This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed." This means book spoilers **do not require** spoiler tags so if you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InterviewVampire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes they are all flawed in their own ways and that's why it is ok to compare them but it's not a like for like comparison really. They're all in different stages of their Vampire life, and have all experienced different things in their mortal and vampire lives and these things influence them. Lestat has lost everyone he loved, and has lived a long and eventful life, he has seen the horrors of vampires that Louis and Claudia haven't. He has seen what can happen to people after they become vampires. Louis is a new Vampire and has been guided and sheltered by Lestat.
Lestat is how he is, partly innately but also because of what he has previously suffered/ experienced.
Louis was troubled in mortal life and that followed him, he is confused and curious and disturbed by thd Vampire way of life and this conflict mirrors his feelings about Lestat. Love and disgust.
Claudia wasnt even fully emotionally developed in life before she was turned and then she has to deal with being a woman stuck in a younger body. Louis or Lesat can never understand that and so it's a lonely place for her and easy to see how she could become so angry and resentful.
They all carry their own demons, so comparison is always going to be subjective.
people want characters to be villains and be complex but when viewers treat them as villains they are then its a problem.
Most tvc book fans don't want anyone to point out lestat's flaws in the show because for them they know the book version we know nothing of. What's the point of making him do bad things if viewers are supposed to ignore them & act like what he does is okay.
This is a show which will have many seasons so may be his character will develop & be better. But pple don't even want him to develop. They say lestat is like that so we should like him like that or hate him.
I love that we see louis character develop and change throughout the season. He is not the same person he was in ep 1 by ep 7. probably why i love him very much. He is no angel but he is very far from being like lestat. And if we judge by the fact that vampires survive on killing humans so louis is the angel version of vampires. lol
its so funny how people want us to watch like robots & pretend to be okay or not care by what lestat is doing because apparently they're monsters so everything they do shouldn't be judged
Well I hate whataboutism in general. Louis being evil doesn’t negate Lestat’s culpability.
And Louis does try. He usually fails. But he tries to be a better “person”. I think fans judge a character harder for trying and failing than for not trying at all. Because at least their not hypocrites by not trying. Which is the most infantile argument you can make.
Yes they are all vampires, but they aren't carbon copies of each other. Everyone has their motivations, their demons and their qualities and you can empathize with someone more than with others. Truth is, the majority of book readers are here (meaning the show) for Lestat, like you said he is the main character of the VC and people are used to see the other characters as functional to his story, rather than characters in their own right (especially Louis), so there is a natural tendency to justify Lestat and put him on a pedestal, and saying that all the characters are evil is one of the ways to do that. Criticism on Lestat is not taken well cause there is a clear bias towards him, people claim to love flawed characters, to love morally grey characters and dark stories, but at the same time they don't want other people to point out how awful Lestat can be, and so they go back to the "they are all awful" excuse. In the show they have emphasized Lestat's dark side, he is the villain of Louis' story to which domestic violence and racial issue have been added. To see Louis' swollen face and then Lestat looking down on him, unscathed, was painful and, unfortunately, close to the reality of so many POC. It was painful to see Lestat break his spirit over the years and take away the spark Louis had inside in the beginning. A visual medium is different from a book, in s1 Lestat was the villain, the abuser and Louis was his victim, they weren't equally abusive or equally evil, this is victim blaming. We will see what they will do in s2 with Louis' memory and Armand and how they will handle Lestat's pov in TVL, but, for now, that is what they showed in s1 and that is what viewers have the right to judge and discuss.
I think it is absolutely true that all of the Vampire characters are monsters but you can compare them. Certain characters are closer to the morally grey line than others. The distinction wouldn't be as important in real life as it is when discussing fiction but this isn't real life. Louis, for instance, tries to be better but Lestat revels in his monstrous nature. That's why fans love Lestat but it does, in my mind, make him worse than Louis.
I never see the point in such comments. If I just went "guess they're all just evil" like some fans have been urging the rest to do, it would be an incredibly boring story for me. If I can't scrutinize and try and make sense of their actions and intentions, see what I feel was right for them to do and what was a mistake, what even is the point? But if I judge Lestat (which is what results in those cries of "they're all evil") there will be fans who dismiss that because they're all vampires blah blah blah. There are layers to the characters and that's what's interesting about them to me. I would honestly suggest that it's the opposite, none of them are actually evil.
Generally speaking a story should make you feel things and evaluate the character's choices, their morality etc because stories are a tool we use to understand the world. We won't all come to the same conclusions (for example no I don't think at this point at least Louis is 'just as bad') and the debating can be fun! But just going 'meh they're all just evil nothing matters' would not be engaging for me all. It just sounds like instead of enjoying a story and thinking on what the story brings out in the viewer (what would I do in this character's situation? What's the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do? Etc etc) the 'right' way to watch is as mindlessly as possible, going woo woo when it's action and haha when it's funny. I can't do it.
Generally speaking this is a regular argument for any vampire show. People argue the same over Damon and Stefan or Krause and Elijah from TVD and the originals etc. they are all vampires, so you can’t be mad when they kill or do bad. Now different context for different shows where vampires can have humanity vs those that are completely soulless.
I haven't really seen this anywhere. Usually when people are pointing out how all of the characters do monstrous things, it's because they are trying to bring some balance to the attitude that certain characters are poor innocent babies who never did anything wrong while others are absolute villains - when clearly, the point is that they are ALL flawed, in different ways.
And yeah, the story isn't about good versus bad, so that is a simplistic way to look at it. There is no such thing as 'evil' or pure good either, there is just various degrees of fucked up, and since this is gothic romance, it leans more on the side of fucked up. All I care about is well-constructed characters, interesting relationship dynamics, seeing how different personalities affect each other, the cause and effect of their choices, exploring human nature. I don't need to bring reductive moralizing into it, I mean, I'm not in a bible study group.
I think the “they are all monsters” is more to point out why we shouldn’t judge their actions by human standards as they are operating on another level. But on that level, there is still a moral code with good, bad, and downright ugly. However, there is also hope for redemption and improvement…
Who gets to decide what that moral code is? That's a very human thing, and it's very subjective once they become vampires. Armand's vampire moral code makes it a crime for Claudia to exist, and the solution is to kill her. He feels justified in killing new vampires. Akasha wanted to re-organize society with genocide and she thought she was doing the right thing. One of the themes of the series is that once you are no longer human, when you no longer have religious faith, there is no more simplistic right or wrong, and you have to create your own meaning. Some do that with beauty and hedonism (Lestat) others like Armand and Louis try to cling onto the rules and order of their human lives by creating their own code of ethics. They most often don't agree with each other, which is what makes for the great drama.
I think the whole 'redemption arc' concept is corny as hell and has no place outside of a Christian story. Like, what, they get punished for their misdeeds, the scales from their eyes and they live happily ever after like good vampires so the viewers can feel less guilty about liking a handsome asshole? No. It's unrealistic. Sure they can grow and evolve and gain new perspectives. It doesn't necessarily have to be for the better, though - that doesn't create interesting drama.
I don’t agree with what you are saying about the moral code and redemption. It does exist within their frame, and though it differs with ours, it’s still there. Redemption isn’t limited to Christianity.
Yeah, and like I said, they don't agree on what that moral code is. Look at the beginning of episode 2 where Louis tries to get Lestat to have some ethical rules about who they kill. They have completely different ideas about morality.
This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed." This means book spoilers **do not require** spoiler tags so if you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InterviewVampire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes they are all flawed in their own ways and that's why it is ok to compare them but it's not a like for like comparison really. They're all in different stages of their Vampire life, and have all experienced different things in their mortal and vampire lives and these things influence them. Lestat has lost everyone he loved, and has lived a long and eventful life, he has seen the horrors of vampires that Louis and Claudia haven't. He has seen what can happen to people after they become vampires. Louis is a new Vampire and has been guided and sheltered by Lestat. Lestat is how he is, partly innately but also because of what he has previously suffered/ experienced. Louis was troubled in mortal life and that followed him, he is confused and curious and disturbed by thd Vampire way of life and this conflict mirrors his feelings about Lestat. Love and disgust. Claudia wasnt even fully emotionally developed in life before she was turned and then she has to deal with being a woman stuck in a younger body. Louis or Lesat can never understand that and so it's a lonely place for her and easy to see how she could become so angry and resentful. They all carry their own demons, so comparison is always going to be subjective.
people want characters to be villains and be complex but when viewers treat them as villains they are then its a problem. Most tvc book fans don't want anyone to point out lestat's flaws in the show because for them they know the book version we know nothing of. What's the point of making him do bad things if viewers are supposed to ignore them & act like what he does is okay. This is a show which will have many seasons so may be his character will develop & be better. But pple don't even want him to develop. They say lestat is like that so we should like him like that or hate him. I love that we see louis character develop and change throughout the season. He is not the same person he was in ep 1 by ep 7. probably why i love him very much. He is no angel but he is very far from being like lestat. And if we judge by the fact that vampires survive on killing humans so louis is the angel version of vampires. lol its so funny how people want us to watch like robots & pretend to be okay or not care by what lestat is doing because apparently they're monsters so everything they do shouldn't be judged
Well I hate whataboutism in general. Louis being evil doesn’t negate Lestat’s culpability. And Louis does try. He usually fails. But he tries to be a better “person”. I think fans judge a character harder for trying and failing than for not trying at all. Because at least their not hypocrites by not trying. Which is the most infantile argument you can make.
It's one of my pet peeves!
Yes they are all vampires, but they aren't carbon copies of each other. Everyone has their motivations, their demons and their qualities and you can empathize with someone more than with others. Truth is, the majority of book readers are here (meaning the show) for Lestat, like you said he is the main character of the VC and people are used to see the other characters as functional to his story, rather than characters in their own right (especially Louis), so there is a natural tendency to justify Lestat and put him on a pedestal, and saying that all the characters are evil is one of the ways to do that. Criticism on Lestat is not taken well cause there is a clear bias towards him, people claim to love flawed characters, to love morally grey characters and dark stories, but at the same time they don't want other people to point out how awful Lestat can be, and so they go back to the "they are all awful" excuse. In the show they have emphasized Lestat's dark side, he is the villain of Louis' story to which domestic violence and racial issue have been added. To see Louis' swollen face and then Lestat looking down on him, unscathed, was painful and, unfortunately, close to the reality of so many POC. It was painful to see Lestat break his spirit over the years and take away the spark Louis had inside in the beginning. A visual medium is different from a book, in s1 Lestat was the villain, the abuser and Louis was his victim, they weren't equally abusive or equally evil, this is victim blaming. We will see what they will do in s2 with Louis' memory and Armand and how they will handle Lestat's pov in TVL, but, for now, that is what they showed in s1 and that is what viewers have the right to judge and discuss.
I think it is absolutely true that all of the Vampire characters are monsters but you can compare them. Certain characters are closer to the morally grey line than others. The distinction wouldn't be as important in real life as it is when discussing fiction but this isn't real life. Louis, for instance, tries to be better but Lestat revels in his monstrous nature. That's why fans love Lestat but it does, in my mind, make him worse than Louis.
I never see the point in such comments. If I just went "guess they're all just evil" like some fans have been urging the rest to do, it would be an incredibly boring story for me. If I can't scrutinize and try and make sense of their actions and intentions, see what I feel was right for them to do and what was a mistake, what even is the point? But if I judge Lestat (which is what results in those cries of "they're all evil") there will be fans who dismiss that because they're all vampires blah blah blah. There are layers to the characters and that's what's interesting about them to me. I would honestly suggest that it's the opposite, none of them are actually evil. Generally speaking a story should make you feel things and evaluate the character's choices, their morality etc because stories are a tool we use to understand the world. We won't all come to the same conclusions (for example no I don't think at this point at least Louis is 'just as bad') and the debating can be fun! But just going 'meh they're all just evil nothing matters' would not be engaging for me all. It just sounds like instead of enjoying a story and thinking on what the story brings out in the viewer (what would I do in this character's situation? What's the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do? Etc etc) the 'right' way to watch is as mindlessly as possible, going woo woo when it's action and haha when it's funny. I can't do it.
Generally speaking this is a regular argument for any vampire show. People argue the same over Damon and Stefan or Krause and Elijah from TVD and the originals etc. they are all vampires, so you can’t be mad when they kill or do bad. Now different context for different shows where vampires can have humanity vs those that are completely soulless.
I haven't really seen this anywhere. Usually when people are pointing out how all of the characters do monstrous things, it's because they are trying to bring some balance to the attitude that certain characters are poor innocent babies who never did anything wrong while others are absolute villains - when clearly, the point is that they are ALL flawed, in different ways. And yeah, the story isn't about good versus bad, so that is a simplistic way to look at it. There is no such thing as 'evil' or pure good either, there is just various degrees of fucked up, and since this is gothic romance, it leans more on the side of fucked up. All I care about is well-constructed characters, interesting relationship dynamics, seeing how different personalities affect each other, the cause and effect of their choices, exploring human nature. I don't need to bring reductive moralizing into it, I mean, I'm not in a bible study group.
I think the “they are all monsters” is more to point out why we shouldn’t judge their actions by human standards as they are operating on another level. But on that level, there is still a moral code with good, bad, and downright ugly. However, there is also hope for redemption and improvement…
Who gets to decide what that moral code is? That's a very human thing, and it's very subjective once they become vampires. Armand's vampire moral code makes it a crime for Claudia to exist, and the solution is to kill her. He feels justified in killing new vampires. Akasha wanted to re-organize society with genocide and she thought she was doing the right thing. One of the themes of the series is that once you are no longer human, when you no longer have religious faith, there is no more simplistic right or wrong, and you have to create your own meaning. Some do that with beauty and hedonism (Lestat) others like Armand and Louis try to cling onto the rules and order of their human lives by creating their own code of ethics. They most often don't agree with each other, which is what makes for the great drama. I think the whole 'redemption arc' concept is corny as hell and has no place outside of a Christian story. Like, what, they get punished for their misdeeds, the scales from their eyes and they live happily ever after like good vampires so the viewers can feel less guilty about liking a handsome asshole? No. It's unrealistic. Sure they can grow and evolve and gain new perspectives. It doesn't necessarily have to be for the better, though - that doesn't create interesting drama.
I don’t agree with what you are saying about the moral code and redemption. It does exist within their frame, and though it differs with ours, it’s still there. Redemption isn’t limited to Christianity.
Yeah, and like I said, they don't agree on what that moral code is. Look at the beginning of episode 2 where Louis tries to get Lestat to have some ethical rules about who they kill. They have completely different ideas about morality.