Goodreads Ireland discussion
July 2017: Interview with a Vamp
>
Spoiler Thread: Interview with a Vampire
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Paul
(new)
Jul 15, 2017 12:47AM
A good question for people on this book is , this is Louis's story , how much are the other characters shaped by his perspective?
reply
|
flag
Paul, I haven't read this for years but it is one of my favorite Anne Rice stories, IMO rivalled only by Memnoch the Devil. That's a great question! I think I dislike them all, to an extent, because I judge his actions through human eyes. Louis is a very contradictory character. He wanted the vampire life without understanding what it would truly mean. Lestat was the father figure and Louis the rebellious son. He hates Lestat for creating him and for not giving him all the answers he craves about the vampire life. We see Lestat as callous because of the way he treats his victims. He sees them as food whereas Louis sees them as people. Personnally, I'm with Louis on that score as I also have a problem with mistreating food prior to the kill! Even at the end of this book I had very mixed emotions about Lestat.
As for Claudia, she was a stone-cold killing machine, parented by Louis and Lestat. What a twisted little family! Louis loved Claudia the child, but refused to see her as a woman. His main motivator in that relationship was guilt. I felt his pain and kind of loved Claudia too. I think I didn't want to see as an adult predator for that reason.
The third main relation was that between Louis and Armand. In this one I am not guided by Louis at all. I think that Armand is the coldest, cruelest killer in the story, yet Louis still loves him. I didn't like when he was introduced, and my feelings, unlike Louis's, hadn't changed by the end of the book.
I will tear myself away from the laptop now because I could ramble on about this book for ages ;-)
Definitely agree on Memnoch the Devil as being on of my favourites in the series. Such a good book. Its interesting how Lestats general attitude is presented throughout the book. He comes across as uncaring and quite breezy for a lot of it, which contradicts a lot of gow he presents himself in the following book.
Louis' crisis of being a Vampire is very interesting , he likes the ideal but conflicys with the reality and never quite comes to terms with it all.
I have often wondered how much of Lestat's personality as portrayed in Interview with a Vampire is real and how much is Louis exaggeration or interpretation by Louis. And also - did Anne Rice simply change her mind about Lestat when she wrote the Vampire Lestat? Did she actually change a lot of his character ?
Either way its a good trick of writing , presenting the characters and general story from a different POV making it all feel quite different. I much prefer Lestats own take on himself to Louis's.
Maria wrote: "I have often wondered how much of Lestat's personality as portrayed in Interview with a Vampire is real and how much is Louis exaggeration or interpretation by Louis. And also - did Anne Rice sim..."
I think you make a very good point, Maria. I think that the Lestat of 'Interview' is portrayed by Louis as a very undereducated, needy, lonely character. However, (and I have The Vampire Lestat to reread at the moment so I am basing this on reading it a long time ago!) Lestat in his own words comes across as a far more complex character and more likeable by far than in 'Interview'. I still dislike Claudia in both books, though!
Paul wrote: "Either way its a good trick of writing , presenting the characters and general story from a different POV making it all feel quite different. I much prefer Lestats own take on himself to Louis's."
Paul. I read in the other thread about your queries on the casting of the film, especially about the choice of Antonio Banderas as Armand. I read somewhere recently that the casting director deliberately chose an older actor because they felt that there was too much sexual tension between the characters and they didn't want to stray into, or even suggest, the possibility of Louis, an older man, being involved with a teenager. I think that makes sense if the film is a stand-alone (which it was). I actually didn't pick up on how young Armand might be in the book itself. I have only read the two first books so haven't learned all that much about Armand. Do you think that the casting seems less unusual in the light of what I said above?
Not really to be honest. The character was supposed to be a early to mid teen Russian and the went for a 30 + Spaniard. Definitely still makes nonsense whatever the justification given. It felt more like slotting the famous face in anywhere you can rather than a logical choice. And to be honest if you wanted to avoid any sexual undertones then why was the director doing an Anne Rice book which is all sexual undertone.
Paul wrote: "Not really to be honest. The character was supposed to be a early to mid teen Russian and the went for a 30 + Spaniard. Definitely still makes nonsense whatever the justification given. It felt mor..."Fair Point!
I can understand playing down the sex side with a younger character but I like the contrast to Claudia and it gets lost in the film .
