The Vampire Chronicles - Blog Posts

no because i'll be having a good day and then remember armand turned daniel into a vampire. 500 year old vamp who never made a fledgling before because the thought 'repulsed' him, drained daniel of his blood and then fed him his OWN blood to complete the transition. and the worst part? it happened OFF SCREEN.

Queen of the Damned Devils Minion chapter comic

Disclaimer!! this does NOT belong to me i simply found the QotD comic and made a pdf of the complete Devils minion chapter

lmk if the link doesnt work 😭

some more of my fav answers from the iwtv q&a thread 😋

Sam Reid on lestat😭

Jacob Anderson on Louis/certain scenes

Bonus+ Proof that everyone wants devils minion 🙏🏼

went through the IWTV q&a thread on reddit for season 1 where Jacob and Sam answered questions and here are some of my favs 😋

seems like they’re both excited for Gabrielle next season

Never beating the lestat possesion allegations

Jacob Anderson the n1 Louis x therapy shipper 😭

Part 2?

Old man yaoi

At your divine mercy

the thing we all need to remember about book!DM is that in that wretchedly romantic scene in Pompeii where they kiss for the first time and Daniel thinks about how Armand looks like a giant bug and he's in love........... the thing to remember...... is that the whole time, while Daniel is having all of these sweeping romantic thoughts and getting kissed and bitten, Armand is rocking double denim

romance is (un)dead

I know nothing of God or the Devil. I have never seen a vision nor learned a secret that would damn or save my soul.

Armand, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice

Am I the only one who feels like the AMC iwtv is basically just a fanfic?

It's really cool and I loved watching the series but I couldn't help but think about how this all feels like someone's headcannons for the Fandom.

For example:

Claudia's age

What business louis ran

Louis family dynamics

them making up Claudia's backstory

Lestat... like, why did they make him so much of a typical evil man in this story? They didn't need to make him an abuser. I know he's a bad guy, but like this whole series seemed so out of character for him.

Though I did enjoy:

Finally making it gay

Costuming

What really bothered me was the fact it was set like Louis lived in the early 1900s when he really lived in the late 1700s.

Im not saying i didn't like the AMC series take on the book but i feel like they shouldn't change so much.

I did love watching it and am excited to watch the new season when it comes out.

Because series made me to think about this canon again

For years, I was confused about how to feel about Armand's book backstory.

Like. He's from Kyivan Rus', BUT at the same time from 15th century. Kyivan Rus' was feudal monarchy that existed from probably IX (at least we assume so, because it was mentioned under that name in 852, tho it's not popped from the air, you know) to 1240. From ~1240 to 1349 the country was Rus' Kingdom. After that, Ukraine was splitted between Poland, Lithuania and Moldavian principality. Tho, Ukrainians were called Ruthenians (Latin name for former nation of Kyivan Rus') up until 19th century. I've read Beauplan's and Merimee's works about Ukraine, and they call Ukrainians both Ukrainians and Ruthenians.

SO.

When was Andrii (yes, this is how you would pronounce Ukrainian variation of Ανδρεας or Andrew)? He was Ruthen from Kyivan Rus' or he was Ruthen from 14th century Rus' Kingdom? Or he was even later? Book says he was born in 1481. So, later. A lot later.

We also know that he was kidnapped and enslaved by Mongolians. Mongolians entered Kyiv in 1240, it was a 13th century, not the end of 15th.

AND I HAVE A THEORIES.

Vampires live very long. So, probably it could be a mistake. Maybe Armand is simply older. Maybe he was around in 1240. He was just a child back then. Probably centuries later he was like 'yeah that Mongolians they sold me... so... it was... um... 15th century... yes? no?' Maybe it's just miscount. And then he never bothered to fix that.

The book is written by Daniel if I remember correctly. Perhaps Armand was like 'dude I was in orthodox Christian church I didn't know what year it was, I almost forgot my name and appearance in the catacombs under Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra'. And Daniel asked Marius when he met Andrii. And Marius... Well, if you are around for 2 thousand years, you can remember things incorrectly. So, Daniel, who is American and know nothing about history of Ukraine, and Marius who maybe knows something about Kyivan Rus' because it was a huge and powerful country back then just made that. They counted and assumed that it was 1481. And it was wrong.

Armand is a liar. How we can know that his real name is Andrii? Maybe he had a friend who's name was Andrii and Armand stole it. Maybe he was Taras. Or Bohdan. Or Oleh. How we would know? And maybe he never saw Mongols. How we would know? How would Daniel know? Maybe it was just his grand grandmother who told she saw Mongolians and how they burnt Kyiv. And little Andrii (we can say he was a weirdo all along) was just 'wow I want that! how cool it would be!'. And then he was kidnapped. And assaulted. And sold as a slave. And little weird Andrii just wanted a little comfort in his misery and a cool story. And when Marius asked how Andrii was captured, he made up this cool story about Mongols. Maybe in reality it was something more... Common. Dark and common. Everything could happen. Maybe he was sold by his parents, and he denied it. Maybe it was abuse in that church. Maybe he ran away from church and somehow ended up on the slave market.

Actually, I tend to 3rd. Isn't it a western movie where little talented boy paint so beautifully that Prince Michael (Mykhailo II of Chernihiv I assume) orders one of his icons, but on the way he and his father are interrupted by Mongolians. Also, it was said that Andrii suffered an amnesia due to his trauma caused by life in a brothel. He even starts to learn how to paint from the start, like he never knew how to paint before. So, was he at Lavra at all? Was he an icon painter? We would never know. He could just go to the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, point at some old icon and say he drew it.

Or maybe some part of the story is true and some - isn't. I would speculate that Armand had an education. He wasn't a son of a hunter, no. He knew about Mongols. He knew who was the knyaz in 1240. But in 1481 Yurii Paz was knyaz. Mykhailo would be long dead by that time, obviously. So, how would little poor Andrii Ivanovych from 1481 know who was knyaz back when Mongols burnt Kyiv?)) A hunters son could not, he would not have an education, he would not know how to read or write, so history? Oh no, no way.

So, simply, we do not know who is Andrii. Is he Andrii at all? Was he born in 1481? Was he even 17 when Marius was thinking he was? Was his father a hunter named Ivan? Was he an icon painter at Lavra? probably yes and Ann Rice just didn't research enough

I just was thinking about it for years since I have read Vampire Armand. All these years I was wondering how he end up stolen by Mongols in 15th century...

Tho, it would be hilarious to see Armand's icon in Vampireverse Lavra. Imagine that. By the way, Lavra still have catacombs (I was there on tour). Maybe in Vampireverse some of Andrii's friends are there. Literally, their mummies as saints. He would arrive in Ukraine, in Kyiv and like 'oooh let's go see my old friends'. 'Look, Daniel, this is Marko, I knew him. Oh, and this is Illya, he looks better now, actually'. And then he would see his icon. And like... You know how it feels to see your artwork after some time. It's just not that good anymore, you know. You can do better now. Yes, this is how he would feel. It was a masterpiece in 1490s, he painted it for a year and a half. And now he can draw photo-like detailed art on his graphics tablet.

If you read this, thank you for the attention! Love you!

So you seem to be the Armand expert and I have a few questions!

So what are the clear differences between like the book and movie and show Armand like what facets of the characters remain and which facets changed?

Also which aspects of each interpretation do you like? (Like what show Armand difference do you like) and which aspects of book Armand do you wish they would include in a future season? (Hope I’m making sense!)

AHH TY!!! (Being called an Armand expert is my favorite thing lmao)

I assume when in comes to book vs show vs movie u are asking me to talk about the changes of the character that r less superficially obvious (so u don’t expect me to just list height and age and ethnicity differences and be done with it lol). But either way, to start out, book Armand is Ukrainian, 5’6, ginger, cherub like, was turned into a vampire at 17. Show Armand is Indian, 6’0, lean and muscular, turned into a vampire at 27. Movie Armand is Antonio banderas, lmao.

I think the change that most significantly alters the adaptations of Armand from book Armand is the age change. In the books Armand being turned into a vampire as a teenager is essential to everything about him, backstory and personality wise. To keep Armand the same while aging him up you have to do a lot of substitutions that justify why he is like that that don’t include “he has the mind of a teenager”. What they do with show Armand is kind of like, imagine if there was an adaptation where the writers wanted Claudia to have a similar core conflict as she did in the books but she was aged up to be turned into a vampire when she was an adult. How do u keep the essence of the tragedy that way?? And the what the show does is, it justifies Armand being 27 by in some ways reducing his maturity and prolonging his trauma so that a similar affect to being mentally a child comes about anyway. Show Armand isnt physically a child like book Armand is, but bcus of his trauma he thinks like one. Instead of an adult trapped in the body and mind of a child he’s a child stumbling around in the body of an adult, which is rlly interesting. With this, I get the impression that book armand is more mature, self reliant, and well rounded than show Armand is. Which is funny considering he’s the 17 yr old lmaoo. But rlly, book Armand’s emotional problems and his stunted growth come from outside factors, it’s almost like a psychical disability in a way. Show Armand isnt psychically stunted, so to make the character conflict work he is just extra emotionally stunted. So he’s less functioning, in a weird way, then book Armand.

book Armand is also an angrier character then show Armand. Book Armand has mountains of betrayal and hurt and anger stored in his 5’6 ass body. He has that teen boy spite streak, yknow. Book Armand is very psychically violent and confrontational. The way he preforms violence is often very methodical, he’s the ripping wings of a butterfly type. Show Armand has some of these traits, but his violent tendencies are seemingly more controlled than book Armand, who is genuinely unhinged. Show Armand has a stronger reign over his behavior and acts out of anger less often. He is more so just looking to survive than to kill and maim. I think one of the most book Armand scenes in the show was definitely Armand torturing Daniel in episode 5. Violent torture coming from a strange place of childlike curiosity and betrayal is a big thing with Armand throughout the book series.

But despite the violence, book Armand is genuinely more mature then show Armand. He’s more confident, self reliant, and adult by the 80s than show Armand is in 2020. While show Armand has been living with Louis for 77 yrs and hasn’t experienced life ever when he’s not clinging to someone else, book Armand is able to rebuild himself and develop into a functioning independent person. I do think show Armand will become more and more like book Armand as the show progresses, however.

movie Armand is a different character entirely lmao. He’s basically just Armand in the first book taken out of context and played by antonio banderas. He has as much individual character as an audio book narrator lmao. His lack of backstory and older casting that alienates Armand from his core traits and motives makes it hard for me to see him as anything but a watered down extension of book Armand lol.

my favorite part of show Armand is Assad’s wet cat performance, lol. I love how they keep Armand’s book backstory broadly the same and flesh out and add parts that make it more interesting. And I love how they made Armand a person of color, that is probably my favorite change made in the show in general. I love that book Armand is a teenager, and it’s a shame that I’ll never see an adaptation exploring what that means for his character, but I’m happy with how amc is re inventing the material to be just as interesting. I hope they start to include the nuances of book Armand introduced in queen of the damned (aka: the autism). The revelation that Armand is oddly whimsical, earnestly curious, and fascinated with being a part of human society is what I think is essential to humanizing and endearing him to the audience.

ty for the ask!