Interview With the Vampire: A Discussion on the Novel

In Rice's novel, the frame narrative for the story is one of interest – what do you usually associate with an interview?  Who is usually interviewed? Why is s/he interviewed? Where does the power lie in the interview?  

Not The Sharpest Lightbulb In The Shed

I much preferred this style of writing than the diary introspection type-deal with Dracula. With an interview, there is direction and life to the story because it’s spoken out loud and there is input from just the person telling the story (though in retrospect, perhaps Dracula was meant to feel lifeless lol) I still love the irony of the reflective nature of storytelling, but this time reflection from a vampire! It’s such a play on words given the whole mirror thing, especially given that Louis was not really like any of the other vampires.

As for the purpose of an interview, it’s usually with the intention of gaining insight/awareness/information on something notable that someone has done. The power lies with the person guiding the interview and usually that means the person interviewing, because usually they are the ones asking the questions that lead the interviewee. However, in the case of this story, it is Louis guiding the story because he is unveiling his past in chronological order with very little input from the interviewer, who is sitting there, looming like oppressive dirty laundry, recording the speech, and not taking anything away from the moral. The interviewer is passive in this case, which is also probably because there is the intimidation factor of “hey, that’s a vampire sitting over there.”

I would personally love to have conducted the interview, if not because I would have actually understood the point of the story, then because I would have let lose an unholy number of puns (I know, I suck). I would have asked at least one intelligent question so those less sense endowed could get it… like, "What is the most important thing you've learned as a vampire?", or "Why was Van Helsing so dedicated to killing Count Dracula?" (because he staked his whole reputation on it!) Or, if I was bold, "If someone asked to be your apprentice and learn all that you know, what would you teach them?” because clearly the last interviewer wasn’t the sharpest lightbulb in the shed.

 

In this twentieth century narrative, how is a vampire created and are there any responsibilities for the creator?  Does this mesh with, say, Stoker’s creation story/ies in Dracula?  If there are differences, then what are they?

The Dark Gift

The sheer number of adaptations of vampires is nothing short of incredible: Vlad the Impaler, Count Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight saga, The Vampire Academy, Underworld, Fright Night, From Dusk Till Dawn, Nosferatu, Blade, The Lost Boys, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, V-Wars etc. (these are just the ones I’m personally familiar with off the top of my head.) They all have obvious similarities with what a vampire is, but characteristics vary. All are similarin the following: pretty much immortal, frozen in time with enhanced abilities with a diet not much different than ours… I mean, it’s basically a smoothie diet rich in antioxidants, amiright? The obvious aside, it’s essentially an elevated state of the human from at least a physical standpoint. Morality is more the matter of the individual. Common foes and weaknesses across the lore: sunlight, holy crosses, holy water, garlic (I found a theory about this one a little while back, i'll put it below) vervain, stake to the heart, lack of blood (desiccation), doorways and pesky neighbours that don’t invite you inside... also mirrors.

In terms of creating a vampire, there is always a bite involved. However, it’s more complicated than that. In ‘The Vampire Diaries’, for example, a person has to die with vampire blood in their body to start the process, and then they have to make a choice to feed on blood to finish the transition into a newborn or die in the process as a human. (Damon has a really funny remark about Anne Rice being “so on it” and then proceeds to mock the disco ball that is Edward). Now, newborn/fledglings are notoriously different across the board: in Twilight, they are just like… super strong. Some get gifts and others just don’t for some reason, but Twilight is an obvious outlier. In some legends, vampires are buried and have to dig themselves out to finish the transformation, and in others, it’s a result of a curse and a botched birth.

In “Dracula”, the transformation is obscure and shrouded in mystique, but it seems to just be ‘drain victim of blood over consecutive nights and then mystical voodoo stuff happens where they begin to transform until they die and wake up a vampire’.

In “Interview with the Vampire” it’s even more obscure, but from the context of “The Dark Gift” I believe it is in line with “The Vampire Diaries” explanation where the blood of the vampire has to be bestowed upon a mortal. Once blood has been transferred, the mortal “dies” and wakes a vampire fledgling. Then, a feeding must occur to complete the transition and then they sleep in a coffin. There are differences, i.e.: giving versus taking, but it’s a process.

In Twilight, for example, the fangless fangs have venom which is transmitted through the bloodstream and then an agonizing molecular transformation occurs and then they wake up a newborn and have to feed. In Dracula, he seems to be able to control all he turns as he is their creator, but he doesn’t seem to do anything special for them.

Unlike in Dracula, in Interview, the creator has the responsibility to nurture the new vampire. The older the vampire, the more potent the dark gift and the stronger the newborn. If Armand had’ve created Louis, as an example, Louis would have had gifts such as telepathy and god knows what else. Unfortunately, Lestat changed him and did not guide him in any way. Louis even comments on this out loud, wishing Lestat had have explained what was happening to him so he could appreciate the changes happening to him and to appreciate how much stronger his senses were. Lestat was negligent which did not help for when Louis loses hope for things getting better. Louis is the OG broody-moody-sad-boi-vegan-vampire, which is where we get the inspiration for Stefan Salvatore and then Edward Cullen.

**Garlic theory: (Garlic is a blood thinner and a pungent stench… let that sink it like vampire fangs for a moment)

Vampire: *starts rumour about a weakness that would actually just make feeding easier*

Human: *Hears about the rumour and adds it to cooking as a precaution making them a smelly and easily identifiable victim*

Vampire: *Encounters a garlicy human* Oh, no, you've discovered my secret! No, don't eat more garlic pasta!

Also Vampire: *chomp and slurp*

 

What do we make of the male vampires? Armand? Lestat? Louis? What kinds(s) of masculinity do they express or are they different altogether?

Divine Masculine & Divine Feminine

Classic masculine traits include logic, reason, action, firmness, survival, loyalty, adventurousness, strength, and rationality. Meanwhile, feminine qualities include intuition, nurturing, healing, gentleness, expression, wisdom, patience, emotions, and flexibility.

Armand has a quiet, steadiness to him, a slow-moving power that is inherent to him. To me, he is balanced between the two, encompassing

qualities of both feminine and masculine qualities, which to me seems the ideal blend for a stable individual. Lestat is encompassing the masculine qualities, while Louis is showing the feminine qualities. Gender has nothing to do with personality traits to me, more the energy that someone has. While Lestat and Louis possess qualities in each, it is obvious which ones are dominant in both men, and because they do not balance the two sides of themselves, you see the reason for each of their struggles. Lestat has no love in his life because he decided to be macho--strong-willed, stubborn, violent, controlling, possessive--and we see him make rash decisions that ensures he is never truly happy (at least in this book. I haven't read the rest of the series.) Louis, however, has the opposite problem. He lacks firmness, action, survival instincts, loyalty, and adventurousness, and by the end has basically lost the will to live. If they embraced the other parts of themselves or came to know themselves better, as Armand had done, they would be very similar at least in stability. Both Louis and Lestat are incredibly unstable.

 

One of the interesting turns in the novel is the creation of a child vampire, particularly a girl-child. What are the complications of such a character?

The Epitome Of Precocious

I found it hard to read about her relationship with Louis at times because while her mind progressed, her body didn’t… and their relationship eroticized children in a way that was problematic for me, though intriguing in concept given that she was not really a child. It reminded me of a book called “Locked in Time” by Lois Duncan, and though it’s not about vampires, it’s about the ramifications of being ageless in an aging world. I found it very interesting that her body was halted, but her brain capacity was somehow not hindered. Logically, I don’t think that’s at all how that would go.

There are so many types of vampires within lore, but broadly, there are those that are born, ones that are turned, hybrids etc. Vampires that are born (moroi) are ones that typically have elemental abilities or are half-human/half-vampire (dhampirs), and those that are turned are usually the ones like those in the graveyard, with no identity or consciousness (striga/oi). However, all agree on this: (except twilight as Edward apparently had ‘lil ones still swimming around) when turned, body functions cease, hence the cold undead.

In Twilight (the later books, notably Breaking Dawn), the whole plot around the unfortunately named ‘Renesmee’ is because the Volturi think she was bitten, not born. Children that were bitten were a liability to the vampire world because their cognition has no way of growing. Children were turned usually as a result of how devastatingly beautiful they were, keeping children as children forever, without the possibility for them losing innocence. However, that’s blatantly irresponsible and selfish given the fact that a tantrum from a superhuman child would be absolutely devastating and impossible to conceal (usually mothers who don’t want to see their children grow up). Renesmee being born mattered because she had the ability to grow up, which meant she could be taught.

Claudia being turned as a child, if her cognition is not a problem, is not really any different than anyone else being turned… except… except. If you mature but your body doesn’t, what are you supposed to do with eternity? The whole thing about the vampire aesthetic is ‘carnal pleasures forever’ a life of excess and whatever (the point that makes Louis singularly interesting because he does not subscribe to this ideology) but if you’re forever a child, at least in appearance, there’s quite a lot you can’t actually indulge in. Claudia’s ability to grow cognitively when her brain and body literally cannot develop is beyond my suspension of belief which is what ultimately made the whole thing with Louis okay in my books, because it wouldn’t be possible (she says as though that’s the only improbable thing in the story.)

A bit of an aside, growing up, I was always called precocious by people, and after having read this novel, I have a bit of a different feeling about that sentiment given the undercurrent of sexuality that's imbued within the definition itself, a fruit blooming before it's time. Definitely food for thought. I was always kind of proud of feeling 'ahead' but I think part of that is growing up too fast and missing out on childhood which is maybe not a good thing. It's kind of sad actually, and it makes me nostalgic for something I never really experienced.

Teacher Response:

This comment –  "If you mature but your body doesn’t, what are you supposed to do with eternity?" – and the idea of the vampire child always reminds me of Alfred, Lord Tennyson's dramatic monologue, "Tithonus." It is about a man who is given immortality but not eternal youth ... the flip side of the vampire child. In both cases, excruciating to imagine.

 

So I confess: I find the idea of performing vampirism fascinating. Every vampire novel I can think of has someone performing something for someone for some reason. Here, there is an actual theatre, but there are a lot of kinds of "performance" occurring in the novel. Did you notice? What might be the reason for vampire performance or performativity?

Self-Expression The Meaning Of Life

I think the most obvious thing is this: even vampires like to play with their food. It’s the thrill of cat and mouse, the animalistic urge of primal instincts. Performing this game on stage is just bringing that dynamic to the next level: to do it in front of an audience for a reaction—for amusement—to feel powerful by having validation through spectators.

Put another way: how many times can you play go-fish before you are bored to death? Not many times I don’t think. Now imagine you’re in a room with only a deck of cards, stuck for the rest of your life with whatever is in that room. You have a couple of options here:

• Option 1: die of literal boredom because everything has become known to you;

• Option 2: slowly spice up the game, introducing variations to keep it known but interesting and live with the reality that you always be a little bored, but that a little boredom is good for you because it's stimulating;

• Option 3: invent new games and adapt at such a rate that you run out of creativity because there is only so many things you can do with 52 slices of a tree and get hit with the crushing reality that you are now option 1 because you didn't pace yourself.

Putting a show on stage is just about the last thing you can do before you’ve experienced everything. The only other alternative there is is going after more complex prey: other vampires, which ironically, we kind of do see with the graveyard vamps. You do see evidence in other stories as well of old vampires developing a taste for other vampires, seen in the Vampire Diaries and in Underworld, and it’s because there has to always be something new. As soon as one’s attitude changes and goes from “I want to experience everything” to “I have experienced everything” it’s down the drain from there. It gets down to how creative someone is. The second you lose creativity, you’re dead.

So, in a way, literally performing your acts on stage is the ultimate form of self-expression. It’s art. Macabre art to be sure, but the embracing of one’s nature to be seen by others is validation of one’s existence. Louis had passion for life, but as soon as he made up his mind about what life was, he died (mentally). Armand had a flexible mind that was never fixed, and he was excited by Louis because he saw the world differently. Unfortunately, Louis's mind slammed shut and then that was it; boom, creativity gone! Poof!

 

Okay, last question for the week to help with the continuum we are building for the gothic's development through time: like other Gothic texts, religion is a topic – obviously, the idea of the undead is blasphemous – so how and why is it used here? Is it a commentary?

Open-Mindedness The Key To True Immortality

People want what they don’t have. It’s exactly why the interviewer makes the decision he does despite the moral of Louis’s story. They both want what the other has, not seeing what they do have as a gift. It’s a darker side of human nature, the constant pursuit of desire but never chasing the right things. The opposite of gothic themes is radical acceptance, so naturally, we can’t have anyone be happy (which is what makes the Italian not really gothic to me because it’s a Fairytale happy ending, but I digress).

To paraphrase Dumbledore concerning The Mirror of Erised (desire backwards): “a person who is truly happy will see nothing in the mirror but himself as he is.” I think that line is misinterpreted by many, thinking that happiness is a goal and that it’s not just a by-product of accepting yourself and your reality – or otherwise, that to want nothing is happiness. However, the truth is more about radical acceptance of everything... a person who sees truth and accepts truth is happy as a result, and not through the pursuit of happiness is happiness achieved. If you look into the mirror wanting to be happy, you will see something added to the mirror beyond yourself. Someone who wants for nothing will feel like they have everything, and someone who wants everything with feel like they have nothing.

Another point on this: it’s really quite irresponsible to rely on external factors for one’s fulfillment. If you rely on internal belief systems and allow for the necessary maintenance and correction of old systems as new things come out, you are setting yourself up for success. Only Armand does this. Lestat is withering away because “he’s experienced everything” in a physical way and Louis experienced everything in a mental way and caused his own death by deciding upon truth in a permanent way.

Armand understands this concept, and he tried to explain it to Louis, but Louis made up his mind about human nature and the point of life, and because he became rigid, he snapped. The ultimate qualities are flexibility and open mindedness because those are the things that keep one young at heart and alive; it means you’re open to being wrong, which is growth and means you’re open to new perspectives and the evolution of truth and fact as you learn more lessons. If you think you know everything, you’re no longer in a capacity to learn anything new and you come to a standstill in all regards which is a fate worse than death.