Three steps before we go. Just to try and avoid misunderstandings, which are all too easy to happen in a written form.
Fisrtly: This article's not at any point trying to rob আপনি off your freedom to have, keep and state your own character মতামত and opinions.
Secondly: I am not a homophobic অথবা sexaphobic. I am merely trying to figure out its role in The VC universe; how the ricean vampires' sexuality differs from human sexuality as in on what level it should be seen and how important and essential it is to the story and relationships. I am not denying their sexuality at any point and I'm not trying to say this is the accurate and full image of the sexuality's role in the entire ricean universe and its relationships. When it comes to The Vampire Chronciles, the quotations from Anne ধান are the only real truth in this article, the rest is just my interpretation.
Thirdly: This is meant for anyone who's interested but especially for other newbies who are making efforts to understand অথবা are confused anout them. Even I am still confused al along here but I'm trying.
Now, let me start from the beginning so আপনি get a picture of how I am, where I come from and how I came to this point.
I've been a অনুরাগী of Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronincles since June 2008 and I'm sure my being new to this, shows here. Back then, I had only seen the চলচ্চিত্র but I considered myself a অনুরাগী as I was genuinely interested in them and I begun to study the fandom. This, was a huge mistake. I should've just taken the বই and read them. Which I didn't get to begin to do until sometime around November that year.
Until then, I was blue-eyed enough to have good faith in that people who sound so in প্রণয় and fanatic about the বই that they'd judge a movie adaptation so passionately and extremely, would know what they're talking about and deeply respect the books' characters and relationships. Added to that innocent belief, I knew the Chronicles are supposed to have homosexuality in them on one level অথবা another and the homosexual (slash) অনুরাগী art from চলচ্ছবি to other art pretty much run over anything else in the fandom. Thus, I assumed most of the vampire relationships are homosexual অথবা at least bi.
Then I bought the বই and downloaded e-books too and begun to read. As I read, I couldn't let go of the প্রতিমূর্তি other অনুরাগী had already প্রদত্ত me. Eventually I stopped thinking what everyone else says and looked into it purely myself & then thought they're not gay nor প্রেমী - which I however had later become a bit unsure of in some relationship's cases. No, the sexuality's absence in a significant level was very clear to me. I thought the বই hint to homosexuality but do not exactly include it with the vampires. But the প্রণয় between the vampire characters in their relationships I believed was just প্রণয় in its purest, but that I didn't think was too clear. It can't be clear as it leaves room for possibilities. So many are so sure of their conclusions to be the only correct ones that I began to suspect if there after all is a certain way they're supposed to be seen. Well, it turns out as far as I see, there isn't - in 99% of the relationships that is.
আপনি see, I got sick of the confusion and being laughed at for not seeing that "Lestat & Louis are প্রেমী and gay" and so on, অথবা Lestat & Nicki. So I wanted to try and make it clear to myself, দ্বারা e-mailing Anne Rice, asking her what is her meaning in the whole sexuality matter with her ভ্যাম্পায়ার and my main প্রশ্ন was if Lestat & Louis and Lestat & Nicki are supposed to be প্রেমী of any kind. And that would imply I wish to understand what is important about the relationships seeing to the story.
I'm gonna offer her reply and my take on it for anyone who's interested.
Anne Rice's reply to my e-mail + my interpretation of it.
"The reader has to form his own conclusions."
Sure we do and I respect also the fact we are always and forever free to do so and keep them no matter what she says, but I did say I am interested in her own means on this because the matter is interesting and vital to the series.
Readers should make their own conclusions but this is her image of her ভ্যাম্পায়ার and thus the original and truest - (her words in quotation marks and in cursive and my take on them after it, so of course the cursive quotations are the her view. The rest is just my conclusion on them and it may অথবা may not make sense.
"My vampire characters do not have sexual relations with each other অথবা with humans."
So indeed, they're not gay nor straight in any practical level. And, even if they had sexual relations, Anne later on says repeatedly that gender and age doesn't matter to her vampires. So they couldn't be gay anyway. Rather bi অথবা omnisexuals.
I think Anne ধান ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not about sexuality on such a significant level as many seem to think they are ("drinking blood = sex to them", some say) but most significantly about প্রণয় in it's purest and deepest exsistance - sexuality belongs to it but প্রণয় stands on it's own as well. Which is দ্বারা the way, one of the reasons why I think her vampire image is so outstanding. Usually ভ্যাম্পায়ার are portrayed as highly sexual creatures, who bearly have a heart. Anne pretty much turned that image upside down - অথবা made the sexuality much আরো finer and elegant - with incredible depth and so made the vampire infinitely আরো beautiful, fascinating abd luring.
What I'm trying to imply is that I think the way ricean ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not homo/hetero-sexual with each other couldn't be আরো clear in the লেখা in the বই - and that taking some little detail অথবা a first impression and usually with failing to grasp the concept of homosexuality I think is making people miss out on something. Hence, people say "Lestat is gay because he says he loves Louis", while simply feeling প্রণয় doesn't make a man homosexual. And, "Lestat clearly states he is attracted to Marius as আরো than a father.", which is actually true but in the scene in প্রশ্ন that statement had like a gazillion literally প্রদত্ত reasons that had nothing to do with a natural attraction, which leads to the fact he never felt that way for Marius since. All this person would've had to do is read the entire scene with thought and not blindly stare at the sexual terms used.
"But they are obviously attracted to and capable of falling in প্রণয় with people of any age and any gender. They are "out of nature" once they become vampires, and they can প্রণয় all people. Gender, age, etc., no longer matter."
I believe she is talking about প্রণয় in it's purest and most basic exsistance, and not about প্রণয় of any specific nature.
"Many gay readers have seen them as gay, and seen the বই as gay allegory. Others
have not seen this at all. I see them as transcending matters of gender অথবা age. Lestat loves Louis. Louis loves Claudia. Armand loves Lestat. Lestat loves Gabrielle. There is no distinct difference in the quality of any of these loves. This has also been described as polymorphous sensuality."
As I ব্যক্ত I believe the ভ্যাম্পায়ার hint to homosexuality but don't really have such relationships and if they do have something like that (Marius&Armand), it's not the human thing as they're able to explore love, including this sexual element, on a drastically different level. She does not describe Marius and Armand as "gay lover" but as a "sensualized প্রণয় affair" as in, I believe sexuality isn't the basic element though an essential part of the love. অথবা something. And in the end she seems to leave it all up to the reader, saying some gay people have seen them (the ভ্যাম্পায়ার in general) as gay and some have not seen it at all. I'd regard them omnisexual indtead of gay.
Anyway... She ব্যক্ত just there; "There is no distinct difference in the quality of any of these loves." = Generally, her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not so simply, exactly and literally প্রেমী in the term's romantic meaning. They may not be "gay lovers", especially not for Lestat saying he loves / fell fatally in প্রণয় with Louis - I see her pretty much saying it is as I reckoned, that it can, but isn't really essential to be imagined, anything absolute in nature but her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are about প্রণয় and bond all in all. Except for...
Marius & Lestat. I pointed out that there is a distinct difference in the quality of those guys' প্রণয় for each other seeing to their other loves and asked if there was a reason for this exception other than the fact Lestat's mortal life misery is screaming his yearning for a loving father-figure who he could put all his trust in.
She kindly replied again.
"I see the ভ্যাম্পায়ার as deeply loving all sorts of people. Once they are made vampires, they transcend gender and sexual desire. Their loves have to do with the essence of the person."
The কুইন of the Damned (2002) film really can't be compared to the বই in this প্রণয় & sexuality matter as it doesn't respect the বই at any level in it. But just in case... As I take it, the deeply loving all sorts of people doesn't mean the vampire literally fall in প্রণয় of any nature with just anyone and everyone they meet. They প্রণয় humanity but to fall in প্রণয় of some nature, to create any real essence, takes something significant. Hence, Lestat could never romantically fall in প্রণয় with someone like the film's Jesse, which the movie itself clearly proves too, দ্বারা having no chemistry and no working storyline with them. And in the বই Lestat seems to fall in প্রণয় easily (in whatever nature) but it seems to take a deep and remarkable personality for him to do so. The film Lestat loves the film Jesse's humanity. That's all for the প্রণয় whereas there is much আরো for hate and he clearly shows that part. So, let's also consider that even though the ভ্যাম্পায়ার are about প্রণয় in it's purest and deepest exsistance - they are not brainless hippies. And the কুইন of the Damned (2002) film is truly a disgrace to the books, while it is generally taken a fine film independently.
And as for transcending sexual desire and gender... I think just like the প্রণয় without sexuality element, the sexual element become pure and free and since they're above sexuality, "out of nature", the sexuality isn't what drives them but প্রণয় in purest is, and sex may অথবা may not have something to do with it. Unlike in human nature, which they're out of, sex ususllay drives and প্রণয় may অথবা may not have something to do with it.
"It is true that the relationship between Lestat and Marius is a father and son relationship;"
YES, it is, and later I'll be reasoning why it shouldn't be and can't logically be thought of as anything else. (Apart from the mentor/student and বন্ধু that combine to the father-son element.)
"however the relationship between Armand and Marius was a sensualized প্রণয় affair type relationship. Gabrielle and Lestat is a mixed relationship, part mother son, part প্রণয় affair. Louis and Lestat is a প্রণয় hate relationship. Claudia and Louis is আরো a প্রণয় affair. Lestat and Claudia a father daughter relationship.
So I would say the opening up of possibilities is what is key. The vampire state opens the characters to all different types of loves, but it is always the essence of the character that most determines the nature of the love."
She goes back into when it comes to the whole lovers/sex matter of the relationships that don't have the certain-quality label the way the Marius & Lestat does. As in, a father-son element can not be seen with a sexual touch without it becoming clearly disturbing and twisted and affecting both characters psychologically, which Marius and Lestat clearly are not. The only way they seem psychologically unusual is in the father-son way; Marius sets a boundrie, Lestat pushes it for the fun of it, Marius scolds him, which is one of the reasons why Lestat psushes the boundires because he enjoys being scolded especially দ্বারা Marius, who on his behalf enjoys Lestat being a total, hopeless brat - so round and round they go. Such sweet nutties they are but completely and purely a father and son in heart, whereas the other nature of প্রণয় they feel for each other is as friends, plus they're relationship include Marius being a teacher about being a vampire, which may be the essence of it অথবা the father-son element but it all boils down to that sexuality and romance has no place in their love. Whereas, the essence of the following relationships she talks about, is of another nature of প্রণয় - yet they either, have nothihng to do with sex.
"--- Armand is desperately in প্রণয় with Lestat but it has nothing to do with sex. Armand feels Marius failed him and Marius feels Armand failed him, and that part has nothing to do with sex. Marius and Pandora, that is a প্রণয় affair, but again sex has nothing to do with it. So they are all capable of loving people of their own gender and the other gender; gender doesn't matter. It's the essence. Lestat loves David Talbot as a lover, a friend, a mentor, a father, etc. --- It goes on like that. The act of dominating and drinking blood can happen between any two characters regardless of gender. They cannot be pinned down. They see all life as potentially beautiful and all forms of প্রণয় as rewarding."
Regardless of Marius and Armand's relationships sexual quality in some parts, they're still in the end all about প্রণয় to which the sexual element belongs but that sexual part doesn't make that much a difference, since it's sensualizing the প্রণয় instead of driving it.
In other vampire relationships that she mentioned she ব্যক্ত the প্রণয় in them has nothing to do with sex, which I think makes perfect sense anyway, as I don't remember them doing what Marius and Armand are doing at some point but then again I haven't read all the বই yet.
Whereas in Marius and Armand case, she mentones "that part", so she implies that in that relationship there are parts than have to do with sex and obviously there is. She didn't mention Lestat and Akasha, but I think the two fall beside Marius and Armand in this.
If আপনি want to stop being confused, I believe আপনি have to let go of sexuality in human human level 'cause the vampire have done so too. You're free not to, but if looked at for what they are; Forget human sexuality. Even in the very rare cases where it's in a way there, it isn't the human thing. If sexuality is part of a relationship on any relationship affective level, it's something finer than human sexuality. They don't feel sexual desire for each other.
So the blood drinking isn't a raw alternate to human sex. It is always a form of intimicity but that's all. The extacy it gives is on some level described with sexual terms but is still ব্যক্ত to be indescribable, something no human can know. And that extacy always happens, no matter what the reason for the blood drinking; which can be anything from drinking for survival (as in eating), to giving another vampire strength / heal them if they're weak (like Marius fed Lestat blood when Lestat was all dried up of it and couldn't much move), to giving powers (which usually increase দ্বারা aging but can be প্রদত্ত through blood too), to turning someone into a vampire. And maybe sometimes, depending on the nature of the প্রণয় in the relationship, they do drink blood just for the extacy. The blood drinking has a sexual type of...overtone?... but it has so many purposes and meanings for the vampire, that it is not compareable to sex.
I think দ্বারা the author's means her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not compareable to human প্রণয় and sex that simply even though naturally they can and should be compared to it to a degree, and I personally never saw simplifying it as fascinating, because they're vampires. Which was why I let go and looked into them purely myself.
And what I'm also extremely happy about is, that she has officialized that Marius and Lestat are about being a father and son - not that I ever had even the slightest doubt about it after I read the বই myself - but seeing to this love/sexuality picture for her ভ্যাম্পায়ার - I feel it was necessary for her to say they are, which some of the fanbase seems to fail to see.
All the two explore with each other is the menror/student, father/son and being friends.
My thoughts on this in a nutshell:
1. The characters being প্রেমী অথবা gay isn't essential to the story and relationships. প্রণয় in it's purest exsistance is.
This leads me to an argument I received in the name of what Lestat & Louis are. As far as I understood it, I'm supposedly missing a huge part of their relationship and story if I'm not seeing them as প্রেমী even though Lestat uses a passionate tone when saying he loves Louis, as in "I fell fatally in প্রণয় with him." I never ignored that. It's just that the way I add that up, is: Falling in প্রণয় + passionate tone = passionate প্রণয় - of any possible nature. Not absolutely অথবা even primarily romantic.
And as for the essence of Lestat & Louis's relationship - I really don't see it being there clearly - and even Anne herself decided to define it only with words "love hate relationship" - their relationship probably has involved throughout the বই but that definition was her choice today, long after she had finished the serie. So I believe she still sees them আরো in that general level of প্রণয় ansd hate that could be taken into many natures. Well, at least I think she wants us to look at them from that point of view and then make our conclusions. The same with Lestat and Nicki. I asked loud and clear about them as well, and she didn't say they're প্রেমী any আরো than that they're not. So it most likely isn't an essential thing to worry about.
I think if আপনি compare them to human ways of seeing the relationship as in "if they were human like that, they'd be gay lovers" and that's why আপনি think they're as such and that there is no other way of seeing them, আপনি are knowingly ignoring the important and significant element that they are not human. I rather see them loving on the differing vampire level, instead of thinking how that প্রণয় would be in human ways and see them simply that way. So, I believe that the differing matters. There's আরো to them than being অথবা not being homosexual lovers.
2. This I'm saying in the name of her officialising "it's the essence of the character that matters" when it comes to the nature of the প্রণয় - and long পূর্বে I received an argument from a Lestat&Marius slasher, saying "Lestat never says how he loves Marius, he just says he loves him." - to which I gave an argument that it doesn't matter if he didn't say the words, when looked into what he does say and do with/about Marius, it is clear it's a son's প্রণয় for his father and the other way around. As প্রণয় confessed in words is not the essence. They way they act and think of each other, the way they need each other, is the essence. If we really need the words, he does utter such lines as "Marius. Don't be the angry father. Save me..." (from কুইন of the Damned, when he wants to get out of the relationship with Akasha.) and "Marius. আপনি turned your back on me. It came as no surprise really. I don't despise আপনি for it. আপনি always were the parent, the teacher, the high priest." (from the Tale of the Body Thief, after Marius had made very clear he was not going to assist Lestat through this shit the Brat Prince had pulled.) Just to mention few examples. And Anne has actually even literally ব্যক্ত about Lestat & Marius; "They could never be called lovers." and really, as I said, I believe that's obvious from the books.
And now, according to Anne's words quoted earlier, it is as far as I see - most clear that Marius and Lestat seem to remain the only/one of the few vampire relationships/loves that is not left open for possibilities to see just in any way desired, but their love's nature has been defined in significant and clear level, even with Lestat's entire mortal life as a strong background for why it is and needs to be, a pure father-son love. "It is true Marius and Lestat have a father and son relationship", and she continues with the word "however" and the rest of the relationships she spoke on while also having their essence that matters the most, seem to have numerous different qualities that make them much আরো complicated in nature all in all, whereas Marius and Lestat's প্রণয় natures blend in one - making it all they can logically be.
3. It is ok to vision Lestat & Louis and Lestat & Nicki as প্রেমী and it is just as ok to vision them not to be প্রেমী but something else. But it is not that valid to vision any of the ricean ভ্যাম্পায়ার practically gay as in homosexuals in rawest level, as it is a pure impossibility for them to be practically that, them being above sexuality and having no sexual relations with each other nor with humans. I once heard a আরো fitting term; "bi-romantic".
Now, as mortal human beings, they sure had sexuality in the very level but this প্রবন্ধ is completely and purely talking the vampires, and after turning into that there is no sexual relations, they transcend the desire and gender, and প্রণয় gets a whole new meaning and value.
-The following is not quoting Anne Rice, but EternalMiyu on link at IMDB.com / Interview with the Vampire Discussion Board:
"Vampires become sterile and sexually unresponsive, however, so any 'pleasure' derived from this would just be from the emotional/psychological satisfaction of being slightly intimately closer to the partner during the blood-drinking process. As Talamasca2 stated, pretty much everything is about the blood once আপনি become a vampire. If a vampire enjoys any sexual penetration, which I would assume is rather rare, it's entirely from an emotional standpoint. This tendency would be আরো likely in a newborn vampire and would fade rather quickly, as the fledglings are আরো inexperienced in the blood-drinking department."
Fisrtly: This article's not at any point trying to rob আপনি off your freedom to have, keep and state your own character মতামত and opinions.
Secondly: I am not a homophobic অথবা sexaphobic. I am merely trying to figure out its role in The VC universe; how the ricean vampires' sexuality differs from human sexuality as in on what level it should be seen and how important and essential it is to the story and relationships. I am not denying their sexuality at any point and I'm not trying to say this is the accurate and full image of the sexuality's role in the entire ricean universe and its relationships. When it comes to The Vampire Chronciles, the quotations from Anne ধান are the only real truth in this article, the rest is just my interpretation.
Thirdly: This is meant for anyone who's interested but especially for other newbies who are making efforts to understand অথবা are confused anout them. Even I am still confused al along here but I'm trying.
Now, let me start from the beginning so আপনি get a picture of how I am, where I come from and how I came to this point.
I've been a অনুরাগী of Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronincles since June 2008 and I'm sure my being new to this, shows here. Back then, I had only seen the চলচ্চিত্র but I considered myself a অনুরাগী as I was genuinely interested in them and I begun to study the fandom. This, was a huge mistake. I should've just taken the বই and read them. Which I didn't get to begin to do until sometime around November that year.
Until then, I was blue-eyed enough to have good faith in that people who sound so in প্রণয় and fanatic about the বই that they'd judge a movie adaptation so passionately and extremely, would know what they're talking about and deeply respect the books' characters and relationships. Added to that innocent belief, I knew the Chronicles are supposed to have homosexuality in them on one level অথবা another and the homosexual (slash) অনুরাগী art from চলচ্ছবি to other art pretty much run over anything else in the fandom. Thus, I assumed most of the vampire relationships are homosexual অথবা at least bi.
Then I bought the বই and downloaded e-books too and begun to read. As I read, I couldn't let go of the প্রতিমূর্তি other অনুরাগী had already প্রদত্ত me. Eventually I stopped thinking what everyone else says and looked into it purely myself & then thought they're not gay nor প্রেমী - which I however had later become a bit unsure of in some relationship's cases. No, the sexuality's absence in a significant level was very clear to me. I thought the বই hint to homosexuality but do not exactly include it with the vampires. But the প্রণয় between the vampire characters in their relationships I believed was just প্রণয় in its purest, but that I didn't think was too clear. It can't be clear as it leaves room for possibilities. So many are so sure of their conclusions to be the only correct ones that I began to suspect if there after all is a certain way they're supposed to be seen. Well, it turns out as far as I see, there isn't - in 99% of the relationships that is.
আপনি see, I got sick of the confusion and being laughed at for not seeing that "Lestat & Louis are প্রেমী and gay" and so on, অথবা Lestat & Nicki. So I wanted to try and make it clear to myself, দ্বারা e-mailing Anne Rice, asking her what is her meaning in the whole sexuality matter with her ভ্যাম্পায়ার and my main প্রশ্ন was if Lestat & Louis and Lestat & Nicki are supposed to be প্রেমী of any kind. And that would imply I wish to understand what is important about the relationships seeing to the story.
I'm gonna offer her reply and my take on it for anyone who's interested.
Anne Rice's reply to my e-mail + my interpretation of it.
"The reader has to form his own conclusions."
Sure we do and I respect also the fact we are always and forever free to do so and keep them no matter what she says, but I did say I am interested in her own means on this because the matter is interesting and vital to the series.
Readers should make their own conclusions but this is her image of her ভ্যাম্পায়ার and thus the original and truest - (her words in quotation marks and in cursive and my take on them after it, so of course the cursive quotations are the her view. The rest is just my conclusion on them and it may অথবা may not make sense.
"My vampire characters do not have sexual relations with each other অথবা with humans."
So indeed, they're not gay nor straight in any practical level. And, even if they had sexual relations, Anne later on says repeatedly that gender and age doesn't matter to her vampires. So they couldn't be gay anyway. Rather bi অথবা omnisexuals.
I think Anne ধান ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not about sexuality on such a significant level as many seem to think they are ("drinking blood = sex to them", some say) but most significantly about প্রণয় in it's purest and deepest exsistance - sexuality belongs to it but প্রণয় stands on it's own as well. Which is দ্বারা the way, one of the reasons why I think her vampire image is so outstanding. Usually ভ্যাম্পায়ার are portrayed as highly sexual creatures, who bearly have a heart. Anne pretty much turned that image upside down - অথবা made the sexuality much আরো finer and elegant - with incredible depth and so made the vampire infinitely আরো beautiful, fascinating abd luring.
What I'm trying to imply is that I think the way ricean ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not homo/hetero-sexual with each other couldn't be আরো clear in the লেখা in the বই - and that taking some little detail অথবা a first impression and usually with failing to grasp the concept of homosexuality I think is making people miss out on something. Hence, people say "Lestat is gay because he says he loves Louis", while simply feeling প্রণয় doesn't make a man homosexual. And, "Lestat clearly states he is attracted to Marius as আরো than a father.", which is actually true but in the scene in প্রশ্ন that statement had like a gazillion literally প্রদত্ত reasons that had nothing to do with a natural attraction, which leads to the fact he never felt that way for Marius since. All this person would've had to do is read the entire scene with thought and not blindly stare at the sexual terms used.
"But they are obviously attracted to and capable of falling in প্রণয় with people of any age and any gender. They are "out of nature" once they become vampires, and they can প্রণয় all people. Gender, age, etc., no longer matter."
I believe she is talking about প্রণয় in it's purest and most basic exsistance, and not about প্রণয় of any specific nature.
"Many gay readers have seen them as gay, and seen the বই as gay allegory. Others
have not seen this at all. I see them as transcending matters of gender অথবা age. Lestat loves Louis. Louis loves Claudia. Armand loves Lestat. Lestat loves Gabrielle. There is no distinct difference in the quality of any of these loves. This has also been described as polymorphous sensuality."
As I ব্যক্ত I believe the ভ্যাম্পায়ার hint to homosexuality but don't really have such relationships and if they do have something like that (Marius&Armand), it's not the human thing as they're able to explore love, including this sexual element, on a drastically different level. She does not describe Marius and Armand as "gay lover" but as a "sensualized প্রণয় affair" as in, I believe sexuality isn't the basic element though an essential part of the love. অথবা something. And in the end she seems to leave it all up to the reader, saying some gay people have seen them (the ভ্যাম্পায়ার in general) as gay and some have not seen it at all. I'd regard them omnisexual indtead of gay.
Anyway... She ব্যক্ত just there; "There is no distinct difference in the quality of any of these loves." = Generally, her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not so simply, exactly and literally প্রেমী in the term's romantic meaning. They may not be "gay lovers", especially not for Lestat saying he loves / fell fatally in প্রণয় with Louis - I see her pretty much saying it is as I reckoned, that it can, but isn't really essential to be imagined, anything absolute in nature but her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are about প্রণয় and bond all in all. Except for...
Marius & Lestat. I pointed out that there is a distinct difference in the quality of those guys' প্রণয় for each other seeing to their other loves and asked if there was a reason for this exception other than the fact Lestat's mortal life misery is screaming his yearning for a loving father-figure who he could put all his trust in.
She kindly replied again.
"I see the ভ্যাম্পায়ার as deeply loving all sorts of people. Once they are made vampires, they transcend gender and sexual desire. Their loves have to do with the essence of the person."
The কুইন of the Damned (2002) film really can't be compared to the বই in this প্রণয় & sexuality matter as it doesn't respect the বই at any level in it. But just in case... As I take it, the deeply loving all sorts of people doesn't mean the vampire literally fall in প্রণয় of any nature with just anyone and everyone they meet. They প্রণয় humanity but to fall in প্রণয় of some nature, to create any real essence, takes something significant. Hence, Lestat could never romantically fall in প্রণয় with someone like the film's Jesse, which the movie itself clearly proves too, দ্বারা having no chemistry and no working storyline with them. And in the বই Lestat seems to fall in প্রণয় easily (in whatever nature) but it seems to take a deep and remarkable personality for him to do so. The film Lestat loves the film Jesse's humanity. That's all for the প্রণয় whereas there is much আরো for hate and he clearly shows that part. So, let's also consider that even though the ভ্যাম্পায়ার are about প্রণয় in it's purest and deepest exsistance - they are not brainless hippies. And the কুইন of the Damned (2002) film is truly a disgrace to the books, while it is generally taken a fine film independently.
And as for transcending sexual desire and gender... I think just like the প্রণয় without sexuality element, the sexual element become pure and free and since they're above sexuality, "out of nature", the sexuality isn't what drives them but প্রণয় in purest is, and sex may অথবা may not have something to do with it. Unlike in human nature, which they're out of, sex ususllay drives and প্রণয় may অথবা may not have something to do with it.
"It is true that the relationship between Lestat and Marius is a father and son relationship;"
YES, it is, and later I'll be reasoning why it shouldn't be and can't logically be thought of as anything else. (Apart from the mentor/student and বন্ধু that combine to the father-son element.)
"however the relationship between Armand and Marius was a sensualized প্রণয় affair type relationship. Gabrielle and Lestat is a mixed relationship, part mother son, part প্রণয় affair. Louis and Lestat is a প্রণয় hate relationship. Claudia and Louis is আরো a প্রণয় affair. Lestat and Claudia a father daughter relationship.
So I would say the opening up of possibilities is what is key. The vampire state opens the characters to all different types of loves, but it is always the essence of the character that most determines the nature of the love."
She goes back into when it comes to the whole lovers/sex matter of the relationships that don't have the certain-quality label the way the Marius & Lestat does. As in, a father-son element can not be seen with a sexual touch without it becoming clearly disturbing and twisted and affecting both characters psychologically, which Marius and Lestat clearly are not. The only way they seem psychologically unusual is in the father-son way; Marius sets a boundrie, Lestat pushes it for the fun of it, Marius scolds him, which is one of the reasons why Lestat psushes the boundires because he enjoys being scolded especially দ্বারা Marius, who on his behalf enjoys Lestat being a total, hopeless brat - so round and round they go. Such sweet nutties they are but completely and purely a father and son in heart, whereas the other nature of প্রণয় they feel for each other is as friends, plus they're relationship include Marius being a teacher about being a vampire, which may be the essence of it অথবা the father-son element but it all boils down to that sexuality and romance has no place in their love. Whereas, the essence of the following relationships she talks about, is of another nature of প্রণয় - yet they either, have nothihng to do with sex.
"--- Armand is desperately in প্রণয় with Lestat but it has nothing to do with sex. Armand feels Marius failed him and Marius feels Armand failed him, and that part has nothing to do with sex. Marius and Pandora, that is a প্রণয় affair, but again sex has nothing to do with it. So they are all capable of loving people of their own gender and the other gender; gender doesn't matter. It's the essence. Lestat loves David Talbot as a lover, a friend, a mentor, a father, etc. --- It goes on like that. The act of dominating and drinking blood can happen between any two characters regardless of gender. They cannot be pinned down. They see all life as potentially beautiful and all forms of প্রণয় as rewarding."
Regardless of Marius and Armand's relationships sexual quality in some parts, they're still in the end all about প্রণয় to which the sexual element belongs but that sexual part doesn't make that much a difference, since it's sensualizing the প্রণয় instead of driving it.
In other vampire relationships that she mentioned she ব্যক্ত the প্রণয় in them has nothing to do with sex, which I think makes perfect sense anyway, as I don't remember them doing what Marius and Armand are doing at some point but then again I haven't read all the বই yet.
Whereas in Marius and Armand case, she mentones "that part", so she implies that in that relationship there are parts than have to do with sex and obviously there is. She didn't mention Lestat and Akasha, but I think the two fall beside Marius and Armand in this.
If আপনি want to stop being confused, I believe আপনি have to let go of sexuality in human human level 'cause the vampire have done so too. You're free not to, but if looked at for what they are; Forget human sexuality. Even in the very rare cases where it's in a way there, it isn't the human thing. If sexuality is part of a relationship on any relationship affective level, it's something finer than human sexuality. They don't feel sexual desire for each other.
So the blood drinking isn't a raw alternate to human sex. It is always a form of intimicity but that's all. The extacy it gives is on some level described with sexual terms but is still ব্যক্ত to be indescribable, something no human can know. And that extacy always happens, no matter what the reason for the blood drinking; which can be anything from drinking for survival (as in eating), to giving another vampire strength / heal them if they're weak (like Marius fed Lestat blood when Lestat was all dried up of it and couldn't much move), to giving powers (which usually increase দ্বারা aging but can be প্রদত্ত through blood too), to turning someone into a vampire. And maybe sometimes, depending on the nature of the প্রণয় in the relationship, they do drink blood just for the extacy. The blood drinking has a sexual type of...overtone?... but it has so many purposes and meanings for the vampire, that it is not compareable to sex.
I think দ্বারা the author's means her ভ্যাম্পায়ার are not compareable to human প্রণয় and sex that simply even though naturally they can and should be compared to it to a degree, and I personally never saw simplifying it as fascinating, because they're vampires. Which was why I let go and looked into them purely myself.
And what I'm also extremely happy about is, that she has officialized that Marius and Lestat are about being a father and son - not that I ever had even the slightest doubt about it after I read the বই myself - but seeing to this love/sexuality picture for her ভ্যাম্পায়ার - I feel it was necessary for her to say they are, which some of the fanbase seems to fail to see.
All the two explore with each other is the menror/student, father/son and being friends.
My thoughts on this in a nutshell:
1. The characters being প্রেমী অথবা gay isn't essential to the story and relationships. প্রণয় in it's purest exsistance is.
This leads me to an argument I received in the name of what Lestat & Louis are. As far as I understood it, I'm supposedly missing a huge part of their relationship and story if I'm not seeing them as প্রেমী even though Lestat uses a passionate tone when saying he loves Louis, as in "I fell fatally in প্রণয় with him." I never ignored that. It's just that the way I add that up, is: Falling in প্রণয় + passionate tone = passionate প্রণয় - of any possible nature. Not absolutely অথবা even primarily romantic.
And as for the essence of Lestat & Louis's relationship - I really don't see it being there clearly - and even Anne herself decided to define it only with words "love hate relationship" - their relationship probably has involved throughout the বই but that definition was her choice today, long after she had finished the serie. So I believe she still sees them আরো in that general level of প্রণয় ansd hate that could be taken into many natures. Well, at least I think she wants us to look at them from that point of view and then make our conclusions. The same with Lestat and Nicki. I asked loud and clear about them as well, and she didn't say they're প্রেমী any আরো than that they're not. So it most likely isn't an essential thing to worry about.
I think if আপনি compare them to human ways of seeing the relationship as in "if they were human like that, they'd be gay lovers" and that's why আপনি think they're as such and that there is no other way of seeing them, আপনি are knowingly ignoring the important and significant element that they are not human. I rather see them loving on the differing vampire level, instead of thinking how that প্রণয় would be in human ways and see them simply that way. So, I believe that the differing matters. There's আরো to them than being অথবা not being homosexual lovers.
2. This I'm saying in the name of her officialising "it's the essence of the character that matters" when it comes to the nature of the প্রণয় - and long পূর্বে I received an argument from a Lestat&Marius slasher, saying "Lestat never says how he loves Marius, he just says he loves him." - to which I gave an argument that it doesn't matter if he didn't say the words, when looked into what he does say and do with/about Marius, it is clear it's a son's প্রণয় for his father and the other way around. As প্রণয় confessed in words is not the essence. They way they act and think of each other, the way they need each other, is the essence. If we really need the words, he does utter such lines as "Marius. Don't be the angry father. Save me..." (from কুইন of the Damned, when he wants to get out of the relationship with Akasha.) and "Marius. আপনি turned your back on me. It came as no surprise really. I don't despise আপনি for it. আপনি always were the parent, the teacher, the high priest." (from the Tale of the Body Thief, after Marius had made very clear he was not going to assist Lestat through this shit the Brat Prince had pulled.) Just to mention few examples. And Anne has actually even literally ব্যক্ত about Lestat & Marius; "They could never be called lovers." and really, as I said, I believe that's obvious from the books.
And now, according to Anne's words quoted earlier, it is as far as I see - most clear that Marius and Lestat seem to remain the only/one of the few vampire relationships/loves that is not left open for possibilities to see just in any way desired, but their love's nature has been defined in significant and clear level, even with Lestat's entire mortal life as a strong background for why it is and needs to be, a pure father-son love. "It is true Marius and Lestat have a father and son relationship", and she continues with the word "however" and the rest of the relationships she spoke on while also having their essence that matters the most, seem to have numerous different qualities that make them much আরো complicated in nature all in all, whereas Marius and Lestat's প্রণয় natures blend in one - making it all they can logically be.
3. It is ok to vision Lestat & Louis and Lestat & Nicki as প্রেমী and it is just as ok to vision them not to be প্রেমী but something else. But it is not that valid to vision any of the ricean ভ্যাম্পায়ার practically gay as in homosexuals in rawest level, as it is a pure impossibility for them to be practically that, them being above sexuality and having no sexual relations with each other nor with humans. I once heard a আরো fitting term; "bi-romantic".
Now, as mortal human beings, they sure had sexuality in the very level but this প্রবন্ধ is completely and purely talking the vampires, and after turning into that there is no sexual relations, they transcend the desire and gender, and প্রণয় gets a whole new meaning and value.
-The following is not quoting Anne Rice, but EternalMiyu on link at IMDB.com / Interview with the Vampire Discussion Board:
"Vampires become sterile and sexually unresponsive, however, so any 'pleasure' derived from this would just be from the emotional/psychological satisfaction of being slightly intimately closer to the partner during the blood-drinking process. As Talamasca2 stated, pretty much everything is about the blood once আপনি become a vampire. If a vampire enjoys any sexual penetration, which I would assume is rather rare, it's entirely from an emotional standpoint. This tendency would be আরো likely in a newborn vampire and would fade rather quickly, as the fledglings are আরো inexperienced in the blood-drinking department."
