Vampire Lestat

Rating:
Summary: This time it is Lestat's story!
Review: After rereading Interview with the Vampire, I decided to give The Vampire Lestat a whirl again as well. I have always marveled at how different this novel is from the first installment of the Vampire Chronicles. This one has a more interesting edge, a gothic feel that is more contemporary than its predecessor. The one big similarity between the first two installments, however, is that they are both stories within another story. After almost a whole century's sleep, Lestat rises in the mid 1980s -- where the people have more freedom and there is such a thing as pop culture. Rock music and its dark messages intrigue him to the point of approaching a struggling band and offering to help with their music careers. After reading Louis's confessions in the fictionalized Interview with the Vampire (no one would have believed the story was real), Lestat decides it is his turn to tell his life story -- becoming a famous underground rock star in the process. There are various twists throughout the novel.

Lestat's story is fascinating as he goes from being an unloved son of a marquis and hunter in France (before the Revolution) to becoming a vampire in the hands of Magnus and seeking other immortals to relate. I remember wanting to know how Lestat became a vampire when I first read this series and his side of the story is as compelling as it was to me the first time around. His perspective is different from Louis's and far more complex as well. He is my favorite character in the series -- dark, compelling, sensual. And I love how Anne Rice switches time periods from pre-Revolutionary France to the MTV generation in late twentieth century America. The one thing I found strange was that Lestat wanted to feed off of criminals and not of innocents in this installment. He was far more sinister in the first novel, but I suppose that Louis exaggerated things -- or is Lestat the liar? I suggest the Vampire Chronicles to those who haven't read it yet. Interview with the Vampire is great, but the series takes off with The Vampire Lestat, though I suggest you read this series from the very beginning.

Rating:
Summary: "Interview" backstory
Review: Anne Rice reveals the early life of Lestat, the vampire who seemed comfortable with his evil nature in "Interview with the Vampire." Newly arisen in the 1980s after half a century spent underground and contemplating a coming-out that may expose all vampires to the view of modern man, Lestat pens his own account of his early life: his abusive family, his creation as a vampire, his search for attachment and love, his investigation of the history and origins of all vampires. This fuller, more three-dimensional portrayal of Lestat seems revisionist and at odds with many aspects of his character as revealed in the previous novel. For example, I don't recall the Lestat of "Interview" being so preoccupied with goodness. Nevertheless, it is fascinating story, even though it ends on an inconclusive, unsatisfying note. Akasha and Enkil are truly creepy characters and I look forward to reading more about them in the next volume.

Rating:
Summary: Best vampire novel of all time
Review:
The story The Vampire Lestat is not a contradiction but an explaination of Interview with The Vampire.
It wasn't changed at all really. Try reading the Interview with the vampire Epilogue in The Vampire Lestat. It all still is the same story, you're just seeing it from a different prespective. As for the part Lestat calls a 'lie.' Which is really just the final meeting with Louis at the end, I think Lestat's lying.
He gave away that he's the one lying. Louis can't read thoughts. He'd have never known where Lestat was or what condition he as in if he hadn't gone to him, himself. Who was more likely to lie, Lestat or Louis?
The fact that it switched angles so drastically and one said the other lied about certain things made it more realistic, made them more like real people.
How would two real people react to that sort of story? One's been painted as a bad guy and the other a martyr. They go on 20/20 and what will you get? Contradictions. But it's still the same story. All that changed was the perspective. Also it filled in the gaps on the things Louis did not know- like how Armand knew Lestat, where the theatre des vampires came from, ect...

The story wasn't changed, you just learned why Lestat picked the victims the way he did, who his victims really were- which Louis could never have known. The only contradiction is a realistic portrayal of a character being too humiliated to having begged the other to stay with him. If they told the same exact story it wouldn't have seemed real at all. If you have two people view a situation perspective will change what the situation was. Each set of eyes has a different concept of reality, that's the nature of being an individual. It would have been wholely unrealistic for them to share the same exact story. And it was still the same story, just different angles.

Now The Vampire Armand, THAT was a contradiction, not only did Armnad contradict what Marius said about his making but he contradicted his own story that he told Lestat in The Vampire Lestat novel.

I see several messages or ideas reflected in The Vampire Lestat. It's a very human story with a lot of angst without too much in the way of heavy emotion. There's the common and very obvious idea that our very up-bringing effects us and our actions and feelings later on in life.
It also speaks of questioning and the very human search for answers (which is utterly denied in Blood Canticle). As I said, it's a very human story. It also reveals that everyone has a story. It shows you that the worst villains you see or judge at first glance from a bias perspective could have a side of things or a story to tell- a side of things or a point of view than the one you already have been given.
It makes for a very forgiving story to tell you that everyone has their own side of things, nothing is quite how it appears on the surface. The story's under-tone contradicts Lestat's very superficial obsession with the aesthetic to the way it tells that there is more to things than the darkness of the surface, or the charm on the surface. Things beautiful can be made ugly and things horrible can be made forgivable once you look through someone else's eyes, as you do at least three times in this book.

There's also the idea that perhaps the story tells you the possible rewards or consequences of acting on impulse. Almost all of Lestat's adventures and activities are the result of impulse. And sometimes he only survives by dumb luck. Sometimes it has it's rewards- such as his finding Marius, and sometimes it has it's tragedy- such as his making Claudia. Impulsiveness, to seize the day and take chances can have very positive or negative results but either way it gives you an adventure and this book tells you this very clearly.
The story also goes into the intelligent idea that seeking answers does not mean the confirmation of any preconceived notion or the security of an illusion. It tells you that if you really want to know answers sometimes you have to forsake your old conceptions of reality or religion and perhaps the answer may be utterly different from what you expect or there could be none at all. But the important thing is to be open minded and prepared for anything and never seek out what you do not know or understand unless you're prepared to find something utterly different from the familiar.

The mortal part of story, the part where Lestat's human, also tells how you should never give up, always persevere. It shows that if you struggle hard enough you can overcome adversity or an abusive family and still live your life as you wish. You should never give up on your dreams as Lestat dreamt of Paris with Nicki. And that happiness is not always wealth or the conventional idea of a proper lifestyle. That your happiness is doing whatever you view to be good and following through with your dreams and never give up on them.

He wanted adventure and freedom and he he got it- ultimately.

Lestat also seems to be forever, not just be on a quest for answers- which is obvious, but also on a quest for a parental figure that will not abandon him. We already know his father and brothers abused and oppressed him and his mother was not all that affectionate. Magnus abandoned him. And so he made his mother a vampire to save her life, and she abandons him too. Armand was older but certainly not wiser so he failed him from the start and Lestat could never love him. Lestat seeks Marius. And Marius eventually tells him he must leave the island, Lestat's abandoned again. Lestat tries to rouse the mother of all vampires but she's hopelessly deranged. As a result Lestat's forced to struggle through eternity being both student and teacher, parent and child, an orphan seeking a family but not a master or slave as Armand seeks.

The book also reveals the progress of humanity's conception of goodness and it's increase of value in general from a very optimistic angle (unlike Blood Canticle). It implies to me that goodness has evolved from a code of conduct that has to be enforced with the fear of punishment and the promise of reward but into something strange, secular, yet innocent... A generalistic morality and a concept of goodness that isn't so much individualistic as it had been. A sort of social compassion that wishes not only to prevent suffering but to aide in it's elimination. By this I mean goodness in the world has evolved into a new form of goodness for the sake of goodness, a goodness that can exist without fear of punishment or want of reward, a true innocence. A goodness just for the sake of good and not out of fear punishment or want of reward- goodness returning to it's natural state, the innate moraltiy from the backbone of all concepts of good and evil- creation and destruction. Real goodness, without having to be enforced by threats or promises. A very possitive view of how society works in this modern age, viewing it as somethign new, good, and decent- a true age of innocence as Lestat puts it in song.

There are a few symbols in the book such as The Devil's Road, which is the journey of a vampire for answers and a reason to survive but it also could mean an unavoidable disaster, a certainty that it'll end with Hell.

The Savage Garden has a layer of meaning because you imagine it as a savage jungle of chaos where only the aesthetic principles matter but you see it's not called a savage waste land or savage jungle. There's an order to it or it would not be a garden. A garden implies the possibility of order- a possible gardener or gardeners. And it can look beautiful, or savage, or harsh but there may be a balance to things- an order.

There's also the old Queen under Les Innocents. She advises Lestat and starts him on his journey and in that book the journey ends with another queen. There are little premonitions of Lestat's own future. Such as the threat that Nicki's hands might be broken by his father and then they were taken away by Armand. Perhaps it's to question if or not there is a destiny- a predetermined fate. The question is raised in the book. But I doubt Lestat could believe in that for very long. His free will is far too important to him. He'd rebel against it, he'd refuse to accept it. He'd deny it even if there is a destiny because he won't let anyone or anything be his master.

Lestat always secretly ached for goodness, not evil justified for the sake of good. He said if a war broke out between vampires and mortals he would have fought for the sake of humanity. It was the innocence he valued, not justifying evil. He'll tell you this in the first chapter of The vampire Lestat. That evil has no place or value, that good does not need evil. He does not justify it. He views himself as evil because he's a vampire and because he takes lives- for Armand evil is something, somehow, even more sinister than that.
Armand is painfully simple. And I don't mean the child-like innocent simplicity of Khayman. There's a difference in being childlike and innocent and the simplicity in the concept of pure evil and depthlessness, and that's Armand.
Armand believed that in serving The Devil with his Satanic coven he was serving God because God created The Devil. Evil for the sake of goodness is just plain stupidity. And for the record this is not what Lestat did. Some people think it is but it's not. He wasn't evil for the sake of serving the devil. He was the image of evil in order to warn humanity about the evil that secretly walked among them. He wanted to be good. And when the war started against good and evil he tells us he'd have fought on the side of goodness. The only problem is he didn't account for how this would hurt those he loves. That's a huge difference from being a 'minion of Satan.'
It's not the same paradox at all. Armand wanted to serve Satan because God created Satan, and so because God created Satan he thought he was serving God through Satan.
I don't know how anyone could view it as the same thing. Anne Rice goes into an elaborate explanation for Lestat's agenda in The vampire Lestat. He wasn't evil because Good needs Evil. Lestat never believed that. Armand did. Lestat doesn't think evil should exist.

Lestat tried to be good as a rock star. He even tried to pose as a Good man when he first became a vampire. He wanted to protect those he loved (including Nicki) from the evil he was. This infuriated Nicki later on, that even as a vampire, Lestat always tried to be a good man.
Also, Lestat values goodness and inncoence, that's why he won't kill innocence. He doesn't kill evil doers in some misguided notion that he's doing good. Lestat feeds on evil doers because they're like himself. Lestat views the taking of any life as evil, that's why he sees himself as evil. But he will not kill good. It's not that he kills evil doers and pretends this is good, it's that he won't kill those he views as good because he values it, he thinks the world needs them. And he respects them. He doesn't think he's doing right, that he can save his soul by only feeding on evil. He just preseves that which has value to him, that's all. He just won't kill what he likes and respects and he likes and respects goodness.
Also, Armand threw Lestat off the tower roof because Lestat had ruined his coven under Les Innocents. Well, Lestat had SAVED his life in ruining that coven. Paris was dismantling Les Innocents, shoving the bodies into the catacombs and paving over the land. What did Armand think the Parisians would do to their coven? They were on the brink of being un-Earthed in the day time, and potentially destroyed by people who didn't even know what the Hell they were uncovering. If Lestat hadn't come along Armand would have died very, very easily. But he takes revenge for Lestat doing this?

Also there's the red velvet cloak that Lestat had, red velvet seems to be the fabric interpretation of blood. He wore a cloak of wolf fur and blood-velvet! Now that seems like an explicit metaphor if you ask me! The majority of serious events in Lestat's life happened in winter or late Autumn. Perhaps the darkest and coldest moments for us are the most meaningful?

And of course there are the little rock song titles thrown in like Hell's bells, ect...

The story was also about love. Lestat's love for Nicki, and Lestat's love for Gabrielle, and Lestat's love for Marius, and Lestat's love for his band and his audience, and of Akasha. And of course... Louis.

I feel that Lestat loves Louis. That seemed obvious to me.

In Interview with the Vampire the movie they made it very clear what Lestat felt for Louis. At risk to his own life Lestat returned to the plantation to pull him from the fire. He made Claudia as a foolish experiment, out of loneliness and as insurance to keep Louis- whim he was desperate to keep. And when Claudia had poisoned him, it was Louis that Lestat called out to for help, believing he would help him. And when Louis saw him at the end at the final confrontation Lestat asks him 'Have you come home to me then?' And he gives him this most desperate and pleading expression.

I think Lestat always loved Louis. That's why he could forgive him for the story he told in Interview with The vampire and why he could forgive him again when he refused to help him and turned his back on him in Tale of the Body thief.
Lestat always loved Louis. Now here's how I analyze it. The way Lestat grew up, his father and brothers abused him. And the only family member that showed him any affection at all was his own mildly autistic mother who shied away from human contact and the verbal expression of love as well as physical intimacy. Lestat was never taught how to express love for what it really was. He could express passion, want, need, desire, lust, and seduction but actual love- he did not know how to properly express. And so for the one he loved the most it would be hardest for him to express it. But they say actions speak louder than words.
He also loved Louis because Louis didn't come easy for him the way most other things did. The way it's portrayed in the movie is this...
Lestat: 'No one could refuse me.'
Louis: 'I tried.'
Lestat: 'Yes, you tried. And the more you tried. The more I wanted you.'

Lestat might have mildly confused love with possession, but not on as great a scale as Armand could. I think this was actually a direct result of exposure to Armand and Armand's concept of Love. He went from a cold and barely readable love from only his mother, the passion of Nicki- which was misleading to his mortal mind, and then to Armand's idea of love which was a confused idea of domination and possession, of being dominated or of dominating, of being possessed, or possessing. Lestat was experimenting with his own under-developed sense of what it meant to love and be loved. He loved Louis and naturally thought that in spite of everything Louis must feel the same way deep down in side, which is why he expected more from Louis when Claudia attacked him. But he was always ready to forgive Louis. Now that is unconditional love right there!

Lestat forgave him for setting fire to him, he forgave him for the story he told, he forgave him for refusing to help him when he most needed it in the mortal body in Tale of the body thief. He risked his own beauty to save Louis, after he slipped into that coma-like sleep, when he was supposedly enslaved by angels or angel-like beings (Blackwood Farm) he only came back because Louis attempted suicide. These beings tortured him, enslaved him, and threatened to take away his eye- to mar his phyiscal beauty, which seemed to be most precious to him. And he risked that because Louis meant to kill himself. (Merrick). He's always been protective of Louis. And in spite of Louis's mortalness he's always seen him as the stronger of the two because Louis could pass through time without being harmed by it. Louis had, what Lestat viewed as, a resilient soul. And he loved him for it. To him Louis was the essence of all beauty and Louis's denial of him made him all the more desirable to him. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
When Lestat became a rock star he wanted to do it as quickly as possible to get the attention off of Louis, who had broken the rules by telling the story, and shine it on to himself. You know. Give them a bigger fish to fry. He wanted to protect Louis. And I thought their reunion in The Vampire Lestat (especially the graphic novel version) was endearing.
Not to mention that passionate kiss they shared before the rock concert.
Now it seems like they're on and off lovers. Returning to one and other whenever loneliness takes hold, and parting again like the tide, only to return again. Constants for each other in an inconstant world of perpetual change, on through eternity- they have each other to love, to hold, and to cherish.

I love this book with all my heart and let me just say I am really looking forward to the new Broadway musical by Sir Elton John.



Rating:
Summary: lestat rules
Review: Stylish, sexy, mysterious Lestat finally gets his say in this second "Vampire Chronicles" novel. Impossible that Rice could improve on her classic "Interview With The Vampire" but she most definitely does so here. The history of the vampires is partially revealed and Lestat's odyssey into immortality is a must-read for horror and vamp fans alike.