Tag Archives: unreliable narrator

So at the end of IWTV, when Louis goes to see dying Lestat, Lestat is sobbing and tells Louis that when he came home to the Rue Royale (that night) he just wanted to talk to him, and then went after him in Paris. Louis asks what he wanted to tell him/talk to him about but Lestat shrugs it off: “But he only smiled at me, an insipid, near apologetic smile.” What was Lestat going to tell him? I haven’t finished TVL yet so not sure if he clears this up in the epilogue or totally denounces it. Thanks

Leave a comment

There’s two times in IWTV that Lestat says he just wanted to talk to Louis post-swamping.

1. “There’s something I must tell you… about that night in the swamp.“

^Lestat says this to Louis in Paris, at the Theatre des Vampires, re: smtg Lestat had wanted to tell Louis the night Louis and Claudia put him in the swamp, seemingly dead. 

image

Neither of them ever bring it up again, but my guess would be that it had smtg to do with the feeling Louis had when he put Lestat in the swamp. In the book, he walks into the muck w/ Lestat’s body, going far from shore, and feels a pulling, like he should go down with the body:

“I felt a pull suddenly, as if some force were urging me to go down with him, to descend into the dark water and never come back. It was so distinct and so strong that it made the articulation of voices seem only a murmur by comparison. It spoke without language, saying, `You know what you must do. Come down into the darkness. Let it all go away.‘”

Being maker and fledgling, they technically cannot read eachother’s thoughts, so maybe, in this extremely emotional moment, Lestat was able to pierce that veil to cry out for Louis in the only way he could ;A; Or maybe it was just Louis feeling guilty about, idk, helping kill his own maker!!!

Hit the jump for more, cut for length.

2. “ ‘I wanted to talk to you so much,’ he said. `That night I came home in the Rue Royale I only wanted to talk to you!’… `I went to Paris after you…’ ” 

^At the end of IWTV, when Louis finds a very decrepit (but not dying, Louis says “dying” but it’s emotionally dying, not physically) Lestat, Lestat insists he just wanted to talk to Louis the night he dragged his soggy butt out of the swamp and back to the Rue Royale, but it seems to refer to what he said in Paris, smtg about the swamp.

We don’t even know if this scene in IWTV actually happened, bc Lestat denies it in later books. We have a pile of unreliable narrators.

image

[^What a bittersweet moment in movie!IWTV, that “final” meeting before Louis goes to SF to find some cute guy to tell his life story to.]

Based on the fact that Lestat wrote an entire book in response to IWTV, he most likely wanted to tell Louis EVERY SINGLE THING that was in that book. It’s Lestat’s backstory, everything else he couldn’t tell Louis during the 65ish years they were together in NOLA, and most importantly, WHY he couldn’t tell him any of those things.

Confession: When I first saw and later read IWTV, I didn’t think that Lestat and Louis were a couple. I understood they had a relationship that was complicated and deep on many levels, but I thought it was because of the whole turning into vampire and living together for many years thing, not romantical or sexual.

Leave a comment

Well… your message sat in my inbox for 5 days bc this is a question every reader has to answer for themselves. It partly depends on how much canon you’ve read. 

image

[^X “I love him in ways that I can’t explain to other people. They don’t understand… it’s not their fault.” is that not canon?!]

IWTV is Louis’ account of their time in that era, and as @vraik​ astutely pointed out, Louis admits that he’s holding back information when he says “If I held something too close for you to ask about it, I would not bring it up in the first place.” Lestat says as much near the end of TVL, that Louis left many things out. *~Unreliable narrators!~*

And movie!IWTV had even less of what Louis says in the book, because it had to be edited for the sake of time… many scenes in the book were not in the movie. Also, it was made in the early 90′s, keep in mind that it pushed the envelope for its time re: showing any homosexuality.

tl;dr: I ship Louis/Lestat, I don’t need to define my ship as romantic, sexual, or platonic, etc. I just hardcore ship them TOGETHER.

Hit the jump for more, cut for length.

While they don’t “date” in canon, Louis talks about Lestat in IWTV with a lot of fascination, and later, Lestat writes about Louis with a lot of fascination, too (more, really!)… and they don’t actually kiss in canon until the 3rd book, right before Lestat’s big concert, and then they’re separated again soon after. It’s a ship that takes alot of Read Between the Lines.

Most of the vampires who are turned in canon are turned bc their makers love them so much that they can’t let their loved one be perishable any longer. Whatever Louis’ perception was of IWTV!Lestat, it seems clear to many of the fandom that Lestat chose Louis for more than his wealth and/or friendship, and that now, in later canon, the feelings between them are mutual.

AR answered this in 2014 when she was answering #Fan Questions for Lestat, in which she RP’d Lestat admitting that Louis would be his “Forever Companion.”

There was an article out in 2012 that had some varied comments worth reading about it: Anne Rice confirms that the vampires Louis and Lestat are a same-sex couple with a child. 

io9: There’s the concept of Louis and Lestat as Claudia’s “parents,” which we see in the novel, movie and now in the graphic novel. When you know the narrative, it’s not quite the modern statement it could appear to be visually, in the adaptation. Are you okay with that as an idea for the new century?

AR: Sure! [Laughs] Sure! I never thought of it, they were the first vampire same-sex parents.

io9: I had wondered if that had been a thought on your mind before.

AR: No.

io9: That’s the way that it seems to be shown, it’s very much “she’s our daughter now.” So I can say, they’re a same-sex couple with children?

AR: Absolutely! Claudia! She’s their daughter.

My additions to one of the comments is pretty funny and you should check it out bc hey, you’ve read this far so? KILL MORE TIME.

I’ve heard people complain about Anne being really inconsistent with the continuance of the VC storylines, as in, she can’t keep the story straight to save her life. I personally haven’t noticed but maybe you have?

Leave a comment

Yes, we have a series of #unreliable narrators in the VC who tell the stories from their experiences, and their “facts” don’t always align. 

image

[^X Remember these Social Network posters I did? I REMEMBER THEM]

There are many examples of canon “facts” being different in different books. One of the best examples of this is whether Louis visited Lestat sometime after he burned down the Theatre des Vampires, but before his interview w/ Daniel. Lestat says it didn’t happen. 

Lestat acknowledges that IWTV was inaccurate but he doesn’t hold it against Louis: 

“But this is the tale that was told by Louis in Interview with the Vampire, which for all its contradictions and terrible misunderstandings manages to capture the atmosphere in which Claudia and Louis and I came together and stayed together for sixty-five years.

… As for the lies he told, the mistakes he made, well, I forgive him his excess of imagination, his bitterness, and his vanity, which was, after all, never very great. I never revealed to him half my powers, and with reason, because he shrank in guilt and self-loathing from using even half of his own. ”

When ppl complain about the storylines/facts being inconsistent, well, I can only remind them that she wrote the books in the order in which she was exploring her characters. Did some things get lost or confused along the way? YES. I don’t read other series, so I can’t say that there is – or should be – a standard to which we hold authors and expect them to have consistent storylines/facts.

But from what I know of the Bible, considered a sacred canon by many ppl worldwide, even that text has unreliable narrators describing scenes which vary to the point of discrepancy. 

I understand that inconsistencies can pierce the delicate suspension of disbelief for some readers. The seeming concerted deviation from the pre-established VC verse is a major reason why it’s impossible for me (and others) to accept PL in its entirety. So I know that feel, bro!

Basically what I’m saying is that the #unreliable narrator excuse quiets this type of confusion for me, for the information that I accept as canon.

hey i was wondering, have you seen the person recently (not sure i should link or not) where a critic is analyzing the series in order? if so what did you think? they seem to have been in the fandom a long time like you, are you friends?

Leave a comment

You probably mean @vraik! 

I’ve been following Vrai Kaiser for awhile now, but never reached out… Because of your ask, I finally did so tonight and we chatted a bit tonight! ^_____^

I’ve read some of their IWTV analysis here, and over on their blog, Fashionable Tinfoil accessories. Here’s the tumblr masterpost of their IWTV review. 

One of the things we talked about tonight is that different ppl engage with fandom in different ways. Some ppl engage with canon by making fanart, fanfic, cosplays, etc., some ppl do it by examining the text, considering it on its own and also re: the cultural impact it has on its readers. 

Vrai presents some intriguing opinions with a really good sense of humor in their writing style, and they have great pics from various sources (w/ fun captions!) to break up the text, definitely worth checking them out ;D

image

[^X one of my memes, it’s Neil Jordan, certified vampire therapist]

Reading through Vrai’s reviews, this was something I grabbed onto and I really like it, re: Louis as an unreliable narrator [from The Consulting Analyst – Interview with the Vampire (Part 2)]:

I know I keep coming back to the fact that Louis lies and leaves things out of his story above and beyond his own ignorance of others, but it’s a crucial thing to return to in parsing out some manner of “truth” from the events we’re being told about. Between this account and Lestat’s own bitterness-tinged declaration that follows is an actuality, and the ambiguity of what defines that “truth” is very much at the heart of what allows these books to survive from one generation to the next. Even as parts become antiquated, you can always read a truth behind the bluster that speaks to you in a way Anne’s writing wasn’t able to cover. The ideas of these outsiders outlive the frame.

For a final touch on the subject, here’s an important moment from a little bit earlier.

“But you mustn’t be afraid to ask me anything. If I held something too close…” And when the vampire said this his face darkened for an instant. He frowned, and as his brows drew together a small well appeared in the flesh of his forehead over his left brow, as though someone had pressed it with a finger. It gave him a peculiar look of deep distress. “If I held something too close for you to ask about it, I would not bring it up in the first place,” he said.

So Louis as good as admits that he’s hiding things. It’s our job as readers, from here, to suss out where those lines get drawn.

Leave a comment

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.”

The lack of communication between them is like, THE issue in their relationship honestly

^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. " 

There were many things, as I mention, which Lestat might have said and done. He might have made the experience rich in so many ways. But he did not.

Louis – Interview with the Vampire (Anne Rice)

“No need to tell him what to observe, or what to remember. He always knew such things. Years ago, when I’d
done the dark magic on him, I hadn’t had to tell him anything; he had savored the smallest aspects of it all
on his own. And later he’d said I’d failed to guide him. Didn’t he know how unnecessary that had always
been?” – Lestat, Queen of the Damned (Anne Rice)

Leave a comment

annabellioncourt:

vampchronfic:

mylittleinferno:

firelight-fading:

mylittleinferno:

Does anyone else feel that the quality of the Vampire Chronicles books goes downhill the further you read into the series? 

I mean, I love Anne Rice and her novels but sometimes I get the feeling she put out a book because of contractual obligations. Some of the VC books are just.. meh. 

(If you don’t mind my input) I feel like the quality kind of slopes downward, comes up again just a little bit and then goes down even further. I actually enjoyed The Vampire Armand (despite the weird shit that went on), but as for the 2 books that preceded it, I really didn’t care for them at all. I haven’t read on-ward since because I’ve heard things regarding the other half of the series so, I can’t attest to that half.

I don’t mind 🙂

I’ve heard that some of the books are better but after I read TOBT it really killed my enjoyment of the series and I’ve only recently gotten back into it.

You’re not wrong—there are a lot of people who have the same general opinion (YMMV on which book began the downward spiral). #i-want-my-iwtv — you need to weigh in on this one!

I have argued to doctorate holders that IWTV is a true work of literary genius. TVL is my favorite for its unrepentant hedonism and introspection–I think Lestat is more self aware than Louis is, and more aware of how others think than Louis is, and I love his narration (despite the fact that I am literally Louis). 

Queen of the Damned is well on par with TVL in its quality–and its a high quality straddling the line between good popular fiction and high brow literature……Armand, Blood and Gold, Pandora, Vittorio: they’re right below it in literary quality for me. The rest seem to be just good popular fiction, not great, but good. 

I love them all to bits, and will defend Anne and her work, and continue to read whatever she writes, but….you are right, there really is a change in her writing.

*Officially weighing in*

Lots of good points above, I absolutely agree that IWTV is a true work of literary genius. Agreed on everything annabellioncourt wrote. For me, none of the later books remotely approaches the richness and intensity of IWTV, TVL, or QOTD, but yes, I’d say TVA was very good, and shouldn’t be lumped into the lesser VC simply bc of its post-MtD publishing date. 

I would agree w/ firelight-fading that it’s not a sharp downward slide in quality, but more that “the quality kind of slopes downward, comes up again just a little bit and then goes down even further.” Blood Canticle would have ended this series, and for what it’s worth, I would say that Prince Lestat begins to get things back on a better track plot-wise and emotion-wise than it nearly ended on.

My short answer:  I think AR can still capture that old quality we all fell in love with, albeit in slivers. Which is why I can’t disregard any of the books entirely. It’s still hard for me to accept Prince Lestat as canon, I might never, but there are moments and lines of dialogue in it that are SO VERY GOOD. Moments where I’ve had to pause and smile, because it was as if the old Lestat, from IWTV or TVL, actually graced us with his presence, if only for a moment.

However, in general, I would say that the VC began as a work of catharsis for her (we probably all know the Claudia = Michele Rice connection by now); she had real questions that needed answering, she had a powerful hunger to flex her storytelling muscles, steeped in all that older literature, she could still relate to us mere mortals, and she had her poet husband’s emotional and creative support. Don’t underestimate Stan’s contribution 😉

So I’d say that’s why the first few books (1-3 or 1-5 or whatever, depending on your cutoff point) are so strong, and why we mourn the loss of that passionate searching. Because as she got more successful, as she exorcised her demons, she might have lost touch with the emotions and questions she began the journey with. I’m happy she’s happy! I would probably still be a mess, if I had lost a child and a husband, both who still had a lot of life ahead of them ;A; 

But I’m glad she seems to be in a good place, and that she’s still writing, even though she is probably financially secure enough not to need to touch WordPerfect ever again!

Hit the jump for more. 

It’s easy to denounce a pile of books. It’s easy to just slam them down or make a gif of them on fire yes I did that before I finished reading it and it’s kind of a bonding experience to all agree to like or dislike a thing together. I get that. Hey, I actively dislike movie!QOTD. I immediately feel a little kinship w/ others who agree w/ me on that, and I am aware that’s mean to those who feel nostalgia for that movie, so I try to keep it to a minimum publicly. 

Why do people dislike the later VC books? Because they’re wild? (They are!), They are historically inaccurate? (Probably!) The characters seem “off” or present unreliable narration as to past events told by other characters…? (They are and they do!) 

^All of which are varying degrees of criminal acts that call for Fictional Character Protective Services™ but I advocate for the proverbial devil because that’s one of my things that I do so here we go:   

Wild stories:

  • Well, AR attempted to appease her POTP fanbase in some regard, merging the Mayfair Witch series into VC, and she acknowledged that it hasn’t “worn well.”
  • She’s trying to appease the POTP who have begged her to give Lestat a biological child (check that off the list), and get married with a ~ceremony~ (allegedly happening in the next installment, Blood Paradise) bc how can he be at all remotely happy w/out making an honest man out of Louis FFS like c’mon.
  • She’s always tried to push the envelope and TOBT was WILD for its time in this series, how incredible that she’s managed to make that seem so tame in comparison to later canon!
  • Not to mention the Dora scene in MtD. 

They are historically inaccurate:

  • Probably! But I’m not a history buff, so for me, to say the characters are wearing something that wasn’t invented until, idk, 50 yrs later, doesn’t bother me. 
  • I can understand why it might irritate the hell out of someone else, though. 

The characters seem “off” or present unreliable narration as to past events told by other characters… 

  • But that happens in real life, too! X might have one version of a story and Y, who also experienced it, might have a much different version. I enjoy seeing the perspectives, and consider for myself who’s version I believe. 
  • Louis and Lestat argue over whether Lestat was about to eat a baby at the end of IWTV “in a scene which we both know did not take place!”

In the last analysis, AR can still blow me away with a scene, or just a line of dialogue, even in the far less popular books in the series. She can still make me put the book down and stare off into space for a breather. 

BUT, as I mentioned above,

I think AR can still capture that old quality we all fell in love with, albeit in slivers. Which is why I can’t disregard any of the books entirely. It’s still hard for me to accept Prince Lestat as canon, I might never, but there are moments and lines of dialogue in it that are SO VERY GOOD. Moments where I’ve had to pause and smile, because it was as if the old Lestat, from IWTV or TVL, actually deigned to be present, if only for a moment.

Leave a comment

therainingkiwi:

acertainmaybe:

a-dreaming-equestrian:

no more ‘vampires who correct history books’

more vampires who don’t remember
more vampires saying ‘i don’t fucking know man, google it’
more vampires not remembering important historical figures
more vampires not recalling centuries worth of history
more vampires saying ‘ that was at least 300 years ago, how the FUCK could i remember that detail?’
more vampires whose brains work like human brains

More vampires who 300 years later can’t remember what was the truth and what was the lie they told to get out of trouble.

More vampires who are like, “I don’t know, man, I spent most of that decade in an opium den.”

More vampires who weren’t paying attention because they didn’t think it would be important.

More vampires who don’t know because there was lot of conflicting gossip and they don’t want to point any fingers.

More vampires who are just bad at dates. “Back in 1620, or was it 1645, wait, what year is it now?”

More vampires who were on a totally different continent when it happened, so get off their back and stop asking them questions already.

YES to all of this but also consider: vampires who only remember the most trivial stuff.

“Oh yeah, the only thing I remember about the American Revolution was this nice candlemaker I met sometime, and she was wearing this really cute red shawl…”

“Uhhh I don’t remember much about the fall of Rome but there was this one fucking cobblestone right outside the coliseum…”

Leave a comment

lagerthassword:

i-want-my-iwtv:

gabrielledelioncovrt:

i-want-my-iwtv:

For the record, AR loves fanart, so keep it coming! ☆° ｡:.ﾟヽ(´∀`｡)ﾉﾟ.:｡+ﾟ

☆

BUT SHE HATES GABRIELLE

Pssssst ok fine with us let the fanfic writers write about her if u don’t want her WE’LL TAKE CARE OF HER WE LIKE HER ALOT OK?

Anne’s dislike of Gabrielle makes exactly Zero sense, since she described Gabrielle as a loving and supportive mother in the books ??????

?????

??

?

lagerthassword tags: #I’m confused??????? #is there a Chance that These are fake tho?

These are legit screencaps. Quote about fanart is here: 

https://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage/posts/10152971250530452

Quote about Gabrielle is here: 

https://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage/posts/10151591952230452

It’s worth mentioning that in another thread, in another topic, AR is asked about “But as a long time fan, I’ve ( and many other fans, I´m sure..) never understood the whole “Lestat and Louis- thing” and I think in a psychologically way it is also very interesting. Please, can you POFOUNDLY explain this whole relationship?”

AR responded:

image

[https://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage/posts/10150907098925452]

^What CAN she really say that would change one single line in any novel about her characters? She’s told us the story, she’s saying it’s up to us to interpret it however we choose. #Your Headcanon May Vary.

Questions like those are the kinds of things that make her want to explicitly spell it out for us (through Lestat’s POV, in PL, here):

““I love you,” I whispered. In a low intimate voice, [Louis] answered: “My heart is yours.””

In writing/storytelling, as in art, there’s the old adage “Show; Don’t Tell.” In this age of social media where we can ask the artist/storyteller anything, should we? Why do we need her Official Confirmation? It doesn’t hurt to ask, but one should take the answers with a grain (or truckload full) of salt. 

It seems to me that it’s better to read the story and have your own interpretation, “Read between the lines,” rather than have it broken down and explicitly stated.

do you have any thoughts on how the vamps change overtime, character wise? For example, say Lestat in TVL vs Lestat in body thief? Or even Armand in IWTV vs Armand in the later books. I haven’t read PL, and as much as I love these vamps I feel like gradual character development isn’t really present, it seems to come suddenly and all at once instead. (Sorry if this doesn’t make sense, I have trouble wording things sometimes)

Leave a comment

This is a gr9 question! NOT an easy answer. And I think you got your question across just fine 😉

image

AR deserves more credit* than you might think, for the way she jumps around through the series, shedding light on the previously established timeline via different POVs, or just having a character revisit the same scene. Sometimes she also does “Retroactive continuity,” or “retcon” for short: “the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work.”

*Actually, some might argue that when she does this it offers frustratingly conflicting views on previous events, hence, the Unreliable Narrator issues we have throughout the VC.

Anon: “…as much as I love these vamps I feel like

gradual character development isn’t really present, it seems to come suddenly and all at once instead.”

So here’s the thing, in the VC, the publication dates of the books ARE NOT NECESSARILY aligned with the chronological timeline of the set of stories described in the books. (This Timeline I found seems pretty accurate.)

  1. IWTV (published 1976) lays out Louis’ story (between approx. 1791 – 1975).
  2. TVL (published 1985) is Lestat’s story (between

    approx.

    1766 – 1985) plus the origin story of the vampires (Ancient Egyptian times,

    approx.

    4000 BC). 

  3. QOTD (published 1998) is Lestat’s story in 1985, it was a whirlwind Bad Romance.
  4. TOBT

    (published 1992) is Lestat’s Body Dysmorphic Disorder episode, takes place in 1991.

  • And so on…

TL;DR, I see clear character development when I take in the larger view of all the stories. Some of the later canon books I might have preferred not to have happened, but OH WELL.

But character development in fictional characters (as with actual real people) =/= a clean line of improvement or deterioration. Lestat and Armand have both improved over time in many ways, but they’ve also lost good qualities. Lestat’s definitely lost a few marbles along the way.

Hit the jump for a little more, & spoilers.

For brevity, just gonna answer your question re: 
“how the vamps change overtime, character wise? For example, say Lestat in TVL vs Lestat in body thief? Or even Armand in IWTV vs Armand in the later books.”

Lestat: 

TVL!Lestat is feisty, freshly resurrected, appetite for destruction, wants to “correct the record” of IWTV by sharing the secrets that he couldn’t in IWTV, and establish himself as the actual protagonist of the series. 

Approx. 10 years later in the timeline of the books, TOBT!Lestat is suffering emotionally from the blowback of what happened after sharing that information and trying to be a big shot, and he’s got ghost!Claudia on his back prodding him to consider whether he even deserves to continue vampiring ;A; when he’s so weak against his own impulses. He tries to suicide, and when that doesn’t work, has a renewed sense of belonging in the world. Then in TOBT, he fucks up pretty royally, relies on one best friend to help him get things back to normal, and then almost destroys that friendship by selfishly Forced-Dark-Gift-paying-it-forward. So I’d say that’s a lot of character development.

Armand:

IWTV!Armand was supposed to be intimidating and shrouded in mystery, the teacher/mentor for Louis that Lestat refused to be. Later, when we get Armand’s backstory in TVL, TVA, and B&G, we see his origins and how he got to be the manager of the Theatre Des Vampires, and however intimidating he might have been to Louis, that wasn’t remotely close to what he was like as the leader of the Children of Darkness, Parisian Chapter. So he’s had to adapt to alot of harsh situations, and find some sense of inner peace along the way. 

Lestat and Armand are almost 2 sides of the same coin; Lestat was forced into the Dark Gift, Armand begged for it. Lestat had to learn how to vampire alone as an orphan, Armand had an overbearing teacher and was then kidnapped by a cult. 

They’ve both had to deal with finding peace and a place for themselves in a world that doesn’t really need or want them, a struggle many of us readers can identify with as being part of our own character development over time.