Zombie Håkan

[Wolfchild]

I think I finally understand zombie Håkan. While the plot line of zombie Håkan is a compelling and horrifying read, I hadn't really been sold on it. First of all, it didn't make logical sense. Ostensibly the parasite, the vampiric plague virus takes over Håkan's body once his brain has switched off and will now use it for its own ends. It makes absolutely no sense for those ends to include raping Eli. I know this topic has been discussed before, but I have never really seen a satisfying explanation for Håkan's lust for being carried on by the plague parasite. How could it possibly benefit from such an act?

Secondly, it seemed gratuitous to me. It didn't seem to serve any purpose in the plot, other than creating the situation where Eli forgets to lock the front door to his apartment. It seems like a much simpler way could have been found to have that door be unlocked without having to use all the space that was devoted to the zombie Håkan sub-plot. Also, without zombie Håkan, much of the Tommy plot thread would be disposed of, as well as most of the Staffan plot thread. Zombie Håkan had just seemed to me to be a somewhat self-indulgent anchor for sub-plots that otherwise would not relate to the rest of the novel.

However, I finally realized why Håkan reappears as a zombie and why he retains his lust for Eli (although that part still does not make logical sense to me): Zombie Håkan makes it clear that Elias is also a victim. Elias leaves a string of victims during the time of the story, and at least by implication a string of victims that is centuries long. We are shown Elias killing two people without remorse, and being responsible for the suicide by immolation of a third. How then can JAL make sure that we are sympathetic to Elias? By showing us that that there are worse things than the deaths that Elias has brought to his victims. I suppose we could argue about whether or not death is better or worse than being sodomized by a half-melted zombie, but which would we really choose? As much as any of his victims, Elias also was a victim of his own vampirism with the loss of his childhood, his future, and any meaningful life. If this wasn't enough to convince us that Elias was also a victim of vampirism, JAL was going to drive the point home with zombie Håkan.

Up until the scene with Håkan in the basement, JAL had mostly been spending effort on convincing us that Elias is dangerous. Then with zombie Håkan JAL shifts gears and works to make sure that we also see Elias as vulnerable. Whatever we were feeling about Elias up until that scene in the basement, noone is not going to want Elias to escape. Even if we have resisted feeling sympathy for monstrous little Elias up to this point, now JAL forces us to take Elias' side. From here on out until the pool scene, it is difficult to see Elias as anything but a victim. Events have spun beyond his control. Once Elias blinds Håkan, now you want him to escape the basement. Once he escapes the basement, now you want him to be able to come back to finally destroy Håkan, to save Tommy. You want Elias to escape the sun, to not become its victim as Virginia was, and make it safe into the bathtub. When Lacke discovers him, Elias must defend himself. We want him to. We do not want Oskar to have to watch his love killed before his eyes by a knife wielding drunk. Once Lacke is dead, now we want Elias to not get caught by the police. This whole slippery slope starts with that utterly horrible attempted rape.

Tomas didn't need a zombie Håkan is his film. He had Lina, and Lina ensured that Tomas' Eli was sympathetic. As for Matt Reeves, it is not clear whether he will have a zombie, and whether or not his film will need one. Although the plot summary refers to Abby as a "terrified girl", who knows how Chloe portrayed Abby? Who knows how Reeves directed and will edit her scenes? But having a cute little girl play your vampire does give you a means to make your vampire sympathetic that is not available to the author of a novel. I think that done right, Let Me In should not need a zombie pedophile.

As horrible as JAL made Elias (at least to everyone but Oskar), he needed to come up with something worse. Something that could potentially victimize Elias himself, at that was zombie Håkan. I still don't understand the logic of the zombie's lust, but I think I understand its purpose.

[DMt.]

Perhaps the body, patient faithful servant that it is, is simply trying to carry out its last remembered desire of Hakan's sick soul, to have his lust upon Eli at any cost.

Or perhaps, even worse, Hakan's sick soul is still attached to the ruined corpse.

[lombano]

Ostensibly the parasite, the vampiric plague virus takes over Håkan's body once his brain has switched off and will now use it for its own ends. It makes absolutely no sense for those ends to include raping Eli. I know this topic has been discussed before, but I have never really seen a satisfying explanation for Håkan's lust for being carried on by the plague parasite. How could it possibly benefit from such an act?

I think a lot depends on how you choose to see vampirism - I choose to view it not as a curse and not as a biological infectious illness, but as an unknowable. This is why I dislike the paragraph about parasitic brain cells, I think the film got the balance right in merely mentioning in passing it's an illness and never saying more about its nature. My point is that if you do not view it as a natural infectious agent, there is no need for a Darwinian reason for undead Hakan's lust. The condition might simply, in its undead form, retain the worst aspect of the living person, which would be no more arbitrary than other vampirical rules.

As horrible as JAL made Elias (at least to everyone but Oskar), he needed to come up with something worse. Something that could potentially victimize Elias himself, at that was zombie Håkan.

Elias is not very likeable, but he does do what is in his power to minimise harm to others while preserving his existence and is at least as kind as film Eli. But yes, I think undead Hakan was put there first and foremost to portray Elias as a victim, sort of like the vampire lord.

Tomas didn't need a zombie Håkan is his film. He had Lina, and Lina ensured that Tomas' Eli was sympathetic. As for Matt Reeves, it is not clear whether he will have a zombie, and whether or not his film will need one. Although the plot summary refers to Abby as a "terrified girl", who knows how Chloe portrayed Abby? Who knows how Reeves directed and will edit her scenes? But having a cute little girl play your vampire does give you a means to make your vampire sympathetic that is not available to the author of a novel. I think that done right, Let Me In should not need a zombie pedophile.

I'm inclined to think the novel would have been better off without undead Hakan, or perhaps with that subplot substantially re-written; I have absolutely no doubt they made the right choice in removing him from the film, and I hope MR makes the same choice.

[Aurora]

I tend to agree with Wolfie's intrepretation of the need for zombie Hakan as a threat to Eli to balance the scales as it were. Before then Eli was a remorseless killer (unlike the film's portrayal), the only person that escaped was Oskar and that was a close run thing.

After the encounter in the basement Eli was shown to be very vunerable and suddenly there were threats appearing from all sides. While zombie Hakan was locked in the basement, Lacke was working out where Eli lived and shortly after that the police would be arriving at Eli's apartment.

Another thing that I thought of while reading Eli's encounter with zombie Hakan was how much she underestimated the threat that he posed, which I thought would be unlikely for a survivor like Eli. Even the squirrel had better sense than Eli on how much of a threat he was

[gattoparde59]

Wolfie, you really are feeding my obsessions!

Eli already has my sympathy, as an innocent child condemned to a living hell. I don't need a zombie to make Eli look more sympathetic.

To a certain extent, I think the zombie Håkan was a matter of gratuitous horror. Also I think there is an element of black humor involved. Håkan is like a cartoon character that is burned, blown-up and run over by a steam roller and some how still stays alive.

Elsewhere I have suggested some other reasons why Håkan might have been included in the plot. You can skip this part if you have read them before.

Håkan represents carnal love, as opposed to the spiritual love of Eli and Oskar. Actually this is not an original thought on my part.

Håkan is a monster that Eli has to fight for "Oskar's sake" as Eli puts it. In a way Woflie is right in that Håkan made Eli's love look more and more sincere to me because of his desire to protect Eli, like a knight in a medieval romance.

Aside from the airborne and ageless Eli, Håkan is the biggest clue that we are looking at a retelling of Peter Pan. Håkan is Eli's 'father' who goes away and comes back as a comical monster. (In the stage version of Peter Pan, the same actor played both roles). Håkan has a name that suggests "hook." Håkan has a pronunced "hook" of his own. Just like the tiny Peter Pan has a duel with the large Captain James Hook, so the tiny Eli has his duel with the large Håkan Bengtsson.

[johnajvide]

Hi, John here;

Wolf, I just wanted to confirm your thoughts about zombie Håkan. As with any element in a story you can of course interpret it in many ways, but your ideas are very much in line with my own way of thinking.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, my stories and books always start out with a collection of very vivid images which I then strive to construct pathways beteween, hopefully ending up with a decent tale.
But!
Apart from that, the question of balance is also very important to me. A satisfactory reading experience should end with a feeling that everything in the book that you are now putting aside has been balanced out.
(Of course you can also strive for an unbalanced ending, with questions unanswered and narrative threads hanging loose. I did this on purpose in Handling the undead, and maybe it wasn´t such a wise decision.)
Anyhow, this is where zombie Håkan comes in. Apart from being an over-the-top character which I had some delight in describing, his sole purpose in the story is to act as a counterbalance to the scene in the swimming pool.
It would be very hard to accept Elias killing all those young people if we were not to be completely on Elias side, as you have pointed out. I wrote the rape scene with the purpose of balancing out the Elias character. To say: ”These are the sort of things that have been done to him over the centuries, who are you to judge his actions?”
I had great fun writing the scene with Håkan and Tommy in the dark room, whereas the rape scene was my most horrible writing experience to date. I sweated, I shivered, I wrote it very fast just to get it over and done with and it took me a few hours to become myself again after writing it. Everything for the sake of balance.
(With that said, you should also know that the rape scene is the one single instance where my publishers have actually demanded that I change anything in my books. It was even more horrible in the original version. I toned it down a bit, and I think it was for the better.)
As for Håkans lust and his boner and so on … well, forbidden lusts has governed his life, so why not his death? When you are to write truly horrible things, a certain element of comic relief never hurts.
Hasta luego.

John

[DMt.]

Whoa! The Eyeballs in the Sky have spoken!

Cheers JAL.

[Microwave Jellyfish]

Hehe, I hope John knows that the simple fact he used Eli's original first name here, will probably generate another endless thread with guessing and debating about how he relates to his characters, the depiction of the gender issue in the novel, and a whole lot of similar stuff.

Z-Håkan was probably the sickest thing I've ever read in a novel, until I came across Meat by Joseph D'Lacey (that one has people having sex with cows then ending up butchered just like cows). First time I read it it made me laugh (boner), then shiver (rape), finally I wanted to puke (Eli's fighting back with a... was that a broom?). Powerful stuff.

And I really liked the conclusion with Tommy. He was afraid of the dead if I remember correctly, so on one hand that scene is real psycho-horror, but then again, it's also a sick, weird and fun ride.

[gary13136]

I would agree with Wolfchild's thinking that the purpose of Hakan as a zombie was to make Eli a more sympathetic character. This of course is a good idea for those who are having trouble finding sympathy for Eli. But for myself, there was never a time when I didn't view Eli as a sympathetic character. Also I never viewed Eli as a 200 year old in a child's body. And I never had any problem viewing Eli as having the mentality of a 12 year old.

But that is the way I view the story. Others need more proof, and I'm sure JAL had them in mind when he wrote the book.

[TΛPETRVE]

I think those who consider Eli a 200 year old trapped in a child's body are too much clinging to the conventions of vampire lore that came with Anne Rice and her, erm, confeatherates (Ha-ha). As someone who always deeply despised the character of Claudia in Interview with the Vampire, I had absolutely no doubt that Eli is an eternal child, not an ancient soul in an ageless body.