Anne Rice finds Jesus. Goths everywhere weep.

[HaemishM]

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.

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.

[WayAbvPar]

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.

[Roac]

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.

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.

[Llava]

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.

[Sky]

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.

[HaemishM]

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

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.

[Llava]

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

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.

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.

[stray]

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.

[Paelos]

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.

[stray]

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.

[Llava]

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.

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.

[Roac]

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.

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). 

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)?

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.

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"?

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.

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.

[Paelos]

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.

[voodoolily]

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.

[Paelos]

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.

[voodoolily]

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.

[stray]

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

[Pococurante]

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.

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... 

[stray]

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. 

[Pococurante]

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.