Channing Tatum’s book cover model in The Lost City is a reference to Fabio, but is also styled after Brad Pitt from Interview with A Vampire. Pitt was 30 when he filmed Louis in 1993, Channing was 41 when he filmed The Lost City in 2021.
I’m sharing a personal theory on a little inconsistency in the Vampire Chronicles that has always bugged me. I’m very much aware that this is most probably just Anne having changed her mind or just lacking continuity, but damn was this fun to think about and speculate! This is obviously my opinion only and I’m sharing just for fun, so don’t take it too seriously
So here’s my first meta/fan theory/conspiracy theory/something:
Lord Harlech – To be or not to be!
Armand becoming a vampire when he was so young is a massive part of his character and it’s often been brought up as a disadvantage to him in canon (mostly by leaving him in a more childish mindset). The story of Armand’s mortal life and turning into a blood drinker has been told in three separate books by three separate narrators in three somewhat different periods. Below are some screenshots of the event of Armand’s turning told by our three narrators:
If they’re TLRD for you (and I get it lol) just skip to the part after that. They’re just reference anyway.
Book: The Vampire Lestat
Narrator: Lestat retelling what Armand showed him through the mind gift
Book: The Vampire Armand
Narrator: Armand retelling his own story to David
(I’m just adding bits, cuz his whole transition was a bazillion pages lol)
Book: Blood And Gold
Narrator: Marius retelling his own story to Thorne
(Just snippets again)
TLDR, right? Lol
So there are some differences between the three versions, although TVA and B&G are mostly in line (with a few exceptions that I’ll list below).
But the most noticeable thing for me is the famous Lord Harlech, who is suspiciously omitted and entirely missing in TVL.
Here’s the breakdown:
I love Excel and it has endless applications in life lol
So the question here is – was there a Lord Harlech at all? Was Marius truly left without a choice in turning Amadeo so young, or was it all by design? The question I try to ask is:
Why lie?
Assuming that this is not just a mistake (which I’m pretty sure it is lol), one of our three narrators is lying. But who?
Is Lestat lying? – If Lestat is lying, then that means that Armand showed him his story with Harlech included and then Lestat deciding to change it centuries later. However, the event in question happened three centuries before he was ever even born, so it doesn’t pertain to him. The only reason I can think of him maybe lying is to piss off Armand with whom he has a shaky relationship. However, that might also piss off Marius, for whom he feels quite a bit of respect. Either way, it seems that it’s unlikely that he’s lying (imo).
Is Armand lying? – Well yes lol! If we assume that Lestat is not lying (which I do) then it means that Armand either lied to Lestat or in his autobiography. Here I’d consider his mental state during the time – when he was showing Lestat his past, he’s truly hit rock bottom – he’s desperate, beaten, directionless, starved for love, light and purpose, he’s lost everything, he’s exposing all his vulnerabilities to Lestat and just let’s the guard fall down – not too likely to lie. But what about in TVA? He’s at a turning point in his life, trying to outgrow his past, having reconnected with Marius who has expressed a regret for turning him so young. He also admits that Marius brings out the best in him and he admits to loving him still.
So what if he invented Lord Harlech to protect Marius’ reputation? What if, having seen that Marius is regretful of it, he uses his own autobiography to exonerate his maker and tell the world “hey, he had no choice, it’s not his fault!” The newly-fabricated Lord Harlech is Armand’s gift to Marius, a way out of his “great crime”. To top it all off, Armand paints a picture of Marius being terribly conflicted and hesitant before giving him the blood. Which of course strengthens the image of Marius’ assumed innocence in the matter.
And if that’s the case, why didn’t he do that in the beginning when telling his story to Lestat? Why not come up with the story from the get go and stick to it? Well…he thought Marius dead then and what’s the purpose of defending the reputation of a dead man? Or a living one that had chosen to never come back for him?
Is Marius lying? – Marius is most definitely the most subtle of the three narrators (although the bar’s not very high with Lestat and Armand lol). He admits to having made up his mind that he’d turn Amadeo the following night and then lo and behold – said following night Amadeo is dying by the elusive Lord Harlech’s poisoned blade. He even goes on to say “It was not his decision that mattered now. For I had made mine.”
So what Marius is basically saying is ‘yeah, sure I turned him while he was on his death bed, but I would’ve done it that night anyway.’
So how to interpret this? I see it this way – Marius indulges in the Harlech fantasy (perhaps because he wants to respect Armand’s whishes and sticks to the version he has chosen for his own transition into the Blood), but he also clearly states that in the end that didn’t matter and he takes responsibility. Perhaps that admission is his gift to Armand, he’s respecting his decision but also wants it to be known that he’s owning up to it (and dare I say – not regretting it really).
And Also the whole “greatest crime against our kind” line from TVL takes a very different meaning, dependent on Harlech’s existence:
If Harlech doesn’t exist – his crime was not waiting until Amadeo was old enough
If Harlech did exist – his crime was turning Amadeo instead of letting him die
I guess I’ve spent so much time thinking about this, because Armand’s premature turning is such a big aspect of his character. Also, it’s been brought up time and time again for the dynamic between Armand and Marius – Marius calling him childish, faulting him for being too naïve or immature or savage. And all this because he was turned at the tender age of 16 or 17.
So what was it? Was Armand made so young because otherwise he would’ve died? Or was he turned young for no reason other than that Marius willed it that way? Did Lestat just bitch around or did he accidentally expose Marius and Armand’s dirty little secret?
Back during the time when it was popular to bash Twilightfor both legitimate reasons (Edward being borderline abusive to Bella, the whole child grooming plot point in Breaking Dawn, etc.) and not (REAL VAMPIRES DON’T SPARKLE THATS GAY), I saw this meme on Facebook where it was Louis and Lestat from Interview With The Vampire commenting on Edward’s sparkling and making fun of him for being gay. Like… Buddy My Guy. My Fair Dude. My Dear Sweet Homophobic Idiot. Not only are the Vampires in IWTV super duper gay, you’re lying to yourself if you think Lestat wouldn’t slam dunk his entire body into a tub of glitter on any given occasion. You Fool. You Imbecile.
Louis: Does he ask our pity? He can walk in the sunlight, whereas we, foul creatures of darkness as we are, are forever barred from God’s kindly li –
Lestat, upending a pound of iridescent craft glitter on his head: SHUT UP LOUIS
Everyone on this post is gonna be sued by Anne Rice
Okay, but this is missing out on the glorious tags of the OP: #what kind of SAVAGE AND AN IDIOT would ever imagine Lestat#a man who crawled out of the swamps of new orleans because his ex wrote a book and was /getting more attention than him/#and then proceeded to become a GLAM ROCK DIVA and Slut For Fame™️#just so people wouldn’t forget who was Doing Better after the breakup#wouldn’t just absolutely snort a tub of glitter like so much expensive cocaine#lestat de lioncourt - ultimate nightmare toreador#cowards#have you met him even once
