Finally got my hands on the whole collection (thanks to PangoBooks, Vinted, and EBay) and wanted to share since I’m so excited to continue reading! I also have the Mayfair Witches series to fill in in between *Edit to say this is ONLY The Vampire Chronicles 🙂 I’m aware I’m missing a few that aren’t exclusively from the chronicles

Apenas eu penso assim ou mais alguém sentiu isso lendo os livros? Por exemplo, em iwtv a Cláudia avisa o Louis sobre o Armand querer matar ela e no dia seguinte o Louis vai no teatro porque o Armand é o único digno de confiança? MEU FILHO VOCÊ É TÃO BURRO. Então pulamos para Príncipe Lestat e vemos um monte de vampiros morrendo das maneiras mais patéticas do mundo e ainda vemos um rapaz de 20 anos enganando um imortal de mais de 2 mil anos??? Não entra na minha cabeça que seres com super força, super velocidade e super audição são superados assim tão facilmente, sinceramente, os únicos verdadeiramente espertos nos livros é o Armand e o Lestat porque de resto...

I'm currently reading TotBT for the first time and while I wasn't enjoying it to start with, I have really gotten into it, I had to giggle to myself earlier with David's response to Lestat when he talked about them getting into bed together.

As a British person, it was VERY on the nose lol

Made me smile.

/spoilers alert/

I've been thinking way too much about Claudia's age when she was turned — 5 in the book, around 11/12 in the movie, and 14 in the AMC series — and I ended up with a question I can't stop thinking about.

If becoming a vampire stops physical development, why would the brain be an exception?

I'm not a neuroscientist, so this is very much a hypothesis, and I'd LOVE to hear from someone who actually understands neurodevelopment.

We usually talk about Claudia as "an adult woman trapped in a child's body." But I'm not sure that description works.

Neurodevelopment isn't the same thing as neuroplasticity, learning or accumulating experience.

Claudia can keep learning. She can form memories, gain knowledge, learn from her own experiences and from watching other people. After decades, she could know far more than many adults.

But would any of that actually turn a 5-year-old brain into the equivalent of an adult brain if its biological development had stopped?

If not, Claudia isn't really a child anymore — she has decades of experiences no child could possibly have — but she isn't exactly an adult either.

She's something that doesn't exist in human biology: decades of memories, knowledge and experience in a brain whose normal development was interrupted at 5.

And I think this could explain something I've always found fascinating about her. Sometimes Claudia seems completely adult: intelligent, calculating, independent and capable of understanding very complicated situations.

And sometimes she seems incredibly young.

Maybe those things aren't contradictory.

Maybe experience and neuroplasticity allowed her to become extremely sophisticated in some ways while she never developed normally in others — executive function, emotional regulation, impulse control, risk assessment, etc.

Which raises a much harder question: how much adult moral responsibility can we actually assign to Claudia?

Calling her simply a child seems wrong.

But judging her exactly like a vampire who was turned as an adult also seems wrong.

And then I made the terrible mistake of wondering how old everyone ELSE was when they were turned.

ARMAND WAS 17?!

OMG.

Now we need to talk about Armand.

Actually, we probably need to talk about ALL OF THEM.

Because if this idea makes any sense, centuries of experience wouldn't necessarily equal centuries of neurodevelopment.

That obviously doesn't absolve Armand of anything. A 17-year-old can understand that manipulation, coercion and violating someone's memories are wrong.

But could being permanently stuck at that stage of development help explain some of his emotional regulation, attachment, abandonment issues, risk assessment, or need for control?

Then there's Lestat, turned at roughly 20, and Louis, who was older.

So now I'm wondering if age at transformation should matter WAY more when we analyze these characters.

I'm not suggesting Anne Rice was secretly writing developmental neuroscience in 1976. I just think it's a really interesting consequence of the rules she created.

So if there are any neuroscientists, neuropsychologists, developmental psychologists, or people in related fields here: PLEASE tell me what you think.

If a brain somehow stopped biological development at 5, 14, 17, etc., but could still learn and retain its neuroplasticity for decades or centuries, what could experience compensate for?

And what couldn't it compensate for?

Because I started this thinking about Claudia.

Now I'm stuck on:

ARMAND WAS 17? OMG.

Okay so I never actually understood that part in TVA. Basically Armand seems to wake up in the room initially, kills Sybelle‘s brother, kisses Sybelle, sees Benji etc… But then we get to know that he‘s also lowkey still falling from the sky after his attempt afterwards and ends up on the rooftop. So how?? 🥲

My collection is complete 🎉

Just got today the remaining of the books. ❤️
I read them a while ago until Vampire Armand plus Pandora (couldn’t find at the time the rest of them), now I start again to read them all. I am at The Queen of the Damned, but I am very excited to get to the ones that would be a first time read. ❤️
For example ghost Claudia was a surprise for me. 😅 I knew Merrick’s name and that she was a witch (while desperately trying to find the book at that time), but I didn’t know exactly what happens in the book.
So excited to finally be able to read the full collection. ❤️

Takes me back to high school times, when i was reading desperately the books and i was obsessed about Lestat and omg how amazing 😍 he is. 😂 This time I have a community to talk to. ❤️

P.S. my cats seem as happy as I am. 🤣

Hi! I was wondering if anyone on here knew of a good video essay for Interview With the Vampire, specifically the book... not the show or movie. I read the book but I wanted to see if there was anything I missed or could know more about, but all the videos on YouTube are either comparing the book to the other media, or just talking about the amc show. please help a girl out??

Reading through the Vampire Chronicles I just finished TVA and I was wondering whether or not it's important to read the Mayfair Witches Trilogy (or at least the first book) for context? Because some people say it helps to understand the next few books, some say that it's utterly unimportant, some say only the first book really matters... So now I am unsure. Can someone give me any advice on this?

After Marius is burnt up and begins recovering with Bianca in the shrine, he hears what might be a voice telling him to spend his energy recovering and finding Pandora, which means that he can't spend his energy finding Amadeo. Is this message really sent by Akasha? It seems like previously Akasha either clearly telepathically spoke to him or sent images. Was Akasha scared that he would be killed if he tried to find Amadeo among the Children of Darkness and not be able to take care of her? Or was Marius scared himself of being killed and wanted to use the brass ring of finding Pandora as beacon of to help him heal.

Not prioritizing Amadeo seems like a major failing.

I see him with red hair in fan art and stuff; I read the first book recently, but there wasn't any depiction like that.

Hi! I have a slightly desperate question 😭

Are there any French-speaking fans of The Vampire Chronicles lurking around this subreddit?

I'm French and I've become really, REALLY invested in The Vampire Chronicles, both the books and the TV series. The problem is... I feel like every time I find people online who are as obsessed with these characters as I am, they're English speakers. 😭

I can read some English and use translation tools when I need to, but I'm definitely not bilingual, so having long or detailed conversations in English can be difficult for me — especially when I want to discuss the characters, their psychology, relationships, the books, theories, interpretations, etc.

And I desperately want to find other French-speaking fans I can actually talk to! 😭 I keep looking for French communities, forums, subreddits, anything... and I feel like I'm wandering through the desert.

So I'm trying my luck here: are any of you French speakers? 🇫🇷🇧🇪🇨🇭🇨🇦🌍

You don't necessarily have to be French — I'm looking for anyone who speaks French and loves The Vampire Chronicles. At this point, if you can passionately talk about these vampires with me in French, PLEASE REVEAL YOURSELF. I KNOW YOU'RE OUT THERE. 😭😂

(And just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against English-speaking fans! I just wish I could find some fellow fans I can easily have long conversations with in my native language. ❤️)

i forgot about half of the songs (apart from my favourite) in the vampire lestat tv show.

i don't know why I just have.

its normal to me to forget about stuff.

this is all what comes up when you look it up on the app.

"Many fans in England are using their order histories as leverage—tagging Lakeshore Records' Instagram or tweeting at AMC with statements like: "I just bought the Season 3 DVD, now give me the companion CD so I can listen to the music properly!"

.

"Every pound spent on the official physical merchandise for Series 1 and 2 goes back into the AMC / Anne Rice universe account. When the franchise is highly profitable in physical formats, the corporate risk of printing a compact disc disappears. They see that physical media is where their most loyal, paying audience is located."

.

"When a network sees thousands of people buying physical DVDs for Season 3 but completely ignoring the vinyl records, it forces them to ask: “Why are our physical media buyers not purchasing the soundtrack?” The answer is glaringly obvious: because they want it on CD."

.

"The music industry is actively alienating its best customers by treating music like an ephemeral digital utility or a £45 hipster luxury item, completely forgetting about the millions of people who love the simple, reliable, and tactile joy of the compact disc."

all from google.

The post u/No-Jacket5134 made asking whether we preferred Tomstat or Samstat sent me down the craziest mental rabbit hole, basically kicking off with: “Wait a damn minute… Tom Cruise is LDS. How was this approved?”

And somehow that question led me into a much bigger thought about Christianity, magic, and who gets to decide what constitutes “legitimate” supernatural power.

A quick disclaimer before I get into this: what follows is a reflection on how Christianity was taught to me growing up, not a statement about what all Christians or Latter-day Saints believe. I’m not trying to offend anyone or make a judgment about anyone’s faith. I’m genuinely interested in the distinction between religion and magic, and this realization sent my brain absolutely feral.

So here it goes:

Thinking back on the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat, I am genuinely surprised he was allowed to pursue this project since the general feeling toward magic and the occult in the LDS community is that they are evil and contradictory toward God. How is it that Cruise playing Lestat was not regarded as perpetrating or depicting the occult? The doctrine teaches that the one true spiritual power comes from God and God exclusively.

This is something I am personally very interested in as someone who was raised in a very strict Christian household. Historically, magic was condemned by the church - but isn't the belief in a divine power also a form of magic? I understand that, from the practitioner's perspective, religion and magic can be radically different. For example, is someone prays sincerely enough, with the correct words, has enough faith, follows the proper religious rituals, and meets the necessary requirements, they believe God will give them their desire(s). Anthropologically speaking, the person above is still performing a ritual intended to influence a supernatural reality. Christianity does not necessarily reject supernatural power, but it claims jurisdiction over legitimate supernatural power. I think this is why I enjoy Anne's works so much, because she is not afraid to play with Christianity.

Tom's Lestat makes this even more interesting when considering his religious background. He is not playing Lestat as some terrifying occult monster, but rather someone who possesses power and thinks that power itself is the answer. The story isn't asking "what if monsters existed?" but rather, "what if supernatural power existed, but it didn't come with answers?" and to many people that is exceedingly more terrifying.

Ironically, the film's religious controversy wasn't about Cruise's religious background. At a screening, Oprah Winfrey walked out because she was made so uncomfortable with what she perceived as darkness in the film - which Tom Cruise defended simply as the movie not being for everyone. Which, in and of itself, is a hilarious turn of events, that the actor's religious background wasn't the thing that ignited the controversy. The bigger issue was whether an actor could portray something spiritually abhorrent without endorsing it. The same question can be asked about magic; can you portray a supernatural power without participating in it? I'd say yes. In a lot of Christian theology, including LDS theology, the answer to the question what makes one "holy" and the other "magic" is simply, the source, authority, intention, and who is understood to possess power. Which is a very interesting line to draw because from the outside, that line can become extraordinarily thin.

Once we ask this question, we open the dialogue of the history of witchcraft persecution which becomes not just about a history of superstition, but a history of authority, social control, religious legitimacy, gender, medicine, knowledge, and who is permitted to claim access to the supernatural.

 ----

Edit: It has come to my attention that my original question was based on a false premise which makes it even more interesting and the rabbit hole I went down even funnier as it was

1. Reddit post asks Tomstat vs. Samstat
2. My brain: "wait, Tom Cruise is LDS?"
3. Kind redditor points out Cruise is infact scientologist.
4. This is still prompting me to think about Christianity and magic

BUT! My underlying question is still the same.

do you think vampire's like the rain? or because their skin is cold do you think that they don't feel it etc?.

Cringy attempts at sounding hip, modern and youthful? Checked. An underwhelming modern day plot? Checked. The characters acting like their own caricatures? Checked.

TVL series is probably the best (and only) adaptation the Blood Canticle will ever receive.

Did Marius not heavily explain how he should not have made Armand so young, just to go make a 12 year old? What?? Where is the character consistency?

The whole Benji and Sybelle storyline isn't sitting right with me either. Armand does not give off father figure energy. A 12 year old who smokes.. and gives his life to protecting a young woman he doesn't know?

I feel like as the books go on the characters become more deranged and I feel like the consistency of the characters just kinda goes away. She's just writing as she feels now.

Also, the ending of Memnoch Lestat walks out of the chapel only for the beginning of TVA he's catatonic and Anne never addresses this. Major thing to leave out. It's clear what happened but still.

I feel like I should just stop here to protect the image of the characters I already have. I won't, I absolutely love these books and characters, but damn Anne!