Nicole Cavalieri, Period 7, 4/5/22

 Exploring the Queer Reading of Interview with the Vampire 

To say that Anne Rice’s 1976 novel, Interview with the Vampire, is full of queer subtext is almost an understatement.  Vampires have always represented sexuality, and the subversive. This was discussed in our class when we began our unit on vampires. Typically, vampires are seen preying on the innocence of young women, typically virgins, and “corrupting” their perceived purity. In Rice’s novel, the main character is a man, who was turned into a vampire by another man, and the same sexual undertones remain. Louis, the main character, even compares the act of drinking Lestat’s blood in order to complete his transformation to sex explicitly. So we can see the the ways in which vampirism in the novel can be read as analogous to queerness. However, what is that representation of queerness? As a queer audience member in 2022, it is interesting to reflect on. In the rest of this blog, I will explore these feelings and look through the different queer readings that could be applied to Interview with the Vampire.

When I first started to the read the book, I admit that I was a bit concerned about its implications regarding the queer coding of its characters. Considering the novel was written in 1976, I was concerned when I saw the depiction of two men in a relationship so heavily connected to sex and romance when that relationship was facilitated on them becoming monsters. I also couldn’t help but draw the parallel between vampirism, which is passed through the exchange of blood, and HIV, a bloodborne virus. Because of the way queerness has been villainized in both history and literature I think it was fair for me to assume similar negative intentions from a a work written by a straight woman in the 70s. However, in class the next day our first lesson on the novel touched on a queer theory lens through which to read the novel and Anne Rice’s advocacy for the queer community. In progressing through the novel I saw the meaning in reading it through a queer lens and many passages resonated with me. However, there are other parts of the novel that still complicate my feelings on the matter. 

The main sticking point for me is Rice’s portrayal of the relationship between Louis and Claudia; and to a lesser extent, the relationship between Armand and Denis. After Louis feeds on Claudia and Lestat turns her into a vampire, they adopt her as a daughter, however Louis begins to see her as not just a daughter but as a lover. This is obviously wildly inappropriate and damaging for a child. Later in the novel, Denis, a young mortal boy, is shown as the “slave” of Armand. Armand keeps him alive, feeding on him regularly and their relationship has undeniable sexual undertones. That plus Armand’s power to exert his “aura” over other to persuade them makes it very likely that the relationship is less than fully consensual. This is something uncomfortable to think about by itself just because of its parallels to real life abuse. It is, in my opinion, worsened by the way Rice has linked vampirism and Louis and Armand’s characters to queerness in other parts of the novel. When paired with the queer subtext, it feeds into the harmful idea that queer people sexualize children and are in some way predatory. Now, as I’ve said this was not Rice’s intention. I don’t think that she believes that queer people are predatory and writing about queer sexuality in the 70s is an accomplishment. Her efforts to normalize queer sexuality come from a place of good intentions. However, I would not know this wasn’t her intention if I only looked at what was written within the book. And while, of course writing something in fiction doesn’t condone it in reality, perpetuating a stereotype like this does real harm to queer people. It leads to legislation like the current “Don’t Say Gay” bill passed in Florida and violence against queer people perceived as threats. Again, this is not a condemnation of the novel but I do think it is important to examine this angle. This gets at a question in literary studies about the degree to which author intention and context need to be taken into account. I don’t think there is one definitive answer as with most things in English studies.

A lot of Louis’s characterization and struggles really do resonate with the queer experience. First of all, when he first describes being a vampire and feeding he finds a greater meaning, joy, and appreciation for life. He didn’t realize just how unsatisfied he was in his old life until he became a vampire. I think that relates to the queer experience of compulsory heterosexuality, in which queer people convince themselves that they are happy in straight relationships because it is the assumed and expected norm. I think Louis’ feelings of angst about what he is, especially compared with his fear of hell early in the novel, are also analogous to the internalized homophobia queer people face. Even his feelings for Babette, in which he longs to be able to love her and as a result feel saved is related to these experiences. The other large part of the novel that I feel resonates with the queer experience is Louis’ feelings of isolation and his desperate search for guidance in other, older vampires. His lack of mentors or people who share his experienced and know the way is a sad reality for many queer people. For most of history, queer people either died young or lived in secret without community. And following the AIDS epidemic a whole generation of queer elders died. I also don’t think that this is something that Anne Rice thought about when writing the novel but there were a lot of lines and quotes that hit very close to home.

I don’t have a final conclusion about how I feel about the novel, I just have a collection of thoughts which I have outlined here. I think that it is a worthwhile pursuit to discuss different ways queer theory may be applied to a text regardless of what the text was “supposed” to be. Literature is about what you take from it and I think it’s limiting to say that each person should only take one thing from a piece of literature. Maybe one day I’ll revisit this novel in the future and I’ll form yet another opinion about it. Regardless of whether the queer subtext is “good” it was clearly thought provoking enough that I was inspired to write a thousand or so words about it; and i think that, at least, is the make of a good story.