[J m HofMarN]

Civilian- He gets a name later in the book and then Lestat makes friends with him. He actually does have a part in the book, though you're right about him never really being introduced. But then again it's not as though anyone's reading the book to learn about the interviewer.

The movie, in my opinion, was fantastic. It was almost totally true to the book and the actors were all great. Queen of the Damned was a novel even more complicated than Interview and yet the film didn't maintain any of the original plot line or backstory. I hated Queen of the Damned a lot. In fact I aught to do a review if I ever do get a television. As for her being pissed off by the sexuality of the film, she wrote the "lets strip this chick naked infront of a live studio audience scene" there was also some crap about Amrand having sex with some kid who he kept in a cage. And if I recall Louis might have had something going with the doll maker. In fact there was the typically Ricean amount of sex in the book. If anything the movie-makers de-sexified it. I find it difficult to hold that against them...

Rhubarb- I will one day come to dominate that sport!

[Rhubarb]

The movie was hilariously awful and I sniggered all the way through. If that's what you consider 'true to Anne Rice', and yet also consider Anne Rice's corresponding book to be literary gold, then I'm afraid I have no further use for you.

[J m HofMarN]

Does having no use for me mean you plan to eject me from my chair into a pool filled with carniverous aquatic animals? Cuz if so I can stop respecting Anne Rice real quick.

But seriously, I liked Interview, Lestat and Queen of the Damned. I liked the movie of Interview a lot, but not because it was dark and gothic, simply because it was a movie that portrayed vampires as something other than mindless antagonists. It had a fairly decent plot and good acting, and its not often that you see a book-movie project that maintains the form of the book.

[civilian_number_two]

If the Interviewer is named and becomes significant later in the book, then all the more reason he should be introduced right at the begining, when we first meet him. Unless it turns out that his identity is significant, like he's a Vampire we'll hear about later, or he's Jesus Christ, then trying to create mystery with his name is just weak weak writing. I don't regret my decision to stop reading.

And yeah, I know she wrote all the sex. That's why I thought it was so absurd that she also made a big deal about how "Vampires don't have sex" when the film was coming out.

[J m HofMarN]

It didnt seem like that big of a mystery to me. This kid was just interviewing Louis. He may as well be Lestat's garbage man or Claudia's baby-sitter. Later in the book (and indeed the series) when he does something useful he gets to have a name. I'm not that ardent of a support of Anne Rice anymore (in fact I'd count myself among her detractors) but I do believe that Interview, Lestat and Queen were all excellent works. It's probably just because I read them a while ago and have only since moved on to the new crap she puts out. Really I think my comparison of her to George Lucas was largely accurate. She was good back in the day but the signs were there as well.

[Jane Sherwood]

Oh Christ...

I just read the sample pages they had on amazon.com, because I just had to see it for myself to believe it.

COMPLETELY RIDCULOUS.

And the whole series just goes on like that? I've read better-written smut by sixteen-year-old fangirls on fanfiction.net!

[J m HofMarN]

Jane keep it down, you know those puffinists will probably see that... I personally want to stay as far away from Rice's word-porn as possible, though some of the vampire chronicles aren't much better...

[SimeSublime]

The puffins have no opinion of Ms Rice, one way or the other.

[J m HofMarN]

How can you not have an opinion on her if you'd read those two reviews? As Yahtzee put it she's a dangerous woman and her keyboard should be programmed to shock her when she types the word sex!

[Jane Sherwood]

Or "spank" too, apparently...

[floppydisk]

Seeing as the puffins are birds, I don't blame them.

[J m HofMarN]

Note to self: Write letter to Anne Rice asking her to feature a puffin in her next word porn.

"And after spanking her silly with the puffin, the prince shoved it up her voluptuous..."

[civilian_number_two]

It didnt seem like that big of a mystery to me. This kid was just interviewing Louis. He may as well be Lestat's garbage man or Claudia's baby-sitter. Later in the book (and indeed the series) when he does something useful he gets to have a name. I'm not that ardent of a support of Anne Rice anymore (in fact I'd count myself among her detractors) but I do believe that Interview, Lestat and Queen were all excellent works. It's probably just because I read them a while ago and have only since moved on to the new crap she puts out. Really I think my comparison of her to George Lucas was largely accurate. She was good back in the day but the signs were there as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And later in the book, when she names him, does she then mention "Oh yeah, this is the interviewer you've been reading about?" That's fucking lame, you have to admit that.

In a film or a play, never introducing a character by name works, and often it works well (YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS). In a novel, you need to name the character with every single sentence. You just can't dive into pronouns until you have an antecedent. Since as you say it's not a big mystery who he is, we're left with what looks like a page of author's notes, where one character in the scene is referred to as "the boy" and another as "the Vampire." At least, like it or not "the Vampire" is a pretty defining term; "the boy" suggests that his identity is being hidden. Really; it read like the work of a 16-year-old girl.

[J m HofMarN]

It may not be professional, but for me it didnt detract from my enjoyment of the work. I might also offer you a legitimate reason that this might be.

The interviewer in these scenes is the reader, and after the death of her child Rice is the mournful and gloomy Louis. The interviewer is not fleshed out because he is merely an avatar for the reader, and therefore dosn't truly need a name. It's Rice's way of putting us more directly into the world and thats why the character of the interviewer (whose name I dont even bother to remember) is never very well explained.