Hi! I have a question and you seem so knowledgeable about the series! In “Pandora,” Pandora is drained to the point of death by Akbar, then given blood by Marius. At that point she is described as still human. Then she drinks from Akasha, and Marius tells her she is immortal. Why is Marius and not Akasha called Pandora’s maker? Is it possible that they both are? If someone is turned by drinking from multiple vampires, would they not be able to share thoughts with any of them? Thanks!

Hey! Thanks for reaching out to me, I like to think I know something about this series… but I have big areas of inexpertise, in which I call forth those who who would be able to answer better, and you’ve hit one such case.

…which is bizarre, to have this kind of gray area, that I had ALWAYS considered completely resolved, that Marius was Pandora’s maker, and didn’t question it in the least, and then here YOU are, questioning it! I’m more amused that anything else, but still!

image

Imma take a little stab at it, anyway, and post publicly so as to open this up to anyone to reblog/comment to correct me, offer their own ideas on it.

So! Since there are newer fans these days: Spoilers ahead for Pandora.


Why is Marius and not Akasha called Pandora’s maker?

TL;DR: After rereading the scene, I think Marius is in fact Pandora’s maker, and Akasha’s infusion was post-turning (minutes later) as evidenced by Pandora’s “renewed vigor” and the fact that she’s already perceiving more before she drinks from Akasha.

Longer answer: From what I gather, yes, Akbar drained Pandora. Which in itself does not need to be done by the maker during the Dark Gift procedure. It typically IS done by the maker, but Louis, for example, was already pretty drained by the time he was going to be turned (mortals had bled him more than once to try to cure his madness, um, wasteful!). IIRC, Jesse had suffered a lot of blood loss from her injuries. So the removal of blood is not as crucial as the blood being given. Although, a vampire’s strength may partly lie in how the procedure is done. It’s not an exact science (this post goes into more about that).

HOWEVER, it made it necessary to save her life. Marius has Akbar bring her to the shrine, at which point Akbar sets her down to go beg at Akasha’s feet, as well he should. At this point! Pandora describes drinking blood, and Marius is with her, so it’s his. Then she goes into a lot of description about passing through a veil, changed perception of things, etc. So I think that there is where she was turned officially. 

And then:

“The crown, she would have her crown,” I said. With astonishing vigor I walked forward towards her.

^Pandora seems pretty well revived from being on the verge of death.

Now, within the same few minutes, she does drink from Akasha, but I think this infusion is already too late to be the definitive blood to turn her. It is a powerful infusion, though. As Akasha is drawing her near, the narration says:

I felt myself, a human, held together by the intricate threads of blood which Marius had given me. I felt the design of its support. It had no weight, my body. 

^So I can see where one might be confused bc Pandora is calling herself human here, but she’s also held together by Marius’ blood, and combined with the other points above, I see her as a fresh fledgling already here.


Is it possible that they both are [Pandora’s makers]? 

Sure, it’s possible! It’s fiction, so you can headcanon it however you want, you can justify it in any number of ways 🙂 

@roselioncourt​ would be a very good resource for you in terms of a multi-Maker Dark Gift exchange, bc Rose got this treatment in Prince Lestat. She would have a better answer for you about the mind-sharing situation in that case. 

The act of the Dark Gift, IMO, is the vampire maker sharing their vampiric parasite with the mortal they seek to turn. Since that parasite is the same one, just spread out among all the vampires, there’s no reason why 2 or more makers couldn’t give it over in whatever quantity and produce a single fledgling together.

In Pandora’s case, I feel like the change was already taking root by the time she got the infusion from Akasha, but if you read it as being more nebulous, then sure! Marius and Akasha can both be considered Pandora’s makers!

If someone is turned by drinking from multiple vampires, would they not be able to share thoughts with any of them? 

Yes, I think that’s right.

We’ve seen in canon that typically, a maker chooses their fledgling as someone they want as a companion into eternity. But sometimes fledglings are chosen just to fill up a coven, though, so the maker is not expected to have that intimate of a relationship with just another congregant in the group.

The point to having a mental block with someone who may be your companion into eternity, to my mind, is that if you could also share that aspect of the other person, you might get bored of them pretty fast, or it could be the cause of arguments, or any number of bad outcomes. Putting up this barrier creates some mystery about the other person, and makes it so you have to keep pursuing them, over the course of hundreds of years.

If there’s a multi-maker situation, I would think you’d get the barrier between them and the fledgling only, which would piss off that fledgling immensely. Can you imagine:

Vampires A, B, and C turn Vampire Y. So (assuming none of them are makers of each other) A, B, and C can all share thoughts with each other and Y is constantly left out and bitter about it. Bc they may all be sitting around some nights, and A and B will start laughing randomly and C will chastise them lightly, “Can you guys not? Y can’t hear you.” Poor Y!

I can’t remember which VC it was that AR tried to do some triangulated mind-reading, but it was complicated. Two vampires who were locked from each other could access each other through a conduit vampire who was not locked from them. Might have been Blood Canticle. 

You wanna know who looks like a younger Louis? Alex Saxon. Look at the pictures of him with long hair.

(sorry for the delay in reply!)

I spent awhile looking at pics and gifs of Alex Saxon, I’d never heard of him before, I don’t watch The Fosters, which I think most of the below gifs are from… and actually I think he’s more like my headcanon for Lestat than Louis, but either way, very cute! He has a real sweetness about him.

But to talk about the hair, bc I’m fixated on that…

image

^Nice volume and waves going on, nice generous mouth and smile…

image

^Good manbun, I think it would be better if it was higher up but still, works for me!

image

^really nice duck grease, which is my word for that kind of grease some ppl seem to produce (probably it’s product applied but sometimes it’s natural), that gives their hair a “piecey” or “feathered” kinda look. 

image

^I just like this gif, nice face-framing pieces, and lower hair curlier/wavier than the top/crown areas.

image

^this is Lestatuesque to me. 

image

^another nice smile ANYWAY I LIKE. 

I’m Shocked what the VC’s has took a turn to :/

VC, to me, is like, a shining example of “Dead Dove: Do Not Eat”

image

I never expected anything from AR really, so I’m never really Shocked. There are things that happened that I couldn’t have ever predicted in my wildest dreams/nightmares. It’s a ride! TBH I’m still excited about every single one, even when I don’t like them, bc I want to see where AR is taking us, on her macadamia nut high lol.  

In regards to your reblog about popular tumblr blogs. There have also been deeply unsettling instances that are like online lynchings. Where a blogger just says “btw, I’ve talked on private with that blog and it turns out they are a p*******e. y’all know what to do.” And then days later, even though there aren’t any concrete proofs or it was just an exaggeration, that person ends up deleting their blog. Imagine holding that much authority that you ruin part of someone’s life.

[this post, OP is @pazithigallifreya]

image

Yep, it IS deeply unsettling to think about how someone’s life could be ruined over a false accusation. There’s something intoxicating about saying you’ve found a monster and want to rally ppl to your cause to go destroy it. That’s been around since long before the internet and will go on in whatever form of communication people have available, whether the monster is a real one or not.

“btw, I’ve talked on private with that blog and it turns out they are a p*******e. y’all know what to do.” 

^I feel terrible saying this, but I couldn’t trust this person at face value. Maybe if it was a very close friend, but even then, I wouldn’t mobilize ppl online to attack the accused person. I’m not a police officer, I would probably tell that victim to go to the police. The police have the tools to find the accused, the time and training to build the evidence properly and legally.

Keep in mind, too, that tweets/chats/etc. can be digitally manipulated, like this tweet (although it could be real for all I know, but I would hope not):

image

Then there’s the thornier matter of people who ARE guilty of offenses, from the small to the large. There are abusers out there who trawl for prey. There are also people who wrote something in the past that they may have apologized for and definitely deeply regret. 

I’ve certainly made mistakes and written cruel things I would take back if I could. I can’t apologize enough or genuinely enough for how I’ve hurt people. 

[Imagine holding that much authority that you ruin part of someone’s life.]

…And so often they end up with a rabble ready to crucify anyone who doesn’t do as they are told, and that’s when I really run for the hills…


^I’m of the belief that no individual online should have that kind of power, this is why we have a legal system which determines guilt and punishments fairly. No judicial system is perfect but it has to be better than some stranger online telling a mob to pick up torches and pitchforks to attack another stranger online. 

monstersinthecosmos:

secret-les-mis-blog-ooo:

lestat & his relationship with abuse

there’s something to be said for lestat being abused in a home of disgraced aristocrats struggling financially and then becoming abusive later in life, using money & material possessions as a means of affection, communication, and control, all whilst relying heavily on social status. it’s almost like because he felt powerless, the second he was given this immense strength over virtually anyone or anything, he decided to make for himself what he associated with power. he knew his father had control over him, so he mimicked his controlling ways. he didn’t have as much money as he liked? well now he does! disgraced social standing? patron of the arts, member of high society! also louis loves to read and is in general, a fan of all things intellectual. we know lestat at one point wanted to go to school, wanted to read, wanted to write and was kept from that… yet he rags on louis for doing just that. louis was a plantation owner, he had plenty of money and overall good status to back it. he takes this man as his fledgling, and instantly he has control over him. he keeps him down, because even as a mortal he’s all the things he ever wanted and never got. he, in the very core of his being, is envious of louis. louis, however, in a way wears his heart on his sleeve. he’s very empathetic and feeling and is prone to depressive moods. lestat exploits this weakness and tries to position himself as “stronger” by pretending he isn’t hurting just as much inside from the “mortal coil” he claims he left behind. they both have their traumas. they’re struggling to deal with them in different ways… lestat won’t let it out, and louis won’t move on. they’re mirrors of each other. it’s the same dance to a different tune, and that is why they clash so aggressively in IWTV. i think each of them sees what they hate in themselves in each other, and also what they love. this is why in healthier circumstances than those created in IWTV, they are perfect for each other—they each provide something for each other that they can not consistently manufacture on their own. and this growth is what i think would have been a better path for canon to take as opposed to louis becoming complacent to lestat’s aggression, and lestat repeating the same broken patterns. but this is why we have fan fiction..im very glad that this is in the hands of arguably more consistent authors than anne.

bottom line is, i think people overlook the fact that lestat is also hurting but is just very good at hiding it + lying to himself about it. this isn’t to say that it excuses the way he treats louis, but it is more information about where these patterns are coming from and why. i think after being with lestat awhile, louis, being the intuitive person he is, probably sees through his act. even in IWTV he begins to assert himself to lestat, he isn’t afraid of him per say because he doesn’t genuinely believe him to be heartless like he pretends to be. because louis knows that in his own, broken way lestat loves him. and he loves him too. but if they want to grow that love, they have to begin to heal themselves before healing one another. and i like to interpret the times when louis goes to armand as his moments where he says, “i need to sit with my issues with someone quieter than you, and you need to do the same, because this just isn’t working right now”. each of them holds the key to everything the other fears, loves, and craves.

I wanna add @covenofthearticulate

‘s tags cause this is meaningful

these 👏🏻 two 👏🏻 fucks 👏🏻

I’m glad to see this addressed and there’s been some good discussion on this post, I think everyone on it has come to it with their own interpretations of the characters and the ship in question. I think overall, at least at the time of this reblog, the ppl on the post can agree to disagree. #Your headcanon may vary.

Personally, I do think Lestat was abusive towards Louis and I think @secret-les-mis-blog-ooo and @covenofthearticulate had some very astute comments about that, bringing up points about what might have led Lestat to be abusive, not providing excuses, but unpacking what makes an abuser tick, which can help us recognize abuse and stop ppl from becoming abusers in the real world.

I’m adding to the post but not looking to stir up any drama, I did want to add that @theoneandonlylestat was approaching the topic from a valid point of view, too, it’s true that all the VC characters are problematic in their own way. I thought that they had a good point that Louis’ interpretation of events could also be unreliable, and I’ve even thought about how Daniel’s publisher may have made things more scandalous to sell more books. Louis might also have lied by ommission.

^That said, I am more inclined to trust Louis’s report of things, even though I do think he left things out. There was only so much cassette tape available that night!  

The other thing I wanted to add is that abuse in fiction can be difficult for a reader to define. The first time I read IWTV I was 11 yrs old, and I loved Lestat, as one fan once put it, falling in love with Lestat is like falling headfirst down a flight of stairs. It’s an awkward falling in love, bc you know it’s wrong, but he’s fictional! Why not?!

And I didn’t see Lestat as abusive. I saw him as this fun bad guy, this antagonist who would make snappy comments at Louis and Claudia and threaten them sometimes, but usually with some humor laced in, his bark was usually worse than his bite, and he’d physically push them around somewhat, but 11 yr old me was accustomed to Looney Tunes characters being pushed off of cliffs, stabbed, shot, steamrolled, etc. and coming back for a new cycle of violence every few minutes. Physical violence can be entertaining, it can be cathartic.

Later on when I reread IWTV, and read posts, and had discussions with other fans like @wicked-felina, I realized that Lestat certainly was being abusive, with the things he would say and do to Louis and Claudia. The physical abuse came into a new light bc I understood the concept of abuse in the real world much better.

^All this is not to say that I demand everyone agree with me and we all denounce Lestat as a horrible abusive demon!! <—-sarcasm. Not at all, not what this is about. It’s not about vilifying a problematic character, which tumblr discussion can veer towards, so I can see why this post had friction.

Too often it’s “This character was/is abusive, THEREFORE, he should be deleted from canon and fandom!”

Here, it’s “We see that this character was/is abusive, FURTHERMORE, this may be why he acted this way, not excusing the abuse, but we want to know WHY.” <—which can lead to understanding the roots of abuse and recognizing it in the real world. Which, to me, is part of the point of fiction. To entertain, yes, but also, to teach us something about the real world.

Being able to discuss abusers in fiction is useful in that it can show that abusers can come across as beautiful, charming, and loving, when they’re not being abusive. Abuse comes in subtle and not-so-subtle forms. It’s good to be able to talk about it and be able to see it for what it is.

But in the same respect, not everyone will define smtg in fiction as abuse. When I was 11 yrs old it was amusing to me. I still find it entertaining in fiction but I 100% do not endorse it in real life.

We can all still love an abusive character and not support his actions in real life.

What do you think of the series being on hulu?

Progress is progress! It’s something!

image

^this thumbs up from Al Bundy is probs closest to my feelings bc (at least out of its original context) it appears to be approval, begrudging approval, maybe a little sarcastic, but you can tell that he IS glad, too, he’s so tired, but always open to the good in the world… he’s waited a long time, he’s acclimated to waiting.*

IDK much about Hulu and the shows/movies they have, just that they’re often sending out free trial offers and like, it reminds me of drug dealers trying to get new ppl hooked in with free samples, which is standard operating procedure but still makes me wary. 

I am, as always, and forever shall be, ~#cautiously optimistic~, and I am glad that someone who’s kind of a big deal showed interest enough that it seems like things are in motion again! 

*(As a side note: I always loved ‘Married… With Children,’ and I think it was partly bc as bitter and grumpy as Al was, and as mean-spirited as he could behave at times, deep down, you could tell he loved his wife, family, neighbors, and friends, and had made some peace with his life choices. Maybe I was projecting onto him, but anyway, this was a formative character for me.)(Which is my long-winded example of smne who may appear to be just another unlikable/problematic character in a sitcom, but I found smtg good and substantive in him, which will hopefully be the case with the new VC TV series with all the problematic characters/stuff in it).

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

i-want-my-iwtv:

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:

image

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! 

image

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

image

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

Hope that helped, Anon!

So I’ve been in the fandom for about…2 weeks. In the middle of the 4th book right now. I’ve heard that the books get worse and stuff and I wonder if I should read all of them or skip some or…?

This is really hard to answer, and I nearly answered it privately, bc I don’t want to sow dissension in the fandom, it’s something ppl love to scream into the void about. But I see you’ve already started drawing some fanart for the fandom, so I want to encourage you to stay with us!

Some fans would tell you that #4 onwards in canon have certain characters being forgotten or mistreated by the author. I would say that there are storylines that are dark to the point that, even with my very high threshold for Crazy Shit, even I’ve had to close whatever one of these later books and just say, “omgz Aaaaaanne, whyyyy… We didn’t want this, nobody wanted this…”

image

If you’ve come looking for perfect cinnamon rolls, we only have one, Mojo, and he’s a dog 😉

I’ve heard that the books get worse and stuff and I wonder if I should read all of them or skip some or…?

image

So this depends on your definition of “worse.” They are a pile of dysfunctional hipster trash vampires, and several characters, but specifically the main character in the books, do some exceedingly problematic stuff, and, arguably, he is not condemned by the author in the text. There are fans who choose to disregard all the books from #4 onwards bc of that, and that’s totally fine. 

Your headcanon is your own, and you do NOT have to accept all of canon, and you do NOT have to interpret canon the way any other fan interprets it. Don’t let another fan bully you into thinking their interpretation is the Only one.

PERSONALLY, and I know I’m not the only one who feels this way: back in the old days we called the later books #the Vampire Crackicles (spoilers in that tag) and enjoyed them for the silliness, bc there is plenty of humor still in the darkfic. And there are those, like me, who want to read darkfic, too. We want to go there in fiction, and explore what the consequences of even the most atrocious actions are. Can a character who’s committed X crime ever be redeemed? Redemption might not even be about forgiveness from the victim, but the effort of that character to strive to improve. That can be so cathartic for the reader, whether the character achieves it or not, the inspiration can come from the fact that they TRY and FAIL! repeatedly.

I always recommend that ppl give each of the books a chance, even the most cracky have some good stuff in them.

For the most part I think we’re a kinder fandom than others, since we suffered through our own fandom creator waging war on our fanfic and driving us underground for years.

And the fandom is pretty welcoming, but I’ve found it’s better if you know what happens in canon, and can talk about it with other fans, make fanworks about it, or whatev. Even to criticize. 

Like any social media, though, your fandom experience is what you make of it, follow the #vampire chronicles tag, find some bloggers you like, and reach out! 

I just got my hands on The Vampire Armand and Blood and Gold. But is it important to read Armand’s story before Marius’s? Or should I read Marius’s then Armand’s? What’s your hot take?

Personally, I would always recommend reading them in order of publication, bc that’s the order AR explored the characters and their stories. And some things may be mentioned in B&G that would spoil TVA. 

TVA has a lot more of the problematic stuff re: Amadeo/Marius as a ship, so if you’re not interested in that, you might want to avoid it entirely. 

I admit that I like Armand more as a character than Marius, I enjoy his voice, the framing of that story in terms of what’s happening with the other characters at that point in canon, and TVA obvs has more focus on Armand, and, I think, TVA is a better story overall, so I prefer that book entirely, but that’s just me!

Anyone can add their thoughts on this, too 😀

Hello again, I have two questions to ask if you would kindly give me a moment or so of your time. The first actually regards to Marius,Armand, and Daniel ((again)). How would you say Daniel’s realtionship with Marius and Armand differ from one another but still hold similarities? The second question is more so a “what if” question. What if Louis’ brother had been turned and not Louis. How do you think Paul’s (( That’s his name right? )) story would have played out? Happy New Years Eve btw.

Bonjour! Happy very belated NYE to you, too, and I’m sorry this took so long, to be honest, your first question deals with a potentially very controversial topic.

I’m answering this publicly so other ppl can chime in if they feel comfortable doing so.

1|2 [How would you say Daniel’s relationship with Marius and Armand differ from one another but still hold similarities?]

image

^[X] I don’t know if this is a legit quote from Angelina Jolie (it’s more poignant now that they’re broken up, if so ;A;), BUT. I think the quote makes a good point.

A real relationship may not always be rainbows and sparkles. Someone seeing you at your worst and still loving you. It’s complicated. I know of relationships that seem to be all fluff on the surface, but underneath, resentment grows, when someone in it feels like they’re giving more than they feel is fair, but can’t communicate for fear of making it worse. When you confront your loved one with your issues, sometimes it gets ugly. That’s healthy, to be able to have those difficult conversations to improve things.

So when we compare fictional ships, like real life, there’s much that happens off-screen, whether in individual reader’s headcanons, or reported by unreliable narrators. We get info from canon and work with it. 

Both ships you mention have potentially major controversial stuff about them and this is a blog for entertainment, so I don’t want to get deeply into that. But I would say, in my own reading, that I see both ships as having pairings who deeply care for each other, and express that love in different ways, and they’re not always able to do that smoothly. 

Without meaning any disrespect to other fans, my own interpretation of these two ships is pretty superficial, as they involve characters I haven’t spent as much mental space exploring. 

Daniel/Armand helped each other in many ways during the time that they were together. Daniel taught Armand about the modern world, gave him a will to live, and Armand was endlessly fascinating to Daniel, not only for being a vampire, but because of Armand himself. I do believe Daniel really and truly fell in love with Armand. Their sass was so complementary! And it was NOT all rainbows and sparkles for them, they had a feisty and rocky ship for 10 years! 

The beginning of Daniel/Marius isn’t as explicit in canon… I remember just suddenly finding out sometime after QOTD that Daniel had gone to live with Marius and I was like, “Really?” and it seemed like Marius was in more of a caretaker role with him, as Daniel was somewhat mad, reeling from everything he’d experienced in QOTD, as can happen with fledglings for the first few months/years, and this developed into a legit canon ship between those two. Marius seems to have learned from the past that he can’t have a teacher/student ship and expect it to last, at least to my mind, he treats Daniel with the respect of an emotional equal. Maybe we’ll get more info on them in the next book.

2|2 [What if Louis’ brother had been turned and not Louis. How do you think Paul’s (( That’s his name right? )) story would have played out?]

image

[X] Yep his name is Paul. That’s really tough bc we barely get to know Paul, except that he’s 15, and deeply religious, ppl think he’s gone mad, so much so that he believes he really had visions of St. Dominic and the Virgin Mary. I think the killing-to-live aspect would have been totally rejected by such a religious person. He probably wouldn’t want to see his own family in his damned state, ever again ;A; Paul would probably rather go into the sun than feed on animals and enjoy any of the vampiric gifts.

The other way Paul might have gone is in deciding that Lestat was an actual angel, and choosing to redirect all his religious fervor towards Lestat… and we don’t need anyone doing that! Lestat says he wants to be worshiped, but I think these are the words of someone who was starved for affection in his formative years. He doesn’t want the unconditional love of a religious zealot, not really. He wants love that has to be earned, over and over again, and the reward of that love is that it’s genuine and not because he’s just that pretty.

So I think Lestat would tire of such a sycophant and move on, Paul would go into the sun.