Who’s your best friend inside the paddock?
The guy I spend most time with is Blake [my manager] and his last name is ironically Friend. I would say that’s probably an obvious one because we spend a lot of time together. Lando [Norris] is one where like, our first year at McLaren, it definitely took us a little bit of time to probably get to know each other and warm to each other a bit. It’s probably no secret that it took us a little bit to become, let’s say, mates.
Who’s your best friend outside the paddock?
Actually, it’s funny. I laugh because I’ve got two Blakes who are very close in my life. Blake who works with me and probably my best friend is Blake who I raced go-karts with…
Do you call them Blake 1 and Blake 2?
Ha. He’s really tall so I’ve called them ‘Tall Blake’ and ‘Manager Blake’. But I raced go-karts with Blake so we’ve known each other since we were like nine years old and we always competed against each other for a long time. He’s always visited me, come to races, visited me when I was living in Italy and wherever I was, and remained a really close friend.
I think in those friendships it was easy for him to be like, ‘S**t, you made it, I didn’t’, and there could be like this weird kind of envy or jealousy, and he never had that, he always just stayed a really honest and true friend. We were coming up together and we were both trying to make it ultimately, and I think just the way he handled me kind of living our dream careers, that also could have made our friendship turn and it never did. I also really valued him for not letting that get in the way and we’re super-close.
202 notes
·
View notes
Not to psychoanalyze (Yes, to do that), but given Armand's history, his only preconception of what love is, is to view it through pure desire. Love - and more broadly accurate, his life purpose for like half a millenia - as only he's ever known it, has only been experienced through transactional wish-fulfillment fantasies, of which he was the one typically sought after to complete such an exchange. And so naturally, in his own seeking, he replicates it. Though to some degree he also replicates the fantastical existence of fictional romances to compensate.
This lack of true experience of love without desire or fantasy, making his always unfilled 'objet petit a' - his object of desire - (a partner he desires a particular love from but does not receive to his fulfillment) - the catalyst for believing there is no other form of love to be had. That he can simply love the person, and be altruistic to their personhood, without them filling a role or desire for him, just would never occur. He's egotistical and overly pragmatic towards others by the fault of formative experiences denying him his own personhood. In being groomed into the object of desire, he no longer sees anyone else but as such. It's equal parts lack of self-awareness, meaning he simply has no way to counter-reflect upon himself the way one should behave, and developed coping mechanism, either consciously or unconsciously, taking on the role of those who inflicted upon him their desires to gain a sense of control over it.
In never escaping this cycle of love as desire, he always denies himself his full person, and simultaneously denies the personhood of others.
27 notes
·
View notes
it's interesting to see how much the iwtv fandom, especially parts of iwtvtwt, forget that daniel's a character in his own right. like a lot of his narrative function in s1-2 has been to act as a sort of audience surrogate, but that doesn't mean that he actually Represents The Audience's Views. he's got his own motives, biases, and moral compass (skewed as it is!) and so when people act like his interpretation of things is the word of god or that he's somehow exempt from the moral questions the show explore it's like ... you get that he's bound by the show's narrative too and isn't you, right????
7 notes
·
View notes
The joke about the book Interview with the Vampire was that it was basically Louis complaining about his ex to a random guy he met in a bar for a couple of hours.
And the writers of the Interview with the Vampire show took that joke and said, “no, it was Louis seeking therapy for a whole host of issues he has, not just about things with his ex,” and sprinted with it.
Miss Lily was basically Louis’ first therapist before he was turned. That we saw. And he probably couldn’t even tell her everything. (I think he left out talking about his homosexuality with her.)
Who knows how long before that Louis was seeking someone to talk to deal with the things in his life? From the racism he faced, to his sexuality, to having to take care of his family. To Paul.
The first failed interview in 1973 was Louis seeking that type of therapy again. And now here Louis is, again, looking for the same thing.
IMO, Louis’ time with Armand is akin to being heavily medicated to deal with his depression, trauma, PTSD, etc. Memories altered to better help Louis live with what happened and the things he did.
Daniel should have asked Louis again if he ate the baby.
Anyway, for some reason, the “medication” isn’t working as it did before, I think.
There may have been a blip when Armand’s influence over Louis/Louis’ mind slipped a bit back in 1973. And maybe something similar is happening now, again. The “interview” might be Louis trying to make what he wants to have been real, real in truth too.
Because hell, if it’s published in a book that is his memoir, then it must all be true. Right?
Louis went right into disassociation when Daniel began to challenge his account and memory. That, and the medication that is Armand, are clearly how he copes when the truth of what happened is there, pushed back at him, when he doesn’t just lash out in anger (such as him messing with Daniel’s Parkinsons.)
217 notes
·
View notes
I do find it interesting how Louis's reaction to Daniel's frankly benign joke about Lestat's letter was so different from his responses towards Daniel over the torn diary pages. Both times prior, he either becomes very angry, enough to make Daniel suddenly lose control of his body, or he becomes so overwhelmed he has to leave the room. But in neither of those times did Daniel ever go after Lestat or mock him for his love for Lestat. And the second he does, Louis not only bites back but even becomes gleeful at the thought of affecting Daniel this severely.
18 notes
·
View notes