contra mundum? contra mundum

Since I can't draw rn, have this:

Armand lived in Venice during the absolute sluttiest period for mens’ clothes and I gotta talk about it.

Was rereading Blood and Gold and got the urge to look at palazzos based on Marius’s description of the home he bought in Venice.

One particularly stupid, imo, defense I keep seeing brought up over AMC’s “Interview with the Vampire” show is that Lestat was the “villain” of the first book, from Louis perspective, and so in these people’s minds, that somehow justifies turning Lestat into a villain here in the show.  Never mind that in the first book, Lestat NEVER does anything even remotely as horrific or violent or deceitful as he does in the show.  But what really galls me about this claim, or this justification, is that it’s completely wrong.  Lestat ISN’T the villain in “Interview with the Vampire”.  There’s numerous hints and clues throughout the story that there’s far more to him than Louis is conveying, hints that, in fact, Louis’ perception of Lestat is completely wrong.  That, in fact, Lestat is a deeply feeling, sensitive and even gentle soul.  I guess this just goes over some people’s heads, because it’s not spelled out in big block letters, and subtext is something they’re incapable of picking up on.  The interactions early on between Lestat and his father, for example, in which his father cries over how he’s wronged Lestat, making reference to Lestat’s gentle nature and bright mind (a direct contradiction to Louis’ idea of Lestat as a dimwitted, sadistic and unfeeling monster), and Lestat begging Louis to kill his father for him, unable to bring himself to do it.  Or Lestat’s almost desperate pleas for Louis to go out with him and spend time together, his childlike exuberance after they’ve watched some play, acting out the lines in the street, Louis even admitting to himself that in those moments, he enjoyed Lestat’s company.  Louis guilt ridden realization of how deeply he and Claudia have wronged Lestat after Claudia “kills” him, and how despite his best efforts, he’s unable to put Lestat from his mind.  And of course, the biggest clue of all is after Claudia is killed by the Theater of the Vampires, Lestat is completely wrecked by it.  Louis describes him as sobbing while clutching her dress.  This despite Claudia attempting in cold blood to murder him and nearly succeeding.  Lestat, even in the first book, was never meant to be seen as just some black and white villain, or antagonist, like these people are suggesting.  Even that early on, Anne Rice had begun to lay the foundations which hinted at Lestat being much more complex and wildly different from how Louis had perceived him.  So for people claiming that the show is just mirroring Lestat’s depiction in the first book, I call bullshit.  Lestat would never hurt Louis or Claudia the way he does in this show.  Lestat was never some manipulative mastermind who’s devious scheming had to be matched by Claudia in order to get away from him.  Lestat falls for Claudia’s trap precisely BECAUSE he’s almost childlike in his trusting and accepting nature, unable to conceive for himself her horrible intentions.  There was always an innocent and gentle quality to Lestat, even in that first book.  That’s what these people don’t seem to get.