𝖁𝖎𝖗𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖎𝖆

My goodbye letter for Louis theory is basically I think Lestat will be suicidal after Akasha. I think he'll blame himself for Louis losing his leg, and I think he'll self-isolate due to the power-up that will happen with Akasha's blood. He'll record The Failures (for Louis), and then he'll want to end himself so that he can't hurt Louis anymore — the drop, his leg, the post-Akasha power-up in the blood. The drop happened because of the blood, and I do believe Lestat will be terrified something like that could happen again given he'll be 100x more powerful than even the drop in the Akasha aftermath. It stems directly from the book canon in which Lestat remarks that he's scared of his strength, hates his marble skin against Louis' warmer, softer flesh, and that he could accidentally crush Louis with a mere tightening of his fingers around Louis' face.

And Louis tracked down the de Lioncourt descendent because of the blood. He's obsessed with Lestat. He's consumed with Lestat. He loves Lestat, and he craves his blood. It ties directly in with the incest and Louis loving Lestat's blood and wanting Lestat's blood and not seeing Lestat (or his blood) as anything tainted or damaged.

Oh my! How do I choose?!

I really love the natural waves —

(This may or may not be the wallpaper on my work computer. *ahem* 😌💗)

Also the blowout —

(I fell out of my chair when he strutted up looking like this. Oh dear lord! 🔥😩🫠🥵😍)

The little-red-riding-hood look was precious complete with his black nail polish —

The wolfkiller updo with face-framing waves —

And I have a giant weak spot for the half-up/half-down look with the ribbon —

Mmmm....he also elaborated and said that now Lestat would be doing this for Louis. The book was a different book from the canon, yes. However, like I said, they've reached an understanding now that didn't previously exist and therefore, according to Sam, that will impact Lestat's headspace and motivations moving forward. He is ready now for his story to be for Louis.

Or do you think his apology also extends to the book? Could it be a more general "I'm sorry" that encompasses a lot of things?

Mmmm....I don't think Louis cares about that.

Hopefully!

Because yeah —

Could be.

It's pretty much exactly that.

She spellbinds Lestat and force-feeds him her blood to keep him addicted and drugged and docile and easily-susceptible to her manipulations. The moment the fog of her blood starts wearing off and Lestat begins to come to himself, she spellbinds him to drink again, and the cycle starts all over.

You already saw this in Episode 5 —

"Come to me." — She's spellbinding him.

"The blood is hot! She said drink and I drank, and I have been up here for three days!" — Her blood was a drug to him. She forcibly took his blood, which left him vulnerable and depleted, and then she forced hers into him via the spellbinding. ^^

Are we to assume that most of the book is based on that first horrific interview with young Daniel when Louis does spill some absolute and purposeful lies? Because in the second one in Dubai, Louis described their life and relationship a lot more objectively (in my opinion). Even after the drop part and Daniel insinuating abuse, Louis asks “are we the sum of our worst moments?” or sth along those lines, which I thought at the time to mean that he doesn’t define Lestat by this one act. Also the part after he took him back: “I loved Claudia with an open heart. I loved Lestat with a wounded one” (hope I’m not butchering the lines, it’s been a moment). And the last one: “The suit changes NOTHING”!! His thoughts at the Mardi Gras. I’m sure there were others too…Did none of the softness and cracks in the “tale” make it to the book?? I mean, there are definitely some misremembered stuff and obviously lies (as we discover not all his) but outright hate to a point where Lestat believes Louis never loved him??

It puzzles me…perhaps Talamaska had a very specific reason for Lestat and Louis to be emotionally separated, Lestat vulnerable to Gabriela and the whole concert setup? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

The second interview was worse than the first. The first one was just the petty insults of a bitter ex. The second one was the brainwashed attempt to portray Lestat as the monster to justify his murder.

We don't know what made it into the book, but we do know the Talamasca heavily edited the book. We also know that, according to Sam, Daniel portrayed Armand in a very favorable light in the book, and that was evidenced by the Armand Halloween costumes, the book shop commentary, and the "Armand told the truth" bullshit.

So no, I don't think any of the "cracks" were evident in the book. I think it was a scathing portrait of a monster who terrorized Louis and Claudia with Armand being the hero.

The budget was shifted, yes. Rolin told this to fans during the ATX premiere screening. The shifted funding was a result of the viewership numbers during S2.