can co-exist and transform with the added element of immortality and how they might eventually be forgiven) are reduced to, like. “X did Y so they’re bad!” posts. it’s an incredibly boring way to approach tvc and i just don’t understand what people get out of doing it.
my biggest issue with so much discourse on here is that it approaches anne’s work with a moral judgement she simply wasn’t interested in & in doing so things that are often a beautifully complicated and complex exploration of love and abuse and victimisation (and how these things
Vampirism dissolves all human forms of attachment and in the book, that is the BEAUTY of it; that Lestat and Gabi are freed from the structure of the family and roles they were forced to inhabit within that structure
I’m still irritated that Lestat’s “it’s different for vampires” line in the show was meant to suggest that Lestat is in denial about the “abusive” nature of his relationship with Gabi because….it literally is different for vampires that’s the entire point.
ALSO, while they will always be mother/son, the book is much more interested in what else they can be as vampires. Maker/fledgling, lovers, mother/son (with Lestat as the mother). This hinges on Gabi’s relationship to gender which is barely there if at all in the show
In the book, Gabi still remains Lestat’s mother bc it is something Lestat will always crave BUT the difference is HE still clings to the promise of her as a mother, whereas she rejects it. So, it makes her desire to control Lestat in the show at odds w/ her actions in the book
I’m still irritated that Lestat’s “it’s different for vampires” line in the show was meant to suggest that Lestat is in denial about the “abusive” nature of his relationship with Gabi because….it literally is different for vampires that’s the entire point.
@vampiresslestat So far, I've not seen anyone point out how the type face in the restaurant logo echoes the classic #TheVampireLestat cover ~ the "S" and "E" especially...