annabellioncourt:

i-want-my-iwtv:

Why thank u dear, such a lovely compliment! I shall have to post more selfies… unless u are referring to my inner beauty of which I have an abundance *u*

I do ship L/L! Absolutely! However did u guess?? sometimes Louis doesn’t ship them but thats fine bc nobody ships L/L as hard as Lestat ships L/L.

[fanart by FiestaTB ]

ANYWAY: Why u no write so much Louis, Anne Rice?

[memeything by vampchronfic]

I don’t remember when exactly, but I think AR did call Louis a “damaged pilgrim” at one point. There’s that.

If you want to cry over Louis, read Merrick, if you haven’t already. He has a lead role in that one ;] But be prepared because your feels will be squarely hit.

Hit the jump for my thoughts on why we don’t get much Louis action post-IWTV.

Keep reading

(ok because Louis spoke in English, and the French followed MOST of the same patterns in literary history, I’m going to base this mostly with British literature)

Yep! Louis manner of talking was much more flowery. It was lush and decorative without the higher philosophical trappings of the earlier 1800′s. Louis is more along the lines of the Oscar Wilde’s era of the very late 19th century, which is what most people think of today when they think “Victorian writing.” Similar in voice (though not subject) would also be Matthew Arnold (read some of his essays, and tell me that’s not how Louis talks), Wilkie Collins, and Henry James.

The trade mark of the era was the fading out in popularity of language for the sake of language: the British (and to a lesser extent the French) had a love for the intricacy of the language, how it all worked together, and (take a look at Charles Dickens for an Example of this) it would result in using several paragraphs to tell what could be summed up in a couple sentences. 

The realists in France and a few in Russia (as the Russians idolized France in the 1800′s) were starting something new by the close of the century: keeping their prose short, sweet and to the point. With no less artistry they found beauty in a minimalistic approach: instead of “Roses of velvet that matched the shade the rubies dripping from the mark of the asp on Cleopatra’s breast,” for example, it was now “soft, bloody roses.” 

They still evoke the same image, but not the same tone. 

Going back to what this has to do with Louis: he’s not so much involved in human goings on, he’s aware of events and films, but still speaks in the language of the century where he spent the most time communicating with others–also he would not have lost his speech patterns over those decades with Armand because Armand was mostly isolated in his language circles. So we can look at all of that as to why Louis talks the way he does.

I’m sorry if that was incoherent and rambling; I’m cooking and writing at the same time.

^I knew I could count on annabellioncourt for some​​ excellent points ❤ 

She also added: “Louis does show a HEAVY influence from the French symbolist poets (the school that Charles Baudelaire was from).”

Of course Louis would express himself in the language of the writers he enjoyed. OF COURSE HE WOULD. We all know he’s basically a big ol’ bookworm w/ fangs.