We, The Infected

I suppose most people who know the novel have seen the reviews (of the English translation "Let me In") that can be found on this page (and many other places on the Internet):

http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?M ... ID=1883384

What seems a little strange is that a rather enthusiastic introduction of the novel and the author is followed by two reviews, both of which are clearly hostile and the first one pretty strongly so ("Recommended only for comprehensive horror collections"). This review is by Patricia Altner, who seems to be a well known expert on vampire fiction and the author of a "Vampire Readings", an annotated bibliography of vampire writings. She also has a vampire centred blog: http://patricias-vampire-notes.blogspot.com/.

While I am not interested i vampire novels themselves, I am a little surprised by the vehemence of her hostility to LTROI, particularly shown in this sentence: "Unfortunately, Lindqvist's predictable plot lumbers through one ghastly scene after another." I noted that exactly the same word "predictable" appears in the other review, which seems to be written by a different author: "As sweet as the pure and wholesome friendship between Oskar and Eli may be, it's the gory set pieces that propel the predictable plot."

Hmm... I did not much like the novel when I first looked through it(at about the same time that this review was written), but I did not find it predictable. On the other hand, I am completely unfamiliar with "modern vampire fiction". As for the film, the only thing that I think could be called "predictable" is the ending of the pool scene - of course everyone knows Eli will slaughter the bullies and rescue Oskar and the only surprise is that she leaves one alive. But perhaps from the point of view of a "vampire expert" all this may look quite different?

I guess you could argue that the core plot ( Eli and Oskars relationship) is relatively predictable , as for the rest of the plot I can´t really agree with these reviews. I wasn´t able to predict a zombie rape scene

i am certainly no vampire expert but i have watched many vampire movies and read a few vampire books. i don't know what all vampire fiction the so called expert in your post has sampled but i found the novel and film versions to be refreshingly unpredictable. each one had me completely glued to it and at times even holding my breath to find out what happened next. certainly a great deal of older vampire movies are quite predictable, no argument there, but LTROI was a completely new experience for me.

Personally I'd say that was misuse of the term, but having said that it gets used a lot in reviews when the reviewer doesn't like the film or book...

Not everyone is going to like this novel, or any other novel for that matter.

A couple of thoughts. I read another, even more hostile review that was very unimpressed with the fact that Oskar comes from a broken home. (Hm. . . reminds me of a slightly more famous character in vampire fiction. )

My daughter, a precociously cynical literary critic, comments that "its always coming of age, its always autobiographical."

I think Lacenaire's critic is really barking up the wrong tree. This is more of a character study, not a plot driven novel and that is what most critics focus on, the large cast of characters beyond Eli and Oskar. The author has expressed a special affection for these characters (and I share some of that), but most readers don't like them.

I suppose if someone did not like the story and wanted to write a critical review, then they would have to justify why they didn't like it. And you can't totally rule out the possibility that this particular critic never even saw the movie or read the book. They might have gotten all this from someone who didn't like the movie and/or the novel either. I don't like to accuse people of dishonesty, especially if I don't have any evidence. But the fact remains that there are many dishonest people in the world, and they will take advantage of others if they have something to gain by doing so. But as to LTROI being "predictable", sure, there are certain things that you might predict. But I know I was surprised by some of the story. If the critic had stated that "certain things in this movie came as no surprise to me", then that would be a valid statement. That's why I suspect that the critic was parroting what someone else said. As I've always said, I just don't buy everything I hear. If I depended on critics, I'm sure I would have missed movies that I've really liked.

But facts are facts. And the fact is, quite simply, that most comments on this movie are very, very positive. And I'm one of those "poor, unenlightened souls" who like it very, very much.

gary13136 wrote:I suppose if someone did not like the story and wanted to write a critical review, then they would have to justify why they didn't like it. And you can't totally rule out the possibility that this particular critic never even saw the movie or read the book. They might have gotten all this from someone who didn't like the movie and/or the novel either. I don't like to accuse people of dishonesty, especially if I don't have any evidence. But the fact remains that there are many dishonest people in the world, and they will take advantage of others if they have something to gain by doing so. But as to LTROI being "predictable", sure, there are certain things that you might predict. But I know I was surprised by some of the story. If the critic had stated that "certain things in this movie came as no surprise to me", then that would be a valid statement. That's why I suspect that the critic was parroting what someone else said. As I've always said, I just don't buy everything I hear. If I depended on critics, I'm sure I would have missed movies that I've really liked.

But facts are facts. And the fact is, quite simply, that most comments on this movie are very, very positive. And I'm one of those "poor, unenlightened souls" who like it very, very much.

These were early (2007) reviews of the UK translation of the book "Let me In", not the film. Patricia Altner, the author of the most critical review, seems to be well known in this genre, and this particular review appears on several sites, including Barnes & Noble http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Let-Me ... 0312355289. The original review is from Library Journal http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6490779.html
I am sure she read the book, as she seems to be a serious professional critic, and I am equally sure she did not like it and a bit more. Why she calls it predictable I don't know, but she appears to have read essentially everything that has been published on the subject of vampires in English.
I looked at her later writings (she writes about books and films about vampires) but she never mentions LTROI again, although some other people on her blog comment positively about it.

I think I have now understood the sense in which both the novel and the film are predictable, and I agree that they are. The various events that take place and the sequence in which they happen are not predictable, but the ultimate fate of the characters and the all the outcomes of all the key "decisions" that they have to take are fully predictable. For example, it is completely predictable that Eli will become friends with Oskar, that Hakan must be removed out of the way, that Lacke and his friends will become Eli's victims, that no person who you really like will become one (e.g. Tommy), that Oskar will relent and invite Eli in, that Eli will come to his rescue in the pool, that they will run away together. None of these things is, of course, predictable at the start, but whenever a "moment of decision" arrives, you know that what the outcome is gong to be. In this sense both the novel and the film are as predictable as an average Disney film.

There is nothing wrong with predictable if its done right I dont think. I have more of a problem with people who try to reinvent the wheel. Predictability done right means you are going with the flow and letting the story naturally go where it wants to go. Just like a good pop song is better than a progressive classical rock acid free jazz fusion song. Sure its unpreditable but does it move you.

Love stories with happy endings will never die. Thats a good thing.

jetboy wrote:There is nothing wrong with predictable if its done right I dont think. I have more of a problem with people who try to reinvent the wheel. Predictability done right means you are going with the flow and letting the story naturally go where it wants to go. Just like a good pop song is better than a progressive classical rock acid free jazz fusion song. Sure its unpreditable but does it move you.

Love stories with happy endings will never die. Thats a good thing.

I don't disagree. Everyone is entitled to a little escapism. I never felt this predictability as a serious fault of the movie (though it would be a serious fault in a serious film or even a not so serious one in which surprise plays a key role, like in an action or suspense movie), but I noticed this point when Wolfchild mentioned that none expects that Oskar will let Eli die rather than invite her in the bleeding scene. Now, when you think about it this way, no one expects Eli to kill Oskar in their meeting scenes, no one expects Hakan to seriously harm Eli or Tommy or Oskar in the book, no one expects Lacke to kill Eli and so on and so on. Each of these things is thoroughly predictable in the film and the novel, but they would not be in real life. In real life each of these things could, of course, well have gone the other way.

In serious realistic films you can never be sure the way you can in in LTROI.