As you guys know, I’m an Anne Rice fan. Because of that, I liked her page on Facebook. Anyway, back in January, she posed the question of should the Bible be taught in school, in the context of the Bible being a literary and cultural influence in the States, without it offending religious and nonreligious people. Keep in mind that I consider myself to be an atheist. Anyway, while I agree that people should read the Bible because it is a literary and cultural influence, I don’t think that it should be taught in the public schools for several reasons. One reason is that the teachers have enough to teach kids already. There’s math, English, science, history, art, physical education, etc. That’s a full plate already. Why add on to it when it’s not directly relevant? Another reason is the fact that the Bible was the only religious text that was mentioned. In all fairness, even if the Bible was taught, other religious texts should be included as well, such as the Koran or Buddhist religious texts. Granted, the other religious texts won’t get as much attention as the Bible because those religious art aren’t quite as well known in the States. Anyway, another reason is whether or not the parent want their kids to be taught the Bible. If they do, why not send the kid to a parochial school or Sunday school? Another reason is whether or not the kids wants to learn about the Bible. If he or she wants to, he or she should take the class as an elective class or do it on his or her own time. My last reason is whether or not the kid has the ability to put the Bible into the context of it being a literary and cultural influence. I mean, a 5 or 6 year old won’t be able to do that whereas a teenager would be able to do that.
Posts tagged ‘Anne Rice’
I know this came out a while ago but I wanted to write about it. Umm…I can’t really say much about the best vampires because I haven’t seen most of the movies or tv shows that were mentioned. However, I would have to agree that Bela Lugosi as the Universal Studios Dracula is the best movie vampire of all time. I mean, no one can beat his Dracula. The only that I would change is to add Max Schreck as Count Orlok in the 1922 Nosferatu. Now, as far as the worst movie/tv vampires…I would have to disagree with Tom Cruise being on the list for his performance as Lestat in Interview with the Vampire. While it’s true that Anne Rice, the author of the novel on which the movie was based, initially protested to Tom Cruise being cast, she eventually praised his performance. I mean, he really did capture Lestat’s spirit as he was in Interview with the Vampire. As for Peter Facinelli as Carlisle Cullen, I’m not sure why he was put as on the list. The only thing I can think of would be his character actually has compassion. I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. Anyway, I found it funny that he was compared to Project Runway contestant Austin Scarlett.
Like I said in my previous post, I only read Twilight, New Moon, and a little bit of Eclipse. Anyway, I read the plot summary of Breaking Dawn and I find it interesting that the two vampire series that I read raises the issue of an immortal child being made. In Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, there’s the character of Claudia, a vampire that had the body of a five or six year old girl. And in Breaking Dawn, there’s Renesmee. I find it interesting because in both series, immortal children aren’t allowed, even though Renesmee isn’t a true immortal child. She’s actually a dhampir. Anyway, I digress. I think the reasoning behind the whole not allowing immortal children is that, even if they were under control as per the Twilight series, they (the immortal children) can’t really blend into society with no “adult” and without raising eyebrows. It’s basically the same thing that I wrote about in my Claudia post. Anyway, I just find it interesting.
Like I said in my previous post, with New Moon coming out in November, it made me think about the variations between the vampires that I’ve read about and have seen in movies or on TV. With Bram Stoker’s Dracula, vampires are described as being afraid of the sun, the cross, garlic, etc., not being able to cross running water. They also have to sleep within the dirt of the homeland. Now, with Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, the only thing that the vampires have in common with Bram Stoker’s vampires is that they drink blood, can’t go into the sun without some damage, and having fangs. With Anne Rice’s vampires, they become more statue like, stronger, less hungry, etc., as they grow older. However, that also depends on how old/strong his or her maker is or was. They also have other abilities such as being able to read each others’ mind, with the exception of his or her maker, or if they were made soon after Akasha became a vampire. Anyway, with Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series, I noticed that the vampires are more similar to Anne Rice’s vampires than to Bram Stoker’s vampires. I noticed that besides the superhuman speed, strength, agility, etc., their physical body becomes hard like stone, the skin is pale, cold. They also become more beautiful, especially compared to other humans and when they were humans. The only differences that I noticed was the fact that Stephanie Meyer’s vampires just sparkle in the sunlight while Anne Rice’s vampires can easily die from exposure to the sun, depending on how old (s)he is and who his/her maker was. The only other differences that I noticed was the different types of powers that the vampires had and whether or not they sleep.
With the whole talk about the Twilight series because of New Moon coming out in November, that made me think of the series of the books. Then I realized that a lot of the popular vampire book series were written by women. Take the Twilight series, it was written by Stephanie Meyer. Then there’s the novels written by Laurell K. Hamilton. And last but not least, you have The Vampire Chronicles, written by Anne Rice. Why is it that the popular vampire series were written by women? I mean, it is because the fan base is predominantly female and the female writers know what their readers want to read? Anyway, I find it to be interesting.
As you guys know, I’m a Vampire Chronicles and Twilight fan. Anyway, with New Moon coming out in theaters in November and the trailer being everywhere, that kinda made me think about what the Cullens practice. Well, I find it weird for me that in the Vampire Chronicles, I don’t like Lestat because he’s not very human like, in terms of drinking human blood, even though he drinks the evildoer’s blood. And yet, I like Louis because he didn’t drink until he absolutely needed to. But when it comes to Twilight, I don’t particularly care for the Cullens as much as I like James. Well, at least in terms of drinking blood. I find it very ironic because in one vampire series, I like the “vegetarian” vampire and not the “carnivore” vampire. And yet, in the other series, I don’t like the “vegetarian” vampires while I like the “carnivore” vampire.
I was just thinking. Why is that more people like Lestat than Louis from The Vampire Chronicles? I mean, is it because Lestat is a badass and a rule breaker? Or is it because Louis is too human and because of that, he’s not that appealing? I was just thinking too. Could it be that Lestat has more of sex appeal because of his looks? Because Louis is only known for his green eyes and his curly black hair, at least in terms of his looks. Lestat, on the other hand, is described more in details. He’s known for his blond hair, violet eyes, smiles, etc. Anyway, I just don’t get it.