As we continue to read through Interview with a Vampire, I want you to begin your thinking of this text with an examination of the two main vampires, Louis and Lestat. Pull out some of their main character traits and discuss how they compare, for example, what makes Louis seem *more* human-like than Lestat. Do you feel yourself drawn more to one over the other? Why? These two vampires began what some scholars assess as a "new" look for the vampire: why might that be?
Shoot for 300-400 words. Engage with others.
Due: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 by class time.
Louis seems more human-like than Lestat because Lestat seems to have no conscience. He feels no guilt when killing others, he only cares about satisfying his own desires. Louis feels some regret for his actions and he does not take pleasure in killing in the way Lestat does. Lestat not only kills his victims, but he also makes their deaths into a sort of performance. This is evident when he lays out the body of the two women he kills. This sort of thing repulses Louis and makes him seem more relatable to humans.
ReplyDeleteI am more drawn to Louis because he seeks companionship, not just partnership. Lestat only wants to associate with Louis because he wants to have power over someone and he wants Louis’s plantation. Louis however, wants relationships with people. This is apparent when he befriends Babette. His friendship is not a selfish one; he will get nothing out of it in return. He simply wants to help her. Lestat’s friendships, if you can call them that, are purely motivated by his own self-interest. When Louis tries to leave him, he becomes afraid and so turns the girl, Claudia, into a vampire to convince him to stay. He really doesn’t want to care for Claudia, he just knows that Louis will hang around for the sake of child.
The new vampire look that Lestat and Louis bring is one of civility. Yes, they are vampires, but unlike Dracula, their physical appearance is seen as almost beautiful, not as terrifying. Like Dracula, they are wealthy and they dress nicely. This begins the view of the vampire as “high society.” It also creates a new image for the vampire because Louis is seen as a “good vampire” while Lestat is seen as a “bad vampire.” This makes the reader reevaluate his or her opinions of monsters to determine if there are such things as “good monsters.”
I believe that we can attribute the difference between Lestat and Louis to something very simple. While Lestat is shallow, Louis is deep. This is to say that Louis is contemplative, uncertain, and thoughtful. Lestat is simple in his desire for revenge upon life and detached state of being. He does not feel remorse because he refuses to spend the time contemplating life long enough to appreciate it. He does not love because he will not admit a possibility of being wrong in his beliefs (uncertainty) of what he is. Humans are defined by variability. We are constantly changing our minds and have rollercoaster emotions. This depth is due to our tendency to question ourselves and others. This depth is a result of our learning process through life. Lestat does not learn for he does not believe there is anything left for him to learn. Louis on the other hand takes in everything. He eagerly sits for hours and appreciates life, observes it “as if a shadow,” and questions his existence. These questions and contemplations all found a basic yet fundamental aspect of the character of Louis – uncertainty. This is what makes Louis more human-like than Lestat.
ReplyDeleteI am drawn to Louis’ struggle of self-understanding. The way that he approaches his understanding is through action, and I respect this. He does not wish to believe he is of the devil, so he strengthens this wish by not killing humans. He values what an ideal human is on a contemplative level, and then follows through with this by protecting Babett. Louis is conflicted with a fundamental desire for his existence to be something “good,” and this causes me to be sympathetic to him. I want to reach out and comfort him, reassure him and acknowledge his efforts. He seems in need of guidance, and this in of itself is very vulnerable and human—thus I want to help.
I agree with Kathrin when she says that Lestat and Louis helped create an image of the vampire as an elite being. They are rich and wear nice clothes and live in lavish accommodations. Their lifestyle is one that was foreign in concept previous to Dracula, and then strengthened by them. They also, Louis in particular, created the concept of the vampire with a conscience. Louis feels remorse and love. Even Lestat felt something too powerful to be able to kill his father. The very strong presence of emotions in Interview with the Vampire created the new image of a multi-dimensional monster.
The biggest reason why I think Louis is more "human-like" then Lestat is because Louis has a conscience and feels emotions. Louis wants nothing more than for the pain to go away and thinks that becoming a vampire will help him get rid of his remorse and emotions, yet after he becomes a vampire, these emotions seem to amplify in certain places. Louis is very reluctant to drink the blood of a human (evidence of his conscience) and prefers to drink animal blood instead. If he were able to survive without drinking blood, I have a very strong feeling that he would. Lestat, on the other hand, has no remorse and takes pleasure in killing. As Katherine pointed out, Lestat wants to put on a performance when he kills and delights in the gruesome, in stark contrast to Louis who is nearly physically disgusted by Lestat’s actions.
ReplyDeleteI’m drawn more to Louis because of his inner struggle with self-loathing and repressing his instincts. He is actively trying to retain his humanity, even though this humanity died when his body did. Louis does not want to think of himself as a vampire and abstains from killing humans as much as possible to hold on to the shreds of his former life. Louis genuinely cares about forming relationships while Lestat does whatever he feels like doing, especially if it hurts some other people. I got the feeling that Lestat is very bitter about the world and as such tries to fight against it and take away from it in any way possible. While Louis is considered the “hero” of the novel, Lestat is more of an “anti-hero”. He represents all that Louis tries to avoid becoming. The true villain of this book is really Louis’s struggle with his own urges, and the other vampires, such as Lestat and Claudia, are put in place to test him and his resolve.
I can definitely see that scholars assert that Louis and Lestat represent the “new” look for the vampire. They were the first pretty and attractive vampires, in stark contrast to Dracula’s hooked nose and hairy palms. Louis and Lestat are high-class citizens, much like Dracula, reinforcing their foreign-ness through their wealth. Like Ali said, Louis and even Lestat were also the first vampires to receive characterization beyond “evil creature”. They have actual feelings and even Lestat has felt hesitation and guilt at a few points. Louis and Lestat began the era of the misunderstood monster – one who’s closer to humanity than first appears.
Lestat: vampire, cold, ruthless, outsider, sarcastic, bitter, vengeful, unforgiving, hate-driven, seductive, dependent, controlling, lonely, doer, shallow, sunset, fiend, murderer, lustful, actor, harmful, hindrance, over-indulgent, stagnant, addict, pusher, abuser, torturer, deceiving, calculating, heartless, soulless…
ReplyDeleteLouis: human, confused, learner, life-inspired, wisdom-seeking, lover, feeler, sunrise, reflective, thinker, contemplative, submissive, articulate, uncertain, enabler, storyteller, helpful, grower, life-appreciating, dependable, honest, malleable, humane, sincere…
I disagree with Katherine and Zach when they say that Louis is more “human” because of the fact that he has a conscience and feels emotion. Like Ali, I think that Lestat is capable of the same level of emotion and consciousness that Louis has, it’s just that he chooses to ignore it. I think Louis seems more “human” simply because of the fact that, if he were human, he would be the type of human we’d want to know, as opposed to Lestat, who’d probably be a serial killer. No one really wants to hang out with serial killers.
I personally find Lestat more interesting because of the fact that he seems to really struggle with his “vampire nature” at times, even though he is typically seen as the “soulless” one in the relationship. It seems like rather than actually accepting his vampiric nature like he claims, he is actually using it as an excuse to cope with whatever occurred to him while he was human. Because of this, I’m far more intrigued in Lestat, but Louis’ internalization during various periods is pretty interesting as well.
Unlike Dracula, Louis and Lestat are characters with depth and history. They are attractive to readers, actual characters to be analyzed or related to or loved or hated or judged based solely on their actions rather than the reactions of the humans they feed on. Louis and Lestat are a whole new generation of vampire, and I think Zach’s sentence sums it up pretty well: “Louis and Lestat began the era of the misunderstood monster – one who’s closer to humanity than first appears.”
I think everybody is on a similar page here. So far from what I have read, I agree that Louis has more human-like qualities when compared to Lestat, but I strongly agree with Alexis when she says that Louis isn’t necessarily more “human” than Lestat. Alexis says that “Lestat is capable of the same level of emotion and consciousness that Louis has, it’s just that he chooses to ignore it.” There are so many examples of this too. On a more obvious level – the killings. Especially with the overseer when Lestat kills him and forces Louis to watch him die for hours. That must have been so painful for Louis, especially because he had no idea what he was getting himself into. Furthermore, there are a few instances where Louis talks about how Lestat never made his “changing” experience divine. Lestat acted as if killing were normal, or as if this odd change was normal as well. We can almost feel the frustration in Louis’s voice when he’s explaining this to the interviewer. For example, when Lestat, at the last second, tells Louis that he has to kill the slave, Louis panics slightly. When the slave notices, Lestat goes and kills him, then mutters “you sicken me,” when he gets back. Louis explains that Lestat never let him experience his first kill “with some measure of quiet and dignity. He rushed headlong through the encounter as if it were something to put behind us as quickly as possible”.
ReplyDeleteI’m rambling, but all I’m saying is that Lestat doesn’t show any kindness whatsoever, and never any remorse or sadness when he is the cause of someone else’s death, while Louis says “I had a most high regard for the life of others.” Louis appreciates life and feels terrible after causing it. When the overseer was killed, he had a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that his wife would never know why he died.
I don’t really feel like either of them, to be honest. The concept of death terrifies me and makes me feel sick. I killed a fly this morning (ninja) and wanted to cry. However, if I had to pick one, I’d say that I like Louis more because of his conscience. I am drawn to him more for the same reason Zach says – that Louis has a struggle with self-loathing and repressing his instincts, and that he’s trying to retain his humanity… I feel as if that is something we all try to do. We are more drawn to Louis because he is more “human” than Lestat and struggles with things that we struggle with as well. He loathes the fact that he is a vampire, which is why he drinks animal blood as much as possible.
These are definitely vampires with a “new look.” Now that we’re reading this, I feel as if Dracula had absolutely no depth as a character at all. Maybe because we never got into his head and understood him very well which differs immensely from Louis. We know about his past, about his transformation, about his struggles – Dracula was simply a mean, ruthless vampire who was old, tall, and had smelly breath. Louis and Lestat are “pretty,” just like Edward :). Anyway… I feel as if tehse vampries truly set the stage for the vampires that we see now; like the True Blood and Twilight characters.
Louis openly regrets, openly struggles. In my eyes this is not what makes him more human but what, as readers, draws us closer to him. As Zach Louis “is actively trying to retain his humanity.” It is very human to regret a choice, an action, or lifestyle. As readers we connect to Louis because he is fighting his inner “bad” desires, just like we are resisting the urge to call someone fat, to pull the fire alarm, or openly admit we watch Jersey Shore. The moments we connect closest with each other and humanity is when somebody shows their weaknesses, their vulnerability to us. A best friend is so because they have seen you cry, New Yorkers are strong and united because they have seen each other broken and afraid after 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI think Alexis in particular brings up some very good points, by having Louis be so doubtful and emotional it brings into question Lestat. He has obviously buried his feelings, allowed the vampire nature to conquer his human urges – or is he just using it as an excuse? The mind is a very powerful thing, has Lestat just trained himself to bury his human side? Just like a serial killer looks cool and collected on the witness stand, Lestat brings the burning question of what is he thinking? Compared to Lestat, Louis seems an infant – open with his emotions, not having enough constraint to keep his emotions to himself.
There is hardly any way to connect to Dracula, especially because he is seen only from the protagonist’s peace of view. It’s like trying to find sympathy for the Trojans if all you ever heard was the Greeks’ side. The point of view that Interview with an Interview is written in allows for the reader to know the inside thoughts of Louis, to find connections and find sympathy and apathy for the main character. To me Louis and Lestat are not a new type of vampire but a different point of view.
Alexis brings up a very interesting point when she says, “I think Louis seems more “human” simply because of the fact that, if he were human, he would be the type of human we’d want to know, as opposed to Lestat, who’d probably be a serial killer. No one really wants to hang out with serial killers.” Both the serial killer and the “guy we'd want to know” are human, aren't they? If this were so, then Louis and Lestat would both have equal amounts of humanity. However, while a serial killer may technically have the same amount of humanity as a seemingly normal human, they actually don't. Instead psychopathy is evidence of a deviation from humanity. Lestat is psychopathic in that he finds great joy in hunting an feeding to the point where even the vampire lover in me is slightly disgusted. On the other hand, Louis doesn't really have psychopathic qualities. Yes, he still feeds, but it isn't because he wants to, it is because he has too. The term “humanity” is where this all get screwed up. If you want to define humanity as encompassing the traits of all humans, than you are clearly going to view both Louis and Lestat as possessing human traits. But, if you want to define humanity as an average of human traits, then Lestat is most definitely not human. In fact, if you were to define humanity using the latter definition, then is is quite likely that the human psychopaths, which show traits similar to Lestat's, would probably be asterisks; they would probably be excluded from the population used to define humanity.
ReplyDeleteI find Louis to be the more interesting vampire, because unlike Lestat, he is changing. At least for the time being, it seems as if Lestat is completely static in terms of evolution. He started off as an evil character who shows very limited mercy, and he still seems to be just as evil and merciless. On the other hand, Louis is changing all the time, both physically and emotionally. We witness his agonizing physical transformation as he turns into the vampire, but the changing does not end there. He is constantly showing is his instability through his changing mentality. There is no way that he would have fed on a human in the beginning of the novel, but his feeding on Claudia is clear evidence that mental change occurred. He finally realized, at least partially, that he can't completely escape the nature of the vampire. It seems as if he is slowly becoming more vampiric, whereas Lestat is not becoming more human.
I agree with my classmates that these two vampires represent the new age of vampirism. First of all, their attractive qualities are obvious compared with Dracula's attractive qualities. In addition, we do get to see the human side of the vampire, albeit much more so through Louis. So far, the way that the two vampires are acting is very similar to the two main vampires from The Vampire Diaries. While Stephen tries very hard to abstain from human blood, his older brother Damon loves hunting for humans, as well as the act of viciously devouring their necks. Perhaps this new look for vampires is all about the contrast between the evil vampire and the good vampire. After all, if the vampire spectrum had completely shifted towards humanity, there would be no means of comparison. We need characters like Lestat and Damon in order to show the humanity of the more human-like vampires like Louis and Stephen.
To me, Louis seems more human than Lestat because he has a much wider range of emotions. Lestat only seems to feel negative emotions: pain, hatred, and greed. The only time he feels any semblance of pleasure is in the kill. He becomes sick and twisted in the eyes of the reader when he, as Katherine said, makes their deaths into a sort of performance. I also agree with Ali and alexis though when they say that Lestat does feel emotion, he just either chooses to ignore it or does not feel as deeply as Louis. Lestat is indeed a very shallow being and that lack of complexity as seen through Louis’ eyes makes him seem less human. Louis on the other hand hunts in solace, and does not relish the actual death of his victims but rather the connection he feels with them beforehand. He appreciates the world around him and most especially it seems, the life he must take in order to live, his identity as a vampire.
ReplyDeleteI am more drawn to Lestat it seems. While Louis is generally good, deep, and thoughtful, I find I have a hard time understanding Lestat and this draws me back to him. He is an enigma that as far as I have gone in the reading, I cannot yet understand. I want to know what made him into the “monster” he is today. What happened to him that filled him with so much disdain for the world when his father described him as a bright eager boy. In short because I cannot relate to him, I am drawn to him more in a search for understanding.
I think they might begin what scholars call the new vampire, because there is a fight between “good and evil” within their ranks, rather than just a fight between the righteous humans and the evil vampire. Just as Katherine said, there can now be a good vampire and a vampire rather than just one unrelenting evil force. Finally as seemingly everyone else mentioned, they are described as attractive rather than the repulsive vampire that we came to know in Dracula.
Anne Rice creates an interesting relationship between the vampires Louis and Lestat. This relationship helps magnify their key character traits and gives the reader an opportunity to connect with the vampires. Louis and Lestat’s relationship is definitely a love-hate relationship. Louis’ most attractive qualities include his gently and loving nature. Louis is physically attractive and he often speaks about “beautiful people”. Louis accompanies Lestat whenever he feels lonely. At the same time, Louis needs Lestat. Lestat serves as an authority figure for Louis. He provides the motivation and support Louis needs; without Lestat, Louis would not be able to accomplish anything. Sometimes, Lestat controls Louis’ actions and gives him guidance. Louis is inherently attracted to Lestat’s powerful, charismatic nature. Lestat definitely behaves like a successful older brother to Louis. Lestat makes sure that Louis is heading in the right direction, but he also mocks him for his indecisive nature. On the other hand, there are certain qualities of Lestat that bother Louis. For example, Louis thinks that Lestat is eternally evil and cruel. Lestat also withholds information from Louis, which irritates him.
ReplyDeleteJust from these characteristics, it is obvious that Louis is more human like than Lestat. He is gentle, understanding, compassionate, and physically attractive. Anne Rice creates a vampire that appears to have a conscience. As a result, I feel more drawn towards Louis than Lestat. Lestat is powerful, independent, cruel, and controlling. He fits the stereotype of the quintessential vampire. There are certain characteristics that Dracula and Lestat share. For example, both take advantage of others. Lestat takes advantage of Louis’ docile nature. Dracula takes advantage of Harker and his visit. In addition, Lestat is charismatic and smooth. Harker first thinks of the Count as a powerful, built man who is very welcoming and inviting. As a result, I feel like I can connect more with Louis.
The “new” look of vampires consists of docility and gentleness. The vampire has become less of an object of terror, and more of an object of desire. As I have been researching, the vampire has represented certain attractive qualities. However, these qualities have been masked by a life of sin and brutality, as personified by the actions of vampires such as Dracula. The new vampire appears to be more human-like, giving the audience an opportunity to connect with these creatures.
I agree with Zach when he says that Louis is more human like because he has a conscience. Naturally, we are attracted to the creatures that are most similar to us. I find Alexis’ point interesting; perhaps Lestat is just hiding his human-like qualities. That in turn, makes him fit the vampire “stereotype” better.
Louis is not only more relatable, but more engrossing as a character. His capability to relate to the humankind and implement raw, unguarded emotions, make me feel not only more connected to him as an individual, but also makes me want to aspire to be more like him. As Chelsea mentions, “Louis openly regrets, openly struggles.” This is a sign of strength in overcoming treacherous temptations and making the conscious decision to benefit the greater good of civilization. It is a humanistic quality to regret a past decision and dwell on the hardships. It is human nature to feed off negative energy, but the optimal example of how Louis strives to be better and concentrate on optimism in his lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteAs humans we find our most unequivocal connections with others is when they bare their soul, emit a raw portrayal of who they are, and radiate true, unconcealed emotion. Louis is capable of doing so because he is able to admit his weaknesses and hone in on them, while simultaneously tuning in on strengths. However, Lestat concentrates on his own selfish instincts, driven by built up thwarting and vengeance. Louis makes the choice not to kill because he makes the choice to identify with humanity. Lestat possesses the capability to refrain from harming people, but decides to refrain from any sort of conscience. I am overall drawn to Louis’ sense of self and moral construct. However, I want to reach out to Lestat and shown him how his bitter and cynical outlook on life is only constricting him from reaching his full potential, while all the while implementing unnecessary harm on humankind. I find a vicious cycle to be created when Lestat kills a human being. I tend to view all beings as good and pure, only drawn to make poor decisions because of past experiences. Lestat has the capability to be just as morally righteous. He is not evil, only in pursuit of bad choices because of the oscillating life he has dealt with.
Although I can relate more to Louis, my heart goes out to Lestat. I can relate and identify with Louis as a compassionate and ethically sound individual, yet I want to aid Lestat in becoming the best Lestat he can be. He is in need of major guidance and with a little TLC could be placed on the same analogous plane as Louis.
This book helps change the appeal of the vampire. The evolution of the vampire as a form of monstrosity was already underway through the characterization that it had received in the former movies and shows such as Dracula (1992) or Dark Shadows. However, Louis provides a better prototype for this “new vampire” because he is provided with the juxtaposition of Lestat. Louis is a much more magnetic personality because of his repressed humanity which is slowly worming its way into his every action. In essence he has a soul while his counterpart Lestat has turned off everything human about him abandoning the perceptual change of the vampire as a human-like creature. The juxtaposition of emotions and actions expressed in this book are clear identifiers of the contrast of Louis to the more traditional Lesatat.
ReplyDeleteFor these reasons, I would have to disagree that Lestat is a “new look” vampire. Beyond the fact that he is no longer the decaying abomination depicted by many of the classical vampire interpretations, he remains defined by his cruelty and inhumanity. Catherine's example of how Lestat turns the girl Claudia for his own selfish reasons helps define him as the classical form of monstrosity he embodies.
In contrast, Louis is remorseful for the crimes he commits because of his condition which appears almost more as a debilitating addiction than the proximity of the vampire psyche with primal instincts. Along with this, he is characterized more by his humanity than his monstrosity and this in my opinion is the “new look” vampire. We do not associate the vampiricism in Edward Cullen with his monstrous acts, but his human-like fight with the addictions brought on by his monstrosity. For this reason I believe that Louis served as a prototype for the next generation vampire while Lestat remains firmly grounded in tradition.
Lestat seems to be very self-satisfying in that he not only shows minimal concern for others, but he seeks out pleasure in hunting and killing people. I agree with the general consensus of the blog so far that Louis seams more human-like. I like the way that Rice finds things for Louis to complain about to Lestat, like Lestat not making Louis’ change a special experience or Lestat rushing through Louis’ first kill. Considering most human complaints have something to do with how much people are or aren’t able to accomplish in a lifetime (something vampires can’t really complain about) I think it’s creative that Rice picks “firsts” for Louis to complain about, considering even an immortal vampire only changes once and has one first kill. They make Louis seem more sentimental than Lestat, which contributes to the overall humanization of Louis over Lestat.
ReplyDeleteIt’s easier to identify with sentimentality than it is to identify with a character that is being purposefully painted as not human, but I think Lestat is probably more interesting than Louis. It’s easier to understand sentimentality, because it’s relatable, but there isn’t one answer to why Lestat is such a jerk. Obviously vampires aren’t inherently evil in Rice’s interpretation, which means it’s not just inborn. Subsequently, I’m drawn to Lestat because he’s more interesting than Louis in that his character raises more questions for the reader.
I agree with Katherine and Zach that the “new look” of the vampire is more refined than the previous incarnations of the vampire, like Dracula. I feel like both books paint the vampire as a member of a ruling class, the ruling class has just changed from unattractive royalty to good-looking aristocracy. I also think that seeing two vampires side by side allows the reader to see them as characters and not the singular Other.
Sorry this is late, my gmail got hacked and it wouldn't let me post (and I couldn't email you) until I got control of my account back.
Delete