mijahsecret

[mijahsecret]

Akasha and lestat being an actual m/f pairing and even they don’t argue about gnc lestat and cis!louis like this, you have to laugh😭

[mijahsecret]

one of the worse things to come out of loumands open relationship is people asking why didn’t Louis just “cheat” back when he was with Lestat seeing as though lestat didn’t kill Jonah.

1) louis was drinking human blood, they literally tell us not drinking it killed his sexual libido, which he wasn’t most of the years while he was with lestat, so he didn’t have that much energy.

2) Louis and lestat most likely agreed that they would be monogamous after what happened with Antionette and Jonah and after they had Claudia. It’s not clear if the lestat was cheating the whole time while Claudia was there or if it was after what happened with Charlie but the point is he stepped out and once Louis finds out he’s disappointed and upset and lestat is ashamed (his look down).

3) louis has always been under the impression that they would be monogamous because he himself doesn’t want an open relationship with lestat (he’s too jealous and possessive for it) but also lestat had a problem with Jonah so why would he think it’s something they should do when they both didn’t like it🤷🏾‍♀️

[mijahsecret]

maybe it’s just a tumblr thing but the way some of you on here talk you would think bottomstat was one of the most used tags on ao3…like it’s actually insane…

[mijahsecret]

we really see Louis go through the five stages of grief with dreamstat and the acceptance makes me so sad, I tear up all the time at the bench scene, like it took years😭😭

[mijahsecret]

with the exception of lesmand I feel like all Lestat ships should end in stat.

[mijahsecret]

I literally can't wait to read a year of drama about how it's completely butch and masc for a top to smear glitter all over himself and writhe around in a corset while crying his eyeliner off and very wrong-think to believe otherwise. This isn't sarcastic, this is what I am on the internet for. I'm so excited. Like a dream come true honestly. Rubbing my hands together. Licking my lips like a naughty fox about to get into a hen house. Brandishing a knife and fork.

[mijahsecret]

Hi screamers it’s been a minute have some stuilly as a treat

[mijahsecret]

ppl just now finding out iwtvtwt is hell… baby my mutual got jumped(think pieces all over the TL) just for saying Lestat is a brat (book and show canon btw) and Louis is a brat tamer(book and show canon btw) it was crazy

[mijahsecret]

What do you mean when u say Lestat is a Milton’s Satan hero?

Ah! Okay! Going to try and keep this shorter than my Byronic Hero post, haha, but we’ll see how we go.

Before we start…

When we talk about Milton’s Satan as a character archetype, we’re talking about something that was originated in John Milton’s epic poem, Paradise Lost, which was published in 1667. This was before gothic literature was quote-unquote ‘invented’ (as I mentioned in my first Byronic Hero post, gothic literature is widely accepted to have begun with Horace Walpole’s 1764 novel, The Castle of Otranto – worth the read, even just for the bonkers prophecy-speaking skeletons and a character dying from a helmet falling on his head, haha), but had, and continues to have, an enormous impact on gothic literature and horror in general.

The poem is set across twelve ‘books’ (chapters, basically), and is effectively a re-telling of the Book of Genesis but with two narrative throughlines. One throughline is Adam and Eve who represent more conventional biblical heroes in the poem, and the other is Satan (also called Lucifer in the poem). We’ll talk more about them in a sec, but before we begin it’s important to note that Paradise Lost was never intended as a criticism of the church.

Milton was a religious man, which is a really important thing to note when we start talking about Paradise Lost, but he was also heavily influenced as a writer by King Charles I’s autocratic rule and the English Civil War which lasted from 1642-1651. I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of all of that, but what’s important to note is that he wrote Paradise Lost in a really increased period of anti-authority sentiment in the UK and believed strongly in rebellion against authority, which feeds into how he invented his Satan.

Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost

Lucifer’s arc in Paradise Lost is a relatively straight forward one. He begins as God’s favourite angel but his pride and his vanity gets the better of him as God starts to invent (and favour) earth and mankind, and he comes to resent God’s authority over the kingdom of heaven. He believes he deserves to be loved as God is, so he leads a rebellion against God, only to lose, and he and the rest of the fallen angels, get cast out of Heaven and into Hell.

Out of spite, Lucifer decides to make Hell his own, with the iconic line “Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n” and to set his sights on corrupting God’s new favourite thing – Mankind (at this point, just Adam and Eve) – and he’s ultimately pretty darn successful. I’m not going to talk too much about the specific ways that he does that, but it’s basically a mix of deception and sowing seeds of lust, and the end result is that humanity’s corrupted, and God further punishes Satan by turning him and the other fallen angels into snakes.

The devil had been depicted a few times in literature and poetry before this time –most notably in Dante’s Inferno – but these depictions of the devil were always monstrous. Dante’s Satan is a three-mouthed beast keeping his sinner’s constantly in pain, trapped in Hell himself instead of reigning over it, and this is where Milton’s Satan hit the streets and changed character archetypes for good.

Because Milton’s Satan was hot.

Sure, he was evil, proud, vain, impulsive and did terrible things, but he was also charismatic, beautiful, graceful, funny, with all the best lines in the poem. He was “a lonely rebel…[and] an appealing, sympathetic deviant.”

And – I can’t stress this enough – nobody had ever done that before in Western writing.  “[Milton] transformed the way evil was depicted in Western texts and cultural imagery,” and also created the hero-villain archetype, something we now often refer to as an antihero.

On top of that though, Milton’s Satan was deceptive (literally a shapeshifter!), impulsive, had an incestuous family, and made sex sinful by making it lustful (Milton’s thesis over and over in his writing is that sex is great as long as nobody feels lust lol). He was also a loser, haha – he lost every battle he fought, and is in some ways regarded as a caricature of the epic odyssey hero, but look, I’m not going to get into all of that here.

Milton’s Satan is a tragic struggle between the entirely villainous and the entirely heroic.

Let’s just grab a quote from the excellent paper Miltonic Influences in Gothic Victorian Literature:

“As a rejected, troubled child of God, Satan decides to forcefully take what he thinks he should have by birthright. When he does not succeed, he decides to corrupt God’s new children…Satan is narcissistic, vain, proud and jealous. However, he is also remorseful and aware of the wrongness of his actions. He alone thinks he cannot be pardoned for the sins he commits so he forcefully pushes forward in his need for revenge. At the same time, Satan shows disturbingly human characteristics, but also inexplicable immorality. Just when one thinks one can reach a humane reason for Satan’s behaviour, one is left baffled by how evil he actually is.”

The important thing to remember about your Milton’s Satan archetype is that he was not just invented as a means of Milton’s grappling with autocracy and anti-authority sentiment, he was also really Milton’s way of grappling with humanity.

He leaves Adam and Eve as the Biblical heroes of the story, which makes them hard to engage with. What Milton wanted with Satan was to lean into the fallen angel element of him and show him as a character with the capacity for both good and evil, and the tendency to choose evil, thus making him both ultimately tragic, but also more human than the human characters. He was a way for Milton to explore what he felt were his own sins and moral failings, and in the process of that, became a way for readers to explore that too.

Evolution of Milton’s Satan

Milton’s Satan as an archetype has grown a lot over the years since his invention. Even by the time gothic literature started being ‘officially’ written a century later, the character archetype really existed on a spectrum, with some Milton’s Satan’s such as Ambrosio in Matthew Gregory Lewis’ 1796 novel, The Monk leaning more villain than hero, and the Monster in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, Frankenstein, who’s cast out by his maker and not given the chance he needs in life to be good. The Monster lacks a lot of Milton’s Satan’s typical traits like pride and self-love, but he continues the archetype’s throughline of being a cast out child who out of loneliness, becomes vengeful against the authority that rejected him and ultimately depraved/

Like I said, this archetype underpins all antiheroes today, and there’s a lot of writing about characters as wide-ranging as Hannibal Lector to Batman as being owing to Milton’s Satan, so there’s heaps out there to read if you’re interested, but yes! Let’s talk a little about Lestat.

Lestat as Milton’s Satan

Trying to keep this short(ish, anyway, haha): I really do think Lestat is born out of this archetype. Lestat’s an anti-authority character – an enormous part of which stems from his father’s autocratic and abusive reign of the household, and the feeling of abandonment by God when his father pulled him out of the church where he’d learn to be a priest only to continue his abuse. Lestat in that sense also faces rejection from three ‘God’s’ / makers not just one one – his spiritual God, his biological father, and later Magnus as his vampiric maker.

Interestingly too, Miltonic Satan’s remain heavily tied to their maker’s even after their rejection. In that paper above on Miltonic Influences in Gothic Victorian Literature, they note:

“The Satanic hero or the hero-villain is a dark, troubled and mysterious individual. He is shaped by life experiences and traits which he inherits from his maker.”

Something the show has reminded us a few times now. Lestat’s grounding in trauma and abandonment is steeped in the Miltonic trope of rejection by authority leading to rejection of authority, but even beyond that, Milton’s Satan is impulsive, morally weak, self-centered, proud, vain, lonely, beautiful but also, vitally, has a capacity for real good and an ability to love (and, more often, lust, haha). He’s a hero-villain that ultimately draws the viewer in because he’s exceptionally human in his monstrousness, and that is what is at the heart of the Milton’s Satan archetype. He’s evil but he’s human in a way traditional villains were robbed of, and similarly, he’s good but he’s human in a way traditional heroes weren’t allow to be, and to me that is Lestat in a nutshell.

[mijahsecret]

Ever since reading those meta posts about Louis being a Byronic Hero, Claudia being a Gothic Heroine, and Lestat being Milton’s Satan Hero I’ve been in research mode… it actually makes me so interested to see human Lestat with his father and Magnus. I need s3 now

[mijahsecret]

inspired by René Gruau's Woman With A Fur (original under cut)

[mijahsecret]

It’s actually gonna be so sad to watch Louis watch rockstar Lestat…like he knows Lestat is going through something but doesn’t want to talk at all because he’s mad at him but also Louis going to have to learn about Lestats life through a documentary… he’ll learn that Lestats mother is still alive and well, I can only imagine the hurt and betrayal Louis will feel that Lestat didn’t trust him enough to tell about it…hmm this is good food.

[mijahsecret]

I would LOVE to read your analysis of louis as byronic hero as apposed to his reading as gothic heroine. lots of the latter and zero of the former in the fandom.

Sure! Mmm, okay, so –

What are we talking about when we talk about Gothic Heroes?  

When we talk about gothic heroes, we’re really talking about three pretty different character archetypes. All three are vital to the genre, but some are more popular in certain subgenres i.e. your Prometheus Hero may be more common in gothic horror, whereas your Byronic Hero might be more likely to be found in gothic romance. That’s not to say they’re exclusive to those subgenres at all, and there is an argument that these archetypes themselves are gendered (in many ways, I think people confuse Anne being an author of the female gothic with Louis being a gothic heroine, but I’ll get into that later), but this is also not necessarily something that’s exclusive.

Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself, haha, so the three gothic hero archetypes are:

Milton’s Satan who is the classic gothic hero-villain. You can probably guess from the name, but he was originated in John Milton’s 1667 poem, Paradise Lost. He is God’s favourite angel, but God is forced to cast him out of heaven when he rebels against him. As an archetype, he’s a man pretty much defined by his pride, vanity and self-love, usually fucks his way through whatever book or poem he’s in, has a perverted, incestuous family, and a desire to corrupt other people. He’s also defined as being “too weak to choose what is moral and right, and instead chooses what is pleasurable only to him” and his greatest character flaw, in spite of all The Horrors, is that he’s usually easily misguided or led astray. (I would argue that Lestat fits into this archetype pretty neatly, but that’s a whole other post.)

Prometheus who was established as a gothic archetype by Mary Shelley with Frankenstein in 1818. Your Prometheus Hero is basically represented by the quest for knowledge and the overreach of that quest to bring on unintended consequences. He’s tied, of course, to the Prometheus of Greek myth, so you can get elements of that in this character design too in that he can be devious or a trickster, but the most important part of him is that he is split between his extreme intelligence and his sense of rebellion, and that his sense of rebellion and boundary pushing overtakes his intelligence and basically leads to All The Gothic Horrors.

And the Byronic Hero, who as the name implies, was both created by and inspired by the romantic poet, Lord Byron in his semi-autobiographical poem, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage which was published between 1812-1818. The archetype is kind of an idealized version of himself, and as historian and critic Lord Macaulay wrote, the character is “a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection.” Adding to that, he’s often called ‘the gloomy egoist’ as a protagonist type, hates society, is often self-destructive and lives either exiled or in a self-exile, and is a stalwart of gothic literature, but especially gothic romance. Interestingly too, in his most iconic depictions he’s often a) darkly featured and/or not white (Heathcliff being the most obvious example of this given Emily Bronte clearly writes him as either Black or South Asian), and b) is often used to explore queer identity, with Byron himself having been bisexual.

Okay, but what about the Gothic Heroine?

Gothic heroines are less delineated and have had more of an evolution over time, which makes sense, given women have consistently been the main audience of gothic literature and have frequently been the most influential writers of the genre too. The gothic genre sort of ‘officially’ started with Horace Walpole’s 1764 novel, The Castle of Otranto and Isabella is largely regarded as the first gothic heroine and the foundation of the archetype, and the book opens even with one of the key defining traits – an innocent, chaste woman without the protection of a family being pursued and persecuted by a man on the rampage.

The gothic heroine was, for years, defined by her lack of agency. She was innocent, chaste, beautiful, curious, plagued by tragedy and often, ultimately, tragic. Isabella survives in The Castle of Otranto, but she’s one of the lucky ones – Cathy dies in Wuthering Heights, Sybil dies in The Picture of Dorian Gray, Justine and Elizabeth both die in Frankenstein, Mina survives in Dracula, but Lucy doesn’t. There’s an argument frequently posited that the gothic genre was, and is, about dead women and the men who mourn them, and Interview with the Vampire certainly lends itself to that pretty neatly.

Of course, the genre has evolved, and in particular by the late 1800s, there was a notable shift in how the Gothic Heroine was depicted. The house became a place of imprisonment where they were further constrained and disempowered, she was infantilized and pathologized and diagnosed as hysterical, and as Avril Horner puts it in her excellent paper, Women, Power and Conflict: the Gothic heroine and ‘Chocolate-box Gothic’, gothic literature of this era “explores “the constraints enforced [by] a patriarchal society that is becoming increasingly nervous about the demands of the ‘New Woman’.”

This was an era where marriage was increasingly understood in feminist circles to be a civil death where women were further subjugated and became the property of their husbands. This was explored through gothic literature as the domestic space evolved into a symbol of patriarchal control in the Female Gothic.

Female Gothic vs Male Gothic

Because here’s the thing – the female gothic and the male gothic are generally understood to be two different subgenres of gothic literature.

While there are plenty of arguments as to what this entails, the basics is that the male gothic is written by men, and usually features graphic horror, rape and the masculine domination of women and often utilises the invasion of women’s spaces as a symbol of further penetrating their bodies, while the female gothic is written by women, and usually features graphic terror, as opposed to horror, while delving more specifically into gender politics. More than that though, its heroines are usually victimized, virginial and powerless while being pursued by villainous men.

The Female Gothic as a genre is also specifically interested in the passage from girlhood to female maturity, and does view the house as a place of entrapment, but she is usually suddenly “threatened with imprisonment in a castle or a great house under the control of a powerful male figure who gave her no chance to escape.”

That’s not Louis’ arc, that’s Claudia’s arc twice over, first with the house at Rue Royale, then with the Paris Coven, and Lestat and Armand aren’t the only powerful male figures who imprison her.

Claudia as the Gothic Heroine

Claudia in many ways is the absolute embodiment of the classic gothic heroine. Even the moment of their meeting is a product of Louis’ Byronic heroism – his act of implacable revenge against the Alderman Fenwick which prompts the rioting that almost kills her. She’s a victim of Louis’ monstrousness before they’ve even met, and while he saves her, he arguably does something worse in trapping her in the house with both himself and Lestat, holding her in an ever-virginal, ever-chaste eternal girlhood, playing into Lestat’s Milton-Satan by enhancing the perversion of family and ultimately infantilizing her out of his own desire for familial closeness.

Claudia has no family protection before Louis and Lestat – a staple of the gothic heroine – she is completely dependent on them in her actual girlhood, and again in adulthood, never developing the strength to be able to turn a companion, to say nothing about the sly lines here and there that further diminish and pathologise her (Lestat calling her histrionic, Louis making her out to be a burden, etc.). This is all further compounded again with the Coven, and when the tragedy of her life ultimately leads to the tragedy of her death.  

Louis as the Byronic Hero

Not to start with a quote, but here’s one from The Literary Icon of the Byronic Hero and its Reincarnation in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights:

“Generally speaking, the Byronic hero exhibits several particular characteristics. He does not possess heroic virtues in the usual, traditional sense. He is a well-educated, intelligent and sophisticated young man, sometimes a nobleman by birth, who at the same time manifests signs of rebellion against all fundamental values and moral codes of the society. Despite his obvious charm and attractiveness, the Byronic hero often shows a great deal of disrespect for any figure of authority. He was considered "the supreme embodiment [...] standing not only against a dehumanized system of labor but also against traditionally repressive religious, social, and familial institutions" (Moglen, 1976: 28).

The Byronic hero is usually a social outcast, a wanderer, or is in exile of some kind, one imposed upon him by some external forces or self-imposed. He also shows an obvious tendency to be arrogant, cunning, cynical, and unrepentant for his faults. He often indulges himself in self destructive activities that bring him to the point of nihilism resulting in his rebellion against life itself. He is hypersensitive, melancholic, introspective, emotionally conflicted, but at the same time mysterious, charismatic, seductive and sexually attractive.”

Louis as he exists in the show to me is pretty much all of those things, and I think to argue that he’s a gothic heroine not only diminishes Claudia’s arc, but robs Louis of his agency within his own story. Louis chooses Lestat, over and over again, he’s not imprisoned by the monster in the domestic sphere, he is one of the monsters who’s controlling the household, including making decisions of when they bring a child into it and when Lestat gets to live in it – he wanted to be turned, he wanted to live with Lestat in Rue Royale, and while there are certainly arguments to be made about their power dynamic within the household in the NOLA era, importantly Louis actually gained social power through his marriage to Lestat, particularly through The Azaelia, he didn’t lose it in the way that’s vital to the story of the gothic heroine.

Daniel Hart even said it in a recent twitter thread about Long Face, but there is an element of Lestat and Louis’ relationship that is transactional, and to me, for that to exist, they both have to have a degree of control over their circumstances and choices in order to negotiate those transactions. Claudia is the one who can’t, she’s the one who’s treated effectively as property, and she’s the one who lacks control over her circumstances.

While you could perhaps argue the constraints of the apartment in Dubai lend more to the gothic heroine archetype, I’d argue it as furthering the Byronic trope again by being representative both of Louis’ self-destruction and self-imposed exile. As Jacob has said a few times, Louis does seem to have known to a degree that Armand was involved in Claudia’s death on some level, and it’s that guilt and misery that has him allowing Armand his degree of control. The fact that Louis was able to leave Armand as easily and as definitively as he was I think demonstrates that distinction too – after all, to compare that ending to Claudia’s multiple attempts to leave the confines of the patriarchal house, both in Rue Royale and Paris, which were punished at every turn – first by her rape, then by Lestat dragging her back off the train, and then by the Coven orchestrating her murder.

Louis gets to leave because Louis can leave, he has both the social and narrative power to, and the fact that he does is, to me, completely at odds with the gothic heroine. Louis can, and does advocate for himself, Louis is proud, moody, cynical. Defiance is a key part of his character, just as his exile from NOLA society due to his race, and his chosen rejection of vampire society in Paris, is. He’s intelligent and sophisticated, travels the world, and has misery in his heart, guilt that eats him up, and self-destructive tendencies. That’s a Byronic Hero, baby!  

[mijahsecret]

I remember when the s3 teaser dropped and people were mad at the possibility of Daniel and Lestat being friends but me personally… I can’t wait. It’s actually one of the dynamics I look forward to the most because they both can be mean assholes so we already know there will be some back and forth throughout the interview with the different povs (people were saying it wouldn’t make sense for Daniel to like Lestat even it’s literally book canon) and also with Armand not wanting to be seen yet he’ll probably learn somethings about vampirism from Lestat. Also they both will be high off their asses all the time with Lestats band and groupies so I can’t wait for that.

[mijahsecret]

I actually don’t care to listen to the opinions of people who view lestat strictly as masculine. Not only is that not canon for any of the versions, I think they’re weirdos with a kink.

[mijahsecret]

We already have the discussions/debates now but it’s going to get worse when season 3 airs. People will be mad that others will have empathy for Lestat, which is going to bring up the tired “humanizing abusers” discourse. Which will be annoying because this show is about the cycles of abuse and some don’t understand that even the abusers can be victims. People will even hate it with Armand, as much as we’re about to see Lestat and Armand be terrible we’ll also see them suffer (past and present timeline) and some will hate it but 🤷🏾‍♀️

iwtv fandom: *has been explicitly told we haven’t seen Lestat’s pov yet including 20-30% of his characterization*

iwtv fandom: proceeds to constantly make definitive bad faith statements about Lestat’s character and motivations

[mijahsecret]

can't stop sketching loustat kissing