ally and is constantly trying to set him up with men, about his relationship with a man? It doesn't look like Shane will lose anything by coming out. So at this point the book is showing us that Shane's reluctance to live and love openly comes from a selfish, myopic desire to stay in his comfort zone.
And yeah...that seems like a coherent narrative, right? Ilya's rightful need to come out clashes with Shane's selfish need to hide, they have their big blow up fight, Shane regrets his shortcomings and apologises, Ilya apologises for not communicating, the weird almost plane crash happens, Shane gets scared, proposes and promises Ilya they will come out to everyone that summer. And they live happily ever after!
Right??
Yeah, the problem is that, instead of tying the narrative at this perfectly acceptable point, the book decides to surprise us with Shane and Ilya getting accidentally outed in a video. And the accidental outing results in every single one of Shane's silly little fears coming true. His supposedly cool team ostracizes him and, led by his very good friend JJ, straight up accuses him of cheating on games. His reputation gets completely trashed in the press. His public humiliation is so severe that he ends up deciding to leave his team and the city he lived in for his entire professional life. To sum it up, Shane basically loses a great portion of the community he had before he got outed. He now only has Ilya, his parents and a couple of friends.
And the thing is, this could have been a great plot beat if the book's point was to show us that queer people's need to stay in the closet doesn't always come from shame or selfishness, but from a valid fear of structural homophobia. The narrative could have shown us Ilya engaging in self reflection about how he underestimated Shane's feelings. The book could also have shown us that Shane, who is not only gay but also a man of color, faces harsher professional setbacks than white characters like Ilya and Scott, because hockey culture is not only queerphobic but also deeply racist. And last but not least, we could have actually seen, in detail, how Ilya and the Centaurs will provide Shane with the loving, accepting community he truly needs after his original teams' violent backlash.
We don't get any of that, though! Instead of following through on this logical conclusion, the book rushes through Shane's feelings and magically cures him from any hurt he might be feeling after this incredibly traumatic event. He reconciles with JJ but that happens off page. Ilya has next to no reaction to his boyfriend's public humiliation ritual; his first response is to make it about himself ("this is insulting to me!"). Then all of the emotional support we get is a sex scene and some really unfunny jokes. We never see Shane forming any kind of bond with any of the Ottawa Centaurs, so the reader has no idea if he's going to actually have friends on that team or if they are going to merely tolerate him for Ilya's sake. At the end of the book, Shane is almost at the same place Ilya was at the beginning: humbled and reeling after a major life change, mourning a professional loss, deprived of his original community. Unlike Ilya, though, we are told by the narrative that this is supposed to be a happy ending. Shane doesn't need to be the best in his line of work and he doesn't need to have his own separate circle of friends because now he has his husband's team and his husband's friends. He doesn't need to make his original salary because his husband is already rich. He can just borrow Ilya's social circle and Ilya's team and Ilya's life because it's wrong to focus on things that aren't his very sad boyfriend.
I'm sorry, but that's a very weird way to resolve this complex plotline for the 1 (one) hockey player of color on your roster of leads. But who cares, right? Ilya got a dog, so we will dedicate several pages to that.
can you imagine if ilya had said to shane while they were discussing their future, "not montreal," because montreal couldn't afford both of them and he would lose his captaincy and he didn't want that, and shane had replied "oh please, i'm rich, i can take care of both of us!" and laughed off his concerns about his career. can you imagine
"it's a romance novel!!! you can't expect a romance novel to realistically address systemic bigotry!!" ok so why is the romance novel using systemic bigotry as set dressing then đ¤
remember when season 1 handled race and racism with sensitivity and awareness and didn't just like, gloss over it or pivot to a white character's suffering right after a Black character experienced racial abuse?
i can believe claudia's ghost would throw slurs at another Black person that she hated. i can believe she would say those specific things to Louis to hurt him! if this happened in s1, i would say "yikes" and move on, trusting that the writers knew what they were doing with it and that it didn't just happen for the sake of it.
not so much seeing it in s3, which has consistently elevated its white characters above its characters of colour, has shown NO awareness of literally anything but the most basic white girl feminism ("justice for antoinette") (which ALSO pushes down the Black characters simultaneously by saying that Louis/Claudia's experience of Antoinette was "shrinking" her lmfao?!), has given no care or depth to the social issues it does depict (incest, sexual abuse, power imbalances) and instead glosses over them or depicts them humorously, has chosen "it's Lestat's story" as an excuse to retcon the narrative of the two Black abuse victims we saw in s1 in favour of exonerating Poor Misrepresented Lestat...
in light of all that, Claudia's entire rant just feels... lazy? like a slap in the face? "I liked Lestat better btw" was particularly dogshit to me. I can imagine her saying that just to hurt Louis, but given everything else about this season, it feels much more like the writers saying "See! Lestat wasn't that bad actually!" and yeah, you can argue that us seeing Lestat's POV does not mean that Louis/Claudia's ISN'T true, but... the narrative is kind of treating it like it is?? Because so far we haven't had Louis go "Actually, no, that's not how I remember it" in response to any of Lestat's "corrections" (partly because they've barely been onscreen together lol. there isn't really the opportunity for it) so it's just like. All we have is what the show is actually showing us. Which so far has been "Lestat wasn't an abuser, Claudia was a liar and Louis was crazy". Sighs.
Idk man. Usually I would say "let the tale seduce you, trust the writers here" but I do not think that 6 episodes in out if 7 they're somehow going to make everything better in retrospect. Yknow??
(and crucially, I'm not saying that Black characters CAN'T be liars, or unreliable, etc. they should be, just as much as any other character! i don't want Louis and Claudia as innocent victims! but the COMPLEXITY is the point, not this absurd "the white guy was the Most Maligned and everything these (Black) people said about him wasn't true" shit. sighs.)
Not my tweets! Just ones that have been on my mind.
I wanna write TVL off so bad but Iâm struggling not to incorporate TVL!Lestatâs characterization into how I overall interpret Lestat because, unfortunately, I do see a consistent line of characterization. I can see how IWTV!Lestat would also be TVL!Lestat. Itâs just not what I was expecting and Iâm still trying to get my thoughts together about it.
đ¨ Very long post under the cut! đ¨
Mean & Unforgiving
Lestat has always had a mean streak. One of the biggest gripes I have with fanon is the tendency to steer completely away from this. In the same way Louis can be prideful and go below the belt with his words, Lestat can be mean and punitive/spiteful. And both, in their own ways, can be very very selfish. These traits have always existed in the show versions of these characters.
I think, with Lestat though, because there was so much yet-to-be explained in IWTV, I did allow bookstat characterizations to, not overshadow showstat, but fill in the missing pieces. As I think a number of people did.
As someone that has not read the books, from what Iâve heard, bookstat is extremely forgiving, to the point where it can be infuriating. He is also somewhat altruistic, as someone that prefers to only eat evil doers and even took care of his abusive father towards the later stages of his life.
Showstat hasnât really exhibited either of these traits. S1E1 has him killing Lily for the âcrimeâ of not being Louis. The same with the tenor and Tom Anderson and others. He punishes LouClaudia often, with Antoinette, with Charlie, with the train, etc. He is not forgiving by any means.
He retaliates even when the person didnât do anything wrong. Louis wasnât talking to him so Lily has to die so Louis canât talk to anyone? Lestat introduced Claudia to the concept of sex then punishes her desire for it by making her watch Charlie burn? Lestat lashes out, whether he feels heâs been wronged or whether heâs personally upset by something, heâs always taken his frustration out on other people.
But multiple reasonings can exist at once. With Antoinette, Lestat can have been feeling insecure in his relationship with Louis and trying to provoke Louis into eating properly, while at the same time wanting to punish Louis for being depressed and âruiningâ the honeymoon fantasy Lestat had been dreaming for them. These explanations can coexist.
Making Louis Miserable
And so, I can see âI knew youâd figure it out!â Lestat at the end of S2 missing & yearning desperately for Louis, while at the same time being petty and not telling the truth in the first place to intentionally punish Louis for choosing Armand.
Itâs almost similar to 1x02 âYouâre going to find that very difficult.â Lestat allowing Louis to run out and get burnt by the sun, intentionally withholding information, so Louis would have a reason to come running back to Lestat. Also similar to the army house party. Lestat telling Louis he can sleep with others, only for Lestat to humiliate him by filling their house with rowdy soldiers after Louis actually follows through with Jonah.
I distinctly remember fans, myself included, coming up with many many MANY explanations for why Lestat didnât tell Louis the truth about the trial. And while thereâs still more nuance there, Lestat does have a track record of withholding information to keep Louis with him/keep Louis returning to him, and a track record of feeling entitled to Louisâ affection.
And I just, keep thinking about how many explanations and theories I came up with (so manyâŚ) for why Lestat didnât tell Louis the truth about the trial. But him being roundabout vengeful, wanting to make Louis miserable, and ensure that Louis may return to him later if nothing else then to question him, does also fall in line with the Lestat we saw in Season 1.
Itâs cruel, but multiple sides to Lestat can exist. In the early days of their relationship, Lestat can have been omitting information out of a desire to be âpureâ and begin a new life with Louis like he says in TVL Ep 6. Why he didnât tell Louis about his mother or tell Claudia about Paris. But he has also withheld for manipulative reasons, like with the sun, like with not telling Antoinette about her finger. Many things can be true at once.
Just as Lestat can be aware the trial was messed up and acknowledge Louis as a victim, while still feeling entitled to Louisâ affection and feeling wronged when denied.
It goes into how Lestat objectifies Louis. Heâs always behaved as though Louis is his. Like a toy. His to love, his to hurt. He described his condition after the drop as becoming a âbroken thing.â
So I can see Lestat saving Louis during the trial, feeling slighted when Louis thinks it was Armand, then becoming more frustrated when Louis devotes himself to Armand. The trial was an attack against LouClaudia, but this is âan attackâ against Lestat himself (as he believes) and so he retaliates.
Itâs messed up. I am not justifying it. I just can better see the straight line of how a person could come to that conclusion.
Initially, I did think Lestat was lying when he confessed to this in TVL. That no way would he want to intentionally make Louis miserable. Surely he knew the trial was horrible and wouldnât want Louis to suffer more than he already had! But no, Lestat would and has done so several times just in Season 1 alone. Lily, the sun, Antoinette, poisoning Claudia.
Going to the Trial
In regards to his participation in the trial itself, while I do still struggle to see Lestat wanting to genuinely murder Louis, I did always believe he went to Paris willingly. I thought he went to save Louis, but I can also see this perspective that he mightâve went to humiliate LouClaudia.
Lestat has used spectacle to humiliate. He intentionally embarrasses himself at the Azalea by playing the piano like a cornball. He intentionally embarrasses Louis with the âwelcome home cheater!â soldier ambush in their house. He intentionally provokes disgust with his performance by eating a fake baby on the Mardi Gras float. Even in 1x07 when he was going to make Louis watch Antoinette poison Claudia. That entire sequence was punishment for both Louis & Claudia, Claudia the victim and Louis the forced witness. He uses spectacle.
So just like the Azalea clientele, just like the soldiers, just like the Mardi Gras attendees, etc., I can see Lestat going to the trial with a desire to publicly humiliate LouClaudia for leaving him.
In the same nuanced way Louis was terrified of seeing Lestat while also being overwhelmingly glad to be seeing him, Lestat can have missed and wanted to see LouClaudia, while also being majorly pissed and wanting to take the reigns of their lives and portray it in a performance that selfishly makes him feel better. Humiliating LouClaudia as punishment, while also utilizing the forced proximity to be with and talk to them again (even if they arenât at all interested.)
And he is fine with forced proximity. We see this after the drop with him refusing to buy his own coffin, sharing with Louis, and making Claudia move hers to be in the same room.
So I can see him going there, not with the intention to kill them because I truly canât see that, but to humiliate them.
Similar to what yusiyomogi talked about in this post, Lestat has somewhat of a child-like way of looking at the world. The way he objectifies Louis as though heâs a toy. The way he lashes out sometimes resembling a tantrum. The way he takes many things as a personal offense even when theyâre not.
Lestat feels like a Peter Pan-esque figure. In that he can bring joy, charm, and a euphoric sense of freedom to those around him, but he can also be destructively self centered and treat others like objects, angered when they donât behave in ways he wants them to. Emotional development and maturity in tatters from having been abused by his entire family since he was a child.
(BTW this does not detract from his patriarchal & spousal abuse. They all go hand in hand because while Lestat may have a child-like worldview, he is still a grown man.)
So while I did believe Lestat went to the trial to save Louis, I can also see the characterization that he went to humiliate them. That he rehearsed that play and saw those props and interpreted the whole thing as a game. That it was simply âhis turnâ to be in control again and âtheir turn to hurt.â Only for the play to actually start, for LouClaudia to come in looking chewed up and stomped on, and only then does he understand this shit is real.
Before, I couldnât imagine anyone entering TDV and seeing those sketches of LouClaudia as racist caricatures and hearing Samâs script write them as such, and not see how drenched in antiblackness it all was. While Lestatâs never once been an activist, I didnât want to imagine him being this indifferent to such obviously harmful portrayals.
But that was back when I assumed he knew the trial was serious and that LouClaudia were literally going to die. And while Lestat is ignorant as fuck when it comes to antiblackness, he also has seen severe racism and completely dismissed it before. So yes, him seeing those caricatures and not giving a damn is perfectly in character.
1x03 ends in a race riot with white supremacists going around burning down black businesses and harassing black families, and Lestat jokes about making it their anniversary. Lestat weaponizes Antoinette against Louis, and while they have their musical talents in common, itâs not a coincidence that Antoinette, a white woman who he can flirt and feel up on in public, is the kind of person he chooses to antagonize Louis with. The same could not be accomplished having chosen another man or chosen a black woman because of the societal prejudices that would limit his ability to flaunt them. To feel âfreerâ and have âmore funâ with them.
So while I hadnât wanted to imagine Lestat seeing LouClaudia portrayed as racist caricatures during those rehearsals and him just shrugging about it, I can now see that too. In his privilege, as an untouchable vampire but especially as a wealthy white man, Lestat has mocked, dismissed, and weaponized racism in the past.
Overall, after sitting and thinking more on Lestat, specifically showstat, I can see him going to that trial with the intention to humiliate LouClaudia, rehearsing that script and thinking absently of those racist props and depictions, having an âoh shitâ moment once he actually locks eyes with Louis and switching to save him, only to then turn back around and let Louis suffer in retaliation for actually being upset about it all and choosing to go home with someone else.
Abusing Unreliable Narration
While I do think some of my confusion / mixed feelings came from using bookstat interpretations to fill in the blanks for showstat, and my tendency to steer towards positive characterizations before negative ones, I think the cast & crew played a part too.
Because, yes! It is going to cause division if some of the actors (the main interviews fans look to) say something completely different. Sam said there is no world in which heâd let Louis die. Even point blank saying: âIt not realistic for [Lestat] to be like, "I'm going to go and kill Louis."â So I donât fault fans who went with this interpretation, and I donât fault their shock when Rolin implies the opposite.
Then you have Sam saying Lestat knew how badly he messed up with Louis and could somewhat understand why Louis would assume the worst of him. Why Louis would try to punish him by being with someone else. Only for showstat to debunk that understanding and clarify he didnât reveal the truth about the trial specifically to torture Armand & make Louis miserable. As though Louis was being âunfair.â
The show, overall, can do unreliable narrator well. But it gets to a point where open ended interpretation distorts into confusing characterization. In my opinion, one of the best examples of unreliable narration was pristine Lestat vs bloodied Lestat during and after the drop.
It makes perfect sense that LouClaudia (mainly Claudia) would recall Lestat appearing like an untouched, indestructible god after just having dropped Louis from the heavens. While it also makes perfect sense that Lestat would remember feeling wounded and panicked and less like a god, but more like a rabid beast. Neither memories, in my opinion, are wrong. Theyâre about how the person recalling it felt about the moment, not which objectively happened.
This was one of my favorite uses of unreliable narrator in the show because itâs about two different sources recalling their experiences from their own POV. Itâs not a showrunner/writer having a completely different interpretation than how the actor portrayed the character. Sam said he left the trial ambiguous in case they revisited it, while Rolinâs saying they made it uber clear. These contrasting readings are not good! Sam is the actor, he goes based off the writing and how heâs directed. How on earth could they come away with two different intentions behind pivotal scenes?
The show uses subjective storytelling so well at times then so horribly at others. Lestat and Gabriella perceiving their relationship differently makes sense. They are different characters with their own unique ways of thinking. But Sam and Jennifer are working together to tell one single story, so them as actors having wildly different perspectives does not make sense.
What do you mean Jen believed Gabistat was a mutually desired, erotic relationship while Sam interpreted it as sexual assault and abuse? At some point this stops being âWow they know their characters so wellâ and becomes âwth is going on behind the scenes that even the actors canât agree on what theyâre actually doing?â
This lack of clarity will lead to vastly different interpretations, and while conceptually not a bad thing, how far is this going to go? To where you now have actors in the same frame portraying different kinds of scenes, actors and writers telling different stories, and fans across the board all having watched the same-but-different show and picking & choosing which of the iterations they prefer to go with. Subjective storytelling is great when done well, horrible when not!
Differences & Complexity
Because Samstat seemed to have the least alterations from his book counterpart, it was assumed his backstory and personality would have the least alterations too. But thatâs not the case and expecting bookstat to fill in the gaps of showstat was a mistake on my part.
Showstat is older than bookstat when he became a vampire. He has a different relationship with his mother than bookstat did. He spent longer with Magnus, longer with Akasha. Similar to Louis, Claudia, Armand, and Daniel, it was wrong to assume showstat wouldnât also have significant differences from his book version.
The cast & crew interviews having drastically different interpretations on the same exact scenes & characters is just unhinged though. Iâd really like to hear what Jamlainey think about some of the things Rolin air dropped before fleeing. But even if we do hear their responses, it still keeps the characters in this perpetual state of âhe said, she saidâ that I no longer find as endearing as I used to.
But you know what? Whatever. Whatever! We move. At this point thatâs all we can do.
Anyway, Lestat has always had a mean streak and could be retaliatory, so I donât think these traits still presenting themselves in TVL is poor writing. Itâs actually consistent when looking at showstatâs behavior in S1.
And this isnât to discredit the âLestat is always performingâ characterization either. He is always performing. He performs arrogance while massively hating himself. He performs being larger-than-life while at the same time finding obvious comfort in traditional dynamics.
He is a very progressive vampire who often breaks vampire social conventions and regulations, while also being a very conservative man with quite regressive views on women, poc, disability, and gender identity. Lestat can be a vampire revolutionary that destroys a coven with his ideals, while at the same time a conservative white man that spews anti-vax logic to children.
Lestat is a very complex character, and I donât think the many sides to him cancel each other out. I think his wide eyed curiosity and joviality when taking care of Akasha can coexist with his pettiness and self centeredness. I think him desperate to do whatever he can to make his abusive mother happy can coexist with her not wanting to be entrapped by his possessiveness. And I think a Lestat that mightâve wanted to intentionally make Louis miserable can coexist with a Lestat that yearned desperately for him.
The Problem
The biggest problem with these reveals, and why I think they fall apart, is that itâs like. Okay, now what?
Okay TVL, youâve now clarified some of Lestatâs traits and actions. Not the routes I thought you were going to take, but I can see the logic. So now what are you going to do with these clarifications? And the show responds⌠nothing.
THIS IS MY ISSUE. This is the whole issue! The show reveals these things, but does nothing with them.
Lestat reveals he didnât tell Louis the truth to deliberately hurt him. Does Lestat feel guilt over this? Does he understand this was a terrible thing to do? I guess I can assume so based on the 2x08 reunion scene, but in TVL heâs right back to slut shaming Louis for being with Armand when heâs the one who fanned the flames of that relationship in the first place.
Itâs reinforced that Lestat went to the trial cooperatively. This is one of the worst things Lestat has ever done. But does he think so? We know there is some guilt based on his horror at Claudiaâs death in 2x07 and during 2x08 reunion. In TVL, we can choose to believe he was running from his guilt over Claudia all season⌠but is this actually depicted or is this another âLestat was clearly covered in bruises while on stage in Parisâ that people will later look like clowns for believing?
Sam says Lestat will forever be haunted by Claudiaâs death. âHe will forever carry that shame. You donât want him to come to terms with it either, or have closure on it like Louis does. It is one of those things that is going to continue to send him insane.â And yet, thereâs not an inkling of his relationship with Claudia until Ep 5 after he sees Regina, then the show has ghost!Claudia compliment him on killing her before he moves on from the seance swiftly after. Where is this massive shame and insanity? Or am I supposed to just assume itâs there like everything else?!
And what about Louis? While Louis would undoubtedly forgive Lestat, does Lestat feel any guilt for nearly getting Louis killed? Does he feel guilt for âbanishmentâ and the rocks still being in Louisâ ankles? If given another chance, would he tell Louis the truth after the trial and not âgive himâ to Armand? Or, if Louis hadnât tried to kill himself in 1973, would Lestat not even actually regret it?
Like it says in the tweets, I donât mind showstat being ârevealedâ or I guess confirmed to be a bit crueler than I expected. There could be a really interesting arc in there and, like most of the adapted characters, showstat being very different from his book counterpart isnât necessarily a bad thing.
But thereâs no actual development
The season just has adult!Lestat being spiteful and self centered and thatâs it. Thereâs no attempt to do anything with these traits or explore the weight of his actions.
Like okay, Lestat wanted to âpunishâ Louis and kept his mouth shut about the trial. Does Louis know this? How would this information affect their relationship? Is this another reason why Lestat becomes pained (to the point his stutter comes back) when talking about 1973, because he succeeded in fueling Louisâ depression to the point Louis tried committing suicide, and feels extreme guilt for it? Or does Lestat still believe he has the authority to âpunishâ Louis this severely if something like this were to happen again? What do Louis & Lestat learn from this experience? How does it affect them?
Silence.
The show tries to tell you that Lestat is, somewhat, a self aware person. He can admit when his songs suck, he can admit that his low self esteem is why they only perform in small venues, he can even admit when heâs being performative like he says in the finale. Lestat knows heâs an asshole. He knows heâs a monster, and he knows his love is oftentimes grotesque.
Now what?
âLestat sucks and knows itâ is not a storyline, nor a character arc.
IWTV had Louis undergoing multiple arcs across the 2 seasons. Louis in 1x07 is different from who he was in 1x01, and 2x08 Louis is remarkably different from 2x01. Even TVL finale!Louis is drastically different than who he was in TVL Ep 2. Louis changes and changes and changes all the time. He is always developing as a character, in both the positive and the negative. But how different is Lestat from TVL Ep 7 to who he was in TVL Ep 1?
No Consequences
Mardi Gras was a response to his abuse in NOLA, but what repercussions did he face from participating in the trial? What, Louis not wanting to be with him? Thatâs not a real consequence when you have Lestat steering the results in his favor so Louis would be miserable and return to him later anyway.
What repercussions does Lestat face from objectifying many of the people around him? Them thinking heâs kindve a dick? What does that matter when they all do what he wants anyway? When the band (sans Larry who no one really likes) just continues performing with him, when Armand comes to him puppy eyed and desperate to apologize, when Louis lets Lestat back in no matter what he does every single time?
Daniel cuts off his head but that doesnât feel like a true consequence because the show has to butcher everyoneâs characters in order for it to make any sense. Even then, the beheadings are more about Louis. Being punished (as always) for realizing the extent of Armandâs abuse and not wanting to be abused anymore. It had little to nothing to do with Lestat.
What repercussions does Lestat face from disturbing Claudiaâs ghost in the afterlife? Her complimenting his involvement in her murder and praising his blood? While she goes on to insult Louis in every way imaginable?
Does Lestat grow from anything? Where is the guilt from his actions? Is there any attempt to do better? The show can have this more spiteful and self centered Lestat. But it doesnât do anything with it. Itâs not saying anything with this adaptational choice.
Lestat is not Louis so I donât expect him to handle grief, shame, and guilt the same way Louis does. But he hardly seems to feel them at all. Dream!Claudia shouldâve been haunting his ass the entire season, yet she seems to barely be on his mind. To the point he doesnât even choose to imagine what her final words to him could be while he dies. (Dream!Claudia âchoosingâ not to be there is so stupid, Iâm sorry. They are all figments of Lestatâs imagination. Theyâre not âchoosingâ anything.)
Lestat hasnât shown any growth since their actual relationship, so what is there to root for when Loustat touch pinkies in Ep 6 and touch neck scars in Ep 7? By TVL finale, Louis has undergone a million and one character arcs ever since IWTV pilot. Why would I want him with a Lestat whoâs barely changed?
End
Lestat being crueler than I expected for TVL to reveal, while surprising, isnât necessarily bad. The show just handled it really fucking poorly with no consequences or attempt to grow. Ep 6 Lestat says he needs to work on himself, then spends the following episode dismissing Claudia, insulting Louis, cheering for Antoinette, and envisioning Dee as nothing but his waiter.
Thereâs sprinkles of what couldâve been a good character arc (my thoughts on them here) but theyâre only layered in the finale when they shouldâve been the premise of the entire season.
Overall, thereâs no excuse for many of the ways the writers went about this season. It drowns in racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
The point of this post is just me wrapping my head around Lestat as a character. If he was written as crazily and bizarrely as Daniel, Armand, and Claudia, then Iâd be able to easily sever TVL!Lestat from IWTV!Lestat.
But I can see a consistent personality and psyche from IWTV!Lestat that could lead into TVL!Lestat. So him as a character is kindve becoming muddled in my head because if I go rewatch IWTV now, I already know Iâm going to have TVL!Lestat coloring my interpretations. Because TVL!Lestat is not completely nonsensical.
But Iâm not saying TVL!Lestat is well written either.
The show couldâve juxtaposed his spite about the book and the performative rage in his songs, with Dream!Lou continuously haunting him and representing his actual yearning, love, and guilt over Louis. The show couldâve contrasted his attempt to ignore the elephant in the room, his complicity in Claudiaâs murder, with her either haunting him or him spiraling worse than ever anytime she does get mentioned and especially after the seance.
And even with this meaner, more avoidant Lestat, this doesnât have to erase the positive qualities we have seen him display. Louis often insults himself, where is the Lestat who never let Louis do so without combating with compliments? âYouâre a challenge every sunset Saint Louis, and Iâd have it no other wayâ in S1, only for TVL!Lestat to not say a thing the multiple times Louis degrades himself? Just letting the insults sink and fester? Where is the Lestat who was the first person to ever see Louis as he truly was and think all of him was beautiful? Who thinks so many things are beautiful?
Where is the duality? The Lestat who can be petty and angry, but can also be loving and doting? The Lestat who wants to run from his guilt over Claudia, but also âcanât get her out of his mindâ as in 2x08? The Lestat who often antagonizes Louis, but also feels âconnected by a cord that you cannot seeâ and wants them happy and together regardless of it all?
Where is the duality? The development? How do you spend a whole season diving into Lestat as a character, and somehow flatten him to be more one-dimensional than before?
The show just couldâve and shouldâve did so many things differently, but instead destroyed itself entirely.
i wanna maybe gather my thoughts about it in a more analytical fashion, but i feel like the point tvl is getting at is that lestat has been stuck in a child's mindset throughout his entire existence. a lot of people who read the books praised lestat's ability to endure, something that lestat said himself in s1e6 as well, but reality in the show is that he's only been enduring because he sees no alternative but to live.
watching iwtv it may seem that louis is a weaker person between them, but now i don't think so. i think louis is actually a stronger person because he constantly seeks the meaning in his life and holds onto what he finds. it's mostly the circumstances, the society and certain awful people that crush him and inhibit him. in comparison to claudia louis is indeed weak and aimless, but reality is, he still persists no matter what ("as long as you walk the earth, i'll never taste the fire"). his biggest weakness is reliance and self-definition through other people.
but looking at lestat and how he describes his own existence, it feels like he only lives because he's afraid to die. it's like in his mind there's no alternative but to live, even when there's no meaning. and sometimes the meaning finds him, but usually he just... exists. and he spends the mindless years of his existence searching for "fun", like a child kicking rocks on a street. and when the reality crushes him, and it happens very often because literally everything crushes him, he hides. sometimes for 100 years at the time.
the way he lashes out and reacts to his ego being hurt can't be described as anything other than "immature". i keep finding myself shocked at the way he talks about louis and calls him names in tvl, but then i remind myself about the chess scene from s1e6. "finish the game!!" and the litany of childish but hurtful insults towards someone who refused to play by his rules. the racist microaggressions to provoke louis in s1e1. the possessiveness. it's the same lestat. his experience before he met louis didn't make him grow up, so why am i surprised that all the experience after hasn't changed him as well?
the way he tells his story, everything happens to him. he's the center of the world, but he doesn't really make decisions, it's always someone older than him saying that he needs to do something and he does it. or sometimes doesn't do it when he feels rebellious. we joked about louis not taking accountability sometimes, but lestat "accountability" is just him saying "yeah i hurt you on purpose, what's you gonna do about it?". arguably admitting you did something bad is very easy in this mindset, where guilt evaporates (but really, hides in the farthest corner of the mind) after new fun activity takes its place. when there's always a new game to play, there's no place to think about your life. when the old toy is broken, discard it for a new one.
and the main reason for him being stuck in a child's mindset is obviously the abuse by his parents. and continuous abuse by his mother who's regrettably still alive (because he kept her alive, like a child would). he refuses to confront what she did and still does to him and it stifles his growth. and especially when she's next to him, she overshadows everything in his life and it makes him even less capable of self-reflecting. and while he's like this, he'll continue to hurt people around him horribly, especially people who relied on him and looked up to him like nicki, louis and claudia. "will my toesies ever touch the ground?" - i have the same damn question...
suburban women on september 15 1967 tuning in to star trek and seeing fuck-or-die mode spock getting in a sweaty man fight with captain kirk in amok time
This whole season my big issue has been, besides all of my small issues which are also very numerous so it's hard to tell the difference, that we don't know what the hell Lestat is doing or what his motivation is or why we care. I know why I cared about him as a character in seasons 1 and 2, because our point of view character did, and I know why I care about him in the books, very well, and I don't know why I'm supposed to care about him in season 3.
When I talk about adaptations I talk about this idea of there being a guiding principle that you organize your storytelling around, but I think that works for a lot of TV just in general. And this third season I don't feel like the writers really looked at the first two seasons that they made and thought about what the audience actually needed from a pivot to Lestat at all. They needed at least one principle of the season to be making the audience fall in love with Lestat. They knew the actor was charismatic and they knew that the book character was iconic, and they just kind of forgot to make the one in the show... anything?
The book TVL is about looking for a way to live with both authenticity and something you can call goodness. That's a really strong character motivation! You can do a bunch of twists on it, he can fail at his quest and be sad, he can succeed and be happy. When he's doing stuff it's not really hard to understand why, and it's likeable because that's a good motivation even though it's very difficult for him to achieve this very lofty goal. People I know who didn't like the book nearly as much as I do still get the point, they just don't personally relate to it as much.
In the show he's weirdly passive and angry constantly, but doesn't want to affect any change and is mostly just complaining? Which would make sense if I understood what he's actually complaining about, but he's mostly just griping? I can deal with a guy who complains, I read the book Interview with the Vampire? This is ridiculous.
The big original sin of this season: why do you actually want to spend time with the character of Lestat? This guy was mostly an antagonist in the prior two seasons, he testified at the trial that killed Claudia, he abused Louis. Yeah he was fun to watch, yeah we like him because of his relationship with Louis, but we don't like him or know him as a guy who is our main hero yet. Why should we care to watch his story? This season did not a single thing to answer that question!
The book answers that on like page one, you want to spend time with Lestat because he's an optimistic guy! And if that didn't work, he's telling you a linear story where he experiences character growth and change and is on a motivated quest for much of it. The questions you as a reader have keep getting answered: how did he become this vampire who seemed to embrace being a vampire so much? We see that! Why did he do a bunch of the stuff he did in the first book? We see the development of that character, and fairly early on you fall in love with that character in this book and so that question doesn't keep coming up. You stop thinking about Interview with the Vampire pretty quickly, and you start wondering, what's going to happen to Nicki? How is he going to deal with Armand? Is he going to find Marius? The kinds of questions that keep you reading a book!
In the TV show he is on a rock tour because he is bored. He is giving an interview to Daniel because he is... that's actually not explained? Maybe he's trying to correct the book, but he doesn't seem to want to give Daniel any information, so I think he just likes being mean to Daniel, but he doesn't seem to enjoy it? He is fighting vampires who are trying to kill him because they are trying to kill him. He is reconnecting with his mom because his life is in shambles, but not because he did anything, but because he's a rock star because he's bored but he's not good at being a rock star and also doesn't really seem to enjoy that that much either. He maybe wants to spend time with his mom? But he doesn't seem that happy about that either because he's making sad faces most of the time they are talking. Sometimes Louis is here, Lestat is mad at him because he did the interview that became the book, and the interview that became the book contained small factual inaccuracies that don't really change how we view what happened in the prior two seasons in any meaningful way. He doesn't like Armand because Armand is desperate and he doesn't like him and he let Louis be with Armand to punish Armand for... I mean in the show they both genuinely conspired to kill Claudia, so I don't understand Lestat's issue here. Demonstrably in the show Armand has done every single thing Lestat has wanted him to do since shortly after they met.
And he also doesn't want to tell humans vampires exist, and he also is only making an anthem for the great conversion because his mom is a cackling super villain with an absurd nonsense accent who controls him with her evil pushup bra powers. Gabriella really is far and away the worst thing in the season.
And to be fair, we also don't know why he is using an archaic piece of technology to record his story for a random mystery person who even he does not know. And he's telling this story in a similarly evasive way to the way that he is talking to Daniel, almost as though this element was very clearly added later and they didn't really think about why he would be recording this and how the motivations for it would meaningfully effect the voiceover.
What did he attempt? What did he fail at? Why are we supposed to understand why he did any of the bad things he did? Why are we supposed to like him enough to want to understand him?
Forget the human face of actor Sam Reid, and his charismatic performance. Has the show given you a single reason to like Lestat more in season 3 than you already did or didn't in seasons 1 and 2? Not because you feel bad because something bad happened to him, why do you like him? Why is he's someone whose goals you want to root for?
And also what are his goals?
I have none of those questions from the source material, and for what it's worth I had none of those questions about Louis in season 1 and 2. This isn't purposely chaotic storytelling, this is not good storytelling.
I know that the bad faith response to this is that not loving Lestat is a skill issue, so this is a me problem. I had no issue understanding his role in the first two seasons. I like Sam Reid as an actor. And as for whether or not I love the book character, all I can say is: that is a very funny thing to accuse me specifically of!
