Title? What's in a title

Imagine if people watched Interview with the Vampire and it inspired them to think about how the past is in a very real way inaccessible to us and memory can be misleading even when you're not being dishonest and different people can have different experiences of the same event that feel emotionally true and are very real to the people who experienced them even if they contradict each other and often you will never be able to know what really happened and how this can make repairing damaged relationships difficult and threatening to a person's sense of self

thinking about the horrific implications of Gabriella loudly fucking Lestat's body double while he actively re-lives his traumatic memories of being turned and assault by a monster who only preyed on men that looked exactly like him

such a ruinously effective choice to continuously cut to armand looking on in vague discomfort and (arguable?) sympathy during the entire nicki letter opener hand sequence. armand who said this would happen. armand who doesn’t move when lestat begs him to help nicki. armand who pushes nicki into the fire and makes sure he stays there

the thing is, stephen king is generally pretty good at creating complex, well-rounded characters, which makes it all the more jarring when one of those characters abruptly comes out with what i'll term a "kingism". i don't know how best to define a kingism other than "you'll know it when you see it". it's the voice of the author intruding on the voice of the character, and in this case the voice of the author has a bad sense of humour and is ravenously, inexplicably horny

Capitalism sucks. Unless it's Louis de Point du Lac doing it, then it's funny.