Storm Cloud Rising

Theories and analysis of my favorite shows, books, life and anything of interest

[stormcloudrising]

The Problem with Daniel's Blood

Yeah, so Armand and Daniel might be about to find out that they made a big mistake is slicing off Lestat and Louis heads…and not for the obvious reasons.

This show does not waste dialogue, and so, you must pay attention to what is said…even in background scenes.

Lestat has already told the audience via VO, and Daniel to his face that there is something wrong with Daniel’s blood and that’s why he needs antibodies. And you know who I think has been providing those antibodies and keeping Daniel’s vampiric body alive…Lestat. And I don’t think Daniel knows because Lestat has Fareed keeping it secret.

This is why they showed Fareed putting the little bandage on Lestat’s arm in episode 4 but strategically didn’t show us whether Lestat was getting or receiving blood. Most viewers likely assumed that he was getting blood since he previously said in episode 2 that was part of Fareed’s duties, but I think he was giving not receiving blood.

Later in the same episode, they have Daniel tell Lestat that he doesn’t need a “gift” from him, which was a strange response considering the conversation. Lestat did not imply that he was giving Daniel a gift and so his response didn’t really make sense. But when Daniel made that comment, I read Lestat’s expression as, “that’s what you think.”  The writers put that gift line in Daniel’s mouth for a reason.

Daniel, the ace reporter has also not picked up on all the clues staring him in the face. Why not? Probably because of Memnoch, whom I think is in possession of Daniel. The Pulitzer Prize winner is no longer the talent he once was, or else he would have put together the clues by now. 

He would at least have figured out that something was off. Instead, he fixated on Lestat’s stutter, which must be of interest to Memnoch for some reason. I wonder if he was present at the burning of the witches when Lestat stutter started.

 I read Memnoch so long ago, and unlike the other books, I don’t think I finished it.  For this reason, I don’t remember if there were hints of him being around Lestat when he was young or at the burning of the witches. I will have to go back and re-read before the next season, but if you know the answer, please share. 

Memnoch encountering Lestat in the past would be an easy thing to script into the show and would be a way to connect Lestat to the Memnoch story without him being the one who has the dialogue or religious debate with the devil.

To me, the clues suggest that they will do the Memnoch story with Armand and Daniel. This works because of the gremlin’s religious fanaticism.

But back to what I mentioned at the top about the writers not wasting words. Daniel is so off his game that he didn’t pick up on the biggest clue they dropped—the reference to the ‘golden blood.” He didn’t pick up on it even though he was part of the two-way conversation.

What do I mean? Well, the show didn’t mention the Rh null blood type out of the blue…and to Daniel of all people for no reason.  

Rh-null is nicknamed "golden blood," precisely because it's a universal donor for anyone with a rare Rh-null phenotype. Like Gabriella stated, there are only about 45 confirmed people alive with it. If the writers picked that blood type deliberately, and I think they did, it’s for a specific purpose.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t play one in real life, but I don’t think that it’s Armand’s blood that’s the issue or else, he would have experienced the same problem that Daniel is going through. Daniel’s is acerbated by the fact he has Parkinson, but Armand’s blood is not the issue.

The way I’m reading it is that if Armand had Rh null phenotype as a human, he would only have been able to get transfusion from the rarest of the rare…another Rh null donor. 

Of course, they didn’t have blood transfusions 500 years ago, and so that part of it is moot. But if he did have Rh null and is able to drink from victims with other blood types, it would mean that becoming a vampire made the need for rh null blood no longer necessary. I tend to think that this is likely how it works.

However, my money is on Armand not being a rh null phenotype and him having one of the 8 primary blood types.

I suspect that whatever is causing the problem and what changed Daniel’s blood has to do with his Parkinson, having Armand share his vampiric blood with him over the years without turning him; and the entity possessing him. I think sometime during the three weeks after the events in Dubai and his turning on the plane over NJ, he was possessed. He was likely possessed before the turning.

I think his original blood type is AB Negative, the rarest of the primary 8 blood types. It’s why it’s his favorite. While it’s the rarest of the primary blood types, it still wouldn’t be a problem even with his Parkinson.

This suggests there is another reason for his problem, and I think that’s where his possession by Memnoch comes into play. The possession has introduced or converted his already vampiric enhanced human blood to rh null phenotype, or the show’s version of such. Him drinking regular human blood types isn’t working and is in fact causing more problems. This is why his vampiric powers are still so weak.

And yes, I know that Memnoch does not possess Lestat in the books, but possession does exist in the Anne Rice world and I think that this is the tack the show is taking.

While rh null is super rare as Gabriella said, only around 45 people in the world with that blood type, I bet on the show, there is one special vampire with that “golden blood” as rh null is called, and that is of course Lestat. And his blood is likely what is keeping Daniel’s vampiric body alive.

But now, Armand and Daniel have cut his and Louis’ heads off, and so I doubt that when Lestat gets his head back, he will be inclined to still provide Daniel with blood. And of course, Akasha will soon kidnap Lestat, and then his body will be taken by a thief and so even if he would be so inclined, he won’t be around to provide much transfusion. And lack of access to this rare blood could potentially be the reason for his horrible death.

That’s why I think Armand is bidding at the auction. He wants Lestat’s blood for Daniel. By this time, I think that Daniel has suffered his horrible death and so, the blood must be needed to somehow bring his spirit from Memnoch’s realm and putting him in a clone of his younger self. In a way, Daniel spirit will do to the clone of his younger self, what the Body Thief does to Lestat.

I previously considered the idea that Daniel’s horrible death was going to be at the hands of someone else…possibly an ancient. I even thought that he might already be dead, and we would see the event in flashbacks. I can’t totally rule that either possibility, but I’m now more incline to think that it will have something to do with his rh null blood and lack of access to Lestat’s “golden blood.”

[stormcloudrising]

@danielxarmand Why wouldn’t Eric be a part of Comic Con? He’s one of the stars of the show, and this is a story that they have been building for three seasons and will have to promote into the next.

I guess I should be a bit clearer and say that while I think the show may end with Luke in the role of Eric, I’m not totally locked into the idea. I’m like 75% there, but I can also see Eric being in the role of Daniel for the entire series run. The reason I’m inclined to think it will be Luke is Daniel’s Parkinsons Disease, and the Memnoch tale, which I think will likely have Daniel’s body destroyed. I believe that @cbrownjc also has a great theory of Luke replacing Eric and a tale of possession. 

My theory is obviously similar to hers, but different in many ways as I think the possessing entity will be Memnoch because I suspect it’s a story that Rolin wants to do, and I don’t think they can do it with Lestat for reasons that I break down here.

Post by @stormcloudrising · 6 images

💬 1  🔁 3  ❤️ 26 · The Trouble with Daniel Malloy ·  I have a theory about what’s going on with Daniel Malloy, and to explain it, I must sta

Having said that, if Luke does take over in the role, I don’t think that Eric will be leaving the show at the end of this season. At the earliest, it will be after next season, and possibly even in the final 5th season.

This is because I think that they will want to do the Memnoch tale with the older more seasoned Daniel. This type of story is better done with a character who has lived a life. In the books, Lestat had lived almost 300 years, and of course for the show version, Armand will have lived 500. And older Daniel has also lived a life.

But I think that both Eric and Luke will play Memnoch during the telling of the tale. I can see both going back and forth in the same scene during the devil’s conversations with Armand. In the end though, I think that because of older Daniel still having Parkinsons there is a strong possibility that it will be the younger Daniel who ends the series walking at Armand’s side.

And as I just typed that sentence, I’m going to change the odds I mentioned earlier from 75/25 to an even split of 50/50 for a couple of reasons that just occurred to me…and this option assumes that Daniel’s body is not destroyed. If it is, then I think the series will end with Luke in the role.

First, ending with Luke would be a bit of a case of ageism. If the infestation of Memnoch’s blood is the primary reason for Daniel not adapting to vampirism, I can also see him returning as the older Daniel out of hell. Older Daniel would have earned the right to continue to live a vampiric life. He would likely still have Parkinsons, but it would no longer be the issue it was with Memnoch’s blood present in his system.

My second reason is the Amel issues. They will eventually need to separate him from Lestat, and while I have a visceral dislike of the Amel/Lestat arc from the final books…thinking it was a total copout on Anne’s part by taking away the character’s agency, it is an issue that will need to be addressed on the show.

I didn’t like the Replimoids arc because of the agency issue among other reasons, but I suspect that there could be a version of it, as they will need a body to house Amel. If they go the cloning route, then Fareed is already experimenting with cloning Lestat via the blood he has taken. If Vicktor ends up being a clone and not from Lestat’s seed, then I can visualize him being the vessel to host Amel. 

However, I can also see Vicktor being a child of Lestat’s time in Raglan. He would still be the vessel for Amel after he is separated from the other vampires, but not a direct clone.

Like I said, IMO, the Replimoids was a silly story, and one I suspect Rolin wished he didn’t have to deal with, but the Amel separation needs to happen, and so he needs to find a way that won’t make the majority audience who have never read the books laugh at the silliness of it. I don’t know how he’s going to handle it, but I wish him luck.

[stormcloudrising]

The Problem with Daniel's Blood

Yeah, so Armand and Daniel might be about to find out that they made a big mistake is slicing off Lestat and Louis heads…and not for the obvious reasons.

This show does not waste dialogue, and so, you must pay attention to what is said…even in background scenes.

Lestat has already told the audience via VO, and Daniel to his face that there is something wrong with Daniel’s blood and that’s why he needs antibodies. And you know who I think has been providing those antibodies and keeping Daniel’s vampiric body alive…Lestat. And I don’t think Daniel knows because Lestat has Fareed keeping it secret.

This is why they showed Fareed putting the little bandage on Lestat’s arm in episode 4 but strategically didn’t show us whether Lestat was giving or receiving blood. Most viewers likely assumed that he was getting blood since he previously said in episode 2 that was part of Fareed’s duties, but I think he was giving not receiving blood.

Later in the same episode, they have Daniel tell Lestat that he doesn’t need a “gift” from him, which was a strange response considering the conversation. Lestat did not imply that he was giving Daniel a gift and so his response didn’t really make sense. But when Daniel made that comment, I read Lestat’s expression as, “that’s what you think.”  The writers put that gift line in Daniel’s mouth for a reason.

Daniel, the ace reporter has also not picked up on all the clues staring him in the face. Why not? Probably because of Memnoch, whom I think is in possession of Daniel. The Pulitzer Prize winner is no longer the talent he once was, or else he would have put together the clues by now. 

He would at least have figured out that something was off. Instead, he fixated on Lestat’s stutter, which must be of interest to Memnoch for some reason. I wonder if he was present at the burning of the witches when Lestat stutter started.

 I read Memnoch so long ago, and unlike the other books, I don’t think I finished it.  For this reason, I don’t remember if there were hints of him being around Lestat when he was young or at the burning of the witches. I will have to go back and re-read before the next season, but if you know the answer, please share. 

Memnoch encountering Lestat in the past would be an easy thing to script into the show and would be a way to connect Lestat to the Memnoch story without him being the one who has the dialogue or religious debate with the devil.

To me, the clues suggest that they will do the Memnoch story with Armand and Daniel. This works because of the gremlin’s religious fanaticism.

But back to what I mentioned at the top about the writers not wasting words. Daniel is so off his game that he didn’t pick up on the biggest clue they dropped—the reference to the ‘golden blood.” He didn’t pick up on it even though he was part of the two-way conversation.

What do I mean? Well, the show didn’t mention the Rh null blood type out of the blue…and to Daniel of all people for no reason.  

Rh-null is nicknamed "golden blood," precisely because it's a universal donor for anyone with a rare Rh-null phenotype. Like Gabriella stated, there are only about 45 confirmed people alive with it. If the writers picked that blood type deliberately, and I think they did, it’s for a specific purpose.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t play one in real life, but I don’t think that it’s Armand’s blood that’s the issue or else, he would have experienced the same problem that Daniel is going through. Daniel’s is acerbated by the fact he has Parkinson, but Armand’s blood is not the issue.

The way I’m reading it is that if Armand had Rh null phenotype as a human, he would only have been able to get transfusion from the rarest of the rare…another Rh null donor. 

Of course, they didn’t have blood transfusions 500 years ago, and so that part of it is moot. But if he did have Rh null and is able to drink from victims with other blood types, it would mean that becoming a vampire made the need for rh null blood no longer necessary. I tend to think that this is likely how it works.

However, my money is on Armand not being a rh null phenotype and him having one of the 8 primary blood types.

I suspect that whatever is causing the problem and what changed Daniel’s blood has to do with his Parkinson, having Armand share his vampiric blood with him over the years without turning him; and the entity possessing him. I think sometime during the three weeks after the events in Dubai and his turning on the plane over NJ, he was possessed. He was likely possessed before the turning.

I think his original blood type is AB Negative, the rarest of the primary 8 blood types. It’s why it’s his favorite. While it’s the rarest of the primary blood types, it still wouldn’t be a problem even with his Parkinson.

This suggests there is another reason for his problem, and I think that’s where his possession by Memnoch comes into play. The possession has introduced or converted his already vampiric enhanced human blood to rh null phenotype, or the show’s version of such. Him drinking regular human blood types isn’t working and is in fact causing more problems. This is why his vampiric powers are still so weak.

And yes, I know that Memnoch does not possess Lestat in the books, but possession does exist in the Anne Rice world and I think that this is the tack the show is taking.

While rh null is super rare as Gabriella said, only around 45 people in the world with that blood type, I bet on the show, there is one special vampire with that “golden blood” as rh null is called, and that is of course Lestat. And his blood is likely what is keeping Daniel’s vampiric body alive.

But now, Armand and Daniel have cut his and Louis’ heads off, and so I doubt that when Lestat gets his head back, he will be inclined to still provide Daniel with blood. And of course, Akasha will soon kidnap Lestat, and then his body will be taken by a thief and so even if he would be so inclined, he won’t be around to provide much transfusion. And lack of access to this rare blood could potentially be the reason for his horrible death.

That’s why I think Armand is bidding at the auction. He wants Lestat’s blood for Daniel. By this time, I think that Daniel has suffered his horrible death and so, the blood must be needed to somehow bring his spirit from Memnoch’s realm and putting him in a clone of his younger self. In a way, Daniel spirit will do to the clone of his younger self, what the Body Thief does to Lestat.

I previously considered the idea that Daniel’s horrible death was going to be at the hands of someone else…possibly an ancient. I even thought that he might already be dead, and we would see the event in flashbacks. I can’t totally rule that either possibility, but I’m now more incline to think that it will have something to do with his rh null blood and lack of access to Lestat’s “golden blood.”

[demonpoppyseed]

Imagine if people watched Interview with the Vampire and it inspired them to think about how the past is in a very real way inaccessible to us and memory can be misleading even when you're not being dishonest and different people can have different experiences of the same event that feel emotionally true and are very real to the people who experienced them even if they contradict each other and often you will never be able to know what really happened and how this can make repairing damaged relationships difficult and threatening to a person's sense of self

[stormcloudrising]

Exactly, every single one of them are unreliable narrators, just in different ways. And that's one of the main aspects of the show that so many viewers don’t get. It’s not a case of it’s so and so POV, and they don’t lie…the books says so.

No, the books say no such thing. The books also writes them all as unreliable narrators who forget things and who tell their stories based on their emotions. And as I said in other places, emotional truth is the most unreliable truth of all because of the simple fact everything you say is heightened by your emotions.

Truth is always subjective on some level or another. Facts are not. And no character has shown us an unvarnished fact yet. Even the cutting off of the heads and the events of the seance should be viewed as Lestat’s truth, and not factual.

[stormcloudrising]

Doctor Armandstein and the Daniel Experiment

I’ve been trying to finish my updated take on what I think is going on with Armand all week but have just been too busy. I’m doing it here in the early morning because I want to get the post up before episode 6 premieres in the overseas market, I have to lockdown social media to avoid spoilers until it airs stateside tomorrow.

I had a conversation recently with my sister about what I call the 3-year curse on TV shows. Almost all the shows I’ve totally enjoyed have encountered that 3rd curse, where the quality declined and I dropped it cold turkey. It’s not that I’ve consciously stopped watching. It’s just that looking back in hindsight, there are so many shows that I stopped watching at the 3-year mark.

The Vampire Lestat is not one of those shows. While I would not rank the 3rd season at the top of the three, we’ve had so far; as of this writing, my ranking of the seasons would be 2, 1, 3, it is still high-end television and better than most shows on the air. 

Will my rankings change by the end of the season? It’s possible but we will have to see. I do feel confident that it won’t displace season 2 at the top, but possibly it could overtake season 1 for the #2 spot. The last two episodes would have to be spectacular though and even then, it would be a tough call because I think that season 1 is as perfect a first season of television I’ve ever seen.

Why did I start the post with that caveat? Well, because something in one of the trailers that dropped last night could potentially put the three-year curse in play for me. It wouldn’t be a result of the quality of the show, but it would make me and I think a lot of viewers stop watching.

I don’t think it will be the case, and I’ll say why at the end, but primarily it’s because Rolin and Hannah are not stupid. And while I don’t think they have succeeded on all counts, I do see and understand what they are attempting this season. In fact, I have plans for a couple of videos to discuss just that at the end of the season.

But more on that later. First, let’s get to Dr. Armandstein, as I will be calling him from now on. He made a very interesting comment to Daniel last episode. He would like to “help him walk in the sun.” That was not just a figure of speech for Armand…truthfully, not sure that he would know a figure of speech if it bit him in the neck. My point is that Armand meant that literally, and so the question then becomes. How can he help Daniel to walk in the sun.

Well, there is no way for Daniel to become a sun walker except through vampiric age. As you get older, that 6-billion-year-old star starts losing its effect on you. Of course, Daniel is a fledgling, just 2 years old on the vampiric scale and so, he has long years to go before he can become a sun walker. But you know what might help him along, the body of an older vampire. A vampire that it not yet a day walker but is much closer to that time not just in years, but also because he “has the blood of Akasha,” as he likes to tell everyone he meets. I discuss in my video coming next week why I think he told Gabriella, and why that ties into why she’s back.

Now, last episode, we saw that the writers changed several parts of the lore from the books. I discussed how those changes made Lestat and unreliable narrator here. 

Post by @stormcloudrising · 6 images

💬 1  🔁 3  ❤️ 24 · The Trouble with Daniel Malloy ·  I have a theory about what’s going on with Daniel Malloy, and to explain it, I must sta

I think that some of those changes will be addressed in the future…specifically the supposed burning of vampires around the world in 1802 because Enkil was left out in the sun.  

Akasha is the source of vampiric power via Amel, and while they have made changes to the lore, I’m confident that will not be one of them. We will find out that Akasha was also out in the sun, meaning that Marius deliberately lied to Lestat, or the latter is misremembering. I suspect that it’s the former.

However, one bit of lore they did change that I don’t think they will retroactively reverse, is Marius never warning or threatening Lestat against revealing the truth about “those who must be kept.” I say this because Lestat has been making the revelation to everyone and their dog all season.

Now, of course, that revelation is also a big part of the Vampire Lestat book. He reveals the truth about the mother and father there as well, and so, that’s not truly the reason I don’t it will remain that Marius didn’t give him the warning on the show. As I mentioned, I discuss in my video why I think he told Gabriella, and I completed that script before the airing of episode 5 and Marius appearance. That specific theory is based on clues dropped up to episode 4.

No, the reason I think that it will stick in the show that Marius didn’t warn or threaten Lestat with the death of any of his fledglings if he revealed the truth is because I think that he told Louis back in their New Orleans days. I suspected that he did since the end of season 2, but Marius words last episode confirmed it for me.

Louis: I’ve come to kill you Lestat: I have the blood of Magnus in me Armand: Magnus burned Lestat: I have the blood of Akasha in me Then he turns to Louis and says about Armand Lestat: He doesn’t know who that is. By default, his wording indicates that while Armand doesn’t know, Louis does. He then continues speaking to Louis. Lestat: But the fact in and of itself makes your immediate desire an impossibility. And I have to be willing. And I’m not in the mood. Louis: My blood is your blood. Another hint that Louis knows what he’s talking about. Lestat: And yet. Louis then kills Lestat in another way by saying that he will remain with Armand.

In season 1 Lestat in passing mentioned “those who must be kept.” Louis picked up on it, and Lestat brushed it off, and said it was nothing. Initially, I thought he did it because of Marius’ warning from the books. 

However, the last episode of season 7 made me rethink that somewhat. I still thought that Marius had issued the warning, but I revised my thinking and came to the opinion that Lestat at some point told Louis. Now episode 5 suggests that Marius did not issue the warning.

So, what does all of this have to do with Dr. Armandstein and Daniel. Well, why I don’t think that Armand knew who Akasha was at the end of season seven during the confrontation in Magnus’ tower, I think that he found out the truth later. And I think he did so but picking it out of Louis brain.

Now, you’re probably asking, well he went into Louis’ brain before and so why didn’t he discover the knowledge then. To that I would say that it was one piece of knowledge that Louis truly protected, or else, Lestat locked it away. However, he found out, Armand knows about Akasha and the additional strength Lestat gained from her. And this is where Daniel’s illness, weakened vampiric blood and Armand’s promise that he will help him walk in the sun come into play. Also, Assad’s machete comment in the pre-premiere interviews.

In the Vampire Armand, the titular vampire revealed how in his Frankenstein era, he tried to give Claudia what she wanted by cutting off her head and stitching it back onto the body of an adult female vampire whose body he had decapitated. It didn’t work.

I think the writers are bringing this bit of lore into the show by having Armand attempt the same thing with Daniel and Lestat. I think that he plans to decapitate both and put Daniel’s head on Lestat’s body. He may even have plans to put Lestat’s own on Daniel’s body, because he is perverse and would want to weakened Lestat in that way. The attempt will be just as successful in the show as it was in the books. And while he will attempt to cut Lestat’s head off, I don’t think that he will be successful, but he will be when it comes to Daniel.

This is why I think we’ve suddenly been getting reference to Lestat being beheaded from Fareed and Raglan. It’s also why we see Daniel’s bowling ball heading straight towards Lestat’s bleeding head in the opening sequence and the highlight of the neck wound from the victim in Oregon.

Now, back to what I mentioned earlier about the 3-year jinx on shows. There was a second brief trailer released last night that showed scenes from the season finale, including what looks to be a head with an A carved into it.

I saw some speculation that the head was Louis, but I think it’s Daniel’s. I don’t know who carved the A or whether it represents Armand, Amel or Akasha, but I think it’s Daniel. I think so because I don’t think that Rolin or Hannah would carve a brand into Louis, a Black man from the deep American South with all the history that entails. History that they so well built into season 1. 

I especially don’t think that they would do it considering the times we are living through in this country and that Black viewers were so pivotal to the early success of the show. But If I’m wrong, and they branded a Black man on this show, it would be the last episode myself, and likely all Black viewers of the show ever watched. And I suspect that it wouldn’t just be Black viewers. And so, I think that people who are saying it’s Louis are wrong, but we shall see.

Now I must get off social media to avoid any spoilers. Also, I still think that they will do Memnoch with Armand and Daniel.

[smalyon-blog]

“The Things I Do For Love” / Bran’s Dream

Based on A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin

[stormcloudrising]

TVL Episode 5 - Big Lore Changes and Unreliable Lestat

Due to work and a power outage in my area for a couple of days, last night was the first chance I had to watch episode 5. I had to avoid social media all weekend as a result. And was I ever glad I did, because after two re-watches, I think it maybe my favorite episode of the season so far.

I have thoughts on Louis and Fraudia as Sam calls her, Louis and Lestat, what Armand might be doing…although, I’m not quite sure yet why he’s doing it yet; and one of the best introductions of a character I’ve ever seen on television, as Sheil Atim brought Akasha to blood curdling life. 

But those will come later. Right now, I want to talk about the Marius and Lestat’s first two scenes, and how it showcases that Lestat is indeed an unreliable narrator like everyone else on this show, as I pointed out in this post.

Post by @stormcloudrising · 1 link

💬 0  🔁 0  ❤️ 20 · Unreliable Narrators All Over the Place · In "Toronto," The Vampire Lestat Season 3's third episode, showrunner Rolin Jone

It also highlights one of the points I made about his unreliability regarding Nicki. Where is Nicki’s violin because unlike in the books, that wasn’t it that he used to play for Akasha.

Note that I’ve highlighted my asides in red, and a few dialogues passages in green. Especially pay attention to the green highlights because they are at the core of my argument.

Let’s start with a breakdown of the dialogue from the two scenes. Catch you on the other side.

Lestat wakes to the sound Marius’ voice, who is talking to Akasha.

Marius: Blue eyes, eyes of blue. Blue as the sea, tinctures of violet, blond hair, blue eyes, eyes so blue, blue as the sea. (sounds as if like everyone, he’s fallen or Lestat) Fished him from the wilds of a pauper’s grave. Oh, loves his mother. Loves, loves her. (Marius has obviously picked Lestat’s brain clean). Wanted to take care of her as you said. Well, he was there. She was not.

Lestat: Where am I?

Marius sarcastically: Thank you for pulling me from the Earth. Thank you for saving me from starvation. Thank you for the warm blood shared. Yes, you’re welcome. She told me where you were, and there you were, and there I was. I brought you back, and…here we are. (by the way, if Akasha knew where Lestat was, why didn’t she know Gabriella wasn’t there?)

Lestat: Who are you?

Marius: I am Marius de Romanus. I am the Keeper. Oh, was the Keeper. Now you are the Keeper.

Lestat: Marius

Marius: Oh, an echo.

Lestat: Armand said that you were destroyed.

Marius: Well, he was wrong. Rotten boy. (Love how Lestat has Marius derogatorily refer to Armand, which I don’t think he would have done)

Marius: She likes music. Come. Touch her. They are mother and father to all of us. And they must be kept. (Note that Enkil is included as one of those who must be kept…suggesting he is alive. This is important for late)

Lestat touching Akasha: This one?

Marius: Akasha.

Lestat: The stone, it’s alive?

Marius: Very alive. Very much alive.

SECOND SCENE

Marius: Fill the space with worldly things. Go into the noise and dust of the city and bring back presents of the present. This is the job.

Lestat: I don’t want a job. I wanna die. (note modern contraction, but could means nothing)

Marius: 80 years face down with the seaman you killed (assuming this was still in Spain), long enough to learn the depths of despair. Do the job. Learn to endure the depths of living. Find yourself Lestat as I have lost myself.

“Bring me Lestat, son of Magnus” (Akasha told Marius to go find Lestat)

Marius: From the tree of us, she chose you. (The CC on my TV said “tree” but I’m assuming that was an audio mistake. Still who is the 3rd person he’s referring to?

Marius: A Great Honor. She likes music. She loves music. (he now gives Lestat a violin…note this is not Nicki’s violin, because where did Marius get it from. And if it was with Lestat in the grave for 80 years, it would be just dust)

Lestat: I don’t know how to play

Marius: Recall your fledgling. Start with mimicry. Don’t interrupt. Keep your hunts short—a quick sip of blood; the fast-fading warmth of the kill, then back to “them.” (this is when Marius corrects himself and says) “her” (meaning back to her...why the switch)

Lestat: What happened to him?

Marius: Interruption! If you must bring one back, burn them here. Use the ashes to keep her thriving. And no blood. Oh, blood overwhelms. Just the ash. Play her music.

And now we get to the part of Marius monologue that contains the most important thing I want to draw your attention to. How Lestat remembers his comments about Enkil.

Marius: His name was Enkil

Lestat: How did…

Marius: We burn in the sun, yes? Do you remember a night your body burned under the Moon?

Lestat: Yes. Uh, yes, in Denmark, 1802

Marius: December 19, 1802. Finished the job transporting them from one crypt to another. Two bottles of ginger flower gin in the veins of a celebratory meal. I woke up next to her, my body afire. Hadn’t finished the job. Left him above in the sun. (not left them in the sun, left “him”)

Lestat: My mother and I were countryside. We ran ourselves into a bog.

Marius: Oh

Lestat: Took us months to recover.

Marius: Bogs. Bogs are rare. And now you know, why they are so few of us. I set us back ages.

Then Marius makes the true statement, which works to hide the inconsistent memory Lestat just shared with us the viewers. I call them mis-memories instead of lies, because he’s not verbally speaking to anyone. We the audience are viewing his memories.

Marius: We are all connected to her. She is–she is the seed. Mm. Mm. (kisses Akasha on the forehead) And if she burns, oh, we all burn. And you are her keeper.

Lestat: I don’t like being alone.

Marius: I slip, trip, stumble, fumble in small ways.

Lestat: I am not worthy of this job

Marius: And if I do not—ugh—leave now, the small becomes the big and the big becomes the end, and the end will burn the tree of us. (Again, my tv said tree and so I'm leaving it as that. It must be an audio translation error for three, but again, who is the 3rd person he again refers to)

Marius: You are…worthy. Let her tell you that herself, huh?

Marius: It will take time Lestat. To me, not a word for 22 years when I first took the job.

Akasha telepathically: 23 (and the scene ends)

That ends the dialogue from the two scenes.

Am I wrong or does this dialogue not indicate that the reason for the burning of the vampires worldwide was because Marius got drunk and left Enkil out in the sun?

I watched the episode twice, but rewatched these two series of scenes four times, and then had my sister rewatch with me to make sure that I was not misunderstanding what I was hearing. She agreed.

Read the dialogue I posted again and tell me how it can be interpreted differently. 

And don’t say that he left both out in the sun. That would be an assumption that contradicts what Marius was shown saying on screen.  

Also, if you have not read the books, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of viewers, after that episode, based on Lestat’s recollections, you can’t help but come away with the idea that Enkil was the original source and when he died, it became Akasha for some reason. And now, if she dies, all vampires die as well. 

But book readers know that Akasha is the first vampire in existence and so is the seed. And we know that Enkil being left out in the sun all day, would not kill him. 

We also know that even if pieces of him had broken off, he wouldn’t die. Parts of his brain breaking off, might curtail his cognitive ability, but it still wouldn’t kill him. And so, what really happened to him.

Burning didn’t kill Marius, and he’s only 2000 years old, and so why would the sun destroy a 6000-year-old vampire. 

To paraphrase our favorite gremlin, “what’s a mediocre star to a 6000-year-old vampire.”

So, either Marius lied to Lestat about what caused Enkil’s injuries, Lestat is not sharing the truth, or it’s a continuity error the writers missed.

I know the writers changed some things from the books such as Lestat being her keeper for 10 years, having them being left out in the sun closer to modern than in the ancient times as in the books, but Enkil being the only one left out, and it resulting in the burning of vampires all over the world is not a mistake about the lore I think they would make.

This is especially true as later in the scene, Marius gets it right about Akasha being the seed all vampires are connected to. So, why did the writers introduce that bit of unreliability into this section of Lestat’s tale, because I don’t think it’s a continuity error.

After watching the scene, I came with the thought that when we see Marius is modern times, he won’t look like he did in Lestat’s memories. He may indeed have a Julius Caesar wig, but it won’t be that bad.

And who is the 3rd person Marius is referring to when he tells Lestat that of the three of us, she chose you? Did she mean Gabriella since she also told Marius to get her as well? And if Gabriella, what does she want with her. It sounds more like she wanted him to get rid of Gabriella, and so I don’t think she can be the 3rd person.

In my upcoming video, already recorded and covering up to episode 4, I discuss the Gabriella/Akasha connection the show has been highlighting, and what they maybe doing. If Gabriella is the 3rd person, it could make sense, but I don’t think it’s her.

And I did like this version of Marius. Even with the companions he’s had over the years, I can imagine that there was a lot of aloneness, which would drive anyone not able to endure insane. I also like that Lestat ability to endure came from a lesson he learned from Marius.

After watching the episode last night, I started checking in on social media comments and watched a couple YT videos, and I saw many people mention that Lestat asked the same questions as Claudia about where they came from, but I didn’t see anyone comment on him having the same existential crisis as Louis about their nature.

Louis: Am I from the devil?  Is my very nature that of the devil?

Lestat: Am I evil? Is my evil sanction by nature, or divine error? Where is god?

These vampires all have the same questions.

I did have a few quibbles with the episode, but all in all, the best episode to date.

So what do you think about my questions?

[stormcloudrising]

Hi @surrenderdorothea,

Thanks for reading and the response. Also, apologies for the long response. I'm re-blogging because it's too long for just a reply. It’s long because I think I need to explain what I mean when I say that he’s an unreliable narrator, and the misunderstanding that I think many have on what an unreliable narrator is.

Lestat is an unreliable narrator, but it doesn’t mean that he’s a liar. I think that’s the assumption most people reach for when they hear him described as an unreliable narrator, but that is not the case. A character that is an unreliable narrator simply means that their truth is not always trustworthy.

For instance, kids are unreliable narrators, not because they are lying, but because they brain have not developed sufficiently to understand the context of things. And truth always, ALWAYS comes with context. 

Louis was an unreliable narrator because he had memory issues, and on top of that, Armand manipulated his memories. He also sometimes led with his emotions, which distorted the truth, but the main issue with him was that he didn’t remember things clearly and Armand screwing with his memories…and yes, sometimes at Louis request. I posted on the ex-bird app the night the episode aired 2 years ago, that I thought Louis did ask Armand to remove the memories of the SF events, and I still hold to that believe. Although, I don’t think the show will ever confirm it.

Lestat’s unreliability comes almost all via his emotions. He tells his story and his truth via his emotions…via his heart. And emotional truth is one of the most unreliable form of truths because it’s based on feelings…how you felt in the moment, how your memories are saying you felt. It doesn’t mean you are lying. It just means it’s your truth. And there is a difference between truths and facts. Truths are subjective, facts are objectives.

This is one of the reasons I love this show so much. The writers have been playing with the idea of truths vs facts all three seasons. It’s a big idea, but it’s part of Lestat’s tale as well.

While the writers have made major changes to how they translate the story to screen, they have still stuck to the underlying themes and core story. You’ve obviously read the books, and so you are familiar with Nicki’s story. The show has dropped lots of hints through all three seasons, that it will play out very similar on screen as it did in the books. And yet, Lestat told a totally different emotional story to Daniel. He wasn’t lying. That was his emotional truth overlayed with the guilt and hurt he feels over what went down with Nicki.

But if things end up having played out like events in the books, then that makes Lestat unreliable because he told the audience via his interview with Daniel one thing, which will later be revealed to be something entirely different. That hasn’t played out yet on the screen, but the show has dropped enough hints that there is more to the story…especially with Nicki remaining around to haunt him.

IMO, there are 4 people who know the truth of what really happened with Nicki. Lestat, Gabriella, Armand, and Louis. This means that Gabriella obviously knows Lestat lied to Daniel, even though he may not have realized it. Now why do I say that Louis knows? Because the show has dropped clues that he does.

Why would Louis refer to Armand as the little gremlin in season 2, if it was not something he heard from Lestat. The odds of them having the same exact description for Armand is nil to none. There is also the reference Louis made to Armand cutting off hands during their infamous fight in season 2. Where did that reference come from if he didn’t know about what went down with Nicki. 

Also, in the books, Lestat did tell Louis about Nicki, but the interesting thing is that he didn’t remember doing so. I think that we finally get the truth about what happened with Nicki, via a conversation between Lestat and Louis.

So, in the background, the show is hinting at one thing, while Lestat emotions are telling Daniel a different story. That’s the show building in unreliability into his character. And they built similar notes into the scenes with Marius.

Yes, if vampires worldwide burnt on December 19th, 1802, Akasha had to have been left out in the sun as well. But that is not what Lestat’s memories showed us Marius saying, and so, we must base our analysis on that. Was Marius lying? Possibly, but if so, why? What purpose would it serve when in the next breath he tells Lestat that Akasha is the seed. 

My point is that Lestat’s memory tells us things that cannot be true. I’m sure that in the future we will get an explanation for the discrepancies, but for those of us who have read the books and know the lore, that makes him an unreliable narrator. Those who have not read the books, don’t recognize the obvious errors, and so to them, that’s the truth. But in the future, when the truth is revealed, he will become unreliable in their eyes as well. That’s the nature of unreliability.

Also, as an aside, if Louis knows the truth about Nicki as I proposed is the case, one must then ask, why didn’t he tell it to Daniel.  After all, he told him about Magnus. I think that while he changed his mind, and the reasoning was different from in the 1970s, Louis was doing the interview for Lestat. And he knew that Lestat needed to deal with and confront the memory of Magnus, and he told it to Daniel to force the issue. But then he realized that wasn’t a smart idea, and changed his mind, and the cloud and the Talamasca changing the tone of the interview bit him in the ass.

Fareed really needs to go back to school and add a psychiatric or psychologist degree to his repertoire and sit the two husbands down on a couch both together and separately because they need it.

[stormcloudrising]

TVL Episode 5 - Big Lore Changes and Unreliable Lestat

Due to work and a power outage in my area for a couple of days, last night was the first chance I had to watch episode 5. I had to avoid social media all weekend as a result. And was I ever glad I did, because after two re-watches, I think it maybe my favorite episode of the season so far.

I have thoughts on Louis and Fraudia as Sam calls her, Louis and Lestat, what Armand might be doing…although, I’m not quite sure yet why he’s doing it yet; and one of the best introductions of a character I’ve ever seen on television, as Sheil Atim brought Akasha to blood curdling life. 

But those will come later. Right now, I want to talk about the Marius and Lestat’s first two scenes, and how it showcases that Lestat is indeed an unreliable narrator like everyone else on this show, as I pointed out in this post.

Post by @stormcloudrising · 1 link

💬 0  🔁 0  ❤️ 20 · Unreliable Narrators All Over the Place · In "Toronto," The Vampire Lestat Season 3's third episode, showrunner Rolin Jone

It also highlights one of the points I made about his unreliability regarding Nicki. Where is Nicki’s violin because unlike in the books, that wasn’t it that he used to play for Akasha.

Note that I’ve highlighted my asides in red, and a few dialogues passages in green. Especially pay attention to the green highlights because they are at the core of my argument.

Let’s start with a breakdown of the dialogue from the two scenes. Catch you on the other side.

Lestat wakes to the sound Marius’ voice, who is talking to Akasha.

Marius: Blue eyes, eyes of blue. Blue as the sea, tinctures of violet, blond hair, blue eyes, eyes so blue, blue as the sea. (sounds as if like everyone, he’s fallen or Lestat) Fished him from the wilds of a pauper’s grave. Oh, loves his mother. Loves, loves her. (Marius has obviously picked Lestat’s brain clean). Wanted to take care of her as you said. Well, he was there. She was not.

Lestat: Where am I?

Marius sarcastically: Thank you for pulling me from the Earth. Thank you for saving me from starvation. Thank you for the warm blood shared. Yes, you’re welcome. She told me where you were, and there you were, and there I was. I brought you back, and…here we are. (by the way, if Akasha knew where Lestat was, why didn’t she know Gabriella wasn’t there?)

Lestat: Who are you?

Marius: I am Marius de Romanus. I am the Keeper. Oh, was the Keeper. Now you are the Keeper.

Lestat: Marius

Marius: Oh, an echo.

Lestat: Armand said that you were destroyed.

Marius: Well, he was wrong. Rotten boy. (Love how Lestat has Marius derogatorily refer to Armand, which I don’t think he would have done)

Marius: She likes music. Come. Touch her. They are mother and father to all of us. And they must be kept. (Note that Enkil is included as one of those who must be kept…suggesting he is alive. This is important for late)

Lestat touching Akasha: This one?

Marius: Akasha.

Lestat: The stone, it’s alive?

Marius: Very alive. Very much alive.

SECOND SCENE

Marius: Fill the space with worldly things. Go into the noise and dust of the city and bring back presents of the present. This is the job.

Lestat: I don’t want a job. I wanna die. (note modern contraction, but could means nothing)

Marius: 80 years face down with the seaman you killed (assuming this was still in Spain), long enough to learn the depths of despair. Do the job. Learn to endure the depths of living. Find yourself Lestat as I have lost myself.

“Bring me Lestat, son of Magnus” (Akasha told Marius to go find Lestat)

Marius: From the tree of us, she chose you. (The CC on my TV said “tree” but I’m assuming that was an audio mistake. Still who is the 3rd person he’s referring to?

Marius: A Great Honor. She likes music. She loves music. (he now gives Lestat a violin…note this is not Nicki’s violin, because where did Marius get it from. And if it was with Lestat in the grave for 80 years, it would be just dust)

Lestat: I don’t know how to play

Marius: Recall your fledgling. Start with mimicry. Don’t interrupt. Keep your hunts short—a quick sip of blood; the fast-fading warmth of the kill, then back to “them.” (this is when Marius corrects himself and says) “her” (meaning back to her...why the switch)

Lestat: What happened to him?

Marius: Interruption! If you must bring one back, burn them here. Use the ashes to keep her thriving. And no blood. Oh, blood overwhelms. Just the ash. Play her music.

And now we get to the part of Marius monologue that contains the most important thing I want to draw your attention to. How Lestat remembers his comments about Enkil.

Marius: His name was Enkil

Lestat: How did…

Marius: We burn in the sun, yes? Do you remember a night your body burned under the Moon?

Lestat: Yes. Uh, yes, in Denmark, 1802

Marius: December 19, 1802. Finished the job transporting them from one crypt to another. Two bottles of ginger flower gin in the veins of a celebratory meal. I woke up next to her, my body afire. Hadn’t finished the job. Left him above in the sun. (not left them in the sun, left “him”)

Lestat: My mother and I were countryside. We ran ourselves into a bog.

Marius: Oh

Lestat: Took us months to recover.

Marius: Bogs. Bogs are rare. And now you know, why they are so few of us. I set us back ages.

Then Marius makes the true statement, which works to hide the inconsistent memory Lestat just shared with us the viewers. I call them mis-memories instead of lies, because he’s not verbally speaking to anyone. We the audience are viewing his memories.

Marius: We are all connected to her. She is–she is the seed. Mm. Mm. (kisses Akasha on the forehead) And if she burns, oh, we all burn. And you are her keeper.

Lestat: I don’t like being alone.

Marius: I slip, trip, stumble, fumble in small ways.

Lestat: I am not worthy of this job

Marius: And if I do not—ugh—leave now, the small becomes the big and the big becomes the end, and the end will burn the tree of us. (Again, my tv said tree and so I'm leaving it as that. It must be an audio translation error for three, but again, who is the 3rd person he again refers to)

Marius: You are…worthy. Let her tell you that herself, huh?

Marius: It will take time Lestat. To me, not a word for 22 years when I first took the job.

Akasha telepathically: 23 (and the scene ends)

That ends the dialogue from the two scenes.

Am I wrong or does this dialogue not indicate that the reason for the burning of the vampires worldwide was because Marius got drunk and left Enkil out in the sun?

I watched the episode twice, but rewatched these two series of scenes four times, and then had my sister rewatch with me to make sure that I was not misunderstanding what I was hearing. She agreed.

Read the dialogue I posted again and tell me how it can be interpreted differently. 

And don’t say that he left both out in the sun. That would be an assumption that contradicts what Marius was shown saying on screen.  

Also, if you have not read the books, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of viewers, after that episode, based on Lestat’s recollections, you can’t help but come away with the idea that Enkil was the original source and when he died, it became Akasha for some reason. And now, if she dies, all vampires die as well. 

But book readers know that Akasha is the first vampire in existence and so is the seed. And we know that Enkil being left out in the sun all day, would not kill him. 

We also know that even if pieces of him had broken off, he wouldn’t die. Parts of his brain breaking off, might curtail his cognitive ability, but it still wouldn’t kill him. And so, what really happened to him.

Burning didn’t kill Marius, and he’s only 2000 years old, and so why would the sun destroy a 6000-year-old vampire. 

To paraphrase our favorite gremlin, “what’s a mediocre star to a 6000-year-old vampire.”

So, either Marius lied to Lestat about what caused Enkil’s injuries, Lestat is not sharing the truth, or it’s a continuity error the writers missed.

I know the writers changed some things from the books such as Lestat being her keeper for 10 years, having them being left out in the sun closer to modern than in the ancient times as in the books, but Enkil being the only one left out, and it resulting in the burning of vampires all over the world is not a mistake about the lore I think they would make.

This is especially true as later in the scene, Marius gets it right about Akasha being the seed all vampires are connected to. So, why did the writers introduce that bit of unreliability into this section of Lestat’s tale, because I don’t think it’s a continuity error.

After watching the scene, I came with the thought that when we see Marius is modern times, he won’t look like he did in Lestat’s memories. He may indeed have a Julius Caesar wig, but it won’t be that bad.

And who is the 3rd person Marius is referring to when he tells Lestat that of the three of us, she chose you? Did she mean Gabriella since she also told Marius to get her as well? And if Gabriella, what does she want with her. It sounds more like she wanted him to get rid of Gabriella, and so I don’t think she can be the 3rd person.

In my upcoming video, already recorded and covering up to episode 4, I discuss the Gabriella/Akasha connection the show has been highlighting, and what they maybe doing. If Gabriella is the 3rd person, it could make sense, but I don’t think it’s her.

And I did like this version of Marius. Even with the companions he’s had over the years, I can imagine that there was a lot of aloneness, which would drive anyone not able to endure insane. I also like that Lestat ability to endure came from a lesson he learned from Marius.

After watching the episode last night, I started checking in on social media comments and watched a couple YT videos, and I saw many people mention that Lestat asked the same questions as Claudia about where they came from, but I didn’t see anyone comment on him having the same existential crisis as Louis about their nature.

Louis: Am I from the devil?  Is my very nature that of the devil?

Lestat: Am I evil? Is my evil sanction by nature, or divine error? Where is god?

These vampires all have the same questions.

I did have a few quibbles with the episode, but all in all, the best episode to date.

So what do you think about my questions?

[stormcloudrising]

Hello just lurking. Been thinking about the Louis candy thing you were writing about last week. I’m fascinated by your line of thinking to be honest. You assert that the line takes the audience’s mind to an ‘obvious’ place but I don’t think many of us thought that at all. I don’t immediately associate molestation with candy and an adult and child. I think of petty displays of cruelty, maybe? But mostly I don’t think of much at all. To be completely honest I think it’s near inconsequential.

Hi Nonny,

Thanks for the ask.

You know how practically every child has been told by their parents at one point or another, "don't take candy from a stranger." I was told that as a kid, and while I don't have kids of my own, I've said the same to my nieces and nephews over the years, and no doubt, their parents have said the same to them.

The strangers my parents meant, and the ones I meant when talking to my nieces and nephews are never fellow kids. We are always talking about adult strangers. We are talking about adults because as fellow adults, we understand that there is evil in the world...evil that often targets kids. Of course, we sometimes discover that the danger doesn't always come from strangers, but closer to home.

In his conversation with Daniel, Louis was telling us that the two most important moments in his life to date was meeting Lestat, and then being turned into a vampire on the church altar by Lestat.

And because he was always going to say yes to Lestat, the events as played out that led to Claudia's death were always going to happen. I think that's part of Louis guilt, and I suspect maybe part of the reason he has not yet said ILY to Lestat.

Those are moments that are imprinted on his soul, and even if he had worn a different suit on the night night, he and Lestat would still have recognized each other and what they would mean to each other.

Lestat recognized who Louis would be to him the first moment he and spoke to him. We know this from his destiny comment upon first meeting him. It ws the same with Louis, who sat there dazed and in shocked after they first met.

He has spent 150 years avoiding saying those three little words to Lestat, but he was a goner just like Lestat the first time they met. And while he has not said the words to Lestat, he did to Daniel. That is what his words ment. It was the same destiny language that came from Lestat, but said not to the man, but to Daniel.

This was the first time that Louis ever said the words out loud to anyone. And he says, nothing would have made a difference or stop him from saying yes to Lestat on the altar, not even wearing a different color suit. And I would not be shocked if we later find out that Lestat told him that he loved him in that suit.

Nothing would have made a difference. He recognized the destiny in the moment. From the moment he met Lestat, it was going to lead to him accepting Lestat offer.

And as he discusses the inevitability of the those two moments...their meeting and the events on the altar, he compares it to what seems on the surface to be a casual forgettable moment, but Louis didn't forget it, which means that in some way, he sees experience with the barber and the candy as pivotal to the course of his life.

He thinks that snatching the candy and running away would not have made a difference. It was a fixed event the way his meeting Lestat and saying yes to a vampiric marriage on the altar were fixed events.

If he had snatched the candy from the barber and tried to run away, the barber likely would have caught him. Whether that was true or not, that's how Louis sees things in his mind.

And when I watched that scene with Daniel and heard Louis' words about the barber and candy, my mind went to my parents and every parent warning to their kids, "don't take candy from a stranger," and all the implications therein.

[lyria2323]

- Lestat, ‘The Vampire Lestat’ (1985)

“None of us really change over time. We only become more fully what we are.”

[stormcloudrising]

The Trouble with Daniel Malloy

I have a theory about what’s going on with Daniel Malloy, and to explain it, I must start by talking about when I think this series will end because that ties into it. I had plans to make this part of my theory video that will be coming next week, but the addition would have made the video much longer than I wanted, and so I decided to write it as an essay instead of structuring it for video.

It’s a bit long and before I start, I should also say that when Lestat via Baby Jenks mentioned that Daniel “dies bad,” I thought he meant he had a traumatic turning. With the additional clues revealed in the last few episodes, I’ve changed my mind.

About the show, I think we only get two more seasons of this series…three tops, but my money is on two. With one possible exception, which I’ll get into shortly. I’ve always thought that they had plans to do the books through Tale of the Body Thief and then take a bow and say goodnight.

I thought this for several reasons. First and foremost, and I’m sure that some will disagree with me, but the latter set of books in the Vampire Chronicles are bad. And I’m talking specifically about the last three books that are narrated by Lestat.

They do include some passages of beautiful prose that Anne was so good at, and a couple of good thematic ideas in some areas that I could see Rolin wanting to bring into the current storyline. But truthfully, Anne went off on a stream of consciousness of nonsensical plots and ideas, and the books weren’t properly edited.  If she wasn’t Anne Rice, I don’t think that the books ever would have been published. 

Unlike the earlier books, which had some thought-provoking themes the last three books were just plot, plot, plot, with a ton of new characters with no character development. She should have ended the Lestat part of the series with Memnoch like she originally intended, or with Merrick from Louis’ POV, giving him and Lestat their proper ending.

There are many reasons fans loved her earlier books. The queer community saw themselves in her characters; the story was centered around an almost operatic gothic romance, and who doesn’t like a good gothic romance; there were relatable and thought-provoking themes of inequality, and the nature of man, and the differences between the sexes; but, underneath it all, she was writing about humanity…the evil that men do taken to the 9th degree.

Of course, there was always a lot of troubling parts of her stories…and I mean, major problematic issues with almost every character and story. Her writing went to some truly dark and disturbing places. But she had a way with prose that brought you along with her, even as in the back of your mind, you were thinking, this is some seriously sick shit.

 However, IMO, with the last three books, she undid much of her earlier story with the Amel plot about him being the reason for all the horrible things that vampires did over the years. Amel as the source of all vampirisms from the Queen of the Damned work as a story about the origin of vampires. 

Amel as the source of the evil deeds of vampires including what Magnus did to Lestat, what Lestat did to David, what Marius did to Armand and others, what Armand did to Claudia and Daniel, What Roshamandes did to Khayman and Marharet, and on and on with the various characters was a total cop-out.

Instead of her vampires representing human monsters who did monstrous things, the blame now fell on bird aliens and replicated humans, and most importantly, Amel. Like I said, a total copout. It meant that no one had to take responsibility for anything because Anne gave them a get out of jail free card. Amel did it.

I say all of this to explain one of the major reasons I always thought that the show would go no longer than 5 seasons. IMO, seasons built around bird aliens, Atlantis, and replimoids who replicated just from a thumb or a small piece of body part would never work with the general audience after the complexity of the earlier books and how the writers wrote the show.

Another reason I thought the show would end after season five at the latest was the actors. I really could not see any of them committing to the number of years it would take to complete all the books…assuming AMC wanted to do them. And the more interviews I read from Jacob and Sam, the more I was convinced that would be the case. 

Acting is a job like anything else, and most actors just want a steady paycheck, but they are some who are in it for the creative aspect—those who like to spread their wings and do something different on a regular basis. Jacob and Sam have always struck me as those types of actors.

The show is built around their dynamic, and their characters’ dynamic, and if either left the show would basically be over. Plus, this is a show about vampires who don’t age, but they are human actors, and they are getting older. 

So, what does all of this have to do with what’s wrong with Daniel?

Well as I mentioned, I’ve always thought the show would end after 5 seasons, possibly 6. The reason I hedged my bets and said, possibly 6 is Memnoch the Devil. I could see aspects of that story being of interest to Rolin, and when I heard him mention it in passing in an interview, I said to myself, “yeah, he’s going to try to do Memnoch.’

But in my mind, that presented a problem because The Vampire Chronicles is not The Vampire Diaries with a villain of the season. I could foresee them trying to work Lestat’s experience with Memnoch into the show and fans saying, “haven’t this guy learned anything.” First murder night, then the events in Paris, then Akasha, then the Body Thief, and still he got himself into the mess of Memnoch. Where’s the growth by the character?

So, I think Rolin did the only thing that made sense, he gave the storyline to another character. The most obvious character, and in many ways, a better choice than Lestat is Armand. 

In the books, Lestat’s experience with Memnoch…especially his return with Veronica’s Veil has a profound spiritual effect on Armand, who walks into the sun as a result. Anne planned to kill him off, but he was a fan favorite, and she brought him back the next book, and we got his back story in The Vampire Armand.

Armand is a religious zealot who believes that vampires are the children of satan and therefore does devil’s work.  In so doing, they are ultimately serving God. His belief is rooted in the indoctrination done to him by Santino and Alexandra after he was abducted from Marius’ home in Rome shortly after his turning. 

Even though Armand seems to have moved past the indoctrination in modern times after his exposure to Lestat, Louis and other vampires, he didn’t really as evidence by the impact Lestat experience with Memnoch had on him, as well as the fact that he continues to kill fledglings who don’t belong to a coven if they wander in his area. 300 years of indoctrination will do that to a vampire.

On the show, it is hinted that since Dubai he has started a new coven and may even be going around spreading the word and indoctrinating other covens into his belief. His religious zealotry both in the books and show make him the perfect candidate outside of Lestat to have a conversation with and discuss the history of the religion with the devil.

I think this conversation starts with and will be with Daniel, as I suspect that Memnoch has possessed Daniel. Hence the shift in Daniel vampiric eye color from violet to coppery/gold. It would also explain his eagerness at watching Lestat’s pain during his retelling of what happened with Nicki. The entity is experiencing human emotions…possibly for the first time.

Daniel is many things, but he’s not that callous. There is a big difference in how he reacted to Louis’ trauma when he remembered Paul’s and Claudia’s death and how he does to Lestat’s memory of what happened to Nicki. I think his new callousness comes from Memnoch.

When did the possession take place? I don’t know that part. It could be during his turning by Armand, or it could have happened before.

If I had to guess, I would say it happened before. And I’m wondering if it had something to do with the groaning that he heard all the way back in season 1, which Armand said was just the building swaying. I always felt that was going to mean something, and now I’m wondering if this could be it. Although, I don’t know exactly how, but my gut says it has something to do with things.

I also wonder if Daniel is already dead. In fact, was dead when Armand turned him and if that’s the reason for his weakened blood. He’s just been walking around and animated with some type of spirit inside him, and in my mind, it’s Memnoch.

Armand has also obviously been keeping an eye on his fledgling as Daniel mentioned to Louis sometimes feeling as if everything just falls away and it’s just him and Armand. And we got to see it in action last episode. As Daniel had the experience before, it means Armand has been around even if Daniel didn’t see him. 

So, why is their bond so different than that between other vampire makers and fledglings? I think it’s happening, and this may sound crazy, but I think that while Daniel’s physical body is dead, his spirit might be in hell or at least on another plane. And that spirit is somehow calling out to Armand when they are together.

😂 This theory reads like fanfiction to me, and it’s my theory. But it’s also coming from someone who doesn’t read fanfiction, 😂 so you decide if that’s how it reads. My point is that it doesn’t really sound like Rolin’s style of writing, and yet I’m thinking something like this might be going on.

Last episode, over all the multiple rapid-fire conversations in the bus, Lestat mentioned something about Daniel taking antibodies because of his weakened blood. We’ve also seen Fareed giving him receiving blood intravenously in previous episodes. 

Also, last episode, we saw Lestat hooked up intravenously as well, but it wasn’t clear whether he was receiving or giving blood. I tend to think that he was giving blood, because I think that the antibodies that are keeping Dan alive are coming from Lestat’s blood.

There is something is Lestat’s blood that is helping Fareed treat Daniel. It likely has to do with him having the blood of Akasha in him because he drank directly from her as the source of all vampirisms. Also, what is the purposes of that contraption that Daniel is sleeping in, and why is he sleeping at night.

Which brings me to the auction, Armand’s presence at it, and his missing eye. I think that like Lestat lost his in the book trying to escape from Memnoch’s plane with the Veil of Veronica, Armand will lose his trying to escape with Daniel’s spirit. 

But why specifically is Armand at the auction bidding on Lestat’s vinyl recordings. Well think about it. I and many others think that at the time of the auction, the theft of Lestat’s body has already occurred, and Ragland James is in fact Lestat. 

If that’s the case, then the Body Thief is off, who knows where with Lestat’s body. Although, I think that he will show up at the auction for reasons I break down in my video. However, whether he’s there or not, it means that Fareed will no longer have access to Lestat’s blood to treat Daniel, who is likely in dire straits by that time. 

Which is why Armand is at the auction. Not to bid on Lestat’s vinyl. He could care less about them. What he wants is that bottle of Lestat’s blood. He would bid the world to get tit and save Daniel..

And I think that will be one of the cliff hangers Rolin mentioned, because I can visualize that bottle being broken.

Also, the next frame after the bottle with the blood is shown on screen, is the image above of Armand. He's there for the decanter of blood.

Now, how do they save Daniel if his body is already dead. Well, the funny thing is that having said all that about the silliness of the Replimoid plot, and still believing that to be the case, I think that Rolin might do a hybrid version with Daniel. 

But more straight forward…without all the extraneous silliness. I can potentially see them going the cloning route. If they do, the clone will be a younger Daniel, not old man Eric, but Luke.  And that is how they will get back to the alignment of the book and a younger Daniel being turned into a vampire. 

Lestat’s newly power enhanced blood after the events of the Queen of the Damned may even come in handy. Which could mean that in a way, Daniel would be kind of like a Victor, thereby closing the loop.

For Memnoch to work, within the 2-season span, I think that they will need more than a 7 – 8-episode seasons. I think that they would need two 10-episode seasons. Whether AMC has the money for it, or the actors will sign for the additional episodes, we will have to see.

So, that’s my theory…what do you think? Fan fiction or possibility? 

[stormcloudrising]

Just saw on the ex bird app, the post about the Anker Magazine article, and it's funny because this week I've been writing a post about what I think is going on with Daniel...taking forever because of work and trying to finish a video, but in the draft, I discussed why I think that we get only 2 more seasons of the show, 3 at the outmost, and how that ties into my theory about Daniel.

Now I see the head of AMC pretty much said the same thing about the additional seasons. May add a little bit more now about why I see only 2 possibly 3 more years for the show, but my money is on 2.

Post coming tomorrow...or should I say, tonight.

[oananovicov]

" Long ago, the histories claim, the crannog-men were ruled by the Marsh Kings. Singers tell of them riding on lizard lions and using great frog spears like lances, but that is clearly fancy.

Were these Marsh Kings even truly kings, as we understand it?"- TWOIAF -The Crannogmen of The Neck

Work in progress-The Marsh King...because I will forever be fascinated by The Neck ...😀

[stormcloudrising]

Hi! Looking forward to your new essays on Sansa's abilities. A question: you've covered the Jon–Sansa, Daenerys–Euron, and Jon–Daenerys connections, and noted Euron as a candidate for Azor Ahai (the Bloodstone Emperor) and Sansa as Elenei (possibly Nissa Nissa / the Amethyst Empress). So: do you see any connection or hints of interaction between Euron and Sansa? And more broadly, between Sansa–Jon–Euron–Daenerys?

Hi Nonny,

Thanks for reading the essays.

Do I see interaction between Euron and Sansa?

No. Not directly. When I say that Sansa is the Nissa Nissa character in the story, I don't mean that she is Nissa Nissa to Euron's Azor Ahai. Dany is also a Nissa Nissa character, and she's the one that will be matched with Euron.

You may want to check out my Martian Queen series on YT. The first three discusses the role of the Targaryens in the story, and the last three discusses Dany's role specifically culminating in the final video in the series where I discuss her story merging with Euron's and what it represent to the overall canvas.

Sansa is a Nissa Nissa character, but she has a different role to play, which I'll start breaking down soon, in my Stark video series. The first episode centers on Sansa, and it will be coming soon.

Do I see interaction between Euron - Dany - Jon - Sansa. Yes, but only inasmuch as the Starks will be in conflict with Dany and Euron.

[stormcloudrising]

I do think it's important to keep race in mind when analysing loustat in particular, because it is never ever a non factor. there is an inherent power dynamic between loustat, especially in their earlier days, and the way their trauma impacts them is informed by their positionality in their respective time periods and beyond. Louis being molested by a barber as a kid seems like a random thing to throw in one time and never allude to again, but he is very traumatized and has been since childhood because of the body he inhabits and how it is othered quite violently. there can be parallels between their trauma without it being exactly the same, and I think it honestly would be in poor taste for the writers to introduce a thread about childhood SA on Louis' side without really considering it and giving it the time and space to breathe that is necessary to include something like that in your story. again, cool interpretation and there's no real right or wrong way to see something, but I don't think that's canon.

Hi Nonny,

I agree that there was a power dynamic in their earlier days. Part of it had to do with Lestat as the maker and Louis the fledgling, but the most important part had to do with Lestat being a white man and Louis being a Black man living in the racist South.

Lestat thought that being a vampire would fix any inequalities that Louis experienced. But in America...especially in the South, he was always just a Black man. Lestat privilege allowed him to think that power and or money changes things. But it never does. You are always Black first and everything else second.

That's why I appreciated the writing of the racial aspect of the story in season one. They didn't try to make Lestat a saint who suddenly saw the light of what Louis was going through. They wrote him exactly as he was a privilege white man living in the South. He only got what Louis was going through on the surface level, which I thought was realistic writing.

[stormcloudrising]

I think the candy line more alluded to him enduring racism his entire life and allowing it when he feels, now as a vampire, like he didn't have to allow it. it was a small moment that symbolizes a lifetime of mistreatment and being dehumanized and taunted and treated like an idiot, and him feeling like he let it happen. obviously he didn't let it happen, there was nothing he actually could have done, snatching it back would not have made a dent in the mistreatment to come or changed the power dynamic he was born into as a black man, but he feels now, in all his power, like it should have. I do like your interpretation too and find it interesting, but personally as a poc my mind didn't go to assault at all. small moments like these as a kid remind you that you are other, that people don't see you as human in the same way they see themselves as such, and that you're powerless in a system seeking to make you feel exactly that way. you carry that forever, regardless of how small the moments are. they build up, and you don't forget the first time you consciously felt that way.

Hi Nonny, apologies for the delayed response. Unfortunately, work and trying to finalize my next video has been killing me the last week.

I don't see the candy line as having to do with racism. I think the show handled the racism that Louis experienced and had to live with every day of his life really well in the first season.

And as a Black man, even a Black billionaire vampire, I'm sure that he continues to experience it, but when you hear candy and kids and a traumatic experience, which his memory suggests it was, I don't think racism is what comes to mind first. At least it didn't for me, and I'm also Black.

The reason I don't think it's racism is because I don't see Louis' dad or mother having the kids hair cut by a white barber. Whoever the barber was, or whatever the candy refers to, I think that odds are that he was Black as well.

Candy and kids, and a traumatic memory suggests possible SA to me. Candy and kids and racism, would need an additional something to get that point across.

[stormcloudrising]

To be honest I’ve never thought of the candy from the barber line as an allusion to sexual assault. What that line meant to me was part of Louis wondering - if the little details of his life had been different would he have been ‘strong enough’ to resist Lestat? - like standing up for himself once in childhood, or wearing a different suit to meet Lestat. Sort of a butterfly effect. (Though of course he ultimately comes to the conclusion none of it mattered, that nothing could have stopped him from choosing Lestat). But that’s just my understanding, and I think your interpretation of the line is interesting :)

Yes. That is what he means, but listen to what he says immediately after questioning whether snatching the candy back from the barber when he was seven would have made a difference. He then says, "would I have been stronger sooner." Those two thoughts go together. It implies that he feels that something about the candy and the barber stunted his growth. And I bet he never told his family...although, I can possibly see him telling Paul. As I typed that sentence, I'm suddenly wondering if maybe Paul was there but that's just speculation...no evidence to support it. And as you said, even if the event with the barber didn't happen, allowing him to in his mind feel stronger, he was never not going to kiss Lestat in that church. He was always going to choose Lestat, just like Lestat was always going to choose him in Paris.

[stormcloudrising]

Louis and Lestat's Parallel Trauma

I’ve stated my problem with them having Louis read Claudia’s diary to her abuser and making the trauma of her SA about Lestat’s trauma. And so, I don’t want to rehash that.

But I do want to show that these writers can show parallel trauma without the exploitative nature of the Claudia/Lestat overlapping scenes. Because they have been doing it with Louis and Lestat. 

I want to draw attention to two small scenes that perfectly capture and conveys to the audience that both suffered and are trying to survive the trauma of childhood SA.

From the moment this Louis scene aired at the end of Season 2, my sister and I discussed the implication because when you hear a reference to a child taking candy from an adult, and then you’re shown that the child, now an adult still carries that memory with him, your mind as the viewer goes to the obvious place.

 

That moment with the barber had such an impact on Louis that he put it in the same category as the two most pivotal moments of his life, meeting Lestat for the first time, and being turning into a vampire by Lestat. In my mind, that only means one thing, he suffered SA at the hands of the barber, likely a family friend.

Then there’s Lestat.

The fact they went the route of showing a sexual relationship between him and Gabriella on the show that was implied in the books, by default suggests that it started before he was turned into a vampire. The reason I say this is because the scene from the books, the same scene they used on the show, occurred before he was a vampire.

Also, they have Lestat continually deflect and say that “it’s different with vampires” implying that makes the relationship ok. That should immediately inform us as viewers that it is not ok between vampires anymore than it’s ok with humans.  We know this because they made the sex act physical on the show as opposed to just the exchange of blood as in the books. They want you to see that it was grooming and sexual abuse of a mother to a son. They are telling you that Lestat is just making excuses.

The question then becomes, when did the abuse start. Was it when he was a young child, as in the above image, or as a teenager as shown in the in the one below because it didn't start when he was an adult.

In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if on the show, she’s the one who had him brought back after he ran away with the acting troupe…or at least inform the dad and sons where he went so that he could be brought back. It would be a change from the books, but it wouldn't be shocking if that was the case on the show.

Look at how she went back to reading her book as he was being beaten. That’s probably a scene that played out a million times, and she went back to her books every time.

If this turns out to be the case, he likely ran away to get away from her…even though his romanticization of the trauma as being just a vampire thing has made him forget or avoid that fact.

I come down on the side of the abuse starting when he was a young child to parallel Louis.’ It is not completely clear with Louis if it was a one-time event or a repeated occurrence. But one thing is clear, he thinks that it made him weak, which would have been a natural feeling.

I think that Gabriella’s SA of Lestat started when he was a young child because of his reaction and comment after she finished telling him about her sexual fantasy. 

That was a skin crawling and heart-breaking moment because you realized that she’d been telling him and conditioning him to believe that he was special to her in that way since he was a child. By his smile and “except for me” comment, you realize that she probably said those same words to him a million times before. If the servant wasn’t there, she probably would have kissed him.

Look at how she created their special name "cabbage" for the family...making them "other." A special name that only the two of them knew the meaning of. I'll have a lot to say about that word in my end of season video.

Also, the same way my radar went off when Louis mentioned the barber and the candy, it went off when Daniel asked Lestat about his stuttering and his explanation about it happening when he was 9 and was taken to see the witches burn.

It made me wonder if that’s when the abuse started, and that in conjunction with seeing the “witches” burn is the real reason for his stutter. They showed him remembering fire, but the trailer suggested that there is more to the memory because we see her with him walking to what we assume is the bonfire, and then her hands gripping his face and making him watch. 

If I’m right about this, I’m curious to see if the first abuse occurred before or after the bonfire. My gut is saying that it was before and the bonfire was her way to telling him what happens to children who tell Oh, not in those words, but enough for him to understand. She may even tell him how special he is to her afterwards the way abusers do to get kids to keep their secret. 

Now, all of this is all just a theory, but I mentioned it to show that they are doing a parallel story with Louis and Lestat, and so, it was possible for them to write a parallel arc for Claudia and Lestat without exploiting her via the reading of her diary pages.

And this is coming from someone who thinks that we will find out that Claudia lied a lot in her diary to manipulate Louis, and also had her true feelings in there about him. Louis knows this...or used to, but Armand took those memories away. Was that a good or bad thing? We shall see.

But she didn't lie about her sexual assault. 

Like I said in my post yesterday, I always knew the diary pages would come back into play, but they were handled the wrong way. I would have had Louis and Lestat read the pages together, or Louis give them to Lestat to read…two fathers in pain at what they daughter suffered.

And then, if Lestat had a flashback to Magnus, it would have been understandable and not come across as exploitative. And the emotional punch they wanted would have been just as gut wrenching...maybe even more so because so many fans wouldn't see it as exploitation of Claudia's trauma.

They could even have still had Louis find and kill Bruce. We the audience would know and understand why without him reading her diary pages to her abuser, who really didn’t give a F**k. I

Love this show, but IMO, they dropped the ball for the first time with the handling of the Claudia/Lestat parallel with the overlapping scenes.