I saw the movie first, and I loved the way Banderas did Armand. So secretive and seductive and dark (and that hair!). I was kind of bummed out when I read the book to find out he’s like 16 and looks completely different. I’m just wondering if anyone else felt that way.

THANK U. See, this is an example of someone coming into the fandom through movie!IWTV, and enjoying Antonio!Armand. You can be a VC fan coming in from anywhere and like what you like ❤ 


[I was kind of bummed out when I read the book to find out he’s like 16 and looks completely different. I’m just wondering if anyone else felt that way.]

No, I don’t often get this kind of message, it’s usually how disappointed fans are that he doesn’t match the book description.

But your points are well-taken. He was so secretive and seductive and dark (and that hair!), and tbh I didn’t even mind that it was a wig. Some ethnicities DO have really thick hair like that. I thought it added to his other-worldliness. That version of Armand was turned at a time when it was normal to have super long hair, apparently? Maybe it was important as part of him being a vampire, like it was for Marius, to grow his hair long before he was turned? We’re not told in the movie but it’s part of his mystery.

I remember my own impression reading IWTV for the first time was that he was definitely an adult.

In book!IWTV, Armand is described as having auburn hair, and deep, brown eyes, but I don’t think he was described as being as youthful as he’s described in TVL and later books. 

Hello! I hope you’re well! I was just curious Lestat mentions in TVL that he was ” the youngest of three who had lived to manhood” We get the name of his oldest brother, but I can’t seem to find them name of his other brother. Do you know whether he is mentioned by name? Many thanks, I hope you have a great day. P.s. I love your blog keep the good work up😊

Bonjour! I’m well, thank u, thanks for the blog lurve! <333

I don’t think his other brother was ever mentioned by name, no 😛

I don’t really love this bit of canon but it’s an interesting explanation; in Blackwood Farm, Lestat says his name is “compounded of the first letter of each of my six older brothers’ names,” so they’d have to have started with L, E, S, or T, bc A was for Augustin. And two of his brothers started with T. 

I was working on a ficlet at one point and wanted to include this unnamed brother, talking about him in a PM with someone, and came up with “Étienne,” which is a French equivalent of Stephen/Steven.

Proooobably it’s bc I headcanon him as looking like Steve Zahn and I CANNOT explain why that is, but I am 99% married to this headcanon.


^This is from Joy Ride.

I think it’s bc he’s somewhat attractive, but only bc of his cartoonish attitudes, very smarmy but simple-minded, seems like the younger of the two brothers, desperate to please the older one, Augustin could easily lead him around, he wouldn’t question being ordered to beat on his younger brother, even if he didn’t take much pleasure in it. 

So the brother’s names (not necessarily in birth order) would be:

  1. L-?
  2. E- (I am really attached to Étienne!??)
  3. S-?
  4. T-?
  5. Augustin
  6. T-?
  7. Lestat
  8. Off-topic but still, I like to think the eighth de Lioncourt was a girl, bc really, 8 boys in a row is unusual. @viaticumforthemarquise named her Mireille, I think *u*

Lestat, Louis is a sad sack of a man and doesn’t really seem to be worth loving. Ok so he’s “beautiful” that’s not enough to make a relationship last. Why is Louis worth loving?

//ooc: This is another fairly old ask, from November, 2017. I think anon was trying to rile Lestat by calling Louis “a sad sack of a man and doesn’t really seem to be worth loving.” Limiting him to just being “beautiful.” And while it is fun to rile Lestat and see how he reacts, idk… I was kind of taken aback by this and I had too many thoughts about it to have Lestat respond flippantly, which he would have. I think Lestat either gets defensive about loving Louis, or just dismisses these kinds of comments, one less person for him to compete with for Louis’ attention, lol.

TL;DR: I think when ppl ask that, part of where they may be coming from is that THEY feel like a “sad sack” who’s maybe not worth being loved, especially by the main character in a series, a flashy glittery murder machine. They worry that even if they’re loved for being “beautiful” that that really isn’t enough for a relationship, and that’s absolutely true, if we’re defining beauty as superficial characteristics. The beauty of Louis, to me, is in his character, and the emotions of the scene. 

I’ve written a lot about what draws me, as a reader, to love Louis, probably the best stuff is in my #we appreciate and love louis in this house tag. But I’ll try not to go overboard and answer you here, anyway!


I think the deal with describing Louis as *~SO beautiful~* is partly that, hey, it’s fun to do, like having a favorite flower, and AR takes the opportunity to remind us of it, and put the camera on him in a scene, so we know he’s present. It also serves a purpose, we usually get at least a scrap of context about him and/or the scene:

“I glared at him, at the sharp graceful angles of his imperturbable face, […] his wide-set eyes, with their fine rich black lashes. How perfect the tender indentation of his upper lip.” -Lestat, The Tale of the Body Thief

^Let’s take this line and unpack it a little:

  • Lestat glares at Louis. –> Lestat is clearly pissed.
  • Louis’ imperturbable face –> Louis is not scared of Lestat being pissed.
  • And then Lestat lavishes this extra description on him, appreciatively. Attention on the lip area, now we’re picturing him pointedly staring there, which might precede a kiss, so we can infer that Lestat desperately wants to kiss him, probably. What I get from all that is the exquisite tension of Lestat wanting someone he can’t have, someone he treasures and wants even MORE bc of the difficulty. 

It’s the tension of Lestat and other characters pining for Louis that AR wrings every drop out for us, she’s showing us how helpless these other characters are that they can only try to capture Louis with descriptions since he defies being owned by anyone. Unrequited love is a powerful thing.

Bringing these back, in case anyone else missed them and want to indulge in some Louis praise/discussion:

So, re: Anon might be identifying with Louis: 

We can find ourselves slipping into the characters we love and identify with. Some ppl find Lestat relatable in his lust for life, self-centeredness, refusal to quit, constantly screwing up and berating himself in the narrative (but rarely being able to outright apologize to those he hurts)… a flawed character for sure but an inspiring one.

I think some ppl who relate to Louis and feel less flashy, less glamorous, there’s smtg very appealing about how such a character could be so idolized by the more flashy and glamorous one. What could such a *rockstar* like Lestat find attractive in Louis?? You said yourself Louis is a sad sack. And yes, beauty is not enough to keep a relationship going. But, as I mentioned above, Louis’ beauty is often described in a context that charges it with the emotions of the scene. At least to my reading, there’s more conveyed than just eye color.

Still, why wouldn’t Lestat demand someone who was more like himself?

But here’s the thing I think a lot of ppl miss when they’ve only seen movie!IWTV, or only read a few of the books. 


^Louis & Lestat by @garama

I personally believe that Lestat sees in Louis a similarly wounded soul with a lust for life. At their core, neither really want to die. Louis kept getting into fights with ppl bc he couldn’t kill himself as a mortal. Lestat has stubbornly refused to die his entire life and has had plenty of reason to want death. They’ve both almost killed themselves and been brought back. There’s a similar torment in them dealing with their natures.

As an anon put it so eloquently:I think ppl forget that Louis is just as passionate and vengeful as Lestat, it’s just that he isn’t as vocal or showy about it. He’s more intimate and intense.”

The way they communicate/express themselves, and the way they practice self-care is vastly different. Lestat builds up his beautiful shell with retail therapy, redecorating and refurbishing his dwellings, and attending all kinds of shows and making elaborate plans with his kills, just spoiling himself silly. Always down for indulging his senses. He’s chasing new experiences, learning the new slang, trying to keep himself in the latest fashions. Novelty.

Louis prefers his nights at home, low-drama, in his own creature comforts, with his books and poetry to escape into. We don’t know much of what he’s read but he seems to want to spend eternity reading. What is reading? Even if it’s nonfiction, it’s learning, being told a story, being more informed. It’s novelty, too. Escapism through the imagination.

And their personalities seem to complement each other. Lestat’s lust for adventure spices up Louis’ otherwise too-calm existence. Louis’ calm and dignified manner brings Lestat back down to earth when he gets too untethered. Their bickering is bc they care for each other, can see beneath each other’s disguises. Louis sees the frightened boy inside the frustration that makes Lestat lash out and attack first. Lestat sees the potential in Louis of someone who, if he could get over his inhibitions, could experience so much more in his life.

When AR was kind of RPing as Lestat in her #Fan Questions for Lestat series, she was asked smtg similar:

“…but if I did have to choose, the companion would be Louis. My longest most enduring friendship and love affair in this world was with Louis. And though his limitations can be maddening, they can also be as inspiring to me as his virtues… the best choices we make are not always the wise choices. Sometimes they are intensely emotional choices. And I’ve always had a deep Romantic respect for emotion. My love for Louis transcends wisdom. And I may need the pain as much as the consolation that an eternal relationship with Louis would involve.“

^This is one of those moments I talk about where I feel like she recaptures the old magic, taps into the vein (pun intended) that got us all addicted to this series in the first place. Why I can’t just discard the crackier later books. She’s not all that specific here, but it’s believable. At least, to me. Lestat admits that Louis’ limitations (and this can be so many things, things Lestat disagrees with him about as well as things Louis refuses to do) can be maddening, and inspiring. 

And he admits that his love for Louis transcends wisdom. That may be a cop-out answer, but I’ve felt that kind of love in my life. Inexplicably bound to someone, despite the math of the personalities not seeming to mesh. 

Love works in mysterious ways. Even for beautiful sad sacks and the arrogant bastards who love them ❤

If I send a question to Lestat or Louis, do they know the books/movies exist? Or will they have no idea what I’m talking about if I say “I’ve only finished one book” or such?

For my Lestat and Louis muses, yes, they do know the VC books/movies exist. I think most VC RP muses know the VC books/movies exist, including the other adaptions. There were official graphic novels of the 90′s, Claudia’s Story (the graphic novel of IWTV from Claudia’s POV), and the Lestat musical.

If you say you’ve only finished one book, you’d have to specify which book.

They tend to tease eachother about the casting choices or acting of their characters in the films. 

Armand about Lestat: “Tom captured your obnoxious attitude perfectly. I almost forgot it wasn’t actually you on screen.”

Lestat about Armand: *huffs* “At least I was played by someone who resembles me.”


[X] In canon, the vampires haven’t mentioned any of the movies or graphic novel adaptations, but the books themselves are acknowledged as existing. Some in-universe characters take them as bibles, others laugh at them as cheesy or awful fiction.

Have you seen Anne rice’s article on Facebook of honey boo boo photoshopped into vc films?

This ask was from November, 2017, I’m not sure if these were all made by the same person, Ran Valerhon, but this person has been making them since at least October 2, 2012 (and it looks like Chris Rice had started it?). I’ve seen them… I get that they were made to be amusing, but it wasn’t really my sense of humor. 


^X What is going on with Honey’s torso here it looks painful…

I’ve got a few of these saved under the #honey boo boo tag. Gawds I found a link to a whole gallery of them: http://izismile.com/2012/10/22/honey_boo_boos_movie_debut_9_pics.html#Xgfp0OtiBHfdcyzO.99 


Time has passed and they’ve grown on me a little. But not by much. Idk, not my sense of humor but have at it if you like it! 

That’s my stance on VC shitposting in general, I draw the line at stuff that feels too disrespectful for me, but I’m sure my stuff crosses the line of disrespectful to some ppl. We coexist, the fandom is plenty big enough for Honey Boo Boo!Claudia to give ppl a laugh even if it doesn’t work for me!

Lestat, how do I look badass while still being girly at the same time?

♛Ah, fashion. One of my favorite topics. So much can be conveyed in fashion, a story adorning the body. Whatever gender you are, clothes do speak for you before you open your mouth. Certain people insist on advertising themselves as the bargain-bin at a thrift store *sharp glance at Louis.* 

To your question, badass and girly is a delicious pairing. Think pastel colors bound with harsh blacks or metals. Something innocent coexisting with something threatening.

We’re talking

baby doll dresses, lace, floral prints, mixed with protective gear like fingerless gloves, thick jeans or leather vests. Weaponize it with studs, combat boots. Show you’ve been through battles with messy hair, bunched up in plastic barrettes or wild ribbons. Courtney Love, Taylor Momsen, and my own Tough Cookie have done well with that combination. Bold lipstick and eye makeup if you choose to do so, like war paint.

Think to yourself: My mother made me wear this dress when I was 12, I hated it, and I’m rebelling now when I couldn’t before. Don’t mistake my beauty for weakness, I’m equipped for a physical fight. Steel-toed boots and spiked jewelry are a warning that you make offensive attacks, thick leather for defense. Just because you may have lively colors, florals for peace, and soft textures, you’re no frail creature to be f*cked with.


//ooc: @superhiki had a great addition, which Lestat should have stated, but maybe he implied it:

And competence! You can dress however you want and BE a badass by being self reliant! Spikes are a costume, going to the DMV with all the paperwork you need completed filed in a nice folder and the attitude like you’re on a beach and not a rotting government building is arcane badassery that most people can’t handle. Now imagine that control of the situation but you’re also dressed like a fucking rockstar. Powerful.


^Kurt Cobain rocked this look, too.

It’s my favourite thing in the world that you have an entire tag called ‘cute Armand’ mainly because I feel that would piss him off. But you’re right those pinchable cheeks just need their own tag

The #cute Armand tag is absolutely necessary and yes, I agree, it would piss him off!


^This Cute Armand is part of a comic by @obsessional-ram

Aye so I’m thinking of picking up the books but I heard they get pretty bad and u was just wondering what’s your opinion

Define “bad”? Problematic for sure. Squicky for some ppl. Cracky as heck. 

I wanted to delete this ask bc an objective “bad” is so hard to define, especially with regard to fiction in this current wave of scrutiny about it. I think we can all agree on things that are bad in Real Life, but what we’re not agreeing on these days is the role of fiction and Real Life, that consumption/depiction of problematic things =/= endorsement of those things in Real Life. 

(This is all aside from the criticism dealing with the writing itself on its own merits, which, I am pretty forgiving about. I don’t consider my palette as a reader to be all that refined, I’m more interested in the ideas, and I don’t mind as much about the skills of the writer, even one who may have been very good and then devolved over the years. So you’ll have to ask someone else if the writing style is your concern.)

Some books will be loved by some ppl and praised to high heaven, those same books despised by others and cursed for existing, and everything in between.

IDK we used to call the later books “the Vampire Crackicles,” and I for one, would love to bring that back! 

At its core, it is my belief that VC as a whole is a means of demon exorcism and of wish-fulfillment for their author. Sure they have some higher value, if they didn’t, I don’t think the fandom would be as large and as loyal. But VC also has a ton of various kinds of porn, let’s be honest. As a mix of those elements I just described, they do not have to be that deep, they are whatever each individual reader wants them to be. Personally, I really enjoyed the first few, and have found enjoyable stuff even in the crackiest of later canon. If you don’t take them too seriously, it’s worth the effort. But then, I am pretty forgiving and I can do headcanon gymnastics for fun to explain stuff I don’t like, or treat it as AU.

So they can be considered shallow escapism with problematic dysfunctional hipster vampires:


Or, you can dive in and look for deeper meaning, and make richer analysis out of it. It could be that deep, if you want it to be! 


When I got this ask ~6 months ago, it was close to Thanksgiving, I had more pressing real-life things going on like traveling and visiting with family. I also didn’t want to answer it bc I was thinking it might be from a troll. Might be someone asking this in order to trick me into some kind of response that could be a launching pad for Discourse.

Now, time has passed, and having absorbed plenty of fiction =/= reality, anti-anti-shipping, and pro-shipping blog posts, I’m not afraid. Of the two possible approaches above (and there are others, of course), you don’t need to pick a side. Sometimes it can be deep, and sometimes not. You don’t have to defend liking it one way or the other, it’s fiction. It’s whatever any individual reader wants it to be, and keep that in mind when you read. Your reading is your own. Your headcanon is your own. Don’t let ppl concern-troll you, policing what you enjoy in fiction. I’m being a little forceful here bc I want to give you the confidence to know and believe: You. Can. Read. AND. Write. Whatever. You. Want.

Anon, you might be a troll, but this is also an honest question ppl have had about this series over the years. I want to believe you’re coming to this honestly and not trying to start something. 

I feel like I’m going to get redundant… to wrap up, the most recent and I would say, the Crackiest of the Crackicles, advertised as:

“There is always room for one more vampire novel.”

Couldn’t agree more ;D


^At Powell’s book store in Portland, Oregon. 10/30/17. 

Hope that helped, Anon!