WEEK TWO: VAMPIRE: LOVE AND PAIN

 After reading this book, I would say humanity and destiny are the ideas the author places in opposition to one another. Louis struggles with humanity, and Lestat follows vampire’s nature, enjoys nighttime and killing. And the author seems to privilege humanity over the other for me, because the book writes from his personal perspective, I can get lots of internal monologue from Louis. However, Louis fails in the end, he ends to go vampire’s final destiny, infinite loneliness, and follows vampire’s rules to live.

 

I think Rich was showing up the difference. And then I realize that’s the point Rich wants to point out, because it makes me start to think what if I become a vampire?

 

I read a lot Louis’ internal monologue by the author written, even a bit impatient in the end, because I was thinking Louis is a hypocrisy character. He wants to keep his goodness and residual humanity, but he always fails, ends up killing people; He wants to stop Claudia, but he didn’t. Why Rich create such awkward character?

She drags viewers in this struggling situation, by using “unsuccessful vampire” Louis to make people imagine if they are a vampire.

 

Therefore, “Louis”, this character becomes meaningful and important.

For me, I'm just going to do what a vampire will do, enjoy nighttime, drink blood. I don’t feel guilty because a vampire doesn’t exist, and they are mystery and handsome built by model literature.

 

But what if a vampire indeed represents some real community in human society? What if I am a vampire in some community’s view?

People have privileges, they won’t realize those are privileges.

I never think of struggling with anything because I never realize my community may hurt some community. Rich makes people experience the difference by using vampire background. And there may be lots of people like me, she wrote for people who can’t stand the same view to understand others’ situation. Just like, Lestat knows what Louis said when he struggles, but he won’t agree with Louis even though he loves Louis.

 

Louis is the character who knows the difference and fights with that.  

WEEK ONE: BEGINNING WITH FRANKENSTEIN (4 points)

 

 

 

When I was reading this book, as a game art student it immediately put me in mind of DR. Junkenstein and his monster which is from a video game: OVERWATCH. 

Dr. Junkenstein is an obvious reference to the titular character of Frankenstein. He is actually eviler then Frankenstein though, is more like a typical villain. And that's the reason why I enjoy Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein more, a complex protagonist.

We watch the novel as a protagonist perspective, and seem to be persuaded Frankenstein is a miserable role. However, he seems like a suitable candidate that people may dislike in the real life, selfish and irresponsible.

He knows he can’t protect Elizabeth, but he gets marry anyway. To base his happiness on not caring about the safety of others.

 However, he is not a villain because he still has immoral, so he can’t forgive monster carried out an act of behavior against humanity.

I really enjoy those characters’ personality. Dr. Junkenstein is an excellent evil scientist, but Dr. Frankenstein just a complex normal human being with the gift of science talent from Mary Shelley.

And another character--the monster, always can artfully leave the regret to viewer. Maybe that’s the point Mary wants to communicate, for those people who you think are difficult to accept, the ending will be different if can pay more a bit tolerance and more a bit love. Maybe the monster and Frankenstein won’t cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate.

 

 testing