A Tale of Two Vampires - And Others (Project Proposal)

Mission: Write a "fan-fiction" loosely based on the Interview With the Vampire and True Blood.

Goal: The goal of this project is to use the themes and ideas in both source materials to create both a story, and a means of focusing on the concepts within them. It will not only compare the differences between the two vampire stories, but highlight each of their own separately in a (hopefully) creative way.

The Setting: The setting will focus itself in Louisiana, starting in New Orleans and then moving towards Bon Temps. It will take place following the True Blood's time of the present day. Although the Vampire Chronicles may reveal new information on Louis (and Lestat), I do not have the time read them, thus, the information on the character's will be excluded from this project.

The Characters: At this time of brainstorming, Louis and Bill will be the "Two Vampires", with Eric and Lestat coming in at a later time, as well as any other minor character from True Blood that may fit the time or place, though their own storylines may not be as important or focused upon as the others. Also, Sookie will play a large part with interactions between Bill and Louis, giving me a chance to go deep into the human / vampire interaction in vampire novels (both past and present).

The Plot: A work in progress. As of now, there is merely an introduction for the characters. Louis comes to New Orleans to meet Eric, but finds Bill there instead. Bill brings Louis to Bon Temps, and allows him to stay in his home where he meets and interacts with Sookie. The major "story" is yet to come, but will hopefully be interesting, while allowing me to discuss important concepts.

Other Ideas: Being that True Blood has a great concept surrounding the vampire as a metaphor for African Americans and even homosexuals, it will play a part in the story as well. Also, Louis' attempts to hold onto humanity will also be looked at in relation to vampires in the True Blood setting, especially comparing to the "feral vampires" and the character of Eric. Also, because True Blood centers upon the concept of vampires becoming "mainstream", I will also look at it through Louis' eyes, allowing his character to express the impact of a people suddenly emerging and demanding rights, another possibility to discuss homosexuality and homosexual rights.

Final Remarks: The vampire genre has taken the world by storm in recent years, and its use has grown and evolved as well. The vampire allows us to live vicariously through these higher (or lower) beings without letting ourselves take any of the heat. Running around killing indiscriminately, and feeling no remorse for the act is something unimaginable in modern society, but with the vampire, we let it happen, and we understand it. Perhaps my project will also delve into this idea, and speak to the readers about why we do this. Why do we let the vampire run around in such a fashion? Why are there no moral restrictions upon it? Is this why we have developed these vigilante vampires that fight alongside humanity in the battle against evil?

EDIT: After beginning to write my rough draft, I began to realize that the concepts I wanted to discuss through my story weren't going to work. Instead, I've been directed towards an approach surrounding strong, working women, and the "freedom" of vampirism. I used Sookie as a sort of "double" for Babette's new character, which is shown in the second chapter "Dreams". The story has focused towards Babette becoming a vampire, and this new direction has given me a chance to discuss the effect of a repressed, working woman a chance to be free from society. She gains a new sexuality, but still feels chained by something.

I also go into the ideas of mortality and laws and codes.

Also with my writing I am trying to insert several short discussions in each chapter of various topics, named by the chapter titles. Two topics I've written up so far are hierarchy and dreams. They aren't necessary "Gothic", but they are interesting things that may add to the story. I've mostly been inspired by post modern literature, most notably a book called Girl Imagined by Chance, which used a similar style in its approach. Hopefully it works out well in the end.

Louis, A Lost Soul... a Lost Cause.

Interview With a Vampire, a story with many different ideas of morality floating around, most importantly the gaping chasm that separates the human from the vampire. Most importantly the chasm that exists between Louis and Lestat. What causes this chasm? What inspired Louis to succumb to Lestat's wiles in the first place? What kept him lingering on even when he loathed him so much?

So much of the novel is concerned with the morality of the mortal life. It is a strange thing for Louis to hold on to, when he longed so desperately to part with it. "I lived like a man who wanted to die but who had no courage to do it himsel." (11) " 'I want to die; kill me. Kill me.' I said to the vampire. 'Now I am guilty of murder. I can't live.' " (18) Yet as we hear Louis' transformation into a vampire, he becomes reconnected with a will to live, but a will to live as a mortal, yet, he is no longer mortal. He is Vampire (the race). Rather than be "deracinated" like in Dracula, he is brought into a whole new race, a race with its own moral laws and ethics. Vampires can kill indiscriminately without remorse, as it is hard worked into their nature to savor the power of mortal blood. " 'Vampires are killers,' he said now. 'Predators. Whose all-seeing eyes were meant to give them detachment. The ability to see a human life in its enitrety, not with any mawkish sorrow but with a thrilling satisfaction in being the end of that life, in having a hand in the divine plan.' " (82)

There can be no true explanation for the tight grip Louis has upon himself. What Lestat says is true in many ways. Mortals live by a separate code of ethics, and for good reason. Without those laws, there would be complete anarchy and chaos, but vampires feed upon the blood of the living, and it cannot be held against them to strive for survival. Detaching himself from the mortal coil with immortality allows him to see the flaws of humanity, to analyze it and know it to the point of loathing it. From what we know, the vampires have no civil wars, they have no worry about murder amongst them. Yet humanity constantly fights a struggle to keep it at bay.

Through their disagreements on morality, Louis patiently stays by Lestat, but for what? He knows Lestat has nothing further to teach him, he knows that Lestat is using him for money and support, but Louis doesn't need Lestat at all. Perhaps Louis' sees Lestat as a means of keeping his moral code alive. To loathe Lestat is to hold his ideals higher than his. To see his merciless killing is to justify himself in the world. He wants to see what he will become, to try with all his might to avoid it.

There are things about him that remain a mystery to me, such as the puzzle that surrounds Claudia. Why does he 'love' her, when she has so many similar traits to Lestat? How can he see beyond the twelve-year-old form she is bound to? Most importantly: What does he see in her?

Bloodlust

An important aspect of Dracula the Novel is the idea of blood. Blood not only as the source of life in humanity, but a symbolic representation of life itself or representation of rank and nobility.

According to Arata "The Count's "lust for blood" points in both directions: to the vampire's need for its special food, and also to the warrior's desire for conquest." (465) It seems strange, however, to lust for conquest in respect to blood. Dracula's conquest is slightly more specific, in that he feeds upon mortals, but the kind of mortals he feeds upon differ in their type. Some may be of good or bad blood, and this seems like an idea that is crucial to Dracula the vampire.

In the novel, Dr. Seward's subject Renfield lusts for Dr. Seward's blood in his conquest for life. Perhaps if you think of blood as history, you begin to unravel a new light to Renfield's mission. In his conquest for blood, he obtains the history and lineage contained within the blood, and takes it in as his own. Perhaps in this way, Dracula desires to continue his family's legacy by "draining" England of its history by feeding upon the teeming millions.

Yet how can Dracula accomplish such a thing? And how can England fight it? "In Dracula vampirism designates a kind of colonization of the body. Horror arises not because Dracula destroys bodies, but because he appropriates and transforms them. Having yielded to his assault, one literally "goes native" by becoming a vampire oneself." (465) So perhaps Dracula succeeds in his quest because in his battle for control of life and history, Dracula causes his victims to lose their history, and become part of the new world order. As victims are slowly drained of their blood; Lucy, for example, becomes unable to control herself, lost in a hypnotic state where she cannot help herself, but still succeeds in creating a false sense of security in those around her.

So when victims are "deracinated" (466), they become an "Other" a nothing. It's fascinating, because to be deracinated is to be stripped of your lineage and title, and to become a nothing or a stranger, and the only way to achieve a new status is to become feared (such as in Lucy's case). She began her life as a upper class Victorian woman, and when she "goes native", she slips away only to rise to infamy in her escapades as the Bloomer Lady.

Blood is a vital aspect of a vampire novel, and is curious to look at blood in such a new light. Where blood means life, it can now also mean history and rank, and in that regard it becomes a strong elixir for any connoisseur. Although we must ask: Why is it that Dracula, and vampires as a whole, require this to live? Is it perhaps because the dead cannot continue to create a legacy, and require the legacy they left behind and the legacies of others to continue their infamy? Perhaps this can be delved into further in another blog...

London, Nobility, Dracula...

Dracula, the man (?) of the hour. So peculiar is his ways, so unknown are his intentions. He stands alone in his castle, observing the peasants of the town.

It seems strange he considers himself a master, even though he never leaves his castle. What makes him put himself on that level? Is it merely his wealth that gives him his high stature? Certainly he has a reputation in the land, as he describes "Here I am a noble; I am boyar, the common people know me, and I am master." (26), but it seems merely a rank bought by money. Although he continues on, "But a stranger in a strange land, he is no one, men know him not -- and to know not is to care not for. I am content if I am like the rest, so that no man stops if he see me, or pause in his speaking if he hear my words, to say "Ha ha, a stranger!"

Does Dracula simply fear being a stranger, or have some paranoid delusion that being a stranger will simply destroy him?

I also love that he fears the "new" of the world. "I myself am of an old family, and to live in a new house would kill me" and "We Translyvanian nobles love not to think that hour bones may be amongst the common dead." (29)

It all adds up to a strange conclusion. Drawing from common knowledge, Dracula is a vampire! He cannot walk about the streets in the daylight and lavish in the nobility he has. He hides away in a castle set apart from the world itself. He seems so set in leaving to London to accomplish some hidden goal, but he will lose all of his reputation by doing so.

What is Dracula's major goal? Why has he trapped Jonathan Harker in his castle ("The castle is a veritable pison, and I am a prisoner!" (32))? What does he plan to do with him in London? What will we see in the future? I can't wait to see Dracula and his progression in the story as he loses his fame and glory in Translyvania. It will be a powerful story I see already.

Catherine, The Embodiment of Self-Interest

How best to describe this powerful character? The character, who above all others, values herself as the most important, the most vital, the most influential. Every move she makes is to push herself forward, to make herself better, to give the illusion that she isn't completely insane, although sometimes that is questionable.

What made her this way? Or maybe, who? What pivotal moment struck a chord in her bosom that drove herself to such lengths? Perhaps it was Heathcliff, the little gypsy boy who became a constant companion to her? Or maybe, it was the "sound blow from her father" (30) she earned after she spat upon him after the loss of her whip, which could also be an example of her self interest far beyond the arrival of Heathcliff.

So perhaps I'm not wrong, and I can blame Amityville Heights but perhaps that could be a stretch of the imagination.

Yet we cannot let Heathcliff off so casually. Catherine's greed grew exponentially with Heathcliff's arrival, and considering Catherine and Heathcliff were "now very thick" (30), I believe he could be one of the many causes. They followed each other around, and seemed to enjoy each other for their company, so perhaps what they did in their company that aroused this growing greed.

Heathcliff's character alone matched Catherine so well. After his horrendous treatment in Wuthering Heights, his hatred combined with her greed to create a super evil being which spread between the two of them. Their love became to bound that Catherine even begant o see herself as Heathcliff! "(Catherine) I am Heathcliff -- he's always, always in my mind -- not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself --.." (64).

The line "not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself" is another thing that is important. This reminds me of the common "tactic" among people to tote along an "ugly person" to make themselves seem more beautiful. I almost think that Catherine's attraction to Heathcliff is out of self interest. She uses him as a tool to make her being seem majestic in comparison. I for one wouldn't put it past Catherine to use someone to better herself (case in point, Edgar).

This blog brings about many questions, both to myself and my potential readers. What is important about this self interest? What effect does it have on the characters, such as Edgar? What effect does she have upon him?

I see Catherine as the driving force to Edgar's insanity, just as Hindley's wife influenced his madness. Every character Catherine touches (aside from Heathcliff) is driven to madness by her presence, and the only people who could change her are the parental figures which die off so early on in her life. As much as Nelly tries, she cannot cure crazy. Maybe I should make a point to talk about Nelly and her Parental Powers in another blog...

Amityville Heights

The use of a modern reference has eluded my blogs, and I feel that this novel is becoming a perfect example of such. The more I read, the more I begin to see parallels between the two stories.

For example, the characters that dwell within the house seem to be bitter or mischievous. Catherine and Mr. Heathcliff are examples as such. Mr. Heathcliff is bitter towards their guest even from the moment he enters the home. "You'd better let the dog alone," growled Mr. Heathcliff in unison checking fiercer demonstrations with a punch of his foot. (5) It seems strange that he's so fierce and "scowly". You can sense something dark about him. A mystery soon to be unraveled, a plot so thick that it might be weighing upon his sanity.

Even Mrs. Heathcliff seems to be a mix of darker forces. "I'll show you how far I've progressed in the Black Art..." (12) It seems to run in the family, or perhaps it is the house itself? I may be asking questions that could easily be answered as I read, but I find that this house has a darker nature to it that tempts the people who live within it, no matter the age.

Catherine for example is a mischief maker. She pushes the limits of her father, and pushes the limits of her boundaries. She breaks rules, and falls into the web that Heathcliff strung. The two together are fairly innocent, but when they are apart, Heathcliff grows very much distant, and even when Catherine returns he is vengeful upon everyone, going as far as to throw a cup of hot tea in the face of an innocent offspring of another family.

While apart from the house, Catherine seems changed. Cathy stayed at Thrushcross Grange five weeks, till Christmas. By that time her ankle was thoroughly cured, and her manners much improved. The mistress visited her often, in the interval and commenced her plan of reform by trying to raise her self-respect with fine clothes and flattery, which she took readily; so that instead of a wild, hatless little savage jumping into the house, and rushing to squeeze us all breathless, there alighted from a handsome black pony a very dignified person with brown ringlets falling from cover of a feathered beaver, and a long cloth habit which she was obliged to hold up with both hands that she might sail in. (41) She's been influenced (or cured) by the family, dressing in a fair manner, and being polite and courteous, and going out of her way to help her companion (Heathcliff) when he is in a situation of dire need. Even her apparel seems to affect her dignity, which is a definite parallel to Heathcliff who is quite unkempt and dirty.

Although I see the story unraveling, and clues to the past being revealed, I feel the house is a huge part of the story, so much so that it is a character in itself, and the more I read, the more I feel convinced of this fact. But onward I go...

The Monk, The Demon Matilda

Matilda or Rosario, whatever you choose to call this thing of the Underworld. What is it? A human, or a demon?

It's difficult to say what exactly is Rosario and Matilda are, whether male or female or a human or a demon. Though this Demon (as I will call Matilda/Rosario from now on) takes the guise of a male only to reveal itself as a female, the genders are simply names. They don't truly express any form of gender as many perceive it today, for example, a male is usually regarded as masculine, aggressive, powerful, while females are passive, weak, and innocent. With the Demon, this is reversed, as it says in the essay on page 193 "...even to become androgynous, especially in her disguise as a young male novice of Ambrosio's monastery." This gender confusion is a valuable aspect of the Gothic novel.

If this wasn't enough confusion for the reader, the Demon is a supposed minion of Satan himself, sent to interfere with the monk's life and cause his fall, as said in the passage from pg. 375 "It was I who threw Matilda in your way; it was I who gave you entrance to Antonia's chamber; it was I who caused the dagger to be given you which pierced your sister's bosom..." Perhaps I missed it, but the Demon's past was never fully explained, and only appeared when the time was right, when Ambrosio was beginning to grow in power and knowledge.

Although, it could also be seen that Satan was simply acting through "the Demon" because she was so dedicated to Ambrosio, and so in love, that she desired nothing more than to get closer to him. To me, however, she was working as the Demon all along, preying upon Ambrosio's weakness to seduction (as he was secluded from the world), to infiltrate his defenses, and use him to destroy himself.

The very thought of a Demon, usually thought of as a male (with the exception of succubi), taking on the disguise of a young boy, and acting so quiet and passive, and flourishing into an aggressive woman, destroys the idea of gender roles, which further ties it into the Gothic genre.

Another thing that I found interesting about the Demon, is that it was quite knowledgeable, having been raised within the monastery, as noted by Brewer on page 194 "Thus the narrator of The Monk undermines as well as affirms sexual stereotypes, suggesting that, at least for some women, noncomformist and even trasgressive behavior is not inconsistent with virtue. In contrast, the passivity and innocence of Antonia, whose education is designed to make her a proper, if ignorant, lady, leads her to trust and even encourage the lustful Ambrosio, who ends up raping and murdering her." It sounds as if education breeds evil within women, while innocence ends with their ultimate demise. So what should women do? Learn enough to live their lives under the shadow of man?

Not that man isn't weak to temptation, but only at the hand of women. Perhaps one could assume that Lewis is making a statement against women, in that he finds them evil in all forms, whether they are legitimately innocent, or evil to their core. So maybe, just maybe, Matilda the Demon isn't a demon after all, but simply a woman, the destroyer of man.