vividxp
It’s really obvious to me that a lot of the retcon theories and discussions that people are having around episode 5 and 6 are not about telling a coherent story or character arc but more about trying to soothe the discomfort of the theorist.
Because in my opinion episode 5 was visceral but not shocking. It was something that was established and building from all the episodes before it. In addition, Episode 6 is probably one of the most important episodes in season 1 and the train scene gave a lot of insight into both Claudia and Lestat’s characters and motivations. Episode 7 doesn’t make sense or even hit the same without the events in Episode 6. (I disagree with the notion that episode 5 was enough and that we could have skipped to episode 7).
Additionally, when I read these theories, I try to imagine what it would mean if it’s true. Okay, let’s say Louis wasn’t physically outclassed by Lestat in episode 5, what does that actually change? Is it not still domestic violence just because Louis got a few punches in? Is it not Louis throwing himself in front of Lestat to protect Claudia? (Side note: Is it not still book canon for Louis to do this very thing (fight Lestat) for this very reason (to prevent Lestat from putting hands on Claudia)? I’ve seen the excerpts…)
Let’s say that the entire end of episode 5 was an implanted memory from Armand. Ok, how does Louis end up in Europe in the first place? Why would he leave Lestat (hot take: I find it endlessly fascinating that Lestat reacted before knowing if Louis would have agreed to go with Claudia. He seems to think that Louis would have left him, but is that really true? I personally doubt it) Why doesn’t Claudia just leave again? Why does Lestat have to die or be incapacitated?
Maybe I’m not in reading in the right places. But my biggest issue with a lot of the ‘unreliable narration/louis is lying/louis is being brainwashed’ theories is that they don’t add anything to the story. In fact some of these theories seem to destroy whatever story we’re being told. If these theories were true, the writers would have spend significant time picking up the pieces and telling the story in season 1 again. And there’s still so much more we have to cover in season 2. I really just can’t see why they would do that and what would be gained from that.
randommusingsofviolet
Is it not still book canon for Louis to do this very thing (fight Lestat) for this very reason (to prevent Lestat from putting hands on Claudia)?
Yes, yes it is. Lestat never actually puts hands in her in the book, but that’s really because Louis steps in before he can.
But looming over/lunging at your visibly smaller (trapped in the body of a child) fledgling, threatening to destroy them (and your partner) and storming off in a fit of rage is just as bad though.
It’s why fans taking issue with the plausibility of Lestat’s behavior in the show isn’t sitting right with me. I don’t know how they read IWTV and TVL and came away with the belief that just because Lestat (from his own POV) doesn’t think that he was abusive to Louis/Claudia somehow means that he wasn’t?
Like of course he doesn’t see why they felt trapped, intimidated, and to compelled to kill him? And I’m sure it genuinely took him by surprise, as he lacks interpersonal empathy/self-awareness unless it smacks him in the face, but I think it’s naive to just say that Louis and Claudia are liars/mistaken/misremembering how he treated them.
