My neck, from the IV, makes me look like I was bitten by a vampire. Should I say it was Lestat or Louis? I don't think Dracula makes too many trips out to L.A. and Stephanie Meyer doesn't actually write about vampires (this makes sense if you know my opinion about the Twilight series), and I want to sound convincing.
I suggested Armand might be a better choice, and when she requested a concise argument to support my opinion I wrote her back this:
Louis, Lestat, Armand
Louis: While he’s certainly the most sensitive and “human” of the three. He’s almost too sensitive. I mean, seriously, how many times did you just want to slap him and say “You’re dead! Live with it.”? Being bitten by him is like being a gay man’s beard. He doesn’t really want you, but he needs you to survive.
Lestat: He’s the ultimate sexy bad boy, but he’s also an egomaniacal prick who continues to fall victim to hubris no matter how many times it bites him in the neck. In short, he’s a slut. Who hasn’t Lestat bitten? Do you just want to be another notch on his bedpost?
Armand: He’s a good halfway point between the two. He’s young-looking, sexy, more level-headed, and has enough of a conscience to be empathetic without being pathetic. Plus, he’s most definitely and openly a homosexual, so you have to be one damn fine piece of female neck for him to bite you.
After considering my arguments, she replied: "You have made your argument, sir, and I have most decidedly been bitten by Armand."
So if you had to choose one of the three to bite you, who would you choose?
Louis:

Lestat:
Armand:

(I refuse to show Antonio Banderas as Armand. He looked good but nothing like the character as described in the novels.)
Louis, but only if he never talks afterward (or before... he's just pretty)
ReplyDelete