Supernatural Fiction Readers discussion

As most of you already know, we've picked Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice as our group's common read for October. So, any members who want to are invited to read it; and they (or any of the rest of us who've read it already) are invited to join in discussing it on this thread! (Don't post any comments that might constitute "spoilers," at least until everybody who's reading it has finished. I'll check on people's progress later this month.) I've made the title broad enough to include the rest of Rice's vampire books, for those who might like to continue, and expand, this discussion, even after October.

Whether you like Rice's vampire books or not, she deserves real credit for a significant contribution to vampire fiction. Before this book, vampires in literature were viewed, in effect, as blood-sucking automatons of evil, not as persons with individual personality, values, or moral volition. Becoming a vampire automatically nullified any previous individuality, loyalties or beliefs a character might have had; he/ she simply turned into a malevolent predator with only two traits: blood thirst and cunning. It was virtually unheard of for a vampire to be anything but the antagonist in a novel or story, certainly not the protagonist.

Rice was apparently the first author in the written medium to view vampires as persons, with all the complexity and free moral agency that this implies. Her Louis, for instance, certainly becomes a predator; but he doesn't have to be, and he's capable of having mercy. This opens up possibilities in the depiction of vampires that didn't exist in earlier vampire fiction; and by far the majority of vampire fiction written since this book came out has been deeply influenced (constructively) by the opening of those doors. We can (and probably will) debate whether Rice exploited these possibilities --here, at least-- as fully as she could have; and whether this conception of vampires sprang from her brain unaided, or was greatly influenced by the earlier TV series Dark Shadows. But whatever you conclude about that, it doesn't take away the place she's earned in the history of the genre.

Cool, I look forward to reading it!! :D
Nice logo by the way!!

I have to finish Dracula and then get through House of Leaves. Then it's all Interview!

Actually, Saberhagen's first Vlad book beat Rice by a year, but he's not nearly as well known as she is. I think Matheson's novel, "I am Legend" (1954) shouldn't be forgotten, either. In the first movie made based on it, "The Omega Man" (1971) with Charleton Heston, we see some evil, interesting vampire-like critters. They also have personalities that are more complex. Again, not as well known nor as complex as Rice's characters, though. She's the first one out of the gate with a popular, complex society of them.

I will try to read the book. I've tried twice before & couldn't get into it, but it's been quite some time. Maybe I can this time.

Okay, looks like I'm going home and digging through some boxes. Hopefully it will turn up with the rest of the chronicles. I'm excited to re-read these books.

Hi everyone!!

I couldn't be happier about your pick of Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire! It has been one of my absolute favorites for years. I will admit I first read it when I was a teenager and since the group is reading it, I will pull my well-worn copy out and devour it once again!

Good choice!!!

Sidney

It's been awhile since I last read Interview with a Vampire, so I think I'm due for a re-read. I really enjoyed the Vampire Chronicles, except for the later books in the series. And the Vampire Lestat has to be one of the most interesting and memorable characters I have read about.

Welcome to all of the new members who've joined us in the last week or so! I just wanted to let you all know about this thread, in case you joined after the discussion that preceded it, and so aren't aware of it. During the month of October, all of the group members who want to are reading Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice as a common read. So if you'd like to give that book a try (or have already read it, and remember it well enough to discuss it), you can post your comments about it here!

Since we're about midway through October, I thought I'd check to see how many of you are still reading Interview with the Vampire. Even if some (or many) of us are, though, you all don't have to hold ALL comments until everybody's finished --just comments that could constitute "spoilers." (And if you're new to the group, and are now saying, "What's he talking about?" those who want to are reading Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire this month as a common read to discuss here.)

This is a fairly long book, and I could imagine a lot of people finishing it up around the end of the month. But the discussion doesn't have to end with the month of October; we'll keep this thread up, so the exchange of thoughts can be ongoing as long as people have things to say!

I haven't even had a chance to start it yet, but I do intend to read it...even if it becomes more of a November read for me.

I looked for it this weekend & didn't find it on the shelf. I guess I got rid of my copy when I moved. I'll try to stop by the library for a copy.

My how time flies. I'll start my re-read of it when I'm done with my current book.

I'm about mid-way through. I've never been part of a book discussion before so I'm not really sure how to start.

So far the feel of this novel has been Louis good, Lestat bad. I get quit frustrated with only being able to hear what Louis thinks and how Louis feels. I’m chomping at the bits to get through this one sided novel and get into the meat of the chronicles.

Don't worry Kelly, You get to learn a lot more about Lestat in the second book. :D

Don't worry Kelly, You get to learn a lot more about Lestat in the second book.

I know, I almost feel at a disadvantage having read the chronicles before. I have a dislike I can't seem to shake of Louis, which makes the book less enjoyable for me.

Louis is such a low-key character, I have to say this book is quite different in tone than the next books in the series. When the story is told from Lestat's point of view, there is more energy in the telling.

I first read this back when it came out circa 1976, then re-read it later when the movie came out. Didn't care that much for the movie when I first went to see it, but saw it again recently and had a somewhat better opinion of it. While re-reading it, I'm trying to think about what I thought of the novel when I first read it, before the sequels and the fame.

I started The Vampire Lestat when it first came out, and really liked the beginning, but put it aside for other things and just never went back to it. Perhaps I'll be able to do so now.

I also may be one who reads most of these in November however, although I'm putting aside some Pulp and history stuff so that I can get a good start. I'm not the fastest of readers, just perseverant and (used to) have a fairly good memory :) so I can put stuff aside and then come back to it later (most of the time :)

Some folks here have commented on the contrast between Louis, in this novel, and Lestat in the later books of the series. Not having read any of the others, I can't comment on them; but one critic who has read the whole series makes the point that Lestat's character in those books comes across as entirely different (and more positive) than it does in Interview, so that Louis is cast as an unreliable narrator in the first book. But since there's no indication of that in the first book itself, that particular critic felt that this makes the first book something of a con job on Rice's part, with the readers as the victims. Do any group members who have read more of the series have any thoughts on this?

I agree with the critic. The first two books contradict each other. You'll like Lestat much more than Louis in later books.

I don't agree. I think it is an accurate portrayal of Louis's perception of Lestat. They are so completely unlike one another in temperament that I can see that is how Louis would view him.

I finished my re-read of Interview yesterday, and it still holds as one of my favorite vampire books. I like reading about complex characters, and Louis is certainly one of them.

Rora, I second your comment. The first book is viewed from Louis' point of view. No more, no less, I think.

Similarly, the other books have their views as well... So one wonders what the truth REALLY is;-)

Best,
Henrik-just-returned-from-Bali

I have to agree that being Lewis's perception there is no right or wrong. Though it does seem that maybe Rice decided to take anther turn with Lestat that she originally did not intend. Hence his more likable character in the later books.


Lestat is crass where Lewis is sensitive & Claudia was doomed from the beginning. To be a mature women in a body of a 5 yr old. Could you imagine? And it kills me when Lewis laminates on how un-human she is. Really, you don't say. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she barley lived before she died.

Claudia's character, after she got older, struck me as unrealistic (okay, granted, this is a novel about creatures that don't actually exist, so Rice isn't a devotee of hard-core Realism; but still, even in speculative fiction, events and characters need to be realistic within the framework of the story's assumptions). Adult personality doesn't develop automatically just from living a certain number of years; it requires developmental changes in brain structure, puberty, physical capacities, etc. Since vampires don't age physically, a vampire with a physical age of five should logically remain a child mentally in most respects, not magically become mentally adult in child's body. But presumably Rice thought that development would increase Claudia's creepy quotient (it does!).

Werner - That is an interesting point. I guess since technically she died when she became a vampire the brain could no longer grow or develop to accommodate the mind of an adult. But you can also argue the fact that when they become vampires that human part of them dies so the same rules woulden't apply. And really though she sees out of the eyes of someone much more mature then her 5 yrs of age she also forever remains a little girl. Not just in size but in mannerisms as well. Since she is perceived by others as a child, and continually treated as such she can never fully be women, in mind as much as in body.

Certainly an interesting point, Werner.

First and foremost, though, I suspect that Rice just didn't think about that (change of brain structure based on scientific facts as being prerequisite for getting older, mentally); the freedom of being a writer of the fantastic;-)

However, who's to say that all there is to mental growth is the physical? That's what you're implying, isn't it, Werner? Sounds pretty much like a hardcore, positivistic scientific outlook to me... Which sort of gets in the way of the whole idea of vampires, at least most of the time, wouldn't you say? And in any case, there's still no final evidence that such an outlook is the final "TRUE ANSWER" to how things are (despite what some (!) scientists say).

And when we're realing with, say, vampires, I think a kind of dualism would go a long way to explain things "realistically"--that is, one thing is the physical (which stops growing for Claudia), and another is the consciousness/the mental (which continues to grow). It could, fairly reasonably, I think, be argued that the latter simply requires experience--which she gets in abundances!!

Just a few coppers from yours truly,
Henrik

I wouldn't argue that all there is to mental growth is the physical (after all, we all know people in their 20s or 30s who probably have about the maturity level of a 12-year-old :-) ), and I don't deny that the mind is distinct from the brain. But I do think the physical growth of the brain is a prerequisite for (not a guarantee of) mental maturity. Also, I think Kelly's point about the role of social factors is a very good one --how other people who are significant in your world see you and treat you, and what they expect of you, plays a big part in shaping how mentally mature you become, no matter how long you live.

But I'm sure you're right that Rice didn't think in those terms, and indeed when you're talking about vampires, a scientific approach isn't very practical! That brings to mind Isaac Asimov's famous question of why vampires don't suffer from an overdose of iron, given their blood diet. We can probably infer, if you posit such things as vampires, that the normal dictates of science don't apply to them with wooden exactitude.

I agree that Kelly's point is an excellent one. In fact, come to think of it, I think it goes a long way to explain why Claudia seems both an "eternal child" and a twisted grownup when she has lived several years as a vampire. And btw perhaps not that far off from how some adults actually behave and feel emotionally, in RL.

In any case, yes, hehe, I think you're right, Werner, that a vampire sort of per definition defies normal, scientific laws;-)

That doesn't distract from the fact that the idea of vampires can make for excellent thought experiments re. humanity, psychology and other, related issues; as indeed I think Rice's stories do (well, the first 3 of them, at least).

For a number of years it has never ceased to fascinate me that the "credibility" of something in a story (in casu Claudia's behavior) relies heavily on the belief-system of the reader.

Makes one ponder a little on the unreliability of reviews, doesn't it?:-P

It may not be surprising, but it's interesting nonetheless, I think. And it also goes go a long way to explain why, for instance, I have a harder time being truly "gripped" by a traditional ghost story, whereas someone who actually believes the possibility of such an entity is more prone to get a genuine thrill.

That's a very valid observation, Henrik. For example, I'm not a believer in reincarnation, so fiction premised on that, like Jack London's The Star Rover, just doesn't come across as very credible to me in that respect --but it would be much more apt to convince someone who did believe. And the same dynamic operates with respect to any supernatural phenomena.

Sometimes, though, there's a countervailing push in the other direction: if you inhabit a mental and social universe in which everything is rigidly rational and mechanistic, prosaic and humdrum, and a part of you finds that emotionally unsatisfying and stifling, you may be more willing to suspend disbelief in the fiction of the paranormal. In Western society today, all of us are viscerally affected by the materialistic worldview, even if we don't entirely buy into it intellectually, and we all inhabit a world where regular routine and predictability isn't very often invaded by the unexpected and miraculous. Maybe that explains part of the attraction of both fantasy and supernatural fiction for so many of us. It's interesting that although fiction has been a part of literature ever since the Renaissance, supernatural fiction set right here in this world --as opposed to a long-ago setting that's in effect a fantasy world-- only began to appear in the Neoclassical period --precisely the time when literal belief in things like ghosts, witches and the like was beginning to be seriously challenged in the minds of literate people. I've often wondered if the one thing wasn't related to the other!

********SPOILER ALERT**********

Where was I the 1st time I read this book? Lestat's character at the end was a complete shocker for me. The fragility of his mind, his downward spiral into senility, living amongst the rotting carcasses of his kills. I can't wait to read "The Vampire Lestat" and see how he pulls himself up from this feeble minded, scared and weak vampire he has become.

I'll broach a couple of thoughts I had after I read Interview, and see if any of the rest of you feel the same way. (Or, maybe you can explain how I'm all wet! :-))

One of Louis' least appealing (to say the least) traits is that he kills innocent people for their blood; but he didn't start out that way. For some years at the beginning of his vampiric career, he didn't prey on humans. The change, of course, is a pretty major behavior shift; but to me, it seems that Rice just throws it in (almost casually), with no explanation and a precipitating --or, at least, synchronous; as I said, we don't get a spelled-out explanation-- event that doesn't, IMO, make psychological sense as a cause. Did any of the rest of you feel the same way?

Rice's vampires have an enormous blood appetite, requiring a drained victim every night. An obvious question arises as to how they can hold all that blood in their stomachs! Of course, we're back to our earlier discussion about the inadequacy of scientific laws to explain vampires :-); and I suppose we could posit that some of it goes straight to their veins, and that they have a really fast digestive system and high metabolic rate. But Rice's portrayal isn't even internally consistent: Louis can be satisfied with one rat on many nights --and in one case, he and Claudia could get by with sharing one. There's a pretty big difference in the amount of blood yielded by a grown human and a rat, or half a rat! If their needs can be satisfied by the latter, why do they need the former? And if a rat-sized measure of blood will meet their nutritional needs, why can't they suck that much from a human and leave the donor alive? Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know! :-)

Werner, here's my suggestion to an answer to your question:

Although a vampire can be sustained for a (relatively short) period of time, in the long run it doesn't really "do the job" (sating your basic hunger, truly filling up your stomach and giving you the "nutrition" you need as a vampire). Hence, in the long run it is hard to "stay on rats"--even if you're ethically against feeding on human beings;-)

Just a suggestion. It's been a while since I read the story.

I liked Interview with the Vampire but I LOVED The Vampire Lestat. I can see how Louis would perceive Lestat in his state of mind but you also get to see the way Lestat portrays Louis in his books and it's interesting to see how they both saw each other. I like Louis but not as much as most of the other vampires. He's too gloomy and spacey, and weak... in my opinion (compared to Lestat).

Werner - Have you ever not eaten very much one day and the next you devour everything in site? I think the same concept would apply with vampires. Rat’s blood would only sustain them for so long. I personally think Lewis is weak and quit squeamish for a vampire and it just took a little longer before the urge for human blood overtook him.

I know we are discussing Interview but it was a struggle for me to make it through this book. The constant spacey, dreamy, ethereal state that Lewis drew me into was yawn, quite boring really. Now The Vampire Lestat, oh Lestat. Now that’s a story. It’s sucked me in from the very beginning. It’s more alive more colorful. Frankly it’s just a damn site better.

Hmmm, well, yes, Kelly, I've experienced those contrasts --but I haven't eaten very little for several years, and then switched over to gorging like a glutton every day for years. And Louis never mentions anything about being overtaken by an urge for human blood. I'm still inclined to think Rice's internal logic, and her character development, is a little shaky on some of these points. Another point she never offers any explanation for --though Louis notices the contrast-- is the difference between the vampires of America/Western Europe and Eastern Europe, who are practically like separate species. (Maybe she addresses this point in the later books?)

Louis hasn't fared very well in our discussion so far; he just doesn't please either those of us who like our Undead to be "vegetarian" or those like you, who prefer their vampire's blood thirst to be, well, bloodthirsty. :-) He's suffered from comparison with Lestat, in the opinion of some people who've posted; and since Louis' character and narrative voice (which isn't a very perceptive and reliable one, if Lestat's viewpoint is to be trusted) are so central to this novel, his deficiencies greatly affect our estimation of the book, by itself or in comparison with later ones in the series. I only gave it one star when I reviewed it, and you've characterized it as "boring" and "a struggle for me to make it through," neither of which are likely to be endorsements Rice would want on the book jacket. There's no question as to the groundbreaking historical significance of Interview for the vampire subgenre; but a book can be historically significant without being something you'd want to read for pleasure.

On the other hand, some of you who've posted above mentioned that you liked this book, and one person characterized it as a favorite. A question for those of you who shared that (and others who feel the same way): what are some of the features of the novel that caused you to like it? Rora mentioned Louis' complex character, for instance --does anyone want to expand on that?

Well, what I love about this book is that Anne Rice views vampirism as Hell. These vampires kill with regret and sorrow. The theater of the vampires was an especially religious aspect to the book and also the most exciting. That's why I love this book. :D

I am playing on memory here, since I haven't read it for this particular sitting, but here's a brief summary of why I like Interview as well as Louis:

It is essentially a story dealing with moral issues, trying to do "the right thing", figuring out what the right thing is and suchlike--as well as with what makes a character human... Even when being a vampire;-)

Since I don't much appreciate the whole concept of "vampires" as such, I need more bait (or, if you will, meat or blood:-P) in a story where vampires play a central role. Interview meets that expectancy on my part quite well; especially since it does deal with the more "soft" elements of what a "humane vampire" life would probably be like. And it does portray Lestat and what he represents (fleshed out--pardon the pun--in later stories), as seen from that perspective. Realistically so, IMO.

I concur with several of Werner's critical points, but still think it's better than what many here have said, in part for these reasons.

Yes I agree Werner made some very keen observations.
Interview didn’t pull me in the way I love when I read but I did enjoy parts and find the overall book to be a fine addition to vampire lore. As Dylan put it The Theatre is a very spiritual, religious part of the story and was the most exciting. In fact the change of Lewis’s perception after the death of Claudia really took a most interesting turn & the end blew me away. I thought it was the best part.

Well, you three all have contributed some good, insightful observations yourselves, which give me some food for thought! While I'd have to say that if Lestat (at least, the way Louis views him) or Claudia kill with remorse and sorrow, they conceal it pretty well, those feelings do come across with Louis, and to a degree with Armand. There is a moral and even religious dimension to the book, a kind of quest on Louis' part, as Henryk pointed out, for moral bearings, and a recognition that vampirism is a "Hell" that needs a redemption, exemplified by his attempt to confess to a priest (though that didn't turn out very well). It's interesting that Rice herself, in the interview with her that the Goodreads team did for the recent electronic newsletter they send us, spoke of her vampire novels in general as dealing with spiritual yearnings, reflecting her own journey back to her Catholic faith. (I didn't have time to read the whole interview, but I did read the first part.) Maybe I shouldn't be as negative in my judgment of the book as I was when I read it --of course, that was four years ago; if I read it again, I might see it more favorably.

I still think there are later literary and dramatic treatments of vampires that deal better with those kinds of themes --Sue Dent's Never Ceese, for instance. But they wouldn't be treated at all, in a context that views vampires as beings with a moral and spiritual nature, if Rice hadn't blazed the trail to that particular, more "human" perception of them.

Werner - You get Lestats story obviously in ‘The Vampire Lestat’ and for the most part he focus's his kills on the scum of the streets. Lewis's perception was just that & Lestat withheld almost everything about himself from Lewis. In fact Lewis knew very little indeed.

Kelly, thanks for sharing that information! It's been brought out earlier in these posts that Louis' portrayal of Lestat and the way Lestat appears in the subsequent books are quite different; but that's a good concrete example of it (which I didn't know, because I only read the first book).

That also brings out a good point: we're focusing our discussion on Interview; but when you're dealing with a book that's part of a series, it may be hard to completely understand and evaluate it unless you discuss (not to mention read! :-)) at least some of the other books, too. I had a feeling that the rest of the series would play into the discussion, which is why the title of this thread is broader than just Interview with the Vampire.

I heard a very interesting interview with Anne Rice on NPR this weekend, talking about her vampire and witch novels and her search for God. I think she said she realized that Louis represents herself. I don't know if she says more or anything different than she does in the GoodReads interview (as I haven't had time to read it all, sorry). If you like, you can listen to it here:

http://interfaithradio.org/node/671

Is she making a new vampire book?

Marsha, thanks for that link. When I clicked on it, it took me to Rice's own official website, which probably has a second link to the interview. It did have several notices that said my computer would need to download additional "plug-ins" to display all the media on the page (which probably included the radio interview), so some of you might run into this as well. But the idea of Louis as a kind of alter ego for Rice herself is intriguing!

To answer Dylan's question, at one place on the site she has an announcement that she's NOT planning to do any more vampire novels at this point. But she does have a new series of "metaphysical thrillers," Songs of the Seraphim, in the works!

That sounds good to me. I love all of her books. :D

Sorry about that. I hate it when websites try to push a bunch of software on me. My hard drive is cluttered up enough already.

Oddly, when I click "Play show," it plays right from the Interfaith Voices site. Perhaps I already have the necessary plug-ins. I guess that's one useful thing cluttering up my hard drive.

I really enjoyed Interview with the Vampire and Vampire Lestat. Then I struggled with Queen of the Damned and only got about 50 pages in before abandoning it. Finished and enjoyed Tale of the Body Thief then abandoned Memnoch the Devil about half way. Its a bit hit and miss really and I'm wondering whether to start The Vampire Armand or not.

I agree. Interview was the best book she ever wrote, IMO. After she achieved fame, like some other authors I could mention--um...Hamnilton--she just wrote without editing or thinking sometimes. I struggled through The Witching Hour. I should have quit in the middle. The premise was silly and she just repeated and repeated and repeated the same idea over and over. Boring.

Sofia, have you read the entire series yet? Some people mentioned they didn't like her last books as well.

I have "Interview with a Vampire" on my to-read list. I tried it once before & couldn't get into it, but that's been years. Maybe one day soon. I keep hearing good things about it.

Anne Rice has the amazing ability to create complex characters and show the reader their strengths and weakness' in a way that makes the reader understand them and feel for them, or was that just me? lol. I loved how her characters were all from different backgrounds and each had their own story in the end wrapped in one though.