If you've read Anne Rice...

[Flannen]

For my American Studies presentation next term, in pairs we have to argue either for or against on a given statement on one of the books we have studied this year.

My statement is:

Anne Rice's vampires are just like human characters' (something along those lines).

I've to got argue against this.

So I was just wondering, for those of you who have read Anne Rice (particularly Interview with a Vampire) do you have any thoughts?!

Don't worry, I'm not planning on stealing anyone's ideas 😉 just curious!

 

[Buffy Summers]

It's been a long while since I've read IWTV, but you could probably say something about the fact that because the characters have long life spans, their concept of time is not the same as a human's. Lestat can afford to lie in wait all those years, whereas a human would probably feel the need to "do something"/act more quickly. I'm not explaining that very well but it's the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Lyri]

I agree with Buffy, vampires veiw the world differently to humans, because they live so long. Take a human's life span. What seems like an eternity to us, is just a drop in the ocean for them.

 

[StuckinTraffic]

It's been ages since I read any Anne Rice, too, but what comes to mind for me is the morality issue among vampires. How are their morals different from ours? What constitutes a "sin" in vampire society (I'm thinking of Lestat's turning Claudia.) What would that act be considered among humans if they knew about it and could put aside the horror? It's murder, but was Lestat justified in his actions? He essentially saved Claudia from death by plague, only to doom her to eternal "life" as a vampire, trapped in the body of a child. When she and Louis meet the other vampires in Paris, they're horrified that a child has been made in to a vampire, that's the greatest wrong for them, yet everything else is pretty fair game. Humans are generally governed by right and wrong, good and evil. What are vampires governed by?

 

[Flannen]

These are ideas I really didn't even think about it. I've been concentrating on the relationships between them, but everything I think off as a reason why they're different, I then think 'oh wait you could say humans do that!'

Claudia would be a good character though I think because of the age in which she was turned and how she later starts behaving etc, and her whole weird lover/father thing with Louis which really freaks me out.

I know that my partner will use Louis as a reason why they are just human, because of his behaviour throughout the whole book. I think my argument here will be 'yeah well, he's like Angel.' 😀

 

[Aleris]

The main thing I would say so to why they're not HUMAN characters is that they're hyper-human.
They're hyper-sexual and hyper-aware. I'd go so far as to say that they're also hyper-sensitive/emotional.
Their movements are quicker and they're stronger than any human.
There's continually moments in IWAV where he's talking about how he can't explain things properly because it's beyond human comprehension (e.g. his super fast movements and the experience of dying in order to become undead etc)
Claudia's attitudes exemplify the hyper-sexual and hyper-emotional states. What she was before she was turned was human ... her later attitudes show exactly how inhuman she has become.

Pretty much every argument you can come up with, can be used as a 'for' or 'against' for this statement. (Maybe that's partially the point of this exercise)

 

[Flannen]

Pretty much every argument you can come up with, can be used as a 'for' or 'against' for this statement. (Maybe that's partially the point of this exercise)

More than likely. Ok, I'm beginning to change my stance on that whole 'not stealing your ideas' thing 😀

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

It's been a long while since I've read IWTV, but you could probably say something about the fact that because the characters have long life spans, their concept of time is not the same as a human's. Lestat can afford to lie in wait all those years, whereas a human would probably feel the need to "do something"/act more quickly. I'm not explaining that very well but it's the first thing that came to mind.

Great point, Buffy. I would also add that although they do have human tendancies and modivaitons - they still have to kill to survive, i.e. drink human blood.

I'll be back later with more insight. Gotta go to work. 😉

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

It's been years since I last read the book, but I think I would discuss vampire morals and law.
Like, I vaguely recall that among vampires the biggest crime (probably the only real crime) is to kill another vampire, but don't the vampires in the theatre end up killing Claudia and that other vampire woman (Celeste?)?
And if you want to go a bit further than just IWTV, Lestat turning his mother into a vampire (I read that book in German, so I don't really remember the title, sorry).

Uh, and something else just crossed my mind. I don't know if this is useful at all, but has anyone else ever noticed that the Anne Rice vampires never killed their families? They rather always seemed to put up a charade and pretend they were still human. Just a thought.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Ok so you have to argue on the side that the vampires protrayed in her novel are not humanlike, yes?

Well, I think that the reason they attempt to "blend in" with society is for their own protection. In "Queen of the Damned" (the third in the Vampire Chronicles) Armand warns the newly-made Lestat about the dangers of revealing himself to humans (i.e. he could get killed). They are immortal, yes, but not unkillable. So, I would argue, although these vampires are in a sense "a part" of the human world- they are not allowed to participate in it as a human experience. They cannot persue a relationship with a human, for instance, or live a normal life in the daylight. As Angel says in (I can't resist a Buffy reference😉 "I walk like a man but I'm not one." They are caught between two worlds, not a real part of either.
Also, physically, they are very unlike humans. Vampires are not living or breathing - they are the walking dead, or re-animated corpses. Also, they have, as someone said, heightend senses and all that. In terms of personality, I'd argue that they are only mimicking human expressions in order to fit in with society in order not to noticed.

And of course, one thing missing from most of the vampires in IWAV is their lack of sympathy for their victims. Both Claudia and Lestat delight in killing their victims. Louie, though, is a "freak" in a sense because he feels remorse for what he has to do to survive (in a sense, very like Angel). So, Louie exhibits more "human tendancies" than his partners in crime, but as a result of this is very unhappy. His capacity to love is also freakish. I think though it's important to remember that Anne Rice's vision of vampire lore is somewhat romantisized, and she is trying to liken them to humans to be more relatable. If you just focus on their emotional, and physical differences from humans you'll be golden 🙂

Hope this helps...

So, I'm curious about this American Studies class. You got to read Anne Rice? Very cool. So, what do you study? Like, our history and culture??? Sounds really cool.

Have you seen the film adaptation with Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt? It's not as good as the book, but worth watching.

 

[Flannen]

Yeah I have to argue against the statement, so come up with a series of points as to why they aren't like humans and are simply vampires. I don't think I'm going to be able to resist quoting Buffy either, but as I know my tutor loves it I don't want her to think I'm trying to score points! I really like your idea that they mimic human behaviour in order to fit in, its an argument which helps me to overcome examples where they do appear human.

Yeah, we get to study Anne Rice! Most of this year has been books since the 50s so I've done 'Catcher in the Rye', 'The Bell Jar', 'American Psycho' (weird book!), 'Fight Club', 'Beloved', 'Meridian' and 'K is for Killer, oh and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.'

Most of them have film adaptations so we always look at them which is quite interesting, but I have watched 'Interview with a Vampire' anyway. I did quite like it, I think I do prefer the book as well.

I only do one module which is American Literature but a lot of it is about American history and culture and how the books we study are products of it. I've really enjoyed it, I spend so much time studying English novels (as I'm doing an English degree) so it's really interesting to see how American novels are different. I tend to find that they come out of a much more exciting culture than some English novels and that they challenge society a lot more directly than some English novels, though not all obviously. But my university does offer a whole American Studies degree.

Thanks very much for your thoughts guys, it helps me to process mine into a more orderly fashion 😀