DontBeLasagna

A few months ago I’ve seen it with the scene in the bar where Madeline says she can feel Louis’ love for “him”. People were having a discussion about whether that “him” was Lestat or Armand, which I will say is a valid discussion to have since I think it’s purposely vague. My issue with that particular instance is that people were acting like it could’ve only been Lestat and those who considered the possibility of it referring to Armand lacked an understanding of the show. Which is just not true.

More recently someone pointed out how romantic they found the scene of Armand freeing Louis from the covens captivity and Louis saying he knew the bl00d was “his”. And of course people were arguing that it couldn’t have been Armand because Louis hadn’t been shown to feed on his bl00d up until that point and that instead the “he” that was referred to was Lestat. But for that scene in particular I would have to ask: if Louis knew it was Lestat why wouldn’t he just outright say it? Why would the writers have him specify that he knew whose bl00d it was and who had truly freed him if it wasn’t going to be acknowledged like Lestat saving Louis at the trial was?

Don’t get me wrong, I can see that the uncertainty of Loumand is purposeful in the sense that any relationship with a memory altering entity would be clouded by doubt. But that’s exactly the thing: it’s uncertain. Many fans love to bring up the unreliable narrators of iwtv when someone criticizes their faves but then act like these scenes have a definite answer. We’re not in Louis’ head, we were not in Paris in that room. We don’t know what exactly happened.

That always intrigued me so much. The first time I saw episode 6 with Claudia provoking Lestat even more than we'd already seen, throwing the car keys in the street and yelling at him in the square, I was like ????? Shouldn't she be afraid of him? I'd really like to know what happened after the drop.

Yes. It was another clue. A hint that what was being told was hiding something else. The show is filled with those.

Because it was written that way for a reason. Claudia knew there would be no consequences. She knew she could push his buttons. The same goes for Louis. For example, he threw Lestat's coffin out the window (debatable that ever happened because what do you mean no one noticed that or questioned that?), and he wasn't afraid of any repercussions. They knew Lestat and were deliberately shown to not be afraid of him.

It's the same thing with the chess outburst that served as the "why" Lestat had to die. Again, neither Louis or Claudia were afraid of him, and Louis stoically repeats the line "we were going to kill Lestat" to Daniel in Dubai, because that was the "punchline" of the tale, but Daniel had fallen asleep and was missing the performance. That's also why Louis didn't bother to translate what Lestat was actually saying in French, because it basically amounted to "I told you so, Louis!", which called back to the reality of Claudia's turning. But see, Louis couldn't tell of the reality of the chess outburst, because he was still lying (at that point) about how Claudia truly came into existence.

Also, what were the first three rules? Notice those were omitted, and that's likely because those rules pertained to Louis and Claudia and therefore, Louis didn't tell of them to hide the fact he and Claudia were also breaking the new rules and also contributing to the (second) breakdown of the household.....again. Because the first breakdown was never only on Lestat either.

Everything that was told in the tale was done so in such a way to place the sole blame on Lestat, and people (the kiddies cosplaying as socially conscious adults to the point of reductio ad absurdum) fell for it because they're blinkered by the fight and the racial lens of that fight and the fact they cannot see the vampirism aspect and must reduce this material to human AU melodrama, because it's the only thing they can barely understand. That is the issue with this fandom and why I continue to get bullshit like that previous anon three years later. Like, no. That's not the story that's being told here.

For example, people are still arguing about Louis' depression in 1x06 and trying to claim it was because Lestat was "cheating." No. Again, that's the red-herring. The reality is one, (as I said) Louis could've made Lestat stop that shit anytime he wanted and for another, that was told to hide the fact the actual problem was Louis' depression due to the rite of passage as a vampire. Lestat was never the cause of his misery. It was all about Louis. The sex scene in 1x06? That was consensual, and Louis was visually shown to be enjoying it. It was their special tender and loving floaty sex. Louis is visually shown to be establishing zero boundaries with Claudia, allowing her into his head during intimacy with Lestat (how many times had that happened over the years because this intrusion hints this wasn't the first time Claudia had done it?), yet at the same time Louis is irritated with her and is brushing her off. And Lestat, when he feels that Louis isn't engaged thanks to Claudia's intrusion (which Lestat was unaware of, btw), he stops and checks on Louis. You know, another set of clues. But see, all anyone hears is Louis in Dubai spewing the shit about a "vessel of acceptance" (again, hiding what was actually happening), and they take that at face value and warp that scene into "OMG Lestat was raping Louis" or "OMG Louis was so sad over Antoinette."

Next season is only gonna get worse dear GOD