After watching TVL, I believe that the philosophy of the first two seasons were supposed to be taken as a character quirk - thoughtful commentary only made it in because it’s Louis’ perspective. I have to assume that audiences were never supposed to align themselves with the moral coding of those seasons. Was the concept of the vampire cycle of abuse intended to be received as negatively as book readers received Louis' outlook on vampirism? Was Lestat's relentless irony, snark and general unseriousness supposed to be what the audience would align themselves with?
In hindsight it was my mistake for thinking the social commentary that was once the driving force of the story was genuinely the political ethos of the show as opposed to a temporary veil they would eventually remove. Taking grief so seriously and examining the moral implications of your monstrous actions was perhaps always intended to be thwarted. Maybe they didn't expect a huge chunk of the audience to sincerely connect to Louis' tone of storytelling and overall outlook on vampirism. The way tvl writers are trampling on Louis as a character and the ethics of iwtv constantly reinforces this for me.
The overall snark, cynicism and lack of emotion in this season is a symptom of the apathetic, majority white, liberal writers room. The continuation of Louis' arc with grief this season is not about uplifting him, it is about bringing him down. Louis owning the night and being companion enough for himself is apparently too "cookie cutter" and he needed to be told he has the word "slave" etched on his ribs by the one he grieves. How exactly is this closure for Louis? It is a decision that only makes sense if I believe the writers were angry with how the audience took the "I own the night" sentiment. You took grief too seriously. You examined the implications of these characters' monstrous actions. You aligned yourself with Louis' ethics and that was never supposed to happen.
Lestat's perspective is never challenged or called into question because they so desperately want you to align with him. They are so concerned with steering their audience away from caring about the cycles of abuse and towards Lestat's trivial outlook on vampirism. Lestat isn't actually an abuser, the blood of Akasha made him do it...It's a vampire thing. His incestuous relationship with his Mother is presented as abusive when Lestat was human but in the modern day it is trivialised because "it's different for vampires". Claudia apparently likes Lestat more than Louis because "he knows who he is" - Louis' attachment to "human morality" is now presented as a character flaw. This is now the show's outlook on vampirism. One that is arguably similar to what Santiago says in the trial: "I ask you to set aside your mortal biases and remember that we are monsters."
