Louis and Lestat vs.Dracula

FireAndIce · 06-06-2007, 03:08 PM

I would like to ask you to discuss those three Sirs....I am writing a thesis on narratives of darkness (Interview....and Dracula)...(I am sorry, I often mismatch the authors Anne Radcliff and Anne Rice...I think is a freudian slip, I wanted radcliff and got rice)...

I have realized after short time here that there are so to say two "gothics". definitely historical romantic of my understanding...starting with the A. Radcliff(or even earlier) and all those cheap(?) terror/horror stories with set imagery plus romantic movement and quality authors(to be very imprecise...)...now I see the diference with your conception dating to gothic music roots...these two overlap in so many things...but I see that Rice is closer to the second conception...I am not sure about it...I am familliar with the 19. century english gothic novel but it doesn´t help me...I miss the social and historical context of Rice....I don´t expect any science, but your feelings and inspiration, stream of consciosness...thank you

Godslayer Jillian · 06-06-2007, 03:18 PM

I'm confused, what's the point of this thread?

Ratchet · 06-06-2007, 10:14 PM

Great topic, but I'm kind of confused as to what you are asking. Maybe we could have a discussion question to start off with?

I understand your point about "two gothics" but I'm kind of torn between saying that I believe that the Gothic style of literature is very cut and dry and saying that I think that there are many many different "Gothics".

For example, Rice's work is different in style and structure than Stoker's work or Poe's work or Lovecraft's work, but they are all considered Gothic. They are also years and years of cultural response to Gothic work in between all of them.

If you are comparing and contrasting Louis, Lestat, and Dracula I would think about this...Stoker's Dracula was one of the first of its kind. The Vampire myth/legend/story/etc. had existed but not so much in popular media until this novel. The response to Dracula can be seen in so many ways...just think of what it inspired...more novels, movies, cartoon characters (think "count chocula"!) So, you have to take into account that Interview with The Vampire was written after all of that cultural response to vampires and the vampire story. I've always thought of Interview With the Vampire as a very late continuation of Dracula. In the years that passed, Anne Rice developed a way to write about Vampires with very human qualities. Her Vampires are very complex characters and it is almost easy to forget that they are vampires while reading the novel.

One theory I've heard about Rice's inspiration for the novel is that she lost a young daughter and Interview was written to explain some of the questions the author had about life, death, and the reasons for both....this is, supposedly, how we get Claudia, the immortal little girl.

Hope this doesn't sound too much like me rambling on....

FireAndIce · 06-08-2007, 01:58 AM

no, it is just exactly I wanted to hear....I don´t like to confuse you...

Rice´s literature is not that common or wellknown in our enviroment...I would like to hear your points of view...
What´s the essence of Dracula? and What´s the essence of L/L?

I think that there is something very mesmerizing but in different way in all of them...but this is maybe too general to write about...

Kraven de Sade · 06-08-2007, 02:34 AM

The essences? I'm guessing you mean the characters themselves, rather than the stories built up around them?

It's been a while since I've read Dracula, but what I got off of it was that Dracula was desperate for change, but, despite his available resources, he was incapable of change, no matter how hard he tried. Basically, he was Dracula, as depicted, no more, no less, and that is all he would ever be.

Lestat could change with ease, though at first it was forced upon him. But after that, change was a simple matter. More importantly, he could force those around him to change to meet his needs and growing ambitions (when necessary). He became the perfect immortal... unbound to the world, and therefore capable of adapting to new situations. He embodied the very evolution of humanity, and used that to his advantage.

Louis, on the other hand, while capable of adaptation, found adaptation superfluous. He always existed in the shadows, both literally and figuratively. One living in such a state as he could easily watch the ebbs and flows of human society while remaining apart from it while simultaneously avoiding its notice.

deafasadoornail · 06-08-2007, 07:04 AM

I think you are right Kraven, in the sense that Dracula is the first vampire (or one of the earliest versions) and Louis and Lestat are more modern versions.

Dracula is actually very limited. He doesn't grow as a character, he is a static force throughout the novel. And he has many limitations on him physically, like having to sleep in a coffin with a certain kind of dirt and not being able to move about in daylight at all, etc. He represents the older, Victorian concept of good and evil where evil is consistent and people grow or change in response to it. The humans in Dracula's story change in response to him. We can think of this one-sided evil as a Christian concept because in the Christian world, the devil can not create or change. The Romantic period in literature represented by books like Dracula, Frankenstein, Poe's stuff, etc. is really the first attempt to start to humanize evil and recognize dualism in characters -- both good and bad.

You can't write a book like Dracula now because readers won't accept a character that facile. We demand more depth in our villains. If you're going to scare us, give us someone like Lestat who can be charming yet is a predator. Both Lestat and Louis have combinations of good and bad qualities that make them believable as characters ("more human" if you want). This goes along with our current understanding of humanity's dual natures. The Gothic literature now demands that we recognize the gothic within people.

If you're going to continue this avenue of exploration in terms of vampirism, I might suggest that you read Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series. Anita starts out as a vampire hunter, a staunch Catholic, and someone who is very sure who the bad guys are. As the series goes on, she becomes more conflicted and more capable of horrifying deeds and we realize that there are bad guys and good guys even among the "monsters." Anita's boyfriend, Jean Claude, is a vampire who obviously has emotions and cares deeply for her but can be inhumanly cruel as well. This is the modern Gothic thinking, that the vampires are us.

I hope that made sense....

FireAndIce · 06-18-2007, 03:15 PM

Thank you, made a good sense....I feel that the mixing of the good/bad guys is crucial....in Anne Radcliff or Lewis there is a strong borderline, but I see the inner change in Dracula...he shows, that "just let the women taste the lust and they become monsters" and behind them is a man that created them...Louis and Lestat are more relaxed...I don´t feel the "big evil" there...it is more about our own recognized and undefeated demons - loneliness, misunderstanding, hopelessness, and sheer sadness. Eternal life is not a gift but damnation, symbol of endless despair...makes me think about ancient Greece ideals...Dracula is never sad...he is maybe angry, but it just like a frustration of life necessities...Louis is special, because he is not trying to give sense to his life, but to eternity...Dracula started to appear to me as a irrational(eventhough logical) and weak person...his soul is consumed or suppressed under the want of pure physical pleasure in connection to basic life-keeping fluid, it is very like animal...very psychoanalytic...
originally I wanted to work on explicit and implicit expressions of horror and terror in both works...I was really surprized when I read an analysis which suggested the explanation of the social context in 19.cent. and the position of women. then I realized that I was blinded by popular interpretations from films and all the halloween cliche...*blush*....

Ratchet · 06-18-2007, 09:28 PM

You're right, Louis does not radiate "the big evil". I guess I can see this in two ways. He's not pure evil in the novel because he sympathizes with his victims. He does not see them as food, objects, etc., he sees them as people. Lestat blames this on the idea that Louis still views the world as a human and not as a vampire. Another way Louis becomes "less evil" is by being a character that we as readers can relate to him. We share common problems with him like the feelings of loneliness and the confusion about the meaning of life. We don't think of these qualities as "evil" so, therefore, we aren't as apt to say that Louis is an evil character. However, Lestat does seem like a character who is more like Dracula in the sense that he does seem purely evil. I'm recalling the scene when he kills the two women toward the beginning of his and Lestat's cohabitation. While Louis is reluctant to kill, Lestat eagerly kills because he claims it is in his nature as a vampire. Even though this kind of thinking makes Lestat seem evil, we see that he does not suffer from the same problems of guilt that Louis does. So, which one has the better deal?