TVL 3.05 - "New York" - All Hail the Queen!
I'm trying to get my thoughts in order after 3.05 because it was just a stupendous episode, the first of the whole series to get a tear in my eyes ("Stained Glass Eyes") and the first to make me feel a true chill of horror with Sheila Atim's incredible performance.
Let's start with theory-land and predictions:
1 . Those Who Must Be Kept
Who is Akasha speaking to or talking about during her rambling monologue? In my opinion, she's speaking in all the voices of the earliest days of her turning including Khaymen, herself, Enkil, Maharet and Mekare. She's voicing the confusion of the spirit of Amel, the spirit that empowers all vampires, and how confused it was when entered her body and then was split into multiple points of view after more vampires were made. Akasha is voicing Khayman's thoughts at the assault of the twins, she's speaking her own thoughts at the time, she's speaking some of Lestat's current thoughts. It's a hodgepodge but I think the essence of it is that you have this entity that is viewing the world through several people's eyes and intent at once and that has only split further over time. Why is Akasha insane, why is every vampire a little insane? If they have Amelian anger do they also have Amelian insanity? It is a consciousness reflecting and refracting back on itself, which is why despite all her power, Akasha struggles to stay conscious and not just let loose a constant stream of Amel's infinitely split consciousness.
Did Marius actually get drunk and leave Enkil out in the sun? LOL, no, in my opinion. At best it's a story he tells himself to explain his own blackout, I think. To me it's very clear Akasha mind-whammied him to be her instrument in killing Enkil. Adding another extinction event to the canon is an interesting choice, what with a bunch of vampires being killed because of Enkil's burning. It neatly dispatches the book question of "Which one houses the soul of the vampires, Akasha or Enkil?" which was always a bit obvious anyway so no huge loss. BUT, the loss of Enkil so early highlights another point!
I believe we are firmly, canonically, in an alternate universe from the books. Not just an adaptation making changes here and there for TV purposes, but actually an alternate timeline. What is the original branching point? I still argue it is Gabrielle and Lestat killing his family (if that really happened) and that has changed everything in the timeline since. I think there was a plantation owner Louis de Pointe Du Lac who is Show Louis's ancestor, but who was never turned into a vampire, because Lestat didn't go to the New World then. I think Akasha killed Enkil earlier and sent Marius to fetch Lestat because he never went to see her when he originally did. I think all of Letat's canonical biography got thrown off course and delayed a century because he had no father to take to the New World and every change since, including Armand not turning Daniel decades before, branches from one singular change in the past.
2 . Why Did Armand Do That?
And by that I mean, kill Larry, but other things too. Why does he think he wronged Daniel? Why did he try to do the 12 Steps and then shift gears back to Gremlin mode? What's going on there?
In my opinion, Armand needs rules to follow. He tried to follow the AA rules but no one would play ball. So he's reverted back to his other, original rules, the Great Laws.
Armand killed Larry because a vampire cannot tell a mortal their secret and allow that mortal to live. Larry left Lestat's coven and thus his protection, which makes it Armand's responsibility as a coven master to cut that loose end. Yes, Lestat has also revealed their vampiric nature to thousands or millions of mortals, technically, but all as part of performance. Technically, the Theatre of the Vampires also revealed the existence of vampires every night, but that was as performance too.
Armand felt it was his responsibility to kill Daniel because Louis revealed his vampiric nature to him and then didn't turn him. Then, Daniel surprised him with his will to live, Armand fell in love, and then Show Armand in a divergence from the book that sets up the whole series, let's Daniel live to old age.
Turning Daniel as an old man COMPOUNDS Armand's sins against the Great Laws. He committed the ultimate sin against Daniel ("You I have harmed the most" really, Daniel?? Well, yes, if you think becoming a vampire is the worst thing you can do to someone, Daniel is the person Armand has hurt the most). But worse, he did it when Daniel was old, arguably infirm which is another big sin against the great laws, and IMO Armand is constantly wrestling with himself in how much Daniel makes him break his own rules.
But, overall, Armand when he regresses, regresses back to being the Coven Leader of the Children of Darkness. He will follow and enforce the laws. And Larry could not be allowed to live once he left Lestat's protection, as a mortal who saw firsthand the vampire secret and wasn't turned.
Ok, now the source of my few quibbles with the episode: Marius.
The change to Marius really bummed me out. Calling Armand a "rotten boy" was such an awful sour note and it just feels so tonally off from the Marius of the books.
But, at the same time, I must admit some antipathy by Marius towards Armand is a cleaner explanation as to why he didn't go back and rescue Armand from the Children of Darkness, which is one of the great plotholes of TVL.
That's if Marius even did say "rotten boy" about Armand at all and that it's not modern Lestat editorializing and giving his feelings about Armand to Marius.
It's possible but sadly feels unlikely to me that Marius's words there are a false addition because I don't think we're going to revisit the Akasha scene or get a different take on Marius.
The show has decided that Marius is a bitter and curmudgeonly old Roman pederast and while I (*sigh*) can see some version of that in book canon Marius, it does make me sad that we're not getting the beautiful, otherworldly scholar who didn't mistreat Armand and who just thought Armand was beyond his reach after the Children of Darkness took him (even if that always felt like a thin excuse) but still loved him and wished him well.
I will say, I thought I'd hate the short Roman hair on Marius but I actually kinda loved it. Like the character of Show Marius may not be Book Marius, but he is a fascinating character on screen in his own right. It was a very cool performance, my quibbles were more in the chosen divergences from the book/
Also Marius calling Lestat "unworthy" was such a cool echo of Armand calling Daniel unworthy. Like maker like fledgling, hmm, Armand?
Some final, scattered thoughts:
They're really emphasizing vampire makers as "mother" and "father" with Daniel calling Armand "Dad" in a way that I think might be setting up Akasha as mother to all vampires in a way that explains Lestat clinging to her as a fill in for Gabrielle?
On the rewatch, I was left wondering if Sam told Armand to kill Larry because of a misinterpretation of Lestat's frustrations with Larry.

















