.

i wish I could find the post that brilliantly discussed why some fans are dismayed by the end of S2 being a naked pivot for S3 and the Lestat show, but those of us who have been watching television, no matter if its an adapted work or original scripts, know that it is exceedingly rare for a show, not marketed as a "black" show, featuring a black lead, to continue to center that black lead (see Sleepy Hollow, New Amsterdam, shit, might even make an argument for Evil). IWTV had the distinction of pulling off a really excellent adaptation by revising Louis from the original book in such a way that bloomed the storytelling potential beyond expectation. but now, with the growing series of interviews by Jones, it seems that that distinction made through revisionist storytelling will turn out to be empty signifying, merely a (very good) sleight of hand at revisionist storytelling. like Anne Rice, who very much liked the idea of transgression to sell culturally determined ideas of the culture back to the culture without ever truly being subversive (except for her feelings about pederasty), Jones continues the tradition of being transgressive within the parameters set by US-centric popular culture, which is dominated by the white imaginary.

we see this white imaginary most clearly in the social response to it: fandom. and this might be why the inclusive interaction that we saw during season 1's broadcast thinned to nearly exclusively white-women led accounts who focused on queerness and Devil's Minion and Lestat shaking his ass and eating paper--AMC and Jones had to focus on their target audience. i accept it, just as i swallowed being gaslit into watching TVD for so long on the off-chance they'd give Bonnie Bennett her due, just as i accept Disney used the image of John Bodega wielding that Skywalker lightsaber to drum up excitement and consternation for The Force Awakens. what bothers me, however, is the carelessness with which Jones speaks, and, knowing that the lines between industry and audience have been blurred to the point of being porous, that his carelessness gives credence to some of the more noxious elements of antiblackness and gender essentialism in IWTV fandom.

every single time Jones comments on objectivity, he also comments on subjectivity, and in this context, the subject position is the suspect position. to go further and say that point of view and memory will no longer be a concern or of interest in season 3 clarifies that Lestat's voice will be the only true rational voice; the camera over his shoulder will now be showing you, the audience, the true story. "setting his story straight" means returning to the race blind (i say this because there exists in TVC the colonial having "a bit of the other" and it is weirdly disengaged from race and yet entangled with darker skin tones being enticing and edible) world of Lestat, the world of Jones wanted to adapt in the first place. but don't worry, this "straightening" will not touch the gay, no, now that the black vampire and brown vampire are estranged and with their respective white partners, gay sensuality will return in full effect!

the question of Louis' unreliability is my personal war. i have been on this hill; my plot has been staked out. Louis is no more unreliable than any monsterfucker in this show. His unreliability wasn't in question when Brad Pitt portrayed him or when he was introduced in 1976. the whole fucking tagline for this show, "memory is a monster," is now positioned as only that for Louis; the monster in this show is Louis. we who have been irritated to downright disgusted by the treatment of Louis by the fandom at large, that for all the "they're all monsters," content warning, Louis still somehow figures as the most monstrous of them all (see the withholding claims, the pimp claims, the either he's the Daddy Dreadful or Mommie Dearest or both at the same time claims, etc.), can now see that they aren't just making this shit up--they've been anticipating and explicitly decoding Jones:

[...] The Vampire Lestat — the book the showrunner reveals “originally attracted me to the whole thing” [...] (Hollywood Reporter, 6.30.24)

The new season will be centered on Lestat, who is resentful of his portrayal in Molloy's book and, determined to set his story straight, becomes a rock star. "Sam worked really hard for two years as a supporting actor, and I think Jacob is very excited to do the same thing for him, and put Sam front and center," Jones tells EW. "We've just scratched the surface with Sam, who's an incredible actor." The showrunner knows it was "maddening" for Reid to constantly play other characters' perceptions of Lestat rather than the actual character, but that's finally come to an end. "We gave him one scene that is objective, the scene in New Orleans," Jones says. "In that moment, that's nobody's point of view. The camera's over there watching both of them, so there you go, fans. One scene so far of the real Lestat." (EW, 6.30.24)

“The big difference moving forward is Lestat will be front and center telling the story, so it should feel like this show has been taken hostage by Lestat,” Jones says. “Aesthetically, it is going to feel different. It is not going to feel like two old guys in a room trying to figure out what brought them together. It is going to be over the shoulder of Lestat de Lioncourt, of whom you have probably seen about an 80%-accurate version of who he is — on fire and reckless. So it should be fun and dangerous.” (Variety, 6.30.24)

"Everybody’s free to judge the rest of it. If all goes right, we’ll have six or seven more seasons to work on you coming around to that, or the redemption of that. [In season one,] the audience wants to kill Lestat along with Louis and Claudia. But we had to sit on it for a year and a half. So it’s okay for people to think that we made a supervillain out of Lestat and then to come around to a fuller portrait. In season three, [Lestat is] front and center, and Jacob takes a supporting role. And it’s not all about point of view. We got 80 to 85-percent of Lestat pretty solid. Retribution is easy, right? It’s being contrite. [There’s] the idea that forgiveness should be part of this cycle, too. That’s something I think we’re trying to sell." "So, what am I interested in? I’ll be less interested in point of view and memory as much. The challenge of the books is that there’s not a lot of forward story. I don’t think that you can probably mine the arcs of those for origin story after origin story after origin story. But that doesn’t mean you can’t take the same material and in very inventive, exciting ways move it forward." (AV Club, 7.1.24)

"The gift of TV is you have this extra time. There are a couple of challenges, though, especially when we split the book into two seasons. You’re gonna have two problems: There’s no plot in the second half of this book, and two of your major characters — Daniel and Lestat — disappear for 200 pages. That’s frustrating to begin with, but it’s an opportunity. There’s not a lot of plot, so we structured it around dialogue: How can we creatively get to this point where Armand says this? It’s just a different way of writing. In other adaptations, you have a lot of action, so you have to figure out, What do they say in between? It’s just putting on a different thinking cap, but you’re still jackhammering the book to come up with these things. We just got lucky that we get more time to sit with characters." (Vulture, 7.2.24)

what boggles my mind is not being interested in point of view but then saying season 3 is based on TVL, which is written in first-person, and will have Lestat in control of the story. is POV different in screenwriting, playwriting, narratology than in, like, fiction? does it differ from the POV of literary or rhetorical analysis? asking for a friend. also, Daniel and Lestat disappear from IWTV so what does one do? Dreamstat (*comments on Daniel incoming). why do they disappear? because it is not all about that blonde man but the effects of the blonde man on this sad, Catholic plantation owner and what erotic latencies are stirred up in him (aka dickmatizism, by Armand). they could have spent much more time on the eroticism and passion Louis felt comfortable having, let alone expressing, for Armand than absolutely needing to shove Lestat in there.

anyway, to the denouement: Louis. in various interviews Jacob Anderson sounds like he's giving his farewell toast, saying he's glad that this story, for Louis, has resolved in some way. he also talked about this:

“That period with Paris specifically was seen as a safe space for Black artists,” he says. “Louis talks about being welcomed there and not being a victim of America's particular brand of racism. Especially if you have a gift, if you're exceptional in some way, you have a space here, and that's not lost on Louis.” Anderson says the team had discussions about this ultra-specific slice of representation, and he even lobbied to take it further than what’s seen on screen and make the subtext even more overt. “I wanted Josephine Baker in the show,” he says. “There was a point early on when we were talking about what Season 2 would be like, Louis was going to make friends with [famed photographer] Gordon Parks and be kind of like his human companion. There wasn’t time, but there's some inspiration from him and James Baldwin’s experiences in Paris.” (BET, 5.13.24)

things like this sours me, because Sartre can pop up, but not Parks? instead of having Louis talk about it, we could have seen it. bet we will see it for Lestat, though. they will stock this man's world with identifications because it will be easy for them, it is the representation they are most comfortable reproducing. there is always time for them. but. but! let's remain positive. let's not be killjoys. remember when Jacob said in the post-s2 finale interview that Daniel's like an annoying little brother now?

"But as for the final mic drop of the season, when Daniel reveals he's been turned into a vampire by Armand, Jones teases there's a lot more to come from that storyline. "One's a maker and one's a fledgling," he says. "We would be very, very poor dramatists if they were never in scenes together again. We just needed to set the stage for a lot of new writing for Louis, and I think that sets him off. There's new writing to be done for that character." (EW, 6.30.24).

so not only will Louis be a supporting character, he'll be a supporting character (a roof shingle) in the stormy romance that is Daniel and Armand. maybe he'll get a second chance at brother's keeper. canna wait.