It does deal with a questionable vampire-fellacio-young boy Armand scene. I didn’t understand why that was included, because the vampire (marius I think) was already 1000 years old (or thereabouts) and I would think he wouldn’t think of doing that to the kid-you know?
My problem with the book however was that Armand was in it.
Spoilers
He died in Memnock, and I come to find out that I have to wade through his-already-pretty-much-explained-life (I believe the Vampire Lestat covered that ground), in order to get to the reason he was still up and walking.
I don’t get this. He’s asking in the OP if other people there’s a lot of homosexuality in the series, not using it to mean “lame” so what’s the problem?
As for the OP, I have no difficulty believing that Rice wrote the latter books since a lot of women write about gay, male, characters.
I don’t know why you would think that. As a straight female, I find it much easier to write about male characters who are gay than I would female characters who are gay. Coming from the mindset of finding males attractive myself, it’s easier to write about men finding men attractive than it to write about women finding women attractive(and yes, before you ask, it’s easier to write about how women feel about men, than about how men feel about women too).
I don’t think the OP was overwhelmingly clear in his use of “gay”. It sounds as though the OP meant it in the manner that Forbin suggested. Whether he did or not, I can’t say, maybe EhhMon would care to enlighten us.
I didn’t care about that stuff; what I didn’t like was that it had almost no plot. At least I recall thinking that at the time. It has been several years since I read it, though.
I don’t really have a Teenspeak to English dictionary, but comments like:
…“Isn’t Vampire Armand the most gayest book ever?!”…
have two possible translations.
Version 1- Do you agree that “Vampire Armand” is a book with excessive homosexual content?
Version 2- Isn’t “Vampire Armand” a piece of shit?
Which one the OP meant, I really don’t know.
I didn’t flame the OP, and FWIW he took my comments as constructive.
I hope he enjoys his time at the SDMB, and I hope we enjoy his time at the SDMB too.
One would think so, yes. However, Pandora, along with Vittorio are considered to be the two in the New Tales of the Vampires. This is all according to The Official Anne Rice web page
I think to date, my favourite of the series has to be Blood and Gold. I did enjoy QotD quite a bit back when I first read it, as at the time, it was the final one in the Vampire Chronicles (just before TotBT, in '92) and it seemed to sum up the trilogy quite nicely.
sorry for the incomplete preivous post…darn submit, so close to the preivew…grrrrr
The complete and correct order of the books (as written)-
Interview with a vampire
The Vampire Lestat
Queen of the Damned
The Tale of the Body Theif
Memnoch the Devil
Pandora
The Vampire Armand
Vittorio The Vampire
Merrick
Blood and Gold
Blackwood Farm
…this is the order that the books should be read in. Of course you can read Vittorio anytime you wish because it actually has nothing to do with the characters in the other books.
Anne Rice is a very talented author and I love her books. Yes, there seems to be some kind of gay tendencies in her male vampire characters, but I for one was not insulted or offended.
Memnoch was my favorite of these… queen of the damned was second.
As a foot note I would like to state that watching the QOTD movie made me want to rip my hair out and then go in search of whomever wrote that horrible horrible script.
~^^~kitty - girlfriend of dead0man … who will probably get pissy when he finds out I posted under his name in here (but it’s his fault for giving me the link to a subject he knows I love)
I didn’t like Pandora, and so that was the last one I’ve read.
I read The Vampire Lestat first (my friend had it laying around and I didn’t know about IwtV). Then I read Interview and then the rest in order. I’m almost glad that I started with Lestat. Since it is his book, told from his perspective, I started out with a sympathetic view of him–instead of seeing him first as a villain as he was described by Louis in Interview.
To confirm this: At most of the conventions I’ve been to and most of the slash lists I’m on, the majority of writers and readers are female. A few gay men, but mostly women, mostly straight women.
[aside]I don’t know why straight men, with so much of their erotica slanted toward two-chicks-together scenarios, find it so hard to understand that a lot of women like the idea of two guys together. It’s the same thing from the other side, boys.[/aside]
I enjoyed Anne Rice’s early books, especially The Vampire Lestat, but lost interest with the later ones. The early books seem so much richer in detail and background. I suspect this is because she had more time to work on them; Lestat, IIRC, took her at least 5 years to write, and I believe she also spent years working on The Witching Hour . But after she became rich and famous, and started to crank out at least a book a year, I think her writing suffered enormously. I don’t actually remember whether or not I read Armand.
In another thread EhhMon rated himself as a four on the Kinsey scale, so I think he’s qualified in the use of the term gay. Have the rules here gotten that PC? It was also clear to me he was refering to the amount of homosexuality in a book, so I don’t see his use of it as a synonym for bad, weak or lame. He also said he loved the books.
Now the resident PC polizei take exception to his possible use of the word gay to mean bad or lame, but miss the association between the book being “gay” and having “NAMBLA” written all over it. That I would think, would raise some PC hackles. Interesting it didn’t.
Anyhow, my take on vampire books is vampires aren’t human, so aren’t confined to human conceptions of sexuality. If it seems gay or straight or perverted to us, it’s because we’re human. We’re talking about immortals that kill & suck blood for a living, here. They’re bound to have very different sensibilities than the rest of us, and probably don’t even think of themselves as male or female, or gay or straight or bi or whatever. Nor do they care so much about what we are.
Now EhhMon thinks this one particular book is way gay & so maybe she’s not the only writer or influence on the book. I asked my favorite sci-fi/fantasy/horror buff & she said EhhMon evidently hasn’t read enough Anne Rice yet. “That chick is weird” is how it was put to me.
The vampires aren’t human, and they can’t have sex. IIRC their genitals are like marble. I don’t view their relationships as homosexual, or heterosexual becuase of this. To me they are in a wierd zone of friendship/lovers. The vampires are ambiguiously sexual if that makes any sense.
Not really ambiguious I’d say. What about all the things that Marius did to the mortal boy Armand? Yes their genitals are like marble and they derrive their sexual pleasure in other ways with each other, but apparantly he didn’t need his genitals to do things to Armand and bring him pleasure.
You were right in they can’t have ‘sex’. I would say that they are more sensual than sexual since there really isn’t any penetration. A for homosexual or heterosexual - I’d say they are all bisexual because there are parts in the series that involve women as well.
It’s kinda complex… He ends up buried under snow and ice. He gets images of a young woman, Sybelle and her “servant” Benjamin. It is Sybelle’s piano playing that kinda helps him decide to live. He sends thoughts to Benjamin, and they end up helping Armand by taking him into their hotel room, and bringing him victims and clothes and such.
Really, you gotta read it to totally understand it, hehehe.
He wasn’t ashes…IIRC, he kinda “flew” or “exploded” and ended up on this hotel roof. He was just severly burnt, charred right to the bone, but not ashes. Because he had really strong, old blood in him. Something like that.
