The conversation around Daniel, Louis, Claudia, (and now Armand and Lestat) on the publishing of Daniel's book is really interesting and also... dramatically complicated. For one primary reason.
We have no idea what Daniel wrote.
We have snippets!! We have clues!! We have the obvious Talamasca editing and involvement that have changed the nature of the book enough Daniel is doing his own grumpy investigating of them, but we don't have the book. We will never have the book, and that's really helpful as a writer's tool.
Which to me means that the way YOU, yes you, feel about Daniel is going to greatly impact how you think he handled the book.
We have no idea how Daniel has portrayed any character. Was he waxing poetic on Armand, on Louis, on their preturnatual beauty? Did Daniel include measured discussions around race, racism, abuse, and colonialism? Does Daniel operate with a post-colonial view to his journalism that allows him to measure his involvement in the exploitation of delivering a story about racism, race, class, sexism, trauma, and abuse? Especially to characters who have had these things weaponized against them, and in Claudia's case led to her death? Or is he a product of his generation, nation, and journalistic ethics that often lead to further harm? Considering his warning to Louis about presenting Claudia's story, he is incredibly aware that even the best presentation can fail under biased public perception.
Daniel would have been part of The New Journalism movement in America as a youth, which was a movement that encouraged the inclusion of narrative to create a moving and purposefully subjective story. The journalist was as much of an important character in the creation of the news story as the people and events they were covering. The journalist is a meta narrative device that allows these stories to be told with the understanding that these stories are subjective. It is challenging traditional journalist "objective" integrity, because true objectivity is simply not an ideal that can be reached. It's also about turning ordinary instances into art. (A young reporter with a point of view).
"The writers who came to be described as New Journalists styled themselves as interpreters of large social trends, and magazines like Esquire, Harper's, and New York sought the work of those writers in order to create an identity that would appear o the educated, upscale readers. The ethical challenges of negotiating the delicate relations between subjects, stories, and truth --but from the moral claims made on its behalf. How did writers, editors, and publications explain what they were up to, and why it mattered?" ("The New Journalism and the struggle for interpretation", JJ Pauly)
With this in mind, Daniel making himself a character that is telling the story that was told to him and pulling in all the research that cements this story as "real" is how the book is structured (which is why the snippets we got from the Talamasca include his own musings about his time, place, and perception. He is aware of his place as a biased entity.) Considering the reveal of Daniel as a vampire came WITH the reveal of the discourse around the book being published in season 2, I think we have a narrative answer to how we are supposed to frame it. Daniel is a vampire, and he is metaphorically feeding on this narrative.
The book was written to elicit reactions. As an investigative journalist who has primarily covered AIDS, environmental exploitation, and online public opinion, Daniel's attention seems to cover what people are being told to look away from. He's calling them to look at it instead. Considering his belligerent comments on racism we see in the show (what was happening to Algerians in Paris, "White Master, Black Student, but equal in the quiet dark"), I doubt Daniel is going to pussyfoot around calling the trial a lynching, or presenting Louis or Claudia in a way that shrouds that element of their story. What he may be tripping on is how this connects into a conversation about vampires. Vampires as monstrous others. Racialized others. Disabled others. He is now in the group that he is exploiting, but he doesn't seem to be using his new identity to help prove his book's authenticity. (perhaps... as he was once before in AIDS. Which now, he's in a similar position. Is he hiding being a vampire for the same reason he may have been hiding homosexuality? Is this where he abandons subjective perspective for objective perspective? Out of fear? Out of a need to showcase a story that he is still hesistant at admitting he is an integral part of? It's easier to be taken seriously if you're presenting yourself as... well... an onlooker.)
Because this show has a tendency to root its conversations around these topics in a post-colonial lense, I always look for conversations around journalistic ethics that are coming from that purview. This article discusses the ways that media and journalism fail minorities and "others." Considering Daniel is writing a book about vampires as an ultimate other from specifically the story of Louis, who is a racialized other, are there places he is creating spaces that are reinforcing racist dialogue?
Does the reaction of Burton (the Talamasca), the girl in the bookshop, Louis and Lestat, and the other various lore drops give us a good glimpse into what was written? Well... I'm honestly unsure. Daniel is belligerent and... well, Daniel. He may be handling things with less tact than he could have, and depending on what state he was in when he wrote it (literally. was he a vampire already? Baby fledgling writing a book? Ooof) that will also affect his tone and portrayal of events. Is discourse healthy, or is it a way to enforce ideology?
Considering vampires ARE kind of a societal problem because they're... uh... killers, even using Louis as a "less problematic vampire" is going to come with it's own issues. (We all have certainly run the gauntlet of opinions on that, lmao.) This show is a Gothic horror, and Gothic horror has historically been used to challenge social anxieties and stigma by exposing the uncomfortable reactions of victims. Louis and Claudia are Gothic damsels. Lestat and Armand are enactors of Gothic exploitation and abuse. Daniel is a narrative... hero? Escape route? Louis seemed to think so.
Question: Did Louis state the Dubain interview because he had a
hunch about Armand's lie? Anderson says, 'Yeah, I do,' in response to that question, and he's been theorizing this since filming the Season 1 finale. Louis has never seen this interview as the chronicling of a suicide like Armand (as Rashid) described it, according to Anderson.
"'The burning of the laptop, Louis doesn't really have a good understanding of how the cloud works,' Anderson says, making us both laugh. 'It's a dramatic flourish. It's more symbolic than anything.' Suspecting Armand 'was something that I started to get a sense of when we did that season 1 episode 7 moment of the 'love of my life' because Rolin always talks about that as the end of
The Gradulate,' Anderson continues. 'I was like, 'Oh, it's a cry for help.' He found that person that he knew could draw the truth out of everyone, including himself.'
"Essentially, Daniel had been Louis' failsafe ever since San Francisco. 'He has this real connection with [Daniel], and we learn that he's given him this apology/gift of 'you are a bright young reporter.' If all else goes to sh**t, you will always have this,' says Anderson. 'He brings him back because he needs help. He's not quite sure what it is, but he just has this little thing in the back of his mind that's telling him, 'This isn't right, something's wrong here.''
"'Truth and reconciliation' is 'what it comes down to in the end. There is a poetic thing in that final moment. It was fun to shake [Bogosian's] hand because they don't touch each other really the whole time. It was quite nice to do that. Eric didn't know I was going to do it, and he genuinely flinched.' he adds with a laugh. 'There was a conversation about whether or not I should do it, but I would've fought back' had they told him not to." (
TV Insider Interview for season 2 finale)
So yes, the show
and Daniel's book is set up in a way that you as a viewer have a lot of power over interpretation and understanding through character. This is a character-centric narrative, and so it is rewarding to an audience member to sit down and think about how
YOU view Daniel, and how that means
YOU think he understood and depicted the events that Louis gave to him. With additional interaction from The Talamasca, and why the entire world seems to think this is best-selling fiction.
The Vampire Lestat is about perspective. It's about the ways others will interpret your story, and create their own narrative that is an image of yours. Most people are not investigative journalists (or slightly annoying media analyzers like me) who analyze stories for real-life commentary. The Fandom, in many ways, has been playing out a lot of the meta perspectives we would see in the show. To them, it's fiction. To us, it's fiction. In arguing over interpretation, intention, and perception, we are basically putting season 3's narrative conflict on full interactive blast. The show is going to address these things, I have no doubt, considering it's the series catalyst.
How you connect to fiction will greatly impact your perspective on who, what, and why the story unravels the way it does, and what to do with it later. I know I'm personally enjoying the meta commentary on how people interact with fiction, but as you can tell, I am in the group of people who are very Daniel-Molloy-esque anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
