Interview with the Vampire | Novel by Anne Rice | Spoiler-free

Hello, horrorphiles. In this spoiler-free episode we dissect Interview with the Vampire, a novel by Anne Rice.

“This is the story of Louis, as told in his own words, of his journey through mortal and immortal life. Louis recounts how he became a vampire at the hands of the radiant and sinister Lestat and how he became indoctrinated, unwillingly, into the vampire way of life,” according to the author’s website.

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:03

Hello, horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror. Examining the anatomy of Fear in film, television, and literature. I’m writer and performer Kelsey Zukowski. I'm filmmaker Steven Aguilera. In this episode, we dissect the novel, Interview with a Vampire by Anne Rice. This dissection will be spoiler free. We are the horror whisperers, your champions of horror. In our society of grotesquerie and loathing, if you will. I will. And we hope you will subscribe for more, won't you? This is the story of Louie, as told in his own words, of his journey through mortal and immortal life. Louie recounts how he became a vampire at the hands of the radiant and sinister Lestat, and how he became indoctrinated unwillingly into the vampire way of life. According to the author's website. Personally, I find the most powerful and admire thing about interview with the vampire to be how through gothic storytelling, it offered a healing solace to its writer, Anne Rice. As many know, Anne Rice wrote interview with the vampire after the loss of her five year old daughter Michele, who died from leukemia during her grieving. Rice returned to a short story she previously wrote, crafting it into the iconic vampire retrospective it is today among battles with loss, depression and alcoholism. She completed the novel five weeks later. Her being in what I am sure was an intense, grief stricken state, and there's still being a flame with her to creatively fuze the pain, outrage, loneliness, hollowness, questions, temptations and inner battles into a novel while also capturing the moments of love, protection, purpose and simply fighting the darkness. Threatening to swallow you whole speaks volumes to why stories are so lasting and essential to the human condition. A novel in five weeks seems more than a bit implausible to me, but perhaps it was the initial rough draft they were speaking of. Yeah, there are, there were a lot of edits that I think. Definitely the part from the, theater of the vampires. That whole part wasn't initially. And then her editor had her add some. So there was a lot of like, big story changes. And I do believe it was a lot shorter. I think maybe this was a case of just being so drawn and inspired by a story where I kind of consumed her life for those five weeks. Yeah, I wrote a screenplay once in, I think was it five days or ten days? The first draft. And it turned out more or less when I went back and read it like, wow, this actually retains many of those aspects, but normally it takes me like four months or something to write a script at least. But anyway, this isn't about me, is it? In an interview with Horror Feminista, Reyes noted, suddenly, when I was in the skin of Louie, I slipped into this seemingly unreal thing and looked through his eyes. I could make my whole world real. He was able to say, let me tell you about New Orleans. This was our world. And I could write about all the beauty, even the most fictional stuff in there was somehow out of my real world. It fell into place and was coherent. I didn't know it at the time, but it was all about my daughter, the loss of her, and the need to go on living. When faith is shattered, the lights do come back on. No matter how dark it seems. It is clear how Claudia was a chance to immortalize her daughter, especially as we are introduced to her as a human girl of the same age, suffering, who is given eternal life, strength and beauty at the same time. It is a painful but ultimately freeing exploration of a fate crueler than death to be frozen in time, like a living doll, even with a mature, often cunning mind, more vampire than human, never to be able to truly grow or experience many pleasures of the world that nearly everyone else seems to be able to embrace. Even with Louie, she is isolated and infantilized One's immediate response to a child might be of blossoming innocence or playful delight. However, there is a darker side to childhood one of selfishness, slyness, bullying, and emotional instability without the disadvantage of petite strength and without the wisdom and experience that comes with age. A vampire child could be a source of terror, far exceeding anything that of an adult. Couple this with the torment of an evolving woman bound in the body of a doll like child, She is also a maturing mind, trapped in a forever immature body, with a growing dissonance between the two. In the screen adaptations, Claudia is portrayed as ten and 14 years old. There is a deeper cruelty and her being turned so young in the novel, her human experiences are still limited, many things she will never experience being trapped in a child's body, while her mind and years far exceed her form, whether they have fond or crushing memories of their humanity. Those years, no matter how small in comparison to the rest of their eternal journey, still shaped most vampires. Claudia was young enough where she can't even really remember being human. There is a tragedy in her being deprived of these things, almost haunted, and the body that initially belonged to a girl she will never know. It makes her an even more isolated case. A vampire who doesn't have that balance of monster and man who was all vampire, yet one unlike any other, making her yearn for her own kind even more. It probably shouldn't be surprising, but she is the least human vampire. She is also one of the most enigmatic, stirring, and interesting characters in The Vampire Chronicles. For me. Overall, I found the language understandable enough for my literacy level while still feeling quite ornate and lush. And I know this is lame, but beyond review purposes, I still don't think I would ever read a book just for the entertainment value of it, because it would be fun. The amount of time it takes alone forbids this. Even the audiobook, narrated by Simon Vance, was 14 hours and 25 minutes, 14 hours and 25 minutes. Still, I might argue, an audiobook to at least be a more ideal way of ingesting such material. One's imagination is still being employed in full force while hearing the words, with that layer of a narrators performance adding to it. They are the same words, but more artfully presented. Beyond that, though, the audiobook is just more effortless for me to take in. I'll take this somewhat when of pulling you to audiobooks, even on a not solely for entertainment purpose. But I can see that you're still, disturbed and disappointed in me for my lack of growth as a book reader, and I'm okay with that. But, really? You value stories so much so to me that's a weird thing to love stories, but not want to consume them in a form that almost seems the most organic and true and imaginative. It's the length of them that bothers me. If they were just short stories, I think it would be fine with them. But my patience and my, amount of time I sound, sounding like I'm this, like, busy executive in Hollywood that, you know, it's got too much on his plate. The not the case. But, I would rather do other things. I remember the last two hours of the audiobook, I was thinking, okay, this is probably the length of movie. I just pretend like I'm watching a movie for two hours, but it just, like, took for ever to get through those two hours. It really dragged. Yeah. well, you know, as long as depending on the narration and it flows well, you can also adjust the speed for me to closer to seven hours to listen Oh, I should try that. But it feels like, I don't know, like you're just skimming or it doesn't feel like you're really able to, process everything if it's going to be sped up. I didn't try it, but I think I will next time. it depends on narration. Like, I, I find like gothic and sometimes fantasy and period pieces. They tend like the narration tends to have a slower, you know, it's probably the poetic draw, whereas if you have a like a quick witted, fast talking narrator from the beginning. Yeah. If you speed it up to double, it's gonna sound ridiculous. So I, I kind of play it by ear depending on the narration, but this was one. I mean, there might have been times where I had it, like slightly lower, like, you can usually adjust to the exact speed if you were like one and a half to, you know, two times speed. But, I would say that and just I know you like to be, like, fully focused, which is great, but maybe slowly, you know, if you're, like, doing something very simple and mundane that takes like, no thought process, like, I don't know, putting away laundry or something you could put on an audiobook. That way you're still doing something that you have to do anyway, but you're also consuming the story at the same time. Yeah, I was editing for most of it, and that that seemed to go, quite well. It's a good, matching. Despite seeing the 1994 film countless times, which we'll be dissecting in our next episode, I did not visualize Brad Pitt here as Louis, but something closer to Count Orlok from the 1922 silent film Nosferatu. perhaps due to the narrator's older, raspy European voice, which does not reflect that of a 25 year old Pitt. Yeah. Overall, I think it was definitely very different takes in the performance and emotional level of the character. And I think even, you know, we'll definitely get more into some of the differences of the film adaptation. But I think in a way I appreciated it was both how the character is written and the performance of Louis and the novel slash audio book more. It's a little. It was a little bit more refined and thoughtful and maybe a little less melodramatic. Yeah, it was more sophisticated somehow, if nothing else. Interview with the vampire undoubtedly inspired a new age of vampire stories, being one of the first of its kind to give us a vampire as the protagonist who revealed his centuries long journey full of regrets and introspection, love and loss, killing and resisting previously, most vampire stories certainly gave us compelling, mysterious, intriguing villains with dashes of the inner mindset and primal nature. But we were told from the victim's perspective, less concerned with putting the audience in the vampires consciousness Anne Rice cites the 1936 universal monster film Dracula's Daughter as her inspiration for her protagonist, Louis, taking to his elegant, tragic, sensitive view displayed in the film and applying it to her own vampiric tale. While Louis is not my favorite type of vampire, he offers a bridge between human morality, questioning and inclination, and the primal, deadly nature of vampires. It had been a while since I reread the book, and it was a good reminder that even if not my favorite version of Louis, the original depiction of Louis is more grounded, sympathetic, and cognizant version in comparison to the film adaptation. His profound, solemn, and pensive depth is a driving force of the novel and adds great existential questioning and exploration that makes interview with the Vampire have a connecting, poetic, lasting quality. Rice has also shared that the story was all about Louis for her, the character she saw herself in and the hero that inspired her to tell this story. As the one force who manages to hold on to his humanity, morality and will, even while owning the terror and unforgivable acts he has committed, even if they were out of survival and love. This story presents Louie's tormented transition from human to seasoned vampire. For the two are not entirely compatible, as becoming one inevitably means sacrificing the former. He must reconcile his dwindling humanity with his emerging dark state, desperate to maintain a harmony that cannot exist. His grappling with this transformation is the true crux and the true conflict of this story. And it is a struggle not to be taken lightly. Unless, of course, one is predisposed to darkness already. The narrative gives us a choice. Empathize with Lestat, or sympathize with Louis. Lestat is perhaps more the true monster, and not necessarily by virtue of being a vampire, yet he's the character people like most and remember. Lestat makes an enticing sire turned complicated antagonistic companion, and is one of the most interesting elements of the novel for me, and even more so beyond this novel, when the character is given more of a focus. As we have talked about before, I like the dark relish in your nature a vampire who doesn't mourn his existence but thrives in it, which is very much Lestat. He takes his time captivating his prey, building a connection, and then savoring in the sheer ecstasy of their blood. In many ways, he represents the darkest, most destructive urges and those inner demons in ourselves telling us to give in. He pushes Louis to embrace his nature more, to indulge in drinking human blood, to revel in it. While I typically agree with his thoughts on embracing your best vampire life, and this, he is the enabler, Pushing an addict to indulge in what will continue to destroy them if they let it. Something that rice was also battling in her own way while writing this. Lestat and Louis give us an intriguing, yet no question toxic relationship there being a pull, undefined intimacy, and angered passion. It is a connection hard to break, but one that is also fueled by manipulation, a desperation to fight loneliness and the unknown and dependency. They offer a cautionary tale of staying in a broken relationship that is poison to all, whether it be out of fear, obligation, or doubts of one's personal strength to stand alone. Though edgy for its day, I'm sure this book wasn't as gay as I expected. It played out closer to how the lesbian aspect was suggested in The Haunting of Hill House novel, not overtly spelled out or sexualized, but conveyed more artfully through undertones. There was no over the top in your face gay assertions here, and there doesn't need to be. It would be less effective that way. As with anything in storytelling, the implication of what's going on is far more engaging for an audience who are then allowed to contribute meaning into what's happening. We'll start, for example, explains to Louis that they must sleep in the same coffin on his first night as a vampire due to not having another coffin prepared. I think that's fair. Doesn't necessarily have to be overt, but at the same time, the show goes there a little bit more directly and I kind of love the direction the show went with it. So we'll probably talk about that more. I haven't seen it, but I plan on seeing some of that, before our next, episode. Although Louis is initially described as straight, one might surmise his feelings justified by the vampire spell also for him, his relationship with Lestat and later Armand becomes, I think, more about like minded vampire companionship or a longing for guidance from these mysterious and beautiful godlike figures. It's subtle enough to allow most straight men to at least consider the viewpoint of that character, without the point being pressed too much. The dynamic adds an extra layer between the characters and attention I found interesting also this aspect of homosexuality works well with the vampire persona, and was even in the 1931 Bela Lugosi Dracula by exhibiting a sexuality that vampires are famous for in a way that sits in opposition to what orthodox religion deems unholy. Yeah, it's also an interesting thing, and most vampire stories and lore most seem to be somewhat on the bisexual spectrum. I don't know if it's. Yeah, it's probably a little, you know, from the, you know, particular authors and their, their view of it and what they, you know, in some cases it's like a metaphor, like Charlene Harris in the True Blood series. vampire ism, was very much a metaphor for gay rights. And then coming out of the coffin and all of that, but I think also maybe an element is if you live for that long, I don't know if you just evolve or why not try new things. But yeah, I think, less stigma or just being more open and free. And if you have a desire, go for it seems to be a little bit more in tune with vampire fiction as a whole. As a vampire, one is immortal, forever youthful, powerful, and mainly indestructible. Yet there is a common notion in vampire lore and elsewhere that immortality should be considered a sort of dismal fate, a sentence of eternal damnation somehow. Still, there is a price. Consider that you will outlive every mortal you know and love. There is also the ever growing torment of taking other human lives to sustain your own. The inner conflict and compounding guilt of this alone. To anyone with a flicker of conscience, would quickly become unbearable until eventual numbness set in removing one further from a human state, and a mortal life filled with regret, but also consider perhaps the most horrific consequence of them all, at least to me. No more pizza, but you get blood. In the end, I truly enjoyed this story, but it did not engage me so much as I thought it would. There was too much complain. Personally, I feel this leans too far into an off putting victimhood mentality. But not just Louis going on and on about their personal pains. Louis, Armand, Claudia, most everyone. It was an interesting take on vampire existence, though one absolutely worth exploring that of humanizing vampires, so to speak. I can agree with you on that point The novel offers a lot of powerful poetic and philosophical questioning that I did find interesting and evocative, along with being taken with a few of the more fierce, commanding and complex characters. Still, it doesn't connect to or enamored me, like many other vampire literature has, I think largely just the tone protagonist, and storytelling style. It just doesn't quite dive into my personal preferences within the subgenre. Like you said, it kind of. It was interesting. I feel like it more had interest in moments or moments where I'm like, oh, that's a really interesting perspective, or that's intriguing. And I love the layers and the deeper and the meaning and kind of poetic nature of this. But it also, even the first time I read this, it wasn't, oh, I'm so riveted or this is just so. It's such an overpowering story. I'm at the edge of my seat. It was feel like it's more one that I appreciate and can really like digest, but it's not the personal favorite for me, It sounds like you and I are on the same page as far as degree of liking this story, which surprises me. I thought you would like it more because you've not only read the book, but you read, like, all the books, and you're such a. There's like nine. I read Wow. I see, I might go back and read more of them, but partially because I like and appreciate things about it. But I'm not like, oh, I love this book. You know, Yeah. The thing I liked, or appreciated a great deal was the whole gothic atmosphere and just the vibe of it. And usually that's enough for for me to really get into something. In fact, that's the main thing in horror films is it's just a really cool atmosphere, a cool house or whatever. And I just want to, you know, live in that space. But that wasn't enough. this story has more to do with a character's inner conflicts and reflections than plot, action, or general activity to the point of bordering monotonous. always easy to put your own preferences on a story, rather than view a story for what it is and what it was meant to be. The story that was true and vital to the creator. Interview with the vampire is a case of a story. I appreciate the impact and importance of, even if it is a different story than what I would have told, as some characters like Claudia, Lestat, and even Armand I find more compelling than Louis. The thought of interchanging perspective chapters is certainly something that could have been interesting to me. There is definite appeal in the interview, reflective nature to the piece I recognize for rights. This was always meant to be Louis story and her catharsis, with ample parallels and dark, meaningful layers, even if subconsciously. And it is more powerful for being so personally. The pacing was a bit too drawn out for my taste, perhaps due to the fact of it being a book over the more condensed storytelling nature of film, of which I am used to. It takes its time, as books do. My instinct as a writer is to leave only the most essential dialog and description, while page after page after page here are devoted to what may amount to a brief conversation. And that's fine. It's just different. And foreign to me is all. But there were a number of characters and subplots that I don't feel really contributed that much to the overall story, and drag the pacing a bit. Yet we're not worthless or un entertaining by any means. I might suggest, though, as a novel writing exercise coming from someone who has never written a novel, that one asks oneself if this were to be made into a film which this was would this bit or that be left in or cuts? The result might make for a tighter story. I could see as an exercise, but typically the books are always better, so I don't know if you should totally base novel worth and importance in a novel based on what would make it in a film, because again, it's like, I feel like it's like 2% of films are better than the novels. Well, having watched the movie many times prior, I'm accustomed to and I can recognize why they had specific parts. The book in the movie and certain parts left out. And I see that, okay, well, if I were converting this book, I would have done many similar things, but I appreciate that, tight pacing, that that tight story telling. And it just felt like, do we need for him to drone on for that fucking long? About a point, which I kind of got, you know, three pages ago. I think it really depends, too, on how much you connect and are enamored with it. Because if you're really just totally engrossed and you love the characters and you're just and everything happening is just like exhilarating you, it doesn't necessarily have to be like action, action, action. It could be like exploring different things, and that might be fascinating for you. Where I kind of, agree, it is a slower paced and I it does feel very true to like classic Gothic literature. So that's probably it's probably somewhat inspiration from that because it she definitely I wanted to create more of the, sympathetic gothic kind of characters. So again, I think it's a little bit just, subgenre and, and style of it. And then somewhat, I guess, in a way, like, you know, we're talking about this monotonous existence at times, like, not to say like it's bad, but at times if you're not super engaged and captivated in this book, it can seem monotonous and okay, this pace is really slow or okay, can we can we like, evolve here and get on to the next thing? And at times I did feel that. And again, I appreciate and like Louis as a character. And now if I think some of it's like I wasn't, I was never like super connected or very, you know, just exhilarated and just in, in that kind of connection where I was totally there with Louis, which I, I do kind of wonder if there was like characters from different perspectives. I might have been a little bit more enamored. And I think, I guess that's maybe already answered a little bit because one of the sequels, The Vampire Lestat, I felt like I was a lot more engaged and felt like a faster paced with me, but it is also like a very different character. We're kind of focusing on just everything. This somewhat mournful, pretty bleak character. Like, he he speaks of love and, you know, exciting and meaningful things in his life, but overall, he uses existence as something he is almost not worthy of and very, yeah, very kind of futile and bleak and unworthy. So with that narrator, I think it's it's somewhat true to that style and tone, because it's probably this if this character, if Louis existed and he did sit down, you know, with someone, it probably would be in this slow, mournful, let me tell you every thought, every feeling, every regret, sort of feeling. So authentic to the character. But I can also see again some. For some people this is riveting and like among their favorite novels ever. So for some people it does really connect and is really powerful. And maybe there is no pacing issues for that. Maybe they were, you know, totally connected and just fascinated with every, every detail. So maybe we're just some who can appreciate a lot of things about it, but it just didn't hit on that level for us. This story is presented as a convergence of gothic horror with modern journalism. It is the recounting of a story and interview, allowing us to paint a picture in our minds as from someone who can really tell a story, a personal story which no other soul could possibly relate to. In this way, our main character speaks his thoughts directly to the interviewer and the reader. At the same time. it occurred to me while you're talking that, most of the writers, except for Stephen King and his son, Joe Hill, every writer we've described has been female. J.K. Rowling, Anne Rice, Shirley Jackson, Mary Shelley. Is there a pattern here? Do you do you personally draw two? Female. writers, or is it just a wild coincidence? No, really. I mean, I'll definitely check if there's, like, a female author, and it. Well, depends if it's, like, more of a feminine focus, you know, then, yeah, it's like you there's something to a woman telling a very woman focused story versus, a man doing so. And that could be the same for, you know, something about race or sexuality. Like, obviously it's going to be most authentic from the person who's had that experience. so I yeah, that might give me like a little bit more weight if I know it's like, I don't know, a monster story about the, you know, kind of experience of womanhood or, you know, through it through metaphorical means. But there's a lot of male writers I like. there's actually I just started, new book from a horror author, Grady Hendrix, who I'm feeling like he might be kind of one of my favorite modern day horror writers because I have it's probably maybe, like the fourth thing I've read from him that's just, like, really, really powerful. So, we've touched upon how at least I have perceived, a difference between a female directed piece versus, a male piece. I don't think you notice it quite as much as me. but when reading female books, there's nothing there that stands out to me as especially a feminist. It's just pure story and characters. Maybe that's because I haven't read enough. I've only read the one Joe Hill book to compare with. I can think of him being a little bit more raunchy and, graphic and his swearing and stuff like that, and these as perhaps, written by women as being more elegant or sophisticated or character driven, Yeah. I think it also depends, because I feel like I've also read plenty of horror books that are like gritty images and brutal that are written by women, too. So there are definitely, like a lot of different styles and tones. Like you, I think probably what you have read more from women are more of the Gothic that might have more elegant language. And again, I don't think that's necessarily like a gender thing. That's like a stylistic choice in the tone of their characters and worlds and story that they're putting on. Along with, daily, often mundane tasks of vampire life such as finances, shelter, and companionship, we see here a different, broader look at what it is to be a vampire with its rules, etiquette and culture. These glimpses into vampire society, or what I found most fascinating. It's old European side colliding with the New World. And who survives? I agree that is an interesting element that you don't always go into a lot. It's you typically always have the pain and loss and regret, as well as maybe the desire and thrill and being this stronger or maybe more glamorous being. But yeah, it's like the little like logistics of, you know, most not all, but most vampires are pretty rich and well-to-do. And yeah, for starters, it's like, well, if you haven't figured out, like, how to live at a good level after like hundreds of years and yeah, you're pretty, pretty miserable. But yeah, there is a certain dependency and it's, it's, you know, loneliness and trying to, you know, navigate a world alone or I think even just a little fear of the unknown between our characters. But yeah, some of it's just like, well, I need you to do these finances because, like, I don't know how to do this, like, modern world stuff. What We Do in the shadows explores that in a very humorous way, both the film and series. And, I find that I think that's the crux of that series is dealing with, you know, you're familiar and trying to get, stuff logistically address that needs to be handled in day to day life as a vampire. And I think it does it very successfully. Yeah, absolutely. It's brilliant for all like the little quirks and little things that go into pulling off the vampire lifestyle. This word vampire itself is about the coolest word ever. I think such a wicked sound to it. Vampire. Vampire. Unlike most common concepts such as God, the devil and spirits, vampires are much more specific, yet still exist in some way in so many cultures. Do you like to believe that some forms of vampire have actually existed? Kelsie. Absolutely. It's what I thrive off of. Wow. yeah, probably one of the cooler classes I took. But one of, like, what we started with was just learning sort of the beginnings of the vampire myth and how in different cultures, you know, it was like so many different things. Like, I don't know if you have if you're missing a tooth in this spot, you're a vampire and you have to be buried in, you know, with, I think, they had like, the caged kind of coffins and things like that. but it was just like, superstitions. And a lot of it came from, like, religious extremism or just not having the science to understand certain things in the time. But, yeah, it is really interesting how long it's existed and how many different forms. And I think that is one of the cooler things. And even for, you know, this story and, and rice in particular, that I mean, like, like a lot of horror or sci fi or especially things that are a little bit outside of our normal everyday worlds, can be very metaphorical, but I know there's just a lot of interesting things similar to the human condition that you can kind of put in the scope of the vampire to kind of really explore it. And I think vampires are obviously, you know, appealing and, many ways, and they obviously exceed a lot of the limitations of humanity. But there's also this kind of darker side to it, too. So I think it's exploring that duality I think is really interesting. Do you think there may have literally been such a thing at some point? I don't see why not. In the animal world, there are literally vampire bats, while many elements of interview with the vampire offer clear parallels with companions in Anne Rice's life, it wasn't until looking back at the novel later that she realized how much of a coping mechanism and way to understand and heal her own struggle. It was. Have you ever written something you didn't intentionally throw yourself or struggles into, but with time, realized how you put your experiences between the lines? No, never. You are a very aware creator. I think if anything I write to go into directions I've never experienced before. There's a saying write what you know. And I've always protested that, saying there's a logic to it in that it will be the most natural thing for you to write about, that you have the most experience and a voice for. And so that makes sense. But I would prefer to write about stuff that not only I don't know about, but nobody knows about that doesn't exist, whether it be science fiction or horror, developing characters that are more supernatural and trying to integrate that into ordinary lives. But even in those, you can still write what you know by and instilling character traits into them and making them characters like, you know, people you've known and so forth, their ways of doing that. But, no, I just there is nothing that I've ever written about as, a personal therapy or a means to express, something that I needed to get off my chest or something that paralleled my life, based on anybody that I've ever known, purposely like. Do you know, it's funny because you you ask me that, and I start to question myself. Why am I doing that on purpose? But no, it just nothing there interests me. maybe my own life isn't interesting enough, that I don't care to write about it or, but I would just assume, escape into something more creative and be more of an extrovert than an introvert when it comes to my content. Yeah. That's interesting. I guess you're like, you're you know, I know, I know me. I'm fully at this point, but it's more that it's more exciting to explore different characters and beans and all that. That makes sense. Yeah. And I don't say that as a, a judgment of, of people and they should or shouldn't do or I'm better than other people because I choose that. It's it's just more of, like, I've never even asked myself that question. It never even occurred to me to, base, anything I've written on, on my personal experience. So, yeah, that probably answers your question. Now, I have to say, whenever we do a podcast, you wear a t shirt. For some reason, that always fits in keeping with the theme or the specific movie. We're talking about for not doing it today, and I'm looking at your shirt and, like, what the fuck does this have to do with, the interview with the vampire? I didn't have an interview with the vampire shirt. yeah, I thought I thought about it. I am a very interesting person. Like, even if I'm going to a movie like, I. And I guess I was more on theme. I recently saw Abigail, which I really know, and Well, I think it's it's funny. And I would even dare say cute that you would wear a shirt for a podcast that no one If you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, subscribe now and give this podcast a like. and be sure to comment your wretched thoughts below. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold, black, withered hearts to support us on Patreon. A link to our PayPal is also below. For one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you.