Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
adventurous
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
challenging
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I know that "The Vampire Chronicles" did not end with this book, but for me the series ends with book 3. A book which I had so many hopes, question and pondering for only to watch them slowly be unanswered, disregarded and finally have disinterest take over my mind. Truthfully I had held out hope for the book to end with a high, to give me something more and yet here I sat with the story finished wondering what this all was.
We got half of a book from the POV of characters I couldn't care less about and did not grow to care for over the course of the book. Truthfully I felt like the book was overstuffed with new faces we didn't need or could pass through the story in a chapter of someone we already knew. I wanted to know more about Akasha, a figure so shrouded in mystery, and only ended up learning about The Twins. While I understand why - it was never about Akasha - I do sorta feel like the twins were shoehorned in and a set up for them was not there. They pop up in this book and take it over, while the mysterious Akasha is sidelined with her boytoy.
Then there was the fact that Lestat, such a driving force in the first two books, simply sidelined for no good reason. Whenever he did come back in there was Akasha, leaving their conversations to repeat again and again. Frankly it was not enjoyable to watch how Akasha kept Lestat perpetually basically under the influence whenever he started to make a point or in general. Such a vibrant figure dimmed down for a book that desperately needed him and his wittiness, which one grew to love in book 2. Allocated to be simply the record keeper of what happened while constantly drunk off Akashas blood.
Another thing is that the debates Anne introduces in this books are worth having and in my eyes wonderfully written as they were equally as flawed, painfully human. Which is an oddly humorous thing, because all of them used to be humans and have lived centuries as vampires - yet the arguments are as flawed and thoughtful as human. Especially Akasha makes several good points, yet there is that always that part that you could argue against easily and point out the failure of nuance. In a way it is wonderful to observe and yet at the same time you wonder if after all those years, seeing how history unfolds itself like a flower petal - lack of nuance and layers seems fraud. You had all this time to contemplate only to come up with arguments that you find now easily on social media and you can note the half bakedness of them. Then again for me one could maybe argue that Akasha only had a one sided idea of the world, her own ego and impressions mudding the perception she gained of the world that passed her by. I can't really decide where I end up with this part of the book, but I do think it is apart of the fact we get so little of her in this book.
So why is that? Maybe because so much of the book is handed over to the constant telling of The Twins story, which again I struggled to care for in a deep manner. By all means I see the reason why we learned of the story (though it felt like it was being told to us again and again and again and again), but then why not add in Akasha telling the story. Why only one twin retelling it without a counter weight? If anything I feel if Akasha told her own story we could have seen the logic behind her reasoning or why she was so sure she would be the saviour of the planet.
I guess that is my mine gripe - the book dragged. Vampire Lestat ended on such a cliffhanger, so many questions unanswered and then we arrive here only to move along at a snails pace. No build up of tension, no wondering how the huge clash will resolve and in the end it just fizzles out.
We got half of a book from the POV of characters I couldn't care less about and did not grow to care for over the course of the book. Truthfully I felt like the book was overstuffed with new faces we didn't need or could pass through the story in a chapter of someone we already knew. I wanted to know more about Akasha, a figure so shrouded in mystery, and only ended up learning about The Twins. While I understand why - it was never about Akasha - I do sorta feel like the twins were shoehorned in and a set up for them was not there. They pop up in this book and take it over, while the mysterious Akasha is sidelined with her boytoy.
Then there was the fact that Lestat, such a driving force in the first two books, simply sidelined for no good reason. Whenever he did come back in there was Akasha, leaving their conversations to repeat again and again. Frankly it was not enjoyable to watch how Akasha kept Lestat perpetually basically under the influence whenever he started to make a point or in general. Such a vibrant figure dimmed down for a book that desperately needed him and his wittiness, which one grew to love in book 2. Allocated to be simply the record keeper of what happened while constantly drunk off Akashas blood.
Another thing is that the debates Anne introduces in this books are worth having and in my eyes wonderfully written as they were equally as flawed, painfully human. Which is an oddly humorous thing, because all of them used to be humans and have lived centuries as vampires - yet the arguments are as flawed and thoughtful as human. Especially Akasha makes several good points, yet there is that always that part that you could argue against easily and point out the failure of nuance. In a way it is wonderful to observe and yet at the same time you wonder if after all those years, seeing how history unfolds itself like a flower petal - lack of nuance and layers seems fraud. You had all this time to contemplate only to come up with arguments that you find now easily on social media and you can note the half bakedness of them. Then again for me one could maybe argue that Akasha only had a one sided idea of the world, her own ego and impressions mudding the perception she gained of the world that passed her by. I can't really decide where I end up with this part of the book, but I do think it is apart of the fact we get so little of her in this book.
So why is that? Maybe because so much of the book is handed over to the constant telling of The Twins story, which again I struggled to care for in a deep manner. By all means I see the reason why we learned of the story (though it felt like it was being told to us again and again and again and again), but then why not add in Akasha telling the story. Why only one twin retelling it without a counter weight? If anything I feel if Akasha told her own story we could have seen the logic behind her reasoning or why she was so sure she would be the saviour of the planet.
I guess that is my mine gripe - the book dragged. Vampire Lestat ended on such a cliffhanger, so many questions unanswered and then we arrive here only to move along at a snails pace. No build up of tension, no wondering how the huge clash will resolve and in the end it just fizzles out.
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
LOVED this book, hated the movie. I felt that the movie was filled with so much bad acting. It felt as though the actors were just reading off of a script the entire time. THE BOOK however is amazing. Attention to detail. Very good.
Question: Does anyone else have a "love/hate" thing with author, Anne Rice? I tried Mayfair Witches and gave it up. Now, I'm reading Queen of the Damned and while it was great for awhile, it's screeching to a halt again. Hello, painfully flowery language that doesn't go anywhere, vague pronoun references, and general boredom. I know I should've read Interview with a Vampire and The Vampire LeStat first but I don't know if I can get through them. I did finish her book on werewolves, but it wasn't my favorite, by any means. I don't think I'm a fan of Ms. Rice. In my view, the BEST two vampire books are Stephen King's Salem's Lot and John Ajvide Lindqvist's Let The Right One In. I am obsessed with vampire books/television series, but I am VERY selective about what I like.