~The Secret of Eternity~ Lestat & Marius Fan Site // Lestat & Marius

So, originally, in the books they have a deeply psychological, pure father-son relationship, (as in no romance nor sexuality in it), but some fans have twisted them baselessly into a shallow homosexual couple. Even Anne Rice has literally said about Lestat & Marius; "They could never be called lovers." and really, that's obvious from the books.



Of what I've seen about the Lestat musical they seem to have performed the Lestat & Marius relationship wrong. I mean, at least in the couple of clips that I saw, Marius's actor spoke in loud level, and in self-suprior tone and had the whole being of a person who wants to get rid of someone as quick as possible. He literally was trying to send Lestat away that very moment he told about his request to have him live out his lifetime, he didn't give even nearly all the reasons why, and he ALSO said in the other version that "Now, I'm required elsewhere", turning his back on Lestat as if he should just accept it and go, leave right away. The whole scene made it so very well seem as if Marius didn't care about Lestat's feelings and didn't care for him to stay. And that is so NOT how it is in the books! They totally fucked up the mentor/student eagerness and completely ignored the daddy issues of Lestat's that cause the extremely strong father-son bond.

Really, the way and image that musical seems to give of Marius and Lestat's relationship is even worse than the Queen of the Damned film's! At least in the film Marius was compassionate, taught Lestat stuff and tried to protect him and the father-son side was obvious. But then they had Marius just ditch Lestat coldly and later giving a bs reason "you almost cost me everything". NO!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE ADAPTING THIS RELATIONSHIP?! Of course I haven't seen even nearly all there may be about Lestat and Marius in that musical but that scene was too extreme anyways.

After I saw it - I had to ask myself that what I just said; what the hell is wrong with people who make adaptations of the books - when it comes to the relationship between Lestat and Marius? The strength and depth of it, I mean. WHY are they so very talentedly making it seem like the complete opposite of what it really is? That is so very bad because they are the most known, and official adaptations there will ever be and thus many people will get the totally wrong impression.

The Queen of the Damned movie, the baseless gay vision of some fans' and that musical has just way too much space and chances to affect peoples' image of the relationship.

The true relationship and it's true strength and depth has been abused in so many ways and talked about so extremely little outside the books that it's just... horrible situation. Because it's vital and significant and beautiful. Oh the humanity. *tries to calm down* *draws a breath* Ok, just... go on. In the next part, I will tell you why I just got so worked up.


While their relationship's not even nearly all there is to the serie, it's still never the less extremely significant and important because it is extremely significant and important to Lestat, who is the main character.

I don't think Lestat would've survived for long in vampire life if Marius didn't come to him and if their relationship wasn't all it was. Because Lestat was this close to losing his sanity already in his mortal life, losing whatever joys he had in it when turned into a vampires certainly wasn't going to make the danger lesser - especially as he had his mother Gabrielle and his friend Nicki, who were his sources of strength in the mortal life, had them in his vampire life too but lost them. Man, Lestat did go undergroundd, horribly depressed after Nicki's suicide. If I recall correctly, he didn't plan to resurrect. But then Marius came to him.

It begins with the constant, deep suffering in his mortal life and especially becatse of the family relationships and even more especially because of the father - then he's granted a new life in which Marius comes to be his long yearned loving father-figure, and thus affects Lestat and his life as strongly as the mortal life's suffering did, only, in totally positive, healing way. It's all connected, so very deeply psychologically. And also the how eager Lestat is to learn and how Marius loved to teach him, was also one thing strongly connecting them and making their both happy as vampires.

In short: This relationship between Lestat and Marius, is a vital part of the Chronicles. Giving the opposite impression of it in adaptations, is violating the whole story, maybe even more seriously than with just changing some practical stoylines.

So I also realize that while they are purely a father and son as in not having sexuality or romance between them what-so-ever, they are not only a father and son - but also close friends and a teacher & student. But then again fathers and sons are friends to each others too, so that pretty much connects into one. I know and acknowedge the mentor/student element of the relationship is very vital and significant and the admire each other as immortals but I belive the father-son nature is the essence of their love, and so very vital and significant to the characters and the book serie through them.

You see, Lestat sought out Marius to be the mentor but he could not have kbnown he would find so much more. Marius was drawn to Lestat for one because of Lestat's eagerness to learn, but having watched him closely for ten years, he most likely also felt the father's love as well all along. So, it's actually kinda hard to say which element is the actual essence, as it's the mentor/student that practically brought them together and was always a very essential element to both of them, but yet Lestat behaves very much like a child testing his father's patience, while Marius's choices when it comes to Lestat, always seemed to be very much driven by his parental feelings. They both talk about each other enough for the mentor/student matter but their behavours scream father and son.

The thing is, they would certainly have met and love each others even without the father-son part, but I can not see that as the point. But the fact that there is a deeply psychological and essential reason for why the relationship is also a father-son thing, so it can't really be stripped off in efforts to clarify anything. It seems to be very much affecting the strength of the mentor/student element. And I guess this is why I believe it's the essence. Even though the relationship would probably exsist anyways, the father-son part of it has been included in such a deep and strong level, it's got to be in the very end, what matters most to them. As in, not what started it but what became of it in the deepest needs. As I may have said somewhere, I think Marius needs Lestat to need him as much as Lestat does need him. In any case; the father-son element is a very, very vital part of the relationship. Because of that, and also the fact I adore the parent/child element of the relationship, this site is focusing on it.

Some think Louis is what keeps Lestat going. I have to strongly disagree - for all that I just said - plus the fact Lestat himself said to Marius, that he feels Marius has always understood him and that he's the one who comforts him and that he couldn't even think of leaving Marius, for very long anyway. Not to mention that Lestat - even though desperately crying for Louis after Louis had escaped to Europe with Claudia, Lestat survived. Even long after he thought Louis waa dead. I see Louis rather as someone Lestat wants in his life and woudld do almost anything for, as someone he needs to a high degree, because he unconditionally and deeply loves Louis. But Louis is not someone he needs that much as to keep going. But Marius is - as lampood above, and even more indeptly, here. Louis's death and him being absolutely sure of it would most certainly change Lestat remarkably much, but he would go on.


So, originally, in the books they have a deeply psychological, pure father-son relationship, (as in no romance nor sexuality in it), but some fans have twisted them baselessly into a shallow homosexual couple. Even Anne Rice has literally said about Lestat & Marius (in an e-mail when I discussed this relationship with her for all that it is); "They could never be called lovers." and really, that should be obvious from the books! So I never once doubted my interpretion after reading the books but that some others's vision of course was brought up in that discussion.

Before I read from the books, of what I studied from Wikipedia and according to some of the fans of the books - I used to be in impression that originally, in the books, they were a gay couple. Because there was no trueful fanvideos of them before I read the books myself and then came around with my videos. Nor many fanarts or discussions either.

I've heard a claim, that somewhere in the books Lestat has stated feeling attracted to Marius as moe than simply a father-figure. The scene where Marius came to Lestat. I think that's probably it for that person. I dig into that later in this section, explaining how it is insignificant in the ways Lestat thinks of Marius and has nothing to do with the actual true feelings and attraction of his towards Marius.

The following points I make are saying very clearly that some of the fans have made their completely own, baseless gay-vision and how the nature of the true relationship couldn't be more clearly a pure father-son and mentot-student.

The book "The Vampire Lestat", the second part of the Chronicles, is screaming Lestat's mortal life being miserable as Hell and that he has daddy issues / family issues to a degree where he repeatedly dreams at night, that he maniacaly murders them. (His father and all his brothers, not his mama, who he loves but also feels resentment for - which he literally says himself too as well as tells about that murder dream. So his family issues couldn't be more in light and weighted on.)

And the human nature father-son relationship between Mariius and Lestat couldn't be clearer either:
X Marius sets a rule, Lestat breaks it, Marius scolds him.
X Lestat numerous times speaks of Marius as a father and a parent and Marius calls him his child and a brat (prince).
X And Marius tells Lestat he can not come with Lestat to live with him the lifetime because he would stand between Lestat and the world and that he (Marius) couldn't help it. At least anyone who has had a good and healthy relationship at least with one of their parents, would have to recognize that as a parental attitude of over-protecting their child which they can not help because it comes naturally and spontaniously, (and in this case, the daddy's efforts not to end up over-protecting.)
XX And hence the above facts about Lestat's human life family issues - this relationship would naturally be something he lives and breathes, and Lestat even says in the end of "The Queen of the Damned" book, directly to Marius: "You comfort me. AH of you. I couldn't even think of leaving you. Not for very long anyway."

And in his narrating he talks about / mention Marius in just about every turn. And, for the last but certainly not the least; even the other characters occasionally use the phrase "your precious Marius", when they talk to Lestat about Marius. Those words have been used at least by David Talbot and if I remember correctly, also by Louis in "The Vampire Lestat" and maybe also by Gabrielle. But for sure by David in the "Tale of the Body Thief". And if it actually is said out loud just once, then it could make it even more outstanding seeing to what it is that was said. So, anyway, even the other characters have noticed Marius is precious to Lestat and even said it out loud....

Yet regardless of all this - the Lestat & Marius relationship's vital part in the serie and the relationship's nature is being ignored / dismissed / misunderstood / unnoticed. Why? I find it surprising.

I'm not saying everyone should love or even like the relationship but certainly it should be paid attention to and been seen for what it is in nature. It carries Lestat's life, man! "You comfort me. AH of you. I couldn't even think of leaving you, not for very long anyway." Is that not in other words: "I can not survive without you here with me."? If leaving Marius is so bad to him that it's even unthinkable...

...Marius and what he means to Lestat, and how and why he is Lestat's ultimate source of strength is very significant to all Lestat does and so the books would not be the same if the relationship with Marius did not exsist or if it's essence was anything else than the father-son that it is. Lestat would've in time turned out very different if Marius wasn't there to heal his emotional wounds, to fullfill the hole in his soul, the need he was burning with all his human life and the years before they met, to be the ultimate source of strength and the comfort.

Of course later they do spend long times apart too and Lestat survives them, even when they're not even talking to each others (as in Marius too angry with Lestat), until it is in a few details let known he has forgiven Lestat but this doesn't even make the earlier points any less honest and true, in fact it only makes them stronger, and all this is gone more indepth at My View section's My Top3 Reasons - Lestat with Marius - Reason 3 - paragraphs 4-6.

But as for the outstanding parts the narrating and lines said is literally screaming... I believe Lestat would draw blood for this ignoring, if he wasn't fictional. So many are not paying attention to what he - the awesome vampire Lestat - is saying! And even when the thing that is not paid attention to is that of Marius and their relationship, who as just lampooed - is extremely precious and important to him.

In order for there to be a real base for a homo erotic vision, there should be even the slightest sign of sexual interaction or thought or so on between two male characters. And I mean, in a situation and way it could not be taken otherwise. So there shouldn't be any significant element of the scene pointing to other reasons.

There is one, - 1 - scene where they have the act of drinking blood - which isn't really sex anyway as it has so many purposes of which primary ones have nothing to do with sexuality, but even if you do decide to think of it as a sexual thing, it only happened once and for a non-sexual reason. As said, they couldn't help the fact drinking and feeding blood makes a vampire feel pleasure, so of course Lestat describes his reaction on Marius's presence and blood in a more or less sexual terms amongst other feelings, in that scene. And as said it happens EVERY time a vampire shares blood, no matter why the blood-drinking is happening, which would already in itself prove it's not sex but Anne Rice has also said so. ("My vampires do not have sexual relations with each other or with humans.")

And as for the non-sexual reason; Lestat was all dried up of blood when Marius came to him, Lestat so dry of it that he barely could move at all, that's what he himself says there; so Marius feeds him to make him strong enough to come along. This dried-up Lestat matter and how physically weak he was was well pointed at in that scene before the actual blood-feeding.

Lestat also compares the way he saw Marius at that moment, to how he saw Magnus back when he was turned into a vampire and saw a vampire through human being eyes, which makes the matter very much non-sexual in truth because a vampire being a supernatural, seductive-nature creature would look like that to a human being. The same with an ancient vampire to a 10 year old vampire. In my impression would make the fascination and attraction, momenterally the same as in the vampire / human situation. Lestat went all crazy because of Marius's godlike, ancient presence. He described it all looking and even sounding so extraordinary in every way that it certainly was not a regular atmosphere - that is why he went out of his senses and a bit out of his mind, for the moments. So - not as if he'd truly feel like that for him out of his own free and clear feelings. And the way drinking and feeding blood makes a vampire feel - again - happens with everyone, so that is not even a question. I keep repeating that - I know, but it's very, very significant point and I don't want you to dismiss the matter.

That scene's all I can see for a reason why someone would think Lestat feels attracted to Marius in more than a father-son way - but, as I just said that attraction has very technical and momenterally reasons, and after that scene, I did not find Lestat feeling nor thinking anything alike that again, when it came to Marius. And I did not find them sharing blood, nor even biting each others. Don't you think that if Rice meant the blood-drinking to be essemtially about sex(uality) and if she also meant them to be a gay couple, she would have wrote them doing that blood-sharing a whole lot more and for no other reason but the pleasure of it? But she didn't do that.

And as for what kind of love Lestat feels for Marius. It's true Lestat never literally says that he loves Marius as a son loves his father but only states he loves him. But Lestat doesn't even think about Marius in any romantic, not to mention sexual way (out-counting that one scene where he drank his blood to gain strength but I already explained my impression on it.) He always thinks and talks of him as a father, teacher and at one point he also used thw words 'high priest' - but that's all. None of those are romantic nor sexual things. SO, so what if he doesn't put all tthat into five-word sentence? The nature of his love for Marius could not become clearer of what he does say and do. And as said, also of his mortal life and how he extremely was without a father's love. He's a needy son and eager pupil, and Marius is his loving father and wise teacher.

As for an Anne Rice vampire calling another Anne Rice vampire his lover - makes it basically for love as love. Not necessarely romantic. Heck, even Marius - once - in his entire exsistance, uses the words "my lover" of Lestat - and they sure as hell do not have a romantic relationship as it is very throughly reasoned by now if you've read this text through. Why he used the words "my lover" then? Because Lestat loves him and he loves Lestat. So they're lovers. It's as simple and pure as that. And Marius feels love extremely deep and strong and unconditional for Lestat and Lestat for Marius. Marius also has said that the reason he didn't have vengeange on Lestat after all Lestat had done in the Queen of teh Damned, was because he wanted to still love Lestat. And who can choose who they love anyway? You either do or you don't and if you do and it's true love, it can not die - and Marius clearly loved Lestat, as said unconditionally. However, as "a lover" is mostly used for a romantic nature, he regarded Lestat with that word only once. In Blood and Gold. And in all other times calls Lestat by his name, or his child, or a brat, or the damnedest creature... You get the picture.

Fiction mirrors real life and the other way around; personalities, feelings, emotions, lives, events... that the authors pour not just from their imagination but from their hearts and souls and the readers may relate to and so it can mean just as much to a reader as it does to the creator. It's never "just fiction". It's important. It's real in it's own way. It's another thing to form different views from a content that supports different views but for example, this relationship doesn't. It's extremely clearly labeled in nature asi I have pointed out in my indepth analysis here. Of course everyone has right to their views nevertheless. I'm just saying that they might want to reconsider before acting on an unvalid view.

Because - I don't know but this extreme ignore-and-twist attitude by some fans when it comes to Lestat and Marius (from a deep, psychological, pure father-son relationship into a shallow homosexual thing) - and maybe other major offenses - might very well be the reason why Mrs. Rice prohibited writing fanfiction of her work and threatens to sue the authors, and targeted mostly NC-17 rated fanfiction or so I heard. It wasn't forbidden by her in the first place but in 2000 she prohibited it. I really think this very likely is the reason but of course I do not know for a fact. And what reassures my thought is what she says in her prohibition message on her official web site. She doesn't just say generally fanfiction but she points out the characters. She says something like: "the characters are copyrighted. I encourage people to write their own original stories with their own original characters." It sucks she prohibited it because now she's smuthering also those of us who'd love to tribute, respect and really do adore her characters.

There are scenes in the film that may make people, who haven't read the books, get the wrong impression or people who are looking for homoerotic tension, to see it there.

1.) The scene where Marius turns Lestat into a vampire, he crouches over Lestat, which would not be gay-tone if the drinking blood wouldn't have that affect. I think in the original script he was crouching next to Lestat, as he does in the book as well. But as it is and there obviously is sexual tension between them in those blood-feeding moments, that scene has a gay-tone. But so be it. It's not really a major point in the scene. Well, it isn't if you know the affect of blood-feeding with vampires in the Chronicles, and so that it happens between everyone. But if you don't, it might make you think wrong.

Especially 'cause, at least in my opinion, the film over-did the sexual tension there. For in the book it was calmer and sweeter, and not really the essential element of the moment - but the love and bond and Marius's mental affect on Lestat, was and it was made clear; 'And this creature, this powerful vampire, was holding me upright and looking into my eyes, and I believe that I said some mad thing, voiced some frantic thought, that I knew now the secret of eternity. "Then tell it to me," he whispered, and he smiled. The purest image of human love.' And when Marius opens his vein, somewhere neat his throat, for Lestat to feed from, (it would bleed better than a wrist), he says; "Drink, my young one, my wounded one.", making clear he wanted to heal Lestat who he thought of as a young vampire/son, nothing more. While Lestat drinks, he describes they were crushed against each other and that he felt Marius's heart melt.

But what does the film do? They have the sexual vibes extremely outstanding even to a degree that instead of "Drink, my young one, my wounded one" with a compassionate and protective tone, they had Marius ask "Good, isn't it?" in an orgastic tone. The only book faithfully sweet and emotional part of the moment in the film version is when Lestat is scared when he realises he's supposed to drink blood, while Marius tells him to drink to live, and finally Marius with compassion and gentelness in his eyes and voice, says; "You've been brave enough for one night, my son." (note, 'my son') after which, there's an emotional flash in Lestat's eyes and he calms down enough and drinks. After that, the film messed it up with the over-done sexual vibe.

But, the original script explains that not-so-pure-image-of-human-love smile which Marius gives Lestat in this scene right after Lestat's been born to darkness. It's very non-gay. He's smiling like that because Lestat was just born and felt extremely alive, powerful and blood-thirsty - the boy was born to Darkness. If though you probably haven't been born to Darkness any time lately, you could imagine it must be a wicked feeling for the one who was just born. They really should've left that smile out since they weren't going to explain it in the actual film.

2.) The scene where Marius has chained Lestat to the bed with manacles may make people think of sex - especially after that overdone other scene. This scene is literally explained in the original script, Marius says to Lestat "Be still. These are for your own protection." For some reason they left the literal statment out but they did not remove the obvious mean from the scene. But if they meant there to be some sexual undertone, they miserably failed.

'Cause may I just say, anyone who is actually watching the film instead of looking for sexual tension, would not come to any other conclusion but the true meaning in that scene; As anyone thinking normally would realize that manacles are tools for restraining and not sex, and a bed is a comfot matter; Lestat was high on "a drug" and potentially a danger to himself, and above all - his son, and not a disobediant dog.

The scene; Begins after Marius finds Lestat on the floor in a catatonic state, and says "What have you done, Lestat." Then Marius is a nervous mess and so very serious, standing there in a very neutral position, watching Lestat much like someone who's patiently waiting for someone to come around, in this case for Lestat to regain consciousness. And when he does and begins to struggle in his chains and demand for "more" (of Akasha's blood), Marius says in extremely serious, protective and fatherly tone; "I don't think so, my little lord." and after Lestat pleads him "Let me go" (laughing at Marius's seriousness), Marius continues with the same tone and attitude; "No. You've drunk the purest of blood, seen the oldest of things. Far too much for one as young as you." - hence, there's nothing sexual in his being, tone of voice nor words. And Lestat's waaaay up high "on drugs" and as said, laughing because Marius is so serious and then wants to know who the lady is who's making him feel so euforic - hence, nothing sexual there but just a kid not taking a situation seriously while not even thinking straight.

Also every bit of what follows; Marius sitting on the edge of the bed, telling a story, all the more a nervous wreck --> Lestat then refusing to believe any of it, arguing in a stubborn tone, then struggling and breaking free in efforts to run off and do whatever he wants --> leading to Marius grabbing his arm and pinning it back down, observing just what exactly he's dealing with there and stating his thoughts of Akasha having made Lestat quite powerful --> Lestat, encouraged by that statement and in utter frustration about not succeeding in his attempt to go free, gets all macho "You'll not stop me!!!" ---> Marius, of course knowing that's Lestat's wishful thinking, does not pay attention to what he said but what he thought he heard in his voice. Which was Akasha's blood. Finally Marius snaps, grabs Lestat face, much like any pissed off parent might, forcing Lestat to look at him (b/c Lestat wasn't paying attention anymore anyway), and clearly out of jealousy of Akasha moving for Lestat but never for him, plus probably also worried for Lestat's safety, he tries to get thtough to Lestat. Lestat, unfortunately picks on the jealousy part; with a devilish laugh and words "Until tonight! And she chose me!"
...all that would sooner fall into a father-and-son-fighting category, than anything erotic. Again unless you are not paying attention the the essential things in the scene and maybe even look for something sexual thanks to the birth scene not explained like it should've.

I absolutely adore the original, pure father-son vision for reasons I tell you in the My View section and a little bit also in the Books vs. Movie section and in the Lestat section too. IF this section didn't convince you that they are purely a father and son, go ahead and read My View section's In-Depth view, and the Over-All view's extention. My View is strongly based on everything I read from the books.

Site opened October 9th 2008
Works best with Mozilla Firefox and Opera.

Page Design / Graphics VampireOutlaw | Text content (unless stated otherwise) VanoureOutlaw |
The Vampire Chronicles and all it's characters and book quotes are to Anne Rice.
The background texture is offered by GRsites.

I don't own the pictures used in the graphics but they are to Warner Bros.
I don't own The Vampire Chronicles and its characters but they belong to Anne Rice.
This is a non-profit fansite for educational purposes only.
I have no intention of infringing anyones copyright.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.