f13.net

Anne Rice's new novel to be about Jesus, not vampires. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9785289/site/newsweek/)

Every time I think of all the angsty teenage goths who will feel utterly betrayed by this turn of events, and then buy the book anyway, I chuckle.

They weren't paying close attention if they thought she was anti-religion anyway.

Hell, after the very last 'vampire' book you didn't even have to be paying attention.

Since when do angsty neo-pagan goth kids pay attention to anything farther away than their own bellybuttons?  Not that I'm stereotyping or anything.

She's been a devout Catholic for a while now.


"Devout Catholic" is probably still cool in a Goth's mind anyways.

I'm really tired of people saying that someone revealing their Christianity is "daring."

I'm an atheist- give me a medal!

By "people" you mean the mean the "media".

And since that's the case, I would hope that you were already tired of them long before this  :-).

Yes, and good point.

But I am FURTHER tired of it.

The media is like my avatar. A very dangerous clown.

My favorite religious irony lately is the Rabbi who is denouncing Madonna for using some holy guy's (Yitzak iirc) name in a song: they aren't supposed to be named for profit or summat.

I just want to reach through the tv and say "Dude. Her name is MADONNA."

The media is a waste of time, I only watch it for laughs.

"[In 2004] she returned to the Roman Catholic Church, which she'd left at 18. "

She spoke out against religion for a while.  Being raised as Catholic, and living in N.O., it certainly figured into her books.  Her writings on God, etc, were hardly reverent however.

I wonder if her young Jesus will be a pouty, effete, latent homosexual who still has friends despite treating them all to persecution.

Well, the article mentioned she wanted to use some of the infancy gospels, which are full of all sorts of wild stuff.  Like, Jesus goes around zapping his little friends.  Except, it wasn't so much to persecute, but because he was throwing a tantrum.  Must've been a bitch when he went through puberty.

Well, she is a writer of fantasy fiction. Why not write about a different mythical beast?


Sing on, brother.

I think the problem is that nobody ever got fed to a lion for being an atheist.  If that was a common occurrence, declaring one's atheism would be a really heroic act and nobody would say shit about anyone declaring belief in or affiliation with anything else. 

I smell a new Fox reality TV show!

Nor has a Christian since it was adopted by the Roman Empire.  Although athiests have been sometimes persecuted by Christians for being heretics.  Either way, you're talking old history there.l

Really, it has more to do with the modern climate; and no, declaring your religious affiliation isn't particularly daring on a national level.  It might be within ones family or social circle, and possibly political circles as well.  There is, in general, a stigma against being both intellectual and religious, and being 'born again' late in life may look badly as a result.

Didn't she write a bunch of books that were very pervy?  All about bondage and stuff?  It'll be hard enough to expain the vampires... but how will she explain the pervy sex to God?  He really hates that shit, you know... at least concerning women.

Speaking of pervy sex and God... where's Paelos?  I miss the crazy, little monkey-boy.

Yes, and even as pr0n, they were dreadful.

If Anne Rice is a Catholic, she's a cafeteria Catholic that brings her own lunch.

Agreed on the Media.  They're stupid and predictable.

As for the Madonna thing, it was because the guy she named was a Kabbalah guy.  Madonna (the original) was not.  Kabbalah cultists are weird like that.

Alkiera

Why? Take a look at her site (http://www.annerice.com/), for example...What is she doing so wrong? She's probably doing more charitable things at this moment than most people are.

I don't know why I'm defending her here, because I don't even like her books......But that's probably my point. She's just a writer. Of fiction at that.

If you've Read "Tale of the Body Thief," you wouldn't have to ask that question.

No, not Body Thief.  How about Memnoch, where Lestat gets to drink blood from Jesus after having been thrown back in time, then having everything but the two of them frozen, during Jesus' march with his cross.  Or where both God and Satan offer to give him CEO status in Hell, and after the end of which, Lestat decides he'd rather stay immortal forever because both of them are batshit insane.

Heh....I've got to ask then: Why did you even read it?  :-D

Seriously though, I'm just asking what "is" she "doing" wrong?

And does "Catholic" mean something a person is born into, or something they've worked towards? Are Catholics born as saints or is it a more of work in progress/discovery thing?

All I know is that after her husband died, she turned into a different person. This wasn't a recent thing. She's been pretty zealous with her religion ever since. Or does some fiction she wrote 20 years ago invalidate it? If so, then we're all doomed.

I read Interview with a Vampire because there was such a fuss about it.  I didn't like it much.  I may or may not have read another... I kind of sort of think maybe I did but I don't remember the name of it.  Or maybe I made that up.  I kind of liked the movie... it was very glamourous.  I don't much care if she's Catholic and I don't know why it matters.  There are millions of people all over the world who are crazy enough to be Catholic.

I loved Interview, her second was 'ok', and I was hoping she would get better.  After book 5 I quit reading her stuff.  Not because of theolocial issues, but because the plots were just getting way too crazy, and progressively worse.


Haemish answered it as a response to your query about taz's comment.  Her past literary views on theology have been fruity.  Her new book(s) sound like it's going to have a DaVinchi Code-esque push for "this is fiction masquerading as nonfiction".  Her inclusion of infancy gospels as well as adding apparently a number of entirely fictional elements will make this book just as fruity.  All of this is being done in the context of "from now on I would write only for the Lord" (and personal profit).  So she's sounding like she's doing this as a mission from God, although she's going to entirely fictionalize God, and then wrap it in a pretense of scholarship, in order to line her pockets. 

Or, what taz said.

Well, who knows if it's entirely based on fiction (in her mind, that is). Many people believe some of the infancy gospels to be valid (depending on which one...Not all of them are as outlandish as the one you mentioned). Such a thing wouldn't make her a non-Catholic (or a bad one). Even many of the early church fathers considered "apocryphal" books to not be apocryphal at all.

I didn't know she was trying to be scholarly about it though. Did she say that?

Ever read Joshua? That was a fictional book written by a Catholic priest....No one ever raised a fuss about that. No one questioned his beliefs for making an extrabiblical story about Christ. So why the fuss about this?

[edit] What I mean is, if one is going to write a fictional story with Jesus in it, much, if not all of it, is going to be speculative.....That is, unless they repeat the Gospels word for word (but then, the author wouldn't actually be "writing" anything, would she?"). It's just exploration. Not an attempt to be scholarly. The same thing applies if it was a novel about Abraham Lincoln or the Crusades.

Cue someone coming in and preaching that it's all fiction anyways.

/sigh

blah blah mindless sheep blah blah Nietzsche blah blah inviso-daddy blah blah nutsack blah blah jihad blah blah Bible blah blah I'm better than you are blah.

Glad that's out of the way.

Hmm...

"Inviso-daddy"?

[edit] Oh wait. How silly of me to forget.

[edit] I'd be quite happy if someone did a Nietzche though. That I haven't seen yet.

All I know is that Anne Rice is like a Goddess to me.  She completely explains why my life is the way it is.  Well I am off to drink 18 year old blood!

They are willing, trust me.  I LOVE GOTH CHICKS!

But she's not goth anymore, she's Catholic.  She only eats the flesh and drinks the blood of You Know Who. 

Jesus, the Mexican lawn care extraordinaire!  I hope she gets HIV checks every week, I hear he has kids everywhere.

(http://www.state.tn.us/humanserv/Image15.gif)

I would like to mention that I told you about this 5 months ago. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=3188.0)

Hah, I knew I was repeating myself.

Geez, Stray... not only did you read it five months ago but you commented four times.   You really ARE getting old!

Damm you. Now I have to read that shit. *shakes fist*

Dear God. I have a copy of that one, but after Body Thief, I just couldn't muster the strength to read them. I really think Lestat is one of the worst POS characters ever made. Interview was good because it wasn't about Lestat. Even the second one was ok, but the third was just dreadful pulp shit.

I have read Interview a couple of times. I have tried no less than 4 times to get through The Vampire Lestat, and have yet to finish it. It just drags to a goddamned halt. Yawn.

Memnoch had more thought in it than Body Thief.  The plot was unbelievably off the wall, but at least it was something to read.  Body Thief:  Guy runs away with Lestat's body and wrecks havoc.  That's it.  Memnoch takes Lestat to Heaven, Hell, speaks with Jesus at the crucifixion, etc.  Not that it was good writing, but it was at least something to look at.

Louis was the shit.  I loved Interview, mostly because of him, and never could figure out why Rice liked Lestat more than him.  It was all "wow, I'm so powerful... and I hate power... but I'm so bored, so I guess I'll screw shit up with my power".  It's like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum for eternity, bound in book form for your reading pleasure.

Lestat is primarily interesting as a supporting character- particularly as a foil to Louis.

Making him the main character is akin to making the Joker the star, instead of Batman.

I read the first Witches book and liked it. I dig stories that span different times like that (not Timecop). My girlfriend bought me Lasher, the sequel, and after reading that I decided I didn't like Anne Rice much. Figuring it may have been a fluke, I read Interview and after about 50 pages I decided the first Witches book was the fluke. Haven't touched her books since.

The Joker is a billion times more dramatically interesting than Lestat. He's just a pouting fairy with fangs, while the Joker is batshit insane in a good way.

The Witching Hour was good, too. Lasher... not so much.

And Louis was more interesting than all the other characters combined.

Regardless, a Joker book would be interesting for one, maybe two arcs.  He could not carry a series like Batman can.

Of course, Lestat couldn't even get that far.

I haven't read any Lestat stories (only seen Interview), but would Louis be his nemesis in a way? If so, I guess it'd make sense to compare Lestat books to Batman-less Joker stories then.

Some nemesis characters in literature have interesting points in their own right, but really, their purpose isn't to be that at all. Their attractiveness lies in the hero who fights against them. Joker's whole purpose is to be Batman's pain in the ass. He's an embodiment of everything Batman is against.

If that is what Lestat is (or originally was) with Louis, then it's impossible for such stories not to suck. Without opposition, they're just static personalities who move and operate within scenery, but never have anything substantial to channel further character development.

The 180 from bestselling Vampire novels with obvious homoeroticism to...yeah, the life of Christ.

As anti-religion as some of you are, I still think you understand why I won't bother reading this as both a writer and a Christian.

Not reading it as a writer I can understand, but not reading it as a Christian? Who knows what it really contains until...Well...You actually read it. No offense to Roac, but I can't completely take his word for it.

It's like when people refused to watched Last Temptation of Christ because they heard there was nudity and graphic sex scenes in it....And at one point, Jesus gets married to the two sisters Mary and Martha.

But when you watch it (or read the original book), you realize that it wasn't quite that simple, that it was illustrating a further, reverent detail about Christ. That he never literally did those things in the story after all.

[edit] Oh wait. You're talking about the new book.

Well, same point applies: As a Christian, how does that make you even know what the book is about to even judge it?

And as a Christian, how is judging something she wrote 20 years to what she writes now compatible with the idea of understanding that people evolve and change (i.e. forgiveness)?

Anyways, I said it earlier, but I'll repeat again: Her husband died. It lead her to becoming religious. What part of that doesn't make sense? That she bases it on some of the infancy gospels (all of which vary)? That doesn't make it Christian? You do know that it was Christians who wrote these texts, right? Texts that predate the Canon. And for some reason, even though they predate the Canon, and were written by Christians, the writings still aren't "Christian"?

Hmm!

Don't take my word for it though....Just read an interview or something, visit her website and read her own words. Do for another as you would have them do for you.

[edit] Ahh...Forget it. Don't bother reading up. And don't reply. My bad. I know that few here actually give a shit about what I have to say at this point, and if anything, would probably try to mangle what I wrote above anyways. Impossible as it would seem.

Not sure I'd say "Nemesis".  Definitely a "Foil" though.  Louis tries to be human/humane in his actions as much as possible, and frequently seems to regret becoming a vampire.  Lestat views himself as beyond mortal morality, and it seems he wouldn't trade his vampiric existence for anything in the world.

Granted, that's just what I gathered from watching the Interview movie, reading the first 20 pages of the Interview book, and reading the first 100-150 pages of Memnoch.  I'd've read more but I didn't want to.

Not sure what word of mine there is to take.  I mean, whether a book is good or bad is just a matter of oppinion.  I hope you don't mean to say that you think I'd lie about what I thought about it, but I certainly am not trying to tell you that you will not like it.  I like some of her stuff, and not others - take that for whatever it's worth.  As for Last Temptation, I wouldn't say I liked it, but it was interesting and worth a gander.  Didn't like Passion - I agree with South Park on that one (closer to a snuff film than anything). 


You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what the concepts of forgiveness or judgement mean in Christian context.  If you really want to know an answer, can it be taken to another thread or PMs?  Otherwise, the question requires a theological answer, and that's going to be unfun.


Sorry her husband died.  If she's found something to improve her life with as a result, I'm happy she has that.  That doesn't mean I'm going to take her as a religious authority, especially with a 20 year history (not just A incident 20 years ago) of writing batshit insane stuff.  Even less convinced after her declaration to write something that sounds very much like she wishes to pass a DaVinci Code clone off as fiction in the guise of scholarship.  And yeah, that's exactly what it sounds like.  Even less to accept her since she's looking to profit from her new found beliefs.

To Strays long thing:

I'm glad you understand my objections as a writer, and I think that goes without saying why.

As to the Christian reasoning, Jesus is a touchy subject for people. Trying to guess at what his life was like when it's not covered in regular Biblical texts is opening the door to major artisitic interpretation. When that's the case, you have to look at the author's biases in order to predict which way she goes with the material. This particular author is not a religious scholar, has a completely opposite body of work from the current project, but she has a loose tie to the church from years and years ago. I just don't like financially supporting her new endeavors as she's sort of jumped from point A to point Z on the Christian writing experience without the work in-between. In essence she's taking on major material without major qualifications.

Just poking in: Paelos, did you read Jesus the Son of Man by Kahlil Gibran? I found it interesting, but my father (the only Christian I have immediate access to) was insulted that someone would attempt to discuss Christ as anyone but the son of God.

Never read it, sorry. I'm not a huge fan of Christian fiction myself, but I do enjoy spiritual authors like Max Lucado, and a few books by my parent's pastor in Florida who is originally from New Zealand. I find that stuff helpful in the daily walk.

I don't know that I'd call it Christian fiction. After all, Gibran is the author of The Prophet, and I implore you to find a book more read by pot-smoking hippies. It's more of the Generic Spirituality ilk.

Cool book, I think. Though to be honest, I'm probably not much of a Christian in most people's eyes.

And one of the greatest spiritual poets of the last century - my mental associations of him with hippies is way down the list of other things I associate to him and his works.  But then I was a stoned hippy when I started reading Gibran's poetry so homage given where homage is due. :P

At risk of a derail here, Jesus is a revered prophet to muslims and a respected Great Rabbi to the jewish tradition.  Ironically life stories of the greats are one of the most loved stories in nearly all the great religions since they're such fertile ground for allegory and moralisms - in fact the Hindi version of Christ, Krishna, has an entire religion created around his childhood.  Hardcore Christians are the unusual exception but it seems very important for them to believe his enlightened attitudes are unapproachably divine.  Lily, next time it comes up with your dad ask him how many times does Jesus refer to himself as the son of god and how does that number compare to the times he calls himself son of man... ;)  even in the cleansed and approved books it's pretty clear Joshua thought of himself as human rather than godlet.  (on second thought don't - why rile up someone you love)

I was just removing myself from subcultures when Rice became popular - I never bothered reading her books because the only people I knew recommending them where hyper-angsty gay boys under the age of 24 who had a huge chip on their shoulder. As much fun as it was hanging with these guys their definition of good writing seemed awfully tied up in justifying their lifestyles...  :lol:

Well....A true hardcore Christian (wouldn't presume to say that I am one, but I do stand with this) would really say he's divine AND man (Nicene Creed yo!). A hardcore Gnostic would say he's divine. A humanist...Well...Human. And an evangelical would just say whatever he was told to say.  :lol:

The Gnostic would but by that s/he means we're all divine and what set Joshua apart was he had the ability to envision a world different than the one he lived in and articulatre it in a way that influenced people.  Where the Gnostic insists this sort of perspective is available to us because we're all "divine", the Christian insists that the divine Jesus is perfect and that we should strive to be like him while at the same time accepting we're too fatally flawed to ever come close.  Yuck, talk about being setup to fail.

I prefer the gnostic interpretation.  To me it is inescapable the historical Jesus/Joshua was a gnostic ("lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.").  The gnostic view was a perfect stand-in model for reality until Science and Reason gavce us better tools to do the same thing.  It's no great surprise to me the early "scientists" were hugely influenced by the gnostic view.

Now I feel like Syndrome: "hey you got me monologuing!" :)  Sorry for derail.