friendless top twink sociopath

Let’s start by saying I wondered what kind of continuity Armand had across the various episodes—how he went from that puppy-dog face to this—and I tried to come up with an answer. What about the letters? We all wondered if they were sincere. Given the undeniable fact that Armand is deeply traumatized, broken, and both a sociopath and a psychopath, I’d say they were as sincere as Armand was capable of being. He admits to real truths. We didn't hear the letter to Daniel, but the one to Louis is brutally honest, admitting even more than the obvious things already discussed.

"I chose my coven over you, lured you into a production of a play, in which your death would act as the grotesque climax. The coven was twisting my arm, but… I took aesthetic pleasure in making your death visually exhilarating. All of which was made worse by our heady lovemaking throughout this period of betrayal" is brutal, surely not sugar-coated. "And as for the many boys you drugged, drained, and lay with, I feigned resentment when, in fact, I welcomed your straying because your guilt in their aftermath bound you to me all the more tightly and allowed me my hours of observation with Daniel." it's something he was never called upon to admit by Louis, but he did it.

And above all "I told you I loved you, but did I? Did I? Or was it a clinging to the underside of anyone who would help me survive?" it is a reflection long awaited and never made. Doesn't matter that we don't have a clear stated answer.

So I would say yes, these are truthful —in the sense that they speak the truth. What is puzzling—and what marks a huge difference from how the other two letters were read—is the tone. There is no "puppy-dog" look here; instead, we see an unstable, angry man pushed and pushing to the limit. How did we get here? Well, we know the first two letters weren't well received (obviously). Daniel refused to listen, while Lestat listened but responded with a public humiliation. The third letter is read under circumstances that force the recipient to listen, and then compel him to provide a response that Armand deems satisfactory.

There's resentment here, which wasn't there in the other two letter readings. Why? "I understood his obsession with forgiveness. I lived it with him. He was my Claudia. But I wasted a near century. And that's not nothing. That deserved amends." As I said in the post about Louis, I think the point of the season was to admit one's responsibilities. As Lestat's final sentence also suggests. I think that throughout the season, Armand has been searching for closure, in which he admits his faults, his truths, but doesn't want to be the only one to lay himself bare. I think he, too, was looking for denied truths. Things he needed to hear.

"I used you to punish. I never forgave you for Paris. Never. I never did. Can't. Won't. [...] Love of my life was him. […] Even now, still thinking about him. Sorry." said Louis. These truths pale in comparison to those Armand just confessed, yet they had to be voiced and heard because they paint a specific picture: Louis made his relationship with Armand official—back in Paris, before he even knew Armand had orchestrated the play—despite having no inclination or intention to truly forgive or love him. To commit. Throughout the second season, we saw Armand questioning Louis’s feelings and accusing him of still loving Lestat—both in Paris and San Francisco—yet Louis consistently denied it. "Admit it, admit I didn't imagine it, that you never loved me, that you used me too": I believe that is what Armand meant to say, to hear.

Taking everything we’ve seen and heard about their relationship into account, it’s clear that something was already wrong before Louis discovered the truth about Paris. So why, Armand could wonders, was the relationship so painful when I put so much effort into it? Am I so unlovable?

And so, we get to the heart of the matter: "you got some reason to be dark-sided, Armand. You were sold by who you were sold by. Sold into what you were sold into." This is not an excuse; it is the truth. It is a truth that needed to be acknowledged aloud—one that Armand needed to hear. It is while repeating that phrase that Armand shows the first sign of struggle—of humanity. He finds it difficult to repeat it. "I saw a lot of that in New Orleans. On the opposite shore. Running houses I ran." " You and I didn't talk about it much… with you… 'Cause I didn't want to think of my own sins. Or picture you at 12. At 12. You were 12. Scared. Poor boy, Arun." These are genuine apologies, and they are owed. I cannot imagine that someone who has suffered abuse, like Armand, did not suffer from having a partner who, for 77 years, preferred to avoid the subject because it upset him. (It is also in line with how Louis reacted to the news about Lestat and Gabriella—distress and rejection before empathy and support—though I discussed Louis in the previous post.) This is where Armand begins to show signs of pain; he is on the verge of tears. It is the first time in three seasons that we see someone truly see Armand and feel empathy for him. In the second season, the subject of his abuse was handled with so little empathy by Louis and Daniel that some viewers were convinced Armand had made it up to elicit pity.

"You need a love that'll cradle you. You shoul have that. And I was never that for you. And I'm sorry." This is Armand listening to someone, to Louis, tell him that he should be loved. If Louis didn't give him that love, it was because Louis wasn't his love—he didn't have that kind of love to give—and not because Armand shouldn't be loved.

"My coldness, my denial, drove you to this." I think this part is a bit controversial. An ordinary person—like you or me—would simply walk away from a cold man who withholds affection; obviously, then, these traits don't excuse Armand. But for Armand, they were deeply impactful, and he needed them to be acknowledged as real, instead of dismissed.

And then the grand finale, which ultimately moved Armand to tears: "I saw good in you… for a while" Absolution and condemnation, all at once. There is good in him. For a while… Because there is also something very dark. He himself, one might say, sabotages his own situations by taking them to extremes. But there is good in him. When you are at your worst, when you have just written letters detailing your mistakes and horrors, when you've just beheaded someone to have a conversation, when you have lived a past like Armand’s, I believe that phrase—"I saw good in you"—is not something to be taken for granted. One thing every teacher has experienced is that, at times, the "bad kids" really need to be told that they can be good, because they are not innately bad.

And here are the ultra-detailed reasons why I think this conversation (grotesque setting aside) was cathartic. The reasons why I believe it was so for Louis as well are in the previous post. The next catharsis I’d like to analyze is Lestat… but that one is very long and complex, so I’m definitely not writing it at 2:30 in the morning.