Anne Rice: Faith, The Vampire Chronicles, and Critics

Roman Catholic novelist Anne Rice recently posted a video on Youtube.com addressing her diverse reading audience in regard to her new commitment to write only explicitly Christian novels—presently Christian historical fiction about the life of Jesus of Nazareth from the first person perspective entirely faithful to the Catholic faith and biblical framework—but she even goes so far to say that afterward, she is interested in writing a series akin to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. She reaffirms that she will not continue The Vampire Chronicles nor The Mayfair Chronicles or any such book reflecting those genres. Though, Rice refuses to renounce those books as they reflect her soul-search for God.

Read Anne Rice's clarification about her past novels and response to unfounded criticism.

TO MY READERS --- On the Nature of My Earlier Works

Peter Kreeft Reviews Anne Rice's "Jesus Novels"

Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana
Review by Peter Kreeft

I have found it hard to persuade people to read Anne Rice’s two “Jesus novels” (this one is a sequel to her Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt), even though I think they are masterpieces. That’s because what they set out to do, most people would label impossible.

It’s like the movie “Life is Beautiful.” Try describing that movie to someone who has never seen it. “It’s a serious comedy about an Italian father and his little boy in a Nazi death camp. The father protects the boy by persuading him that it’s a game. He succeeds. It will make you laugh, and it will make you weep, and it will make you believe it.” They will narrow their eyes and look at you as if you had either a very perverted literary taste or a strange psychological disease.

Anne Rice’s “Jesus novels” are fictional biographies from the first-person viewpoint of Jesus Himself. Hard enough to write about Him in the third person, but in the first? Yet they are modern realistic historical novels, and their Jesus is the real Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible and the Church. There are no heresies and no Katzantzakis-style corrections or “revisionisms” of the Gospels.

The best thing about these books is that they bring Jesus up close and personal. Somehow, He is more divine for being more human. He is “like us in all things but sin,” and “all things” includes ignorance, social stumbles, normal human emotions, including exasperation, normal sexual desires, and real temptations. And it works so well that you have to keep reminding yourself that this is only fiction, and not an Emmerich-type mystical vision. You have to resist the temptation to pray and meditate on these books as if they were the Gospels.

These two books are to all other Jesus fiction what “The Passion of the Christ” is to all other Jesus movies. The only other fiction about Jesus I know of that arises above the level of embarrassing trash are those in which Jesus is not the central character: Quo Vadis, Ben-Hur, The Robe. Dorothy Sayers proclaimed that it was impossible for anyone to ever write convincing fiction about Jesus, since the real character in the Gospels utterly dwarfs the best literary character we could ever possibly imagine. (For some reason, everyone admits that God’s wisdom and love vastly exceeds ours, but they forget that this must also be true of His imagination --- until they look an ostrich in the face.) I think Sayers is right. And this fact is a serious argument for the historical truth of the Gospels, to those who have a nose for narrative.

I would say that only twice before in literary history has Jesus ever been compellingly portrayed as the central character in pieces of fiction. Everyone knows what they pieces are. In one of them, He speaks not a single word and performs only one act: He Kisses the Grand Inquisitor. Anne Rice is not Dostoyevsky, or even C.S. Lewis, but this is the third time the magic has worked.

What is her secret of success? A small but necessary part of it is the fact that she had been an accomplished novelist, in both literary style and practical psychology, for many years. That is the “horizontal” component. A larger cause is the “vertical” component of her recent conversion, and her consequent Gibson-like dedication to this task.

She told her conversion story in the appendix to her first volume (Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt). When she came in the Church, she came all the way in: she was not fooled, as perhaps only naïve Christians could be fooled, by Modernist theologians and scripture scholars who classified the Gospels as largely myths. Her commonsensical, tough-minded literary refutation of the Modernists’ incompetence in judging narrative and character is strikingly similar to that of C. S. Lewis (in “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”), Sheldon Vanauken (in A Severe Mercy), Richard Purtill ( in Thinking About Religion), Walker Percy (in Lost in the Cosmos), and Flannery O’Conner ( in The Habit of Being). It is significant that no Modernist scripture scholar or theologian has ever written a single successful novel.

Some traditional theologians (though not all) will quarrel with Rice’s assumption that Jesus only gradually became conscious of His divine identity. But this is a “theologoumenon,” a legitimate theological opinion, and an apparent consequence of the Incarnation: if he had to learn to speak, like any other baby, He also had to learn to think, and to understand. But no one will quarrel with her ability to make the reader believe he or she is living in Jesus’ culture, in His Nazareth, His house, His (very) extended family, and in His very consciousness. It is a stunning achievement. Try it; you’ll like it. P.S. The narrative of Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness is almost as Unforgettable as Dostoyevski’s.

Peter Kreeft
Professor Philosophy
Boston College
Author of 55 books, including SUMMA OF THE SUMMA, ANGELS AND DEMONS, and THE SHADOWLANDS OF C.S. LEWIS
Visit: http://peterkreeft.com/

An Unrequited Letter to Anne Rice

Prof. Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University replies to Anne Rice's public endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

Dear Ms. Rice:

I am a professor of the philosophy of law at Princeton, and someone who enjoyed your fine book Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. I have read your endorsement of Senator Clinton and your reasoning as to why you support her despite your pro-life convictions.

I am a former Democrat who left the party because it hardened its heart toward the child in the womb. In the 1990s, I had the honor of working for Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, the last of the great national pro-life Democratic political leaders. (The governor, you may recall, was denied an opportunity to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because of his pro-life advocacy.) I am the grandson of West Virginia coal miners who, together with my grandmothers, were loyal Democrats. If they were alive today, they would ache, as I ache, to know that the political party they loved has committed itself to the legal protection of the killing of the unborn.

I appreciated the soft voice with which you spoke in expressing your views, and I wish to respond in similarly soft terms. Although I believe you are deeply mistaken in what you are doing and encouraging others to do, I am certain that you are trying to do what is right. That is all any of us can do. Perhaps you are the one who is right, and I am the one who is wrong. I hope, though, that you will consider my reasons.

I will not try to answer all of your points, though all are, I believe, answerable, and if you ask I will be happy to say what I think the answers are. For now, what I hope you will consider is simply this: The child in the womb either is or is not a human being—a member of the human family. If he or she is, then he or she is entitled as a matter of basic justice to the protection of laws and, indeed, to the equal protection of the laws. For a voter or public official to seek to deny to the unborn elementary legal protections against killing that we favor for ourselves and others we regard as worthy is a gross and appalling injustice. There is no way around this. Once one concedes the humanity of the child—as one must in view of the plain facts of human embryogenesis and early-intrauterine development—the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family requires the legal protection of the unborn.

Yet today the unborn are denied any legal protection and are slaughtered (there really is no other word for what is going on) at the rate of more than one million per year in our country. The scope and gravity of this injustice surely demands that we make the fight against it central in our own deliberations and actions as citizens. It is true that law cannot prevent all abortions; but unless the law recognizes the humanity and rights of the child in the womb we cannot begin doing what you and I wish to do–namely, end the horror of abortion. Recognizing what abortion is—the killing of an innocent human being—is the first step; and that step cannot be taken while we legally protect abortion and even confer on it (as the Supreme Court did) the status of a constitutional right. Our regime of law, as things stand, speaks loudly, clearly, and falsely. It proclaims that no being who matters—no creature possessing dignity and human rights—is destroyed when we tear off the limbs, burn off the skin, or suck out the brains of a human fetus.

I once had the honor of representing Mother Teresa of Calcutta as counsel of record on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (I would be happy to send you a copy, if you like.) Mother made the point that we cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killing by abortion. In this, it seems to me, she stated with characteristic simplicity a profound truth.

You have endorsed a candidate and a political party that believes that abortion, far from being an injustice, is a fundamental right. They are pledged to oppose any meaningful legal protections of the life of the child in the womb. They have even sought to protect the grisliest of methods of abortion—the “dilation and intact extraction” procedure. In this, they are promoting the greatest injustice and abuse of human rights to be found in our country today. It is this injustice that we should be most dedicated to fighting. If abortion is what you and I say it is–what we know it to be–then the issue must be given priority in our work as citizens. We should certainly not be tying ourselves to those who see it as no injustice at all. If we do that (and let me say this with the softest and humblest of voices), we are implicating ourselves—deeply—in the grave injustice being committed four thousand times per day against the tiniest and most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters.

I have imposed on you enough, so let me stop there. I will, however, attach a paper I presented earlier this year addressing the responsibilities of citizens and public officials toward the unborn child. If you read it, I hope you will let me know if you find in it any mistake of fact or error of logic. If my argument is sound, I hope you will prayerfully reconsider the position you have taken.

Yours sincerely,
Robert George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Director of the James Madison Program in
American Ideals and Institutions
Princeton University

Anne Rice endorses Hillary Clinton

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT

OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

To my readers:

Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point cannot be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs. Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history—that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—on a whole variety of issues—most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

Anne Rice talks about being Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.