The Doppelgänger is a second self, or alter ego, which appears as a distinct and separate being apprehensible by the physical senses (or at least, by some of them), but exists in a dependent relation to the original. By 'dependent' we do not mean ‘subordinate’, for often the double comes to dominate, control, and usurp the functions of the subject; but rather that, qua double, it has its raison d'être in its relation to the original. Often, but not always, the subject and his double are physically similar, often to the point of absolute identity. Brothers (sisters are a rarity in this literature), and especially twins, may be doubles, but where this is the case there is always an element, whether overtly supernatural, numinous or otherwise extraordi-nary, which goes beyond the merely natural relationship. The most characteristic Doppelgänger always have a supernatural or subjective aspect, which does not imply that, within the scheme of the fictions they inhabit, they have no objective existence. On the contrary, the psychological power of the device lies in its ambiguity, in the projection of the subject's subjectivity upon a being whose reality the structure of the novel or story obliges the reader to accept.
The Double in Nineteenth Century Literature, John Herdman
[3x03 - Gabistat Incest Analysis - with Gabriella Motivations Analysis]
Y'all know the drill. Jenny DiPlacidi my love.
Once again, I'm yapping, so be prepared for a long post. Longer than my last one, for sure.
"So, Mr. Bubbles," I hear you say, "what could you possibly say to defend Gabriella this episode?"
Easy, I'm not fucking defending her. I'm letting her be a transgressive antagonist that does evil, awful, sickening things for her own pleasure, manipulation, and goals WITHOUT punishing her for being a woman doing these things. In fact, I'm celebrating that she is a woman doing these things, because why would I want a female character sitting passively in the corner ignoring everyone, when I can have her unrelentingly unignorable? Her deviant sexuality is something I'm really enjoying as a meta conversation with the feminist sex-radical perspective, that creates an incredible layer of meaning with how societal pressures and expectations of sexual freedom, put stress on those who have suffered sexual abuse (or are asexual, and therefore sexually deviant), and do not find comfort in the duality of sexuality presented by sex-radicals or sexual puritans. I'm feminist all the way through, baby, and when I say I want my women evil, I want her to match the company she's in - if Lestat would do something in someone else's perspective, I would want Gabriella to do the same thing in his. But just as I interpret those actions of Lestat's through insight with his traumas, I will do the same to Gabriella. These men are awful, that means I want my women awful, too. At the moment, is she feeling very "whore" in the whore/madonna dichotomy? Possibly, and I have thoughts about that I'll go into specifically about that at the end of this post, but for now I'm genuinely enjoying her character, idc.
But! Let's get to the incest, shall we? I'm going to linearly approach just the first half of this episode, since the interrogation scene is really fucking complicated and it would be difficult to discuss the layers of meaning without mentioning what is being overlapped as the scene progresses. I am also not going to be analyzing the interaction with Armand we get on-screen in the second-half, unless someone really wants me to, since that's much more complicated and has layers of Orientalism to it that I'd want to dedicate to its own analysis after the season is done and I can see what they've done with Armand's character holistically.
This episode starts out with Gabriella and Lestat feeding on a newly-married-if-flawed couple, arriving late to a pre-arranged meeting with Christine and Daniel to do a formal sit-down interview for the documentary. Gabriella's intrusions on Lestat's life are noticeable, to the point that Daniel asks Christine what her deal is, because clearly she's not just a passing fancy. Christine is quick to cut Gabriella down to a vagina past her sell-by-date (ouch), and Daniel gets too distracted by Fareed's head-chopping lore to add his own thoughts, but it's clear that Gabriella's control of Lestat's habits are noticeable, even within the normal hurricane of his life.
When they finally arrive at the studio, Gabriella feasts her eyes immediately on Jarda, who is sick with an STI. Now, herpes simplex virus not only is a life-long viral infection that goes through periods of being "awake" and "asleep", it is also extremely contagious when it is "awake," which is what Jarda's symptoms are about. I will put a pin in this for now though, because what matters is that Jarda is Lestat's body-double, and Gabriella sees him as desirable prey as soon as they climb out of the car.
This is incest by proxy - Gabriella lusting over a body-double is just one step away from her son. Duh, we all recognize this, so what's the point? We're putting another pin in this, and we'll come back to it later.
When they all sit down, Gabriella sits in front of a monitor and enjoys the banter between Daniel and her son very openly. She laughs at their mean-spirited barbs, and doesn't seem to care if it's at Lestat's expense or Daniel's, and seems invested in keeping them at each other's throats.
One of the quotes stands out to me as we see Daniel pressing Lestat is:
"How the current culture has misshapen the mortal mind, and how easy and unsatisfying the bringing of death has become."
Considering Gabriella's glee and delight at hunting and killing victims in the beginning of this episode - and Claudia's own glee and delight at the same thing - this is not a universal experience, despite Lestat telling Daniel it should be. I think this is important on this particular topic because of the call back to "it's different for vampires" as an excuse, as well as how Lestat minimizes other people's experiences to support his own perception - even the clearly seen experiences of his mother who is actively abusing him.
Daniel's most insistent question "Were you a stutterer as a child" is one that targets two things: hidden insecurities, and passively bringing the tension of the mother-son bond to Lestat's mind. Lestat is not the only one who can answer this question in the room, and he doesn't want to answer it, which Gabriella notes with controlled emotion. She has the same thin-lipped pensive expression as she did in episode one when healing Lestat's cheek, when she is feeling the motherly instincts that she is typically too emotionally stunted to convey without sexuality.
Lestat calls to Christine to lecture Daniel about the invasiveness of the question, whose role on the tour seems to me to be a mother-by-proxy who "castrates" her way through enforcing signed contracts and exploitative fine print, and using loopholes to keep the Law off of Lestat's back. Lestat's call to his mother-by-proxy who IS able to support him here is one of the few times this episode where Gabriella sits silently and unobtrusively, as her role of mother is filled by someone else in the group. She shares glances with Daniel that seem to linger on exasperation or boredom as Lestat seems gearing up to an emotional breakdown, but seems weirdly... relieved that Lestat was just faking it. Is it because she wanted to see him break down for real, or because she's satisfied about Lestat not actually needing help?
Because of the argument I've built in the previous installments of the incestuous dynamics between Gabriella and Lestat, I see this as the continued presentation of Gabriella's internal struggle with how to properly show her stunted affection to her son, as well as her internal repulsion at the gendered expectations that come from being a mother. Because she sees emotional comfort as a "weakness," Gabriella cannot help Lestat when he is requesting emotional support, and is satisfied in her own comfort when he reaches for his mother-by-proxy.
When Gabriella makes her presence known again by laughing at Lestat's cutting remark to the relevance of Daniel's questioning, she adds this in a silent aside to Daniel:
She establishes herself here as privately interested in helping Daniel break down Lestat's sarcastic barriers; telling him that he should ask about the Great Conversion, which Gabriella had brought up to Lestat in the previous episode with Lestat also dismissing the relevance of that topic. By working together with Daniel to poke and prod at Lestat, Gabriella is manipulating Daniel to get information that she wants to know, and can't get from him on her own power. Daniel doesn't immediately give in to this line of questioning, instead seeking to interrogate Lestat with his own skills and knowledge.
Lestat nearly trips up with answering Daniel's line of questioning, referencing the witches burning - which Gabriella had taken him to see. We see that as soon as the historical violence towards women is mentioned on screen, Gabriella ends up eyeing Jarda - her attention has wandered. Why? The fact that Jarda is standing in front of the refreshments table is environmental story-telling to what Gabriella is looking at when she sees him, but why is her attention wandering here? Is it because she wants distance from the shared memories, her failures as a mother - which Lestat immediately turns to reference at her - and so becomes avoidant, or is she looking for appeasement and enjoyment by enjoying the bounty that Lestat has provided for those on tour with him, because she is bored? Or as everyone keeps trying to tell me online - is it her lustful whorish appetite? 🙄
"The knowledge imparted by the mother is impious and cursed; the mother who desires power inevitably fails as an educator because such knowledge from a woman is tainted by its non-comformity. (DiPlacidi, 262)"
She took Lestat to the witch burnings, but why? Yes, Gabriella seems to get pleasure from the suffering of mortals, but witches were the powerful women the patriarchy demonized at the time she took Lestat to see them. Was this something she wanted Lestat to see as an attempt to build empathy for powerful women punished by the Patriarchy, and it became a misinterpreted teaching lesson a-la Claudia and Charlie? Or has Lestat internalized it, with the rest of Gabriella's abuse, that she takes pleasure from seeing him distraught and vulnerable? Lestat presents the memory with gendered language: "teenage girls with the resonant voices of men," which brings to mind a concept that powerful women speak with masculine power, but also enough empathy to remember their names over 200 years later. He may make light of the memory with a dismissive tone, but the images are burned into his mind. Is Lestat resentful of this memory? Based on how Lestat turns directly to look at Gabriella, I would guess, yes.
Jarda sidles up to Gabriella as Lestat finishes his rapid-fire musing on whether all four women were witches or not, before the tonal transition of Nicki and Lestat's fond memories of him come singing into the narrative, and Lestat talks about his first love. "Why do I have to Feel?" is stated on-screen as Gabriella begins feeling Jarda up.
This brings in another sexually aggressive mother dynamic, as well as the introduction of queer desire:
"[Gabriella] seems the epitome of the conceptualisations of mothers whom McKinnon describes as displaying 'a sexual agency that is fully active and aggressive, one that does not display "proper" female reserve, control, and modesty.' Much like Fincher's description of queer men who endanger 'the authenticity and stability of masculinity or femininity,' Carathis's assumption of traditionally masculine qualities troubles such gender ideologies. (DiPlacidi, 262)"
Nicki and Lestat play around with "being shown how to be a man," before Lestat once again uses dismissal to avoid focusing on painful memories and emotional vulnerability. Gabriella gestures at Jarda to put on the Lestat wig, as Lestat tries to avoid directly answering Daniel's questions about stuttering again, and Gabriella leaves to disappear into the bathroom with Lestat's body-double. The narrative ties together Lestat's avoidance of describing his homosexual first-love-interest, with Gabriella's desire to fuck her son's proxy:
"Fincher describes Carathis as a mother who: 'connotes deviance and dominant sexuality, traditionally associated with masculinity.' All transgressive sexualities are united as dangerous in their non-heteronormative queerness. Fincher writes: 'Throughout the eighteenth century the term "monstrous" was used as a constructive synonym for the bodies and desires of queer men,' a point that strengthens the link between monstrous as a descriptive of the transgressive nature of both mothers and queer men. Homosexuality, much like voracious female sexuality, was linked to the dangerous blurring of gender, class, power and sex threatening to the patriarchy... (DiPlacidi, 260-261)"
One thing that becomes clear, though, is that Lestat has shared genuine love, fondness, emotional vulnerability, and guilt with Nicki, which is why he is avoidant in sharing these memories. Gabriella, on the other hand, is once again putting her power over her emotional relationship with Lestat, especially by pursuing incest-by-proxy.
"Here Carathis inserts herself between two men, cutting off the scene of potential same-sex desires. Carathis, the bad mother, acts as a barrier to homoerotic experience, repressing her son's enthusiastic embrace... with her overflowing words. (DiPlacidi, 261)"
She becomes loud and unignorable just as Daniel puts pressure on why Lestat would carry a music box made for a lover he doesn't have real emotional attachment to
Just as he keeps "Sophia" close... perhaps? I may be giving Daniel too much credit here, lol
"[Gabriella] has incestuous desires towards [Lestat] that become apparent in her intrusions into his sexual relationships and her control over him. Fincher points to Carathis's 'implied incestuous desire for her son' as being located in the hatred of his lover, but I argue it is grounded in her position of gender-ambiguous power and her corruption of the chaste ideal of motherhood. Maternal desires of all varieties are presented as uncontainable and dangerous forces with sexual connotations, highly disruptive and transmitted to the son via the powerful influence of his mother's position. (DiPlacidi, 260)"
Her deliberate and active presence in his sexual relationships causes incest by proxy. Beckford's mother-son relationship reveals impossible-to-resolve anxieties over the figure of the mother, her influence, power, and control over her son's sexuality and education. This rearticulation of power dynamics results in a display of misplaced appetites and aggressions exposed as being violent and voracious as those of the traditional structures.(Diplacidi, 264)"
For all of those people who were begging for Gabrielle's canon masculinity, here is one sign of it. I'm hoping to get more subtext as the season continues, but masculinity is right here in Gabriella's actions.
And because the conversation immediately transitions to Daniel talking about Magnus as Lestat's "abuser" ("liberator, emancipator..."), it's clear what the narrative is telling us to make of Gabriella's intrusive and controlling behavior here, especially in connection to the body-double aspect of Jarda and Gabriella's quickie. But is that it? I'll come back to this with my pins from the beginning.
Lestat ends up dismissing Louis's account (again, ugh), while actively looking for an escape. We get the escapist, dismissive, and fawning "Little Wolfkiller" music video, Lestat saying "I understood my maker, like he understands his mother..?," and Daniel says "he made you a monster," just as Gabriella walks back into the studio.
This very clearly presents to us one of the warring contradictions in Lestat's coping mechanisms: through Gabriella, he is taught that sexuality is power and escapism and taboo acts are the best way to feel in control. Through Magnus, however, he learns that sexuality and desirability can be traumatic and extremely painful - life-changing in ways he did not want.
This is why, in the previous two episodes, we see that Lestat's sex-seeking is looking for comfort (Gabriella) yet actively harmful to his mental state (Magnus), which results in Lestat's hypersexuality existing as a method of self-harm.
Lestat's empty excuses feel even more empty with Gabriella and Daniel's private exchange layered over the top of them. They don't see this as Lestat controlling the narrative; Gabriella sees it as "boredom" and Daniel is more interested in pointedly asking about the quickie (since he knows Jarda has the "gift"). Lestat isn't making excuses to anyone but himself.
As Daniel and Lestat go back to exchanging barbs, we see Jarda look to Gabriella again, who has all of her focus back on Lestat. Lestat blows Jarda away, and Gabriella shows her appreciation. All of this as Daniel is prattling on about the supposed difficulty of Lestat keeping the secret of his vampirism from Nicki.
This is when Lestat lets slip, for the FIRST time, that his mother was present in the story, AND a vampire, because he narrates Nicki's anger with him after the encounter with Armand. Daniel is shocked, and Gabriella stares Lestat down like this
Lestat throws Louis under the bus (I'm gonna kill him) for hiding Gabriella's existence from Daniel, while Lestat talks about his "first fledgling" as he stares directly into Gabriella's eyes. He narrowly dodges admitting that Gabriella is in the room with them right then
Gabriella seems nervous? Astonished? Impressed at the audacity? Even when Lestat "successfully" deflects, Daniel seems skeptical and shares a long look with Gabriella. This could be because Lestat digs at Daniel's "vampire toddler-hood," but my money is on Daniel putting pieces together. He is an investigative reporter, after all. It'll be interesting how Gabriella ends up seeing Daniel after this, since before she seemed to see him as a co-conspirator.
This is ALSO when Daniel finally brings in Gabriella's powerplay and asks about The Great Conversion, which... because Gabriella's face is much closer to betrayal or hurt, instead of interest and glee, I'd say that Lestat's refusal to claim Gabriella as his mother and fledgling is hurtful. Something that edges on the side of betrayal.
It'll be interesting to see the power between them shifts as Gabriella grows insecure, and as the narrative covers more time when she was a younger fledgling herself. While the mother-son abuse I've analyzed so far is about the position of power that mothers distinctly hold over their sons and the abuse that travels through their incestuous bond, I haven't discussed how the maker/fledgling bond disrupts and twists that relationship even further. Mostly, because I have no clue, lol. This is the first real inkling of how Lestat's position as Gabriella's maker still holds power over her. His refusal to claim her as his own - and her clear complicated feelings about that - potentially shows that she doesn't just enjoy her power over him, but also sees their bond as something precious and desirable beyond that. Does Lestat love *her* enough, just as Nicki was unsure if Lestat loved *him* enough.
This is when Lestat sees the hallucination of Nicki in the camera operator (idk if that's really what his job is, I'm so sorry if I got that wrong), and Lestat begins to pull his mental trick on Daniel.
And that's my stopping point for linear analysis this episode.
Okay, remember my Pin? Let's talk about herpes for a second, because I swear to god the fucking layers of this stupid joke...
Herepes's street names are "the zombie virus," "the unwanted guest," "the gift," or "the gift that keeps giving," since once you get it, you have it for life, and you can pass it on to others while it is active. Is Jarda a fucking joke about "the dark gift" that Magnus gave Lestat, who then gives it to Gabriella 😭 I'm gonna punch somebody... like I'm laughing and I'm crying and I also want to punch somebody. Vampires have been connected to illnesses after encounters with strangers for far longer in mythological history then they've been connected with capitalism, so I get the joke, but GAH. "Stupid shit" indeed, jesus fucking christ.
That brings me to the second pin, and my note on how Gabriella and Magnus overlap. Jarda's function as a body double is to expose a doppelganger of Lestat that is representing the weakest and hardest version of himself to accept, or a Gothic Double* that is thematically relevant in the power struggle this episode. Lestat presents himself as a God: he is untouchable, he has the Blood of Akasha, he is centuries old, and he's a Rock Star. He can talk circles around Daniel. The Gothic Double, however, is the lingering and inescapable past that mythology hides.
Doubling also foregrounds the motif of mirroring, in particular the projection of one’s fears, desires and anxieties onto the other, which becomes an uncomfortable reflection of ugly traits that the self refuses to acknowledge. The other thus reveals the social ills and moral decay that society tends to ignore. It also broaches the notion that there are always two sides to success; when someone wins, it is implied that someone else loses.
Jarda is Lestat's weaker, human-era, seemingly "dumb" mirror that he can hardly look in the eye. Jarda is prey to Gabriella's desires. Jarda is being exploited by Catherine for his body so that Lestat can walk free. Jarda is a foreign country "bumpkin" laborer that never asked for this life. Jarda is the worst of Lestat's opinions about himself, and the presentation of the man that is susceptible to abuse, and could be yet another body he looked in the eye in Magnus's tower. Jarda becomes increasingly disgusting to Lestat, because Lestat is a God now, and Jarda is too uncomfortably human.
Lestat blowing Jarda across the screen after he keeps fawning after Gabriella, is likely a mirror of himself, and his discomfort in what his gothic mirror is showing him.
As for why we got such an explicit sex scene between Jarda and Gabriella? I can't be sure, since it might just be the visual punch line to the joke under my blue pin, but we've see that vampires (Baby Jenks) can be carriers for something that doesn't affect them as much as those who feed from it. Maybe that'll be plot important for whomever Gabriella lures into bed next? Maybe it's symbolic or thematic? Maybe it's just a dumb joke and I'll forever view it as the stupidest scene in this whole show. Idk, I might have to think on it further, especially when more story is unveiled.
I hope this was as informative to you as it was to me, because going through this scene with a fine-toothed comb has really given me appreciation for how fucking complicated this episode is. Anyway, Gabriella is indeed abusing Lestat, but I hope I've also convinced you that she is clearly more than just the "whore" archetype. The trouble, and this is why I find this episode frustrating, is that I had to literally closely analyze the first half of the episode to find it, because the "whore" was so fucking loud it removed all subtlety in her character. Maybe that's the point, fingers crossed it gets challenged by the narrative before the end of the season.
Even if she does end up one-note, and I'll need to hang up my Gothic Horror Literacy cap to start putting on clown make-up, I do find that what I've seen in Gabriella is fascinating and I genuinely have enjoyed the effort I've put into loving her character.
*Gothic Archive, "Glossary of the Gothic: Doubling," Diana Chan Tsui Li, National University of Singapore. Always one of my favorite non-fiction, free resources for Gothic motifs.
I’ve loved Daphne du Maurier ever since I read and reviewed her most famous novel, Rebecca, during the first year of this blog. Since then, I’ve read a few of her other works, including Jamaica Inn and the short story “The Birds.” But none of her other works have had as powerful an impact as I felt while reading Rebecca. Nothing, that is, until I saw the 2017 film adaptation of My Cousin Rachel…
In the case of duplication, the second self or double appears, as it were, from outside the first self; whereas in the case of division, as in the Jekyll-Hyde personality, it splits off from within. For our practical purposes here this difference is of only minor importance next to what is essential to both, the disintegration of the person.
