The way this fandom discusses unreliability is pretty childish and itâs tarnished by stan wars. A character can lie for plenty of reasons, they can lie to themselves, they can purposefully lie, they can do it in the heat of the moment, they can be actively manipulating someone⌠A character can also be an unreliable narrator, but thatâs not necessarily the same as being a liar.
Actually, maybe I wouldnât even label a character that lied at some point as A Liar. The label has a concrete connotation of repetition and intent.
Accuracy should be prioritized, instead of general statements that erase variety and homogenizes all the characters as unreliable liars. As if they lie the same way and for the same reason.
There is also a problem when it comes to perception, plenty of people believe that âlying = badâ so if a character lies with good reason they wonât acknowledge that the character can be a liar, because the character was âjustifiedâ. And when someone believes that lying is always bad, a bad character needs to be a liar even if theyâre not, because âhow dare you say that the âgoodâ characters are not saying the truth but the âbadâ character isâ. I understand the reasoning, but itâs just not useful when it comes to analysis.
An unreliable narrator is a literary device, it tells us that the storytellerâs credibility is compromised. Discussions about an unreliable narrator may arise even as soon as we move away from an omniscient narrator. There must be an authorial intention for that unreliability tho, but an unreliable narrator can be about the psychology behind it too, this video explains it pretty well.
I believe the writers are very interested in that type of unreliability. Rolin said many things at the ATX TV festival in Austin, but one of them was that they have âan allergy in the writerâs room to the word truthâ & that the team isnât ânecessarily interested in the objective truthâ. I believe he means that the characters experience their lives, and their emotional truth is valid. The show is not interested is revealing The Truth, itâs interested in the introspective journey of the characters. But this doesnât mean there arenât falsehoods. I wish I could find it, but it reminds me of an interview where Jacob mentions that Sam kept saying âthis never happenedâ regarding Lestatâs actions, and he told Sam that he needed to believe what he was saying as Louis. Basically as an actor, you have to believe what youâre saying regardless if itâs true or not, bc the character believes it.
You need to be in the correct headspace as an artist to create, you canât be obsessed with the truth instead of the story and characters.
Seeing the discourse right after the new lesmand scene is particularly egregious to me, because it reads as dishonest. We have a confirmation that what Armand said was not true. We donât have a confirmation as to why it wasnât true, but I think itâs pretty obvious that he lied. He didnât forget, he didnât misremember, he lied about his time with Lestat and Gabi Âżand now people want to remind everyone that there is no actual truth in the show and everyone is unreliable? Itâs obviously coping. This isnât the pathological liars show, we just have to follow the narrative.
In this showâs case unreliability is ingrained in the narrative, and itâs not hard to identify if we pay attention. The show itself addresses it, but nooo, we need to have fans accusing other fans of calling Louis a liar, acting like the show or the fans are gonna DARVO Louis. The book is a narrative device, itâs there to create tension between Louis and Lestat. Actually, the show is painting Louis in a pretty sympathetic light regarding the book, they have said plenty of times that he didn't want it published. The show is validating Lestatâs feelings about the book, and letting Louis off the hook at the same time, so we can have empathy for both. Letâs not take this for granted (although, I do think the show will walk a fine line because it exists in nuance, not in âups actually character X did nothing wrong, nothing at allâ idk. I assume ghost Claudia will be angry about the book too and the use of her diaries for example, Louis did read them. And the main problem with Loustat is that Louis didnât tell him about it).
1. Cares deeply about telling the true story
3. Is also a terrible liar (hilarious)
4. Does lie in situations of stress when the truth would shatter his sense of identity (when he lies to Claudia at the trial for example)
He contains multitudes. The interview managed to reveal the truth about certain events, precisely because as a narrator Louis misremembered certain things, had the wrong information about others, and personal biases. One would think this would result in a truthful book, because the book would be a reflection of the interview, but nope. We have to take into account:
1. Danielâs filter as a writer (yes, as good a journalist as he may be. In the Talamasca show Daniel narrates a part of the book, and we see that is told via Danielâs POV. The book is called IWTV, so it contains Louisâ past, ofc, but also Danielâs perspective of present day Dubai)
2. The fact that Louis told many things while thinking that Lestat was complicit in Claudiaâs death (his love for Lestat also shined through tho)
3. The Armand of it all (lmao)
4. The Talamasca of it all (who the fuck knows)
Besides, who knows how the book ends, what if in the book Armand saves Louis at the trial? Itâs a big can of worms⌠Thanks to the clip released at CCXP Mexico we know Lestat is angry about:
2. Painting him as stupid (infinitesimal)
4. Being a caricature (Sam mentioned this)
All of these are supposed inaccuracies from the interview that made it into the book. Regarding Lestatâs anger at Louis (which makes sense bc, well, itâs Louis, and they were reconnecting), itâs interesting to remember that Armand was on the record and the book mentions him, but ÂżAs the love of Louisâ life? Did Danielâs perspective paint a different story? (After all, he never believed they were a happy couple). Anyhow, itâs important that Lestat knows someone else was involved and it wasnât just Louis saying things (as opposed to the real IWTV book lmao).
Now Lestat is reading that book, ofc he wants to set the record straight. Itâs not really a âhe said, he saidâ, thatâs why I donât like seeing people acting like Lestatâs interview is DARVO, and heâs like an abuser discovering heâs been exposed.
Denying Lestatâs reliability on the basis of optics is preposterous anyway. We havenât watched the season, we actually donât know what heâs gonna say and if itâs true or not. I donât like this âwell heâs not more reliable than everyone elseâ bc sure, maybe heâs not, but we donât actually know. And regardless of what he says, the narrative will let us know if itâs true or not, like with Louis.
Armand on the other hand, has been the biggest liar of them all. Both by omission and by purposeful manipulation, this is just the truth and what season two constructed. âI will not harm youâ âand I never haveâ, âI could not prevent itâ, âI love you too (Lestat to Armand)â come on⌠Iâm against turning Armand into an evil caricature, but too many people refuse to acknowledge it. To be clear, Armandâs antagonist role doesnât make me think in black and white. I think in episode 5 Loumand say very hurtful but truthful things about the other, not everything Armand says is a lie, the narrative is what shows me what to distrust.
Claudia can also lie and manipulate if she wants to btw, sheâs not our little mouthpiece for the truth. How would she have managed to pull off murder night otherwise? But even if she wasnât, why are people saying that she isn't an unreliable narrator? This is how I know people donât know the difference between being a liar and being an unreliable narrator, because if weâre going with the âall the characters are unreliable narratorsâ Âżhow can someone say Claudiaâs diaries arenât? Some people simply donât know how to identify it and they assign the term based on the level of victimhood of the character.
Claudia gets granted the title of the truth-teller because (as far as we have seen) sheâs the most victimized character, and sadly, for many people, suffering equals morality, and lying equals immorality. Everything in her diaries must be the objective truth, even tho the first episode of s2 addresses this, because Louis shouldnât actually use her diaries as dictionaries for the truth.
And Lestat. Well, call him a dog, but an honest dog, right? Antoinette is one of the few examples of him outright lying, when he told Louis that he was fine with him âfucking whoever he wantedâ too. He can obviously lie and omit things but his antagonistic role wasnât based on deceit. In s3 he will be unreliable in his own way, but letâs not forget what Hannah said, âmemory is a monsterâ is done, weâre leaving that in s1 and s2.
As opposed to Louis, Lestat doesnât want to remember certain things, but he will remember regardless. The framing of those memories will be affected by something, and we will discover that something by paying attention.
