It's the nickname I should have picked rather than the more common one I go by.
I was on Tumblr in the early 2010s so if I say shit like "my cries" and "oh my ovaries", it's cause I'm old AF. Get off my lawn.
I like making shitposts and sharing art and fics, 99.9% Interview with the Vampire TV series, The Magnus Archives and Malevolent.
I'm a librarian in the rural southern United States. It ain't easy, but there's more diversity out here than is apparent from the surface, and we need to support each other.
When I get old, I'm moving to a very small apartment in a very big city so I never have to drive anywhere again.
I'm an adult, I'm bi, I'm married to a guy, we have a kid who's 12, she's also a therian and a furry.
AMA and I'll probably answer since it's like my job and shit.
New profile pic by @maybemediocreatbest based on this meme.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
also the unreliable nature of lestat's narration is just so much more confusing and obscured. with louis he is one guy telling his recollection of events, supplemented by claudia's diary entries for stuff he wasn't present for. everything is a firsthand account and the number of canonical mistakes he makes in his recounting of events (as in, things that daniel questions and that are later amended) can be counted on like. one hand. they're clearly signposted and then the stuff that isn't signposted makes for a fun game of - who do i think louis is? what version of himself is he trying to present to daniel in this scene? it only enriches your understanding of the story and louis's trauma and subjectivity.
but lestat's narration, as far as i can tell, is composed of a combination of his songs, the documentary, and The Failures. which is already difficult, because we've got (respectively) the most hyperbolic, narrativised, performative version of events (see: your biggest fan, the music video-esque scene of magnus stalking lestat, him writing from the perspective of magnus and textually asserting that magnus loved him); you've got the version of events where he's just fucking with molloy, avoiding the question, obscuring any sincere emotion he might have, and never committing anything real to camera; and then you've got the dominant narration of lestat by himself talking retrospectively and remorsefully after the events of queen of the damned. which we the audience have not yet seen and have no context for unless we've read the books.
like i've been assuming that the visits to the past we see are mostly honest. but in fact everything that we have seen this season, barring the auction scene at the beginning of ep1, is maybe tainted by lestat's bias. he spells this out for us in the danlou restaurant scene - he doesn't know for sure this is how the conversation went, or whether this is where it occurred - this is just how he imagines it. and there is stuff to be read there - he presents louis as hurt and daniel as an asshole, and he presents daniel as a desperate loner and louis as much more cool-headed.
but it means there's literally no reprieve from that subjectivity. s1&2 at least had the dubai scenes to ground the subjectivity of the past. but s3 is so drenched in lestat's perspective there's no room for anything else to breathe. it's just sass, quip, meme reference, celebrity reference, quip, slightly cringy gen z slang useage, quip.
i'm sure it's intended to be this way. but it makes me so unbelievably disconnected from the story at this point, because the front lestat is putting up basically never falters (save for a few key scenes, like with magnus in the car).
idk. if i'm reading this right i do understand what they're going for. it's just tiring. if i take things at face value, almost everything comes across really shallow. if i go the subjectivity route, the truth of literally everything gets called into question and it begins to fall apart. and there's also the reality that inferring depth, reading between the lines rather than being shown it, makes me feel like an idiot just trying to cope. lestat sees himself as a grand figure who is iconic and in control and unquestioning of his own mistakes, regrets, abuses, victimhood. and i really struggle to convince myself that there's any point digging past that bias for the ~real~ story of lestat.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I know we like to joke about Armand being akin to a teenage girl, but you can genuinely tell Armand was originally written by a woman. Armand, to me, is an example of a man being forced into a stereotypical “feminine” role since he wasn’t seen as “man” enough or strong enough, which is why I think so many women relate to him.
A few people have pointed out how similar Armand is to an eldest daughter, and as an eldest daughter I 100% agree. Armand is CONSTANTLY placed into caretaker roles, a role stereotypically given to women(especially daughters). In the books, Armand is often infantilized by older and more powerful men because he’s of the age where he can easily be mistaken for a girl. He’s young and slender with pretty curls and big brown eyes. He constantly insists that he’s a boy, and Marius doesn’t even refer to him as a young man. No, he is always a boy.
Armand, like women have done since the beginning of time, has constantly cleaned up the messes that other men make. When Armand was a baby vampire, he was punished for Marius’ actions. He was forced to watch his brothers burn to death, had their ashes dumped on him, then was forced to eat his best friend. He was put under mind breaking torture all because MARIUS turned him. Similar to how women are often victim blamed for the actions of their partner/abuser.
When Nicki becomes too far gone after Lestat was warned not to turn him, Armand was the one who had to put him out of his misery. When Louis refused to listen to him after Armand gave him several warnings about how dangerous things could get with his coven, he directed the play and then he practically mothered Louis in San Francisco, constantly cleaning up behind him to make sure he wasn’t caught. Then for 52 years he made sure Daniel didn’t fuck up his career.
And let’s not forget how Armand had to lead two covens for centuries. He had to make sure they were in bed on time, made sure they ate dinner, and diffuse any fights between them. Lestat was essentially the “father” of the two because he stereotypically did what fathers do. He funded everything, he provided while Armand was placed into the role of a “mother,” ei, a caregiver who makes sure everyone’s needs are being met. This is what makes Armand’s claim that he was usurped by Santiago even more laughable, I don’t think Santiago would be able to hold everything together for a DAY. If he was truly in charge the coven would have destroyed themselves before Louis got the chance.
Speaking of Armand being in charge, let’s talk about how being a leader doesn’t mean you have a leader mindset.
Lestat and Louis have lied way more than Armand has because Armand really has told the truth in a lot of the “lies” he’s told.
“I could not prevent it.”
Armand was born in 1508, the painting he was revealed to be into was painted in 1520-1525, meaning that instead of 20, Armand would have actually been 12-17 during the time he was a muse for that portrait, meaning Marius “rescued” him at the ages of 7-12. So ever since he was a small child, Armand had no agency and was taught to never want any. Now, there’s a chance the showrunners have made a mistake and they earnestly meant for Armand to truly be 20 in that portrait, my point still stands perfectly well. Armand was forced to be a servant his whole life, so when he was finally a leader he still acted like a servant.
“I could not prevent it.”
Armand genuinely felt like he could not prevent it because he has never been in a position to prevent anything. This reminds me of how women are conditioned to be followers, even though they are often placed in positions of leadership such as being mothers and managing a household. This is also why women tear down other women, they have been taught that wanting agency is a bad thing.
You want to know two people who have always had agency because they fit into the patriarchy? Louis and Lestat.
Yes, as queer men, Louis and Lestat faced discrimination from a society built upon a patriarchy, but they had so many more chances than Armand because they were still able to be deemed “man enough” in certain aspects.
Yes, Louis faced racism, but Louis also held a position of power. Louis was a pimp who admitted to looking the other way as he listened to his prostitutes getting raped. And for as much as Louis preached about racism and how wrong it was, Louis never used his influence to try and held other African-Americans. Yes, he gave the prostitutes partial share of the business, but I’ve always felt like that was more or so done out of guilt than Louis genuinely wanting to help those less fortunate than him.
For as much as Louis preached against racism, when he found out Armand, a man of color, was taken from his homeland, placed on a ship, taken to a new foreign country, sold like cattle, and was owned by a white man who continued to exploit him, he suddenly had nothing to say and continued thinking about his dead husband. Armand experienced what countless enslaved African-Americans did and in that moment Louis acted no better than Lestat when he was reading a history book and Louis had to inform him that they used to put the heads of slaves on spikes as a warning. Louis only really cared about racism when it applied to HIM.
Back to the patriarchy, Louis chose not to visit his family often. Even if Louis could only come at night, he still could have made more of an effort. Society often deems that if the man of the household is a provider, there’s nothing else he needs to do. Louis had that same mindset, and like so many men, was shocked when he found out that wasn’t enough.
Let’s look at Lestat, who held even more power than Louis did because of the color of his skin. Lestat was always listened to more than Louis in business because he was white. Even before Lestat’s race mattered, he held power over Nicki being a vampire. He abused that power and as I said before, Armand had to clean up the mess.
Lestat held power over Louis and Claudia, again because he was white, but also because he was far more powerful than either of them. People always say that Louis’ the one who kept escalating the fight in S1E5. But guess what? Lestat was immensely more powerful than him, he could have deescalated the situation and he didn’t. There are situations of this in real life where basically self defense is self defense until it isn’t. When the other person is no longer a threat, you cannot do something to hurt them and claim self defense. Lestat was fully capable of dragging Louis up to the sky, therefore he was fully capable of ending that fight without going to that extreme.
In this next example, both Louis and Lestat abused their positions of power. And that is with Claudia. After Louis used his position of power(being a vampire)to accidentally cause a riot, he uses Claudia to cleanse him of his sins. While Louis abused the power he held, Lestat abused it even more because again, he was the older and more powerful one. Lestat had the final say. And Louis was a new vampire and was panicking. Not only that, Louis had never seen a vampire go mad before. Lestat had. Yet he still turned Claudia.
Louis literally dragged Claudia’s body like a ragdoll when asking Lestat to turn her, just like how society often views women as dolls. And just like so many women when it comes to the healthcare system, Claudia was treated as an object and not a person who deserved autonomy.
Men will often find women to replace their mothers if they have mommy issues. Their wives cannot just be their wives, they have to be mothers as well. Claudia could not just be his daughter, she had to be his sister as well. Lestat at least always saw Claudia as a daughter, while Louis continued treating her like a toy in a game of house whose role he could change on the flip of a dime.
My whole point leading up to this has been to say Louis and Lestat had so many chances to get it together, to do right by themselves and Claudia, and they missed the mark. Every. Single. Time.
Now time for something that’s probably going to rile up a lot of Loustat fans:
Louis and Lestat were more responsible for Claudia’s death than Armand was.
I’ve already listed how they failed Claudia, but let me reiterate:
They decided to turn her.
Very often, when women lash out, we’re told we’re being dramatic and emotional and asked if we’re on our period. When Claudia justifiably began acting out because she would forever be stuck in a little girl’s body and Lestat forced her to watch Charlie burn, all the blame was put onto her. These two grown men could not find it in them to admit that they were in the wrong and Claudia had every right to feel how she felt.
Lestat could not better himself, which drove his fledgelings to “kill” him which drove them to Paris in the first place.
What did Armand do? Well,
He continuously told Louis he needed to guard his thoughts better, notice how he never had to tell that to Claudia because she had that DOWN PACKED.
He continuously told Louis that the coven would kill him if he either didn’t join the coven or get his ass out of Paris.
He ultimately chose his coven because unlike Lestat, Armand wasn’t just going to turn anyone willy nilly because he understood the weight of the Dark Gift. Lestat only watched Nicki burn, Armand watched COUNTLESS others burn and probably considered walking into the fire a couple times himself. Not only that, but remember that while Louis certainly was falling in love with him, he was JUST starting to get over Lestat. And let’s be honest, once Louis found out Lestat was alive it would have been game over for Loumand. If Armand eradicated his coven, Claudia would have ran off with Madeline and Louis would have ran off with Lestat and Armand would have fallen into vampire madness. For as batshit crazy as his coven was, they kept him alive and weren’t going anywhere. Armand himself said he didn’t trust Louis’ love for him lasting, which he was right about. I know it’s a running joke that Louis wanted everyone and everyone wanted Louis, but nothing was ever good enough for him. When he was with Lestat he needed Claudia, when he was with Claudia he needed Lestat, when he was with Armand he needed Lestat, and when he continued to be with Armand he had to sleep around with hundreds of over men. We always infantilize Louis about the fact that Lestat cheated on him, but he stuck with Antoinette. Louis had a arsenal of twinks and everyone wants to joke about it, let’s just not talk about the fact that Louis was a serial killer that targeted gay men during a time where things were already extremely dangerous for queer people.
I don’t understand why other people can’t understand that everyone in this show is a shitty person. Not only that, but I’d argue that Armand is one of the least shitty.
Y’all, Armand(almost)never lied.
He didn’t lie about him and Lestat fucking in the box, they actually fucked way more and he left that out. He also was considerate of Lestat and left out the fact that he fucked his mom.
He didn’t lie about Lestat loving him.
And I don’t even think he lied about Louis asking him to wipe his memories.
Armand’s only lie was about the trial, and that was only because he found himself painted into a corner. I’ve already listed the reason why he let the trial play out, he never expected for Lestat to save Louis. So he was forced to scramble.
What’s so funny is that y’all do not listen to the literal actors of this show.
Assad himself said Armand is not a mustache twirling mastermind villain.
Jacob has said that Armand is not truly a villain and that he’s deeply traumatized.
Eric has said something similar to Jacob.
Even Sam has acknowledged this.
Y’all have to understand, these actors looked at the books and built these characters from the ground up. They KNOW these characters. They weren’t just given a script, they gave this show its soul. When they say something, HEAR THEM OUT.
Another hot take: Claudia wouldn’t have died if she was Armand’s daughter.
When Armand truly loves someone, they are enough. When Louis told Claudia she was enough, he lied. Claudia was never enough for Lestat either. Armand loves Daniel unconditionally, he loves Sybelle and Benji unconditionally, and he would never keep them in an environment that he knew could harm them just because he wanted some dick.
Speaking of Claudia and Armand, the two have many parallels because they are both victims of the patriarchy. Claudia because she is a woman, and Armand because he is deemed as invaluable as a woman.
Claudia bore the brunt of a man’s violence(Louis’ murders)like Armand did(The Children of Satan).
Claudia was taken in as a child, believing she was safe in a world of men because it was better than what she had before, like Armand.
Both of them were turned at young ages. Claudia was 14, Armand was 17 in the books and in the show he was 27(possibly younger. And even if he wasn’t physically younger, Assad has said that many times Armand still has the mind of a teenage boy)because the men in their lives did something that affected them.
Both were forced into caretaker roles, Armand had to he Marius’ constant companion and Claudia had to look after Louis.
I think another parallel is how Claudia and Armand’s introduction to sex was traumatic. Not enough people are talking about how sad Armand’s sex life genuinely is. And I’m not just talking about how he was trafficked. Armand’s first “love” was Marius, who actually didn’t love him and had sex with him on a regular and forced him to have sex with his friends.
Cut to the Children of Darkness, where sex was shamed and he was encouraged to not even look at his own genitals. Armand, who is a survivor of sexual assault, probably felt dirtier than he had before. Imagine being repeatedly violated for your entire life, and then you are told that sex is forbidden and disgusting no matter the circumstances. I feel like that would add to any self loathing guilt Armand might have already had.
Cut to Lestat, the first person Armand’s had consensual sex with(no, I’m not counting Marius). When we see Armand’s version of the story, where he’s shy about having sex with Lestat, I genuinely believe that’s how Armand felt when sleeping with Lestat for the first time. Either Lestat just didn’t realize how nervous he was or didn’t want to bring it up in his interview with Daniel. I think part of the reason why Armand is almost like a glass doll in Lestat’s memory is because he hasn’t properly comprehended Armand’s feelings towards him.
“I love you, Lestat.”
“Christ.”
I think Armand got really vulnerable with Lestat, and Lestat never realized how vulnerable Armand was being. He saw Armand trying to open up as “desperation” because he was projecting his own trauma. And to Armand, the first person he ever willingly had sex with abandoned him, and he probably felt the same way Arun and Amadeo felt. Used for his body and then left.
As for Louis, I strongly believe the main reason Armand ever joined in on the threesomes in San Francisco was to please Louis the same way he was forced to please Marius. Do I think Armand could ever agree to have a threesome for funsies? Yeah, not out of the question
Now, I’d like for everyone to look at these GIFs:
💬 0 🔁 1243 ❤️ 3379 · 2x05 | 3x04
Not only am I an eldest daughter, but I am also a middle child. Why I relate to this scene so much is because I know what it’s like being able to watch everyone else around you being able to have outbursts and you’re just meant to keep your cool all the time. This is not only a common expectation for women, but middle children often fall into this box because they are literally caught in the middle of these things.
In Armand’s fight with Louis(I highly suggest rewatching that scene)a few people have pointed out how strangely human Armand’s movements are. There’s this one scene in particular where Armand wipes his face. I think this is Armand continuously trying to not rip Louis’ head off, I am not kidding. I think Armand’s rage was gradually being expressed through his movements. I think part of why Armand was acting so human in that scene is because he hadn’t been that angry since he was a mortal. If they include the scene in the books where he broke down Marius’ door, Armand might have felt neglected by Louis the same way he felt neglected by Marius. When you take that into consideration, it adds even more validity to his lashing out and torturing Daniel.
Another way I and so many other women can relate to Armand? We’ve all been sexualized. I remember being around 8 or 9 and being told I had to wear a long shirt with leggings, I was 15 when my mother called me a prostitute for wearing a tank top and a skirt that was past my fingertips, I was also 15 when my mother accused me of trying to dress sexually(again, for not wearing a long shirt with the leggings I had on)and she told me I could only wear an outfit like that when I was with my dad because he needed to protect me from “certain attention” I wouldn’t draw to myself. Cut to me being 16-17 and my mother was confused as to why I refused to wear a crop top. Not only confused, but angry because I refused to show off my slim waist, as if she hadn’t slut shamed me a year prior. Even of adults don’t realize it, they very often sexualize children from a young age, especially girls. I had not even(or just barely)reached double digits when I first encountered this. When you are a woman, your body and beauty will be praised as much as it will be used against you.
In the books, while Armand is praised for his outward appearance, he is claimed to be deceiving whenever he does something “wicked”. The first thing that comes to mind is Lord Harlech talking about how vile he was while having the face of an angel/choir boy around the time they began sword fighting.
The main reason Armand suffers so much is because he is placed in the same box as women by the patriarchy. Armand is a victim of misogyny when you boil it down to the bare bones of it all.
Assad Zaman never lied.
Armand has always been good.
Let me repeat myself.
Armand has ALWAYS been good considering the circumstances he was CONSTANTLY forced to survive in. Armand is mentally still a child in the body of a man being treated like a child but expected to act like a man but don’t forget that by society’s standards you’ll never ACTUALLY be a man because you’re too womanly and women are weak. And even though you’re as weak as a woman you will still be handed things that are too heavy for you to carry because even though you’re totally weaker than men you’ll actually be expected to carry more than they ever will.
If you went through what Armand has, you would be no better. And I think so many of us women know that, we know that because Armand represents the deepest, darkest, most hurt, most vulnerable parts of ourselves. In truth, we know we would be no better than Armand because we ARE no better than Armand. Even if you haven’t gone through Armand’s abuse, you understand the role he’s been given and when you look at him it’s almost frightening how similar it is to looking in a mirror.
We’ve all been Aruns.
We’ve all been Amadeos.
And we’ve all become Armands just to survive, just to navigate a world that will always be against us because even though our hands are empty we have to carry ourselves like we were born with silver spoons clasped in our palms so that we can rise above the hardships bestowed upon us by men.
tvl episode 5 in a nutshell or something, at least marius got to enjoy bali while lestat was suffering the ancient horror of monarchy
ALSO if you have been following my marius/magnus crack ship instanity from the previous post, then i'm happy to inform you that my condition has worsened and you can now read about them right here right now if you want: 🤲 boo old men yaoi 🤲
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
& if I'm being honest, altho armand's writing has been heavily saturated with racism since s2 frankly (and so if I'm honest has the way the fandom at large talks about and considers his character); and altho Daniel is like just kicking about with fuckall to do so far, I actually think that (so long as the writers don't hinge anything on Bullshit Finale Twist Number Three) as antagonists the both of them are the least fucked over by the reality warping effect the character of lestat has on other characters.
And while I do think this is in part bc the writers don't actually get what makes a character sympathetic vs unsympathetic, I also think it's because their arcs are able to breathe more without the intense suffocation of the Lestat character that is hampering Louis.
It's also why the DM stuff is the weakest part of it so far but we'll get to that.
So basically how Armand is set up here - and actually if you squint a bit and ignore how much of a mess s2 was in terms of characterisation always sort of has been - is that he's the defender of the old order of vampirism. Like I say, it's always sort of there, if you believe he's sincere in the catacombs in 2x3, and if you take Santiago's word that he "has a gravely attachment to the great laws", but in s2 (and most of the subsequent analysis), people treated the laws as just an excuse for getting what he wants.
This season is saying NOPE all of that is actually wrong and he's actually DOES buy into the Cult rules he was indoctrinated into in the 16th century and never actually properly deprogrammed from. Go figure.
I also think this might be the reason he actually turned Daniel? Like, the fifth great law is clear that /no vampire will reveal his nature to a mortal and let that mortal live/, but Louis has hold him not to kill Daniel, has said if he does Louis will kill him, and Louis has Buffy levels of competence killing vampires so I think Armand would be kind of an idiot not to take that threat seriously. So he turns Daniel, not out of love as in the books or out of spite like Louis thinks, but because the great laws kind of don't leave him another option and he believes in them!
Now Art, you may be wondering, Law five subsection B says that no vampire must commit to writing the history of the vampires, lest that history be found by mortals and believed.
And yes that is an unpleasant stone in the shoe of my argument. BUT! I have several options as to why in fact he would consider it the lesser of vampire crimes.
Feel free to select as fits your headcanons before we are jossed in the next few episodes by the writing team's consistent talent for messy and ill-thought through characterisation.
Number One: In 2x3, Armand describes how Lestat predicted the twenty four hour rolling news cycle and tiktok. This was actually the reason why all those "Armand was lying it was somebody else who started the TdV" sounded so daft to me; it was a story beat about Lestat's canonical character trait of being ahead of his time rather than anything else, making it a lie would be a weird thing to do from a storytelling perspective. Lestat having predicted CNN and the BBC push notification and news fatigue, and Armand's gleeful use of that as Directeur Artistique suggests that he had already kind of considered this section of the law amended to account for modern sensibilities. "Sometimes you've watched [us kill] on the evening news. You've never been easier to distract" suggests that he's pretty blasé about humans actually believing Daniel - which is his main concern even as early as s2! In S1 he's mostly concerned about Vampires (hence fake Rashid and "you're chronicling a suicide") but in s2, the reason for the great laws is outright stated to be to protect vampires from humanity and not vice versa.
Number 2: given this is Louis' old man reason I don't see why it can't also be Armand's Old Man reason - he doesn't think people read anymore. This is kind of a sub reason for number one but also much less complicated and tied up in previous character beats. He's old and thinks the kids don't do books. He'll worry when the rights are acquired to adapt it as a vert.
And finally, number 3, my favourite reason: the reason for the six week gap between the end of the interview and the turning is because Daniel wrote the book as a human. Having been told about vampires as a mortal, he was turned to satisfy Law Five , subsection A, his having written the book as a human provides a nice little loophole to Five subsection B that most vampires probably don't care about but I guarantee Armand does. There. Easy. Boom.
Anyway where was I? That was a long tangent sorry. MINOR ANTAGONISTS! Yes.
Armand's on-screen arc in three first half of the season imo was a red herring. I'm agnostic re: whether he is actually apologetic or sincere about the twelve steps (both two separate questions and if I was placing my bets I'd say yes to the latter less so to the former) but it's less important than what actually happens (& what doesn't) in these scenes.
He can't get a word in for Daniel being a racist homophobe in his face in the first apology, Which I think is interesting. Not the racism or homophobia, that's just what the writers have been doing for laughs since s2. But the fact that he can't say what he wanted to say, and then leaves after the rapture happens. We don't actually know what he was going to say there's BUT we get an indication later, when he actually can get a word in: you are courting great danger with Lestat. He's going to get us all killed. The great conversion is a danger to all vampires and Lestat is leading it.
Lestat is a different kettle of fish, he gets the apology out no problem and then avoids falling onto Lestat's dick, job done, check that off the list, of to psych myself up to apologise to Louis and get deservedly set on fire. But then. He turns around. One more thing, says evil vampire Columbo. And Lestat knows what he's going to say. The great conversion is a danger to all vampires. The humans won't allow it. Shut the fuck up. Stop encouraging them. Lestat playcates him initially - I'm getting bored, I only have a few stops left. Subtext: I will stop soon.
But then when he accepts Lestat's invitation, and at the concert he puts a big old spotlight on Armand, revealing him for all the humans to see. And sings a cringe worthy diss track that yeah, is insensitive about Armand's colonial nightmare history. But we've seen how Armand reacts to people being insensitive about that in 2x5: he goes lower, shouts right back. Here, he leaves. And I think that's because the actual meat of the song Big Boss isn't about Armand, really. It's about the Great Laws, and about how they're wrong. The chorus is mocking the laws themselves rather than Armand, and he realises he's got to change tack.
Bc from the earliest teaser for s3, Armand has been set up as a figurehead of the Old Order. We know now that's what 'Armand told the truth' means: that the Great Laws need to stay in place to keep vampires safe. That is what the Fang Gang comes after Lestat for in ep 1, what Bruce says in so many words, but it becomes most clear at the concert: "No vampire shall ever reveal his nature to a mortal and let that mortal live"//"Armand told the truth!".
Next episode, after bailing and giving up on convincing Lestat, he gives Daniel a reason to join him, since he actually does love Daniel (???) ok I'll take his word for it since the After Dark and cast interviews seem to suggest that. So he loves Daniel (rushed, tell don't show, but whatever) and wants to keep him safe from the incoming whirlwind reaping that vampires have sown that he's so concerned about. In the interim Lestat is shot by a vampire conspiracy theorist, whose manifesto positions vampires as what they are shown to be in text: parasites incapable of living in harmony with humanity or nature (uhhhhhhhh). So he's right that once humans start to believe in vampires, they'll try to get rid of them. Then he kills Larry. A mortal who knows about vampires. Who helped reveal the existence of vampires to the world. And then he looks at the camera, discordant notes, episode ends.
So if I'm being honest, and I hate to give the writers credit bc this season has been a MESS, uh, Armand is a more coherent antagonist in s3 than he was in s2. Sorry, sorry, I know, but the twist ending of s2 doesn't make sense and exists only to prop up the Loustat reunion. It's bad fanfic. Armand is at his most coherent as an antagonist in s2 in 2x5 where he's full horror villain and also whaddayaknow, also motivated by preserving the secrecy of vampires from humanity. Incredible. On this one occasion they took the thing that worked and expanded on it instead of retconning.
But the way Armand is set up and framed here feels organic! It feels like he, alone, actually has a real connection to the previous season and the publication of the book. His ideology is consistent, his behaviour doesn't make logical sense but DOES make sense for his character, and his opposition to Lestat feels situational more than personal which I LOVE!! If the whole season was written with this attitude, I think it would be better, because the writers don't CARE about whether the audience thinks Armand is sympathetic or not. All the other characters this season fell bogged down by the writers hitting the audience over the head with what they want them to think: ohhhh don't you feel SORRY for Lestat, does he not suffer are you not sorry you hated him in S1 without knowing the ~~~✨full story✨~~~? Ohhhhh don't forget Louis is a predatory billionaire with a habit of using vulnerable people too satisfy his selfish emotional needs! He's not so sympathetic after all, huh? Are we going to elaborate to be empathetic to these traits that were obviously developed due to the endless horrors he's been subjected to since birth? No and fuck you. He's getting back with Lestat btw. That is his function this season. And to be clear armand does kind of suffer from a similar problem too Louis: AKA the writers are less interested in his trauma and more interested in villainising him bc they care less about the interiority of nonwhite characters.
But even though the racism that impacts Armand's writing is still heinous, he escapes the real problem with Louis' arc: that it's all written in service of him being forced back with Lestat. Like an evil fic on ao3. Armand's shift from the books: treated as unloved and unlovable, intentionally positioning him so that he's the object of contempt from all the other characters and from the audience is racist. Like, it just is. But this isn't a new development, it was in pursuit of removing him categorically as competition for Lestat in terms of as a romantic partner to Louis first and foremost. His positioning as a foil to Lestat fell flat in s2 primarily because the writers were not interested at all in treating them as "two sides of the same coin".
Side bar: If your analysis of Lestat and Armand rests on them both being as bad as each other I implore you to watch the show again, because the writers are only paying the absolute barest level of lip service to that idea. In fact, Armand is treated by the framing as categorically worse than Lestat in every way, which is cemented by the reunion, even though the actual meat of his actions do not meet the standard of this framing.
Anyway what I'm saying is that even though it took a truly heinous amount of racism to get his character here, in fact, he's now freer than Louis is character-wise. Unlike his position in s2, a rival to Lestat because the writers are weird about monogamy, and want to take him out as a viable love interest to the guy they ship with Lestat, his position as a rival in s3 is ideological. It stems from differing life experience to Lestat. He's kind of got a point this season, which he certainly wasn't allowed to in the previous one!
On a Watsonian level, his being unlovable has freed him to commit the crimes necessary to stand against the great conversion. On a Doylist level, his being unlovable has freed him from the trap of having his interiority and independence broken in pursuit of him settling down in "happy" fanfic domesticity that should, if the writers were interested in themes and individual characters, be off the table for all of these people.
Categorically fuck these writers for the way this has all been carried out, but it's at least a little bit satisfying that despite them clearly disliking the fact that Armand has a lot of fans, and thinking he's just ontologically inferior and less sympathetic in every way to Lestat, he's allowed to be more of an active character than the other mains, who are hampered by the writers' need to have everyone feel the same way as they do about them, or to end up in relationships they otherwise would have grown beyond.
Wrote all that and realise I haven't said anything about Daniel. Uhhh despite what well meaning fandom analysts say, he actually was being used as a writer avatar in S1 and s2, the writers are just Like That. Sorry. You can tell, not by his dickish irreverence towards Louis, but by the story beats he's attached to: the two reveals at the end of each season we're actually true, and his torture at the hands of Armand in 2x5 signposts Armand being the series' ultimate evil.
Anyway now he's a vampire he's set himself against Lestat (something only antagonists do in this season) and that means we're no longer supposed to take his part. They've brought back his racism and dialled it up - mostly for shock value and laughs (once again fuck these writers) but also to highlight a preexisting dubious morality that we were previously supposed to write off as age and profession-related when it was directed towards nonwhite main characters.
This is all generally offensive writing, and the way that the DM reveal was handled (as someone who's agnostic re: past DM vs present DM) was rushed and incomprehensible, but the upshot of it is that actually Daniel is allowed to function as a character outside Lestat also. This is incidentally not a privilege afforded to Gabrielle, who's twisted and warped into the series antagonist for further Lestat whump like this is a fucking late noughties early tens multi-chapter on fanfiction dot net.
Daniel hates Lestat now and honestly more power to him so do I, but the actual in story consequence of this means that he is also freer as a narrative player than either Louis or Gabrielle or poor fucking Claudia.
So yes despite the otherworldly levels of offensive writing it's taken to get here, I do kind of appreciate that Daniel and Armand are able to exist as players in the narrative unbound from Lestat's all consuming character breaking effect. Especially Armand who, I cannot stress enough, was a nonwhite antagonist specifically positioned in the most negative possible light to make the main character's white abuser more palatable.
No props to the writers. The rest of the everything about this shows that any complexity here was absolutely secondary to their need to have an antagonist working externally against Lestat (& also needed something for Daniel to do I guess) and you can tell by the fact that 80% of the show's screentime has been haphazard moral justification of their fave and rock band BS.
I wish this fandom had more Doylist rather than watsonian analysis because if it did, there would be less wank about justification of the "actions" of narrative devices and more criticism of the actual narrative they're serving. And people would have been less blind-sided by how messy this season has been, bc the show has been like this all along. It's just more obvious sans the good quality period drama trappings and the anchoring of the narrative beats with their most talented actors.