Claire

Claudia’s lack of remorse for killing Lestat, and why it’s radical

Armand the Muse: Objectification, Commodification, and Adaptability

Ghost Claudia, Adaptation, and S3 Speculations

“I lay down with The Devil”: how Louis and Interview with the Vampire subvert 2 classic Gothic tropes

Dissecting Lestat and Armand (Armand's Version)

(My first substack article also being shared here!!!!!!!)

Content warnings: Discussion of sexual assault, homophobia, extreme violence.

Also contains spoilers for all the mentioned texts but you knew that already.

Can you straightwash a straight man?

This is something I found myself wondering after watching both film adaptations of Thomas Harris’s Red Dragon (1981). Despite NBC’s Hannibal (2013) choosing to adapt Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter as a queer love story, in the original book they are effectively straight men. But the novel can easily be read as queer, as the Red Dragon story centres on the destruction of heteronormativity and the nuclear family. Book Will Graham attempts to escape his troubling thoughts and moral panic by performing heteronormativity and nuclear family life, with disastrous results. Yet NBC Hannibal (2013) is the only adaptation to truly grapple with this aspect of the story, while Red Dragon (2002) and Manhunter (1986) create a safer narrative that reinforces heteronormativity, rather than interrogating its cracks. 

I wanted to examine how the original book portrays and questions heteronormativity, and Will Graham’s relationship to it, before critiquing and comparing both films’ rejection of this vital part of the story. Finally, I’ll discuss how the show understands Will, and elevates this theme and the queer implications of it into explicit text. 

Red Dragon (1981)

Setting all adaptations aside, it is extremely easy to do a queer reading of Red Dragon, with no shortage of supporting textual evidence. That being said, I don’t think book Will was definitively written to be a queer man, and I’m not trying to argue that he was. But undeniably, this is a book that examines the cracks in the idea that heteronormativity and the nuclear family are essential and universal paths to happiness; that they can heal any wound.

Will Graham appears to be the All American Family Man, living the heterosexual dream; a beautiful wife, a young son, and a life on the beaches of Florida. Naturally, this is the man that Jack Crawford comes to to help him catch the killer who is specifically targeting families; parents and children in their homes, sexually assaulting mothers. Dolarhyde’s horrific crimes destroy the heterosexual nuclear family, a cultural cornerstone of American life. Harris sets up a deceptively simple story in the opening chapters. The hero Will, overcome by pictures of the murdered family, his mind with his own, chooses to return to his mission to protect the American public.

But the cracks appear immediately. Will Graham is a troubled, deeply anxious character, able to empathise with and imagine himself as a killer, just as he can empathise with their victims. He is constantly plagued by the deep rooted fear that darkness and monstrosity exist within him after spending so much time in the minds of murderers. The plot device Harris uses to examine Will’s psyche and anxiety, is one Hannibal Lecter. 

Hannibal exists in the original book as a foil or a mirror to Will, depending on your persuasion. His statement “You caught me because we are just alike” (Harris, 80), is the crux of their relationship in this book. Hannibal exists in Red Dragon to speak Will’s deepest fears, and prove to him that he cannot escape his reality through heteronormativity. 

Will is haunted both by his forced killing of Garrett Jacob Hobbs, and his catching of Hannibal based on little evidence, evoking fears he is a killer is a profiler’s clothing. The method Will uses to escape and bury this fear, is heteronormativity. Will marries Molly, a woman with a son who can give him a ready made family, after the Hannibal incident causes him to flee the FBI, in a conscious attempt to ignore his violent potential. He uses heteronormative life and the nuclear family as tools to run from his moral panic. Though it’s clear he loved Molly and Willy, and is desperate for his family to work, his life in Florida is a performance that Hannibal sees through.

Harris, through Hannibal, pokes holes in this performance. He first attempts to destroy his new life by giving Dolarhyde his home address, driving a wedge between him and Molly. He then arrives in the form of a letter to haunt Will with his anxieties that he enjoys killing deliberately wanted to hurt Freddy Lounds, and does it deliberately; Hannibal acts as the voice in Will’s head, “the enemy inside him” (322).

“When you were so depressed after you shot Mr. Garrett Jacob Hobbs to death, it wasn't the act that got you down, was it? Really, didn't you feel so bad because killing him felt so good?” (321)

The final scenes of Red Dragon illustrate the cracks in heteronormative nuclear family life. Will and Molly intend to ignore the glaring issues with Will and their marriage, something many heterosexual American couples have done to save face. Will believes he has escaped the darkness and left it behind, and can successfully force peace of mind. He is wrong.

“ When they saw that it was not the same, the unspoken knowledge lived with them like unwanted company in the house” (406

Dolarhyde rises from the dead in an attempt (facilitated by Hannibal) to destroy Will’s life. He succeeds in disfiguring Will and terrifying Willy, before Molly is forced to shoot him, as Will was forced to shoot Hobbs. By selfishly inserting himself into this family, Will has brought with him his darkness and traumatised Molly and her son. Harris paints a horrific image of Molly frantically “scrubbing hard at the flecks of blood and bone on her face and hair” (410).

Will Graham ends the novel alone; Molly is implied to be leaving him, and in The Silence of the Lambs, it is confirmed he ends up as an alcoholic in Florida. His performance of heteronormativity crumbles, as it was merely a feeble attempt at normalcy, from a man haunted by the idea that he is dangerously abnormal. The novel leaves the question of Will’s true morality and potential for evil up for interpretation; but not before Hannibal arrives to taunt Will one last time, in a letter that could be interpreted as homoerotic, depending on the reading:

 “I wish you a speedy convalescence and hope you won't be very ugly. I think of you often” (414)

The Will Graham of the novel is a broken man who clung to heteronomative family life to escape his inner darkness. Harris explores how the way of life that is instilled into all of us from childhood, and seen as the ideal and aspirational future, is not a universal fix. It fails to save Will, or make him or his family happy, because it was not something he truly wanted.

For these reasons, a queer reading of Will is easily supported. A queer man who is terrified of the parts of himself he deems monstrous, uses a heterosexual nuclear family to escape this, while being haunted by a man from his past who sees through the act, and destroys his attempt to deny his queerness. It may not be what Harris intended, but interpretative readings such as this are allowed in literary criticism. Furthermore, the novels exploration of the cracks in heteronormative life is obvious and essential to the story, with or without a queer Will Graham.

“There is no murder. We make murder, and it matters only to us. Graham knew too well that he contained all the elements to make murder; perhaps mercy too. He understood murder uncomfortably well though” (419)

Manhunter (1986), and Red Dragon (2002)

Both film adaptations reject the examination and critique of heteronormativity in various differing ways. Manhunter, a Reagan era film, and 2002’s Bush era Red Dragon, (director Brett Ratner is now making MAGA propaganda films) both defend the heteronormative nuclear family, and Will’s role in it. While Red Dragon attempts to explore part of the novel’s themes, Manhunter celebrates it. 

Both films make choices that strengthen Will’s devotion to heteronormativity where the novel questioned it. In both films, Will is already married to Molly before he catches Hannibal, and has a biological son with her (a running gag to me is this child having a different name in every version; here it is Kevin, then Josh). Will having this genuine family, rather than desperately seeking it out and using it to hide from himself, after what Hannibal showed him, completely undermines his character's moral anxiety. Rather than emphasising Will’s dark mental state, it strengthens the idea that Will is a heroic and palatable family man, who is merely caught up in the exploits of criminals. His family are genuine anchors to him; there is no question whether his life is a heteronormative performance. Good for Molly to have a better husband, but that wasn’t the story Harris was telling.

While Harris left Will’s nature ambiguous, both film’s oversimplify him until he is no longer the troubled, isolated, morally complex character of the book, but a generic “good guy” movie hero who will defend the nuclear family. Hannibal still exists, and still delivers his “we’re just alike” messages to Will, but his role in Manhunter is lightened. There’s a distinct lack of exploration of Will’s empathy gift, and how horrific and isolating it is for him.

Furthermore, morality is simplified. One of the most compelling aspects of Hannibal Lecter stories, in my opinion, are their explorations of morality. Hannibal targets the darkest and most personal parts of the characters’ psyches, and forces them to confront their moral complexities. But both films take a more ‘good vs evil’ approach to this story. Manhunter is most guilty of this. Will is a mildly anxious, all American hero, who defeats a less sympathetic Dolarhyde, a character who is built to be sympathetic to illustrate that morality is complex. While Red Dragon offers a much more developed Dolarhyde, and does make more attempts to explore Will’s anxiety, he still reads as a genuinely good guy. There isn’t a real question as to whether Hannibal’s claims about Hobbs or Lounds have any merit. Neither of these Wills capture the true horror he battles in the book.

Bringing things back to heteronormativity, both films reject Harris’s critiques, and celebrate and uplift the heteronormative nuclear family. Manhunter does this most explicitly, by completely changing the novel’s ending. Will easily defeats Dolarhyde, shooting him and saving Reba. Rather than Dolarhyde returning to haunt him and destroy his family, Will returns triumphantly and reunites with his family on the beach, literally walking into the sunset while a cheesy 80s song plays. Rather than the ominous, reflective book ending, Manhunter demands a sanitised, morally simplified happily ever after that appeals to 80s sensibilities. 

Red Dragon’ ending better, and includes Dolarhyde’s attack. I’m actually a big fan of this scene; Molly shoots Dolarhyde as she is supposed to, and the film creates an atmosphere of genuine horror and dread. The family are explicitly traumatised by the attack. Very interestingly though, Will uses homophobia to defeat Dolarhyde. He appeals to Dolarhyde’s fear of being seen as queer by calling him the f slur to distract him. This Will, the genuine, heterormative family man, using homophobic language to defeat the destroyer of heteronormative families, in a film that has minimised the novel’s questioning of heteronormativity as the ultimate bringer of contentment, is loaded, and without Will’s complexity, it falls very flat. My issues are exacerbated by the film’s ending; while we retain Hannibal’s letter and some ominous music, Will and his family are seen on a boat, all together. Again, Will not losing his family after using them to hide from his troubles erases the messaging of the novel.

All this being said, these are not terrible films especially if you separate them from the book. Red Dragon is a decent Red Dragon adaptation, but ultimately the film feels like it was deliberately made more palatable for audiences. It does however have excellent portrayals of Hannibal, Dolarhyde, and Lounds (due to the film being directed by Brett Ratner my goodwill for this film beyond the cast’s performances is rapidly diminishing.) Manhunter is a beautifully shot film; I truly enjoy the BSHCI being a labyrinth of staircases Will struggles to escape from, and there’s a great scene where Will accidently traumatises a child with crime scene pictures on a plane. But these other significant choices let the films down by watering down the darkness and horror of the novel, and of Will.

“Hannibal” (2013-2015)

The queerness of Will and Hannibal may have evidentiary support, but I don’t believe it was Harris’s explicit intention, so technically the films did not erase these character’s canon queerness. But not only does NBC Hannibal make the choice to elevate any queer readings or subtext into explicit text, it adapts Will’s relationship to heteronormativity and morality in a way the films refused to. 

I don’t have time here to offer a full in depth analysis of every element of Will Graham’s character (another time…), but I will discuss some major points. The show understands how dark and troubling Will’s psyche is, and his attempts to escape it, while putting it in the context of his queerness. He is the victim of both Hannibal’s outward torture and psychological abuse, and of his own body and mind. Will’s season 1 murder reenactments, his mental decline, and his hallucinations, serve to illustrate the horrors of his gift, his deep anxiety for his morality, and his repression of his desires for both murder and Hannibal. Hannibal’s abuse and manipulation takes his role in the novel and elevates it until Will is consumed almost entirely.

The show uses Will’s struggle to accept his violent impulses as a metaphor for his queerness for 2 and a half seasons before touching Red Dragon, expertly setting up both his character arc for this story, and the book’s exploration of the cracks in the heteronormative nuclear family. Where the book is ambiguous, the show takes the opposite stance to the films. Season 2 emphasises that beyond Hannibal’s manipulation, Will is choosing to commit violence which he enjoys, and connects it to the deep emotional and romantic connection he forms to Hannibal, giving him something prominent and developed to repress in season 3b.

But the show also explores the nuclear family before season 3 too. The opening episode, and much of the show after, focuses on Will’s connection to Abigail, who’s father also attempts to destroy his nuclear family in a murder suicide, facilitated by Hannibal. Both men form a connection with her and attempt to force a father-daughter family dynamic; Will desperate to atone for his killing of her father by becoming her father, Hannibal attempting to groom her into a murder family dynamic with Will. Again, Abigail is an essay in herself, but her story ends with Hannibal demolishing their quasi family by murdering her to punish Will. The nuclear family, whether it is heteronormative or queer, is once again destroyed in a domestic setting, this time by a character who for Will represents and speaks his deepest darkest desires. The fact that Will can forgive this horrific act speaks volumes about this version of Will’s true feelings towards family and violence. 

When the show moves into the Red Dragon storyline, it builds on its previous development of Will and Hannibal to execute the books themes. Finally, a screen version of Will seeks out a ready made family to insert himself into, with Molly and her son (this time named Wally). His using heteronormative family as an escape in “The Great Red Dragon” (2015) is exacerbated by the events of previous episodes. Despite admitting his codependency and forgiveness of Hannibal, his desires for violence, and coming close to embracing him, he rejects him to manipulate him into turning himself in. The very reason Hannibal is in prison is that Will repressed his desires by locking them behind glass. The cracks in Will’s family and supposed peace are evident immediately; they don’t even have to be slowly revealed. We know who Will Graham is; we’ve seen him.

The show further builds on these themes through Hannibal, and the events of Red Dragon. Will’s visits to Hannibal are immediately tension filled, due to the previous 3 seasons of development. He speaks Will’s deepest desires and sees through his performance, in scenes l made effective through their connection; wondering whether Molly and Wally are a replacement for his rejection of him and Abigail, acknowledging Will’s fears of his biological children being exactly like him, Hannibal’s venomous jealousy of Molly and Will’s marriage (again, Hannibal, Will, and their treatment of women is another essay).

Their history makes Hannibal sending The Dragon after the Grahams more personal, and more horrific. This scene is an excellent way to illustrate Will’s mistreatment of Molly and Wally and his disregard for them. The last time we see Molly, she is in hospital after being shot by Dolarhyde, traumatised after she heroically saved herself and her son; Will wasn’t even there to help. Despite Will’s reassurances, he leaves her, and eventually completely abandons his family to run away with Hannibal, whom he forgives for this act of violence against his family.

The final mention of Molly is Will acknowledging he is having visions of him murdering her as Dolarhyde murders mothers. All of this serves to illustrate Will’s true nature and his intentions; after inserting himself into the lives of a widow and boy who calls him Dad, for his own peace of mind, Will abandons them in favour of embracing his true desires. The heteronormative nuclear family facade has cracked, revealing an unpalatable truth. He is far from the genuine family man of the films. This way of life can not save Will Graham, because it was never what he wanted. It is not the epitome of happiness as it is advertised to society. For Will Graham it is a prison of his own making, and a mask he takes off; mirrored by the circumstances of Hannibal. By the time Will and Hannibal are facilitating the torture of Chilton, the stage is set for Will’s complete rejection of polite society.

Finally, by subverting the circumstances of Dolarhyde’s return in the final moments of “The Wrath of the Lamb” (2015), the show offers a more hopeful and cathartic ending than Harris. In the novel, this scene is a stark reminder that Will cannot escape himself through any performance of normalcy. In the show, this same statement is true, but it is presented as something to be both reviled and celebrated. By slaughtering Dolarhyde, the last of Will's palatable pretences disappear, and he finally embraces his monstrosity, and his queerness, by embracing Hannibal. This reality is so unbearable, he attempts to kill them both. But through surviving the fall, falling from grace as Satan did before them, and running away together, they create the complete opposite of the socially celebrated, proper, heteronormative nuclear family (discussed beautifully by Messimer, more below).

Adaptations do not have to be play by plays of the source material. They can be responses, in conversation with the text. The novel questions heteronormativity as a universal indicator and creator of happiness. The films, to different extents, defend this way of life, making the story more palatable for Hollywood. The show rejects it entirely, and gives Will Graham a violent, blood soaked, queer happy ending with a monstrosity he has chosen to embrace. 

Footnotes

This is likely going to come off as very biased towards the show, but after reading the books I can really see how well it captured the spirit and theme of the novels compared to these films. I also love creative and transformative adaptation in general. 

I want to discuss Marius’s moral anxiety, how he projects it onto Armand, and the role that temptation and Temptation Narratives play in their relationship.

Despite being an atheist and priding himself on this rationality and lack of superstition, Marius is a character who is deeply concerned with his own morality. We see his anxiety reflected in his behaviour. He only wants to kill the evildoer, his vampirism becoming a form of restorative justice. He encourages this behavior with those who idolise him, and looks down upon those who use a different method. He clings to his identity as the moral, wise, fatherly figure among the vampires. He views his role as Akasha and Enkil’s keeper as confirmation of his importance and moral goodness. We see Marius show a pattern of behaviour wherein he "rescues" vulnerable young men and guides them through vampirism with his moral code. He saves Armand, Lestat, and Daniel from circumstances, and views himself as their inherently good saviour and guide.

Yet Marius admits the role his moral anxiety plays in this behavior. He cannot give up this role because he doesn't know who he is without it.

This is exacerbated by the loss of Akasha and Enkil post QOTD. We also see him chastise himself for his immoral behavior that hurts others in B&G, yet he does not change, and repeats the same patterns over and over.

In Venice, Armand presents Marius both a damning sexual and moral temptation by simply existing. Marius tries to frame the rescue of Amadeo as an inherently moral act, and in a sense it is. Armand is suffering horrific abuse at the hands of predators and sex traffickers in the brothel, where his appearance and body are a commodity and his only value. Yet Marius also prioritises Armand’s body and how it can pleasure him. He expresses the power a barely fifteen year old Armand’s beauty has in tempting him in this moment, where Armand is in actual fact completely powerless. (This passage appears in Talamasca so it is canon in the show). He also sexually assaults Armand within minutes of him arriving at Marius’s home; Armand does not express any consent for the act.

The sexual temptation that Marius feels for Armand is connected to the temptation he feels to turn him into his ideal companion. Armand presents a moral issue for Marius. He knows it is completely immoral to turn somebody this young, and knows that vampirism would inherently corrupt Armand. But he is obsessed with the idea of grooming Armand into his ideal companion, instilling his own moral values within him from childhood, and creating a vampire who would reflect his morality and be completely loyal to him.

These ideas of sexual and moral temptation are essential to Marius and Armand’s relationship. Marius sets about grooming Armand, and chastising him when he does not live up to his high and contradictory expectations. Though loving the idea of an opinionated, challenging companion, he punishes Armand for questioning his authority and teachings, just as he did with Pandora and Bianca when they disagreed with him.

His anxiety over his own immorality, and his frustration over Armand’ perceived immorality, come to a head in scenes that evoke Christian Temptation Narratives. Anne Rice’s struggles with her catholic faith are reflected in both Marius and Armand.Temptation narratives in Christianity are stories that depict a Saint facing temptation by Satan. Most draw from the Temptation of Saint Anthony. Saints are physically and psychologically attacked by Satan and his demons, who can take their true form, or the form of beautiful humans, presenting the saint with various temptations. These usually involve the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed. Physical attacks and endurance are also a key theme of the temptations. Through suffering, the Saint proves their moral purity and ultimate devotion to God, as Jesus did in the desert.

Here are some examples of temptation paintings for reference.

(Michelangelo, Rizi, Grunewald).

By creating “The Temptation of Amadeo”, Marius places himself and Armand within this Christian tradition, despite his atheism. This was a popular art subject during the Renaissance, and Marius is fascinated by Christian moral traditions and values despite not being Christian. He shows much interest in religion in general, frequently painting scenes from Pagan Greek and Roman mythology. The painting itself is a subversion of the story. Here is how Armand describes it:

The painting could represent multiple things. The angels could be tempting Armand with goodness, which he resists. They could also represent the morality of Armand; he is frequently described as angelic, which contrasts with his monstrous behavior, and the angels’ black wings signify evil. Armand seems at peace with these angels. He isn’t suffering as St Anthony did, but he’s also as unfazed by the figures as Anthony usually appears in paintings.

These interpretations are in line with Marius’s view of Armand. Marius is deeply concerned by Armand’s apparent immorality. Over the years he is horrified by “sins” that range from Armand’s teenage antics, his challenging of Marius, his devotion to religion that develops into serious fanaticism and mental illness later on, and by the temptation he poses to Marius by simply existing. Marius thinks Armand must suffer for his perceived sins, and this leads into the whipping scene immediately after.

This scene is noticeably absent from B&G. Disclaimer, I’m not concerned with arguing whether or not this scene is a depiction of a BDSM relationship, as either way it is under negotiated, and reflects their actual dynamic; a master and his subservient. This dynamic is not exclusive to the bedroom, so I can examine what it tells us about it.

This scene illustrates Marius projecting his own moral anxiety onto Armand, and punishing him for it. Armand is distraught over a lack of Marius’s attention. He is worried that Marius is rejecting him, a catastrophic event when Marius has taught him that he receives love and safety because Marius thinks he is beautiful, and his value is in his desirability. Unfortunately, we don't get Marius’s perspective of this scene, we only have his dialogue. He is both angered by Armand’s behaviour, and anxious over the temptation that Armand is offering him. By whipping Armand in this scene, Marius makes him the suffering saint of temptation narratives, physically assaulted just as Saint Anthony was. But these stories are subverted by the framing of this scene. Instead of trying to make Armand sin, Marius is trying to discipline him to make him the moral pupil that he expects.

Up until TVA the narrative has presented Marius as the representative of moral good which most of our vampires strive to emulate. Lestat notably idolizes Marius as a father figure of discipline, and his life goes terribly wrong when he ignores Marius’s moral rules. Armand doesn’t express resentment for Marius prior to TVA, and presents him as a Godlike figure. Therefore, we can interpret that Marius usually represents the moral good of the vampires, the best among them. Now that moral good is literally whipping Armand into shape. Again, Armand is being tempted by what portrays itself as “moral goodness” as he is in the first interpretation of the painting. He also connects himself to these unconventional, disturbing angels by asking to be painted as one. Armand rejects “the moral good” because he is complex. He tries to reject Marius’s black and white view of morality, which is inherently flawed as Marius is also morally complex, no matter how hard he strives for perfection.

(Small footnote: the understanding of satanic temptation in Christian tradition varies and evolves. Sometimes he is an independent force God and Christians must fight, sometimes he is a test sent by God, and that could also be relevant here; Marius as the God causing violence as a test).

Armand attempts to resist Marius’s "discipline" and defy him by claiming he enjoys the whipping, convincing himself that Marius’s abuse is a form of love, but he ultimately succumbs and begs for forgiveness, vowing to never anger him again. There is something to be said about Armand giving into “temptation” in this scene. Marius later chastises Armand for giving in to the Children of Darkness’s teachings after their brutal indoctrination and torture, and his tendancy for religious fanaticism. Although Armand is aware that the cult’s teacher uses the cult's teachings to grasp for control over his coven, he succumbs to them in order to survive, and because he was desperate for the horrific abuse to end. But Marius views this as a moral failing, evidence of the inherent darkness and superstition in Armand’s soul, and that he is beyond Marius’s help. I think the invocation of the temptation narrative is relevant here, as in both instances, Armand succumbs in a way that is seen by Christianity and Marius as accepting sin.

Moving back to Marius, he makes it clear in this scene that he feels tortured by the temptation that Armand’s existence offers him. He blames Armand and his beauty for tempting him to rescue and love him, as well as desire to turn him. He does this again and again:

This affords Armand far more power than he actually has. Marius has the power, in age, social standing, wealth, and vampirism. But he does not take responsibility for his own desires, instead comparing Armand to a demon dressed as an angel, a succubus, sent to test and torment him. (Lestat also refers to Armand as a succubus in TVL, a label that is more appropriate when Armand has a powerful mind gift he uses on Lestat, and not a human teenager). Marius’s relationship with sexuality is in general very odd and contradictory. Before this incident, he was celebrating the importance of sexual and sensual pleasure.

This scene paints a picture of Marius’s internal conflict, which is expanded upon in B&G. He is terrified of his own moral complexity. He hides behind his role as the good wise father figure to the vampires, to cover up this anxiety and convince himself he is still “good”. He tries to be the godlike savior to Armand, then Lestat, then Daniel, ignoring his ulterior motive of being seen as “good” for this. He presents his misdeeds as the fault of outside forces conspiring to tempt him.

Marius is ultimately “tempted”; he turns a seventeen year old Armand in order to save his life. Though in the books Armand’s age affects his ability to emotionally regulate as a perpetual teenager, and as seen as a factor in his instability, his turning isn't really a terrible crime; Marius genuinely wanted to save his life, and I can't argue against that as I’m obviously thankful that Armand is alive. But what's interesting is that Marius presents this act as the thing he regrets most. Not how his physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse traumatised Armand in his formative years and affected him and his relationships for life, but his turning. He tells Lestat he is sorry for it. He is much more regretful of his mistreatment of Pandora and Bianca, yet continues to mistreat them still. The moral question of turning children is seen as more destructive and immoral than the abuse Armand experienced.

Marius does address Armand being too young for a relationship like this in B&G, where he admits this to Bianca, but in a way that puts Armand down and elevates Marius’s love for Bianca. He frames it as Armand being inferior and lacking the age and experience required to fulfill Marius emotionally, rather than acknowledging that he harmed Armand.

The age question is also removed from the show as Armand was turned at twenty seven, raising questions about what Marius will regret in the show, if anything (I also think Armand’s arrested development by staying with the pedophile who began abusing him at fifteen into his twenties will be a theme in the show, as he’s already displayed that childish and petty behaviour and thinking).

There is also the issue of Marius attempting to control Armand’s life, centuries after he gave up on him. He takes it upon himself to make decisions for Armand, to prove his own wisdom and morality; Marius knows best. He turns Benji and Sybelle despite Armand not wanting this for them, framing it as him having the strength to make the correct decision when Armand couldn't. He also swoops in to rescue Daniel after Devils Minion break up, taking responsibility for Armand’s fledgling to prove his superiority over him as a maker. He fails to acknowledge that it was his abuse of Armand which caused intimacy issues that made the relationship fall apart, and Armand a struggling maker. It's yet more instance of Marius viewing himself as the moral superior to a fundamentally immoral and wicked Armand.

I think this aspect of Marius is so fascinating, and creates a deeply complex character. Though most of the other vampires also experience moral panic in this vein, Marius is in it most deeply, and struggles the most with accepting his moral complexity. Having your most moral vampire struggle with moral anxiety this much is such a rich theme to explore. It poses the question of if there could ever be a truly moral vampire; should they just embrace their monstrosity as the western Christian understanding of goodness is impossible?

By projecting his anxiety onto Armand, he helps perpetuate Armand’s religious fanaticism and creates a person who views himself as both a perpetual victim and a wicked sinner beyond help, rejected and scorned by both heaven and hell. I'm definitely going to write about Armand and religion in more detail at some point in its own dedicated thread, but right now I wanted to focus on Marius and his projection. I’m very excited to see his show version and how they tackle this rich element of his character. The best thing you can do for Marius is allow him to be complex and messy and immoral. I think the version we get of him in TVA and B&G is infinitely more compelling than how he appears in the previous books, where he veered into Mary Sue territory.