Interview with a Vampire

Anne Rice takes the legend of the vampire and transforms it for the modern era. Previous iterations saw the vampire as a mindless creature whose only real desire was for blood (or land in the case of Bram Stoker and Nosferatu - sort of the Lex Luthors of the vampire world). No one cared where they came from or what they were in their previous, human lives. The vampire-hunting human was the hero of the story and the story wasn't over until the undead villain was defeated, leaving nothing but a blood-stain or pile of ash on the floor. No tears were shed upon their demise and we relished when the sun rose on a morning without the evil vampire.

This mindset existed until Anne Rice shattered it with Interview with a Vampire. She took the time to introduce us to the vampire, not as a creature but as a character; someone rather than something. They had a past that influenced who they were beyond their lust for blood. However, she couldn’t ignore their sanguinary habits altogether and she didn’t. Instead of making it a gory spectacle that causes the viewer to cover their eyes, she makes it a sensual experience – the height of intimacy between two beings. This combined with a rich, fully fleshed out history changed the archetype of the vampire to what it is today.

What followed is the age of the “heroic” vampire, whose sophistication is not merely a product of guile but is genuine in nature. It is an age where the vampires are the focus of the story and their human tormentors the villains. At the very least, the vampire has become misunderstood and only trying to survive in their new condition. Either way, the days of grabbing pitchforks and torches to extinguish the dreaded blood-sucker are, for all intents and purposes, over.

I think this was absolutely necessary in order for vampire stories to thrive in the modern age. With society’s mindset being ever more open to those that are different, it is no surprise that the vampire also benefits. After all, most of them did not ask to be what they are. Lestat himself was abducted and, having been turned, his maker threw himself into the fire. He had to endure with no real knowledge of himself and no education about his condition. In that context, who are we to judge? 

Another thing that I'd like to point out about the changes brought about by Anne Rice was the introduction of heroic female vampires. While Anne Rice's characters mostly focus around the Brat Prince Lestat, it was her idea that we might not know everything we thought we knew about them that has allowed strong female vampires to exist. Previously, they were limited to being the concubines of Dracula or more like the succubus of lore.While this change is also due to modern sensibilities, I'd argue that these sensibilities are due in part to strong female artists like Anne Rice who made it the norm rather than the exception.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

 Having seen several versions of Frankenstein on screen I had a rough idea of what to expect in reading the original novel. I couldn't have been more wrong. Nearly every adaptation displays the monster as a mindless brute, bent on wanton, soulless destruction. I was surprised to find that Shelley's creature was thoughtful and articulate, capable of complex ideas and desires. If the creature did act harshly to Frankenstein, it was only in response to the manner in which he had been treated. Indeed, his entire personality was based on his interactions with mankind. That’s not so much of a stretch considering that our personalities are themselves based on our interactions and experiences. Had we been neglected from birth and looked upon with such hatred and disgust, would we have turned out any different?

Shelley constructs a sympathetic monster by showing us his humanity. He only wants to live in peace with someone to share his life. I found that I looked upon Victor Frankenstein as the monster. I found him to be a fickle character who often did not think through his decisions before setting a course towards his goals. He set out to accomplish the creation of life, and having met his goal, immediately regretted it. He took no responsibility for his actions and went about his business as though nothing had happened. Ultimately his disregard for his own creation led to the destruction of everything he held dear. This was likely a commentary from Shelley regarding the progressing sciences of her era and possibly served as a warning to those scientists engaged in questionable experiments.

One of the parts of the book that interested me was the creature’s education through the De Lacey family. This was his glimpse into humanity that wasn’t cruel or tormented. He saw how people could love and care for one another. This developed in him a desire for similar treatment. It’s a statement about the nature of humanity that the only person who ever received him with kindness was blind. Everyone else he encountered reacted negatively to his disfigurement causing him to distrust and hate mankind. I question (as did the creature) why Victor would create such a horrid creature in the first place. Certainly he had to have known that mankind would reject it based on appearance alone. After all, he fled in terror and he was its creator.

One criticism I have for the novel is that none of the male characters felt genuinely male. I realize Shelley was only 19 at the time she wrote it, so she likely imagined that men had the same thoughts as a teenaged girl. Another problem I had was with the story structure. I did not feel that any particular character had their own “voice.” I realize this might be a result of the narrative device of relating a story through the character of Mr. Walton. I felt that her choice to tell the story through a letter/journal recorded by a separate character as recollected by a different character was a missed opportunity. It places the reader in a disassociated position and takes them out of the action. Having no experience with Victorian age literature, I do not know if this was common for the time or simply a result of inexperience (she was only 19 after all).

Overall, I think the story has great potential and speaks to the thoughtlessness of man towards his fellow being. It is also a cautionary tale that prevails to this day. How many things can we do but shouldn’t for fear of the consequences? I think this is the true staying power of her idea and why the name of Frankenstein so readily known by so many.