true story, my roommate works for Warner Brothers and when they put these out at Halloween she texted me a pic of Tom Cruiseâs buttons with the caption STOP LOOKING AT MY BUTTONS and it was the greatest.
she also said that Louisâs outfit was EXCESSIVELY SHINY irl.Â
@merrycai asked if I could post the pic of the buttons BUT I DONâT HAVE IT IN MY PHONE ANYMORE but I do have this screencap from when she wouldnât stop texting me details on the costumes cause it was instagram worthy at the time lmao.
â« But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldnât stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea â«
Awww, you are very welcome to all of that! What a lovely message to send me. Notes like these keep this blog alive⊠and you made my night, Iâm cry! ^______^  Come off anon!Â
Iâm honored that ppl ask for my opinions on VC, it gives me the opportunity to dig around and find the information/resources, I have a nearly photographic memory for some of this stuff *laughs*⊠many asks make me sit back to reflect and remember what it is about this series that keeps me here⊠I can only speak to my own reasons, but I draw a lot of inspiration from these characters and their stories.Â
Am I a genuinely sweet and friendly person? I try to be the blogger and the person I want to see in the world, whether online or in the real world. Which means I still make mistakes, but I learn, and try to improve.Â
My tags! They used to be a lot sillier and Iâve toned them down, but I keep them as organized as I can so that I can find previous answers! It was just for my own organization originally but Iâm so glad you appreciate the tags! I plan to have a legit ~Navigation~ page so that major tags are all lined up and easily accessible, so you can go right to, for example, the #VC News tag and see what the latest news is. I donât reblog everything from the Official VC FB page since so much of it is teasing and fluff, so if I reblogged/posted smtg here, itâs bc I felt like it was ACTUALLY newsworthy, or there was smtg we could talk about specifically.
P.S. And thanks for reminding me, I have to catch up on my tagging, during the last two months Iâve been off-and-on-line, when you see #Tag later itâs bc I was on mobile cruising the dash ;D
Thanks again, Anon. Very sweet of you to say that *hugs*
Youâre so welcome, glad you enjoyed it! Answering asks is so much fun for me, it makes me consider my own current and previous thoughts, sometimes I even ask around privately for more ideas⊠and try to write it out as best I can, it gives me an excuse to make fresh gifs/memes, sometimes it inspires others to make fanworks⊠and I always like to hear back from the original asker that the effort was appreciated *u* ((No, you only get one question per quarter. Pffft. Of course you can ask more!))
âin general, how do we as a base know what is unreliable information or not when it comes to our narrators because from what Iâve always gathered, they have the earnest desire to convey the truth as they can see it.â
You would think that, but just like in real life, people can narrate a story for their own motivations.
TL;DR:
The characters telling their stories donât always have the earnest desire to convey the truth, so itâs not always clear what the reliable information is! When we have accounts of the same event where the details align, that seems to be the best way to confirm itâs canon, bc even Anne Rice canât always answer fanâs questions about canon stuff to everyoneâs satisfaction.Â
When thereâs conflicting details, we have to rely on headcanons, which ppl can choose to agree on or not, hence the fandom phrase, #Your Headcanon May Vary.
For example of facts aligning: I think we can all agree that Armand was the unspoken leader at the Theatre des Vampires bc Lestat left him there in a position of authority in TVL, which is where Louis found him some 80 years later in IWTV, confirming that that was Armandâs role there.
In the scene above,
IDK at that point in canon whether Lestat believes in a God, but if not, heâs deliberately lying to Claudia, bc sheâs never going to see her mother again. Even if he does believe in God, he still doesnât know where his dead go! Heâs trying to answer her in a way that will keep her calm and complacent. He knows Claudiaâs mother is dead, he saw the corpse in the movie. But she is still a child and he doesnât want to scare her or depress her, or make her feel guilty about killing, which she just did!Â
I also think heâs a little taken aback bc sheâs asking him for the whereabouts of her biological mother just minutes after he turned her into a vampire, a process thatâs been compared to birth. Itâs the most intimate act a vampire can experience. His smile falls right after she asks bc in a way it seems like heâs a deflated that she wants her biological mother, itâs like sheâs already saying, âYouâre not my REAL dad!â It might also remind him of his own mother who abandoned him ;A;
Re: Lestat P.1: In TVL, Lestat tells Armand:Â
âI never lie,â I said offhand. âAt least not to those I donât love.âÂ
Iâm still not 100% clear on this, bc of the double negatives. Can we translate it to âIâm honest with those I donât love.â â>  âI lie to those I love.â ? He spent some 65 years lying by omission to Louis and Claudia about the other vampires, and all the secrets he knew. So whoâs to say he doesnât also lie to his readers, âthose I donât loveâ ? How much does he really love his readers?Â
Re: Louis: Iâve always felt, and there are others who share this opinion, who gave me this opinion, that IWTV was dictated to Daniel from Louis with the intention of pissing Lestat off enough that he would rise from wherever he was hiding and find Louis. While I donât think Louis intentionallyLIED, I do think he might have embellished some things, exaggerated here and there, left out certain things, in order to achieve his goal. And it WORKED becauseâŠ
Re: Lestat P.2: The Vampire Lestat was Lestatâs rebuttal to IWTV, containing all the secrets he couldnât tell Louis during their time together, so Iâm inclined to believe that Lestat earnestly wanted to correct the record and win Louis back, since he still loved Louis.
Re: Armand:Â TBH, I donât know Armandâs story well enough, what I believe and what I donât, in all of canon, to say that heâs a liar. I think, like Louis and Lestat, he embellishes, he lies by omission, and he tells people things when he wants a certain reaction out of them. He lied to his coven when he was a leader all those years since he never really believed in serving Satan. Or did he? It seems like he didnât.Â
There is a particular scene that Armand describes in TVA that is questionable, as to whether it happened.
How he tried to âhelpâ Claudia the night she died (fanart by @sheepskeletonhere, if you dare, itâs gorey). Personally, I sometimes believe itâs the truth bc Armand does like⊠experiments! But then I also remember how David was flirting excessively with Armand in that book, andso itâs possible that âthis story was just something that Armand made up; somehow trying to intimidate the others, displaying the cruelty he could be capable of.â (quote from @annabellioncourtâ)
Lestat: I like your new pants!
Louis: thanks, they were 50% off
Lestat: I’d like them a lot better if they were 100% off
Louis: the store can’t just give stuff away for free.
Lestat: that’s not what I meant
Louis: that’s a terrible way to run a business, Lestat.
âDaddy issuesâ is an unfair term in real life bc itâs a judgment that carries different implications, either that someone is functioning badly bc of a bad relationship with their father, or that they had too good of a relationship with their father and are spoiled; etc.; there is a wide range, but it basically all boils down to the cheap jab: âThat person has daddy issues.â
When I see that term used on fictional characters, itâs more about people outright shitposting or having a touch of dark humor (sometimes more than a touch!) because we know these characters are not real people, theyâll never actually hear us insulting them. And whatâs intriguing to me about that term used in analysis or in canon about these characters is that sometimes itâs considered a huge fault, something you say to put a character down; but at other times, itâs a badge of honor that a character can function so well even carrying the burden of âdaddy issues.âÂ
[^ source unknown]
(530): THAT GUY IS NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. HEâS 40% PRETTY HAIR AND 60% DADDY ISSUES.
Loki and Tony Stark are great examples of fictional characters w/ âdaddy issues,â bc they both had unhealthy relationships with their fathers and it was a very formative experience for them. They are very layered and intellectually stimulating characters, would they be this way if theyâd had the benefit of better relationships with their fathers? Isnât there a kind of catharsis in watching them struggle and battle through their demons in order to reach their goals? Isnât there extra reward when we see them succeed despite the emotional burdens they bear? And especially when others taunt them about their âdaddy issuesâ and they are strong in the face of that adversity, too?Â
Google gives the definition of âDaddy issuesâ as:
âa pejorative for a lot of social, psychological or behavioral issues that may OR MAY NOT stem from an unhealthy relationship with oneâs father. Itâs usually used to marginalize issues women are having, though to be honest men are perfectly capable of having âdaddy issuesâ too.â
I was asked this a few months ago and itâs a delicate subject bc, again, âdaddy issuesâ is a pejorative, and therefore it can belittle/marginalize real people who have âsocial, psychological or behavioral issues that may OR MAY NOT stem from an unhealthy relationship with oneâs father.â Â
But since these are fictional characters I feel like we can discuss it without causing harm, and I would agree with @vampires-and-witches who had made commentary that Claudia would probably be the fictional character with the most daddy issues in VC [X].Â
^And yet, in spite of her âdaddy issues,â Claudia had persevered (at least, temporarily) when she thought she had killed her own dad/maker. As much as I love Lestat, he did have that coming to him, he deserved it, and he doesnât even blame her for doing it. So when Claudia rose up and attacked the one who had wronged her the most? 12 year old me was thrilled, cheering her on! I wasnât about to copy her and kill my parents *eyeroll* but what it showed me was the immense strength of character, someone who was at a great physical disadvantage, AND burdened with âdaddy issues,â and yet she executed her plan entirely on her own and succeeded!
I will add that I think VC has a ton of terrible fictional parents (mortal/biological and vampiric/makers). Many are neglectful, abusive, manipulative, etc. or a combination. A terrible or absent parent/maker can affect someoneâs future relationships with everyone they interact with. Itâs those fictional characters who bear that burden and rise up and succeed (or at least keep trying!) despite it, those are some of the best characters in the series, in my opinion.
So Iâll open this up, anyone can reblog/comment about the characters with the most âdaddy/maker issuesâ!Â
Hello! I have thought about this, probably thought about it TOO much⊠and while I donât a clear answer, itâs a stimulating question:Â
Was this young ânurseâ vampire a fledgling of Lestatâs?Â
^How does the old fandom joke go? Every time X sound occurs, Lestat makes another fledgling? *facepalm*
I agree w/ your point about re: Antoine, it seems like Lestat or Antoine would have confirmed that it was in fact Antoine who was the unnamed young vampire in that scene in IWTV.
TL;DR: We have unreliable narrators** in BOTH Lestat and Louis*. I personally donât think that the unnamed ânurseâ vampire in this scene was made by Lestat, but itâs quite possible! Lestat has never mentioned him again in canon, but we might find out about him in the next novel.
Hit the jump for more, cut for length.
This is an excerpt from the scene
in IWTV (the book, not in the movie) w/ the unnamed young vampire @terryfphanatics is asking about:
âBecause shortly after that I saw a vampire in New Orleans, a sleek white-faced young man walking alone on the broad sidewalks of St. Charles AvenueâŠâ (this mystery vampire kills a woman and takes her baby to a shabby old house where he meets up with Lestat) âMy eyes widened as I studied this stooped and shivering vampire whose rich blond hair hung down in loose waves covering his faceâŠ
⊠â âYou all leave me!â [Lestat] whined now in a thin, high-pitched voice.
âYou canât keep us with you!â said the stiff young vampire sharply.â
(Louis taps at the window)
âŠâ âItâs Louis! Louis!â [Lestat] said. `Let him inâ And he gestured frantically, like an invalid, for the young `nurseâ to obey. ⊠and I could see the tears welling in his eyesâŠHow baffling and awful it was, this smoothfaced, shimmering immortal man bent and rattled and whining like a crone.â
So yes, Lestat might have made this ânurseâ vampire as Marius made Bianca, a dedicated fledgling vampire to help him in his recovery.Â
As with the previously unnamed musician vampire in IWTV – who later became known as Antoine in PL – I used to headcanon that
Lestat couldnât bear to even mention the musician vampireâs name in later canon bc he was either A) an embarrassment to Lestat or B) that they had broken up violently, C) both, D) the musician vampire had really been killed by Claudia, or E) other reasons. This unnamed young ânurseâ vampire might fall under A, B, C, or E. Or maybe someone else has killed him since then *shrugs*
When Lestat says: âYou all leave me!â – ;A; This could be about his fledglings, bc, yes, when you take TVL into account, up to this point in canon all four have chosen to leave him: Gabrielle, Nicolas, Louis & Claudia (at this point in canon, the unnamed musician vampire appeared to have been destroyed). Armandâs warnings to Lestat about making fledglings
in TVL are relevant:Â
âOh, but itâs always a travesty, donât you see?⊠And the veil will always come down between you. Make a legion. You will be, always and forever, alone!
If the ânurseâ vampire was not made by Lestat: It also would have been possible for a rogue vampire to find Lestat, perceive that he was an older vampire, and might have wisdom or power, or the rogue had heard of the legendary Lestat, and come in search of him purposely. I feel like this is more likely given how beaten down Lestat was from the assassination attempt and his survival of the Theatre des Vampires in such close proximity.
THEN we have THIS (also from IWTV, prior to the scene excerpted above):
â[Armand] told me something he’d concealed from me since the time we were in Paris.
âLestat had not died in the Theatre des Vampires. I had believed him to be dead, and when I asked Armand about those vampires, he told me they all had perished. But he told me now that this wasnât so. Lestat had left the theater the night I had run away from Armandand sought out the cemetery in Montmartre. Two vampires who had been made with Lestat by the same master had assisted him in booking passage to New Orleans.â
^LikeâŠ. WHAT?
Maybe Armand had heard it through the grapevine that Lestat had these two caretakers, but since Lestat never mentions having siblings in the blood from Magnus, itâs possible that Armand is lying so that Louis thinks Lestat already has enough support and doesnât need a THIRD caretaker.Â
Or, of course, Anne Rice either A) forgot about these two sibling vampires or B) chose not to address them. They would probably both have been too old to be the âyoung nurse vampireâ but⊠MAYBE WEâLL GET THEM IN THE NEXT BOOK WHO KNOWS? Anything! is possible!
*Further complicated by the fact that Louisâs story went through Daniel and Danielâs publishers, who may have added misinformation of their own for a better story! Reprehensible that this young vampire would bring Lestat a baby as a victim, but in Lestatâs defense, he doesnât want it:Â â âYou might have brought me something else!â said Lestat bitterly.â