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.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
