One of the many revisited tropes in media is immortality. The idea of seeing and personally experiencing all the world’s disasters in history captivates us, I guess. Anne Rice’s Interview With The Vampire establishes immortality as an integral plot point (the only reason the interview can take place). The narrative, therefore, advances some heavy opinions about the topic, as well as those who seek it.
Rice’s novel leaves no doubt about it: being and becoming an immortal is gross. A freak bites your neck, you drink said freak’s blood, and your body slowly shuts down. What remains is your consciousness and blood flow, which you have to supplement in order to survive (which kind of takes away the meaning of immortality). The blood-sucking itself is graphically sensual in Interview With The Vampire, revealing their killing as the last real joy that vampires have - there’s a pun on ‘flirting with death’ somewhere in there. Oh, and you can never see the sun again, so get some spray tan. There are “boons”, though: heightened senses, increased agility and grace, being super mega rich for some reason. The most relevant of these ‘pros’ is the lack of aging (unless you’re Claudia) and the inability to contract diseases (because your body’s already dead). Yeah, most of these are double-edged swords.
It’s not subtext that Rice’s opinion on immortality (and vampirism) is a bad one; it’s text. From the beginning of the novel, Lestat looks at the world on an unfounded high horse. He’s arrogant and condescending toward Louis even after he’s been turned. Lestat is the first vampire we meet and the first representation of immortality the audience has - and he’s not a good one. The old-world vampires are animalistic and mindless, and to a certain extent, the new world vampires are as well. They’re focused on self-preservation and food, disillusioned with everything other than playing with their prey. Vampires could easily be considered parasites considering the parameters.
Despite all this, the boy conducting the interview asks Louis to become a vampire at the end of the novel, seemingly oblivious to anything he just heard. What an idiot, right? If any human were faced with that option, though, would they turn it down? Living the longest life possible, while retaining the beauty of youth, is the goal of humanity. We push back death with cures and technology; we expand life expectancies; we develop charities; all to keep the inevitable at bay. The concept of immortality is a way for humans to shy away from the certainty of an end date. Even if the story is rife with death, the fact that there’s a being who can never die gives a glimmer of hope. No matter how many times authors (including Anne Rice) explain that immortality is lonely, disillusioning, and basically awful, it won’t change humanity’s constant struggle to obtain it. People will always be scared of the “great beyond” because there’s no guarantee that there is one. We’re scared to not exist. No matter how many New Orleans-hailing vampires tell us their cautionary tales that fact is not going to change.
Rice’s novel leaves no doubt about it: being and becoming an immortal is gross. A freak bites your neck, you drink said freak’s blood, and your body slowly shuts down. What remains is your consciousness and blood flow, which you have to supplement in order to survive (which kind of takes away the meaning of immortality). The blood-sucking itself is graphically sensual in Interview With The Vampire, revealing their killing as the last real joy that vampires have - there’s a pun on ‘flirting with death’ somewhere in there. Oh, and you can never see the sun again, so get some spray tan. There are “boons”, though: heightened senses, increased agility and grace, being super mega rich for some reason. The most relevant of these ‘pros’ is the lack of aging (unless you’re Claudia) and the inability to contract diseases (because your body’s already dead). Yeah, most of these are double-edged swords.
It’s not subtext that Rice’s opinion on immortality (and vampirism) is a bad one; it’s text. From the beginning of the novel, Lestat looks at the world on an unfounded high horse. He’s arrogant and condescending toward Louis even after he’s been turned. Lestat is the first vampire we meet and the first representation of immortality the audience has - and he’s not a good one. The old-world vampires are animalistic and mindless, and to a certain extent, the new world vampires are as well. They’re focused on self-preservation and food, disillusioned with everything other than playing with their prey. Vampires could easily be considered parasites considering the parameters.
Despite all this, the boy conducting the interview asks Louis to become a vampire at the end of the novel, seemingly oblivious to anything he just heard. What an idiot, right? If any human were faced with that option, though, would they turn it down? Living the longest life possible, while retaining the beauty of youth, is the goal of humanity. We push back death with cures and technology; we expand life expectancies; we develop charities; all to keep the inevitable at bay. The concept of immortality is a way for humans to shy away from the certainty of an end date. Even if the story is rife with death, the fact that there’s a being who can never die gives a glimmer of hope. No matter how many times authors (including Anne Rice) explain that immortality is lonely, disillusioning, and basically awful, it won’t change humanity’s constant struggle to obtain it. People will always be scared of the “great beyond” because there’s no guarantee that there is one. We’re scared to not exist. No matter how many New Orleans-hailing vampires tell us their cautionary tales that fact is not going to change.
Very interesting take on the darker views of immortality portrayed in the book. You add a convincing perspective on eternal life and despite many warnings, people still seek it out just because they desire to retain their grasp on the beauty of youth. However, as nice as this review is, I'm mildly offended that you identified vampires as freaks. Please leave them alone.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the generalization, but you gotta admit it. Lestat's a freak.
DeleteYour analysis is good. A little too casual for my taste, but still sound. There are a great number of stories dating back to the myths of ancient Greece about the horrors of immortality, but humans are, as a whole, not very bright, and would still seek deathlessness no matter the cost to themselves or others. Especially others.
ReplyDeleteA nitpick though, vampires don't become have the power to be rich for no reason. It's explained multiple times, and is actually quite the point of contention early on, that Louis previously had a good deal of money, which Lestat took over partially, and that Louis is very good with investments. Add to that the fact that vampires keep gaining wealth without even needing to pay for silly things like medical care. Vampires essentially live like the rich 70 year old whose been saving up their whole lives, except in perpetuity.
Thanks for the comment - totally didn't realize I brushed off the rich thing! Love that analogy at the end, by the way. Hilarious.
Delete