Has Anne Rice ever confirmed officially that Claudia=Michele?

image

^Stan and Michele Rice on the left, Lestat and Claudia de Lioncourt on the right. As a side note, before this gets into the more serious topic, AR has said she based Lestat on Stan, and there is a story out there that his name was meant to be “Lestan,” but ended up as “Lestat” bc of a typographical error. I don’t have a source on that.

Re: Claudia=Michele?

From the Vampire Companion:

(In the first draft of [IWTV], Rice described Claudia as three or four years old.)… Rice based Claudia’s appearance on her own daughter, Michele, who died at the age of five from leukemia. Claudia even shares Michele’s birthday, September 21.* However, despite the intense tone of suffering and guilt evident in Louis’s telling of the story, Rice insists that she had not been aware that she had included her feelings about Michele’s tragic death. “I never consciously thought about it when I was writing the book,” she says. “I wasn’t conscious of the connection. I knew that I was using the physical beauty of Michele as the model, but Claudia was a fictional character in her own right. The character, the voice, and the things Claudia say have nothing to do with my daughter – but there’s no question that this is the symbolic working out of a terrible grief. What else can it possibly be?”

In the first version of [IWTV], Claudia eventually goes off with three vampire brothers whom she meets in Paris. She does not die. As such, it was as if Rice had attempted to give her daughter a form of immortality. Rice, however, experienced psychological problems that cleared up only after she had rewritten the ending – by killing off Claudia and taking Louis through an experience of intense grieving. This version was much more cathartic for Rice.

*This is mentioned in canon in Claudia’s diary entry in QOTD, which recounts one of her birthdays.

Hit the jump for more, cut for length, not content.


From Premiere Magazine, November 1994:

(sorry, I don’t have a link, I transcribed this from the page)

In real life, Claudia was a nickname for Michele Rice, Anne Rice’s vibrant blond daughter, who had once piled her hair on top of her head, and spoken in a smoky voice like Claudia Cardinale. She was three years old when she developed leukemia, and five when she died, in 1972.

At first, Rice soaked her maternal despair in a steady stream of sixpacks. Then she unleashed her rage unto paper, into what eventually became Interview with the Vampire. Michele was reincarnated as Claudia, the raging woman locked in a child’s body. “Louis was me,” says Rice. “That dark, brooding, melancholy person ripped from Catholic faith and tormented with guilt – that was me. I’d love to be Lestat: the wishful me, the active, the dream, the other one. Louis was the more true, autobiographical portrait of the conflicted and lost and orphaned person. That’s what the book is about. It’s about being orphaned.”

From People Magazine, 12/5/1988:

“Writers write about what obsesses them,” says Rice. “You draw those cards. I lost my mother when I was 14. My daughter died at the age of 6. I lost my faith as a Catholic. When I’m writing, the darkness is always there. I go where the pain is.“ 

In which Hogwarts House would our beloved characters be sorted? It’s quite difficult with some..

Omg, I cannot! ;A; I didn’t read the HP books, only saw some of the movies, so I’ll turn this over to more qualified ppl. 

image
image

^I do think Claudia would end up in the same house as Lestat, continuing the tradition like the Malfoy line does, but I could be wrong on that. The sorting hat would be taking a LONG time w/ Claudia, tho.

Anyone is invited to sort our beloved characters! Do the thing (ノ^ヮ^)ノ*:・゚✧

Your post on Leto bore a waffling tone in which you seemed to feign a thin scrim of concern. The Reddit post you cited employed victim-blaming language. To pity a rapist’s stunted career is not an obligation anyone should be expected to shoulder. To accuse an underage victim of being a gold-digger is not a mark of a person sincerely concerned with the interests of anyone but the rapist. And to call real-life rape or assault ‘non-con’ is to belittle actual, lived experiences with fictional terms.

After
careful consideration, I decided to delete that post and I asked
those who reblogged it to delete it also. If there are any reblogs or
screencaptures still posted, I disown them.

The way I
expressed my opinion may have hindered my intended message, to clarify:

I
have no pity for a confirmed rapist; I have great empathy for the
victims of any abuse; and I deeply respect the pain of their real
life experience.

This
is an issue beyond the scope of a fandom blog. I deleted the post because
I had not appreciated the hurt it might cause when I expressed myself
in the style that I did, along with citing the Reddit article, and I DO NOT endorse James Barbour in any shape or
form. I cited it so anyone could begin their own research on the subject. I realized that my overall treatment is not how I want to
approach this issue.

I
do apologize for my style of writing in that post; a heavy topic like
this demanded a more serious tone, and I attempted to add a little
levity since that is my naturally optimistic disposition. What appeared to be waffling was my attempt to present both sides of the issue without choosing a side, which I do not feel confident enough to do at this point with the information on hand. The use of the word “noncon” was an abbreviation for “non-consensual” which is a word used out in the world at large (I also abbreviate “people” to “ppl,” which is not a standard abbreviation, and I abbreviate out of the habit of writing on a fandom blog; it was not intended to belittle anyone’s experiences). I can understand why all of those things could be offensive to others and I am sorry for any hurt
that may have caused.

There
are many places where this topic can be discussed, but I don’t think that
it is appropriate on a blog that is here to highlight a certain
fandom and is focused on entertainment, and where I do my best to keep it politically-neutral, fair-minded, and civil. That is my prerogative on my own blog.

The guilt or innocence of the accused rests with the judicial system. As citizens, we have limited access to all the facts.

I
hope this clarifies and terminates this dialogue.

Re: science. As for yourself: you’ve been talking about this for 30 years. Don’t you want to know? Hey- know what you could do? You could surrender to mortal science. Why don’t you surrender?

♛As Louis once said, as much as your offer might appeal to me, I must regretfully decline.

image

I’m only interested in surrendering myself to our own in-house scientists, anyway. Viktor is proof enough of that.

Re: science. Yes, scientists sometimes die in their pursuits..but they are not usually murdered by the dozen. That would seem to indicate SOMEONE wants SOMETHING suppressed. You might want to have another chat with that Flannery Gilman, Monsieur.

♛*ragged sigh* Scientists die in pursuit of many things, being murdered by the dozens doesn’t seem like an especially high number to me. They choose to risk their lives, who am I to stop them from running into the fangs of death? Tigers, snakes, payara, and yes, vampires. What a beautiful variety of fangs in the savage garden!

image

I have no need to “chat with” anyone about the death rate of scientists. They choose their destiny. I stand in no mortal’s way if and when they seek death. In fact, I guide them to it if they deserve it. Who says a scientist cannot also be an evildoer of the highest degree? Some have access to poisons and have used them to climb the corporate ladder, or rid themselves of a pesky spouse or even their own flesh and blood. Is that a mortal soul deserving protected status? I think not. 

What are you getting at? What’s your point? If you’re trying to provoke me into some kind of tear-filled apology or revelation, you’re barking up at the wrong vampire, mon papillon

The only revelation I’ll give is what I’ve already given. We’re real. We’re dangerous. We are unfathomably higher on the food chain than you so show some real respect.

Who’s your favorite character and why?

It changes over time, I have a place in my heart for all the main characters from earlier canon (mainly books 1-5). 

My gateway character was Claudia, definitely my fave when I first read IWTV when I was 11. I could relate to her frustration at not being taken seriously as an adult. She was just the perfect mix of sweetness and icy screamy-ness and had Louis wrapped around her little finger (WHICH btw, I saw as a purely platonic relationship).

image

{X}

Of course I loved Louis after her. How could I not? For his dignified manner, his high tolerance for bullshit, his love for books, his ability to hold back, and his ability to break out a can of fiery whoopass when it’s called for. For his frayed sweaters and how he doesn’t really care about fashion but how good he looks when he lets Lestat or Claudia play dress up with him. Because he probably smells like beeswax candles and jasmine.

He’s also very pretty and his hair feels like silk. 

image

… All that said, Lestat was my real spirit animal in adolescence, and he’s the one that I keep coming back to as my true fave.

Lestat was someone I needed as I confronted the usual bullying in school, the usual seeking my own way into this world and the obstacles that go along with that. He taught me so many things. Most importantly, to have faith in yourself and not be afraid to try new things, meet new ppl. Some ppl will reject you just for being new. Some may reject you because you don’t have good chemistry with them. That’s all fine. You might become very close with some, and fail each other in some way, or just end up growing apart. It happens. 

How could I not love him with this combination (and more!) of character traits: Charismatic, mixing silly with sinister, mysteriously hinting at a rich and traumatic backstory in IWTV (which we definitely got later), and of course, lastly, pretty damn good-looking. 

And he does make mistakes, tons of them! If you really read the books, that’s where he lays out his mistakes and apologizes in the way he’s better able to do than verbally. 

image

{X}

I’ve always loved mean characters, antagonists, monsters… those who were written off as “just mean,” “just evil,” or “just crazy,” these are the ones I want to know more about. Why are they this way? Is this a shield they put up to protect themselves from further hurt?  

My grandmother was like this. I broke through her tough exterior and found a kindred spirit. She’s gone now, and I think my radical empathy for antagonists is kind of a search to find her in other ppl, fictional and real alike.

Describe us Vampire Armand. What do you think about this specific character?

image

[textmeme by armandromanus, who deactivated so I can’t link to them] 

I’ll admit that Armand is not one of my fave characters so I haven’t spent as much effort analyzing him and really getting to know him as others have. Can you ask something specific about him? 

You can check my tags for Armand fanart, cosplay, headcanons, etc.:

This is open to anyone to answer, but I am preeeetty sure @sheepskeleton​ would have a better answer for you 😉

Armand RPers are invited to answer, too! I would name some here but I actually don’t follow them all, and would feel bad leaving anyone out.

Dear Marquis: In your books, we were first told that vampires are supernatural creatures for which there is no scientific explanation, then that scientists would risk their reputations to study you, and in your latest book we learn that despite such dire warnings, some “thirty to forty” scientists *have* undertaken such a step and of those, “at least two dozen” have paid for it with their lives. My question: if there is truly nothing there, then why are mortal scientists dying for it?

♛Do NOT address me with that title. It died with my father.

Before you go pointing it out, yes, I own the castle. I don’t own the people around it the way that that title did. And I wouldn’t want to.

image

There is obviously a reason that the scientists’ pursuit of vampires is worth their effort, otherwise I wouldn’t mention it in the first place in my books. And worth the risk of their reputations. Obviously my own concept of what we are has changed as I’ve learned more about what we are.

One reason I mention it is to remind our own kind to be careful about who they reveal themselves to, so as not to become imprisoned in such a manner.

I don’t know what the scientists’ reasons to pursue us would be, but the first thing that comes to mind would be the possibility that they might have an authentic specimen to display and finally prove everyone wrong who scoffed at them! That’s one kind of motivation. That would probably be my own reason, if I were a mortal scientist.

I’ve described our blood as having curative properties. What might that mean to the human race? Distilling out whatever gives it this healing ability could save countless lives from some of the most lethal causes of mortal death. Cancer, for one. AIDS. Other degenerative diseases like Multiple Sclerosis.

The fact of the matter is that mortal scientists die in pursuit of all kinds of study. They die in pursuit of the cure for cancer. They die in pursuit of the Loch Ness monster. Witches. Bigfoot. Fairies. Sirens. The supernatural is just one area of study, and within it are many subsets, some of which even overlap.

They seek answers when others tell them "there is truly nothing there.“

I was told many times to many questions throughout my life that there were no answers. I found answers. Answers which delighted me, deeply disturbed me, answers that I do not necessarily believe. It’s part of this journey that we call life, asking questions, seeking answers, considering them, choosing what we want to keep and what we must discard, and sharing that knowledge with others. That’s why I bother to write my books at all, a record for myself and my loved ones. Hopefully someone can learn from my experiences and not have to suffer as much as I have.