vampireapologist:

merciful-death:

vampireapologist:

I didn’t know that post was being reblogged and it makes me happy that it is but in the tags I found someone defending Louis’s narrative as truthful and I’m actually really curious about that point of view! Pretty much anyone with whom I discuss the vampire chronicles agree that Lestat is the more reliable narrator like literally no one I have spoken to says they believe Louis’s narrative over Lestat’s and I’d love for someone with that stance to get in my ask box and like, try to convince me to believe Louis over Lestat. That could be super fun!!

ooc; I feel like Louis was very particular about what he talked about and how he spoke of it when he gave his interview.  Louis is a very cautious individual who, in canon, is repeatedly stated as valuing his privacy, so for him to give the interview in the first place suggests that he had reasons for doing so.  I’ve always surmised one factor was that he wanted Lestat to be angry and come find him.  He didn’t really know Lestat’s circumstances re: Lestat going to ground, so for all he was aware, Lestat could have been out there somewhere, conscious and aware.

I think one of the more interesting inconsistencies is the timing of Louis’ encounter with Lestat at the end of Interview with the Vampire.  Louis states that it was “just last spring” that he and Armand had encountered Lestat in New Orleans, acting crazy.  Lestat verifies in The Vampire Lestat that Louis & Armand did come to New Orleans (although his account of the story is definitely different from Louis’), but he states that their visit occurred in the 1920s, shortly before he went to ground.  I think with the timing, Lestat’s definitely more believable due to the whole fact that he did go to ground for YEARS, which then leads me to believe Louis’ whole story regarding their reunion is fictitious (although, at the same time, Lestat WAS kind of losing it, so).  I think it was an intentional lie on Louis’ part, probably to put a bullseye on Lestat’s location just to be that douchebag.  And suggesting the encounter was more recent would make it seem like Lestat was still there.  Of course, Daniel ended up running into Armand instead of Lestat. 😉

I think a lot of how Louis speaks of the past with Lestat was due to him feeling pretty fucking bitter at the time, and honestly, I think he probably didn’t fully understand a lot of Lestat’s motives back then.  Louis is good at telling the truth, but not the complete story, and both he and Lestat are great at viewing things exclusively from their own points of view.  They’re both very opinionated.  Of course, Lestat’s also very good at exaggerating.

To make a long story short–it’s always been my belief that when Louis lies, he lies intentionally.  I think Louis and Lestat’s narratives together make the actual true story.

Oh! I absolutely think Louis’s lies are totally intentional! I think he’s dishonest in his narrative, not delusional! That exact inconsistency, Louis’s description of speaking to Lestat in the ruined house, is where I started side-eyeing Louis and second-guessing everything he tells us throughout his narrative. He didn’t just mark Lestat’s location, he made up what was apparently a totally fictitious Vampire trying to get Lestat’s attention just to make the encounter that much more…what? Dramatic? I guess?

“…and honestly, I think he probably didn’t fully understand a lot of Lestat’s motives back then.”

The lack of communication between them is like, THE issue in their relationship honestly. And the major problem is that the thing Louis wants most of all, answers about Vampires and their origin, is the one thing Lestat is literally forbidden to provide. Poor Louis was just wanted some rhyme and reason to his immortal life, the same way Lestat did when he left all of those messages for Marius over the years. They’re very similar in their need for knowledge, imo.

“I think Louis and Lestat’s narratives together make the actual true story.” I like this conclusion a lot! It’s just unfortunate we don’t actually get to hear them both tell two sides of the same story but for a very brief bit, because of course Anne Rice wouldn’t write and publish all of the Claudia years again told form Lestat’s pov. But! I wish we could read that, you know? In Louis’s narrative we get a brief background of his life before Lestat, and then most of the story revolves around his life with and after Lestat. Whereas Lestat’s story is almost completely without Louis until the very end, and their interactions are largely summarized. Like I said, it wouldn’t make sense in the real world to recap everything in Louis’s story form Lestat’s point of view. But I think if we were able to hear ALL of Interview with the Vampire from Lestat’s point of view, we’d end up with the absolute truth by picking through and putting together both narratives. It’d be a wonderful read!!!

Thanks for the response!!!! (:

“Louis is a very cautious individual who, in canon, is repeatedly stated as valuing his privacy, so for him to give the interview in the first place suggests that he had reasons for doing so.  I’ve always surmised one factor was that he wanted Lestat to be angry and come find him.” 

“I think Louis and Lestat’s narratives together make the actual true story.”

^Yep! Very much agree. AND WE CAN BLAME MARIUS FOR THIS, who forbade Lestat from telling the secrets ;A; This may have been retconned, but one good reason Marius gives for not telling the vampire origin story, etc., is that Lestat’s fledgling(s) might not be able to handle the truth:

[Lestat:] “Yes, ” I said. “But the legends, our origins … What about those
children that I make? Can’t I tell them- " 

[Marius:] "No. As I told you, tell part and you will end up telling all. Besides,
if these fledglings are children of the Christian god, if they are
poisoned as Nicolas was with the Christian notion of Original Sin and
guilt, they will only be maddened and disappointed by these old tales.
It will all be a horror to them that they cannot accept. Accidents,
pagan gods they don’t believe in, customs they cannot understand.
One has to be ready for this knowledge, meager as it may be. Rather
listen hard to their questions and tell them what you must to make
them contented. And if you find you cannot lie to them, don’t tell
them anything at all. Try to make them strong as godless men today
are strong. But mark my words, the old legends never. Those are
mine and mine alone to tell. "