Life is about the simplicities.

…. you sound as if you have no idea what you’re talking about or why people don’t like him tbh. 🧐

I, personally, am rather conflicted about David as a character. I do still like his character in Queen of the Damned and Tale of the Body Thief, even if I do understand the really problematic implications (and colonial overtones) of giving a white British man the kidnapped body of a brown Southeast Asian man. 

And then, of course, there are the whole grooming/pedophilia instances that are alluded to wrt him, which has him admitting to almost getting him kicked out of the Talamasca at one time. If he is ever brought on the show, I wonder if they’ll leave that in. I kinda expect they will leave those things in wrt Marius, but that’s mostly because of the effect of it all on Armand’s character and backstory. If they bring in David’s character, I don’t know if they’d remove that aspect wrt his character or keep it in. 

(The VC characters who seem to get the most hate from fans - at least when talking about the books - do seem to be the ones who have the most grooming and pedophilia instances/overtones to their backstories, from what I’ve seen). 

But let’s be real here, the major reason why Anne Rice even wrote some much about David's character in the first place is that she wanted to replace Louis as Lestat’s love interest and David was, by Body Thief, fleshed out to start doing that. And it became very apparent - at least to a large majority of book fandom - that that is what she was doing with his character by Merrick.

And because that was the main reason David was - if not created, but became as prominent a character as he did by his second appearance - then I have to say. I really don’t know how you bring David into the IWTV show - if he does cross over or shows up a lot - and not have that aspect come into play. The love between Lestat and David is pretty much ingrained into their relationship by the opening of TotBT - the second book David shows up in - where Lestat tells the reader within the first few chapters that he loves David. 

And you also just really, really can’t have Lestat turning David the way he does at the end of Body Thief unless Lestat does love David. It really makes zero sense otherwise. (And would turn an already problematic scene into . . . yikes.) 

So yeah, I can understand why some people are hesitant about David even being brought into this story, for all the various reasons above, including what might happen wrt Louis and Lestat’s relationship going forward. Just like with the books, I don’t think it would change the endgame of them being together. But let's be real, Merrick - as a book - really should have been a Louis POV book. And it being a David POV book basically contributed to the sidelining of Louis as a character, as far as the books go.  

I hate David and everything he represents. David Talbot is everything wrong with post-trilogy VC perfectly encapsulated in one fucking guy. I'm so angry I need bullet points

"Is that your man? Yes, thats mine." 😌

No Rest

Prints available here

CW: blood

(ID:

image 1: Armand and Daniel facing eachother during the Interview in 1973, Armand’s eyes are out of frame and Daniel is crying

image 2: older Daniel stands in the center of a rushing city and looks over his shoulder, overlayed on the city are the eyes of the vampire Armand

image 3: Armand baring his teeth next to older Daniel’s neck, Daniel’s head is thrown back and they are both covered in blood

1973

Prints available here

CW: blood, suggestive material

(ID: sequential art

image 1: a scene from San Francisco 1973, Armand sitting on a chair in the dim light of the apartment, Daniel at his feet, Armand’s foot pressed between Daniel’s legs

image 2: a close up of a man’s laughing face on the tv screen

image 3: a close up of Daniel’s open mouth, blood dripping from his nose down his face and the light of a tv screen with a gleeful woman in the background

Wherever I go, there you are

Prints available here

CW: drug use, blood

Wherever I go, there you are

Prints available here

CW: drug use, blood

“You are mine, beautiful boy”

Prints available here

CW: smoking, blood

And then my brain goes "fruit of the poisonous tree" and am then afraid that Daniel's meaning wrt Armand (which, to my great frustration, I have already seen other book readers diminish) will literally be: oh he's just the scraps Armand gets because he couldn't have Louis or Lestat (because of the horrors, he did all of it, etc). I don't WANT it to be that and I guess I'm a little terrified about it.

Idk what to make of any of it and I'm nervous because I REALLY want to see this pairing develop as they deserve. So please, tell me what I'm missing in my rambling and borderline incoherent concern. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my sanity's only hope. ^_~

Hi!

Okay, well, I will try to be your Ben Kenobi here, but remember, even he failed to see what was going on with Annikin before it was too late . . .

Yeah, okay that isn't very confidence-giving, is it? 😬 🙃

Anyway! 🤭

Okay, so on the first point:

I have actually seen one or two people point out the fact that it was Louis who basically intervened and stopped Armand from killing Daniel, and Armand didn't do so himself. And I'm not going to say I can't see yours and some other's point about this. All I can say about that point for now is that we don't know what happens right now between Daniel and Armand after Daniel was let go and dropped off at the drug den. Because there might actually come a point when Armand thinks he very well could kill Daniel and Louis would have no idea, as Louis only requests that Daniel live out "this night." There was no request from Louis to Armand for Daniel to live out his whole life.

So we might actually get a moment, in the future, where we see a time when Armand decides to just kill Daniel -- but, just like with Louis in the tunnel back in the 40s -- stays his own hand via his own decision to do so.

So, I think on this point right now, the only thing any of us can do is take a "wait and see" about it. But there are still doors open to Armand deciding on his own to spare Daniel's life in a significant way I think. With him not even being in love with Daniel yet at the time too IMO.

So, on to the second point:

No, I very much do not think Daniel is going to be seen as "scraps" that Armand gets because he couldn't have Louis or Lestat. And I think what is going to come into play to make that clear is the slight change the show has done wrt Armand's character and the Great Laws. After the Children of Darkness/Satan coven busted up, Armand in the book really didn't hold those rules in any high regard anymore. But the show has very clearly changed that, to where Armand was ready to kill Louis because Louis broke many of the Great Laws.

Assad himself made this clear that Armand really was going to kill Louis and only didn't do it because he chose love instead.

And if you take a look at the full list of the Great Laws that someone was amazingly able to translate, as well as this gifset of a specific scene from 2x03, a vampire being with a human in such a way is a direct violation of those laws that Armand in the show clearly holds to.

So for Armand to break that rule and choose to be with Daniel? Will not be a small thing.

So I think that alone will show that Daniel is not just a scrap. Armand's love for Daniel will be so much that he will, once again, ignore a rule he once held fast to in order to, once again, choose love.

And then, of course, there is the fact that Armand chose to actually break his biggest rule of all for Daniel, which is to never turn someone into another vampire -- which is also one of the laws the cult drilled into him. Yes, Armand's main reason for not doing so in the books was because he didn't want to damn someone into vampirism, as well as not believing that the Maker/Fledgling relationship can ever really work. But the other reason that I feel the show will also touch upon will very much also be because of the Great Law that older vampires should never work the Dark Trick upon someone, less that fledgling be too powerful in the blood.

But Armand's love for Daniel will be so great that he will not bear the thought of Daniel actually dying. And so, when the moment comes, he will not only break that Great Law, but his own personal reason why he doesn't want to turn someone. And he would rather face having to truly put his fear and belief about Markers and Feldglings to the side (and maybe still lose Daniel that way -- which in the books, he actually did for a time!) than lose Daniel forever via death.

Again, that has never seemed to me as Daniel just being a "scrap" to Armand, even when it comes to the books. But I expect the show will put an even greater emphasis on this, both when it comes to Armand's backstory and how now Armand in the show actually holds to those laws in a serious way.

I hate David and everything he represents. David Talbot is everything wrong with post-trilogy VC perfectly encapsulated in one fucking guy. I'm so angry I need bullet points