Lestat is actually good?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
mavrick721 — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 12:01 PM)
I saw in a Podcast about Cruise that he actually understood that Lestat is actuall the good guy because he actually read the series, is this really true?
-
Talamasca2 — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 08:50 PM)
Hmmm Maybe Lestat would like to say a few words for himself?
When he says I played with innocent strangers, befriending them and then killing them, how was he to know that I hunted almost exclusively among the gamblers, the thieves, and the killers, being more faithful to my unspoken vow to kill the evildoer than even I had hoped I would be? (The young Freniere, for example, a planter whom Louis romanticizes hopelessly in his text, was in fact a wanton killer and a cheater at cards on the verge of signing over his family's plantation for debt when I struck him down. The whores I feasted upon in front of Louis once, to spite him, had drugged and robbed many a seaman who was never seen alive again.)
But little things like this don't really matter. He told the tale as he believed it. - The Vampire Lestat (Anne Rice)
Remember, in the movie, Lestat chose to feed on the fop who murdered the widow's husband, and sent Louis went after the widow, the other guilty party!
Louis didn't understand Lestat, or his motives. Lestat had fallen in love with Louis, not taken him as a slave or turned him for his money. Vampires can accumulate riches for themselves very quickly. Vampires are strong, deadly, can move faster than human eyes can see, and have the strength of at least ten men. If there is something they want, little can stop them from acquiring it. Some can read mortal's minds and find the locations of treasure caches, and all vampires can steal pocket money from their victims whenever they choose. Lestat was wealthy long before he came to New Orleans; his maker had bequeathed him a fortune.
Interview with the Vampire was the only novel in the series narrated by Louis. The subsequent novels were largely narrated by Lestat. From Lestat we know that Louis, Claudia, and the others Lestat had turned before coming to the U.S. all would have died without Lestat's Dark Gift.
Lestat is a hunter of those mortals who prey upon their fellow man, and he is generous in his charity. He believes in God and wishes to be good, he dreams of becoming a Catholic saint! He would never kill a mortal that loved him. (It was very offensive in the Queen of the Damned film, that Lestat would have his mortal agent pick up Lestat's own fans, upon which Lestat would feed. That was WAY out of character, and just wrong, wrong, WRONG!)
To know him is to love him, and it is very easy to fall in love with Lestat.
So hurtful to be again the outsider, forever on the fringes, struggling with good and evil in the age-old private hell of body and soul.- Lestat, Queen of the Damned (Anne Rice)
-
Talamasca2 — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 12:51 AM)
So in the book series he doesn't go out at night and just hunt and feed on random women?
Nope.
Since Lestat can read minds, he can make determinations about what kind of people he wants to eat. Usually, Lestat hunts drug dealers and murderers. There have been times he has killed indiscriminately, he's not perfect. But on the whole, he does try to stick to a strict diet of evildoers.
Hello! Lestat Discovers The Opposite Sex!- Mona, Blood Canticle (Anne Rice)
-
baldrickadder — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 07:17 AM)
The books are not really about all of his hunting victims. It is about other adventures and experiences he as,for instance Menoch the Devil, he goes in search of God after meeting the devil. He swaps bodies with someone who has the power to do so in another tale. I think whether he is good is subjective to people point of view, although certainly he did moral killings as seen through his eyes, he still killed. He had emotions and feelings, like troubled human souls, to the extent of trying to take his life, as many other vampires who had done so. The books are great and well worth reading.
-
NorthernLad — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 04:47 PM)
I would never call him good. He might kill the "evil doer" as he puts it, but there have been plenty of times where he's simply been the monster that he is.
Just remember, life without me would be even more unbearable! -
Meganium — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 04:02 PM)
Keep in mind that Lestat and Louis relationship were based on Anne Rice and her problems with her husband. The same way Claudia apparently was, and just like with bad fanfiction or Twilight for example, this shines through in a way that doesn't feel like the same character anymore. It is more of an outlet for the author to write down their feelings and not building the character up to react that way.
I don't know if she did this revison of Lestat's character because she got back together with her husband but it is ridiculous to say Lestat was a good guy.
Yeah.. He could just have told Louis why he killed in the way he did.
From another thread I just posted in:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10110148/board/nest/249077588
That is not how the book goes.
He never mentions Louis being a liar and omits a big part of what Louis hated about him and does not adress it at all.
There are some attempts at justifying his treatment of the prostitutes for example how they were bad people but he never says why he didn't just tell Louis that. Besides, it wouldn't really justify the cruel treatment anyway.
Also he never explains or mentions the rude an hasty way he dealed with Louis' transformation, why that happened or if. -
Talamasca2 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 01:25 AM)
this revison of Lestat's character
I bet your own description of yourself, your actions, and your behavior would differ greatly from an old ex that never understood you, with whom you had a bad break up, and still harbors strong feelings for you after all this time.
He never mentions Louis being a liar
Wow, that is so untrue!
The Vampire Lestat: "
As for the lies he told
, the mistakes he made, well, I forgive him his excess of imagination, his bitterness, and his vanity, which was, after all, never very great."
In Tale of the Body Thief, he calls Louis a "
smug, cynical lying bastard
" to his face, in a church no less, and calls him out on the last scene between Louis and Lestat in the book Interview with The Vampire, in which a Louis saves a baby that was brought to Lestat as a meal. (
"Ah, that makes you out to be a perfect liar," I said furiously. "You described my weeping in your miserable memoir in a scene which we both know did not take place!")
omits a big part of what Louis hated about him and does not adress it at all.
The Vampire Lestat:
"
For almost seventy years I had my fledgling vampires Louis and Claudia, two of the most splendid immortals who ever walked the earth, and
I had them on my terms.
"
"
And why should I bother to tell of the times he came to me in wretched anxiety, begging me never to leave him, of the times we walked together and talked together, acted Shakespeare together for Claudia's amusement, or went arm in arm to hunt the riverfront taverns or to waltz with the dark-skinned beauties of the celebrated quadroon balls?
Read between the lines.
I betrayed him when I created him, that is the significant thing. Just as I betrayed Claudia. And I forgive the nonsense he wrote, because he told the truth about the eerie contentment he and Claudia and I shared" "I had what I wanted, what I had always wanted. I had them.
"
They were all playing power games with each other. Louis insisted on controlling the money, Lestat was under strict orders not to reveal the secret of Those Who Must Be Kept, so had to keep himself a little distant and defensive from those he loved the most. But they loved each other, needed each other. So yes, they lived with discontent and resentments, Just Like Humans Do!
There are some attempts at justifying his treatment of the prostitutes for example how they were bad people but he never says why he didn't just tell Louis that.
Go back and read that scene again. There was so much that needed to said between them and one of the reasons for the whole set up was to force Louis to EAT. And in the book Louis did drink the second prostitute dry to spare her suffering.
At one point, the prostitute panicked because she was afraid to die before confessing her sins. (She knew she had done many, many horrible things!) Lestat told the prostitute that Louis was a priest, to whom she could confess her sins, (an opportunity for Louis to hear the gory details of all the murders she committed), but she simply told Louis that she couldn't remember her sins.
The upshot is this: Louis felt guilty enough about killing. He couldn't choose his victims as Lestat did, by reading their minds and picking off the parasites, so what good would it have done for Louis to understand this? As Lestat said, "I never revealed to him half my powers, and with reason, because he shrank in guilt and self-loathing from using even half of his own."
Also he never explains or mentions the rude an hasty way he dealed with Louis' transformation, why that happened or if.
We know by now that Louis exaggerated many details to make Lestat look worse and himself look better. Lestat's own transformation was quite traumatic, at least Louis had a choice! And there was no way Lestat could know that Louis would later decide that he would have preferred a very specific behavior from Lestat that night.
Every mother has a list of disappointments around the birth of her own child: be it the duration of her labor, how many people were present, how patient those people were, or what she did or did not get to eat. Everyone would want only the best experiences for themselves, but we only know what the exact perfect thing is after the event is all over, when it's too late.
Lestat can't read Louis' mind.
I wouldn't write a book to tell you that a vampire was happy.- Vittorio
-
GreyHunter — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 12:27 AM)
I never managed to get through most of the books because I found them badly written (Personally, that is. This isn't a judgement on people who love them. Everyone has their own taste.) So I grant I can't speak with any authority. But why is it assumed that
Lestat
is the one telling the truth and Louis is the liar? It seems to me that if Lestat were half as bad as Louis claims, Lestat would have no compunction about lying through his pointy little teeth. He'd be a very self-serving narrator (a classic unreliable one) under those circumstances. It seems to me here to be a he said/he said situation, and Louis is just as likely to be presenting the facts as Lestat. -
Talamasca2 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 11:22 AM)
You are right, of course, they are ALL unreliable narrators. In the first book, Lestat was based off of Stan Rice, at a time when the Rice's marriage was under great strain. Louis did not view Lestat with empathy. There was clearly a lot of unresolved feelings on Louis' part when he gave his story to Daniel. And since you made it most of the way through the books, you know that Lestat in the movie was the Lestat of his own description, not Louis'.
When Lestat rejoined the world in 1980s, Louis sought Lestat out, and once again, of his own volition, freely chose Lestat as a companion.
Lestat's description of Louis was a far more loving and compassionate view. And you can see how Louis' ego and defensiveness shaped his story. Lestat also has an ego, but his volumes have a far more earnest tone than Louis. Lestat is also the narrator of the majority of the following books, so we get to know Lestat better than we know Louis. Lestat admits to a plethora of embarrassments. Louis is very isolated within himself, often lost in thought to the point that he is unaware of his own actions, and portraying events as unchangeable and inevitable to spare himself the guilt of his inaction.
And finally, Louis' story doesn't add up. Realistically, it is most likely because Anne Rice did not plan on extending the story beyond the one book, but once the next books came, the details did not jibe. Lestat calls Louis a liar to his face, saying that Louis made up the final scene between them in the novel, the one where Louis resists Lestat's proposal and then saves the baby. Not only is this chapter self-serving, making Louis look very good, he also never writes another book to say, "yeah-huh, it did!"
The simple fact is that the timeline is against Louis here: In the interview, Louis claims the last scene took place in "late spring of this year." According to Daniel, the book was written in 1973. (12 years before the concert in 1985, QotD) Lestat went underground in 1929, rising in 1984. Lestat wasn't around in the 1970s for Louis to find. Daniel didn't find Lestat in the 1970s either, when he went to Lestat's house, he found Armand.
Anne Rice definitely threw Louis (and Armand, more than once!) under the liar's bus.
"You've come back to me, Lestat," he said evenly, looking at me again. "When I heard the first whispers of you at Dracula's Daughter, I felt something that I thought was gone forever-"
Louis, The Vampire Lestat -
leBratPrincess — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 06:41 AM)
Have you ever even sat down with the actual novels? or did you come across some Cliff notes.
but it is ridiculous to say Lestat was a good guy.
-
Meganium — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 01:42 PM)
I read "interview with the Vampire" and the second one from Lestat's point of view.
By saying he never said Louis lied, I meant he never discussed the scenes in great length indetail.
There is still no reason why he couldn't just say: "Hey Louis Iknow you hate killing humans in general, but I don't kill random people, I can read minds and look for murderers!" And even if the two women were so evil, does that justify her treatment? Cutting her wrists several times for a wine glass? Locking her in a coffin? Telling her it's her funeral? Saying it's fun for him?
All for Louis to eat and hear her sins? Why not tell Louis himself and ditch all that torture. Or get him a sleeping, dying person to start with.
By the way; even before I read the secon book, I always found this scene an incredible stupid way of getting Louis to "kill quickly, but kill at least" by showing the complete opposite to someone who still has troubles murdering at all.
It is ridiculous that Lestat lived with Louis' loathing of him and could not just tell him his reasons for killing. Also IF he had so much conscience, he could at least pretend if not understand Louis greater hesistation after all.
He couldn't tell Louis that the young Freniere was to sell their home? And why did he mock Louis so much for trying to help the rest of the family if that was one of his motives? Or why did he do that, even if it wasn't?
Lestat could still have been a little nicer to Louis during his transformation and not yelled at him to hurry up. If his own transformation was so traumatic he could have tried to be as sensitive as possible.
Did Lestat ever adress the way he acted when his father died? Killing of Louis slaves and guests? Yeah they probably were bad people as well and Lestat just could not tell Louis that.
How he laughed at Louis for biting Claudia the first time? "Haha you said never take an innocent life" If he was so against killing innocents, he would have been just a little bit shocked at this. Or he could have been at least a bit happy that Louis was on the right path instead of mocking him and making everything worse! That also applies if Lestat was evil.
How he danced around with Claudia's mother?
So he said later that Claudia would have died. That would have been a good thing to tell her instead of how old she would be by then, which coincidentally, also implies that she would NOT have died.
His cruel jokes towards Claudia? He could have shown a bit more compassion towards her plight.
The things you mention are not in any way inplausible to have happened in the first book. Louis says there were happy moments between them, how they went together to the theatre and given what a mess Louis was, and how he said himself that they needed their little family, no wonder he sometimes begs Lestat to stay with him. People in abusive relationships with no way out act like that. -
leBratPrincess — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 01:57 PM)
The things you mention are not in any way
I never mentioned anything.
Since though you are into mentioning things. Even just seeing the film, you can see he is not enjoying what he is doing
And even if the two women were so evil, does that justify her treatment? Cutting her wrists several times for a wine glass? Locking her in a coffin? Telling her it's her funeral? Saying it's fun for him?
He could have also been alot more cruel to him
Lestat could still have been a little nicer to Louis during his transformation
I would have laughed too, since Louis was so gung ho do gooder and never wanted to be like Lestat, its called laughing at a hypocrite.
How he laughed at Louis for biting Claudia the first time?
That was just fun and had nothing really to do with being nonsensitive to anyone
How he danced around with Claudia's mother?
Would this be before or after she had tried to kill him?
His cruel jokes towards Claudia? He could have shown a bit more compassion towards her plight.
-
Meganium — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 03:00 PM)
Sorry I replied to you because you were the last in line.
Reading your reply makes me wonder, you too are convinced that Lestat is a good guy and not a bad person justifying his behaviour, right? It sure doesn't look that way.- Well if it isn't even fun for him, then what was the point? All my other questions still remain, how that was necessary and supposed to help Louis.
- Yeah, he could have been more cruel to him. But that is unimportant because I question what was the point of even behaving this way in the first place even for a bad guy who was looking forward to this new vampire.
- Yeah, at least Louis tried to be good and Lestat did bad things on purpose, so Louis had a weak moment and did what he hated the most. Again, for a good guy Lestat behaved horribly and even as a bad guy this is not going to help the situation to get Louis around to killing. Even a bad guy could just be pleased or surprised.
Yeah, how funny. Again, if he loved humans so much he would be sensitive to the corpses of innocent. And as a bad guy trying to get to Louis he should at least know how much that would freak him out. - Ehm all that happened before? That was one of the reasons she wanted to kill him.
Even in the movie, while she is pretending to make peace with him, he still taunts her and you can see a new degree of hurt, why he would say that in that moment, which increases her feelings of hatred and justification for killing him. A very good scene.
-
leBratPrincess — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 03:19 PM)
Sorry I replied to you because you were the last in line.
Not a problem.
you too are convinced that Lestat is a good guy and not a bad person
I don't think he is a bad person, just pretty insane. I always thought his human life had a lot to do with his mental state it just carried over. He had been hurt alot in his human life and even in his early vampire life. He was pretty emotionally unstable, and indeed so were all of the characters.
how that was necessary and supposed to help Louis.
He always wanted Louis to embrace the gift he felt he had given him {another example of his state of mind} I think he could think of no other way other than to provoke him at any opportunity.
I still think that whole dancing with the corpse scene was Lestat himself enjoying the moment and pointing out the Louis was indeed a hypocrite, which to me he was.
If I recall, it has been quite a while since I read the book, there was a moment she wanted to kill him before any of that. Again its been a long while and lots of books later since I read it.sounds like an excuse to read it again. Even in the film though, she had already turned on Lestat.
Lestat could have always been so much worse of a person/vampire than he was. He is very complex, like other characters in other things. You have to step back and look at them as a whole, not just in episodes of their own self pity or what ever. Think about how bad they could have been and what they could have done to others. That is what makes him a fascinating character and one to easily fall in love with {guilty}.
I have read all the Chronicles and there are moments when Lestat is kind to people. I just wish so much they had continued with the series and done it more to the books. It would have shown all the characters to be not as they first appear.
-
Talamasca2 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 06:16 PM)
There is still no reason why he couldn't just say: "Hey Louis Iknow you hate killing humans in general, but I don't kill random people, I can read minds and look for murderers!"
Oh yeah, your manipulative boyfriend telling you that everything he has done that irritated you was ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED because of his awesome skills which you don't have, yeah, that's gonna smooth everything over with rainbows and hearts.
By saying he never said Louis lied, I meant he never discussed the scenes in great length indetail.
Just what everyone was hoping for: Louis and Lestat bickering on Dr.Phil.
Louis never wrote (or co-wrote) another book, so getting in to a he said / he said battle over stuff that happened hundreds years ago isn't going to get anyone anywhere!
Lestat addressed the highlights, and moved on.
Why not tell Louis himself and ditch all that torture.
Because things needed to change. I told you to go back and read the scene again, clearly you didn't.
"Lestat looked at me. 'I expected you to feel these things instinctually, as I did,' he said. When I gave you that first kill, I thought you would hunger for the next and the next, that you would go to each human life as if to a full cup, the way I had. But you didn't. And all this time I suppose I kept from straightening you out because you were best weaker. I'd watch you playing shadow in the night, staring at the falling rain, and I'd think, He's easy to manage, he's simple. But you're weak, Louis. You're a mark. For vampires and now for humans alike. This thing with Babette has exposed us both. It's as if you want us both to be destroyed.'"
Lestat couldn't leave Louis unable to fend for himself. It's like a sports trainer, all the abuse they mete out to their trainees are to toughen them up to meet the challenges they'll face, because nothing will be as hard as the training.
why did he mock Louis so much for trying to help the rest of the family
Lestat was playing kill the parasite. What happened to the Freniere women afterwards was up to them. Unfortunately for Louis, some things you have to learn for yourself.
"I had saved only Babette's physical life. I was not to know that until later." "Babette had died young, insane, restrained finally from wandering towards the ruins of Pointe du Lac, insisting she had seen the devil there and must find him; I'd heard of it in wisps of gossip. And then came the funeral notices"
Lestat could still have been a little nicer to Louis during his transformation and
not yelled at him to hurry up
. If his own transformation was so traumatic he could have tried to be as sensitive as possible.
"Louis, drink.' And I did.Steady, Louis,' andHurry,' he whispered to me a number of times."
"Something's happening to me,' I shouted.
"You're dying, that's all; don't be a fool." "Dying!' I shouted.Dying!' "It happens to everyone,' he persisted, refusing to help me. As I look back on this, I still despise him for it. Not because I was afraid, but because he might have drawn my attention to these changes with reverence. He might have calmed me and told me I might watch my death with the same fascination with which I had watched and felt the night. But he didn't. Lestat was never the vampire I am. Not at all." The vampire did not say this boastfully. He said it as if he would truly have had it otherwise.
"Alors," he sighed. "I was dying fast, which meant that my capacity for fear was diminishing as rapidly. I simply regret I was not more attentive to the process."
Okay, so Lestat DIDN'T yell at Louis to hurry up, and, again,
there was no way Lestat could have predicted that Louis would later decide that he would have preferred a very specific behavior from Lestat that night.
He's not magic or perfect.
And why are Louis' feelings the only ones that count?
Making a vampire is painful. IT HURT. That's why Lestat was urging Louis to drink faster. After, he was weak and thirsty, maybe feeling a little nervous due to the way his previous companions had parted ways with him. Making a companion is a big step.
Did Lestat ever adress the way he acted when his father died?
No, but it's clear by now that Lestat isn't good at relationships. Everything was falling apart and his long estranged father suddenly wanted a touchy-feely conversation about his failings during Lestat's mortal childhood. They didn't have time for that.
Killing of Louis slaves
The slaves had pegged them as vampires, killing them was self preservation. Otherwise, all of New Orleans would be after them.
and guests?
What guests?
also implies that she would NOT have died.
Yes, yes, just like Marius tells Lestat he should not have made Armand so young, but then reveals that Armand had been fatally poisoned. These characters are not the most consistent on this point. She most likely would have died, because Louis had fed off her which put her in a hospital where they didn't understand the concept of germs. And by the time she was truly lamenting her preternatural predicament,