Open filthy palms like tiny daggers up to heaven

It wasn't perfect, nothing is, and I hope they will wrap up a lot of things they didn't show us this season in the next one. But I still liked the job the writers did.

I liked that the characters were different than in S1 and S2, because they were shown to us in a different person's perspective. I add all they showed us this season to what we already know about the characters. I don't think they were changed or ruined, I think they were expanded on. Anyone you ask will have a different opinion on you based on their experiences of you, and none of them will know the real you.

I love that Louis was held accountable for the wrongs he's done, but I don't think he was painted as a villain, as I've seen people claim online. Everyone in that show does bad things. Everyone makes mistakes. Just like in reality, only real people usually don't go into such extremes. I personally don't see Louis portrayed as a bad character or a bad person, but a man who tries to do good things, but is misguided in his attempts.

I like that Claudia got to finally scream at the both of them and show her angriest self. That she wasn't being painted by Louis as this innocent child, so at odds with her own words in her diaries.

I like that Armand got to gremlin out. I like him a little evil. I like him spiteful. And I love that he has finally broke free from his role of the victim and embraced his wrongs. Maybe I'm projecting, but I see in him the need to scream "yes, I did horrible things, I fucked up, but so did you!".

And I liked that they managed to make me feel with Lestat. That they didn't go in and completely erase the first two seasons, that they didn't remake them, instead, they showed us why those things happened the way they happened. They gave us a way of seeing horrible acts with a bit of compassion.

Arun

Amadeo

Armand

• armand made madeleine get her period

• armand hypnotized daniel into becoming a deadbeat dad

• armand gave daniel parkinsons

• armand lied about being a victim of csa and slavery to copy lestat having a tragic backstory

• armand inserted fake memories into lestat’s head of them fucking

• armand made paul jump

Lestat is not Armand's maker. He is not Armand's lover. He is not his parent. He isn't even his friend. He hates him. He owes Armand nothing and Armand has hurt him in innumerable ways. (at least so far in the narrative). He can strike a low blow in a diss track. It is a low blow, but that is what a diss track is for. I could see someone probably being like "the for sale is in reference to Lestat buying the company with his generous endowment (pun not intended this time)" but not paired with ragdoll. At best Daniel Hart wrote a very clumsy line. But again, who cares. It is a diss track it is supposed to hurt. Now, on the other side of the argument, is that Sam Reid said his character wouldn't do that. He might have meant "he wouldn't do that to Claudia" or "he wouldn't do that to someone he cares about" or he could have misspoken or forgotten than line from the song because he is not an omniscient being and because he probably has a lot less input in the songwriting decisions vs script. Who knows? Actor interviews are not CANON, they are allowed to be not 100% correct, it is not a plot hole. There are press tours where actors and showrunners outright lie about the material, this is inconsequential, and doesn't invalidate the spirit of what Sam is saying. Because it is a diss track it is meant to be insulting. Who writes a diss track with no insulting lines? That said, I do have a final quibble as to what Lestat is *trying to say* with the line in context. Because it is saying he was sex abused as a child but it is not *mocking him* for being sexually abused as a child. It is mocking him for using that as an excuse for his current attitude.

I know that life is cruel But my God, those nails You a beggar for gruel Or a rag doll for sale? I know that life is cruel But you should get your face did You got a lot of rules for a theater kid

Lestat's whole thing is he refuses to be defined by his past. Here, we see Lestat talking about meeting Armand. Armand lives in a coven where they are all poor beggars and tells of his backstory being a sex slave before he was rescued, showing his painting at the Lourve, always looking gloom and having 101 rules on how to be a vampire. Life is so cruel and hard, and your life should also be artificially cruel and hard. And this is completely antithetical to Lestat's way of life. He doesn't dwell on the past. He refuses to live in misery, or inflict more misery on himself. He doesn't add penances and rules to life, and never says "pity me" for his past or his abuse. THAT is what Lestat is mocking about Armand, that is why he is telling Armand to fix his face, because he is always sad and dour and gloomy and LESTAT DETESTS THAT. For him, the right thing is to always look onwards.

Is Lestat right? No, Lestat is at the opposite extreme of refusing to deal with the past. But he is also right that Armand's attitude doesn't do him any favors, and it is worse that he dragged others into his web of misery.

i also think a lot of people aren't really getting the *point* of louis' reaction. it's extremely harsh and judgmental and completely insensitive to the fact that lestat is being abused, but that is the purpose of it. the entire season is lestat attempting to justify it. this is louis saying that you cannot justify it. there is no rational way to justify that happening. and when lestat has a breakdown over it, they both sort of realize at the same time that this means lestat has been suffering incestuous sexual abuse for 200 fucking years.

it overwhelms lestat, and it clicks for louis. that's when he changes tacts, when he comforts lestat, when he gently tries to help him admit that it's been abuse all along in the bar. it's so realistic, such a necessary sequence.