What Anne Rice said...

[Bastet]

Hello, I was looking for an Anne Rice thread for this especific question, but I haven't found any, so I'll start the thread here for all of you. I am working on a thesis about Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire. Well, she has this official website where you can actually email her as a fan and, supposedly, she writes you back. In any case, I believe this is the case due to the good reputation she and her website have.
To make a long story short, I wrote her and ask if she could offer me any help with my dissertation in case I decide to write about the same topic and she politely apologized that she didn't have the time but that I could watch the movie since, she believed, captured the spirit of the book perfectly because it was based on her script.

This left me feeling shocked because, even though it is a good movie, several things change which I think are important, in order, I believe, to show the more morally acceptable version of the novel that the world in general, and the United States in particular, could handle and approve of. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way because I've read criticism and I've seen similar opinions stated, but I was wondering what you think about all this.

If you have read the book and seen the movie, then you know the changes I'm referring to. However, if you haven't or don't remember, I'll be more than glad to tell you what I mean.

Thank you for your opinion!!

[kathycf]

Hi Bastet. Rice announced a while back that she would not be writing anymore books that did not feature religious themes.

Anne Rice has nailed her vampire novels into a coffin.

"I will never write those kind of books again -- never," Rice said, referring to three decades of work that include bestsellers like "Interview with the Vampire" and other books in the Vampire Chronicles series. Her books about witches and dark angels, she said, "were reflections of a world that didn't include redemption...In 2002 I made up my mind that I would not write anything that wasn't for Christ,"
Perhaps this is the reason she does not wish to discuss her earlier work. I posted this in another thead, but you can read the full text of the article I quoted from here. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17806_1.html)

I agree with you that the movie was lacking in parts and not a true adaptation of the novel, but I am afraid it has been quite a while since I have seen the movie and even longer since I read the book.

[Bastet]

Thanks kathycf. I've heard about her new work dealing with the life of Jesus and also about her return to the Catholic faith. I understand that she's a busy woman and that she might not wish to discuss vampire literature now since in some aspects it conflicts with the recovery of her faith ... what I was really shocked about is that she would advise me to take the movie as loyal reference for my work as the alternative of talking to her, when it is obvious that the movie disregards the most significative message the novel transmits... maybe she wants to disengage herself from those messages now that she has embraced the Catholic faith again and wishes for people who write about them to disregard them somehow in favor of the more "light" version offered by the movie... I don't know...

[kathycf]

Hmm, I took it to mean (and perhaps I am wrong here) that she really would like to disassociate herself from her past works. I think telling you to watch the movie was a polite way of saying she doesn't wish to discuss vampires at all. Kind of like a brushoff. Again, I could be reading into the situation something that might not be there.

[Bastet]

you're probably right... and then that leaves me to wonder how that will affect those readers who have read all her books precisely because of what she is trying to disengage herself from now... and the consequences of that as a best-selling author in her new career path.

[kathycf]

When I first read the story I quoted, I sort of wondered the same thing. I can understand that she needs a change and what she chooses to write about is her own business, BUT...By refusing to discuss earlier works, it seems like forgetting about the loyal readers who made her career so successful.



However, if you haven't or don't remember, I'll be more than glad to tell you what I mean.

Thank you for your opinion!!

Care to refresh my memory? Tell me what you are referring to. :)

[Mary Sue]

Hi, Bastet,

I'm a great lover of Anne Rice's supernatural fiction and while I respect her return to the Church, I don't understand this apparent renunciation of her own original output. WTF? In my opinion, EVERYTHING that she ever wrote had to do with spiritual truths. She was forever exploring moral ambiguities and delving deep into the nature of good and evil. Starting with Interview and throughout all her subsequent novels she presented the vampire as a metaphor for everyman. For the human condition. Whether one relates more to the passive Louis---- or to the fiery, passionate Lestat--- we all compromise our integrity, to some extent, just to survive. And life feeds on life, now doesn't it? Interview--arguably her best book----mirrors this reality. It's riddled with metaphysical imagery and yes, with Anne's own despair. Not surprisingly, since back when she wrote it she was still grieving the recent death of her daughter. But as the series progresses, she recovers her lost faith, AS DO THE VAMPIRES.

Consider Lestat's spiritual odyssey. He goes from atheism (in Interview) to spiritual curiosity (in The Vampire Lestat & Queen of the Damned) to a deeper soul searching (in Tale of the Body Thief & Memnoch) to ultimate faith (in Blood Canticle.) And the final outcome? Even the godless Lestat gets religion in the end! Contrast the dark villain that he used to be to the "dark angel" into which he evolves. And if Lestat can be redeemed, then there's hope for all of us. Nothing un-Christian about THAT message!

So what's up with Anne? I suspect that some stuffy and not-very-enlightened priest is currently "counseling" her, telling her that it was "wrong" to write about the vampires. In other words, she's been brain-washed. And this is kinda sad but understandable, in the wake of her husband's death. I only hope that when she's stronger, her faith will sustain her enough so that she can recover her balance and think for herself again. She's a brilliant person, in any event, and I'll continue to enjoy her work.

As to your question: differences between the book and the movie? Well, in the movie Tom Cruise is presented as considerably more appealing and amusing than the un-likable Lestat of the book....He's a lot more like the Lestat of the LATER novels, more like the character that we come to know later thru his own narrative voice. Brad Pitt seems to be well cast as Louis. But details of the story have been changed or omitted altogether. Louis in the movie is distraught over the death of his wife and child, whereas in the book it's a BROTHER that he's mourning. Babette, the French neighbor that Louis loves and protects, here becomes a beautiful mulatto girl that Louis (unintentionally) kills. The movie abridges the Louis-Armand homoerotic affair, making it a short-term fling instead of the length cohabitation of the book. And the movie's final scene--- in which the boy reporter (Christian Slater) meets Lestat and is bitten--- never even happens in the book...

Don't depend on the movie. Sorry, but Anne gave you bad advice! Reread the book.

[Bastet]

Tell me what you are referring to. :)

I was gonna reply to your message and tell you everything that's different between the movie and the novel, when I read Mary Sue's post, and the last paragraph of her message perfectly describes what I was gonna tell you, so thank you Mary Sue! :)

[Bastet]

Hi Mary Sue,

First of all, I think your analysis of Rice's narrative is very interesting and true. I also feel disappointed that she seems to be turning away from her own work, which makes me wonder... can she as a writer really turn away from the work she has been producing pretty much all her career?
As far as being counceled by someone else as far as the disputability of her vampire's morals, it could be possible. If that is the case, I definitely think it is a mistake because, like you said, the message of faith behind the novels is far from negative.

I also agree that Interview is by far her best novel, that is way I chose it for my work. And I've been working on this for 2 years, so I wouldn't have been able to withstand the million readings of the book I've done if I hadn't thought it to be a good one. However, I also enjoyed The Vampire Lestat, you gotta admit that he's her most charismatic character by far... besides, it was the approach in that novel was so refreshing and new, challenging the image of Lestat we all got from Interview...

Certain changes in the movie aren't so important in relation to the overall message of the novel, but others are. For instance, the fact that in the movie Louis is mourning the death of his wife and child, which clearly positions him as heterosexual. Same thing with the changes in his relationship with Armand... think about that.

[Bastet]

By the way, I agree that telling me to trust the movie was bad advice, I was just so shocked that it came from her that I had to start this thread

[Idril]

I recall that she was furious at first about Tom Cruise being cast as Lestat because she thought that while he was a good actor, he was not Lestat and I had to agree, I was horrified and mystified when I heard about that casting choice but I guess she changed her mind after she saw the movie, she was quite impressed with Mr. Cruise but my opinion remained unchanged.

I do think it's odd she would say the movie was a good substitution for an interview with her. I know there are authors that are able to view a film of a book they wrote as a completely different entity and I guess in some ways it is. Cider House Rules the movie was very different from Cider House Rules the book and I thought there were some very significant changes made and I can't remember a single example right now but I watched the movie shortly after reading the book and I remember being shocked that John Irving actually wrote the screenplay, that not only did he ok the changes but that he, himself had made them. I suppose we don't really know what was in the author's head when they were writing the novel, maybe they had an agenda we didn't see or maybe after some time there are things they wished they had done or wished they hadn't done and the screenplay is the chance to make those changes...I don't know.

I do think Kathy's theory about Anne Rice wanting to distance herself from the work is a good one though, I suppose she wants to focus on her more Christian works but it's too bad she can't embrace both, just because you're Christian doesn't mean you can't enjoy a good vampire novel. :p

[Mary Sue]

About Anne wanting to disassociate herself from her earlier work--- yes. And I find it disturbing. I once had a friend who was brainwashed into joining a cult, and the first thing the church leaders did was DISTANCE HER from all the things that she most loved. Her favorite books, her music. Her former friends, even family members who didn't "measure up." In short, the Powers That Be isolated this girl completely. They censored/edited all of her activities. They told her what to wear, how to talk, how to think. They deprived her of free will. Finally, not knowing what else to do, her frightened parents had her kidnapped and ---I'm not kidding here---de-programmed! After that she was in therapy for quite awhile. Today she's okay and she'll never go the route of the fanatic again, she says.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm casting no aspersions on religion itself. All legitimate religions have their decent and devout practitioners. But in any institution there's always the potential for abuse. Any priest or minister, if he's narrow-minded enough, if he's on a power trip consciously or unconsciously, can become a prime manipulator. And then there's Anne Rice, who would be an easy target for someone like that. She's a vulnerable woman who has recently lost her husband, not to mention other loved ones in the not-so-distant past. She'll still dealing with all that grief.

It's natural that wanting solace, she should return to her Catholic roots. What's NOT natural is her repudiation of the rich body of literature that she herself created. The books define who she is and was. They have to do intimately with her own personal journey. She has called Lestat a male version of herself, the eager questing soul with which she most identifies. Lestat's trip from godlessness to faith is her own. So why would anyone mislabel that kind of metaphysical writing as "evil"? I can't imagine. But it really appears that someone has. And if that person---priest, spiritual advisor, whatever---HAS manipulated Anne's mind, in essence has cut her off from a vital part of herself, then he has done her a very great injury.

[Bastet]

Regarding what you say about religion, I remember once I was having a conversation with an Evangelical guy (in his late 20's) a friend introduced me to not long ago. The topic of my thesis came up, and when he heard the book I was writing on was Interview with the Vampire, his face lit up. Apparently, he had read it before he was baptised as an Evangelical and he told me that he loved it, but that now he couldn't read it any more because it was sinful to do so. As a matter of fact, he told me that he couldn't even allow himself to think about the book too much because he felt like he was falling for the devil's temptation. You're right, some religious groups are very strict with the they instruct their followers in all the aspects of their everyday life.

[Bastet]

And you're right too Idril, being a Christian and enjoying a good vampire novel are compatible experiences.

[Mary Sue]

Yes, Idril. I agree!
: )

[Idril]

And if that person---priest, spiritual advisor, whatever---HAS manipulated Anne's mind, in essence has cut her off from a vital part of herself, then he has done her a very great injury.

And I don't know that mainstream catholicism would require her to give up that part of herself. I'm not catholic myself so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but I think whoever has taken her spiritual life in hands must be affiliated with a more conservative, evangelical branch of the catholic church and one who can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, The Vampire Chronicles are a work of fiction after all and not a statement of faith or belief. :rolleyes:

[Mary Sue]

I agree. It's very unlikely that a mainstream priest would ever have shown her such insensitivity. Yet every religion has its "Taliban," i.e. fundamentalist right wing, and people of that mindset WOULD condemn Anne's books. Her priest may have objected to the moral ambiguity of the vampires, alleging that these characters tempt us to "love the darkness." And ditto for the irreverent Lestat, who meets Jesus Christ and actually drinks the sacred blood! Not to mention the ever-present homoerotic content...

I grew up in a predominantly Catholic state. And in my experience, priests---and Protestant clergy too--- run the gamut of personality types. Some of them are loving and enlightened, true Christians in every sense of the word. Whereas there are others who would bring back the Inquisition if they could.

I really hope that I'm wrong here, that I'm misreading the situation, because I hate to think of Anne Rice permanently cut off from her fans. Her writing has given pleasure to so many of us, and by rights she should feel good about that and about herself.

[papayahed]

Is it possible that perhaps Anne Rice may have thought that you were asking for more time then she was willing to give and that's the reason she turned you down? Reading the article that kathy posted doesn't sound like she is denying her past. It sounded like she accepts the vampire books as the past and is saying this (Christ) is the direction I'm going now.

[Bastet]

Is it possible that perhaps Anne Rice may have thought that you were asking for more time then she was willing to give and that's the reason she turned you down? Reading the article that kathy posted doesn't sound like she is denying her past. It sounded like she accepts the vampire books as the past and is saying this (Christ) is the direction I'm going now.

It's possible, papayahed, and I wasn't suprised that she, being a best-selling author, would cut me off like that. What shocked me though is that she would recommend the movie instead. She could have just said that she didn't have time, like she actually did, but just leave it at that without suggesting that I trust the movie for my paper. That is what really made me think and start the thread. What kind of paper did she think I was writing?