Vampires, Interview with a Vampire, Anne Rice.

I’m not entirely sure where to start with this one. Vampires. An interesting subject that has lasted centuries, from folklore to literature. The vampire was part of horror and now has become more than just a scare. Interview with a Vampire is partly to thank for this burst in the new vampire. Anne Rice set the stage for what vampires are supposed to be. They were sexy, intelligent, rich, moody, and the biggest kicker, human. Rice gave vampires humanity. Something not really seen or popularized up to that point. That is what I love most about Interview with a Vampire is that you get to understand the monster. Now after reading Frankenstein I can see where Rice got the idea of a monster with humanity. So let’s discuss Lestat and Frankenstein’s monster.

Now Lestat plays and interesting role, he his Louis enticer, he wants Louis to never leave him and discard his humanity. But Lestat does still have his humanity he doesn’t want to be alone he wants a companion, he still has the need to experience love. Now Frankenstein’s monster is no different, he leads Frankenstein horrible paths and hates humanity. But the monster cannot stand being alone and also has a need for companionship. In this Rice took from Frankenstein and applied it to the vampire, so that as readers we feel conflicted about the characters. As we should, because they still have their humanity. At times I got annoyed with Louis cause he couldn’t really stand up for himself, he was so dependent on someone being the stronger one. But Lestat was annoying at times for his control over everything; he couldn’t simply love something just to love. But that’s due to his past. And that’s what’s interesting about these vampires, their pasts really do affect them, they shape their character. They aren’t just a rich dude who somehow became a vampire. They were human once, and how they decided their past to shape them is what made them interesting immortals.  That’s what Rice brought to the table, not just sensuality, but a story driven by what ties us to humanity.

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

For me Frankenstein was a new look on what the book means to me now than what it meant to my ten year old self.  When I was ten I didn’t understand all the references to authors and philosophers of old. So to me they were just added flare, at the time. I didn’t have the capacity to connect what they meant to the characters themselves.  But I did learn from the raw emotions of the monster and of Frankenstein. And I did cry when both died, because I had felt both died unaccomplished in their tasks and misunderstood.

Now, although I still feel bad for both characters in their deaths, I did not cry. I felt both had met their fitful end. I know that is cruel to say but both characters were not purely good. I didn’t see them as black and white like my younger self, I saw that both of their arguments were valid, but that Frankenstein had truly committed the wrong.  He brought something to life and abandoned it, gave it no name, nothing and thus the monster learned of the world without the protection of anything. This made the monsters actions extreme, there was no one to keep his emotions in check he had the attitude of a toddler, in a sense. Even though he knew what death was and what killing was and in a way knew it was wrong he used it to quell his tantrums against humanity. But he also enjoyed the purely simple things in life that he saw people ignore, so he was an emotionally split creature.  

Whereas Frankenstein was fearful of what he created and didn’t seek to do anything about it till the death of his brother, when he knew the monster did it. If he had either killed the monster or tended to it earlier, this may not have happened. That is the frustrating part of Frankenstein, is his selfishness.  He becomes an annoying character at times because he is so indulged with in himself that he can’t even muster to admit his wrong. Why? He was paranoid as being seen mad, and afraid no one would truly listen. He came up with his excuses, and used them so he wouldn’t have to step up to the plate. And because of this his dearest Elizabeth, because he thought the monster would want to kill his master. When the monster had already shown he would make his creator equally miserable as he.  And for this Frankenstein made the excuse he was tricked, he still was wary of admitting his selfishness, because he knew it would bring forth more guilt. Whereas the monster was ready to admit everything he had done and explained why, even though it was wrong.

            In the end I found the book to really absorb you into the story. And that the moral to me was really that not all monsters start out evil and it is often time humanity that creates the monster, and that it is better to treat that stranger kindly before judging thusly.