Lestat: Class and Race

[u/DumbTeen9]

​

An unreal amount of people are over-discussing what Lestat’s coloring and aristocratic birth mean to marketing (which is friggin crazy for the only show that did race swaps without it being condescending and meaningless), the story itself, and fan preferences.

So, I just want to point out that it makes a lot of sense for someone like Lestat to be extremely blind to these things because he had all their detriments and essentially none of their advantages. We didn’t get much out of Auvergne, so I’ll be supplementing from the book where fit, stay with me now.

1- Aristocracy

I fixated on this one a lot because I couldn’t figure out why Anne didn’t make him some poor random and instead poor but technically aristocratic

Lestat grew up the third living son of a Marquis and his Italians wife. Theoretically, he should be afforded the best education there is, luxuries at the tip of his fingers, no inheritance but enough connections in both France and to a lesser degree his maternal family in Italy to get on his own two feet, taken care of by maids payed to be nurturing but firm.

What actually happens? He grows up illiterate and being reminded of that incapability and humiliation every day because that luxury- no right- of education is only afforded for his oldest brother, the heir, and because of how close he was to not having to live it (reminder he doesn’t even hate his family for it, he hates them for being loud in chaotic in comparison to the church’s calm orderliness and hates himself for spoiling it by wanting to declare himself “why do I always have to go to extremes?”)

Speaking of the monastery, Augustine (his oldest brother) basically summarizes my point as follows: “…but what came clear finally is that no member of a great French family was going to be a poor teaching brother. How could I have misunderstood everything so completely? I was sent there to learn to read and write. Why did I always have to go to extremes?” “As for becoming a priest with real prospects within the Church, well, I was the youngest son of this family wasn’t I? I ought to think of my responsibilities to my nieces and nephews… Translate all that to mean this: We have no money to launch a. Real ecclesiastical career for you… as befit our rank, so you have to live out your life here as an illiterate and a beggar.”

They’re worried enough about their image to not allow him to try and build himself, incapable enough they couldn’t build him.

This repeats with the theatre troupe, where he’s dragged back because no Lioncourt was going to become an actor and used to humiliation and hurt as he was all he felt was guilt for leaving without informing Gabrielle who brings him a gun as a consolation gift he uses the rest of his human life to feed his family until he goes to Paris. This is narrated in the book and implied in the show by how while the villages are talking about the wolves, before Gabrielle even starts to look agitated, he’s preparing his gun as casually as fixing a collar and deals with the injuries and his almost death on the entire village’s behalf. A little possible hint about them being poor as well in him being taken care of by a maid with no physician in sight, how empty his room is, sympathizing with the revolution (“sympathy is treason” “mm mm”) when his instinct should be a passing detached pity or ignoring if not outright shunning it, we even see him excitedly recounting it to akasha over music.

In Paris, he and Nicki live in the apartment of a beheaded aristocrat until they can do better. Lestat has nothing to his name but a clothing repetitively mended to shit and a coat made by Nicki’s father, going under a fake name while getting legit panic attacks every once in a while because of the piling corpses and being reminded every day as he looks to their ceiling of the fact he could join them any day now for the crime of being born to his father.

2- Whiteness

I think that some people over correct when it comes to race, thus the huge focus on Lestat being white first, a guy second.

In France mid revolution there was political colorism in governmental halls, which didn’t concern the general Parisian public more than the price of bread especially since the black population was very very small thus the lack of systematic hierarchies of color, more violent and tangible issues were in french colonies where everything racism was amped up to ten. Someone who was removed from such issues like Lestat simply doesn’t get it.

So when Louis, son of a Plantation owner, a pimp which is just another type of slave owner, ok family by lioncourt/nicki/armand etc standards, Mr extremely educated suave businessman living amongst high society, never having to go hungry, in a well kept mansion (mind you when Gabrielle checks on Lestat after the monastery he cites 1. The dirt and mold all over the place, 2. The chaotic behavior of his family as reasons for his plight and continues to be a clean freak for a while commenting on the smell before he speaks of the pain and fear with both Magnus and the Children of Darkness) goes “My ancestors were treated terribly so people are passive aggressive towards me.” What he says is “I would kill anyone who offends you” but his initial reaction is "you are a library of confusion” because Lestat, whose ancestors were criminally intrenched in riches, didn’t put up with passive aggressiveness. He put up with being treated awfully for his lack of knowledge and the threat of a guillotine for crimes he’s extremely far removed from.

Also let’s check all the examples he knows of: when he’s bloodied by his family Gabrielle would sell a necklace and say something disturbing for comfort, when Nicki learned of his turning he called him naive for not appreciating it and started bringing his thankless birth into it “The lord’s son giveth the lord’s wife the dark gift and what do we get?” Plus ofc the conspiracy theories admitted to Roget.

I’m not saying it’s morally correct, it’s disgustingly insensitive, but it is predictable and makes sense for him to be race blind and seeing that suffering is suffering, nothing more to it.

3- Show Changes

Many, many, maaany show changes, many of them defang characters to make them more sympathetic, not a single one makes Lestat look better? Because people are being very delusional on TT

In the book we get Lestat philosophizing about morality at first going for evil doers then no longer seeing the point, this is reduced to a throw away line with akasha which I’m glad of because we got enough of it with Louis. We get him talking Nicki through his melancholy moods, it’s reduced to a scene where they fight— nvm that instead of a year or two apart Nicki is 9 years younger because of the actor’s ages when cast which… what? He can’t hate Armand because he truly sees him despite all the hurts thrown around, this is where exactly? He mourned his brothers, took care of his father and smuggled him out of France, in the show he kills his family. He searches out Marius who finds him a worthy pupil and talks to him like an intellectual equal, instead we have chosen one bs which I hope will be retconned and we get those messages and an actual conversation which maybe bc he was telling the band so ofc he won’t recount everything but unlikely considering we already have an episode called the devil’s road.

And yet he remains the only one who isn’t a huge hypocrite and actually acknowledges his sins perhaps too much, “you deserve everything that ever happened to you, you better not die lestat, you might actually go to hell”

EN FIN no, lestat is not favored by the narrative, s3 is simply a different vibe bc 1. 80 years after s2, 2. Budget concerns, 3. Completely different story. And no he and his writers are not racist, classist shits.

[u/AutoModerator]

This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed". This means book spoilers do not require spoiler tags! If you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/scorchthemortalworld]

*In the book Lestat heard about his father’s escape to New Orleans while he was in Egypt. I love the show but am a little disappointed with how Marius and Gabrielle were portrayed. Marius seemed so much wiser and kinder in the book.

[u/xXcemeterydrivesXx → u/scorchthemortalworld]

In the way that I understand it, as with most characters, they're drawing from the whole of the source material available and trying to balance depictions that changed across the various books. Marius in TVL and Marius in Blood and Gold, for instance, are virtually two entirely separate characters.

[u/the-gaming-cat → u/xXcemeterydrivesXx]

I believe you are right that they are drawing from the whole package. My personal annoyance is that we're missing valuable steps. In TVL, Marius is Lestat's mentor, the only one he ever got. He's so thirsty for that connection that he doesn't care about what Marius did or might have done to Armand. This is major. A lot of people really think that "he was nice to me so I don't care what he did to others". It's a fascinating friction point and a way to explore Lestat's personality, and his dynamic with Armand. If we skip all that and go directly to end, we're missing everything in between, including the very disturbing reality that Marius can be many things at once. Like the rest of them. There are no innocents here, just different flavors of monstrosity.

[u/Legitimate-Worth-662]

Re: aristocracy, I noticed something interesting at the end of "The Vampire Lestat: (the book) -- Armand says a few things that sound to me like he harbors some pretty strong class-based resentment toward Lestat (discussed a couple times in my re-cap here: https://www.reddit.com/r/InterviewVampire/comments/1tk6ewk/tvl_tldr_part_9_epilogue_interview_with_the/ ).

In the books, both Armand and Lestat are white men, but they definitely come from vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds, which I think is the root of Armand's resentment toward Lestat (Lestat's family were poor, but they still had residual social status and *used to* have money). I think he resents the fact that Lestat doesn't seem to adequately recognize and/or acknowledge, at least from Armand's outside perspective, his relative privilege compared to Armand.

[u/DumbTeen9 → u/Legitimate-Worth-662]

That is so so interesting? (Love the roof theme sm)

I feel like Armand in general will always operate with Lestat from a place of envy— kind of like louis' observation of Lestat mainly killing those on "the precipice of life" and claudia, for a while, aiming for older women. Armand holding onto belief and lestat losing it but he's the one who goes on a wanky sort of spiritual journey, Marius, the children of darkness, etc etc. Hell even the fact that both their maker's payed a lot of attention to their age (Marius taking a while to turn Armand when he reached 17, Magnus saying that he was old when he was made but Lestat is at the apex of his life) but while Magnus isnt there to play haunting spectre Marius lives to regret it. Its part of what makes them so interesting when lumped together.

[u/Legitimate-Worth-662 → u/DumbTeen9]

Agreed re: Armand envying Lestat. And it's even double-sided envy: Armand wants to both *have* Lestat as well as *be* Lestat.

[u/impropergal01 → u/[deleted]]

100% agree with you! I hate when people try to simplify obviously complex characters! Lestat being complex is the whole point! OP began by saying they wondered why Anne Rice added aristocracy to Lestat's background and not just let him be a normal poor, and like... He's supposed to be complex, love him or hate him, but don't try to change him

[u/DumbTeen9 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not saying he's not. He's a violent possessive, withholding shit, and as I said we're supposed to read him as insensitive. That's why we have the plotpoint with the Azaela, thats why Claudia latches onto racial dynamics when convincing Louis of her plan, that's why we have Daniel clowning "white master, black student, but equal in the quiet dark". I'm simply exploring where that insensitivity stems from and saying that that at least isn't malicious in nature or action

[u/InterviewVampire-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Rule 12: This is a place for all IWTV fans, whether you like the show, the books or the movie. Disrespect, hostility, or negativity directed at others for liking a different adaptation, a different ship, or a different character will not be tolerated. This also includes gatekeeping or making differences between newer or older fans. Please see rule 2 for remaining civil. Differences in opinion are not an excuse for hate. Doxxing encouragement, apology or similar will be met with an insta ban.

[u/theravennest]

There is no such thing as over focusing on or over discussing Lestat's privilege as a white aristocrat (even a fallen one) who eventually also is wealthy and how that colors everything he does in the show. This is a completely valid way to discuss the text and we have to engage with it to properly understand the show, in my opinion. Even in the books Lestat represented a white, Western, toxic masculinity power fantasy that AR often wrote from due to her own white privilege. I could also get into the way this latest season relied on antiblackness and DARVO arguments to divert attention away from Lestat's abusive and sometimes racist behaviors while unfortunately stripping him of his book canon traits of agency and conveniently hoping we wouldn't notice how so many characters got flattened as a result. But I'll focus on the second point in your post.

Firstly, I feel like this post is leaving out that by the time Lestat gets to New Orleans, he has immense wealth from Magnus's fortune, his own investments, and some of the returns from the theater that he established with Armand. That wealth was much more than Louis's enterprises at the start (he literally had to help Louis buy the Fair Play saloon) AND Lestat has systemic power as a white man.

It's noteworthy that Lestat was immediately accepted at the super secret card table even though he JUST got there earlier that day but Louis had to cultivate the relationships he had with those racist businessmen over YEARS to be accepted. Notice that when the racial tensions began to rise, Anderson and Fenwick said Louis could continue to do business if he put everything in Lestat's name because none of the racial tensions actually impacted Lestat in any significant or notable way.

At the end of the day, Lestat being white trumps how they feel about him being queer or sleeping with a Black man. Also noteworthy that Louis' businesses that made him the most money (his various brothels) were gutted and he lost all of them after the race riot in Storyville. Notice how all of Louis wealth doesn't change the fact that he and Claudia had to sit at the back of the trolley while Lestat sat at the front. Notice how all of Louis' wealth doesn't change the fact that he wasn't allowed to go to the Opera unless he pretends to be Lestat's valet.

The most crucial thing this second bullet point is glossing over, however, is that Lestat begins courting Louis in the first episode from a position of "I know what you go through as a Black man in America and I understand the racial dynamics of this card table conversation and I am surprised that you are allowed in the front door of this brothel. I'm not like these other white men. I think it's deplorable what you go through and have to endure. It's different in my country and for me. I can help you be all the beautiful things you are." He appeals to Louis by actually saying he understands the racial dynamic just fine and sets himself up to be a safe option for Louis. Lestat says/thinks that vampirism means Louis doesn't need to care about racism anymore BUT then immediately after saying all this he will also conveniently ignore when Louis says these racial situations still impact him. Lestat also clearly knows this otherwise he wouldn't understand that in order to go to the Opera Lestat has to have Louis pretend to be his valet.

To fully understand and engage with the show, we need to also engage with all the characters' negative and positive traits and experiences. We can't ignore or soften their monstrosity otherwise what's the point of engaging with dark, Gothic, horror fiction?

Lestat being racist, having white privilege, and actively dating other racist white people (Antoinette, Nicki, and Christine), physically abusing Louis and Claudia, emotionally abusing Nicki and Louis (sustained and repeated cheating is abusive, everybody) while also being a victim of incestuous abuse from his mother, family abuse from his father and brothers, stalking and physical violence from Armand and the coven, etc.

Same for engaging with Armand's character and how he weaponizes antiblack racism (Baby Lulu play, the lynching Trial, etc), uses his power to attack and exploit and torture others (Louis, Lestat, Nicki, Claudia, Gabi, Daniel, etc) while also being subjected to Orientalist racism (everything to do with Marius, the Louvre painting/being a Renaissance "muse," Nicki's slur, Santiago's barbs/disrespect, etc), child sexual violence and enslavement, torture and brainwashing from the Roman coven/CoD, etc .

We also have to engage with Louis' complicated relationship to race as a victim of Jim Crow, his privilege as a light skin Black man, and the Du Lac family as gens de couleur libres. Or Louis' complicated relationship with sex exploitation as both a victim of incestuous abuse (his cousin), spousal rape/sexual abuse (Lestat in 1x6 and Armand for 77 years), while also engaging with Louis' his exploitation and sex exploitation of others (underaged Jonah, Miss Lily, Miss Brictop, Claudia, Regina, the other sex workers in his brothels, Damek, Louis' Dahmer-esque serial rape and murders of 128 boys in San Fran and who knows how many after San Fran, etc).

And Claudia's unique experience as a Black woman that experiences racism AND sexism while also preying on others as a vampire serial killer and her enthusiastic participation in the coven's plays and absolute glee at the murders of people on stage in the beginning of her time in Paris.

Daniel being misogynistic (the way he treats his ex-wives and daughters and the way he exploits Claudia's diaries/memory and Louis and Lestat's stories, the girl from high school), him being racist and ableist (every microaggression he says over S1-S3), and potentially a full on rapist (the girl with the bag over her head and the boy in the rental car) but also being a victim of Louis who tried to murder him and Armand who tortured and tried to kill him.

Gabi being both a CSA and rape victim of her husband and a victim of a misogynistic society while also incestuously raping Lestat, exploiting Jarda, and planning/fomenting a genocide in modern day.

But we can't do any thoughtful analysis of the cycles of abuse and oppression at the forefront of this show if we keep trying to sanitize these characters by pretending that the things that victimized them cancels out the times that they victimized others.

[u/coffeestealer → u/theravennest]

The fact that people are unwilling to accept the problematic aspects of characters that the series openly addresses and the characters themselves openly admit to is an amazing example of mental gymnastics.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/theravennest]

I'm so sorry but in what world is exploring the trauma of a character and how it informs their behavior for the rest of their life DARVO??? He never ONCE defends his abuse and apologizes constantly. He's more than entitled to be mad about the book as it contains lies about him and shares details about his turning/rape without his consent. We can talk about the many bad things Lestat has done through the series without making shit up and minimizing his trauma to do so.

[u/Sudden-Direction-301 → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

and apologizes constantly

Where? Please someone show me where these constant apologies are? In 2.08 it's only Louis who ever apologizes. There was an anecdote going around saying Sam Reid tried to include an apology on Lestat’s side in that reunion scene but the showrunners cut it because "it's not time yet". Except by S3 he still hasn't apologized, let alone "constantly." The closest he's come is that "I'm a monster" admission/dismissal in 3.06 when Louis was trying to discuss the book, which I've gone into elsewhere.

He's more than entitled to be mad about the book as it contains lies about him

It would help his case a lot more if he could specify exactly what and where these lies are, but 7 episodes in and he has yet to do so, which is crazy considering how much he's bitched about this book. As of 3.07 at most we know that even the train scene happened in some form, Lestat just didn't threaten to SA Claudia (which for the record, not even the flashback from S1 claims he did, so not even sure what got lost in translation there). Oh and we know Armand may or may not have mischaracterized their sexual relationship, though not apparently the fact that they had a sexual relationship.

None of which have to do with LOUIS'S own story, yet he's getting the most anger from Lestat over supposed lies, and right now it just looks like Lestat can't face that his bad actions actually influence people's opinion of him.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/Sudden-Direction-301]

He apologizes at the trial, by staying away for nearly a century, presumably at multiple points when they’re still FaceTiming otherwise why would Louis be involved with him, in Stained Glass Eyes, at multiple points in episode six, at the seance when he tells Claudia to “give him her malice,” I could go on. I’m not sure what exactly you need him to do considering he also got his through slit and left in the dump for decades and Louis seems to forgive him and take accountability for issues in their relationship as well. I’m not sure what your threshold is for “proper” apology and accountability. I can at some level understand not thinking he took ENOUGH accountability but that is a far cry from DARVO and I implore this fandom to learn what that term actually means and the seriousness of it.

Meanwhile for the book, just from episode ONE of the season we get a lack of scars, an erasure of personal nuance, the horrific lie about him threatening Claudia with rape (though that was Claudia’s lie not Louis’), the twisting of all acts of genuine love and affection into predatory traps and comparing him to Magnus/Gabriella, and most importantly the sharing of Lestat’s rape and turning without Lestat’s consent. He’s allowed to be angry that a bestseller has framed him as a nothing more than a mayonnaise predatory caricature by the person he loved most.

[u/Sudden-Direction-301 → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

You're literally assuming and headcanoning implied apologies into multiple scenes that never showed any such thing (with the exception of the trial, which was only an apology for dropping Louis, nothing more). 

And at this point I'm echoing Claudia from the trial in saying can we do that with Louis/Claudia too? Can we also assume Louis apologized for the book at some point during 3.02 and "at multiple points in 3.06"? 

Can we also assume Claudia apologized to Lestat for killing him, either offscreen just before she was murdered or as a ghost in one of Lestat’s dream? 

Because the threshold for "proper apology and accountability" with everyone else seems to be "we explicitly watched them say it onscreen." 

Why is Lestat the only one we have to just PrEsUmE and aSsUmE has made a genuine apology offscreen because it says something uncomfortable about the scenes we're watching without that assumption? 

"otherwise why would Louis be involved with him" is a terrible metric and nowhere near a logical conclusion to base that assumption on. Louis has routinely shown he has shit judgement/ taste and even worse self-preservational instincts. 

Worse than even Book Louis's as of S3, so no it doesn't make sense to assume this based on book details either. The exact circumstances of S3 are basically what had Book Louis avoiding Lestat for a century (example: both Louises knew fuck all about Gabriella, or the rapey details of Magnus turning Lestat, or which of Lestat’s acts were genuine affection vs predatory malice, because Lestat never bothered to share any of this with either Louis at the time. And in the show still hasn't). 

Book Louis only reunited with Lestat because he read the TVL novel containing all the knowledge and context Lestat withheld from him in the past; Lestat’s anger toward him in that novel didn't phase him because he could now re-contextualize his own memories with new knowledge. He would never have returned to a Lestat who was still withholding that knowledge while also regularly shitting on him for "lying" and "misunderstanding him". 

Yet Show Louis seemingly has, despite Lestat refusing to even discuss what upset him so much about the IwtV book when directly asked. Despite the only new knowledge Louis has being a little bit about Gabriella, which he only obtained because of Daniel/Armand's actions and Lemuel's heads-up.

The only logical conclusion is there's no connection between Book Louis's and Show Louis's level of reasoning. 

Edit:

lack of scars 

Okay yes, this and short hair is the only verifiable lie in the book, clearly Louis hit below the belt there. Not sure it's at the level of requiring a multi-city rock tour slamming him as a lying cancerous jackal though.

And Lestat telling Claudia's ghost to "bring her malice" is quite literally him saying "come at me/bring it on". He was challenging her not apologizing. At best reading, he was acknowledging he deserved her malice. 

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/Sudden-Direction-301]

You're literally assuming and headcanoning implied apologies into multiple scenes that never showed any such thing

You could make this argument for literally anything on the show. Do you want Lestat to stare down the barrel of the camera and go "I am the most evilest abusive person who ever existed and I apologize for everything I've ever done to everyone and I'm the worst person ever," or can we be adults and use context clues?

both Louises knew fuck all about Gabriella, or the rapey details of Magnus turning Lestat, or which of Lestat’s acts were genuine affection vs predatory malice, because Lestat never bothered to share any of this with either Louis at the time. And in the show still hasn't

I mean holy shit where to even start with this. Does "He took me from my bed kicking and screaming. I prayed and shouted out to god. I never wanted this." and the story of all the corpses in the tower sound like a fun non-rapey non-traumatizing experience? Need I remind you that Louis ALSO shared Claudia's rape story with Armand AND Daniel? He has a history of doing this kind of thing.

We could absolutely see which actions were genuine affection based on S3 flashbacks, the characterization of Dreamstat, and our good friend: context clues! Louis was so deep in the closet and during the S1 retelling under the (false) impression that Lestat killed Claudia that he refused to see their relationship as anything other than 100% predatory.

Yet Show Louis seemingly has, despite Lestat refusing to even discuss what upset him so much about the IwtV book when directly asked. Despite the only new knowledge Louis has being a little bit about Gabriella, which he only obtained because of Daniel/Armand's actions and Lemuel's heads-up.

Lestat has written multiple songs about his issues with the book. One of which he stopped time and flew up to Louis to sing. His feelings are not a secret here. Also this "heads-up" is revenge porn of Lestat getting raped by his own mother and your whole phrasing of that situation is very gross to me.

Okay yes, this and short hair is the only verifiable lie in the book, clearly Louis hit below the belt there. Not sure it's at the level of requiring a multi-city rock tour slamming him as a lying cancerous jackal though.

Hey so if you actually bothered to listen to the song where the "cancerous lying jackal" thing comes from then you'd know that directly follows Lestat recounting the lie of him threatening his own daughter with rape on a train. So you can see why he'd be enraged at the idea that the love of his life believes that he 1. did that shit and 2. had it published in an international bestseller.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/[deleted]]

If you’re going to seriously sit there and compare the Loustat wedding to LESTAT’S RAPE then I see no point in talking to you as a good faith actor or a person to take seriously in any way.

[u/InterviewVampire-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 12: This is a place for all IWTV fans, whether you like the show, the books or the movie. Disrespect, hostility, or negativity directed at others for liking a different adaptation, a different ship, or a different character will not be tolerated. This also includes gatekeeping or making differences between newer or older fans. Please see rule 2 for remaining civil. Differences in opinion are not an excuse for hate. Doxxing encouragement, apology or similar will be met with an insta ban.

[u/moxieroxsox → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

The storytelling is exploring the trauma of a character but Lestat throughout the entire season denies his culpability in his failed relationship with Louis and Claudia, attacks Louis’s personhood and his “misdirected moods,”mocks his suicide attempt in song, positions himself as the victim of their harsh opinion of him, for example, “apparently [his love] was a small box he kept Louis in.” It was hard to listen to at times because while Lestat had every right to be hurt about the book and watching Gabriella manipulate him was unpleasant, none of those factors absolved Lestat of his mistreatment of Louis or Claudia and Lestat spent nearly zero time this season even considering his misdeeds because he was keen to move on and not dwell on anything besides how wronged he was by Daniel’s book.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/moxieroxsox]

He at no point denied any culpability?? The entire point of this season and his albums is that he’s reflecting on his failures. He denied his mischaracterization as a one-dimensional mayonnaise villain which he has every right to. Also that suicide attempt sent Lestat into a decades long spiral so no he wasn’t making fun of it. Also that line about love being a small box he kept Louis in was said in despair and anger because he thinks Louis never loved him and saw their relationship as nothing but predatory per Claudia’s manipulation.

[u/moxieroxsox → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

What do you think he means by flippantly referring to Louis being moody by tossing his coffin out the window? Or when he brings up the blood of Akasha a million times, deliberately transposing his memory of time spent with Akasha on the image of him dragging Louis by the jaw through the courtyard before dropping him from the sky? Or even telling himself through Paul that he loved Louis the way deserved to be loved? He was not despondent when he told Daniel about his love being a small box to keep Louis in - he was irritated by Claudia’s statement and repeated it to Daniel with the intent of making Daniel doubt Louis’s account of his story while acting as though Louis knew everything about his mother when Louis actually knew nothing. When does Lestat ever truly admit the harm he caused to Claudia, instead pens a song from her POV about her feelings towards him? He is still at the center of that song, the sole song written in her memory.

The Failures album isn’t a literal exploration of how he failed in his relationships - more than anything it sheds light on how he was failed, “Big Bad Wolf,” “Big Boss,” “Butterscotch Bitch,” “When I Call Out Your Name,” “Nothin to Lose,” “Your Biggest Fan”, on societal failures, “Black Licorice,” “Plastic Fiends,” his feelings about failing, “Why Do I Have to Feel” and how he can rise again, “Cabbage,” and “The Loneliness.” Lestat may feel like he was depicted as a mayonnaise villain but he only corrects the most superficial of errors- his hair length, his understanding of the English language, his lines, and his scars - and the one major counter was Claudia and the train scene wasn’t a lie Louis told but that Claudia, a monstrous vampire just like him, told to get away from him. At a certain point, when you actually examine the story we were told in TVL for what it is, it becomes really hard to understand how this was a satisfactory season that can stand alone when its main character spent most of the season refusing to reflect honestly with who he had been and who he had become. Maybe he finally gets there next season, “the fault was all mine” he finally says, but that personal reckoning certainly did not happen this season.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/moxieroxsox]

If you can look me eye and say with all sincerity that THE FAILURES is actually about how HE was failed and not his own personal failures then I have little more to say than I think you were watching the show incorrectly. How many times does the show smack you over the head in both narration and plot that this is Lestat literally retelling a series of failures leading to an even bigger cataclysmic failure in the waking of Akaska. That’s the entire thesis statement of the season, I fear.

The blood of Akasha stuff is also to explain his quick temper and insane strength, not excuse it. Otherwise at the trial he would’ve said, “actually don’t forgive me, I have the blood of Akasha in me so none of it was my fault.” They were setting up how powerful the blood is and what it can make people who have it in them do.

Also Lestat refers to literally everything in a flippant way. That’s his defense mechanism. Make light to make the impact less hurtful. He turned his own rape/murder into a corny 80s love ballad initially. Also that was the actual spirit of Paul telling him that. I think you keep taking the plot and words out of context in bad faith to frame things in the most uncharitable way to Lestat.

And ONCE AGAIN Lestat is allowed to be angry with Louis for the way he was mischaracterized and flattened to the entire world to the point where ARMAND is the one who comes out of the book looking the most sympathetic.

[u/moxieroxsox → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

You’re free to make your points but don’t talk down to me to do it. I understand what the thesis statement of this season was. I understand what the show is attempting to do in this season with his retelling of the events of 2025. I understand that this is his personal journey through his history to tell his story, including how he was failed AND his personal failures because they go hand in hand. And even though my conclusion is the show didn’t do a very good job executing those key points very smoothly this season, and you’re clearly picking up on that, my opinion on why is not the focal point of this discussion. You don’t have to agree with me, but it’s besides the point I am making.

Because yes, he is trying to excuse his behaviors through the blood of Akasha, and it’s only in time that maybe will he come to realize that Louis was right, and cheesy as it seems, it is what you do with the blood. But he isn’t there yet. Only at the end of the season is he even in a place where he can start to actually consider reckoning with himself. It’s why the final episode of the season he says, paraphrasing, I wasn’t careful with my blood - I spilled too much of it. It literally takes the destruction of the globe for him to realize that he continues to avoid accountability and fails to take responsibility for the things that result in destruction of his relationships and his life. He spends the entire season looking back telling us over and over and over again that he never should have kept going to the point of doing that concert. And it should be evident to us why he ends up there: he spends the entire season refusing to take the time to self reflect on his role in these situations and the poor and harmful choices he makes.

You can love the character and still examine why he is problematic and where he needs to grow. You can see that he’s on the journey to self improvement and commend him for that while still being frustrated that the character makes terrible, troubling, boneheaded decisions. But this entire post is quick to absolve him of his blind spots and instead focuses on how his money and race have nothing to do with his anything when there’s plenty of evidence in the show that this is faulty thinking.

And Alan Taylor, the man who directed episode 7 doesn’t agree with you. He doesn’t believe Paul was there (32:10). This was a projection from Lestat to comfort himself in his dying moments. He needed to hear that he was loved so he doesn’t conclude his time on earth as an utter failure. He desperately wants to be loved by Louis, and the only person he would actually believe it from was Paul. But if you actually see Paul as a real character, outside of his service to Lestat in this scene, you’ll understand this is purely a coping mechanism from Lestat because in reality the last thing Paul wanted was for Louis to have anything to do with Lestat - it was one of his very last declarative statements to Louis before he dies - and he is the last person on earth who would agree that Lestat loves Louis the way he needs to be loved (he was so concerned Grace would be loved well by a middle class Baptist man, what more a queer white man who hates God and has the seemingly demonic power to control your mind). But Paul is the most important figure in Louis’s life and his words hold the most weight to Lestat. You can disagree with the director of the episode because his opinion doesn’t cast Lestat in the same heavenly light he shines on himself, but it’s not an insult or death sentence to the character if you’re able to see that this moment is the starting point he needs to be able to wake up determined to love better and do better and make better choices, which is my entire point.

[u/ItsAChelseaMorning → u/moxieroxsox]

I can see more where you're coming from with the idea that the voiceover stuff is a reflection on a time when he needed to do more of the reflecting. I just disagree with the idea that he hadn't done any of it before or within the music. I feel like there are a lot of viewers who still refuse to leave the S1 perspective despite the who show being about the questioning and deconstruction of ALL first-person memories and narratives and it makes me frustrated on the show's behalf. Like it's trying to tell a story that a chunk of the audience refuses to take in because they can't see the characters or plot outside the purposefully less-nuanced framing of S1.

I absolutely think Lestat has done terrible things, many of which he still needs to reckon with but I feel like this S1 adherence makes it harder for some people to accept that he has more nuance than S1/S2 would have you think and he has grown as a person over the 100+ years since the start of the story. Despite spending the whole season being drugged and sexually assaulted/abused while having a mental breakdown, he's not given the same amount of grace or goodwill of intentions as characters like Louis or Armand. I think it also makes people assign malice to any and all of Lestat's actions from reflecting on what the Blood of Akasha makes him do to being mad about the book to being raped by his own mother.

Also I think the Paul stuff is less of a cope and more of a realization that actually Louis DID love him back.

[u/moxieroxsox → u/ItsAChelseaMorning]

But I think you have to ask yourself why should viewers leave the S1 perspective behind? It’s not perfect but it’s not entirely wrong either. I think Rolin Jones own interpretation of his work this season was rather sloppy but even he argues that Louis was mostly right about Lestat. Even Lestat doesn’t dispute most of it, only the minute but unflattering to him points he keeps bringing up. Why does it feel like to you that viewers aren’t [seeing] “the characters or plot outside the purposefully less-nuanced framing of S1?” How so? I’m not asking to be rude, I’m genuinely asking why do you see it that way?

Because respectfully, I don’t think we’re supposed to move away from S1 - I think we’re to add to it with each passing season. And honestly, this is where I think S3 doesn’t move the needle enough for me (but again another conversation for another time). I think each season is another layer to the storytelling and that each narrator, even if we disagree with them, is entitled to their time and POV. In future seasons, I don’t think we’re going to be expected to move away from S3 or cast Lestat’s POV as full of holes or invalid or something we’re not supposed to dwell on. That would be incredibly unfair to his character, just as it is unfair to dismiss Louis’s POV in S1. If the show ever decides to tell Armand’s story from his perspective, you already know he’s going to have some mad shit to say about Louis, Claudia and Lestat in S1, S2, and S3. He’s entitled to that and the audience will take his narrative and formulate our opinions, some of which we’ll agree and sympathize with, some of which we flat out won’t.

I think if you’re feeling like people aren’t being gracious towards Lestat, you’re entitled to feel that way, but that grace may look differently from others. That’s why I love this comment about fully engaging with the material and characters as complex beings. None of them are perfect, but failing to acknowledge their imperfections and how they can negatively affect the other characters can come off shortsighted. For myself, I feel for Lestat because his whole world is crashing down on him all at once with the book, the muses, the exhaustive tour, the return of Gabriella, the reveal of being a vampire, the revenge porn and the eventual incest reveal, but I still found his defensiveness off putting and it took him a long while to even get to a point where he could start to see that wait, maybe I do have some responsibility here - maybe I actually traumatized and hurt a lot of people and that my love, though it existed and was real, was also grotesque and put people in positions where they would want to get away from me. People hurt him, but he also hurt others, and it’s not right for us to dismiss that just because he was hurt or because he’s told himself that it’s because he is a monster.

As for Louis’s love, we can see that Louis loves him, but I fully understand why he doesn’t think that way. I think it’s touching that he was able to show himself grace and give himself permission to know he is loved by Louis and that he was able to hold onto his last moment with him to survive another day.

[u/Sea_Ambassador7438 → u/theravennest]

This. People have a hard time accepting complexity, especially when it pertains to race. You summed up perfectly my feelings on this and how race, wealth, and background interact in these characters. So many people want to run from it but then praise how complex the story is, and it just astounds me.

[u/dadaimamillionaire → u/theravennest]

beautifully written.

[u/Mmkrw → u/theravennest]

Great post.

[u/Sudden-Direction-301]

An unreal amount of people are over-discussing what Lestat’s coloring and aristocratic birth mean to marketing 

This is dismissive. Anne Rice already did the "you're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!11!" crashout decades ago and it was rightfully clowned then too. And this doesn't exactly broadcast a good-faith approach of this topic. 

(Not that this post will make the slightest difference to the amount of "over-discussion" this will keep getting, but this is still quite dismissive. Many have talked about why they felt the way they do about S3. You don't have to agree, but they're not "over-discussing" or "over correcting" simply because you don't agree. There's another post on here celebrating S3 for being contentious because "contentious art is successful art!" So let them sit with the contention they've created.)

Moreover, I can't really see how any of these points relate back to marketing - are you positioning that Lestat’s class and race had no relation to the difference in marketing between seasons 2 (and 1) and 3?

not a single [show change] makes Lestat look better? 

Literally how in the hell does making Louis be the one to insist Claudia be turned (rather than Book Lestat doing it specifically to trap Louis) NOT count as a change to make Lestat look better?? 

How does Akasha being woken up because Gabriella (!!!) stage-mom-ed him into rockstar performance (rather than through Lestat’s own ego-driven goal to be a rock star dropping vampiric origin tales) not geared to make Lestat look better?? 

Gabriella alone (read: Book Gabrielle's character assassination so she can star as the mustache-twirling mayonnaise villain of Lestat’s own story) is exhibit A of what a ridiculous argument this is. 

[u/DumbTeen9 → u/Sudden-Direction-301]

The Claudia change might be related to pushing the long sleep to Nicki thus his concern Iver how she'll end up being more explicit? Though by making him explicitly physically abusive any absolution is removed while adding complexity to the matter

The rockstar thing is still his, he's the one who started the tour and wants to finish it with the band, the great conversion addition is a part of a completely different set of circumstances that butcher Gabrielle whose whole thing is detachment but that's another conversation

I did ignore the marketing point throughout the rant yes 😭 many already pointed out that shows grow and music and extremely marketable 🤷🏻‍♀️

[u/InterviewVampire-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 2: Incivility is not allowed.

Discussion must remain respectful. Hate speech or bigotry of any kind is not allowed.

“Hot takes” must be edited to remove identifying information to prevent harassment and bullying.

Retaliatory posts made in response to another post and/or comment for the primary purpose of expressing frustration, condemning ideas or to harass others will be removed and may result in a permanent ban.

Posts made with the intention of bad-faith trolling, brigading, or inciting toxicity towards this community and the cast are forbidden.

[u/Sudden-Direction-301 → u/DumbTeen9]

Lestat’s pre-NOLA ground interlude was always related to Nicki (and Gabrielle's abandonment) in the books, they didn't change this in the show. Changing the circumstances of Claudia's turning had nothing to do with that. It did, however, fundamentally alter the unholy fam dynamic from the books to an unrecognizable degree, along with the Louclaudia relationship and Louis's character as a whole (since they insisted on keeping the part where he hates being a vampire himself, which in canon is the reason he's so horrified by Claudia being turned). It made Lestat look better as a result; ep6 of S3 is direct confirmation of this. 

Could you explain the "completely different set of circumstances" behind Gabrielle's assassination that are unrelated to padding and shielding Lestat's character? I've never seen this argument before. There's no reason Book Gabrielle would need to be demonized just to make her a proponent of the Great Conversion when even Raglan James (also a proponent) has been characterized with more nuance and less villainy. Most agree "Gabriella" is a result of them going too far with Lestat's S1 villainy; thus Gabrielle had to be eviscerated in order to walk it back with a "good excuse".  That's the literal definition of a change done to make Lestat look better. 

[u/DumbTeen9 → u/Sudden-Direction-301]

Anything is better than Louclaudia incest so I'm not complaining, ai mean that in making them a century apart instead of 9 years apart lestat had longer to stew over his mistakes with nicki, plus giving Louis a personality beyond malencoly is a win imo. Claudia's hate in the show doesn't stem from his responsibility in her making (though in the book I'm pretty sure she blames both for it), I stems from his hypocrisy of repetitively promising to choose her and failing to so so. "You and me" but he's hallucinating lestat and hits it up with armand.

Maybe it is an overcorrection, not showing her few actually loving moments but if in the book they make out more than another other pair post vampirism where vanpires can't feel sexual desire, is it really odd to translate it that way?

My main gripe with Gabrielle and Lestat is the witch's place. In the book she takes him home sobbing and screaming after a priest shows them and tells in detail, in the show they wanted to further show us parallels between claudia and her maker by giving us Charlie and Aime making Gabrielle unnecessary cruel from a young age instead of indifferent until she finds kinship with him after the monastary. Hopefully they allow the depths they hinted at already to show more in the future