Daniel, or the Boy Without A Novel (from Interview With The Vampire)
I was giving an imaginary contributors Q&A at an academic conference (the maladaptive procrastination is really getting out of hand) and I think I worked out why there’s no extended treatise on Daniel Molloy in the novels.
There are (broadly) two types of novels in The Vampire Chronicles.
1. “Hello, I am going to ruminate on the trials and tribulations of my immortal existence”
2. Unfortunately, Lestat has fallen in love again.
There is occasionally crossover, but no book really exists outside of this framework. A novel with Daniel, The Boy From IWTV could not exist within this framework. The way he was written lacked the type of core philosophy and history Rice needed to latch on to for a further exploration of character. Lestat would not fall in love with him in the way needed for a type 2, because he wouldn’t be interesting (fascinating) to Lestat, outside of the way that every mortal human is eternally fascinating.
And the real desire, a type one book, would be impossibly because Rice did not write contemporary history. “Lestat has fallen in love” novels are broadly contemporary, and “Hello I will ruminate” novels are historical fiction. A Daniel “I will ruminate” novel would not have the authorial luxury of plantation life, Imperial Rome, Renaissance Venice, or Actual Atlantis. There would be no allowance for deep religious or philosophical questions on the meaning of life and existence. Not because Daniel is incapable of these things, but because “the boy” did not have them in a way that fit into the broader conversation of The Vampire Chronicles.
A type 1 Daniel Molly novel begins in the early 1950s when he is born, deals with a little over twenty years of human life, and then crashes headfirst into the vampiric world in 1976. It skims past the material covered in Queen of the Damned, and picks up with a young vampire who has no connection to the human world: no family, no friends - at least none outside of the connections he had cultivated with Armand.
This could be a deeply interesting story (I know for a fact, because I plan to write something similar in the future), but it is hardly gothic. It is contemporary, it deals exclusively with living history, and there is no chance to question the changing of the times. There is no opportunity to paint Daniel with the brush of times gone by, to grandfather him into historical atrocities, to use his story to ask complicated questions about religion and free will, at least not within the framework that was established within the series.
There is no Daniel book because he is a modern man, and only Lestat is allowed to have modern stories. Interestingly, this is why television Daniel has more leeway: he has existed long enough, and lived a complex enough life that he could very well have enticed a Ricean book about him. We shall see.