We are the music-makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams.
World-losers and world-forsakers,
Upon whom the pale moon gleams;
Yet we are the movers and shakers,
Of the world forever, it seems.
me: i can’t wait for people to read this story!!
brain: you have to finish writing it if you want people to read it
me:
me: now that doesn’t sound right
Hello again, anon that lost her shit finishing TVL! Keep us posted, I love these fresh impressions of VC bc I can never quite get mine back, that first experience of each of the books I’ve already read. And re-read. Although, I do bring smtg different to them on each re-read, as I’ve gotten older and had more of my own experiences and philosophical revisions to compare to our fave dysfunctional vampires’.
*nods* Yes, AR has shown us many voices in her writing,
I think you put it very well. She has given us POVs from the lofty to the much less lofty. The lofty POVs appeal to ppl who enjoy that and the more modern stuff appeals to ppl who enjoy that… @annabellioncourthelped me out on a post about the voice of Louis, his POV seems to draw on older literature, and he loves to read those books, so of course he would absorb that somewhat anachronistic flavor. Louis may be deliberately making his story a little difficult to read, as he is revealing a lot but also keeping some things secret, keeping Daniel at arm’s length.
^Footage of characters from their own POV chapters in one book vying for attention ❤
QOTD was a good collection of this bc she’s jumping characters a lot in that book, which she didn’t do in TVL and IWTV, except to have her main characters sit and listen to others tell their own stories. In those instances, we did get some variation in the POV, but again, it was through the filter of the person who later told/recorded the story for us, the readers (i.e. Lestat telling us about > Marius telling Lestat about > the Elder telling Marius about > the origin of the vampires! Check out @comixqueen‘s VC storyception!)
TVL is my fave bc Lestat. LESTAT! He does have flaws, for sure. Flaws that could spiral anyone into depression. But his lust for life overrides everything ❤
^And I think part of why we all love him (those of us that do love him) against our own better judgment is that even when he royally fracks up, he gets back up, dusts himself off, and careens into the next car.
If writers took every bit of writing advice that was in the format ‘Don’t use X part of the English language’, all English fiction would read like Spot the dog
Only to avoid whoever makes you feel like that as much as humanly possible for the rest of your life.
(If it’s you doing it to you, stop it, now and be kinder to yourself and your writing. If it’s someone else, tell them to stop and, if they can’t, let them out of your life.)
Do you ever see people whose faces echo another era?
I’ve seen women with the round faces, sparse brows and high foreheads of medieval illuminated manuscripts.
Men with dark brows that meet in the middle, olive skin, strong noses and jaws–Byzantine men, ghosts of Constantine, reanimated faces from the Fayum Mummy Portraits.
Women with soft figures and the large eyes and prim, petaled mouths of the 19th century.
Grizzled men whose brows predicate their gaze, whose wrinkles track into their thick beards and read like topographical maps of hardship and intensity–the wanderer, the poet; Whitman, Tolstoy, Carlyle.
Faces sculpted into the perfect, deified symmetry of the pharaohs–almond eyes, full lips, self-assurance 3,000 years in the making staring at you at a stoplight.
Plump, curved white wrists curled over purse handles in the waiting room and you think Versailles, Madame Pompadour, Marie Antoinette, Catherine the Great. Wide cheek bones, courage and sorrow in the scrunched face of the old man in line behind you and it’s Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh. Reddened skin, thick forearms, hair and beard and brows burned by the cold into a reddish corn silk and you think Odin, the forge and the hammer and skin stinging from the salt of the ocean.
Virginia Woolf’s quiet brand of gaunt frankness surveys you in passing in the parking lot. Queen Victoria’s heavy-lidded stare and beaked nose are firmly, uncannily fixed on a sixth-grade classmate’s face.
Renaissance voluptuousness on the boardwalk by the beach. Boticelli’s caramel androgyny in a youth smoking on a bench outside the mall.
Jazz age looseness spurs the tripping gait of the man who watches you paint with his hands in his pockets, and he smiles a Sammy Davis Jr. smile and tells you that you look familiar, that he’s sure he’s seen you somewhere before, but he doesn’t know where or when.
Hello! This was a really tough ask, and very intellectually stimulating, and opening it further, I ended up considering the larger topic of What is an author’s obligation to their readers? What is an artist’s obligation to their viewers/audience? I don’t know.
In that line of consideration, I don’t recall AR ever bringing up these specific issues in (or out) of canon, or whether she’s been asked about it. I don’t think she’s ever said anything about avoiding depicting wlw relationships… these seem like questions you could ask her directly on FB, but my prediction is that she would be unwilling to address them. My impression of her is that she enjoys praise but does not feel obligated to write anything for anyone but herself, for better or worse.
To use the word “avoiding” implies she’s aware of it as a failure on her part, and I don’t think she is aware of it.
[^Fanart by @garama, mommy!Louis w/ his parenting guide,
this looks, like a good mom, he’s forcing the other two into some kind of parent-child bonding exercise!]
Re: Coding characters as male or female, that discussion is kind of confusing to me. I’ve seen fandom discourse refer to Louis as the “mommy” in the Lestat, Louis, and Claudia family in IWTV (a little more on that under the cut). Louis is only one example of a male character who may have been intentionally written as being more of the stereotypically female role than a male; he is more protective and nurturing to Claudia like a mother would be, and Lestat seems to “wear the pants” in that household. IDK if that is sufficient as “coding a male character as female.”
why her female characters are more peripheral to the story than her male characters,
why she seems to avoid depicting wlw relationships.
I don’t want to jump to labeling her as misogynistic, but it seems like her female characters are coded as female, while the males are just characters, if that makes sense.
It seems like the men are bi and the women straight.
^This is a lot to consider, any one of which could be a whole essay of response. Anyone who has opinions on this is welcome to reblog/comment, as this is not an area of expertise for me. And, IMO, it’s not an area of expertise for Anne Rice, either.
TL;DR: I don’t think AR intended to “avoid” the topics you bring up, I believe she was more focused on her own topics (I list some under the cut). AR had posted “On My Method of Writing:” as part of a message on her page, 8/20/2003, which I found informative. A few excerpts are under the cut.
[^May 10, 2016- X] AR has said many times that she writes the books she wants to see in the world, no other intentions.
What is an author’s obligation to their readers? What is an artist’s obligation to their viewers/audience? I don’t know. We are all entitled to our own answers to that question.
Hit the jump for more, cut for length and QOTD spoiler.
negative opinions/critical analysis, it is hard, if not impossible, to please everyone, even if that’s a blogger/author’s goal. I try to compromise when I can, but that’s my own prerogative. AR seems to provide a little fanservice now and then and will write more of X, Y, Z when the POTP ask her to write more of X, Y, Z, but that’s her own prerogative.
Perhaps the misogyny some people perceive in her books is real, perhaps it’s internalized for her. She might deserve that label. I don’t know how I feel about that.
From all that I’ve absorbed over the years, she wrote about what intrigued her. This is just the first few things that come to mind of things I’ve seen in canon, in different variations, things she may have discussed outside the novels, things she has always seemed to want to explore:
Her own retail and geographical interests/fetishes (classical painting, jewelry (cameos!!), high fashion (VELVET!), low fashion, literature, Shakespeare, music and culture of the 80′s (BLADE RUNNER & BON JOVI), SCIENCE and technology (iPHONES!), interior decorating, New Orleans, Miami, Ancient Rome, Paris, etc.);
Sexuality & power;
Religion and its role in terms of meting out punishment to those who deserve it and misapplied to innocent people, punishments as fitting a crime and punishments for no crime, varying forms of punishment;
Revenge and whether it is justified;
World peace and how to achieve it;
Whether there is a God who will embrace us when we die, whether we will meet our loved ones who died before/after us, whether there is an eternal heaven and hell, etc. Whether we will get the answers to all of life’s questions;
Religion and its setup as a social group and whether it requires genuine belief in order to be part of that group;
Very hot guys and what they do w/ their dicks;
Childlike, adorable women;
Precocious young adults/teens who are interested in sex before coming of legal age;
Consent, dubious consent, and lack of consent across many different categories;
etc.
^I feel like all of her writing can be summed up as speculation on these topics (and others), exploring them to find out “what would happen if…” and presenting results which she does NOT promote, results which she DOES promote, and results she offers up to the reader’s interpretations. Misogyny can be easily woven into many of those topics w/ or w/o intention on the author’s part.
As an example of a speculative situation, involving a possible misandrist character: in QOTD, radical feminist Akasha believed she could guarantee world peace by killing off 90% of the men. She starts doing it but is thwarted before making much progress. If she could have continued, would it have been a successful plan? I believe AR is suggesting that it would not, that as enticing as the idea was, radical feminism is too extreme and would have failed. And further, that the misandrist proponent of radical feminism may have been missing a few marbles even as a mortal, in addition to being out of touch with reality as a nearly omnipotent immortal.
So my answer is that I don’t think AR intended to “avoid” the topics you bring up, I believe she was more focused on her own topics.
Re: Coding characters as male or female, that discussion is kind of confusing to me. I’ve seen fandom discourse refer to Louis as the “mommy” in the Lestat, Louis, and Claudia family in IWTV. AR has said Louis was basically written as herself (she famously said, and I can’t find the source rn but I remember it distinctly: “I’m the only woman ever played by Brad Pitt in film!”), evidence that she did see that character as female? Possibly.
“I have been writing most of my adult life, of course, but very steadily since about 1970.”
^Idk if coding gender into characters was a thing then.
“My method of writing is to develop the novel sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and page by page with heavy rewriting and reshaping and editing as I go along,… until I had the perfected page in order to proceed to the next page.”
^I seem to recall her saying that some of her novels are planned out w/ plot points first, others just flow in the order she writes them, w/o pre-planning.
“After the publication of the The Queen of the Damned, I requested of my editor that she not give me anymore comments. I resolved to hand in the manuscripts when they were finished. And asked that she accept them as they were. She was very reluctant, feeling that her input had value, but she agreed to my wishes. I asked this due to my highly critical relationship with my work and my intense evolutionary work on every sentence in the work, my feeling for the rhythm of the phrase and the unfolding of the plot and the character development. I felt that I could not bring to perfection what I saw unless I did it alone. In othe words, what I had to offer had to be offered in isolation. So all novels published after The Queen of the Damned were written by me in this pure fashion, my editor thereafter functioning as my mentor and guardian.”
^Her editor was demoted to copyeditor
mentor and guardian
.
“…
the writing you are reading is quite deliberate, that it is informed and it is conscious, as well as being the result of intuition. It is the result of all that I am – my education, my mystic sensibilities, and the student in me. It is poured out fearlessly, and then edited, and re-edited, and subjected to merciless scrutiny. It represents, and always has, my finest efforts.”
^Her writing is all intentional and her focus is intentional.
*nods* I know that feel. When writing fic, sometimes it’s easier to write Lestat from the outside, let other characters describe things about him that even he himself is unaware of. Someone telling a story about you, describing you, they’re painting a portrait like an artist would, and it’s often much more accurate than a photograph ❤
At the booksigning 11/30/16, AR told us this comment a friend made to her re: Lestat’s portrayal in IWTV
(bc even AR was surprised that Lestat was the one she wanted to explore more!):
“You drew Louis in black ink… and then painted Lestat in flaming colors!”
god i can never stop thinking about certain sculptures used in modern art and how they can be used to elicit the beautiful and terrible feeling of true and genuine horror in ways that a lot of horror movies can never do
like when you ask people “what is horror?” they’ll tend to give examples of monsters, of killers, of dark places, of sharp teeth and too many legs and lots and lots of blood. which is true, that can be used as horror! but i’d like to call that “the horror of being eaten/hurt/killed” or more succinctly “the horror of vulnerability”. it’s a horror that something, whether it’s a killer or a monster or some phenomenon, has the ability to cause us harm. we see large amounts of teeth and we think “that thing is going to tear us to pieces with those teeth” or we see spilled blood and we think “someone has been hurt, there’s a chance we can be hurt too by whatever spilled this blood”.
but what certain modern sculptures can do is elicit a very physical visceral reaction of a completely different kind of horror.
it’s “the horror that something is a thing that SHOULD not exist, and you are absolutely powerless to understand what it is, but it is existing in your space, right now, it is real and you cannot make it unreal no matter what you do”
or perhaps, in a shorter fashion, it’s “the horror of wrongness”
like one of the sculptures that made me feel this way is this sculpture here, named “Monekana” located in the American Art Museum in Washington D.C:
“okay,” you say, with a shrug. “it’s a horse made of wood? what’s so scary about that?”. but this is the lie of the photograph! a photograph of a sculpture rarely grasps the experience of standing next to a sculpture. you have to picture yourself walking into this room, practically devoid of people, and coming face to face with this sculpture that is very large and very real.
and your brain screams that “THIS IS WRONG. MAKE IT GO AWAY. THIS IS WRONG”, like at any moment you expect it to move, to twist its head, to follow you with eyes that aren’t simply there. it looks like a horse but it is no horse. you could almost argue that maybe it isn’t even an art piece at all, but it wandered in from god knows what kind of world and it’s blending in with everything else. maybe it’s fooling you. maybe it isn’t.
anyways, i’m not trying to say that this sculpture in particular is SUPPOSED to be scary, it may make other people feel nothing at all (or even positive feelings!), but what i’m trying to say is that feeling i had that day, when i saw this thing, when i felt this fearful instinct to stay away and not stare, it’s THAT feeling that i feel so many writers and makers of horror don’t completely understand. you don’t need teeth. you don’t need blood. you don’t need to make Spooky Scary Skeletons or chainsaw-wielding villains. all you need is to create something wrong in its existence, something to make parts of us fear the fact that we can’t entirely rationalize what we’re seeing.
The experience of sculpture absolutely gets lost in images. I’ve walked into museums and been like WOW THE FUCK even when I knew it was coming.
I love this subject, though. I love “implication horror.” You see something, and the realization of what it means, which often comes a few moments later, is where the real horror lies—not in how splattery or gratuitously shocking it is. The wrongness of a thing in fiction, when done well, is the best. I was watching Melancholia the other day, and what a terrifying example of wrongness horror.
Anyway this is such a great post thanks for putting the whole idea into words so well. ❤
I-want-my-IWTV 
