#rasa theory

[insightfultake]

India’s Cultural Legacy Shines: Bhagavad Gita and Natyashastra Receive UNESCO’s Global Recognition

In a proud cultural milestone, two of India’s most profound ancient texts—the Bhagavad Gita and the Natyashastra—have been granted a coveted place in UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register. This international recognition elevates the global visibility of India’s timeless wisdom and reinforces its civilizational contribution to the arts, philosophy, and ethics.

[kedarasish]

Rasa Theory

[twelvebooksstuff]

Sunrise on the Reaping (Post 8 of Many)

The snake that Lou Lou had during her interviews and even later on in the arena was FASCINATING to compare with its use in the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, the idea of a girl associated with a snake, who is a tribute from District 12. Lou Lou is much like Lucy Gray in that she will call out the capital to their faces, (her “murderers” refrain, for example) but unlike how snakes are often associated with danger and corruption in the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, they are associated with empowerment here. Presumably based on her experiences in District 11, Lou Lou has a deep adoration for snakes and absolutely loves them, seeing them almost like friends/family (basically the only family she can remember 😭), a large contrast between the presentation of the snakes in the first prequel. It’s nice to see this more positive portrayal of a species and subverts the expectations we might have had going in, as is the purpose of the whole book. Also worth noting that while snakes definitely are used as a symbol of evil irl, they are also used a symbol of healing irl and I like the incorporation of this into the story and series. Reminds me of Dr. Gaul as well, and how she represents a Hobbesian view of humanity and the worst of us all, and how Lou Lou has a more hopeful view IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, definitely a more Rousseau or Lockean view (more in line with John Locke I suppose because she’s in many ways a tableau rasa, a blank slate, and able to be good from that state)

[greentea-and-honey]

tabula rasa is such a fun fic to write because with stuff like this i usually have to like do lore drops through hints or implications even though i usually have like 10k words of analysis and lore that i have in outlines that i never get to say openly unless someone asks me directly. but the way i set up tabula rasa is eventually i get to grab yall by the throat and sit you down and pull out a slideshow titled "AND WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING ANYWAY: BY ME, GREY"

[inkliinng]

[bright-hope-spot-19]

No, this is true. I actually have a theory that when Rasa was first introduced, his design was heavily based on Kankuro's. I mean, when he was first introduced in the manga, it was through Gaara's childhood flashbacks in Gaara's mind. Obviously, the manga is black and white, so uncolored Rasa does look a lot like Kankuro. Now, to 1st time viewers seeing him for the first time in the manga, he might've resembled Gaara more cause we didn't know what Kankuro's bare face and hair looked like yet, and the scenes also still weren't animated, so readers also didn't know his hair's supposed to be brown.

But when he was finally animated and colored, we finally saw his resemblance to Kankuro (I forgot child kank also appeared in Gaara's flashback, revealing his appearance. So, we knew he looked like his dad the most.) Well, so my theory goes that in his 1st appearances, Rasa was partially based more on Kanks design than anything (pretty interesting the cases where the kids are designed before the parents, so the parent design has to be based on one of the kids or be a balanced mix of all their kids). But in this case, Rasa resembled Kankuro the most. They have the same hair and also very similar face shapes with the more square jaws.

But when the war arc rolled around and Gaara was set to face his revived father, Rasa's design was slightly modified? His hair was made less brown, and given a more reddish tone, his eye shape was also changed to be more similar to Gaara's and even his face shape. Like, it was made less square and more round? To also better reseemble Gaara. I can only assume it was done that way to make the fight more impactful, especially with the scene where father and son are standing face to face, and you can see how similar they are.

It's just a detail I've noticed, and I'm not sure of it cause it really feels like in his first appearances in Gaara's childhood flashbacks, he eerily resembled Kankuro. But in the war arc, he looks a little more like Gaara. Overall, I just think Rasa resembles both his sons and ended up a decent mix of both of them.

Did anyone else grow up thinking ‘man it’s so sad how much Gaara looks like his dad’ and then see Kankuro without face paint for the first time and think holy. shit.

[recsspecs]

The kind of romance I deserve

[genderkoolaid]

expand on ur "mental asylum Marxism shit" thing about children & grief?? from what you've said im pretty sure i will relate from my own experiences as a grieving child. also it sounds interesting!!

so i was thinking about how weird it is that, when a child has to deal with the death of a loved one, they say something like "no child should have to go through this! no child should have to even think about death!" which strikes me as weird because i was a child who dealt with the deaths of multiple close family members, very close together. the first was my great-grandmother, who i lived with and who was my best friend. death was never foreign to me (my mom has always been very death-positive on top of all that). grief was just part of my life like everything else was.

but i realized that its because people think childhood should not have any flaws. you should be 100% happy and fulfilled all the time. any time a child experiences anything painful, its bad. not "children should have access to love and support," but "children should not have basic life experiences because the idea of childhood being anything other than fluffy purity scares me."

because children in society are fundamentally not people. especially in a society structured around christian beliefs in natural law theory, that what is natural = what is good, healthy, and Divinely commanded. so on top of children being the property of adults, they are also forced to be the symbols of Nature. whatever is the most useful to whoever needs them. which means we built up this idea of children as tabula rasas, pureness incarnate. like a magic mirror where if we look into it, we'll be able to catch a glimpse of the true face of humanity. every single thing children do can be scrutinized for some grand truth about humans as a whole. and then, the ways children are treated also reflect how we think humanity should interact with its own nature.

example: the idea of humanity as inherently sinful and wicked, with that urge needing to be suppressed through state violence (hello hobbes) = the idea that children are annoying and shitty on purpose and need to be forced via punishment into being Good Citizens.

this is also why children cannot be trans, even though all trans people must prove that we were trans children. being queer must be unnatural; and even if not, its inherently sexual, and sexuality is dirty and bad. so children can't be trans, and they also can't read books on puberty until their parents decide when and what exactly they are allowed to learn. child victims of sexual assault only matter to the extent that they can be used as a symbol of a cultural threat; calling Jewish or trans people pedophiles means saying that they are foreigners attacking basic human nature, and indirectly, Divine command. if you aren't the right kind of victim, or when you inevitably reveal yourself to be A Person with complicated experiences and opinions, you are no longer of use to the agenda.

it sucks that bad things happen to anyone. aspects of youth can exacerbate the pain sometimes, but sometimes it does the reverse: I wish I could have spent more time with the family members I lost, but I know other people who are glad they loss family members young, because they weren't really hurt by it. I think the main thing is that, even sometimes when we talk about our past selves, we project this cultural idea of Child As Purity and ignore the actual person having the experience. when we "empathize" with children by projecting Purity onto them, we aren't actually connecting with them.

[iwtv-theories]

All hints of past Devil’s minions (analysis)

Ok, before I get started I’ll preface this by saying some of this evidence has obvious (and literal) counter explanations and some of the easter-eggs could simply be foreshadowing for a reimagining of future d.m. But, in case they did have a past together , I might as well mention all the possible hints for fun.

1)Armand mentions “Tabula rasa”(Latin for a 'blank slate’ ) and then he turns his head to Daniel .

In philosophy 'tabula rasa' is a theory that says : at birth the mind is hypothetically a blank or empty slate before receiving memories that shape them into who they are. The term “tabula rasa” linguistically is derived from a wax-covered tablet (tabula) used for written notes, which was blanked (rasa) by heating the wax and then smoothing it to be reused and have new words written on it. Yeah , certainly sounds similar to someone's powers (memory alteration via words). What's very telling is the fact Daniel in response to this says annoyed: " disregard... as Armand remains off the record." It seems like a very tongue and cheek joke (from the writers). Because Armand was taken out of Daniel's narrative as well . Like Daniel said in ep 5 : "Armand redacted himself. which is why I don't remember." In qotd, Daniel & Armand would also often watch 'blade runner', and in that film , the 'maker' was able to manipulate/create memories in the ‘short- lived’ replicants’ lives.

2)[Let’s talk about the Alice proposal]. First we have Louis talk about his time in Paris (as the camera pans to Daniel and Armand) : “she was giving me permission to explore a life apart from her” .Armand: *tilts his head*: and then mentions Alice.

Armand may have let Daniel explore other romantic relationships like Alice (if he was with Louis) to make the dynamic more fair . So Daniel may be conflating fragments of his lost memories of Armand with memories of his ex Alice (since he was with them at the same time).

Armand may have replaced himself with Alice. Or he may have 'redacted' himself and Daniel's brain tried to fill in the gaps in memory naturally, since they were both romantic partners to him (around the same time). Daniel already had to be reminded by his ex wife ( Alice) that he didn't own a buick with her (which he probably drove in the past with Armand) . Daniel already "conflated events" : mixing up Louis for a human he met at a rehab , so it wouldn't be the first time he's mixed people up in his head.

-Louis about Daniel &Alice: “you were talking past each other “.

-Daniel to Louis : "Did you gravitate to San francisco as a hub for homophiles? " Louis: “ Paris was the more formative LIBERATION for me...you felt FRERER to hold her hand in Paris, I wonder why that is?

Then of course we see the framing of the proposal scene. Daniel says almost proudly that he did surprise Alice , which if he surprised a mind reader I could see why he was proud. Then Daniel has a flashback of Armand silently looking at him. Louis : “and what did she say when you finally asked her to marry you? " Daniel turns and looks at Armand confused as they both stare at each other . Daniel now hears Armand’s voice from the past . Armand: “Louis, perhaps we should- “. Daniel: “She said , no” . Armand : “she wanted to say yes, but she didn't trust you yet .”

Also, isn’t it interesting that an episode later Armand says it’s wrong to go into Daniel’s memories. So why did he (allegedly) go into Alice’s? And if so why is Daniel an exception? Is it really just because he’s a “guest” in the house (like Armand claimed) ? Did he really go into Alice’s mind or was he just admitting how he felt at the time of the proposal? Also if he supposedly didn't read Daniel's mind how did he know he was thinking of Alice initially? Either he knew he was taking about Alice, because he was around during that time. Or he read Daniel’s memoir that referenced her and Daniel in Paris (which would already be a hint Armand is more interested in Daniel than he lets on).

Also, Armand says Daniel was thinking of “Alice” after Daniel says “she’s tired of your dilettante vibe.” Alice may have said it , but the word ‘dilettante’ is considered an archaic term that originated in 1733 and is borrowed from the Italian word "dilettante" meaning "lover of music or paintings”. Given Armand’s old fashioned vernacular, and origins in the Italian- art scene . It makes me wonder if he actually said it (not Alice)

And … before the proposal flashback, Louis says in relation to Alice and Daniel in Paris : “I SEE I triggered a memory.” But for Daniel , when thinking of the proposal, the only visual memory he SAW was of Armand . Which begs the question why did a failed marriage proposal trigger a memory of Armand (for Daniel) ?

Lestat asking Louis to be his companion and turning him was already compared to a wedding at a church. Daniel may have “finally gotten his shit together “ (got sober) and asked to be turned and be Armand's companion and Armand said "no" . And this still subconsciously hurts him deeply. In the books, armand's refusal to turn him was the biggest issue in their relationship. It could be a similar pain to when Alice first rejected his marriage proposal (or his pain from Armand's rejection was displaced on to Alice's rejection, in his distorted memories). Similar to him thinking he drove a buick when married to her.

Also , isn’t it interesting that in Daniel’s first flashback of Armand, the first thing Armand says as he looks at Daniel is , “no.” And the second flashback is: “(s)he said no.”

I also find it interesting that Daniel first remembers Armand via a dream and of course Alice (could be a ref to Alice in wonderland which is a story heavily associated with dreams). A hint he’s mixing the 2 up? (Alice and wonderland series) : “In the garden of memory, in the palace of dreams, that is where you and I shall meet.” *Literally remembers meeting Armand (in his memory) via a dream….

3) This next scene could have a lot of logical explanations. And it could be heavily symbolic and foreshadow that past d.m did happen. But if past d.m did occur it’s also possible Armand wasn’t simply worried about the talamasca showing Daniel the trial-script (which Armand may or may not have assumed burned in the fire). But, was worried about Daniel learning about their affair and telling Louis. Daniel to Armand: “you could read any mind you want. Why didn't you?" Armand: "I was in Love". Daniel snears at Louis: "you believe that?" Louis: I believe... he could have gotten lazy. Armand: "It was love." Louis sarcastically: "Sure, and Love. I suppose he was loving in those times... (angrily)Love!"

Armand then immediately turns away from Louis and asks three times if Daniel was left alone to talk to anyone (talamasca) during dinner . And Louis looks visibly confused on why he's harping on Daniel, and not the fact he just alluded to the fact that he thinks Armand doesn't love him anymore. And louis say exasperated : "WHY do you ask, LOVE?" There's a lot of symbolic weight in that last sentence. He literally is referring to Armand by the nickname 'love', but he's once again alluding to his doubts of Armand's love by emphasizing the last word. He's also asking why on earth is he bringing Daniel up in this conversation??? The dramatic pause between the 2 lines, may symbolically tell us the answer : " Why do you ask (about Daniel)? (Is it) LOVE? ".Armand may have been trying to figure out if Daniel found out about the affair, and told Louis.

And to answer Louis' question on ‘why he’s asking about Daniel’ we hear a drink being prepared and Armand is shown in both shots as the drink is poured...

And what does Daniel say shortly after : "Rashid, more vermouth next time.It's just HIS (Armand's) were better (*smirks)." Armand's odd look in response is possibly because he's wondering if this was or wasn't a subtle jab at their past relationship. “ They were not compatible / He tasted like Vermouth."

The drink symbolism could be a hint that Armand was asking cause he was afraid an ex-romantic relationship had been exposed. Not to mention, this whole scene was spurred on by Armand saying he doesn't read minds , cause of "love". And in an earlier episode he apologized to Daniel (for Louis going into his mind) saying "it was wrong to go into your memories ." Maybe Armand feels guilty about what he did last time he went into Daniel's memories?I mean …during this whole scene he could have just read Daniel's thoughts/memories to know what he actually knew or if he met up with the talamasca during dinner. Instead he openly admits he tried to hack Daniel’s computer : “you have everything we have , unless you're HIDING something on your encrypted laptop.”And funnily enough the only thing the Talamasca agent said to Daniel, at dinner, was he 'shouldn't fear Armand'. Sus.

The agent says this AFTER Armand just killed Malik. And before this convo with the talamasca, Daniel said himself: “1000s of kills, when has Armand ever spared a life ?” Yes, exactly, so why does the talamasca agent seem so confident that Armand isn’t a threat to Daniel? . Are they really just that bad at keeping their assets alive? I guess Armand usually only targets certain types of people, but still . And why does Raglan warn Daniel about Louis??? Louis hasn't killed anyone since 2000! Even agent Rashid says Daniel shouldn't have accepted Louis' invitation if he wanted to get out alive. Who knows maybe they're like, Daniel if Louis finds out about your little affair - you're going to die (just like Antoinette).

Not to mention that in the episode commentary of the scene, Assad says that Armand was suspicious "that they knew" . And I mean -after they both question Armand's 'love'. It makes sense he’d jump to the conclusion that they might know about the affair . Anderson (Louis) then says about the scene: " Louis known for a long time something is wrong. A lie is being told. I think Louis and Daniel have been sort of like kept things for Armand." Which yeah- sounds more like d.m proof than Armand simply trying to figure out if they know about the trial script.

4) louis : “we’ve been TOGETHER 77 years . Should we let the MATH of that settle.” Well, that’s certainly interesting math, given the fact Armand said in the prior episode they’ve been “TOGETHER” for “ 70 years.” Logically ,I know Armand is simply “rounding down” (which is already out of character tbh). But SYMBOLICALLY I find it really interesting that Armand when Daniel is in the room says “77 years”, but when Daniel is in another room he always says “70 years “ . Maybe a symbolic hint their affair lasted 7 years ?

Think about it, what did Lestat say when explaining his affair with a human who he later turned into a vampire : “ For 7 years …if your companion no longer wishes to share his body with you. If every word out of his mouth is disinterest or vitriol for 7 years ! You still hope ... that he'll love you, like you love him . But, what do you do? (picture of Antionette pops up).Do you find affection elsewhere? “ . Santiago: “Antionette Brown, ladies and gentlemen, later the vampire Antoinette . 7 long years . “

Also , Daniel had to be reminded by his ex wife Alice that he didn’t own a Buick while they were together . His publisher also had to remind him the dates must be wrong for when he owned the car - cause child car seats weren’t even mandatory until 1985, the year he got Alice pregnant . Daniel told his publisher he owned a Buick 7 years before 1985. Cough it was probably Armand’s car (and the timeline is jumbled in his head). And they were together for 7 years. Daniel didn’t even own a credit card in the 80s but he thought he drove a luxury car in the 70s???? Sus

Louis while with Daniel , also says to Armand : “do you care to Join us?” Armand to Daniel: “Mr pointe du lac will join you at course 7.” Daniel: “7?... wait “(Armand rushes away from Daniel). Maybe that's symbolic?

who knows , Lestat (was separated from Louis) and lived with Antoinette for years- only to later get back with Louis. Is it possible that something similar happened between Armand, Daniel, and Louis ?

Not to mention when Armand says to Daniel “77 years and it still feels like a slight.” (it pans to Daniel, and I can’t help but think the real slight would be to Daniel, if they actually were together during that 77 y long marriage). Daniel in the last episode screaming : “77 years based on a seismic lie!” (Makes me wonder if the trial isn’t the only seismic lie). I'm sorry, I still find it interesting that ‘home-wrecker’ molloy destroyed their marriage “almost to the day” of Louis & Armand's anniversary.

In the show they also changed Marius/armand’s relationship so it now lasted 12 years. Which in the books is also how long Daniel/Armand were together . I could see Armand/Daniel having the “chase/get to know you phase “ for 5 years and then actually be together for 7 years. Since in the books they knew each other for 4 years before dating for 8) .

5)This next scene could also be heavily symbolic ,when Louis is discussing his courtship to Armand (the camera lingers on Daniel cause the dialogue may have also applied to him): "Some of my most pronounced feelings and thoughts were taking shape. When my mind was being touched by Armand's I became deeply excited and driven to form new conclusions about myself and vampiric life in the abstract." / Louis: "Is something wrong, Daniel?" Daniel: Something you were saying made me think of, um... Louis : "Think of what?" *Armand turns to look at Daniel* Daniel:" It just flew out of my head. It's gone." *Camera pans back to Armand looking at Daniel* Who may or may not be wondering if Daniel almost remembered something. Also the fact during this whole scene Daniel is clicking on the “escape” button over and over as Louis describes his romance with Armand (it may also be symbolic that young Daniel would not want to hear any of this ).

5b) We already know Daniel’s memories have been slowly coming back in relation to Armand (when something or someone triggers a memory). They’re not completely lost- he can get some of them back. Another proof d.m happened in the past is what “triggers a memory (of Armand).” There's the examples that have an obvious explanation: he searches on his computer the painting of Marius which he already discussed with Armand, and when he asks about Armand’s diet ( he remembers when Armand almost made him a meal). But the other things that trigger Armand to flash in his mind… are very suspicious. The first time he remembers Armand in s1 was when Armand placed a blanket on him (*which book Armand has done for Daniel before) . And in s2 Daniel also has a flashback occur when Armand (for the first time in Dubai) says “Daniel” . This whole convo occurs because Daniel was asking Louis about hallucinating his ex (and then Daniel sees a vision of Armand from the past ,HMMMM). And he also has his memory of Armand “triggered “ when he sees a photo of a Parisian couple near a fountain + thinks of how he was rejected by his ex-wife in Paris. Daniel’s subconscious is reminded of his past with Armand - when he thinks of a combination of France , romance, and heartbreak.

6) Armand says about Daniel: “the boy…he’s still in there .”If young Daniel knew about Armand/louis I could see him being jealous and resentful of that relationship in the 70s and 80s. And so older Daniel (subconsciously) just needs to shit on their relationship , whenever the opportunity presents itself . Louis: “ I’d like to introduce you to the vampire Armand, the love of my life…my love ran a theater troupe for over a 150 years, Daniel.” Daniel: “the love of your life (Lestat) was in a box “. Daniel to loumand: lestat , lestat, lestat… love of my life or ‘rebound of my life ‘, with you two? “ Armand and Louis mentioning first meeting in a park: “with a habit of chasing after the wrong kind of love”. Daniel (sarcastic): “oh, what better place to find the right kind of love than in a public park. “ Louis who has told Daniel about dream- Lestat for multiple episodes, but then dream Lestat mocks Louis’ “ I love you” to Armand . Pans to Daniel squinting and then spitefully smirking : “Are you schizophrenic Louis ?”Louis: “we’ve been together for 77 years, Daniel.” Armand : “47 more than he did with lestat”. Daniel (smirks and looks at Armand): “keep selling it.” Louis talking about his and Armand’s romantic library dates . Daniel deadpan and sarcastic : “hot.” Daniel pressing the “escape’ button over and over as Louis describes his romance to Armand. Lestat to Loumand : “let’s see how long (your relationship) holds” . Daniel sarcastic and smug : “interesting phrase , what do you think he meant by that Louis? “ Daniel :*breaks them up “almost to the day” of their anniversary. *

It’s so funny how often Daniel questions their “love “ for each other . Like ,great job keeping a professional-objective lens, Daniel.

And speaking of “love “ I have to mention something else . The fact Daniel (in the 70s) uses the term "homophile" is VERY telling about his true desires. "The homophile movement was a collective term for the main organizations and publications supporting and representing sexual minorities in the 1950s to 1960s around the world.Proponents of the term 'homophile' hoped to emphasize the romantic rather than sexual aspect of same-sex relationships by replacing the -"sexual" suffix with the Greek root "philos," meaning LOVE. " In the books, when they first got together Daniel called Armand his "LOVER" and Armand called him "BELOVED" and “My LOVE.” Daniel deep down wanted "love" from a man , but before the interview in the 70s he only acted on his sexual desires (where there was no emotional intimacy and it could more easily be dismissed as just needing a fix, experimentation, etc). So yeah… Armand and Daniel both were hyper sexual but deep down they both wanted the same thing- Love . And young Daniel may have really LOVED Armand ,if they were together . Armand would have been the only man he ever loved.So yeah , even with amnesia , his bitterness may slip out (subconsciously). I mean, imagine Armand chose Louis over you: and you had to hear Louis talk on and on about his ex Lestat, mention while he was courting Armand that a hallucination of Lestat mocked Armand repeatedly . Hear how Louis didn't even want to call Armand his “companion" and just wanted to be friends with benefits, and in the end Louis chose to be with Armand to spite his ex Lestat. Then he proceeds to hook up with 100s of guys a year while being with Armand (despite being devastated Lestat slept with 1 other person). And it is made abundantly clear that Armand was just a “rebound” for Louis- and Armand still chose Louis over you! I’d be bitchy and want them to break up too . XD

Obviously, Armand was toxic as hell to Louis through out their companionship though. No debating that.

7) so again, this is a crack theory, I’ll admit . But remember how Daniel tells Louis . “Memory is a monster.WE forget , memories don’t .” This I believe is a reference to repressed memories . Because irl when you’ve repressed a traumatic memory : your emotions and behavior still reflect that forgotten trauma ( you just don’t know and understand the root cause of your behavior). Why Daniel suggested Edmr to Louis (it helps recover and re-contextualize lost memories to better understand your present behavior ). So my point … Daniel and Louis may be acting in certain ways that they don’t even understand (because of their repressed memories). So What if Louis found out about the affair and Armand erased it ? It would possibly explain some of Louis behavior toward Daniel.For example, whenever Daniel gets distracted from Louis's story because he's looking at Armand - the camera pans to Louis and Louis' expression is certainly... interesting whenever this occurs.

It would possibly explain some of Louis behavior toward Daniel. Louis laughing about Daniel’s heart break about Alice (*which may actually be about Armand ). Louis smirking and side eyeing Armand, when Daniel said he wasn’t interested in Armand’s blood ( *Daniel as a human used to drink Armand’s blood). Daniel in s2e5 interrupting louis to say 'follow up with Armand' and Louis side-eyes the hell out of him XD.

In s2e5 Louis also says very angrily : “who would care if another drug addicted homophile disappeared. The Berkeley barb?” (Alluding to Daniel being closeted ,mocking his past drug habit+ college newspaper, and implying he was insignificant). Now even though that was technically part of the reason he initially approached Daniel in the 70s (and Louis sadly does have a habit of saying mean stuff to people he cares about) … it’s still odd how much venom he said it with in the present . Especially in contrast to the speech flashback in the same episode (that had the opposite sentiment).

Also something else I always found really strange. In the last ep of s2, Louis verbally defends Daniel from Armand (telling Armand not to hurt Daniel). And right after this Louis moves in to shake Daniel's hand - Daniel immediately backs up afraid . We also see Daniel be afraid of Louis in the s1e1 script : “ The attack on the tape is horrifying … begging and screaming … suddenly Louis transports himself across the room and presses the stop button. Molloy tries to hide his fear as Louis towers over him.”The strange thing is- if it's simply just a human reaction because Louis' a powerful vampire & Daniel has a subconscious fear of Louis after he attacked him in the 70s. Then WHY wasn't he even MORE afraid of Armand (after all the shit Armand did to Daniel in the 70s)?? Why does Daniel not even flinch after he destroys Armand's 77 y long relationship (and theoretically created a perfect reason for Armand to attack him)? Is it because he subconsciously knows Armand wouldn't actually harm him???

8) [Armand brainwashing Louis]. So remember how Armand ‘s memory powers work- by repeating a phrase over and over again until the victim believes the memory or thought implanted? Even if this was completely unintentional/accidental on Armand’s part. I do find it interesting (and strange) that Armand essentially implanted in Louis mind that he was “partial “ to Daniel. Partial means you like someone OR you have a bias in favor of someone over other people in a conflict. I just find that kind of ironic cause before s2e5 , Daniel/ Louis were constantly beefing while Armand was essentially the referee trying to get them to chill the F-out . And at least for a good portion of the show it seemed Armand was the one actually “partial” to Daniel. It just made me wonder , if we’re missing something . Also , if Armand really only met Daniel once, and was still jealous and resentful of how much attention he garnered from Louis, why did he implant the thought in Louis' head that Daniel could be "fruitful in later times'???? Wouldn't he never want to see this guy again? (Even if he's supposed to be a symbol of their companionship enduring, idk, I still find it weird. Even Daniel questioned the reasoning in the beginning of the ep) .

9) I’ll be honest , I’m probably wrong about this (and it’s a crack theory). Like 90% chance It's not true … but it’s been bothering me ever since s2e5 aired. And yes, there may be some symbolic reason I’m missing (like the dialogue is similar to show the contrast between Louis and Armand’s treatment of Daniel in the 70s ) . But … something about the speech Daniel recites at the end of ep 5 is very strange to me. Not only because Louis, in Dubai, in e5, says the opposite sentiment (to said speech) . But because the words echo what Armand says or heard in e5 .

Daniel to Armand in e5: “I’m a bright young report with a point of view .” The speech repeats this line , and when Daniel says it in an earlier ep the camera pans to Armand looking at Daniel, then turning away to smile . speech : “ If things ever get bad again, these are the words you’ll hear LIKE a tape playing over and over in your mind , LIKE a song.” Armand about the tapes : “ I played the tapes twice … over and over until it was pounding in my brain LIKE a hammer ...(to Daniel) LIKE a bath … LIKE honey on your tongue .” Not to mention Armand’s powers work by repeating the same words “over and over again” . Speech: “Listen as though I’m the voice of god or an angel“ (literally in ep 5 we see Armand taken aback when Daniel is scared and starts saying “oh , my god” over and over again.And in the books Daniel described Armand as his “dark god”. )

Speech: " There are stories that need to be told." Armand: " Do you want to hear my story?" speech: You’re not insignificant " Armand to Daniel : “That makes you special.” Speech: “these words will lift you up and carry you.” (lmao, Armand’s words literally lifted and carried Daniel off the ground too ). Who knows, the line “what will it be tonight the good nurse or the gremlin?” may have a deeper meaning.

But again what really threw me off was that Louis (in Dubai) said about young Daniel in ep5: “who would care if ANOTHER drug addicted homophile disappeared? The Berkley Barb?!” speech: "You’re NOT insignificant or a junkie. you're a bright young reporter with a point of view.“ They’re literally opposing thoughts?? Not to mention it was Armand in ep 5 who called him a "reporter" & Daniel told Armand he was good at getting "angles" as a reporter (hello, 'perspective' is a synonym for 'angles').

Also , maybe just a huge plot hole but Louis later claims that when a “vampire commits to coffin” it’s nearly impossibly to wake them up , even if a “jet engine” flew by. So how did Louis wake up to save Daniel after Armand closed louis' coffin (and Armand told louis to "rest') ? Was it just because he was in so much pain that he couldn’t fall asleep? Was he fighting his instincts to save Daniel? Was Louis just over exaggerating how powerful a vampire’s sleep in a coffin is? Idk maybe it’s just a plot hole or I’m over-reading it . We do see Louis help Armand move Daniel later (so he obviously was awoken at some point). Maybe all the lines in the speech were a coincidence or just meant to juxtapose Louis and Armand's behavior. And Louis just heard the convos between Daniel/Armand from the other room, before saying the speech. But I always found ep 5 odd because of the discrepancies .

Heck, the ep prior we have Louis and Armand fighting as Daniel tries to listen to the San-Fran tape of Louis /Armand arguing. The first thing Daniel hears on the tape is his younger self essentially yelling at him : "You've forgotten man! You don't even understand the meaning of your own story!" (Which may or may not have more symbolic significance than we realize). And then the whole ending scene (of ep 4 & the audio of the tape playing Armand's voice) is abruptly cut off and the preview of ep 5 plays . Maybe it’s a hint Armand cut off and changed the ending to the following ep of San Fran too ??? “Same precise edit on 2 brains.” Who knows maybe Armand changed it cause he was afraid that certain details may start jogging memories of the affair .

And technically it would be a parallel to how Lestat let Armand take credit for saving his ex’s life (which generally changed how Louis saw the 2). And , s2e5 greatly changed how Daniel saw Louis. Armand may have done something similar to Lestat . But again it’s a crack theory … and I’m super happy with Daniel and Louis just having that nice moment (and becoming friends) . But those details always just threw me off , so I had to mention it (just incase there was some crazy plot twist in the future).

Also, if this is the case, I don't think Armand saved Daniel for romantic reasons at the time (but a different reason entirely). We see in episode 5 after Claudia's death Louis is spiraling due to grief and not abiding by his usual diet. Every night, in the 70s, he'd have sex with a young-queer male sex worker and then kill them . In the Parisian flashback we see Armand not eat but select bad guys for his coven to drain, as Armand tells Louis : "I understand you supplemented your diet (with animals)... I like how you withhold. It's alluring, it's practiced, it makes me wonder what's in there." One of the reasons Armand was attracted to Louis in the first place was because of his diet!!! But in the 70s , Armand every morning had to clean up the dead bodies of young boys whose backgrounds eerily resembled Amadeo's ( that would probably mess with anyone's psyche especially when Armand rarely ate and generally only chose shitty people or those who wanted to die). In s2e5, Armand and louis literally fight over who Louis chooses to kill (and it's implied to be an ongoing issue). Armand: "With a BOY! Things got heated with a BOY… And once again I'm here with mop and mindlessness to clean it up!” Louis: “so the room’s dirty, I’ll clean it up.” Armand: “NO! YOU make the mess I clean it up … unfortunates and broken CHILDREN. FINE!" Louis sarcastic : "Oh, FINE! the 'fine' that doesn't found like fine!" Louis later says to Armand : "sorry". And Armand retorts: Meaningless word, meaningless, a neighbor saw you while he was taking out the trash. I had to chase him down." ( Armand's face looks almost... guilty? And then the camera pans to Daniel looking at the body).Louis , surprised that Armand hasn’t killed Daniel yet : "He's alive?" Armand : " Oh, the BOY? The fascinating BOY?He's fine. He's just fine. Oh, he's fine. You're fine!This is fine! We're all FINE!"

I think Armand snapped on Daniel since he had no one else to lash out at. And, he also high key mentally snapped over Louis saying 10 hours with Daniel was more ‘fascinating' than decades with him) .But more importantly, Armand knew that covering up for injured Louis, required killing 'the boy' (like he did the neighbor) . And Daniel doesn't fit Armand's kill-code. Unlike most of Armand's victims Daniel's 'transgressions were ordinary' and unlike Malik who was 'begging for it in an hour' (Daniel fought for days) . Daniel was not Armand's usual target. Armand usually just cleaned up the dead bodies of the young sex workers (not kill them) . Armand: “128 boys and you’re the first he hasn’t consummated and drained, that makes you special.”Armand says Daniel was "special" because he was the 'first boy’ that ended up still being alive by the time Armand got there with his "mop". The fact Armand literally counted EVERY ‘call boy’ he was forced to clean up is probably an indicator Louis' choices in victims bothered Armand more than he lets on.

Also the show keeps on implying over and over that Armand doesn’t really drink blood very often (in the Parisian flashback louis asks if Armand is going to eat with his coven which he doesn’t) . Then Louis mentions twice to Daniel that Armand ‘rarely eats’. In the books, ancient vamps could go years without blood. Then we’re told later in Dubai by Louis that Armand generally only targets certain humans who cause a lot of harm to the world , and this is backed up by the flashback in Paris .Armand in Paris describing his target: “while their country men starved and clutched their ration cards, they made quite a killing on the black market . Enjoy yourselves .” But in front of Daniel he says : “ they (humans) were all the SAME to us, cattle for our DAILY suppers .” And he also says to Daniel that in Paris he often drank the blood of young men , like Daniel “for sport.” So what’s the truth??? The books say Armand (usually) only killed humans that were “evil doers” or that wanted to die. So … is he lying or exaggerating a facade to Daniel? Is he trying to look worse (and more bloodthirsty) in front of Daniel for some odd reason? Why? Well, maybe he’s trying to say things that would decrease the chance of Daniel remembering him. Armand even says to Daniel: “He had taken a mortal lover ! Hah, more heresy!!!” Armand just had to slip in his backstory that he personally finds the idea of banging a mortal sacrilegious and that he’d never EVER do it ! Though protest too much, maybe !

10) Throughout the present storyline we have Armand constantly protect Daniel. Which is narrative whiplash from what we saw in the flashback of the 2 first meeting. It begs the audience to question what changed from the 70s till now ? Is it really just because Armand thinks Louis likes Daniel? We have Armand stop Louis from exacerbating his Parkinson’s symptoms, and immediately apologize for what Louis just did. Then, when Louis goes into Daniel’s mind and mocks him over his failed proposal. Armand tries to stop it and then comforts him. And the next day (while Louis is asleep) Armand apologizes for Louis using his powers against Daniel for a second time. And throughout the present storyline we never actually see him use his powers against Daniel (despite all the jabs and provocations). Perhaps not using his powers and apologizing for Louis doing so - indicates his guilty conscious over what he did to Daniel? He wishes he could apologize but he can’t do so sincerely without exposing the truth . He has to stay in character (or else it could destroy his relationship with Louis).

Before s2e7 Daniel never verbally acknowledged any of Armand’s apologies . But when Armand says Louis “forgave (him)” for Paris . We then have Daniel say: “I didn’t forgive you.” And for some reason , Armand looks hurt that some ‘ insignificant mortal ‘ doesn’t forgive him. And then he tries to put back on his calm facade . But it’s fake, because he immediately changes the subject away from Paris to something personal , and mentions how Daniel’s past addiction did far more damage to his mind than his memory wipes in San Fran. Which ...(after Daniel's vermouth line) maybe Armand brings up the memory wipe cause he's not sure how much Daniel knows and whether Daniel is secretly alluding to ‘not forgiving him’ for memory-wiping their relationship. Or perhaps he's (lashing out and bringing up the memory wipe) because he knows if Daniel knew the truth , he probably would not forgive him for the 2nd larger memory wipe . Then he sits back down and backtracks : “fine , you want an apology . I’m sorry. WE thought it was the right thing to do“ passive aggressive or not… It’s interesting that he's even willing to say it at all, when he won’t even dignify Louis with one. “ you’re mad I erased it? You have no right to be.” The last time Armand said "sorry" to Louis was in Paris. Ever since Louis laughed and sarcastically said he was “sorry” for leaving him multiple times a year. Armand has never apologized to Louis, again. Armand :” tri-annual fuck off and find me, with apologies to follow.” Louis laughs and says sarcastically : “I’m sorry”. . Louis : “so-so. “ Armand: “what’s that? “ Louis: “sorry” . Armand : “meaningless word . Meaningless .” Hmm, then why are you constantly apologizing to Daniel??? Is it really just an empty gesture/manipulation tactic ? or is there a deeper reason?

11) Armand brings up Lestat (his and Louis’ ex) asking: “Did he BREAK you Louis? Are you broken?" Later Daniel says " That's why I go after you real Rashid . YOU (unlike Armand) I can fucking BREAK!" Then Armand whispers 'excuse me' and storms out . The only other time Armand asked to be "excused" and stormed out was when Daniel called him a "rent boy" (which would obviously be triggering regardless but even worse if Daniel was his ex).So the whole "BREAK" line may have a deeper meaning than the literal interpretation. Maybe that line hit a nerve cause he actually felt like Daniel 'broke' him. Armand talking about Daniel: "He wants YOU in pieces." Armand to Daniel, the supposedly 'insignificant mortal': " I did it to protect me… from YOU, Mr. Molloy. Why do I owe YOU my shame. Why do I owe YOU. "

Note , in s2ep7 he says he ripped out Claudia’s diary pages that had his name in them (aka memories of himself ) from Daniel’s viewing . And literally yells that he did it to protect himself from Daniel. He pretty much admitted he may have erased himself from Daniel’s memory to “protect (himself).” Meanwhile he may have rationalized erasing Louis attempt in San Fran as “protecting him from himself.” Begrudgingly he apologized for erasing Daniel’s memory but immediately shuts down Louis concern . Weird priorities ,Armand .

12) If Armand was overthinking , and contemplating whether or not Daniel knew about the relationship because of : the 'vermouth' line, 'I don't forgive you', and saying how Louis' romance with Armand 'reminded him of something', etc. And then he sees Daniel has the trial -script which was given to him by the talamasca . And the talamasca has surveillance on all vamps. Is it that hard to believe that Armand assumed Daniel already knew about the affair (because of the talamasca) ? And did this partially as “pay back” ? Especially when Daniel should only remember Armand torturing and trying to kill him. And all Daniel does (after blowing up his marriage) is adjust his glasses and stare into Armand’s eyes, with apparently no fear . He may assume Daniel already knows , and just doesn’t tell Louis (cause Daniel isn’t sure if Louis would be angry at him). When Armand looks at Daniel , at the table, this might be when Armand thinks: *it's officially confirmed Daniel knows about their past relationship*. In a show that already has the motif of “pov changes the perception of a story” . Anything is possible …

13) Armand to Daniel (who he supposedly only met once): “It’s in your nature , Mr . Molloy . Can’t get OUT THE DOOR before lobbing one MORE bomb.”

In the novels, Daniel was infamous for leaving Armand over and over again. This was because Armand would constantly refuse to turn him, leading Daniel to feel unloved , leaving, doing substances , and mentally begging for Armand to come and find him again. This also echoes Louis’ behavior in the 70s too: “tri-annual, fuck off and find me. With apologies to follow ( after a drug binge).” But maybe the last time Daniel left - he dropped one last bomb , on their relationship. In the books , Armand turned him in 1985 , the same year that show-alice was pregnant. It’s possible this was the bomb Daniel decided to leave Armand with . But here’s the thing. Armand was a child whose whole life was negatively affected by his parents abandoning him . He may not want to contribute to that. As Armand said “children” are “innocent.” He was abandoned by his parents, abandoned by his maker /lover who raised him as a teen and called him “son”, he felt abandoned by Lestat. And he probably felt abandoned by Daniel & Louis walking out on him over and over . And he may not have wanted some “innocent “ kid to deal with that cause of his & Daniel’s relationship . In the books Armand had a soft spot for human kids . It could make his words as he turned to Daniel have more symbolic weight : “the sleep of an infant . Blank slate (tabula rasa).”

And (after turning him) he may have left cause he couldn’t deal with being abandoned AGAIN. Not after Louis just left and Daniel has done so - many times before. So he “abandoned“ him first. In the books , he said he left Daniel after turning him cause he assumed Daniel would hate him for turning him into a 'monster' . Armand says in the show: “those we make ourselves are bound to despise us “ (and this is a quote directly from TVA where he mentions turning Daniel and his resentment for Marius). In the unpublished draft of one of Anne rice’s books , Armand reunited with the vampire-Daniel and says “I didn’t mean to abandon you." Note before the finale, Armand talks about memory wipes , turns to Daniel and says “a few days after we abandoned him.” And then he almost cried (now could he just be crying about Louis attempt that he mentioned right before this, of course. Assad even said that event traumatized Armand and there is narrative proof for that) . But I only mention the scene for two reasons. 1) the timing of him crying the second he turns away from Louis ,looks at Daniel , and says he ‘ abandoned him’ (makes me wonder if he’s thinking of the last memory wipe where he actually abandoned Daniel). And 2) “Abandoned” is such a strong word for someone you barely know , don’t care about , and find ‘insignificant’ . why not say ‘ditch ‘, ‘dump’, etc? Even Daniel an ep prior says “your boyfriend (Armand) is ditching us.” When Armand does say this line we even have Daniel close his eyes , turn away, and blink rapidly like he’s trying to emotionally process something (but just doesn’t know what ). Then Armand puts back on his calm mask and the next thing he says is “continuing on the record , I was a coward, Mr molloy. “ As Daniel just stares at him.

So, maybe... If Daniel wants Armand back , he’ll actually have to find Armand after he’s run away ( like Armand always did for Daniel). Daniel: “Have you heard from my maker?”

14)People always question how Daniel and Armand could have had the affair - if Armand was with Louis. But there’s several possible explanations. This scene alludes to one possibility . *pans to Louis sleeping in the day*. Armand : “he’ll awaken when the sun sleeps. We should probably wait for him.” Daniel smirks : “probably” . *prolonged silence as Armand smiles at him and then looks away. After this, he breaks the silence, and brings up "blenders" ( possibly recollecting his time with Daniel , during the day) -in the 1970s he would constantly wreck Daniel's blenders .

I mean… think about it, guys. Armand has been shown to be able to go out in the daytime since the 70s, he hunted in the day in s2 , and in the day he did not “wait” for Louis to talk to Daniel ( about “ fetishes”, and his sex life). Armand literally could have just had the affair in the daytime while Louis was none the wiser sleeping. And Armand also mentions in s2e5 that Louis would leave him for prolonged periods of time “tri-anually." So 3 times a year he could have just been with Daniel (on night island). And of course it’s also possible they had a “brief separation” similar to how Lestat was separated from Louis for years and lived with his human lover…

Other possible eastereggs:

-Daniel seemed very upset after reading about a failed relationship between a vampire and human . And if Daniel is mixing up Alice with Armand . There’s a possible parallel between Charlie/claudia and Armand/Daniel. Aka both eating pink & white ice cream with their vampire lovers. In the books Armand would often take Daniel to restaurants and cafes too. And, the way Louis mentions he knew the street that Daniel & Alice went to and the strange look he gives Daniel , as Daniel describes the moment .... makes me wonder if he found out about them , when Armand/Daniel were in Paris .

-It’s a little weird Armand (a vampire who can’t even taste alcohol) is so good at making Daniel’s drinks. Daniel even writes in his notes that it’s weird that the drinks taste like ‘ Rashid’ was trained at the Dukes.so yeah- why is a vamp that good at making Daniel’s drinks just to his liking . Experience? Also when Louis mentions that Daniel was curious about how Armand’s blood tasted . Daniel asks for a “refill” - hinting that maybe he has had Armand’s blood in the past and that he will get a refill (once he’s turned in s2). Also, it’s ironic when Armand says to Daniel “I wouldn’t allow you near my neck if-“ and human Daniel literally bites his neck while being turned, in the books.

- In s2e1, Armand says " The boy from San francisco" ( and he speaks normally until 2 Lines in particular.He then takes 2 large pauses with a pained expression as he says: " He's still in there... we can find him". Not only is it suspicious on Armand's end but it could also allude to the rest of s2 having hints in the narrative that 'young Daniel' (who was with Armand- is still in there) . Like Daniel getting upset thinking about the 'proposal' along with other scenes.

- Louis said having sex with a vampire ,as a human, is something you can never really forget . And Daniel “really” thought he had sex with a vampire . Maybe it just wasn’t Louis? I also find it narratively interesting that almost all the vampire couples meet each other when one of them was human : Lestat/louis, Claudia/madeline, Armand/Daniel . And , in the novels, the biggest issue for Daniel and Armand’s relationship was the fact he wouldn’t turn Daniel. I also would just find it ironic and funny if Armand who criticized Claudia and Lestat for being romantically attached to humans , ends up doing the same decades later .

- I just think having Daniel’s words bite him in the ass , would be narratively fulfilling and hilarious . Daniel : “This is great , you shared a boyfriend” (maybe you and Louis did too?) Daniel : “it’s a telenovela!” (You know a common trope of telenovelas and soap operas- amnesia causing you to forgot your lover ). Daniel to Louis: "you took (him) back... lover, murderer, maker (cough Maybe Daniel will take Armand back ). “you talk about him 50 years later like he was your soulmate. Locked together in some fucked up romance.” ( Well 50 years ago, Armand in both the show and books locked you up for a bit… but you still ended up dating him.) Louis: "He was MY murderer,MY mentor, MY lover, MY maker... death, rebirth, coming out." Daniel ('have you seen MY maker') Molloy judgey as hell: "coming out? What's sexuality got to do with it? "

- Daniel mentions how when someone wants to create emotional distance from a situation it becomes impersonal, “ going from I to oneself , himself.” This obviously refers to Louis’ words in relation to San-Fran , but the camera also pans to Armand looking uncomfortable (as Daniel explains this). Armand already did something similar when recounting his past “This is amadeo . He is …” But what Daniel said , had me thinking . Armand was plenty comfortably in s2e5 addressing Daniel by his first name. But now he (almost) exclusively refers to him as “Mr. Molloy” - maybe because he wants “emotional distance” from him? Armand about an ex: "THE NAME! THE NAME! unuttered in our home for... years!"

- Daniel in the show says terrified “ It’s you who’s fascinating ! You can read minds right?” (Aka he was terrified but was telling the truth- Which Armand sensed.)This echoes Daniel’s thoughts of Armand before they first started dating in the books (but were still getting to know each other post entrapment) : “in mute fascination, Daniel had watched Armand.”/ “Daniel found himself fascinated. sometimes trying to write down the things Armand had told him.”

- Armand says to Daniel : “you are going to teach me how to be fascinating .” And he also told Louis : “we are teachers of one another .” In the books once Armand and Daniel become a couple he says : “you will be my teacher .”

- Daniel asking Louis for the dark gift: “give it to me. “ Louis to Daniel: “and I paraphrase … you said give it to me, make me a vampire” . Daniel to Armand in the books : “give it to me, damn you , immortality as close as your arms . “

- In the books when Armand for the first time admits he loves Daniel in Pompeii … he “gently puts (Daniel) on his knees , using his hands” . This is after Daniel looks at a pompeii mural of a naked character kneeling . It contrasts the scene of Armand telepathically and aggressively putting Daniel on his knees when they first met . The visual storytelling of both scenes would show how far the relationship has changed since they first met (how could the show runners not do it? It would be a wasted opportunity!)

- Daniel’s apartment has a painted blue sky . In the d.m chapter Armand was said to be fascinated by blue skies and he’d also painted clouds in Marius’ paintings .

- Daniel & Armand talked about Marius’ painting and Daniel later remarks about the “stolen Rembrandt” (we see Armand smirk at the mention of this ) . It could be a hint because Armand used to steal paintings and give them to Daniel . We even see in s1e1 Daniel doing a puzzle of a famous painting- that in the books Armand showed Louis.

- Daniel also complains about Armand’s disguises as Armand stares and smirks again. Maybe thinking about how young Daniel enjoyed his human costumes. Armand literally impersonated a human attorney to get Daniel out of jail (could he have just used the mind gift? Sure , but that’s not as fun, is it? ) Bro prob loved his disguise when Armand bailed him out of jail, dropped him off at a hotel to sleep off his hangover , and filled Daniel’s wallet with multiple $100 dollar bills. Did I mention they weren’t even dating yet ? Also Louis’ excuse for Armand’s ‘Rashid disguise’ was : “my love was in charge of a theater troupe for over a 150 years .” So are human disguises just something he does on the regular for fun 😅 ? Or is Louis just that in denial XD ? Both? Obviously he may have just done the disguise so he could monitor the interview without being directly involved or mentioned in Daniel’s book (even ripping himself out of Claudia’s journal pages that mentioned him). But yeah… if he also wanted to be extra careful about Daniel not remembering him: pretending to be a 20 something year old human servant , using a different name (would help) .

- It may be a coincidence, but when Armand finally broke character in s1 (and started to take off his gloves to remove his contacts) he does so right after Daniel called himself a "wh*re". That's what caused him to break character. Which, given both their backgrounds, and if they did date- Armand may really dislike Daniel calling himself that.

- I feel if (in the show) d.m did happen in the past .They placed some interesting eastereggs to allude to it. In the show , Daniel interviewed Louis on divisdero street and then Armand kept him in the apartment for days and Daniel was eventually let go . This echos how in the book: after Daniel interviewed Louis on divisdero street , Daniel finds lestat’s house and meets Armand for the first time .Armand temporarily imprisons him there and then lets him go (saying he’s going to watch him and if he grows bored of him he’ll either eat him or simply lose track of him). But then he gets to know Daniel over the years and they eventually get together. My guess (if it happened in the show): Daniel with what little he remembered …and using his skills in ‘investigative-journalism ‘ found the apartment on divisdero street again and Armand was there- then the chase began. Armand in the book stalked Daniel until they became an item , and in the show he observed and stalked Louis and Lestat before they hooked up too ( a pattern of behavior ) .

-(Maybe just me coping) but sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons we didn't see Daniel's turning is because it would give too much away (and that it may be shown later, contrary to what the producers claim). For example, Daniel's turning in the books was "beautiful" . And in s2 Louis even says Armand could be a part of a "beautiful" turning. It's possible the turning was a lot less violent/'spiteful' than we expect (especially if Armand mistakenly assumed Daniel knew about their past). There's also a few easterggs in the show alluding to the book turning. For example: Armand putting a blanket on Daniel in s1 (is something he does after turning Daniel.) He put a blanket on him and said : “by the time you wake up you’ll be one of us.” Daniel says “quite the house plant” in reference to Armand’s purple magnolia tree which is similar to the purple wisteria tree Daniel sees when he's turned. Magnolia trees represent “everlasting love” and wisteria trees represent “enduring love”. Get it … immortality , everlasting love, ‘enduring’ being a word used often by the vamps . Armand also says he wouldn't let Daniel near his neck (which is ironic cause Daniel drinks from Armand's neck when being turned). Armand also says “I was a coward, mr molloy" which is similar to Armand telling Daniel "I'm a coward, I can't let you die." (before turning him). And before he's turned Armand tells Daniel he’s dying, and Daniel makes a sarcastic joke (that's very similar to something show Daniel would say): "yeah, yeah, as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death." And when Armand says he'll turn him (Daniel just goes silent in disbelief ). Also, Daniel not believing Armand hasn't turned anyone -is a callback to the turning where Armand says: "I've never turned anyone. I know you never believed me-" And then Daniel cut him off to say he "no, I believe you". Also there's the scene of Louis describing Madeleine's turning : "The lamb (pans to Daniel) smiling up at the wolf (pans to Armand) ." For all we know - the fact it wasn't a ' spiteful' turning may actually cause Daniel more confusion and questions regarding his maker. And it may make him wonder what else is Armand hiding . A possible reason for Daniel looking for him.

[comikas-fandom-dump]

I wanted to move over to an ask/message rather than continue to reply on my silly post. If you do not mind?

This is a note off a fanfiction i wrote, where you can see me working through the sand siblings ages. As you can see I'm not above being wrong, but it's not due to lack of trying to figure things out. Do you agree with my Sand Sibling ages?

I personally feel like Gaara id actually just a little younger than the Naruto-group, born in the January of the next year, rather than in the same year as Naruto. My only argument for this is i really feel lile Gaara was made a Jinchūriki /after/ Naruto was, like almost as a response. But that's my mental canon. The Manga, i believe, just lists Gaara as the same age, and with his birthday in January, it would default him to older than Naruto by 10 months? I personally see him as younger.

Oh god, even more of Kishimoto's god-awful planning. Okaaayyy, let's try this.

For nerdy reference, I made a spreadsheet a while ago to prove a theory of mine, namely that the character ages in the Databooks are calculated in reference to Naruto's age, not their actual, canonical birthdays. In an example, despite not celebrating a birthday between August and December, Sasuke somehow turns 13 in that timeframe, according to the Databooks.

That is until Jin no Sho, when all the characters born prior to October 10th (Naruto's birthday) age up by one year, whereas the rest of the cast does not. This would also mean that Konoha's graduation month is most likely set in early January or late December, with students born earlier in the year being younger (making Hinata the youngest among the Konoha Twelve).

Jin no Sho is probably the most reliable source for our purposes, and it puts Temari's age at 20, Kankuro's at 19, and Gaara's at 17. One interesting little detail is their Ninja Registration Numbers, which are 53-004, 54-002, and 56-001, with the front two digits probably indicating their year of graduation (fun fact, Yashamaru became a Genin at approximately 9, Rasa and his children at 12 years old).

From here, my research aligns with yours. Kankuro was born 265 days after Temari, and Gaara 614 days after Kankuro. Pregnancy usually takes 280 days (anything below 259 days is considered premature), and mothers cannot become pregnant sooner than 21 days post-partum, meaning that Kankuro was born at least 2 weeks (15 days) prematurely.

As for Gaara's age in relation to Konoha's Jinchuriki, Jin no Sho claims Gaara to be older than Naruto by 9 months. And yeah, it did seem counter-intuitive to me as well, but I then re-read Chapter #547, and it appears that Rasa had been trying to seal Shukaku into one of his children for years, starting with Temari. It most likely was not a response to Konoha's new Jinchuriki.

Since it was supposedly Rasa's and Chiyo's experimentation that caused Gaara's premature birth, I wouldn't be surprised if Kankuro, too, was born prematurely due to Rasa's experimentation. As far as my memory goes, the text never claims that Gaara was the only premature birth among his siblings, so it's compatible with canon at the very least.

I hope this was helpful in some way 😭

[mollysunder]

I keep seeing a theory go around that says Mel was pregnant by the finale. I'm not too sure if that's true or not, but Mel had to have a baby... it'd be Rell.

Why do I think it works?

1. In League Rell's mother was heir to Noxian noble house that fell out of power. Currently, House Medarda's in trouble with someone even more powerful than them (probably Swain).

2. Rell's a ferromancer, a mage that manipulates metal and makes armor (usually with Iron) and constructs with it. Mel's probably a magic user, and the golden armor embedded into her skin is similar to the one Rell wears. (Like Gaara and Rasa)

3. Rell is a champion explicitly stated to be half-black, while Mel is black and is currently with a nonblack partner.

4. Rell and Ambessa wear their hair in a similar fashion (a bit weak), and some concept art with Ambessa makes her look blonde. So maybe they both like to dye their hair blonde.

5. The Medarda crest is a great golden piercing sword, while Rell uses a great golden piercing lance.

6. Mel, Rell, they rhyme. Sometimes, things are so dumb they have to be true.

7. Just another great opportunity for mother daughter Medarda pain, because in Rell's story, her mother projected incredibly high expectations onto Rell to bring back the family's prominence. And wouldn't it be an absolute nightmare to see Mel make the same mistakes as Ambessa, but slightly different!

Side note: I recognize Rell has a whole backstory with the Black Rose that makes her mom a worse person than Mel could be. But Arcane has largely altered the origins, ages, and relationships of majority of it's cast including, Caitlyn, Warwick, Ekko, Viktor, Jayce, and given Singed an entire daughter through Orianna. So why not make Rell a Medarda? Rell would still have a mother-daughter relationship that's fraught in a new way, but still tinged with the loss of generational wealth and high expectations. Plus there's always a new reason to hate Noxus.

Enjoy a pouty Rell!

[dandelionjack]

slight case of derangement today! you’ve been warned.

anyway has anybody considered… what if ruby sunday turns out to be river’s daughter from the 24 years she spent on darilium with twelve. plenty long enough to begin to raise a child. river could have wiped the doctor’s mind of all memory of their daughter for some kind of safety reason, likely to protect ruby (not that it works for long). would explain her tabula rasa heritage, and, more importantly, act as the obvious reasoning behind the bbc adamantly refusing to reveal the name of the leaked future companion played by varada sethu after millie leaves post-s1/14: it would be a massive spoiler for the series finale since she’s a regenerated ruby, 3/4 gallifreyan (or 1/2 weird time vortex augmented human?? one heart or two for ruby then? what even is river species-wise? many questions zero answers) another clue backing this concept up is the nature of the ruby/doctor relationship being completely non-romantic from what we’ve seen, with the doctor probably finding a male love interest in s1. just imagine a final two-parter — the doctor and ruby are facing some world-ending stakes, the universe is in peril, ruby ends up fatally wounded and… her hands start buzzing with a familiar golden glow

one more tidbit in corroboration: in a recent panel at some con (i can’t remember the video link now but if someone asks for receipts i will find it) alex kingston was quoted saying that river’s journey “may not be over just yet”. of course this could mean big finish or it could mean nothing at all but what if it hints at her showing up in a flashback sequence. what if she’s behind the black cloak, carrying baby ruby to the church? what if the doctor didn’t approach the hooded woman because of a subconscious recognition…

now, disclaimer so none of you start weird discourse for whatever reason, of course this could end up being a completely idiotic theory that’s way off the mark. or it could accidentally turn out to be spot on. imagine if i got it right. what would be the odds. would i feel vindicated or disappointed?

p.s. adding stuff i initially left in comments because it completes the post

post-postscriptum: (mrs) flood… river… pond…

[crimeronan]

my most irritating severance theory is that "gemma" was never real and that she's a carbon copy of dichen lachman's character in dollhouse, who was a tabula rasa woman living in a hole that could be programmed with different personalities to fuck rich clients. i'm like 99% sure this is what "exports" are -- it's lumen shipping pre-downloaded sexbots with custom human personalities out to people. and/or using those sexbots for the company's own manipulative agenda.

in keeping with this, the entire relationship and """death""" and subsequent soulshattering grief were all painstakingly manufactured by lumen to get mark scout to sever himself, because for some fucking reason, he's the only one who can complete project cold harbor, whatever the Fuck that is. (i have not been in any theory tags and do not have any ideas about what it is or why mark s is special. or even IF he's special.)

then once mark finds out that gemma isn't real, his feelings for and about her will vanish in an uncomplicated puff of smoke. he will become miraculously free to continue his deeply fucked-up """love triangle""" with the helltwins without needing to answer any complicated questions about, like, the self, and his emotions, and his commitments, and polyamory.

(the helltwins don't count as complicated relationship dynamics because they are the same person, aside from not being the same person, and they hate each other, and also most importantly, mark absolutely Does Not Want to fuck one of them. hurrah!)

this theory irritates the fuck out of me bc i really do think i'm right about gemma. and this "twist," as a way to avoid any interesting themes, would be the laziest, most boring thing they could Possibly do.

i am on my fucking Knees praying to god that they KNOW this is the laziest, most boring thing they could possibly do. Please, God, If You Love Me. Please. Please Don't .

...

HOWEVER.

i WILL accept the lumon-engineered-a-sexbot-relationship-to-coerce-mark-into-severance plot, IF and ONLY if:

gemma is a person.

not like, gemma is a human being whose outie parents aren't actors. i mean, gemma is an artificial sexbot with a nonconsensually programmed personality, AND gemma is a fully sentient living breathing person. who wants her life back. who wants her AUTONOMY back. who is just now learning that she Literally Never Had Autonomy In The First Place.

we, as the audience, get to see her reckon with her identity. we're used to innies being the most oppressed class in the show, but gemma is something else entirely. even less than an innie. she is, legally and corporately, Nothing. she is an object built to serve lumon (and, upsettingly, mark!) without any sense of interiority or free will.

but here she is. having interiority and free will.

if the writers take the themes of personhood and "what is identity?" and "how do we define each other?" to their logical conclusion, by making gemma a non-person who Absolutely Fucking Is A Person....

and so we get to See Her be absolutely fucking MESSY and WRECKED and COMPLICATED, instead of always being the laughing dead wife or the gentle vapid servant....

if gemma Gets An Arc. if gemma makes Choices. if gemma has Motivations and Desires and Fuckups. if gemma gets to be centered in the narrative thematically, the same way the other innies are, if gemma gets to drive the story Herself instead of being the carrot on a stick for mark...

well. then the writers will have my heart. 5eva.

🙏🙏🙏

[potatoingalaxy]

I think I might have a theory on what Sylus' reasoning of monitoring (not stalking, I feel it's different with Sylus) us (or mc but she's us so whateva)

‼️SPOILERS ON ADDED STORIES AND LORE BELOW‼️

So on one of the recently added lore/stories in-game, we do know that MC is a child experiment or a laboratory specimen being observed and experimented on by an unknown entity (correct me for this if they do have a name) and that MCs grandma is one of the scientists that is closest to her.

They discovered that the protocore in her (MC) heart is a unique one. It seems to bring MC back to life whenever death strikes her but at the cost of her memories. The protocore creates a burst/shockwave and MC will be alive again, but this time, tabula rasa.

This is before MC's third (? I can't remember if it's her third. She was "killed" by the scientists many times for the observation of her "immortality/ressurection") death and before the destruction of the lab and MCs grandma formally adopting her.

So here's my theory. Sylus could be the son of one of the scientist and was brought in to the lab due to his unique evol. This theory is born due to this statement of Jenna:

Jenna states that Sylus' organization, Onychinus, is experimenting with protocores. Sylus on the other hand, seems to be invested in these experiments or dealings not out of money.

HE IS GENUINELY INTERESTED.

My theory is that he might be observing as well, as a kid. Unwilling, as I would like to think, on watching the experiments, maybe later on befriending MC along the way and forming a bond with her, all to just be forgotten by her by the next round of experiments done by the scientist.

For more angst, I would theorize that he befriends MC over and over again, despite her forgetting him constantly.

Now for the exciting part, why he is monitoring MC.

I think he tried to find her after the laboratory was destroyed. Overtime, as he gained power in N109 Zone, he probably got the resources to track her down and watch over her. Sylus might be trying to uncover the secret of the aether core in MCs heart, maybe to remove it and stop it from wiping MCs memory or even from hurting her in the long run.

Anyways. This is just a theory…a SIMP'S THEORY! I could be spouting nonsense but I think Sylus has good intentions with his delve in the protocore research of his organization. Overall, I'm excited and I want my villain husband home. Love y'all and thanks for reading my 1 am ramblings HAHAHAHA

[scarecrow-in-a-hatake]

Sage, shout it from the rooftops, why don't you? And for the umpteenth time— not your taichou anymore. That is, unless you're still willing to listen when I say it's time to run laps. Maybe try that to work off your anger issues instead of taking it out on my poor office.

Also, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between screaming bloody murder and screeching about it. Let me know if you'd ever like enough experience with the latter to tell the two apart from each other.

Which of the minor jōnin characters who aren't senseis would be the best sensei? Genma, Hayate, Izumo, Kotetsu, Raidou, etc. I think the background jōnin are underappreciated sometimes

Well, not all of them are jonin (some are chunin), so I'm gonna add under the pretense that they either got a lucky promotion or got in trouble, so now they have to deal with the genus sjdjdjdjbd.

I've read so many fanfics starting the background Konoha nins that I sometimes forget they don't play major roles oops 🫡🫡 anyway, here it goes!!!

[chocotarolatte]

📚 ONGOING LONGFIC: Paws And Principles

🎒 Modern AU | 💔 Enemies to Lovers | 🔥 Slow Burn | 💘 Fluff & Angst | 🧠 Philosophy

📖 Summary:

Annie believed in the rigidity of self—fixed, unchanging, tabula rasa be damned. But Mikasa was a theory Annie couldn’t prove wrong: selfless, idealistic, a moral certainty in a world that taught her not to believe in anything.

When Mikasa adopts a dog from the shelter, Annie wonders if the self can be undone—and finds herself undone by the very longing she dares not acknowledge.

The curse and bliss of forbidden yearning. The reprieve in contradiction.

--------------

The dog's breed? You'll find out in the shelter scene 🐾

➤ Read now on AO3 here