Book Review: INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE by Anne Rice

The book that launched a thousand fanfics

Book review: INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1976) by Anne Rice

The earliest vampires, appearing in folklore, were closer to ghouls than to Count Dracula — feeding on the living to continue a liminal existence. You have to imagine that in pre-scientific times, the laws of nature were seen as breakable — through magic, sorcery, or plain cheating. Vampires, zombies and ghouls were simply corpses who broke the rules. (Staking was not meant to kill the vampires but to pin them down, a “vampire time-out.”)

With writing and printing, these scattered folk legends began to grow more codified. When the vampire genre was established in the 19th century, its “rulebook” took form. Sheridan Le Fanu’s CARMILLA and Bram Stoker’s DRACULA firmly established the trope of the vampire as a sexually threatening, stalking menace. The ever-popular vampire movies emphasized more and more that Dracula lusted after beautiful women (and sometimes also men).

And then, in the permissive 1970s, came Anne Rice’s INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE and changed the rules of the game. The act of vampirism itself — biting and drinking blood — was now described in the most sensual terms, from the perspective of the vampire, as a kind of copulation without genitals.

For reasons I’m the wrong person to explain, this kind of vampire story became immensely popular and spawned many imitators — as well as games, movies and TV shows. (There’s also a parody, the series WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS, which is very funny.)

I had previously read DRACULA, so it was interesting to compare it to INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. Anne Rice made several significant changes to the “lore”:

- Vampires were no longer (for the most part) undead, but were given traits of the living: heartbeat, breathing, sweating, etc. What remained of their “classic” traits was that they drank blood, slept during the day, and sunlight would destroy them.

- Vampiric blood drinking, as described from the point-of-view of the monster, became overtly a sexual(ish) act.

- The religious aspect more or less disappeared; Rice’s vampires were indifferent to crosses and Christianity.

- Vampires were super-strong and could move incredibly fast; they changed from supernatural to superhuman.

And, of course, the biggest change Anne Rice made was to turn the vampire into the antihero protagonist. She managed to make readers sympathize with the monster. These fictional creatures — basically immortal serial killers who see humans as cattle — murdered men, women and children, and legions of fans sided with the vampires instead of their victims.

Louis, the narrator of the “interview” in the book, depicts himself as a different, more sensitive kind of vampire who cannot accept being a mass murderer. But consider: Can we trust Louis? We only get to hear his side of the story. It’s perfectly possible that he lies and distorts in order to make himself seem the “suffering victim.”

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is exquisitely well written. Rice is sharp and precise in her descriptions, builds atmosphere with lots of detail, and her prose is never dull. She especially excels in emotional ambiguity — characters having different conflicting feelings at the same time, which makes them come alive.

Even so, I’m fully aware that the main characters of the story are loathsome predatory parasites. If vampires existed in reality, they would have to be destroyed without mercy. But the author does not lecture us what to think of her characters; she tells a story from the point of view of a conflicted (?) monster.

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is also a “meta” story of evil regarding itself, the vampire searching for a meaning to its existence. It’s a gory tale, occasionally quite disturbing (especially the child vampire; ugh!) — but definitely not boring. It’s not my kind of novel, but I sort of understand its appeal.

So who is the audience for this book? Who is it written for? (A tongue-in-cheek answer might be that the main target audience is women who find in these vampires a fantasy about unattainable males… but again, I’m the wrong person to explain.)

SPOILER ALERT:

The novel’s ending (which is blunt, and darkly funny) seems to answer that question by metaphorically pointing out its own audience. The slavering fanboy who interviewed Louis completely misses the point of the vampire’s confession, gets angry that the story ends in disillusion, and demands that it continues the way he wants it.

(In other words: The ending predicts the fanfiction to come. Joke’s on you, fans.)

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is not my cup of tea, but is recommended for adults who enjoy well-written, macabre horror fiction. (Word of caution: the protagonist really is a monster.)

Further reading:
- Interview with Anne Rice (Rolling Stone Magazine, 1995)
- The vampire “mockumentary” WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS (very funny)

- My review of Bram Stoker’s DRACULA

- My own vampire novel BLOOD & SWINE: A COMEDY OF TERRORS (English edition)