Interview with a Vampire

Interview with a Vampire. The title is pretty self explanatory. I found it at first, as boring as it sounded, but as I read I started to get more and more involved. It could have been the interesting male on male action (no hard stuff here, just some light touches and steamy descriptions). Or maybe it was the characters? Regardless, it was a great read, my favorite in the list so far.

I never really enjoyed vampire novels or stories, but I really love the way that Rice presents them. All the cross, holy water, wooden stick in the chest stuff was getting old, and Rice did a great job making a "new" vampire. In fact, sometimes I started to wonder how similar her vampire was to the twilight vampire. Come to think of it I bet I could really make an argument that Edward is Louis from the interview series. They are both depressed enough.

There seemed to me to be a lot of "searching" in this book. In fact, I'd like to argue that the book had lots of these "searching" themes, a leit motif, if you will. Louis and Claudia search for "others" and for the knowledge they posses. In fact, the "knowledge" they seek is a mere illusion, a lie I suspect, that Lestat comes up with to keep Claudia and Louis around. Though, it still didn't save him from being "killed" numerous times. The "old world" vampires also offer no such "knowledge" and this search ultimately ends up with the destruction of Louis's last human impulse and care, when Claudia and Madeleine are killed by sun light, and Louis is kept alive by Armand.

There seemed to me to be a great deal of homosexuality in this book. Though, it was very sub-par, and not touched on a great deal. Rice's vampires have no need for sexual encounters, nor do they know the human emotion. I think this is why Louis was so fascinating to Armand, since Louis did "feel" for the humans he killed, unlike most vampires. It was also interesting to me that both Louis and Lestat never really traveled with an adult female. This also added to the small hints of homosexuality, even when Lestat and Louis do have a female companion (Claudia) she is a small child. When she and Lestat are out of the picture Louis turns to Armand, and they travel a little while together, but Louis never gets over Claudia and ends up finding out that immortality is best lived alone. Claudia was the thing that kept him "going", it kept him "attached" to his human ways and to his new immortal life, one that he slips away from when she's gone. He turns into a wanderer of sorts, no longer attached to anything.

One thing about Rice's vampires that struck me as interesting was that they were not these powerful things that ravaged the land and were known and feared by the villagers, but that they were more narcissistic new-age characters. Louis was this self-loathing thing, who brooded over the lives he took. If anything this was a coming-of-age story vampire style. A lose of "innocence". Throughout the book, we see Louis born into vampire-ism, and his growing into it. He slowly learns that he really is no longer human, he is dead. He learns to love blood, to enjoy it, and slowly loses his human innocence and guilt. He becomes an "adult" vampire as he learns throughout the book.

I really enjoyed this book and will look more into the series.

Interview with A Vampire Movie

So the movie was really pretty good. But I was very confused half the time by the huge story differences. Lestat's father gets cut out altogether, which, to me made his character different slightly. I liked that he cared about his father in the book, even though he was a vampire, he still tried hard to take care of his parent. This gave him an acceptable motif to turn Louis into a vampire, so he could take over the estate and have a place for his elderly father to reside. The movie version just made him out to be greedy, not enough of a motif for me, at least, not strong enough. Then there was Louis. His madness at his brothers death, and the thought that he was the cuase, made for again, a much better explanation of character and motif. In the movie we are quickly told he had a wife and child die? I guess it works, since Claudia could be seen as the child he so loved and adored in human life. I did like the actor choice for the characters though. Who wouldn't want to see Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise breathing hot and heavy on top of one another? Lovely.

I didn't much like Tom Crusie at first for Lestat. Though, at the end of the movie, I had changed my mind. Tom did a pretty nice job pulling off Lestats crazy mannerisms, though, then again, Tom Crusie is pretty cra.....well, reagardless he did a great job.

Now, my favorite choice by far, was Claudia. Kirstein Dunst was an excellent choice. She was much like the Claudia I imagined from the book, plus she did an amazing job acting. She was seriously creepy at parts. I also loved how well she played the part of Claudia as an older woman traped in the body of a child. She was very believable and even her pronounciation was exceptional.

The movie did a nice job of building the characters, without making it boring. I did feel at times that the bloody parts were a little, too much, almost cheesy, but that didn't hinder the ability of the books creepy factor. The part in which Armand's band of vampires feast in front of a live audience was really spot on. That part made the movie in my opinion.

Of course, I still liked the book much more then the movie, but it's hard to beat someones own interpretations. One character I was very displeased with was the "boy" or Daniel Molloy, interviewing Louis throughout the book. I had thought of him as much younger in the book for some reason, in the movie he just seemed much too old. Christian Slater, did do a nice job of making him seem like a loser at the end, power hungry and greedy for eternal life. But I could never get over the actor choice. The ending of the movie was great though, I already loved the character of Lestat, but they made him a pretty awesome bad-ass. The lines he says when he hears the tape playing of Louis were great, "Oh Louis, still whining about everything I see." Then he drives off across the bridge in a convertible with his golden hair, and his...ahem. Anyway, great movie, I strongly suggest anyone who's read the book watch the movie, not a disappointment.

Pride, Prejudice and zombies

I have to admit, I had no idea what to expect with this book, and I had never read the original "Pride and prejudice". Well, it was, how can I say this, boring and interesting at the same time. 

I hated being "one of those" people, but I admit to sometimes skimming conversations to get to

the parts with zombies. I also found the score of characters difficult to keep up with, not to mention the on going

introduction of more characters throughout the novel. Regardless, it was an interesting read. I wonder how much

of it was actually written by Seth Grahame-Smith. I'm sure most of it was altered, since crime fighting, zombie killing, machine of women were very non-existent in the 19th century. 

After reading through the book, I found the general lack of care for those rendered to the zombies laughable. In fact, I thought Seth Grahame-Smith did a marvelous job with highlighting the satirical undertones of the original, (which I'm sure much of it is due in part to the original author), only that Seth Grahame-Smith sort of, throws in zombies and huge gore-feasts to keep things interesting. I almost wonder if there is hidden meaning in the addition of zombies, or if they were simply added to give the novel a "lift" for the younger and or modern audience. 

Some highlights of the book came from both the original author and Seth Grahame-Smith. I loved the wittiness that Jane Austen brought to the table. Her satirical undertones about social views and marriage were always obvious. The idea proposed by her is that, women, everywhere, young or old, want nothing more then then to marry. She also (I'm not sure if this was her, but I doubt it was Seth) enlightens us and pokes fun of the "typical woman" stereotype of her era. In fact, when the idea of the perfect woman is brought up in the book, the men and women of high ranks and middle class both agree that she must have a laundry list of things she simply must know and do. A couple of things being playing an instrument, being good as crafts, knowing how to knit/sew, be proper at all times no matter what, have a pleasant nature at all times, and be practiced in the deadly arts (thanks Seth). Elizabeth is almost like the "normal" woman in the book. Though not normal in the way that she kills zombies. She is intelligent and lovely, but uses nether to look for a marriage partner. In fact, it shocks the other characters that she does not look for marriage and she is excused as being "abnormal" because of it. It makes me wonder if Austen created her for the sheer excuse of having a high contrast character. It makes sense that she would end up with Darcy, since he was also some what of a high contrast character due to his rude nature. 

Now that I've read the book, I think I may have to watch the movie. I always love to compare the two. It's also rather fun, seeing the characters you imagined in a way that someone else imagined them (how they sound, what they look like). I'd also like to see how gory it would be. I was somewhat sad that I never got to enjoy the illustrations in the book (got a nice free pdf. of it online since there was only ONE at the library and it was always being read). But even without the art, the book did an awesome job describing the gore factor, but it made little sense next to the more delicate words of Jane Austen. In fact it was sometimes easier to skim ahead to the zombie parts because the English used would suddenly change drastically. I thought this was an interesting juxtapose of old and new. Speaking of which, I had a hard time believing some parts, aside from the zombies (HA). For example, the girls studied in China? They were Shaolin-trained killers? At one point there are ninjas fighting Elizabeth, she even wields a Katana! Oh! Let's not forget the throwing stars. Was that stuff even around back then?

 Regardless, still an enjoyable read, makes me wonder what Jane Austen would think if she could see what has become of her novel. 

Frankenstein

I entered the book already feeling pretty sheepish and ignorant simply because Frankenstein is so immersed in modern day fiction and yet I haven't ever actually read the book nor had the interest to. What is more surprising is that I'm most likely not the only one. Kids and adults alike probably know the name Frankenstein as sharply as Mickey Mouse, but I can bet that they too have never read the book and don't actually know the real story. So, you can guess how shocked I was when it was nothing like I expected.

I'll begin by saying that the fact that Victor was around my own age was a huge eye opener. No old men or middle aged mad scientists here. Victor was a KID. At first it was a hindrance for me, it made the story seem less believable. But after I continued reading it become more clear. If Victor had been older, then the way he acted, plus the things he did, may have been less true to character. His age really spelled it out better. He was a selfish bratty kid, who like any teen, rushed into a relationship with science, decided to mess around with her without thinking, and then found himself a young father. In fact he even considers his creation an "abortion" from the start. He's a dead beat dad. Was Shelly trying to convey something here about her own life experiences? Hmm? Her husband was pretty young, selfish, and not a good father (he did run off with her leaving his pregnant wife and kids). Perhaps she even implanted herself into this story through the characters as most of them relate to her life. She is somewhat of a feminist, but her female characters don't really do all that much and generally just sit in the background most of the book. The male characters play much larger roles and often enough cause disaster to the females, whom simply take it without saying much. For example, Justine dies because of William's murder (even though it was the monster and Victor could have stood in). Then Elizabeth dies because Victor is too full of himself to realize that the monster isn't looking to kill him, but his bride. (I also thought this was funny because it is so typical of modern day horror flicks and books, the "couple" always splits apart at one point and then one of them dies, though now-a-days the "virgin" or "good girl" stays alive most of the time, the "sluts" or "bad boyfriends" are the ones that die). Also, we can even compare Elizabeth to the author, since she almost dies of scarlet fever and her mother decides to try and help, then ends up "dying in her place". Sort of like Shelly's own mother, who died a little while after she was born.

I ended this book feeling sorry for the monster and hating Victor. The monster kills people close to Victor, ok, that's a bummer, but what does Victor do about it? Nothing! In fact, it's only after the one person he vows to protect dies that he decides to grow some and act responsible. Well,.... sort of. He ends up searching for the monster in order to kill it. Way to go Victor. Where's the love? Even in the end, when the Monster is seen standing over Victors corpse, it still loves and wishes for acceptance from it's creator. Who's the real monster here? Victor could have stopped all of his woes had he just accepted what he had done. Instead he put everyone who loved him at risk KNOWINGLY in order to keep his selfish pride in check.

And that brings me back to the beginning of this all. Frankenstein is a monster everyone knows, but
it's not the creature that should be put to that name,

but the human,Victor Frankenstein, that should be the face of the
"monster" from this story.

Reading!

Finishing up Frankenstein! A good read. I've never read the book, so this was rather exciting! The letters at the beginning to the last chapter was quite the adventure! More posts on the book soon :)!