Nobody asked but whatever, my Lit BA was gathering dust. Here's why Devil's Minion got smacked by the Gothic Romance tree several times over and that that's why it has a lot of people in a chokehold and has for decades.
A/N: Let me preface this by saying that, given the books (and its adaptations) are Gothic fiction with other genres weaved in, most of the pairings fall into this. Louis and Lestat certainly do. I am not arguing against that. What I'm saying that with Daniel and Armand it's much more detailed and goes into hitting almost every hallmark. Even in the TV show, Louis is light on details on purpose because he's a classy lady, so while Loustat hit a whole chunk of these (haunted setting, high emotions, supernatural, anti-heroes, religion), there's more to be had with Daniel and Armand. Long yapping and book spoilers below the cut.
I won't go into the history of Gothic fiction or Gothic romances (I could but that's a whole other post) so instead I'm going to start by listing some of the key elements of the genre and how the story of Daniel and Armand's relationship fits.
I. The Gothic Elements
1. Dark, Mysterious, and Frightening Ambiance:
Aka everything from when Armand locks Daniel up in a cellar and leaves him there for various days [or kept him hostage in a SF apt for several days as in the show] to scaring the shit out of him in the middle of the night to feeling like a fever dream. The stalker bits. Someone said it's a horror story--sure, but it's Gothic first. Think Gary Oldman stalking Winona Ryder if you need a movie comparison. The purpose might not have started out the same and it definitely devolves into silliness as well as romance, but the point stands.
2. Supernatural Elements:
Duh. Not just because Armand is a vampire and wields a lot of supernatural power but also in moments such as when they're in the Amazon and Armand perceives another and then feels that he has to do something to protect Daniel from others especially ancient ones. The looming threat of a background supernatural world plays as much into is as Armand being supernatural.
3. A Desolate, Haunting Setting:
I can only speculate whether the park scene will somehow wind up being Raptured and leaving them alone, but that would be dope. In book context, I mean Pompeii and later Night Island. Pompeii fits much more into the element, however. It's an old abandoned structure away from society and the lovers meet here. It's both romantic and foreboding in its isolation and it's privy to the true beginning of their romance. Night Island might be shiny and new but it's still technically built to be on its own and, in many ways, serve as a gilded cage for our "damsel in distress". Night Island is nothing if not a tropical Floridian version of Manderley from Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca.
4. Isolated Protagonist(s):
Related to above but, even if we take them out of these two settings and plop them into all the cities they visited and all the treasure hunting they did together, they are effectively isolated because nobody else matters to them except each other and if someone else is of any importance it's only in the most transactional way (see: cuck chair). Further, as our narrative "damsel in distress" Daniel self-isolates when he isn't with Armand. Leaving in a huff because he doesn't get what he wants and feeling the existential dread of his mortality does not mean that he went to see family (hell, in the DM chapter its mentioned that he has some distant relations but it's clear he doesn't not give a fuck). He spirals on his own and is found on his own.
5. Emotional Extremes:
The usually stony Armand sobs and cries hard. He laughs unabashedly. Though Daniel is also in emotional extremes, it's Armand's emotional extremes that make the most impact here and the ones that are written about in the chapter over and over again. His free laugh makes Daniel want to drink. Daniel hates himself for making Armand cry as terribly as he does even though he somewhat relishes in being able to do so. They're both at emotional extremes the entire time and they get hooked on feeling everything at an 11 with each other.
6. Anti-hero protagonist:
Technically, both Daniel and Armand are this. Armand is the more Byronic romance interest of the two: does dark things, mysterious, brooding, intelligent, fucked-up past, magnetism. And if Armand skews heavier to our Byronic romantic interest who wrestles with what little he has left of his morality to not soil his beloved then that makes Daniel...
7. "Damsel" in distress:
Saying woman or damsel is reductive, but in the 19th century novels that formalised the Gothic genre, the person in distress was mostly a woman (think Mina Murray or Elizabeth from Frankenstein). One of the fun things about the main pairings in the Anne Rice world is that they still kind of fall into the pattern despite that it bucks gender convention by mostly being composed of members of the same sex. Daniel IS a "damsel" in distress in the sense that he is the more innocent of the two who falls for someone he definitely shouldn't fall for, someone who has or will do him wrong in some way, but someone he cannot resist. His life is, technically, ruined from knowing Armand. He devolves further into preexisting patterns of addiction until he's dirty and penniless and cold in a park and dying of cirrhosis.
8. Psychological Instability:
Most of Daniel's distress is psychological especially as it concerns existential dread and the mixing of mind-altering substances (which lead to the point below). This instability then leads him further down his self-destructive past. Armand also has psychological instability from the centuries of trauma that make him who he is. Their heightened emotions and their codependence further add to the instability.
9. Visions and Nightmares:
Book Daniel gets both and they are inexorable tied to Armand. After drinking so much of Armand's blood, he can see bits of (what I assume through context) Armand's past, he sees figures in Pompeii as if they come alive after he drinks blood for the first time, and he has the dreams about Maharet and Mekhare while he is still human.
10. Religion & Good/Evil ideology:
The core reason that Armand does not want to turn Daniel and something that serves as a powder keg for their biggest arguments stems from this. Daniel is not religious in the conventional sense and he views Armand as his deity more than anything else and his worship of Armand, though devoted, is not as intrinsically linked to religion (esp. not Abrahamic religions) as Armand's decision to not turn him. Religion is an important part of Armand's past both from before he was taken from his home and after. He wanted to go into religious service as a child and is later brainwashed and forced into it within the Children of Darkness who follow a type of Christian theology taken to a demonic extreme (I'm not big on theology but I was raised Catholic and my God do the CoD seem like extreme demon Catholics). His belief that a fledgling will come to hate their maker is partially due to that (and partially...his own fucked up relationship with his shitty maker). He also feels like in turning Daniel he is going to condemn him to hell just as he has been condemned. They argue about philosophy and even as Daniel is dying they debate about right or wrong when it comes to Daniel's turning.
11. The Past Colliding With the Present:
Not just because of vampirism. But also having that initial consummation in Pompeii, how Armand's centuries of living affect his world view, the fact that the story is told in a non-linear fashion, the dreams about Maharet and Mekhare's past, Night Island being funded by long-lost treasure, Armand's desire to be connected to the present time and to use Daniel as his guide to modernity...
12. Romance:
By this point you're probably going: but Mari where's the love? Here. Last but not least.
Even though I hate these two characters more than a sane person should, let me give you an example of some shitheads that are in some Gothic romance shit: Heathcliff and Cathy. It's a cliché and, again, I hate them passionately, but they are out here foregoing every single thread of society or convention or time relevant morality to be together. They have desires that eschew convention and are exaggerated and codependent and terrible to each other and also are the only people that get each other--but this isn't about them.
Daniel and Armand get each other. It doesn't make any conceivable sense given they're (roughly based on showverse math) 445 year age difference, but they do. In the time period in which they have their grand romance, it would've been very against social convention for them to be together both because they're both men and because they have an appearance disparity that would make plenty of people uncomfortable (what's this "teenager" doing hanging around this man?). The supernatural elements and their isolated cage protect them from the society that would absolutely shun them for being together. In the vampire world, vampires are being killed left and right and, when they are not, plenty of them have beef with Armand for very real reasons and could use Daniel as leverage. Neither the human or supernatural world would be overly kind to them. They have a forbidden desire to be together and they risk a lot to be together as they are. Precisely because they know each other as well as they do, they're able to be the worst to each other when they get into fights. But they are also the only ones who can give each other comfort and freedom. Codependent and toxic little fuckers.
II. So why does this make them appealing?
YMMV, but the reason that Daniel and Armand's relationship makes a lot of people go feral is the same reason that people go feral about some banger Wuthering Heights lines or why people go feral about NBC Hannibal, or Gothic literature in general.
We experience characters go through some of the worst things possible, and we see them slip into darkness that is forbidden (and/or abhorrent) in reality. Do we really want to be stalked by an immortal predator and woken up to be asked to call Paris? No. That's some scary shit. But this is a safe way to experience this extreme level of infatuation that goes from unwanted to deeply missed. They share a violent love as well given all the biting and blood and Daniel starting off tortured. They are the emotional extreme of love that is objectively frightening but because they get each other, because this is a "freak for freak" romance, it works for them. They get to be together (you know, eventually and off page, gracias Anne) after all the trials and horrors and nothing bad happens to them.
Their being together allows both of them freedom from societal constraints (human and vampire alike) that would rather not see who they really are. All bets are off and they can be as chaotic and as mean and as monstrous as they like because they have the security that their partner will not flee. Daniel views Armand primarily as a monstrous insect creature and he loves and wants Armand for it not in spite of it. Similarly, Armand has seen all the worst of Daniel and loves him for who he is and doesn't seek to change anything about him other than getting him nicer clothes and making sure he's clean. We all want to be seen and loved for exactly who we are. They are the extreme of this.
Their relationship and the biting and the blood can be and is erotic to a lot of people.
Fuck it, I'm quoting the fucking overused Neruda sonnet. But I'm doing it in Spanish (mine and Neruda's mother tongue) first because I'm tired of the English version: "como se aman ciertas cosas oscuras/ secretamente, entre la sombra y el alma" [as one loves certain obscure things,/ secretly, between the shadow and the soul].
I've lost the plot somewhere up here, but they also get a lot of detail because the person narrating their love story is Lestat who loves love and loves Armand and wants Armand to be happy and he's a romantic motherfucker. Louis and Lestat kinda UHaul and have a kid and it's all very domestic very quickly.
Daniel and Armand have the great torrid love affair and travel the world and do weird shit and get to just exist without much interference from fucking anything but their own hangups. It's a detailed fantasy that can appeal to many for many reasons not just because of its Gothic nature (to say nothing of the fact that this love story caught book readers like a 2x4 to the head with how it came out of NOWHERE). But the Gothic elements make it what it is and add to the appeal intrinsically.
With some of the changes in the AMC adaptation of The Vampire Chronicles, I've seen a lot of word of mouth about the way sexuality and sex works for Anne Rice's vampires, and I wanted to kind of collect what is actually in the books and how it functions (or, really, doesn't.)
Content heads up: I'm going to discuss symbolic sexual assault towards the end, in the specific words used in the books. The rest of these quotes are from various sexual or sensual encounters across the book series with a variety of characters. One is from a scene that is a scene involving a human and sexual assault, but I'm not quoting that specific part of the scene.
Sex vs. Blood
It's established as early as Interview with the Vampire that, for vampires, nothing, including sex, comes close to the sensation of killing and drinking blood. Drinking blood is the ultimate form of desire and pleasure, above all else:
Not physical love, you must understand. I don’t speak of that at all, though Armand was beautiful and simple, and no intimacy with him would ever have been repellent. For vampires, physical love culminates and is satisfied in one thing, the kill.
‘It was something hurried,’ I said, trying now to meet her eyes. How perfectly, coldly blue they were. How earnest. ‘And … it was seldom savored … something acute that was quickly lost. I think that it was the pale shadow of killing.'
Lestat, via Science Magic, has a chance to have sex in his vampiric form in Prince Lestat, and concludes that Louis is completely correct here:
Now I could write an essay of five hundred pages on how this experience unfolded, because I did feel biological erotic desire again, and I fell on the young woman about as mercilessly as any greedy aristocrat of my time ever fell on a milkmaid in his village. But it was precisely as my beloved Louis had said a long time ago, “the pale shadow of killing,” that is, the pale shadow of drinking blood, and it was over almost at once, it seemed, and then the passion was gone, back into the depths of memory once more as if it had never been aroused, the pinnacle, the ejaculation forgotten.
In The Tale of the Body Thief, Lestat actually compares desire for blood to sexual desire, in the scene with the waitress:
She opened her mouth for my tongue. This was good, even if her mouth was bad tasting. Didn’t matter. But then my mind raced ahead to blood. Drink her blood.
Where was the pounding intensity of drawing near the victim, of the moment right before my teeth pierced the skin and the blood spilled all over my tongue?
No, it’s not going to be that easy, or that consuming. It’s going to be between the legs and more like a shiver, but this is some shiver, I’ll say that.
Sexual Function in Vampires
Male vampires, I guess the best way to put it, have the hard marble-like skin texture all over their bodies (quick summary: we get "hard" as a description of the feel, "half erect" as a description of appearance, both in The Vampire Armand), but don't experience pleasure differently in different parts of their bodies once they are vampires.
From Lestat, we get this somewhat infamous quote about his "organ" in The Queen of the Damned:
And the organ, the organ we don’t need, poised as if ready for what it would never again know how to do or want to do, marble, a Priapus at a gate.
From the book Pandora, we get a simulated sex scene between a male and female vampire, that indicates that neither one is feeling much direct sensation from the act:
But it was hard, this organ I sought, the organ forever lost to the god Osiris. I guided it, hard and cold as it was, into my body. ... He was right. The lower organs meant nothing. He fed on me. I fed on him. This was our marriage.
Our bodies were one, connected by this sterile organ which was no more to him now than his arm, but how I loved the arm he threw over me and the lips he pressed to my forehead.
Sexual Desire for Humans
There are a fair number of sexual encounters between vampires and humans in the books (in ways that don't require sexual function). Here are some of the perspectives we get from within the vampire's point of view. As you can see, a lot of the dialogue here is about passion, desire, and intimacy. In several of them, they specifically mention holding back, which means holding back from biting.
These are from the same scene in two different books (they're both talking about Bianca):
"Blood or no blood, I could remember hot passion for her, and I felt it now in a strange overall manner, not localized in the forgotten organ as it had been before." - Armand, The Vampire Armand
"With my eyes, I let her know my love for her, that I would trespass now if she didn’t strictly forbid it, and moving past her, I seated myself on her bed. Never had I taken such a liberty with her, but I knew her thoughts. We dazzled her. She idolized us." - Marius, Blood and Gold
This is Marius talking about Amadeo in Blood and Gold:
As for me, I had never experienced such pure intimacy with a mortal, except with those I meant to kill. It gave me chills to have my arms around this boy, to press my lips to his cheeks and chin, his forehead, his tender closed eyes.
Yes, the blood thirst rose, but I knew so well how to control it. I filled my nostrils with the smell of his youthful flesh.
And this is from Blood Canticle:
My hands wanted all of her, her flesh beneath the stiff cotton, the small full curve of her hips, her breasts, her pale neck, her lips, her privy parts, so wet and ready for my fingers, my lips grazing her throat, not daring to do more than feel the blood beneath the skin as my fingers brought her up to the climax, as she moaned against me, as her limbs went stiff with the finish, as she lay limp against my chest.
The blood thudded in my ears. It raced through my brain. It said I want her. But I lay still.
Sensual Desire Between Vampires
From the above, we know they no longer desire sex because it has been overwhelmed by the desire for blood, we know their sexual function doesn't really exist, and we know that when they feel desire for humans, they experience it differently from sexual desire, in their own words, but use a lot of the same language you'd expect for sexuality.
So what does this mean for how sexuality works between vampires?
I think the simplest way to put it, in the words of the books, is that vampires have sensual desire towards each other. They don't desire sex with each other and couldn't really properly do it if they tried, but they appreciate aesthetic beauty and they desire pleasure and intimacy. And often, though not always, that means blood.
The first big scene that comes to mind of two vampires drinking from each other, that's not one of them being turned into a vampire, is Lestat and Akasha:
I saw it, the shimmering circuit, and more divinely I felt it because nothing else existed but our mouths locked to each other’s throats and the relentless pounding path of the blood. There were no dreams, there were no visions, there was just this, this—gorgeous and deafening and heated—and nothing mattered, absolutely nothing, except that this never stop. The world of all things that had weight and filled space and interrupted the flow of light was gone.
In Prince Lestat, we get the closest thing to a vampire/vampire sex scene, which I'll give a small section of. They are both drinking each other's blood, in bed, and these two characters are unambiguously in a romantic relationship:
"He stripped off Benedict’s jacket, and then his shirt and his sweater, and brought him down on the dark embroidered covers. He lay beside him, fingers tightening on the pink nipples on Benedict’s chest, his lips grazing Benedict’s throat, and then he pressed Benedict’s head against his own throat and said, “Drink” under his breath.
At once those razor-sharp teeth broke through and he felt the mighty hungry pull on his heart as the blood flowed out of him towards the heart beating against him. A gusher of images opened. He saw the burning house in London, saw that hideous wraithlike thing, saw what Benedict must have seen but never registered, that thing falling to its knees, the rafters coming down on it, an arm cracked loose and flung away in the fire, black fingers curling. He heard the skull pop.
The images dissolved in the pleasure that he was feeling, the deep dark throbbing pleasure he reveled in as the blood was drawn out of him with greater and greater speed. It was as if a hand had ahold of his heart and was squeezing his heart and the pleasure washed out in waves from his heart, passing through all his limbs."
We also have the, kind of hard-to-quote-concisely, scene where Lestat drinks from Gregory in Blood Communion, which is also in a bed and framed pretty sensually:
“Come here to me, Prince,” he said. “Let me give you my blood. Let me give you the blood of the fourth blood drinker ever made.”
I couldn’t resist. It didn’t even occur to me. I saw him rise before me and I lay back on the marble bed and he was stretched out on top of me, a warm gentle weight against me, and my fangs were pressed to his neck. I drank.
In the last two examples above, sharing blood between vampires isn't only for *sensuality; both scenes include one vampire looking at the memories of another, which commonly happens when they share blood. Vampire blood, especially of a vampire older than you, is also healing, it gives you more power, so there are scenes of consensual blood drinking between vampires in the books that are not as sensually coded. Not every scene of a vampire drinking from another vampire is framed in a sensual or sexual way.
Blood Drinking Nonconsensually
Drinking blood from a vampire (or turning someone into a vampire without their consent) is often referred to using language usually used to describe sexual assault. I'll focus on instances between vampires here.
This is from the opening of The Vampire Armand:
I wondered idly and viciously if I could attack him, take him, bring him down under my greater craft and cunning and taste his blood without his consent.
“I’m much too far along the road for that,” he said, “and why would you chance such a thing?”
What self-possession. The older man in him did indeed command the sturdier younger flesh, the wise mortal with an iron authority over all things eternal and supernaturally powerful. What a blend of energies! Nice to drink his blood, to take him against his will. There is no such fun on Earth like the raping of an equal.
“I don’t know,” I said, ashamed. Rape is unmanly. “I don’t know why I insult you. You know, I wanted to leave quickly. I mean I wanted to visit the attic, and then be out of here. I wanted to avoid this sort of infatuation. You are a wonder, and you think me a wonder, and it’s rich.”
This is from Prince Lestat. The phrase "droit du seigneur" is the right of kings to have sex with their subjects:
“I’m thirsting,” I said aloud. At once he suggested where we might hunt.
“No, for your blood,” I said, pushing him backwards against the slender but firm trunk of a tree.
“You damnable brat,” he seethed.
“Oh, yes, despise me, please,” I said as I closed in. I pushed his face to one side, kissing his throat first, and then sinking my fangs very slowly, my tongue ready for those first radiant drops. I think I heard him say the single word, “Caution,” but once the blood struck the roof of my mouth, I wasn’t hearing clearly or seeing clearly and didn’t care.
I had to force myself to pull back. I held a mouthful of blood as long as I could until it seemed to be absorbed without my swallowing, and I let those last ripples of warmth pass through my fingers and toes.
“And you?” I asked. He was slumped there against the tree, obviously dizzy. I went to take him in my arms.
“Get away from me,” he growled. And started off walking, fast away from me. “Stick your filthy droit du seigneur right through your greedy heart.”
Like with other blood drinking between vampires, how specific this framing is varies. Sometimes vampires do just drink each other's blood as an act of physical assault to wound or kill the other, but especially between vampires who have an established interpersonal relationship, the assault is often described as or framed as rape.
Word of God
I occasionally see people make a lot of claims about Anne Rice's opinions about sexuality and her characters that don't line up with anything she said publicly, the content of her works, or, frankly, the fact that she was a prolific writer of what she herself called "pornography." Anne Rice made the vampires relate to sexuality the way they do as an intentional writing choice. She made a lot of her characters queer, including some of them specifically identifying as such. There are explicit sex scenes with both queer and male/female couples in a lot of her works, including some of these books.
I want to highlight this article, archived from Fanpop that includes some sections of emails she wrote to a reader asking questions about sexuality and relationships in the books (though I do not fully agree with the writer of the article.) Here is a small section about specific character relationships from one of her responses, that clarifies a lot of her intent:
"Armand is desperately in love with Lestat but it has nothing to do with sex. Armand feels Marius failed him and Marius feels Armand failed him, and that part has nothing to do with sex. Marius and Pandora, that is a love affair, but again sex has nothing to do with it. So they are all capable of loving people of their own gender and the other gender; gender doesn't matter. It's the essence. Lestat loves David Talbot as a lover, a friend, a mentor, a father, etc. --- It goes on like that. The act of dominating and drinking blood can happen between any two characters regardless of gender. They cannot be pinned down. They see all life as potentially beautiful and all forms of love as rewarding."
To me, the clearest word god you can find online is her response to a Facebook question about Marius and Daniel:
My vampires don't have sex. They can share blood, and this is intimate for them. Daniel and Marius love each other very much.
I mean, that pretty much covers it.
Conclusion
In summary:
Anne Rice's vampires see drinking blood as the ultimate form of desire and pleasure, and specifically superior to sex.
The vampires lack sexual function and sexual arousal.
Despite this, some vampires do have sexual encounters with humans, related to a desire for intimacy and aesthetic pleasure.
Vampires can be attracted to each other, but drinking blood is the primary form of intimacy between them. Anne Rice did not consider this sex, but she did describe several vampire pairings as "lovers." It is sensual, it is pleasurable, it is passionate.
I put this together because how you interpret and feel about the sexuality in the books is going to be very personal to each reader, but hopefully this summary has managed to stick as closely as I could to what's on the page. What sexuality is to you, what you define as sex, how you interpret these characters, how you interpret their relationships, what parts of the books meant something to you or help you understand something about yourself- that's all up to you.
There are people who find the fact that the vampires don't have sex really important to them, there are people who find the queerness of their attraction really important, and there are people who identify with how Anne Rice talks about human sexuality in general. What is in the books is what is in the books, what matters about it to you belongs to you.
And if you wish what was in the books was a little bit different, that's why we have AO3, and the fine scientific contributions of Dr. Fareed Bhansali.
One final note: as for adaptations, the word "adapt" means to change or to modify. When it comes to changes in adaptations, it's not inherently bad because it's different; it's not inherently better because it's the same. How you feel about changes in an adaptation- good, bad, neutral, indifferent, kinda would have preferred what was in the source material but the change doesn't really bother you- that is also yours. It's going to depend on what matters to you in the source material and how, and this is the kind of series that matters to people in different ways.
Hi hi I’m back! I feel like I can only trust you and @nalyra-dreaming with this question and you both won’t drag me for asking it lol
Ok small context, I posted something months ago kinda saying “I can’t wait to drag and hate on Marius… I love a well written villain in a story” (summarized) And I got of course people completely agreeing and then I got a message from someone saying “you really shouldn’t post hate in a characters tag, fandom etiquette, the people that love him and enjoy him don’t want to see that” by the way they worded it relatively nicely so I had no problem with the criticism. And I also completely agree not posting hate in a characters tag…but
My question/statement is, and I genuinely mean this, aren’t we supposed to not like Marius? Isn’t he kinda a shitty guy in the books? Now to be fair I haven’t read the books, for a couple reasons, but I’ve read pages here and there and I’ve read some crazy stuff Marius has done, especially to Armand. When I got that message I was honestly shocked and felt really bad but I didn’t know he actually had a fan base.
If you have any clarification on his character please educate me, maybe he has some kind of redemption Ark, or maybe he’s just really charming and charismatic so people look past the bad? Also I’m not blind, everyone in this universe has done some pretty vile shit(Armand included) but child pro*tiution, etc, etc? I usually cut ties there lmao.
Thank you as always😌💕
Hi! 👋🏾
Okay, so first, I apologize for how long it's taken me to answer this question. But the truth is, the topic of Marius de Romans is not a simple one, when it comes to the books or to the Vampire Chronicles fandom. It wasn't when I was first in the fandom back in the mid-90s to early 2000s, and that doesn't seem to have changed any since then until now either.
And so, I wanted to be as thorough and as fair as possible in the answer I gave to your question.
Because I mean, I was there, in fandom, when the books Pandora, The Vampire Armand, and Blood and Gold were all first published. Talking about Marius after those books came out could start a lot of heated arguments. Some that had online friendships ended even.
So, while I will give my own personal feelings and opinion about the character of Marius in this answer here and there, I am very much going to try to be as objective (and emotionally detached) about the main subject, and regarding why some people (from just my POV) do like his character, while other people dislike his character (with a passion) as much as I can.
But Fair Warning: This post contains talk of children and underage teens in sexual situations with adults, as well as issues of grooming. If that can be triggering for anyone, please skip this post.
* * * * *
Introduction and Overview
Now first: IMO, a simple answer can be given to this question, which is that no, Marius was never deliberately written by Anne Rice to be unlikable to readers, IMO.
Quite the opposite, in fact, IMO.
However, many readers don't like his character. Hate him with a passion, even. Yet, for many of those readers (like myself), that was actually something that happened over time, over subsequent books beyond the first three in the VC series, and not something that started with his first appearances.
(Side note: and another thing you should understand is that there are a number of book fans/readers who outright dismiss any books that were written and came after Queen of the Damned, which include all of the books where the perspective shift insights into Marius' character started.)
Because when you do meet Marius for the first time in The Vampire Lestat? He is charming and quite likable, IMO. He very much comes across as a wise vampire-mentor figure type. Even with his arrogance and some of the harsher things he does, such as threatening to kill any flegdlings Lestat makes if he reveals anything about the nature of what they are as vampires (with regards to the existence of the Queen and King), Marius really is no better or worse than any other vampire you've read about in the series up until then IMO.
Hell, I recently saw a video review on YouTube from someone who just recently read the first two books in the Vampire Chronicles for the first time, who flat-out said they liked Marius' character very much after reading The Vampire Lestat for the first time. (And no, I don't think they knew anything about Marius before then, apart from what the TV show has hinted at up till this point.)
And the same goes for Marius' appearance in Queen of the Damned, IMO. There are instances where that harsh arrogance shows up, but that's no big sin IMO. Hell, I, myself, remember feeling very touched the first time I read the part, towards the end of the book, of Marius bringing Pandora little gifts and brushing her hair.
Which is a complete 180 from what I was muttering out loud every time he spoke at Pandora in Chapter 4 of Blood Communion, which was just variations of me muttering, "Shut up, Marius." 😑
And for me, my dislike of Marius pretty much started with the book Pandora. For many others, however, it started with The Vampire Armand and just went on from there with Blood and Gold.
Because it really was with the perspective shift to the vampires who were not only made by Marius, but who were specifically made to be his companions, that perspectives about Marius himself began to switch in the eyes of many readers, and turn a lot of people off to him.
And IMO, those reasons are not unfounded. And, sometimes, it can be for very personal reasons.
* * * * *
A Point Unique to the TV Show
However, before I go into that, let me clarify first that Marius, in the books, did not prostitute Armand. Yes, he did send Armand to go to brothels to learn about sex and sexual desire, but he never forced Armand to go and do so, nor did he offer him up to visitors. That is completely something the show added in regarding Marius and Armand's relationship, but I don't think it was arbitrarily done so. Or just necessarily done to make Marius look worse than he does regarding Armand and sex. (A subject which I'll go more into further below.)
No, I very much think the show added this in to underline the parallel between Marius and Armand's relationship and Armand and Daniel's relationship. A parallel between the two relationships that is very much already there in the books, but one I think the show is going to hammer in on, and make a parallel between even more than the books do.
I want to keep the focus of this ask on the question of Marius, however. So if you want to read about those parallels, including the one about how having Marius in the show offering up Armand to people will likely fit into that IMO, you can do so here.
But to keep it brief, Armand, in the books, would sometimes -- when he could -- arrange for Daniel to have sex with other humans who specifically fell for Armand. (During the Devil's Minion period.) And I think the show is setting up a similar thing -- with Marius arranging for Armand to sleep with humans who either fall for him or maybe even for Marius himself. And that being from Marius that Armand learned such a thing, and got the idea of it from.
Because the vampires in the show can have sex, unlike their book counterparts.
And yet, however, when it comes to Marius in the books, this is actually the area where the contention starts to come in, particually with regards to Marius' relationship with Armand.
* * * * *
Views of Marius in Book Fandom
I got an ask, around during Season 2, about what fandom was like back in the day, (which, again for me, was from the mid-90s until the early 2000s), and one of the memories that sticks in my head from during that time is the absolutely heated debates that went on in my Vampire Chronicles mailing list after The Vampire Armand came out, and whether or not what happened between Marius and Armand in the bath (and then again, later, during the whipping scene, as well as what happened with Binaca after Armand was turned) could really be counted as sex simply because Marius (and then later Armand, wrt Bianca) was a vampire; because vampires in Rices universe couldn't have physcal sex, and the only way they got erotic pleasure was only from drinking blood.
And so the arguments, because of that, were always whether it could or could not be considered sex concerning Marius' relationship with Armand, when Armand was the only one between the two who was still human. And therefore, would have been the only one between the two to have erotic pleasures during the acts between them. (Yes, this was the argument about it all that was going on back in the day, though I honestly don't know if it is still one that is going on about it now.)
However, the big counterargument/defense of Marius about it all from many was and is that you could not look at their relationship in a modern context with modern eyes and morals, because of the time period when his relationships with both Pandora and Armand took place (sometime around the late 15th century). As well as the time period from before that from which Marius himself hailed and was raised during (which was ancient Rome, B.C., during the reign of Augustus Caesar).
Because when it comes to the books themselves? Well, that is very much how it is all presented regarding it all, in both context and the narrative.
And the narrative framing of it in this way, in the books, actually begins with the character of Pandora, not Armand.
It is, however, with Armand, and with the book The Vampire Armand specifically, that this particular narrative view of it all regarding Marius' character specifically got upended and derailed, IMO. And why and how views of Marius' character very much changed -- whether rightly or wrongly -- for a significant number of people afterwards.
And I can't say for sure whether or not Anne Rice was aware of what she did to upend it when she did it.
* * * * *
So What Happened? -- The Character of Marius de Romanus
Note: I'm going to place a 'read more' cut here below for length (because yeah, this is about to be super long) as I break this all down into what happened, specifically between pre-The Vampire Armand being published and post its publication, and how, IMO, that book -- and those after it -- impacted the view of Marius' character.
Though I guess you can also say there will also be multiple book spoilers under the cut as well. So this is also for anyone who doesn't want to see those things either.
So let's take a look at the character of Marius de Romans and what, IMO, the fuck happened to turn him from a character that went from being seen as no better or worse than any other vampire character in the books... to being one that a large chunk of fans absolutely now hate with a passion, but still also has many people who remain fans and defenders of him to this day.
Even among the cast of the show:
* * * * *
The Historical Context
So, to begin, the character of Pandora was Marius' first vampire companion/love. If you didn't know that, and many non-book readers don't, it's fine, since Pandora isn't around on the show (yet).
However, there are things one needs to understand regarding Marius, which we only learn in Pandora's book, to, I think, get the full scope of Marius' character, and his relationship with Armand.
So to start with, what you need to know regarding this is that Pandora and Marius first met when they were both still human; when Pandora was 10 years old, and Marius was (around) 25 years old.
Marius wanted to marry Pandora when he was still human. However, when he asked her father for her hand, and was refused... it wasn't because of Pandora's age.
Yeah, with Pandora (whose name was Lydia at the time), her father only objected to such a betrothal because he didn't view Marius as a serious man (as well as probably something else, which I'll get to). He just thought Marius wanted to betroth himself to a girl not too old to be engaged, but too young to get married. With no other problem about it.
If Marius hasn't been viewed as a "wanderer and dreamer," and, well, maybe as more purely Greek/Roman, however? (Which, yes -- and again, I'll get to that.) He very likely would have seen nothing wrong with Marius wanting a 10-year-old to be his wife when she was of marrying age, which, given ancient Roman culture, would have been around when she was 12 years old anyway.
Which we know because Pandora herself says it, continuing right after she says the above:
So the main point here is that neither Pandora herself nor, most importantly, the framing of the narrative text surrounding this, condemns Marius for wanting Pandora due to her young age. Even her father's only objection was because of his view of Marius as an unserious person, not because of his daughter's age.
Hell, I'd say quite the contrary, even. The way the narrative frames the situation, you very much get the impression that Marius and Pandroa (or Lydia as she was called) were intellectually compatible and were delayed in their companionship of that early on only by her father's refusal because of prejudicial reasons -- and, again, ones unrelated to Pandroa's age.
Because in fact, her father's refusal of such a marriage might have really been because of this:
The "Keltoi" was the ancient Roman name for the Celtic people. Which, in the context of the time of the early Roman Empire of Augustus (when these scenes took place), likely specifically meant the Gauls, which likely meant a combo of the area of modern-day France and Belgium (but mostly France), and known at the time as Roman Gaul, which it became after the Gallic Wars.
And the ancient Romans of Marius and Pandora's time very much viewed the Celtic people as barbarians, and they used that view of them in their justifications for war against them and conquering them.
So yeah, that (very) brief history and context of all that is needed to explain that the rejection of Marius wanting to marry a 10-year-old Pandora was not, given what is said in the text itself, because of her age or any objection to that by anyone, including Pandora's own father. Or in the way the narrative itself frames it all. But only because of his standing in Roman society's eyes... and quite possibly also because he wasn't fully seen by some as fully Roman because of his mother's heritage, but a "barbarian."
And all of that is the context in which the rejection is framed and hints at as the reason why it was. And it is also very much presented, within that framing, as one that would've been a good match due to an intellectual connection the two shared in their first interaction together -- and a match that was only delayed -- until they both were vampires -- because of those things above, and nothing to do with Pandora's age at the time.
This section of the book Pandroa, IMO, also answers some later questions regarding Marius' very clear fixation, particually in Blood and Gold, on ancient Rome being the true height of civilization. And his very pro-colonialist, racist, and xenophobic views of people who exist and descend from outside of that Roman-influenced sphere, and his overuse of the word "barbarian" for them and their cultures all throughout Blood and Gold -- i.e., likely some self-hate and overcompensation going on within him there that never went away after he was turned into a vampire.
From The Vampire Lestat:
Marius calls the people he's descended from, though his own mother, barbarians. And then, in the same breath, notes that that "barbarian" blood that gave both him and Lestat their blond hair and blue eyes is the reason why they were both chosen to receive the Dark Gift (which, yes, is also true).
So yeah, here you see with Marius that self-hatred, but -- after his vampire turning -- a superiority about it as well regarding why and what he's become at the same time. Half-Roman, Half-"Barbarian" and now a powerful immortal, chosen to find and "keep" Those Who Must Be Kept because of that "barbarian" blood.
And all of this -- Marius' personal history, as well as the historical time period that he comes from -- I do think is a fair argument that some fans of his character do make that it is needed in understanding all the aspects regarding his character and actions regarding his relationship with Armand, which is how the text and narrative present it all. With pretty much no modern judgments about it.
Because, with our modern views and understanding of the issues of children and underage teens regarding sex and sexual abuse, however, all of this not only comes off as -- rightfully -- hugely disturbing, and even triggering, to many modern readers with modern understandings of these issues and topics.
Because, even regarding the situation with Pandora and her father, even the comment about her not being old enough to marry until she was 12, and having should have already been married by 15, it all still looks, to modern readers, to fall under the category of approved grooming.
And grooming is something that is very much apparent regarding Marius' relationship with Armand, as well as what we now very much do view as child sexual assault.
So now, let's look at how and why that view was able to really take hold and shape when, in all honesty, it did not before then.
* * * * *
Wanting and Grooming a Companion
So, as noted, everything I describe above is how Marius is presented to readers from The Vampire Lestat up to Pandora. And as I said, while I think I'm one of the few who started to dislike him more starting with Pandora, that's mostly a minority view within the larger book fandom, I think. (At least it was at the time I remember.) I'd say a majority of readers still, even if he wasn't their favorite character, liked him.
Because he really was no better or worse than all the other vampire characters in this Gothic Horror series up till that point, when you looked at it. They were all monsters who had all done various levels of monstrous stuff as vampires.
And when they were human, they were all very much people of their time, with the prejudices, racism, xenophobic views, sexism, and whatever view was seen as standard when it came to their time, and which carried over into their vampire lives.
And Marius, up till that point, was pretty much seen, rightly IMO, as no different from any other character in that regard.
No, the real shift with Marius happened after the release of the book, The Vampire Armand.
(Which checking? I didn't remember that it was released only seven months after Pandora was! And which is probably why there is such a blur for me personally when it comes to my changing feelings about Marius' character during that time.)
So to start, first, more context: Marius and Pandora had long parted ways, after a huge fight between them, by the time Marius found and was with Armand. Like, had been parted for a few centuries at least. (Pandora was around 35 years old when Marius turned her into a vampire, btw.)
And what, IMO, is important to know is that when Marius first finds Armand and rescues him from the brothel, he didn't do it for altruistic reasons.
Marius did it -- the reason Marius himself gives for why he did it in Blood and Gold -- was because he was lonely.
Right before he found and rescued Armand from the brothel, Marius had actually just given up on his desire to turn someone else, the character of Bianca, and make her his companion:
Bianca was the one Marius wanted. And Marius knew Bianca by this point. Knew all her dark secrets and evils she had committed because of her situation. Marius very much carries the misogyny of his time by still placing Bianca on a pedestal IMO, despite -- or even because of -- her evil deeds, but he still knew her, and who she really was.
The same, sadly, could not be said in regards to Armand.
For one, it was truly by happenstance that, in his despair over not having the will to turn Bianca, Marius then stumbled upon Armand and his situation. IMO, there is no guarantee that, if Marius had turned Bianca during that time period instead, he would have fully noticed, let alone ever rescued Armand from his situation in the first place:
And Marius rescuing Armand wasn't really as altruistic as it might appear. Because what really drew Marius to him was the haphazard memories Armand carried of having painted ikons before being kidnapped into slaver:
Marius, as you may or may not know, was what we now would call a frustrated artist, a painter himself. One who was basically a fanboy of the artist Botticelli.
In fact, Bianca, looking like a real-life Botticelli-painted figure, is one of the first things that struck Marius when it came to her:
[...]
And this is how he first remarks on Armand's beauty when he gets a clearer image of him:
And, of course, Armand also looking like a Botticelli cherub is what had Marius latching onto him, too.
But what Marius really first latched onto was the idea of Armand being a painter like himself. (Which would later become a source of confusion and contention because, with all the abuse he suffered after being taken into sex slavery, Armand's PTSD made him unable to paint anything anymore. Which Marius, of course, didn't know when he first rescued Armand and had already latched onto Armand having been a young painter.) That was a big thing he latched onto when he first encountered the Armand as well. A similarity Marius saw, in his own eyes, to himself. And, IMO, was the real seed from which the idea of grooming Armand into being his companion took its actual root.
And the big difference with Armand, as opposed to Pandra and even Bianca, was that no one in Armand's life could object to any desire Marius had to be with him.
No one could object to what he realised he could do with such a foundling boy. Which was to groom Armand to be the companion in The Blood that he was desperately longing for then, but could not bring himself to make when it came to the one he clearly really wanted at that point -- Bianca.
And Pandora, the one Marius wanted even more, was still lost to him.
Marius himself flat-out describes that grooming process as his intention with Armand in his own book, albeit specifically in the ways of vampirism and being a companion in that life to him:
However, it is Marius' actions that preceded this above thought that really changed the game in people's view of Marius de Romanus. Because honestly, even what I described above doesn't make Marius any more or less worse than other characters in the Vampire Chronicles, IMO.
No. What changed everything, IMO, is what happened right before the moment above.
Because what it basically did was change what could still be viewed as metaphor and subtext into literal text.
* * * * *
The Subtext Becomes Text
Marius thinking about how he can groom Armand to be his vampire companion with no one objecting to it comes after not only him having rescued Armand from a brothel that very night, but also having given Armand oral sex in a bath that very same night as well.
[...]
Armand is only around 15 at this time, having just been saved by Marius from sexual slavery, and Armand is dying from that existence when Marius does so. Marius is very much Armand's savior in that regard, but it is also important to remember that Marius is a vampire. It is not a righteous savior who has taken Armand out of that life, which is what Armand had even been praying for when Marius found him.
We already know Marius had no problem with desiring children and young teens from when he was still human, when it came to Pandora.
And so, of course, those things -- whether inherently inclined within him or just a learned holdover from the practices and allowances of the society in which he was a part of -- they did not change within him after he was turned into a vampire.
However, the narrative regarding Marius' grooming of Armand takes on not just a subtext with the vampirism here, but becomes full-out text due to the oral sex that happens in the bath during that same scene when Marius declares (to himself) his intentions regarding Armand.
Because up until this moment in all the Vampire Chronicles books, it was known -- and stated by Rice herself -- that vampires in her world did not, could not, have physical sex, and the only erotic pleasure they got was from drinking blood.
And that, IMO, is why there is such a split, and visceral dislike, of Marius' character starting from this book forward. Because what Marius was doing with Armand from the moment he took Armand from the brothel that same night wasn't just a metaphor for grooming with vampirism and blood drinking in place of sex; it is the exact, real-world literal context of what we rightfully know to be the grooming and sexual abuse of a minor.
And it doesn't matter if Marius himself didn't get the same type of sexual arousal from it, or physically couldn't engage with Armand in a similar way. (Only using his hands and mouth on him.) It all very much still reads in that context, no matter what Anne Rice might have intended with it.
So yes, IMO, this is the moment, right here. The moment in the bath, and most specifically how Armand himself describes it, is when things turned regarding Marius' character for a large number of people.
Below is Armand's own description of the moment in The Vampire Armand. And the way Armand himself talks about the moment, it is not in just the little two-paragraph way Marius does. And remember, The Vampire Armand came out before Blood and Gold did. So for a few years, Armand's slightly longer and more detailed account of the encounter was the only version of it people had for a time:
And with Armand's account here, you very much have the image, the situation, the perspective of a human child no older than possibly 15, who very much is dying, knows he's dying, and is looking upon the person who took him out of the situation he was in at that slave-brothel as not just a savior, but as his own literal christ figure.
So what you have here is a setup for a child not having been delivered into the arms of Christ, or even just an angel, but to a devil that truly walks the earth instead. And just a continuation of the religious imagery and examination that Anne Rice has done throughout most of her Vampire Chronicles books.
As well as the continuation of blood-drinking being the metaphorical replacement for sex, physical desire, and seduction, it had been in all the previous books before now as well.
Because again, if it had all remained so, it would be much easier for readers to remain in that abstract view of it all, despite how young Armand was, or regarding anything else that proceeded to happen.
But having Marius then proceed to literally engage in oral sex with Armand, only a paragraph or two later, after having rescued him, basically shattered all of that.
Because again, up until that exact moment, the sexual encounters between vampires, or even a vampire and a human (as seen with Daniel and Armand in Queen of the Damned, for example), were very much only couched in and consisted of blood drinking. And therefore could remain in the realms of the abstract, subtext, and metaphor.
But once Anne Rice has Marius giving Armand a literal blow job in a bathtub after having just rescued him from a brothel where he had been held as a sex slave, the very same night he did so?
Yeah, no. Abstract, subtext, and metaphor basically flew out the window at that point.
And all that you are left with is a 15-year-old former sex slave who is rescued by a vampire for the sole purpose of that vampire grooming him to be his companion at some point, and engaging with him in a very human sexual way sometimes, as part of that grooming narrative and process.
The subtext has thus become the literal text, and no amount of arguments about the historical time period in which it all happened can really hold for many people after that, no matter how true it might be.
Especially for those out there who have experienced something similar in their lives regarding grooming and/or sexual assault as a child or underage teen. Or even maybe just knows someone who has.
Or hell, even just being someone who understands what we do know about such things, and empathizes even when it's only just reading about such situations.
And another big point regarding this portrayal of it in the book, however, is that, for all the debates and arguments in fandom about all of it? The actual narrative and text in the books never condemned Marius one way or the other regarding it. Not in Armand's narrative in The Vampire Armand; very much not in Blood and Gold, Marius' POV narrative.
Nor in any subsequent books after those two books, either.
Hell, the infamous whipping scene (which I talk about a bit more in depth and have screenshots of in this post, for those who wish to read it) is completely missing from Marius' account regarding Armand's time with him. And that scene not only, once again, contains a physical sexual encounter between the two (in this case, a hand job), but also has rather overt BDSM elements to it as well.
(And I really thought I had skipped a chapter or section or something when I recently reread Blood and Gold again for the first time in 2 decades during the Season 1 hiatus, and realized it wasn't there. Because I only read the book Blood and Gold once before, after it was first published, checking it out from the library, and had forgotten large chunks of it.)
So the harsh truth of the matter is that, because the abstract, subtext, and metaphor got shattered the way they did, it just makes it much easier for many a reader to look at Marius' actions within the context of real-world abuse.
And so, therefore, view Marius' character very much in that same real-world context as well.
And, IMO? No, those who do aren't wrong for doing so. Because the narrative of the books to not do so broke its own subtext regarding this, starting with that moment in the bath between Armand and Mairus.
And Hell, IMO it made it very easy to so after breaking the subtext view because, within the account of the books, particually those starting with at least Blood and Gold, it is very easy to make the argument that Marius never loved Armand in any real way, even if you took out those sexual encounters.
That, in fact, Marius -- at most -- loved an idea of what he wanted Armand to be, rather than who Armand actually was or could be (or been, if he hadn't been made into a vampire).
And it is something the books very much, IMO, begin to lean more towards when presenting that time, and the view of it from them -- that Marius did not love Armand to any level in the way he did, and still does, Pandora, Bianca, and even Lestat.
Because this is something Armand himself, quite frankly, probably came to the realization of, probably from the moment he learned Marius was still alive, and everything that went down with Akasha in Queen of the Damned. Because, as he tells Lestat in the final book, Blood Communion:
Marius was disappointed when he saw Armand hadn't stuck to the creed of only feeding on evildoers, but that only immediately made him give up completely. He never even tried to go to Armand and remove him from the situation -- being forcefully taken and brainwashed into the Children of Satan -- that placed Armand into doing such things as was per the cult's rituals. Marius never even attempted to rescue Armand.
And, the biggest tell of all? Marius told Pandora, Bianca, and even Lestat the full truth about Those Who Must Be Kept and the origin of their kind.
To Armand, however? Marius said nothing.
Marius gave more love and trust to Lestat, after the first time the two met, than he ever gave to Armand, despite the years Armand spent with Marius.
Because, at the end of the day, the way the relationship between Marius and Armand was started and built on was one of Marius attempting to groom Armand into someone Marius imagined he could make Armand into. It was never about who Armand actually was... or could ever be.
Marius, IMO, never saw Armand as an equal when it came to their companionship. Marius groomed Armand to be with him in The Blood, but never to be a true and equal companion with him in it.
Armand got picked, IMO, because Marius couldn't bring himself to turn Bianca, despite all he knew about her, which just made his passion and desire for her grow.
Armand got picked because Mairus lost Pandora and couldn't find her, his lost first love and companion.
Armand got picked because Marius was lonely. Armand was kept because no one in Armand's life could ever object to whatever Marius wanted to do with him. After all, Armand had no one who could do so.
And so Marius could freely shape and groom Armand into being a companion. But with the addition and inclusion of actual, physical sexual encounters, none of that remained within the context it could have been in before in the previous books when it came to sex and sexual desires.
And it could never remain so, not for many readers, understandably, IMO.
And because of so, the truth of the matter is that, by the time one is done reading through Pandora, The Vampire Armand, and Blood and Gold, it is, IMO, almost impossible to view the relationship between Armand and Marius as one that was anywhere on the level one might have with the books before them. As any sort of love and companionship between equals.
And so, IMO, it's very understandable why many can only view it through the lens of child abuse and sexual assault when that context is also part of the heart of Mairus and Armand's relationship during that time.
That aspect of it just can not help but come through, IMO, even though the narrative framing of it doesn't judge Marius about it in that context in any way.
* * * * *
This Isn't Unique to the Vampire Chronicles
And, forgive me for this huge digression, but I can't help but want to go into this a bit:
The even bigger truth is, when it comes to all of Anne Rice's books, underage kids and teens being described sexually, or being shown in sexual situations, is something that shows up, usually more than once, in all of her books.
Or, at least, in the books I've read, which are The Vampire Chronicles Series, The Mayfair Witches Series, and the Sleeping Beauty Trilogy. (With the Sleeping Beauty Trilogy being straight-up fairy tale erotica, btw. Just FYI for those who don't know, and the character of Beauty herself being 15/16, like in the original fairy tale.)
And at no time, in any of those books, is the adult in question with whom they have sexual encounters ever condemned in either the narrative or in the framing of it. They face no real judgment and zero punishment for it, too. And that is not framed as a bad thing either.
At most, you may get a lament from the adult who knows what they're doing (or did) is wrong (or, at least, embarrassed that other people will see it as wrong), but the narrative itself never makes a judgment about it.
And Rice never has any of those underage characters ever have regrets, or trauma, or, most of all, have them confront those adult characters about what transpired.
Hell, in the case of 13-year-old Mona Mayfair from the Mayfair Witches series, it was the exact opposite. Mona made it her goal (when she was 12) to have sex with every Mayfair male in the Mayfair family, and that included Michael Curry, a full-grown adult man, with whom she then got pregnant.
(And yes, for those who've read the Mayfair Witches series, I know this was all part of the larger plan and manipulation of those in the Mayfair family, by both Lasher and Julian, regarding power and the ability to produce a Taltos; and that many Mayfair women were no older than 13 when they got pregnant and gave birth, at least when it came to Mona's line. I'm just trying to point out that underage teens having sex with adults isn't new or unique to just the Vampire Chronicles when it comes to Anne Rice's work.)
And what happened after Mona and Michael had sex and conceived a child? Well, to make a long story very short, Michael and his wife, Rowan Mayfair, adopted Mona after she was already pregnant and had lost her parents (again, there is a long reason why Rowan just accepted what had happened that would make all this longer than it's already going to be), and that was pretty much it.
There were no harsh judgments toward Michael about it (either by any character or the narrative itself), no condemnations, nothing.
Yeah, there's a reason the Mayfair Witches TV show changed her character and aged her up a lot, to the point that even changing her name (to Moria) made sense, because they changed her character so much. There was no way in hell the show was going to show a 12 to 13-year-old girl in that kind of situation. (Or have a real-life young actress performing such a storyline, either.)
(One of the many reasons it took me so long to answer this question is that I wanted to double-check all the instances regarding the sexuality of minors in the books I've read, especially the one I only half-remembered regarding Mona Mayfair. I really couldn't remember if she'd really only been 12 years old or not when she started having sex, but yeah. She was.)
There's been a lot of talk in fandoms over the years about Anne Rice's personal feelings, ideas, and even support of underage children and teens having sex with adults; and IIRC, her argument supposedly was that an underage child or teen can make such a choice for themselves. I wanted to find some quotes from Rice herself to source-reference this view of her's -- as I only have a vague memory of her doing so around the time Merrick was released, in an interview she gave at the time -- but despite all my research and looking, I can't find anything. (So, anyone who does have a quote of her saying so, or something like it, or not, please feel free to add a link or something in the comments or a reblog.)
And so, though I think it would give even more context to my answer to this -- whether Marius was written to be disliked or not -- I can't find a quote or comment from the author herself to also back up what every narrative instance of this happening in her books points to, IMO.
Which just means I have to Death of the Author this part of my answer to your question, and just stick to the narrative text on it.
But this is something that has a pattern of recurring in her books, and not just the ones limited to the Vampire Chronicles. And I just wanted to point that fact out.
* * * * *
Conclusion
And so, overall, via the narrative text of The Vampire Chronicles?
No, Marius was not intentionally written or portrayed in the books to be disliked. Marius is, in fact, via the narrative text, presented as neither better nor worse than any other of the vampire characters in the books, IMO; his relationships and attractions to underage children and teens are framed as, at most, an amoral quality, born out of and held over from the time he lived, and that's all.
And I don't think it's wrong to guess that some people who are fans of his character view him in that same way the books frame him in.
And for others? This part of Marius' character, quite rightfully, can be very triggering. And the fact that neither the narrative of the books nor any of the characters in them condemn Marius for it can be even more triggering to read for many people regarding the character than if the narrative had condemned him for it.
And, well, as has been said before, none of the characters in this story get a "redemption" arc. That's not how the Vampire Choncicles work. Characters get forgiven, but there is no redemption for them.
That is, after all, one of the main points about their existence as vampires within the context of Anne Rice's universe about them.
So no. Marius very much does not get one in the books about this (or anything else).
In fact, IMO, if the show follows the books regarding this? Then don't be surprised if some non-book readers who are also not deep in fandom come to really like Marius after Season 3. Because, again, when you first meet his character in The Vampire Lestat, he very much does come off as charming and wise. Even with the hints the show has already given about the context of his relationship with Armand. (As seen with Louis' very pointed comment about Armand's "daddy vampire" grooming him.)
But even though the show is already giving hints about all of this, the books very much did not when Marius made his first appearance in them. And then, the books never framed it as something for Marius to be condemned for after it was revealed, either.
The most that ever happens is Marius himself lamenting about what he was doing with Armand, and that was it.
But the occasional lament about it didn't stop him from doing it either. Nor is there any judgment for him not doing so. In either the subtext or the actual text. Neither before nor after what we learn about him from The Vampire Armand or Blood and Gold.
And that, very much, is that.
* * * * *
. . . and I can't believe what I think might be the longest meta I've ever written (and posted publicly) so far regarding the books and the TV show ended up being about Marius de Romanus. 😑
What’s a line from an Anne Rice book that haunts you? Like one that you turn over in your brain trying to interpret or expand upon or have a lot of questions about?
Like for example, I think a lot about the line that Armand and Daniel adopted a young dancer in NYC, supporting him through school. Who was this person?? How did they meet? Did they keep in touch? Did they go to his performances? How long did the checks keep coming (or are they still?) Did he ever come across the VC books and put 2 + 2 together?? I need more information!
Thank you to @stardustandmoonflowers for making this brain dump possible, by asking about Lestat and the relationship with the villagers, and killing the wolves. 💙
As a child in Auvergne, Lestat occupied an odd place in the community. His family was technically minor nobility, but they were living in relative poverty by the time Lestat was growing up. His father was weak and bitter, his brothers withdrawn, and much of the practical burden of survival fell onto Lestat long before he was grown.
In The Vampire Lestat, Anne Rice makes it very clear that a young Lestat was already seen as something unusual in Auvergne, both necessary to the community and slightly frightening to it. Anne emphasizes how physically dominant and fearless he was compared to the other villagers:
“I was six feet tall before I was fifteen." And later: "They were terrified of the wolves. I was not.”
Within the village and surrounding countryside, Lestat became known as a fiercely capable hunter. He supplied food for the family and protected the area from wolves that threatened livestock and travelers. There is a sense in the book that the peasants and villagers viewed him with a mix of admiration, fear, and fascination. He was beautiful, reckless, physically gifted, and utterly unlike the quiet, resigned people around him.
On his role as hunter and provider, Lestat says: "It was I who hunted the wolves, I who brought down the deer, I who kept food on the table."
That line captures how much responsibility fell onto him despite his youth and noble birth. The de Lioncourts had a status (in name) but almost no money, and Lestat effectively became the family’s survival mechanism.
The wolf hunt became the defining event of his youth. After a brutal winter and repeated wolf attacks, Lestat rode out to kill the pack. He killed all 8 of them himself, including the enormous leader of the pack: "I stood over the dead alpha wolf covered in blood and snow.”
It was then the villagers began calling him “the Wolfkiller.” That moment elevated him into something almost mythical in Auvergne. He was no longer simply an impoverished aristocrat. He became a local legend, someone associated with danger, courage, violence, and survival: "From that night on they called me the Wolfkiller"
For Lestat, the wolf hunt mattered for deeper reasons, too. Anne Rice frames it almost like a prelude to vampirism. Facing the wolves awakened something predatory and ecstatic in him. He describes feeling alive in a way he never had before: exhilarated by danger, intoxicated by the kill, and strangely drawn toward death rather than being frightened by it.
"I wanted the wolves. I wanted to kill them."
(This was a long post, maybe more than you asked for, but when I get started, I can't stop 😂. This was a fun dive, thank you 💙)
i've been thinking a lot about how a big part of the appeal of the Vampire Chronicles is that they basically feel like outsider art. They're imperfect and messy and the product of a DEEPLY idiosyncratic mind. Weird, horny shit happens with no apparent rhyme or reason. Parts of these books read like My Immortal but with better prose (in a good way).
A watsonian reason for this could be that they're written by vampires who don't think or experience time like mortals do and/or have any idea how a book works. I mean, do we really think Lestat is outlining his shit lol. This also explains why Interview is the most "literary," 3-act-structure having one, as it was compiled by human Daniel.
These bad boys don't provide anything so mundane as "satisfying" narrative beats or linear character arcs. Everyone's just circling the trauma vortex. Wondering what's going on with the wider vampire world in the wake of QotD? Too bad, enjoy a hallucinatory theological treatise in which Lestat Does Dante. You want a devil's minion reunion that isn't a throwaway line? Lol, fuck you, here's three hundred pages of Replimoids and also ghosts and also a guy who is a spirit made out of bees. Nobody learns anything. The world never stops being a Savage Garden. I think this is what makes the world of these books feel so vivid and "real." There's nothing sanitized about them and they're often incredibly frustrating. They are so utterly, breathtakingly bizarre.
I think about how these books were monster bestsellers thirty years ago and can't help feeling a little sad because I doubt mainstream audiences would tolerate this level of weirdness today.
