Aphrodite trying to assure Anchises that he won't come to harm because he banged a goddess: you'll be FINE gods bang human men all the time and it works out. Oh DAMN you should see Eos' boyfriend Tithonus though. He just sits in a room growing older and more withered for eternity, babbling madly when he isn't begging for death it is GNARLY lmao
Division of labor in the home is one of the most important equity issues of our time. Yet at this rate it will be another 75 years before men do half the work.
The optimistic tale of the modern, involved dad has been greatly exaggerated. The amount of child care men performed rose throughout the 1980s and ’90s, but then began to level off without ever reaching parity. Mothers still shoulder 65 percent of child-care work. In academic journals, family researchers caution that the “culture of fatherhood” has changed more than fathers’ actual behavior.
Sociologists attribute the discrepancy between mothers’ expectations and reality to “a largely successful male resistance.” This resistance is not being led by socially conservative men, whose like-minded wives often explicitly agree to take the lead in the home. It is happening, instead, with relatively progressive couples, and it takes many women — who thought their partners had made a prenatal commitment to equal parenting — by surprise. Why are their partners failing to pitch in more?
The answer lies, in part, in the different ways that men and women typically experience unfairness. Inequality makes everyone feel bad. Studies have found that people who feel they’re getting away with something experience fear and self-reproach, while people who feel exploited are angry and resentful. And yet men are more comfortable than women with the first scenario and less tolerant than women of finding themselves with the short end of the stick. Parity is hard, and this discrepancy lays the groundwork for male resistance.
Though many men are in denial about it, their resistance communicates a feeling of entitlement to women’s labor. Men resist because it is in their “interest to do so,” write Scott Coltrane and Michele Adams, leaders in the field of family studies, in their book, “Gender and Families.” By passively refusing to take an equal role, men are reinforcing “a separation of spheres that underpins masculine ideals and perpetuates a gender order privileging men over women.”
While interviewing working parents for a book on parenthood, I spoke with one dad in Vermont who said: “The expectation among my male friends is still that they will have the life they had before having kids. My dad has never cooked a meal. I’ve strayed from that. But subconsciously, the thing that makes you motivationally step up and do something when you’re not being asked …” he trailed off, and then said: “I have justifications. It’s a cop-out.”
Take love out of the equation and focus on the workplace, and it’s clear how this plays out. Studies show that male employees sit back while their female co-workers perform the tasks that don’t lead to promotion. In a series of lab studies, the economists Lise Vesterlund, Linda Babcock and Maria Recalde and the organizational behaviorist Laurie Weingart found that in coed groups, women are 50 percent more likely than men to volunteer to take on work that no one else wants to do. But in all-male groups, the men volunteer just as readily.
In an interview with NPR, Dr. Vesterlund explained that the women do the work “because they’re expected to.” The men “come into the room, they see the women, they know how we play these games.”
We play the same games at home. I interviewed couples separately and found that the women were often angry, while many men didn’t seem to realize there was a problem.
The couples offered three explanations for this labor imbalance. The first was that women take over activities like bedtime, homework and laundry because men perform these tasks inadequately. But this isn’t “maternal gatekeeping,” the theory that men want to help but women disparage their capabilities and push them out. Instead these seem to be situations that necessitate the intervention of a reasonable adult.
A mother in California said: “It’s important to me that my sons are not falling asleep in class and that they’re not late for school. My husband does not share those priorities, so I do bedtime and school drop-off.”
The dad in Vermont explained: “I do laundry when I need it. When it comes to the kids’ laundry, I could be more proactive, but instead I operate on my time scale. So my wife does most of their laundry. Let me do it my way and I’m happy to do it, but if you’re going to tell me how to do it, go ahead and do it yourself.”
The second explanation involved forgetting or obliviousness. A mother in Illinois said: “My husband is a participatory and willing partner. He’s not traditional in terms of ‘I don’t change diapers.’ But his attention is limited.” She added, “I can’t trust him to do anything, to actually remember.”
A dad in San Francisco said that many of the tasks of parenting weren’t important enough to remember: “I just don’t think these things are worth attending to. A certain percentage of parental involvement that my wife does, I would see as valuable but unnecessary. A lot of disparity in our participation is that.”
Finally, some men blamed their wives’ personalities. A San Diego dad said his wife did more because she was so uptight. “She wakes up on a Saturday morning and has a list. I don’t keep lists. I think there’s a belief that if she’s not going to do it, then it won’t get done.” (His wife agreed that this was true, but emphasized that her belief was based on experience: “We fell into this easy pattern where he learned to be oblivious and I learned to resent him.”)
A father in Portland, Ore., confirmed that his wife takes on more but said: “It has to do with her personality. She always has to stay busy. No matter what day of the week it is, she has a need to be engaged, to be doing something.”
Many mothers told me they had tried to change this and had aired their grievances with their partners, only to watch as nothing changed. A mother in Queens said she spent three years trying to get her husband to do more before coming to terms with the fact that maybe it was never going to happen. “He notices the unfairness, but he just accepts it as something we have a disagreement about,” she said. “How much convincing of the other person can you do?”
All this comes at a cost to women’s well-being, as mothers forgo leisure time, professional ambitions and sleep. Wives who view their household responsibilities “as unjust are more likely to suffer from depression than those who do not,” one study says. When their children are young, employed women (but not men) take a hit to their health as well as to their earnings — and the latter never recovers. Child-care imbalances also tank relationship happiness, especially in the early years of parenthood.
Division of labor in the home is one of the most important gender-equity issues of our time. Yet at the current rate of change, MenCare, a group that promotes equal involvement in caregiving, estimates that it will be about 75 more years before men worldwide assume half of the unpaid work that domesticity requires.
If anything is going to change, men have to stop resisting. Gendered parenting is kept alive by the unacknowledged power bestowed upon men in a world that values their needs, comforts and desires more than women’s. It’s up to fathers to cop to this, rather than to cop out.
Not my tweets! Just ones that have been on my mind.
I wanna write TVL off so bad but I’m struggling not to incorporate TVL!Lestat’s 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. It’s just not what I was expecting and I’m still trying to get my thoughts together about it.
🚨 Very long post under the cut! 🚨
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 I’ve 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 hasn’t really exhibited either of these traits. S1E1 has him killing Lily for the “crime” 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 didn’t do anything wrong. Louis wasn’t talking to him so Lily has to die so Louis can’t 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 he’s been wronged or whether he’s personally upset by something, he’s 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 “ruining” the honeymoon fantasy Lestat had been dreaming for them. These explanations can coexist.
Making Louis Miserable
And so, I can see “I knew you’d figure it out!” 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.
It’s almost similar to 1x02 “You’re going to find that very difficult.” 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 didn’t tell Louis the truth about the trial. And while there’s 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 Louis’ affection.
And I just, keep thinking about how many explanations and theories I came up with (so many…) for why Lestat didn’t 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.
It’s 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 “pure” and begin a new life with Louis like he says in TVL Ep 6. Why he didn’t 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 Louis’ affection and feeling wronged when denied.
It goes into how Lestat objectifies Louis. He’s 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 “broken thing.”
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 “an attack” against Lestat himself (as he believes) and so he retaliates.
It’s 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 wouldn’t 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 might’ve 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 “welcome home cheater!” 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 aren’t 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 can’t 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 he’s a toy. The way he lashes out sometimes resembling a tantrum. The way he takes many things as a personal offense even when they’re 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 don’t 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 “his turn” to be in control again and “their turn to hurt.” 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 couldn’t imagine anyone entering TDV and seeing those sketches of LouClaudia as racist caricatures and hearing Sam’s script write them as such, and not see how drenched in antiblackness it all was. While Lestat’s never once been an activist, I didn’t 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, it’s 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 “freer” and have “more fun” with them.
So while I hadn’t 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 “oh shit” 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 he’d let Louis die. Even point blank saying: “It not realistic for [Lestat] to be like, "I'm going to go and kill Louis."” So I don’t fault fans who went with this interpretation, and I don’t 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 didn’t reveal the truth about the trial specifically to torture Armand & make Louis miserable. As though Louis was being “unfair.”
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. They’re 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 it’s about two different sources recalling their experiences from their own POV. It’s 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 Rolin’s saying they made it uber clear. These contrasting readings are not good! Sam is the actor, he goes based off the writing and how he’s 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 “Wow they know their characters so well” and becomes “wth is going on behind the scenes that even the actors can’t agree on what they’re actually doing?”
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 that’s 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 wouldn’t 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. I’d 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 “he said, she said” that I no longer find as endearing as I used to.
But you know what? Whatever. Whatever! We move. At this point that’s all we can do.
Anyway, Lestat has always had a mean streak and could be retaliatory, so I don’t think these traits still presenting themselves in TVL is poor writing. It’s actually consistent when looking at showstat’s behavior in S1.
And this isn’t to discredit the “Lestat is always performing” 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 don’t 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 might’ve 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 it’s like. Okay, now what?
Okay TVL, you’ve now clarified some of Lestat’s 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 didn’t 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 he’s right back to slut shaming Louis for being with Armand when he’s the one who fanned the flames of that relationship in the first place.
It’s 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 Claudia’s 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 “Lestat was clearly covered in bruises while on stage in Paris” that people will later look like clowns for believing?
Sam says Lestat will forever be haunted by Claudia’s death. “He will forever carry that shame. You don’t 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.” And yet, there’s 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 it’s 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 “banishment” and the rocks still being in Louis’ ankles? If given another chance, would he tell Louis the truth after the trial and not “give him” to Armand? Or, if Louis hadn’t tried to kill himself in 1973, would Lestat not even actually regret it?
Like it says in the tweets, I don’t mind showstat being “revealed” 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 isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
But there’s no actual development
The season just has adult!Lestat being spiteful and self centered and that’s it. There’s no attempt to do anything with these traits or explore the weight of his actions.
Like okay, Lestat wanted to “punish” 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 Louis’ depression to the point Louis tried committing suicide, and feels extreme guilt for it? Or does Lestat still believe he has the authority to “punish” 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 he’s being performative like he says in the finale. Lestat knows he’s an asshole. He knows he’s a monster, and he knows his love is oftentimes grotesque.
Now what?
“Lestat sucks and knows it” 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? That’s 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 he’s 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 doesn’t feel like a true consequence because the show has to butcher everyone’s 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 Armand’s abuse and not wanting to be abused anymore. It had little to nothing to do with Lestat.
What repercussions does Lestat face from disturbing Claudia’s 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 doesn’t do anything with it. It’s not saying anything with this adaptational choice.
Lestat is not Louis so I don’t expect him to handle grief, shame, and guilt the same way Louis does. But he hardly seems to feel them at all. Dream!Claudia should’ve been haunting his ass the entire season, yet she seems to barely be on his mind. To the point he doesn’t even choose to imagine what her final words to him could be while he dies. (Dream!Claudia “choosing” not to be there is so stupid, I’m sorry. They are all figments of Lestat’s imagination. They’re not “choosing” anything.)
Lestat hasn’t 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 who’s barely changed?
End
Lestat being crueler than I expected for TVL to reveal, while surprising, isn’t 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.
There’s sprinkles of what could’ve been a good character arc (my thoughts on them here) but they’re only layered in the finale when they should’ve been the premise of the entire season.
Overall, there’s 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 I’d 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 I’m going to have TVL!Lestat coloring my interpretations. Because TVL!Lestat is not completely nonsensical.
But I’m not saying TVL!Lestat is well written either.
The show could’ve 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 could’ve contrasted his attempt to ignore the elephant in the room, his complicity in Claudia’s 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 doesn’t 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? “You’re a challenge every sunset Saint Louis, and I’d have it no other way” 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 “can’t get her out of his mind” as in 2x08? The Lestat who often antagonizes Louis, but also feels “connected by a cord that you cannot see” 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 could’ve and should’ve did so many things differently, but instead destroyed itself entirely.
obsessed with the way epic manhood is defined as being remembered– doing great deeds that will be the stuff of song for generations to come, dying in glory and being memorialized by tombs that inscribe greatness on the physical landscape– and epic womanhood is defined as keeping memory alive– helen weaving the images of men about to die, penelope weaving laertes’s glory into his shroud, cassandra raising the cry and andromache the lament for hector–
something about manhood as passive and womanhood as active in relation to memory is just… such an incredible way of framing things
oh and the way it’s helen who calls it κακὸν μόρον, ὡς καὶ ὀπίσσω ἀνθρώποισι πελώμεθ᾽ ἀοίδιμοι ἐσσομένοισι (a terrible fate, that we will become the songs of men yet to be)!
because helen wants to be a storyteller, helen is meant to be a storyteller. helen wants to encode men’s lives in tapestry and eulogy. that’s how we see her when she’s left on her own: striving for domesticity and simplicity, not fame. she is, in homer, the ideal woman, not just beautiful but devoted to her family, modest and hardworking, and so very aware of the responsibility of carrying the memories of those who die.
but her curse is to be the stuff of stories, not a storyteller. the very epitome of woman, yet cut off from the purpose of womanhood within epic.
#the ideal woman in accordance with ancient greek misogyny stays within the home and therefore has no reputation #helen is automatically disqualified by leaving with paris but also by having such extraordinary beauty that she has kleos #this would be acceptable for a goddess but not a mortal woman #helen is on the threshold of those two states as a demigod #anyway i love op’s point that women are expected to preserve the kleos of men while having none themselves! (via @terpsikeraunos)
My instructor back in bookbinding school used to say that the mark of a competent craftsperson isn't that you never make mistakes, it's that you know how to fix them. And I think about that a lot.
i hate that diet culture means all the tasty drinks everywhere are loaded with stevia now. this isn't even a stance about health, I just think it tastes so fucking bad
Terminally sleepy @rosiefingereddawn - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
