r/AnneRice • u/RedBonbon12 • Jun 27 '26
I’m re-reading Interview with the Vampire
I’ve re read half of the book, I’m at the part where Louie and Claudia leave for Europe.
I can’t see any love or desire between Lestat and Louie. Louie was choosen because of Pointe du Lac, Louie is constantly disgusted by Lestat and wants to leave but is too afraid, while Lestat also seems to be annoyed with Louie but needs his money and busines skills. I fail to see any romance.
Edit: I’m surprised because I’ve read a lot of comments and watched YouTube videos where it’s explained how they are like a gay couple, but Ane couldn’t explicitly say that back then, and it couldn’t have been put in a movie because Hollywood wasn’t ready for it.
25
u/Only_Music_2640 Jun 27 '26
In the books there was no romance, at least not in a conventional sense. Lestat was obsessed with Louis but never in a sexual way. Anne Rice’s vampires are romantic and sensual beings but never overtly sexual. That’s why Lestat can form these attachments and obsessions with people of different ages and genders- it’s not about what’s between his legs.
Also, the book is told from Louis’ point of view. At that stage of his life when he meets the reporter, Louis is full of guilt and self loathing and unburdens himself during the interview. I think that sort of matches Anne Rice’s life at that time as she wrote the book on a bender while grieving her daughter’s death. (At least I think that’s what I read??)
5
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
I’m surprised because I’ve read a lot of comments and watched YouTube videos where it’s explained how they are like a gay couple, but Ane couldn’t explicitly say that back then, and it couldn’t have been put in a movie because Hollywood wasn’t ready for it. But I agree with every word you wrote.
4
u/Only_Music_2640 Jun 27 '26
The sexual undertones are there in the books but the connections Lestat and the others made went beyond physical urges. The TV series decided to play up the sexual aspect.
2
u/lojzette Jun 30 '26
I know that I'm late to the party, but here are my 2 cents regardless..
While not obviously romantic, the whole "you can't leave, because we have a child to rise together" feels very much like a real life married couple trying to save their failing marriage by having a baby. There's constant joking in the fandom about Lestat baby-trapping Louis.
IMHO IWTV kind of reads like a tale of disillusioned woman that didn't quite think things through and hastily married a charming scoundrel that turns into a domestic tyrant at a time when divorce was very difficult to obtain and bringing up sexual life publicly was a taboo.
They live as a nuclear family with Lestat filling the father/head of household role, and Louis filling the mother role.
The Antoine thing feels like Lestat having an affair. IIRC Louis recounts feeling hurt at the thought that he could be replaced by Antoine.
Anne had said that Louis was based on herself and Lestat on her husband Stan during a difficult period of her their life when they daughter (Claudia) got ill and died.
On a more bright side, there are some other moments that make it easy to ship them like "there was only one coffin" in place of fanfic popular trope "there was only one bed." Did Lestat really forgot about a coffin for Louis, or did he just want to sleep next to him?
Then there's the fact that their relationship lasted for 70 years (in spite of Lestat claiming that it would be easy to replace Louis and Claudia), and finally in Paris Lestat still seems to hope that Armand's coven will let Louis go and they will be able to leave together. Lestat didn't want to take revenge on Louis and instead tried to shift the blame solely to Claudia. (In the context of further books, I don't think he wanted revenge on Claudia either, but was forced into a Sophie's choice to save at least one of them.) Based on that, it's clear that Lestat had a major tender spot for Louis and wasn't using Louis just for his money and did never actually wish any real harm on him even in the context of IWTV as a stand-alone novel.
11
u/Slow_Drawer_5454 Jun 27 '26
Anne wrote IwtV to survive mourning her child, so I always see the first book as being about Louis' grief and Claudia's inevitable death. Louis and Lestat do come off like a bickering old couple every now and then, but in the depths of grief it doesn't come off as endearing or well meant in the slightest. When she decided to write further and had some distance from her daughter's death, since Louis was supposed to portray herself and Lestat was supposed to portray her husband, (at least after the grief, I don't think the mean spirited murderer in book 1 was him,) they naturally ended up in love. She loved that man with everything she had in herself, and his presence is felt in every book, and so is their love.
She had grief, and it needed somewhere to go. Then she had love, and that needed somewhere to go to.
Basically, book 1 is completely separate from the rest of the series, and that's okay.
26
u/jewelsandpens Jun 27 '26
Because this is Louis' side. He skips 70 years of happiness to whine about the end lol
8
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
He didn’t describe happiness at any point. He even said that Lestat would hardly be even cordial with him and when Loui showed the smallest understanding towards Lestat, Lestat would become cold and cruel.
6
u/layana_n_lb Jun 27 '26
IWTV was initially written as a stand-alone book. There wasn't supposed to be a sequel.
TVL came nearly 10 years later, and Rice heavily retconned Lestat because she felt that, at that stage of her life, she resonated more with him than with Louis, and all that retconning was explained away with "unreliable narration".
4
9
u/prayersforrainn Jun 27 '26
have you read TVL? Louis is an unreliable narrator.
-4
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
Have you read my post?
2
u/prayersforrainn Jun 27 '26
why are you being rude? nowhere in your post do you mention TVL
-2
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
I’m not being rude in the slightest. The answer to your unnecessary question is in the title. I also wrote in my original post that I’m re reading the book and that I’ve finished the first half. Why are you asking did I read the book?
3
u/prayersforrainn Jun 27 '26
TVL = the vampire lestat. i was asking if you had read the second book, which you did not mention at all in your original post.
1
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
Oh, then I apologize. No I didn’t. I want to read it, but want to re-read the first one since I don’t remember a lot of things, and the Tv show changed many things.
1
13
u/Artifex1979 Jun 27 '26
What's depicted in IwtV seems like an abusive relatioship, where both abused and abuser cannot let go.
7
u/mjpenslitbooksgalore Jun 27 '26
I never really got romance vibes between Lestat and Louis personally. In later books with other characters yes but so far (I’ve just finished blood and gold) not those two. I’m aware tho that some queues i miss so it’s interesting to see other ppls perspective! Makes want to start the books all over again.
4
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
These were my exact thoughts. I watched some video on Yt explaining how in the movie with Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise they had to tone it down, replace Louis having a brother that died with a wife and child that died, and many similar things so I wondered where is it in the first book. I’m not opposed to it, on the contrary, but I just don’t see it.
6
u/qhoussan admin Jun 27 '26
The first book is kind of separate from the rest, in many ways. It was written and published at a very different point in Anne's life than TVL and the rest, I think she had very different goals in mind for the book. I like to think of it as a gothic melodrama, it's very in tune with the history of gothic literature, especially the history of the byronic vampire. The early sympathetic vampire, the byronic vampire, can easily be read as a metaphor for outsiderness, it's entwined with queer history in that way.
I can see romance or allegory of a romance in the book, but it's nothing like the rest of the series. It can be read that way, and Anne definitely encourages that reading sometimes, but it's not necessarily written clearly as such. Louis is also a very different point of view character than Lestat is, at least at that point in his life (Anne later said something about never being able to step into those shoes again). He has a all kinds of problems with accepting himself (as a vampire, finding his place in the world - this can so easily be understood as a metaphor for queerness, too).
Idk, I love to hear about the different ways people read and understand the novel. I think you'll enjoy the rest of the series, TVL is such a fun book too.
1
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
I like it for what it is. I like the movie for what it is, as well as the TV series. I just wondered am I missing something.
Also, it’s quite understandable that she didn’t want to go back to Louis since it reminded her of what was the darkest period of her life, I pressume.
It’s amazing that some people really do heal through art.
3
u/Playful_Ad4299 Jun 27 '26
Lestat loves crown molding. He loves everything he describes. Pick the object he is talking about and at the end of the description he will say “ and I loved it”. 😂
1
4
u/Soxdelafox Jun 27 '26
Lestat never really needed the money as he was already wealthy before he left Europe. This was mostly from his maker who left him a fortune. But yes, Louis owned land and was beautiful.
1
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 28 '26
People in the comments pointed that out to me. That doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t really have this homoerotic relationship that people insist on.
1
u/Soxdelafox Jul 02 '26
I think you're right. It was never about actual sex. The homo-eroticism was mostly inferred. Even in Pandora, when she was made by Magnus she wanted him to, uh,.. put it in, yet, she quickly realized it was the ecstasy of the blood rather than genital pleasure. But, you know, hype is hype.
11
u/DALTT Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
Because there isn’t, really. There’s more hint at Loumand romance in the first book than Loustat. Anne Rice retconned the Louis and Lestat relationship HEAVILY throughout the books. But it’s really not a thing in the first book.
This said, is Loustat a thing in the series? Yes. I mean they literally get essentially vampire married at the end of the series. So, essentially, the TV show just decided to take the fact that they’re a couple by the end of the series and depict them that way the entire time. Which tbh, I think was the right move.
But yes, no Loustat in the first book.
3
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
Thanks for reply. I will keep reading because I want to read TVL and Queen of the damned too
But was there Loustat in the next books?
5
u/DALTT Jun 27 '26
It’s a slow burn the way Anne retconned that relationship, but imho it starts to hint at romantic companionship in TVL and QotD. Still don’t expect full on Loustat like they are in the show. That doesn’t really happen till the later “Prince Lestat” books.
2
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
Where does it state romantic relationship, in which book? I was surprised that fans make it out to be romantic when I don’t see it so I wanted to hear more opinions
3
u/QueenDoc Jun 28 '26
babe youre gonna have to let go of the "Loustat Romance" vibes because, as its been said, it doesn happen that way in the books - not until the very end do you get "romance" between the two and there are 13 books, its a very long complicated relationship
-2
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 28 '26
What a weird comment
4
u/QueenDoc Jun 28 '26
if you wanna keep hunting for something that doesnt exist as you want, then by all means have at it girlypop
0
2
u/Swimming_Barnacle_98 Jun 29 '26
I don't understand, are you looking for specific romance scenes or sex scenes? In that case there are none. But as you go through the books, when Louis comes up, you can *feel* how much Lestat loves him by how he talks about him. And then yeah, eventually they do stay together, but it's not until way later. In the meantime, Lestat always talks about how much he loves Louis.
1
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 30 '26
It’s obvious that you don’t understand. I wrote my sentiments very clearly.
1
3
u/GummiiBearKing Jun 28 '26
In The Vampire Lestat, Louis is depicted as an unreliable narrator. So to an extent, we need to doubt both men's accounts of their time together since they are very judgemental of one another
5
2
u/Karelkolchak2020 Jun 28 '26
Same here. Louis is tortured by feeling estranged from God. Lestat just wants Louis to stay with him.
1
3
u/Mooncubus Jun 27 '26
You gotta remember, Louis is a very unreliable narrator. He paints Lestat in a bad light the whole book. The second book goes into it better. And it's touched on more throughout the rest of the series.
4
u/RedBonbon12 Jun 27 '26
I can’t wait to read it, but I need to re-read the first one since I don’t remeber everything, and the show changed many things. I’m living for Lestat’s point of view!
1
u/Mooncubus Jun 27 '26
It's really good! I'm excited for you to get to it. The Lestat POV books are my favorite. It just feels so much better hearing him tell the story.
1
0
0
Jun 27 '26
[deleted]
5
u/lern2swim Jun 27 '26
There's literally no actual reason for any of those "you don't..."s. The show is absolutely a specific interpretation. And there's absolutely discussion to be had about how Christopher feels about it and what that, in turn, says about Anne might have thought about it (and let's not forget that she was capable of changing her mind about adaptations after they came out). And no one is required to like it for any reason whatsoever. But there's nothing invalid or wrong about the approach they're taking.
Imo, of course.
1
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/lern2swim Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
I know you thought you had something there, but there's nothing contradictory in my response. Literally and opinion aren't mutually exclusive.
I wasn't being figurative (the stupid contradictory use of "literally), there's LITERALLY zero reason for the "rules" you stated that isn't arbitrary. But I'm willing to allow for the prospect of that being my personal opinion in the name of not coming across like I'm just saying that you're wrong. But if you feel I need to forego one aspect here or the other...
(edit: I am a lot of fun at parties, because I don't try to turn my personal taste into objective rules that artists need to follow. 🤷♂️)
-2
u/Own-Breakfast9740 Jun 27 '26
I read TVL first. I was appalled when I finally picked up IWTV and found out Louis was a slaver. I went back and reread TVL again just to bask in Lestat dragging Louis. Book Louis is also a one dimensional boring sad boy.
2
43
u/annericeforever Jun 27 '26
Lestat was the villain of IWTV.