ON REVISIONIST HISTORY - RESPONSE


First off, I feel that in The Vampire Lestat,
in order to make out that Lestat wasn’t as bad as he
was in Interview With the Vampire, Anne Rice
had to contradict certain issues with his character
and the events detailed in the earlier book. I think
that simply saying “Louis lied” was far too simplistic
and also not really in keeping with Louis’s
character—it makes him out as a liar and an
untrustworthy narrator, when he originally was not
written like that. 

However, I also feel that you can take Lestat’s plea
to “Read between the lines” when it comes to Louis’
text to find that perhaps Louis does not despise
Lestat as he so appears to. First, I think we must
take into account that Louis, in Lestat’s words, had
“…unsual beauty and unfailing charm [that] were
something of a secret to him. When you read his
statement that I made him a vampire because I coveted
his plantation house, you can write that off to
modesty more easily than stupidity, I suppose.” 

Louis’ character is beset by issues of guilt and an
inherent conviction that he is inferior to those
around him. He feels himself ‘egotistical’ and notes
the limits of his own personality that he could not
believe in the inherent goodness of his brother, Paul.
Mortals to him are people stronger than he is, better,
because they have not fallen. Lestat’s character is
voracious and proactive—the thing s Louis wishes he
could be. He states in Tale of the Body Thief
that he wishes he could be like Lestat; he despises
his own passivity. 

A character convinced of his own mundane nature and
full of self-loathing, will of course, be deaf to the
pleas of those around him—namely, Lestat and
Claudia—that he is something of worth. And it also
seems to the reader that in a case of blatant blame
transferral, a great deal of his guilt and his anger
are foisted onto Lestat. We must also take into
account that though Lestat professes that, “…I had
always loved him, hadn’t I…” that Lestat cannot
actually bring himself to voice these thoughts to
Louis, even on the eve of the night when he knows that
they may both perish—the rock concert: …I wanted to
tell him that I loved him…but I couldn’t. The feeling
was too strong,”   Though Lestat happily admits to
being the proverbial head over heels for Louis, he
doesn’t actually tell him this, and there is no
escaping the fact  that he does sometimes appear
brutal in trying to keep Louis at his side. Hower=ver
words and actions could simply be misinterpreted by
Louis. 

Can the reader interpret Lestat’s words in
Interview to align them with the thoughtful
creature of The Vampire Lestat? To a point, yes. 

From the moment Lestat ‘takes’ Louis in
Interview—that is, makes him a vampire—it is
hard fully reconcile his character as brutish and
stupid. His actions and words to Louis are passionate
and thoughtful. “Listen,” he urges Louis when drinking
from him, “keep your eyes wide!” That seems to
indicate not only that he is trying to keep Louis from
falling into death, but that he is aware of the
inherent sensuality of this condition; he is eager to
impress the magnitude of vampirism, the blood
exchange, the night, onto Louis. 

In The Vampire Lestat the brat underlines his
conviction that Louis is ‘staggeringly dependent’ and
that he is someone whom he feels protective over—the
best example being when the Porsche goes up in flames
and Lestat is beside himself with panic for Louis. Are
there examples of this in Interview? Yes. First
off ,we have the incident with Babette Freniere. When
she throws the flaming lantern, Lestat is hastily
trying to beat the flames off his fledgling in an
instant, before being consumed with rage and launching
himself at Babette. 

Too, there is the instant in the Theatre des Vampires,
when Lestat shows up as a ‘witness’ at Louis and
Claudia’s trial. This is a vampire betrayed by both
his fledglings, and yet when he is called on to
condemn them both, he refuses to indict Louis, arguing
with Santino that, “You promised me…you said I could
take him back with me to New Orleans.”  Lestat knows
that he cannot save them both; he knows further still
that Louis, under vampire law, should be killed, and
yet he fights to save his life. The actions of one who
cares little for his fledgling? 

We must also take into account that Interview With
the Vampire is completely through the eyes of
Louis. This character will, of course, report things
as he sees them; perhaps he may embellish or omit
certain things. His version of an event may differ
entirely to the viewpoint of Lestat, and of course,
perhaps he felt he had good reason to believe Lestat’s
harsh words and actions. The fact is, that no matter
how Fatally in Love Lestat was with him, no matter how
much he told himself that he loved Louis, he never
voiced these thoughts out loud. The feeling may well
have been ‘too strong’, but lack of communication
built a barrier between them. 

I think perhaps the scene that compliments Lestat’s
urging to ‘read between the lines’ is when he kills
the two prostitutes at the hotel, and tries to teach
Louis of his ‘true nature’. Lestat talks passionately
and intelligently when he tries to urge the miserable
and perhaps even dying Louis into taking up his life
once more. The conversation shows two characters at
odds; Lestat trying to get through to him, Louis too
tangled up in his own misery to pay much attention,
yet he grasps Lestat’s hand for comfort. Lestat does
not pull away; he tries to comfort him… of course, he
then leads him to Claudia, but it still acts as a good
scene which is open to interpretation by the reader. 

Of course, all this may have been merely subtext in
Interview, but even without its sequels, the
reader must find Louis’ bitter words against Lestat
slightly contradictory to Lestat’s actions. Yes, he
makes Claudia to ensnare Louis all the more—but if it
wasn’t to retain his hold on a plantation that was
smouldering ashes by that time, then why? The
Vampire Lestat adds resonance to this subtext; we
learn that Lestat was in love with Louis, that he
created Claudia to bind his dependent fledgling closer
to him. 

Revisionist history? Most likely. A satisfying way of
looking at Interview again, a viewpoint that
tempers the desolation of the first novel to detail a
love that goes wrong? Most definitely.