u/Visible-Steak-7492

this is inspired by rolin's recent interview about lestat's role in the trial, as well as that other interview that came out a few months ago where he said that, in his opinion, louis voluntarily asked armand to erase his memories of his suicide attempt in san fran (does anyone remember which interview it was exactly? all i remember is it was either early during TVL's run or a bit before the premier).

now, i don't really have an issue with the contents of what he's saying (since it does align with my personal interpretations lmao). my two biggest gripes are these:

• if the showrunner thinks a particular plot beat should be explicitly clarified rather than left ambiguous and up to interpretation, then why are we getting that in a random interview rather than the show itself where it could (and should!) be actually unpacked and explored properly? and if it is meant to be ambiguous, then why are we getting the ultimate authority on the writing injecting his word-of-god perspective into the discourse?
• why is the showrunner (aka the ultimate authority on the writing) presenting his takes on important character-defining moments as a matter of personal opinion?

let me expand on that last one a little bit.

yes, this is a show about unreliable narrators. we, as the audience, are supposed to have fun interpreting the characters' actions through the lens of subjectivity and not knowing whether anything that anyone says is 100% truthful.

however, underneath that layer of subjectivity and perception there are still events that objectively happen. and those events have textual repercussions because 1) they're guided by the characters' inner logic and motivations and contribute to their characterisations; and 2) they have impact on other events moving forwards.

take the question of armand's mind-fucking, for example. yes, it's fine if we (as well as louis) will never find out whether the erasure of memories was consensual or not. it's an interesting topic of fandom debate where you could advocate for either side depending on what you see as evidence in the text. knowing the objective truth ultimately doesn't matter from the perspective of enjoying the show.

but it matters from the perspective of consistently writing armand as a character. because the difference between a fully non-consensual and malicious mind-fuck vs. a genuine (if misguided and also self-serving) attempt to alleviate the pain of a loved one is HUGE, and it matters! it's informed by the character's views on autonomy, suffering, the infliction and reduction of harm, his relationship dynamics with other characters, etc. and when i hear that there are conflicting interpretations of that plot point in the writers' room, it leads me to believe that there'll be no consistency in how different writers write armand and his motivations throughout the series.

and that worries me, okay? we already have a cast of incredibly complex characters, all tied up in an intricate web of complicated multi-faceted dynamics. how are their actions and motivations supposed to stay consistent and internally coherent for the next however many seasons when the writers have conflicting and even contradicting takes on the inner workings of their minds? especially with writers getting let go and new ones joining the team after each season?

i feel like it already started to negatively affect the quality of character writing this season, and i'm not optimistic that it's going to change for the better.

i've seen many discussions about the seance scene over these past couple of days, and most of them seem to be focused on what it supposedly says about louis and claudia's relationship, and what it means for louis' arc, etc. but after thinking about it some more... i actually don't think it's even part of LOUIS' arc at all?

>TL;DR. in short, i don't think the seance was about giving louis any new revelations he hadn't already had in IWTV. it was about opening lestat's eyes to the reality of louis and claudia's relationship that he previously held a very idealised and rose-tinted view of.

what's happening here (imo) is that people get hung up on [book spoiler] >!merrick (the book) being a part of louis' arc in the book series, so they assume that the same must be true for the show. but must it?!<

let's look at what actually happens in the show.

summoning claudia is LESTAT'S idea. he's the one who gets into contact with merrick. he's the one who organises everything. he's the one who seems to view it as a way for louis to get closure and move forward after the regina debacle. he thinks he's doing it for louis.

and what is louis' reaction to that? we don't know how he reacted to it at first, but on the day of, he drags his feet and wants to cancel. why?

because he already KNOWS everything that claudia is going to tell him.

now, i know the word "delusional" has been thrown at louis a lot this season, and many people seem to take that at face value. but if you go back to S1 and S2 and pay attention to the character journey unfolding before you, then you realise that the arc of louis finding out claudia's true feelings about him already HAPPENED. he recounted their entire life together. he read claudia's diaries. he faced the truth of his involvement in her turning. he remembered his failed suicide attempt. he contented with the reality of their relationship. he KNOWS that claudia hated him.

but who doesn't know that? LESTAT.

i think it's important to admit that, for most of their time together, lestat doesn't actually view claudia as a daughter, he views her as a RIVAL for louis' love and attention. he thinks that loucladia have a unique bond (they're both black; they immediately jump into the roles of "father" and "daughter" while he's just an "uncle"; they can communicate telepathically while he's shut out of their minds forever) that he's intensely jealous and insecure about.

lestat also knows that claudia hates him (i mean, she plotted his death, that would be a strong enough hint for most people). but i think that his jealousy and insecurity over loucladia cloud his judgement to the point where he can't imagine claudia hating louis, even after reading the book.

that's why he suggests doing the seance! he genuinely believes it may be a positive and soothing experience for louis. because he can recognise all the ways he failed claudia, but he was never privy to the pain and conflict brewing behind the deadlocked gates of loucladia's mind. he thought they had a great time together at their two-person party he was never a welcome guest at.

i think all of that also explains their rather muted reactions to the whole ordeal (that i know rubbed some people the wrong way). louis has no reason to cry and walk into the sun again in response to claudia's lashings because he'd already fully come to terms with her hating him by the end of S2. lestat has no reason to cry and have a crisis because, well, he's not the one who just got a lashing. but he does have to re-consider and restructure his whole conception of louis and claudia's relationship that he's held for decades at this point.

i kinda glossed over the whole sex tape/revenge porn plot on my first watch, but the more i think about it, the more baffled i am.

like, what is it even supposed to achieve in-universe?

it can't be targeted at TVL's mortal fans because they believe that TVL was jarda's stage persona, and jarda is dead. meaning that the only person "humiliated" by the call-out video is daniel molloy, the two-times pulitzer prize winner who for some reason can't let go of his weird vampire fantasy to the point of leaking a dead man's sex tape and making shit up about the people involved.

if it's not for mortals, then it must be for lestat's vampire followers? but why would they care about it in any way that materially matters? they're not a group of leftist activists engaging in in-fighting over moral purity issues (i'm saying that as a leftist myself, don't take it as me dunking on leftists). they're blood-sucking killers who are actively obsessed with the idea of creating more mayhem in the world of the living.

i know people are clowning on lestat's "it's different for vampires", but, you know. to some extent it IS true. obviously individual reactions may vary (as exemplified by louis), but on the group level, i just don't see why vampires as a collective would care about something like that enough to stop rallying behind lestat. they're killing human beings on the regular and thirsting for world domination, why would sleeping with one's mother suddenly be a step too far?

the world-ending vampire revolution vs. youtube celebrity drama. feels like a weird disconnect in the stakes.

idk. this may be the first writing choice where i genuinely can't begin to parse the writers' intent or the characters' logic in-universe. was it just added in because someone thought it would be funny for lestat, as a rock star, to have a sex tape leaked?

UPD. thinking about it some more, it means that armand, who's supposed to be a follower of the great laws and who's basically the only character established as being worried about facing retaliation from other vampires, is willingly putting himself AND his baby fledgling in the public vampiric eye as opposition to the vampire lestat, the unofficial leader of the vampire revolution.

honestly, that move carries far more risk for him and daniel than it does for lestat. is that the secret shocking plot twist? armand and daniel are actually the good guys here in a weird twisted way?

like many people, i was a tad disappointed to be robbed of armand chopping nicki's hands off. but given that has been said about moving plotlines from the past to the present, and knowing that machete!armand is coming at some point, do we think some limb-chopping may still happen? and who is the likely target?

i'm tempted to put my money on alex, though as of now i have no idea how or why it would happen, especially given armand being his "sponsor". though tbf i'm also 50-50 on armand actually being the guy he talks about in that scene, i think the framing may just be a bit too obvious. like the way the show clearly wants you to assume it's armand feels like setting up a plot twist.

who else do we have? regina? that seems like a plausible option if the theory about >!her purposefully fucking with louis' mind!< is true.

or, perhaps, armand is the one who chopped louis' leg off prior to the auction scene? i don't genuinely believe in this one because imo the way louis looks at him isn't giving off the "my abusive ex who chopped my leg off" vibes, but who knows! i guess i want to put it out there in case i ever get the opportunity to say i called it.

i know people have been clowning on armand's story in 2x3 for over two years now and looking forward to it being thoroughly debunked this season because it's so different from how things actually went down in the book, but after watching these last two episodes i felt like... there honestly doesn't seem to be that much fabrication in it based on what lestat's perspective has brought us?

so i went back to 2x3 to break armand's version of the story down event by event to see what has been confirmed to have happened vs. debunked so far.

1. armand presiding over the CoD in paris when lestat first makes an appearance as a vampire - true ✅

https://preview.redd.it/2mvniacie7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=68ea8c4c19e098a7351b22e2f805e1933cf9ca9d

well, this part was never really called into question, so. moving on.

2. lestat playing harlequin on stage when armand first sees him - false ❌

https://preview.redd.it/45vdm3dcf7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=82374f7d914222123817e1a225bd16305364ddb4

LELIO, NOT A HARLEQUIN. but also like. admittedly a pretty small detail in the grand scheme of things.

3. armand beating lestat's ass when they first come face to face - inconclusive?

https://preview.redd.it/6ufc3viuf7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=41cefd8f537c7bdb84b3f122941e356a55bdc291

no one's addressed this part one way or another so far. logically, if they had met face to face at all at this point in time, then armand must have beaten lestat in order to kidnap nicki, right? but then it's also possible that armand lost this time and then got back at lestat by kidnapping nicki, or that there was some other time (unaccounted for in armand's retelling) where he got his ass beaten.

idk, need more data on this.

4. nicki's kidnapping and the confrontation in the catacombs - true ✅

https://preview.redd.it/zeuaqefxh7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=890be741617c7e1ea4fdef79ecd93a8d46bb5799

daniel explicitly says that he got this part right in his book and lestat never refutes him. though again, i don't think anyone questioned it in the first place.

5. the coven members committing suicide in the aftermath of lestat breaking up CoD - inconclusive?

https://preview.redd.it/spsvi1doi7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=85cea6050103a757e763fb94e1ca99373870122c

now THIS is one of the main bits people have been treating as an outright lie on armand's part, but to be honest? given the changes to nicki's storyline this season (specifically the hand-chopping and his death), i think this may as well turn out to be TRUE. so far it hasn't been contested by anyone who was present in paris at the time, and it's been established that show!armand didn't do at least some of the gremlin-y things that book!armand did (and some things that he did do he did for arguably less gremlin-y reasons, like killing nicki, for example).

but then we were promised gremlin!armand this season and there's the whole machete-centered subplot coming, whatever it is. as an armand fan, i'm still holding out hope for the revelation that he DID murder his deserters.

6. armand and lestat meeting again in the catacombs - inconclusive, but i'm personally leaning more towards true now

https://preview.redd.it/e7i0wmbdl7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc625f79eb00baef3ab08894cadc47111c7102c1

initially, i thought that the conversation was more or less true but it happened in a less romantically/sexually-charged manner, but with the confirmation that they DID have a sexual relationship? honestly, this whole scene as it's shown could be true, just filtered through armand's horny lens.

well, perhaps gabi was standing in the corner somewhere, idk.

7. lestat giving armand his new coven - basically true?

https://preview.redd.it/l4taiprbm7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=b663815f5ee862d402b10a9d201b6d2b721fce03

i mean, LELIO, NOT HARLEQUIN again, but otherwise there doesn't seem much to debunk? obviously armand glosses over nicki's involvement here, but then so does lestat, so...

8. THE BOX SCENE - ... actually kinda half-true?

https://preview.redd.it/fxig69k7n7ah1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=a413d8d0de4d3e11593e825215690dc642c94204

NOW we're getting to the heart of all the "delusional fanfic" allegations, and obviously this specific scene never happened, BUT. if you take this scene as a sort of condensed approximation of their overall dynamic at the time, with lestat's perspective now being available to us, then it's actually... not that far off the mark?

obviously there's no gabriella in armand's retelling, but i'd argue he's not leaving her out due to his own pettiness, he's doing it out of consideration for lestat. it's already been established that 1) louis knows nothing about gabriella being turned, and 2) lestat isn't too eager to make the nature of his relationship with gabriella publicly known. i think it's not too much of a reach to say armand's being nice by not mentioning gabriella here.

as for the rest of it? it is now show canon that they DID have a sexual relationship, and that it DID make nicki jealous, and that lestat WAS aware of armand's deeper feelings for him. idk, taking all of that into consideration, armand's message of lestat being a selfish asshole who took advantage of his feelings feels less like a purposeful malicious lie and more like... his genuine feelings that aren't even particularly delusional in nature.

what do y'all think? do you think there may be more corrections/revelations coming in the remaining 3 episodes? i don't really count on that tbh, there's so little time and so much the show still needs to tackle.