Oskar hugs Eli behind the candy store

[sauvin]

One possible interpretation of Eli's emotional climate at the candy store (in the movie).

Somewhere in or about

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=822

appears some of the initial discussion around this story. Viewing the entire topic wouldn't be a bad idea.

In another topic on this forum, the "manipulativeness" on the part of the writers and directors in crafting and executing the movie with respect to its (possible) qualification as "art" is or had been heatedly discussed. Amid all the rhetoric, I found myself asking "I know what I'm thinking - did he fire six shots, or only five...?"

My little story could conceivably be used in trying to make the case that manipulativeness in fiction (or any other form of art) occurs almost without exception, varying only in its subtleness and intent. Any artist creates what he does in order to convey some idea, some feeling, some concept, and the process both of conveying and of assimilating it necessarily involves understanding and possibly accepting a new point of view, furthermore possibly in direct contradiction with a previously held view.

In portraying Eli in this manner, I've made her far more sympathetic than the character we actually do see; I've made her far more vulnerable, far less certain, less self-sufficient and self-assured as the rigidly controlled and disciplined character on the screen. This would be blatantly manipulative - it'd make Steven Seagal proud and Clint Eastwood chuckle. If it'd been more expertly written, polished and delivered, it would have destroyed any foundation the "Hakan's Replacement" argument might have enjoyed. It would also have forced Lacke's plight far further into the dark, invisible background.

Part of the reason I find the "Speak for X" game described in the topic referenced above so potentially illuminating is related to my reaction to my own story: I had no idea it'd turn out the way it did when I set about writing it. I had no idea so much self doubt and confusion would arise.

Like Eli, I'm an idiot.

It occurs to me after having reread the story again just minutes ago that this scene, like most of the others the two kids share, isn't where their relationship is being developed. It is changing or being tested (probably both), but not developed. The movie shows virtually nothing of the laughter, the running around, the games, the stories, the giggling over something on the TV or the millions of other little things kids do while their bonds slowly and silently strengthen.

At this point in the movie, theirs is a still very casual relationship, so casual they probably don't even realise they have one. Eli isn't worried about what Oskar thinks because she cares for him with the worshippful devotion some fan fiction seems to impute, but because his thinking ill of her would threaten a carefree, easy, relaxing association she views as all too ephemeral. It's not about him, in other words, and it's not about them (the "this is about us" my past girlfriends have usually been so concerned with); it's all about her, what she needs or wants or thinks or fears. This is not inconsistent with the social development of a normal twelve year old girl.

Eli's wish (in this interpretation) simply to maintain a safe, comfortable status quo is being directly and powerfully challenged by Oskar's massive tolerance for difference. She seems to sense that a greater, much more rewarding relationship may be possible, but long years of experience has taught her not to count on it. Merely having a chance at something bigger and better is terrifying because with it comes the risk of correspondingly great loss. This encounter may very well be the very first time in all her years she's glimpsed the real possibility of a meaningful relationship wherein she would not have a controlling or supervisory role.

With her lack of experience with "normal" relationships, she's at a decided disadvantage in this scene. The stiffness with which she receives Oskar's hug in the movie is probably the most convincing clue I have of this - "normal" people understand hugs almost implicitly at birth; they need no reason or explanation. She simply has no idea what people feel or think or want beyond an empirical understanding of adult perversion, and for this reason, has no idea how to interact with Oskar. She just knows that something within her, something having nothing whatsoever to do with her beast, demands such interaction.

The self doubts any normal twelve year old might have, it goes without saying, are exacerbated by the myriad implications her beast has on her, her lifestyle and her weltanschauung.

And so, it may not be such a stretch to claim that Eli's downcast eyes at the end of this scene may be a depiction of a lost and profoundly confused little girl standing on the edge of a bottomless chasm.

Another reason I say the "Speak for X" game might prove so illuminating is that it's now very easy for me to see how to rewrite this exact scene from the perspective of an Eli who actually is two centuries old, knows very damn well how people think and what they want, and is perpetrating an elaborate seduction. What servant, after all, is more valuable than the one who actually believes in the "love" he shares with his master?

[Aurora]

http://let-the-right-one-in.com/fancontent/ff/oskar-hugs-eli-behind-the-candy-store

That's the link for sauvin's piece above

[moonvibe34]

that was a great read. i really enjoyed that. Eli's inner thoughts were so "real" and at times painfully true.

[Lacenaire]

In another topic on this forum, the "manipulativeness" on the part of the writers and directors in crafting and executing the movie with respect to its (possible) qualification as "art" is or had been heatedly discussed. Amid all the rhetoric, I found myself asking "I know what I'm thinking - did he fire six shots, or only five...?"

My little story could conceivably be used in trying to make the case that manipulativeness in fiction (or any other form of art) occurs almost without exception, varying only in its subtleness and intent. Any artist creates what he does in order to convey some idea, some feeling, some concept, and the process both of conveying and of assimilating it necessarily involves understanding and possibly accepting a new point of view, furthermore possibly in direct contradiction with a previously held view.

Put in this way, this is no doubt quite true. One could quibble about the precise meaning of "manipulativeness" here - usually the word carries a certain negative connotation. Usually when we feel we had been manipulated we turn against the viewpoint or whatever that we were made to adopt through "manipulation". In that sense "manipulation" cannot expand our intellectual or emotional horizon because once we feel the manipulation we will reject the ideas thus conveyed. So the key point is the word "subtleness" - the "manipulation" has to be so subtle that we never think or say "I have been manipulated". It seems to me almost a logical contradiction that someone could at the same time feel that he accepted a new point of view (as you put it) through being "manipulated" and still continue to accept it.

This issue of the "subtlety" of whatever "manipulation" goes on in LTROI I will leave this time aside. (I think some of the fan reactions suggest a rather unsubtle kind of manipulation, while other reactions quite the opposite. This may simply be the result of the work being too subtle for some of its fans).

In portraying Eli in this manner, I've made her far more sympathetic than the character we actually do see; I've made her far more vulnerable, far less certain, less self-sufficient and self-assured as the rigidly controlled and disciplined character on the screen.

I think you have created a very plausible image of the inner conflict that goes on inside Eli. It it not quite the way I see her, primarily because of the form rather than the content. Your Eli sounds to me too much like a late 20/21 century American teenager - while I see her like a 18-century European child. (I think there is a certain contradiction in this aspect of the character already visible in the book). My image of Eli is therefore more disciplined and reserved - closer to what we see on screen. I would therefore have conveyed similar inner struggles using a very different language and style of expression. But as for the content - I find it quite convincing.

[drakkar]

One possible interpretation of Eli's emotional climate at the candy store (in the movie).

I think you have created a very plausible image of the inner conflict that goes on inside Eli. It it not quite the way I see her, primarily because of the form rather than the content. Your Eli sounds to me too much like a late 20/21 century American teenager - while I see her like a 18-century European child. ...But as for the content - I find it quite convincing.

I agree with Lacenaire, still I also find it convincing. It follows Eli's expressions very well - you actually reminded me how good actress Lina actually is. Tomas Alfredson knew what he was talking about when he stated that casting the two leading parts was 70% of the work.

[PeteMork]

With her lack of experience with "normal" relationships, she's at a decided disadvantage in this scene. The stiffness with which she receives Oskar's hug in the movie is probably the most convincing clue I have of this - "normal" people understand hugs almost implicitly at birth; they need no reason or explanation. She simply has no idea what people feel or think or want beyond an empirical understanding of adult perversion, and for this reason, has no idea how to interact with Oskar. She just knows that something within her, something having nothing whatsoever to do with her beast, demands such interaction.

The self doubts any normal twelve year old might have, it goes without saying, are exacerbated by the myriad implications her beast has on her, her lifestyle and her weltanschauung.

And so, it may not be such a stretch to claim that Eli's downcast eyes at the end of this scene may be a depiction of a lost and profoundly confused little girl standing on the edge of a bottomless chasm.

Well put! and you express this perfectly here:

No, I can't tell you why I'm asking. You'd run away if I did. All the old forgotten gods be damned, Oskar, you'd run away screaming if you knew for real what I'm afraid of. I'm not sure I could take that.

God, I'm so scared! I can't believe you can get this goddamn scared and still live!

Why does it have to be so hard? Why does this always have to be so goddamn hard and confusing and complicated and dangerous? Why do I always have to be so goddamn scared someone going to find out about me or I'm going to do or say something stupid and then they're going to run away? Why can't we just keep on talking about small stuff and maybe play cards and shoot pool and run around in the courtyard and make jokes and laugh? Why can't we just keep on letting me be not me for a little while more?

Why do things always have to go bad when there's already too goddamn little time?

Oskar... what in the world can you possibly want from me!?

And without knowing his answer to this unspoken question, her entire sense of self-worth is on the line. I like this interpretaion because, behind these thoughts, you can feel the pedophiles, drunks, and cabdrivers all lined up behind her, back into her distant past.

[drakkar]

Oh! I didn't view the posts combined. Until now. Agreed wholeheartedly.

[sauvin]

I think you have created a very plausible image of the inner conflict that goes on inside Eli. It it not quite the way I see her, primarily because of the form rather than the content. Your Eli sounds to me too much like a late 20/21 century American teenager - while I see her like a 18-century European child. (I think there is a certain contradiction in this aspect of the character already visible in the book). My image of Eli is therefore more disciplined and reserved - closer to what we see on screen. I would therefore have conveyed similar inner struggles using a very different language and style of expression. But as for the content - I find it quite convincing.

Lacenaire, you've spoken in other posts of having to translate things for people, meaning you know at least one language other than English. I suspect this is true of a great many of us in this forum; we're INTERNATIONAL, baby!

This implies you're very well aware of one of the oldest problems in translating between languages. Translation isn't just transliteration. Sometimes, in order to convey the same connotational meaning, you have to use words that denote something else.

Knowing no Swedish, particularly not from the time Eli was born, I used contemporary English, but would have done so in any event. It'd be no stretch at all to say "Oskar, verily I say unto thee, that I am most unworthy of thy seeming endless kindness", but I suspect that even an English-speaking child of the 1980s would have said something like "Oskar, I'm such a shit. Why are you so nice to me?"

You'd have really not enjoyed my original draft; Wolfchild said he doubted Eli watched much Southland Park (I think is the name of that show... "Oh my god, they killed Kenny!"). My thinking there was that Eli's had to rub elbows with some of the worst human detritus society can offer, and that some of their language habits would have rubbed off onto her without necessarily having any effect on her essential self.

In any event, yes, I see her as very tightly controlled and disciplined. She could hardly have survived two centuries if she hadn't been - but the fact that she's so OUTwardly composed has very little bearing on how chaotic and noisy it might be INside Eli's head.

And without knowing his answer to this unspoken question, her entire sense of self-worth is on the line. I like this interpretaion because, behind these thoughts, you can feel the pedophiles, drunks, and cabdrivers all lined up behind her, back into her distant past.

If this is all you saw, I've failed.

I can produce evidence that paedophilia is not harmless. Its potential for destructiveness left me reeling and partially unmanned when I learned of it. It can scarcely be overestimated. Someday, if I can find a way to do so, I'll explain. Otherwise, kindly assume I rank co-equal with murder in severity.

In this story, Eli clearly says something like "People try to take things, from me, too, but that doesn't matter, because what I take is worse. Much worse. What I take can't be given back." It looks to me from reading the novel that Lindqvist knows a thing or two about paedophilia. My prayer is that he didn't find out the same way I did, but El's concern with Oskar's image of her has very little to do with that, because what she takes is worse, much worse, because what she is is worse, so much worse, at least in her mind.

She takes lives.

Lindqvist is saying that being a vampire is far worse than being a paedophile, or even being the victim of one or two or a few dozen - Lindqvist is implying (to me) that her constant struggle to remain at least partially human in spite of her beast has given her the strength to dismiss as almost irrelevent the pyschological damage the novel implies she nevertheless continues to accrue.

This kind of strength is unimaginable to me.

[Lacenaire]

I think you have created a very plausible image of the inner conflict that goes on inside Eli. It it not quite the way I see her, primarily because of the form rather than the content. Your Eli sounds to me too much like a late 20/21 century American teenager - while I see her like a 18-century European child. (I think there is a certain contradiction in this aspect of the character already visible in the book). My image of Eli is therefore more disciplined and reserved - closer to what we see on screen. I would therefore have conveyed similar inner struggles using a very different language and style of expression. But as for the content - I find it quite convincing.

Lacenaire, you've spoken in other posts of having to translate things for people, meaning you know at least one language other than English. I suspect this is true of a great many of us in this forum; we're INTERNATIONAL, baby!



This implies you're very well aware of one of the oldest problems in translating between languages. Translation isn't just transliteration. Sometimes, in order to convey the same connotational meaning, you have to use words that denote something else.

Knowing no Swedish, particularly not from the time Eli was born, I used contemporary English, but would have done so in any event. It'd be no stretch at all to say "Oskar, verily I say unto thee, that I am most unworthy of thy seeming endless kindness", but I suspect that even an English-speaking child of the 1980s would have said something like "Oskar, I'm such a shit. Why are you so nice to me?"

Well, of course I have to speak at least my language of birth, another related language, English- which became my “native” language at 15, and some others (not very well). I am acutely aware of the problems you mention. They are very mild, by the way, compared with the problems of translating between Japanese and Indo-European languages. That’s a really interesting topic, but obviously not for here. But I meant something else. Of course part of the problem originates from Lindqvist - it is never made clear if Eli’s “regeneration” makes her really a peasant girl (or boy) of the 18th century or an urban child of the late 20th. It makes a lot of difference.

I don’t have much time to discuss this right now. Let me just say, that my mother was born in a peasant family of the 20-th century, poorer than most members of this forum can imagine. Her father was illiterate, her mother finished elementary school. But the way they were brought up was as different from modern urban children as possible - even when they became grown up none of them would even use words like “shit”.

Most people in the West cannot imagine that the Japanese language simply does not have swear words at all. So when they subtitle a Japanese film in which yakuza (Japanese gangsters) feature, they have to insert words like “fuck” and “shit”, etc. which are not there at all, because they don’t think it would sound authentic to Western ears unless they do so. If you translate literarily what they say it will sound very mild - not like gangster talk at all. The speech achieves its effect by the everpresent implied threats, tone of voice, constant shouting - but no swearing at all. The language does not simply posses this resource.

I have no idea if Lindqvist ever considered or tried to find out how an 18-century Swedish peasant child might think and talk. Compared to other European peasantry the Swedish one was once famous for their lack of submissiveness. There is a famous true episode of the peasant who told the great warrior king Gustaus Adolphus: “if my wife could afford as nice clothes as the Queen, she would look as beautiful as her”.

I have to stop here as I am at Hearhrow Airport and my flight is leaving soon. I might return to this thread later.

[sauvin]

I hear what you're saying, Lacenaire, and will be fascinated to hear more. I explain, but do not defend, that I'm living in the US, surrounded these decades by US Americans and therefore tend to (try to) express myself in ways an American farmer would understand. I was writing for maximum (local) accessibility. With apologies to the larger international community, I know no better way.