Juggling chainsaws

Nalyra ⏛ she/her/they I love complicated characters and relationships. Vampire lover of old. I like a lot of things, so do mind the tags, please.

Ask | Ao3

This blog is NOT Vampire Chronicles / IWTV / TVL spoiler free.

Life is too short for hate, be brave enough to be kind.

PSA

If you look at season 3 from this perspective, it doesn’t seem so terrible.

Not so terrible at all, indeed. 😅

This show... will have immense rewatch value, when all is said and done. Now that s4 is announced, it should be clear that more things will click into place, eventually.

That puzzle in 1x01 was there for a reason after all.

S3 has been an emotional rollercoaster, because of the expectations and hopes attached to it, which, neutrally seen, let's be real, it could not have possibly fulfilled.

Too many decades of expectations building up.

It was a lose-lose situation, fandom-wise, and with (stupid) money constraints on top.

But the season WAS received well. The Long Face single sold out very fast. The AMC shop seems to have a LOT of orders as well (I ordered something that broke on the way to me and I asked for a replacement, and it took a while, but they got back to me with apologies and the note that they have a lot to do right now, which in turn speaks to the volume of orders).

The album was on the official charts and recommended in listings.

This season was no "failure", at all.

It just was not what many hoped for or expected (including, in some aspects at least, me).

I wish we'd just seen a straightforward narrative set in the present. The flashbacks could've been Lestat telling his story to Louis. Actually, someone said the framing should've been Lestat telling his story to Louis and I would've liked that more than the documentary/time skip/auction framework.

Good idea or not, they're doing the books there.

Which means that this will likely continue to be the case.

I... don't think we will get an actual neutral view in this show. Daniel's phone call to Louis and Louis' challenge to the vampires in 2x08 might be that. Could also be part of the narration. We simply do not know that yet, because we do not know what the book (actually) contains.

We only know that it contains something different than Louis actually told, and that what we SAW was something different than told - but then we knew THAT since 1x03, where the tape is played and the recording does not match what we saw.

This show... is not like others. It will not care for absolute truths.

Do I hope they make some things clear still, and do the friggin' trial revisit and what actually happened with Nicki next season? You betcha. Do I wish some of it would not be this kind of muddied waters? Yes.

But... and this is hard-won realization nonny, btw, this is not an easy admission from an emotional standpoint - NOT giving us all the puzzle pieces immediately, and always going the POV route... DOES make it a lot more interesting.

So I'm wondering: do you think Daniel's book doesn't include the part where Louis says, "For the first time in my life, I was seen"?

Because to me, the line Lestat quotes isn't inherently negative. I think it can be interpreted in many different ways. On its own, it feels more like Louis saying how in love he was and how Lestat understood him, especially when you pair it with "I was seen."

But I guess that, depending on how Daniel framed the surrounding context in the book, it could also come across as "I was manipulated."

Lestat is hurt because Louis put in that turning, and then made it seem like Lestat hunted him or manipulated him, portrayed him as a monster after.

Oh, that is so interesting. I have to admit, I had not given the sheet music much thought (thank YOU for doing so 🥰), but thinking about it now... I think your theory sounds right.

To me "Hit the Lights" is about Nicki, as originally intended, I just cannot see it as a Gabrielle song, no matter how they ultimately shaped the show. As such, it makes sense to me that it is the expression of music and longing and regret... and love.

A great love, hidden from almost everyone.

You know - as SUCH... (meaning hidden from almost everyone within the narrative) - it is almost fitting that they re-appropriated it 💀.

I did. As said before though, there is a real change by now in the fandom, because that post was actually shot down.

I think it has, but it's been a while, and the season is over now, and that... has of course shaped my thoughts on it all, too.

So. Gabrielle. Gabriella.

In retrospect I do think it good that she got her own name. She is (seems) vastly different in certain aspects, though I hesitate to call her OOC.

Back then, when I was... maybe 20, when I read TVL for the first time, I absolutely adored Gabrielle. I felt seen, recognized, the denial of societal roles because of gender and behavioral restrictions spoke intimately to me. I think that is the same for a LOT of people.

But as I got older, and as I kept reading and rereading the following / later books, my stance on her slowly changed, and as a mother myself, I actively hated how she treated Lestat in "Prince Lestat".

The show takes their characterizations of these characters from all the books.

That is something that I think some at least have not realized yet (not a jab!! Just a note.).

Gabriella is probably the most jarring reminder of that.

She uses Lestat. Physically abuses him, too. Book canonically. Withholds (important) knowledge from him. Pushes him into situations he does not really want to do, or where he is faced with his transformational trauma (leading to a whole PTSD episode) even though she could have warned him.

This characterization has been pulled forward, and laid into the character's groundwork and background.

It matches, imho, how Armand describes her in his own book.

This "pull forward" of the characterization makes her seem vastly different to what a lot of people likely expected from TVL.

As per her being a sexual abuser.

Well. There is a podcast and a pre-show industry panel where Sam hints at these things, talks about them. This has been mapped into the show. From the beginning. And, to an extent, this is laid out in the books as well. The lines are crossed between them.

The show made it so absolutely (fucking) clear, exactly so that the audience could not come away with it as "consensual" anymore, at least not after the scene in episode 6 (though I am well aware some still do *eyeroll*).

If they'd muddied the waters there as they so like to do for other things, the point would not have landed - and the later actions, the later book canon events that her characterization is based on, would feel... wrong.

(Also, as a side note: it adds another layer to why Armand hates her. Which I for one find very interesting and which might be explored in the Prince Lestat arc later, or could be.)

This is "The Failures" narration, so Gabriella is seen through the lens of Lestat's perception. And he sees her as the literal "vamp", the femme fatale. Because she crossed the boundaries with him there. It reflects in her style, her stance, her behavior. She made herself a sexual being for him, made him need her - and it shows.

It might very well be that she came across a bit differently to others.

Next season will still be Lestat's "narration", but there will be different POVs also (that he then narrates), so it will be very interesting how Gabriella will be portrayed.

Because I don't think this is the final "view" we'll get of her, the absolute "truth". Her perception will change with the arcs.

As a last note:

I know many were looking forward to her being transmasc or trans etc. I get that. I also know why Rolin did not do it, and I think it was (more than) a good call not to make her that and a sexual abuser.

I also think that the last word on how she is perceived... is not spoken, as said.

No matter how much she may be hated now by some, I for one am looking forward to how this might shape into her relationship with Sevraine in the later books.

And, and I know I have a different opinion here than many others, but I actually do not think her OOC (that much) or actually that changed - just her later characterization pulled forward.

And that... carries repercussions for the show.

FYI, I will "clean out" the remaining asks further, because some of them were mapped to what the finale would bring, and others... are simply obsolete now, as things have been established.

I will keep some for after season 4 though, because I think it will be interesting to see if certain predictions or thoughts come true in the next season.

Or if certain criticisms was/is warranted.

I don't think we can fully lay it out at this point.

Because there's still so many contradictions. Why was there a tomb for Nicolas under the theatre, for example.

Lestat shared only a little of Nicolas - and in presence of his mother, listening. That shaped what he shared. And even if he projected the later part only in Daniel's mind I do think there is more to it - I think ultimately, the thing that is reliable fact there is... the emotions behind it.

Or Armand's clip with his lips looking purple, or a clip of Daniel biting Dee.

Deleted clips I guess, that's sad.

*blinks*

I... do think all those scenes are either from the previous seasons, nonny, or we did see them?

Daniel did bite Dee. Or what do you mean?

*shrugs*

Yeahhhh, book-canonically that does not work like that :)

So what I make of this is this:

I think this is a try at pre-emptively stopping both Armand and Louis to even try with the fire (despite their words) - and it works.

Because what should be clear, also - and what Louis and Armand maybe subconsciously realized there, too, is, that Lestat - if truly attacked by them with the fire gift?! - would probably have retaliated.

At least defended himself.

(That "thing" inside him that we know is Amel would have.)

And Armand knows how strong Lestat is. Book-canonically Lestat has beaten Armand before. Louis also knows how strong Lestat is (has experienced Amel taking over before). They both only know aspects of Lestat's strength, really, but they both know better than to... actually force the issue.

In a way, it's calling a bluff.

It's a "are you sure you wanna go this way" question, hung in the air as a statement.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree.

I remember Sam saying they put the live versions for (most of) the songs in, and it does sound like it to me.

I mean, they did not sing those songs "once", nonny. They did several recordings, and several takes, several scenes.

Of course it would not be the same as in a BTS video we've seen.