A pedophiles thoughts about LTROI

[gattoparde59]

thanks gattoparde59, good to know that there is an advocate for my point of view. After reading JAL´s statement i feel some kind off relief, but it´s still a mixed kind of opinion. I praise JAL attemps to handle a dificult topic. But also i can see all the people out there reading the book saying "at least that sick old pervert got what he deserved" and thats the big trouble here. He is using a difficult topic for what we say "the sh**s and giggles". I won´t blame him for this, but i feel like saying what i have said. transforming Hakan into that ulitmate Monster blamishes all struggelling pedophiles. Maybe it wasn´t intended, but at the end, that´s what we get here. To get back my peace of mind, i will mention this on our next "kein Täter werden" aftercare group meeting. (which is soon to come by) As we are coached by forensic experts there, it´s interesting what they will say about this. Maybe i thake things very personally, but what would you do in my situation?

I had noticed that the Haken story arc was way over the top, but I had never really thought about it from your point of view. If you took a poll with readers they would probably agree that the scenes with Haken are their least favorite part of the novel. I seem to recall that editors sent back the original version of the basement scene for a rewrite because it was too horrible.

An attempt to balance? Maybe this was a case of over correction. I always took this as black humor, but if someone has used your personal problems as a prop in their horror story then this is definitely not funny.

You can always put the novel aside and watch the film, which is a beautiful experience and deliberately drops the pediphillia.

[johnajvide]

Oh, and if you for the sake of balance want to read about the horrific lengths to which "normal" heterosexuality can take us, I refer to the scene with The Dead Couple in I always find you. (Rörelsen). It´s intended to offend not just people of a certain sexuality, but everyone. Enjoy.
I am sorry if I have made anyone sad or angry, I have the deepest respect for people fighting with keeping their demons at bay and paying the price. LTROI is first and foremost a story about unconditional, unconventional love which finds its way through the barriers of normality, and as such hopefully inspiring to all us freaks of nature or society.

[Phobos]

Thanks John.
After i have read your words i decided to give you this one... Just this little story and i be gone..

As i am much of a coward, i can´t commit suicide myself.So i decided that i will have a tatoo meant to be a clear provocation.
It´s a yellow Star above my heart, but in the center of it, it doesn´t say "jew" but F65.4 (which is the ICD code for Pedophile)

A few days ago, i had a accident at work and had my shoulder painfully dislocated. An Ambulance was called an i was driven to the hospital. At this point i was already dizzy from all the painkillers the Paramedics injected in my vains ( I think it was ketamine)

After arriving at the hospital, they brought me to the ER. An surgeon looked at my shoulder and noticed my tattoo. He said something like "give him more, make him sleep" or something like that. At this point i became fearful because i thought it all will come to an end. A few moments later peace came to my mind. "Have no fear i´ll just sleep away" they gave me anesthetics and the last thing i remember is the surgeon looking at me saying "that´s no good he´s hyperventilating" then all was darkness. i slipped in the darkness and i thought, now i am free, i will roam here.

But obviously i wasn´t allowed to be liberated as i woke up some time later with a relocated shoulder and the worst headache of my life. I thought why haven´t you done it, why haven´t you put my misery to an end..

This story is 100% true. I have proofs for everything i wrote
Now stop, think and wonder

[Pissball]

I don't think LTROI treats pedophilia that deeply. It is shown in a more pulpy way and for shocking-repulsive value.
I mean, pedophillia is part of the HORROR in the book, Hakan the pedophile, at the end of the day is the absolut monster, although I do see his story as a tragedy.

Think about what happens to Håkan:

!. At the start he is very much a missing and exploited pedophile, groomed and manipulated by a child. The exact opposite of actual child abuse.

2. He is tormented by jealousy because he is losing his beloved to Oskar.

3. He has his face melted off.

4. He is killed and resurrected as a Zombie, a slobbering inarticulate child raper.

5. He is chopped up into little tiny pieces hopping around like eels supposedly do in the fry pan.

Did I miss something? Thinking about it this way I can see why Phobos is resentful.

And all of those stuffs are great. Don't get me wrong, i liked Hakan as a villain. This is horror, the story shows the dark side of humans, so now we should call LTROI a "pedophobic" book? A recovering sexual-agressor should demand to erase all movies and books about rapists because they give them a "bad image"?

The bullies are also savagely killed, and they are much more "innocent" than a adult murder pedophile, althought its true Hakan didn't molested a child. Thats why I see his story as a tragedy with. A dark twisted tragedy for Hakan with darkness at the end of the tunnel. And a dark twisted triumph for Oskar. Eli was The angel of death/reaper for Hakan and the guardian angel/saviour for Oskar. And its great (to me) Oskar was about "true love" and Hakan about a "forbidden desire"- Oskar and Eli developed a relantionship of equals, Hakan and Eli a bargain, with Eli on the lead. Oskar was Eli's friend or boyfriend, Hakan was his servant. Hakan never noticed this and he confused it with "love" and justification for his lust, a mistake.

[Wolfchild]

Drama is driven by conflict and conflict among human beings usually involves some sort of hardship. To engage your audience in your story, you must have hardships and conflicts that are believable and that can be identified with - either consciously or viscerally. That means they must be familiar or common enough that your audience can recognize them. They must be some part or aspect of the human condition. They must be hardships that someone has suffered with.

If we wish to forbid fictional drama to draw upon real human folly and suffering, then we must certainly denounce William Shakespeare for using the very real problem of teen suicide as a "prop" in his story Romeo and Juliet. Indeed, Herman Meville glorified the economy based upon the slaughter of whales in Moby Dick, and Lewis Carroll must have been poking fun at those with limited literacy by having Humpty Dumpty condescendingly explain the opening lines of Jabberwocky to Alice in Through The Looking Glass. Perhaps also, Orson Welles showed a rather callous disregard for the plight of aspiring opera singers in Citizen Caine.

[gattoparde59]

I'm not sure why this should make you feel resentful. Do you see Eli as being a worse monster than Zombie Håkan?

You asked the question, and I answered it based on the evidence from the text. Maybe it was improper for me to speak for Phobos, but I thought his complaint was pretty obvious.

Shakespeare gave us Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. Why not use those plays in your argument?

I guess more generally I am thinking of a lecture given by Chinua Achebe on Joseph Conrad and Heart of Darkness Here are a couple of quotes from his rant about racism in Conrad:


"Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa and Africans to the role of props for the breakup of one petty European mind? But that is not even the point. The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered and continues to foster in the world."

And

". . . it is no concern of fiction to please people about whom it is written. I will go along with that. But I am not talking about pleasing people. I am talking about a book which parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities in the past and continues to do so in many ways and in many places today."

At any rate it seems I posted something about this some years ago titled "Must we burn the novel?" and I think I was arguing no, don't burn the book. I trust this is the link.

http://www.let-the-right-one-in.com/for ... +one+In%3F

I am still not saying we should burn the book- what I am trying to do is understand why one person might not like it.

[Wolfchild]

I'm not sure why this should make you feel resentful. Do you see Eli as being a worse monster than Zombie Håkan?

You asked the question, and I answered it based on the evidence from the text. Maybe it was improper for me to speak for Phobos, but I thought his complaint was pretty obvious.

Shakespeare gave us Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. Why not use those plays in your argument?

I guess more generally I am thinking of a lecture given by Chinua Achebe on Joseph Conrad and Heart of Darkness Here are a couple of quotes from his rant about racism in Conrad:


"Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa and Africans to the role of props for the breakup of one petty European mind? But that is not even the point. The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered and continues to foster in the world."

And

". . . it is no concern of fiction to please people about whom it is written. I will go along with that. But I am not talking about pleasing people. I am talking about a book which parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities in the past and continues to do so in many ways and in many places today."

At any rate it seems I posted something about this some years ago titled "Must we burn the novel?" and I think I was arguing no, don't burn the book. I trust this is the link.

http://www.let-the-right-one-in.com/for ... +one+In%3F

I am still not saying we should burn the book- what I am trying to do is understand why one person might not like it.

I certainly could have cited other works of Shakespeare. The anti-Semitism of the very premise of The Merchant of Venice could arguably make it a story "which parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities in the past and continues to do so in many ways and in many places today." As for Taming of the Shrew, I can't think off the top of my head what socio-politically aggrieved group might object to it, but in this time where people seek relevance through the taking of offense, there must certainly be one near to hand. This is exactly my point. There are a myriad of examples that I could have chosen. If we allow the potential for personal offense to regulate literary drama, there are very few pieces that would be safe from it. Works that are undeniably treasures would be lost to it.

As an aside: I am absolutely not saying, Phobos, that you are taking offense for venal reasons. I tried to explain how Håkan's pedophilia was not gratuitous to the story, and I am truly curious how your resentment fits into that context. I thought that perhaps if I showed how it was essential to the story that Håkan be a pedophile, you might find cause to re-evaluate the novel. Håkan was not a pedophile to make him horrible. He was a pedophile to make him believable, and to put Eli in jeopardy from the utterly horrible thing that he became.

[dongregg]

Okay, I've lost the thread here. The discussion has gone on so long that it has become too convoluted for me to follow.

I'm pretty sure that Conrad was describing the horror of what was going down for real in the Belgian Congo. And I find no fault with Shakespeare's portrayal of humankind as he found it. The only time he reefed his sails, I think, was when using his political savvy to not offend Queen Elizabeth and King James I.

As I recall, we have had members who objected to the way certain characters are portrayed in the novel. For the life of me I can't see why. I mean, JAL was writing about what he knew because he and Oskar shared the same town at the same time. I don't want to mention any portrayals because each mention could spark a thread of its own, and I would pray for the ban hammer to come down quickly.

As I write my fan fictions, I'm acutely aware that a number of my characters exhibit attitudes and behavior that were generic to the time. They don't reflect my extremely latitudinarian view of my fellow human beings with all their strengths and foibles. To the best of my ability, I write for the period that the novel covers. Many of JAL's characters are neither very nice nor very wise, but they make sense for that time and place.

[ltroifanatic]

Boy what a thread.I think my brain might explode.. In a way I think that Haken had to be a pedophile. It explains why he came back for Eli as a zombie and also to show how deep and special Oskar's love for Eli is.Oskars love is innocent and pure without any sex or lust involved where Hakans love is the exact opposite.It's nothing but sex and lust.As stated previously it was a structural thing and JAL never intended to malign anyone.

[Phobos]

I have the deepest respect for people fighting with keeping their demons at bay and paying the price.

well, after your chat with Tomas Alfredson on the movie´s blu-ray that's a bit puzzling. There TA says regarding Hakan: now look at him sitting there drinking milk.. (...) What a pathetic man, one that is atracted to childen. (...) You: yes he´s also very incompetent. It´s said like this, i can´t remeber it all, but it´s like this. Anyway, i won´t blame anybody for repugnance towards pedophilia.

please don´t get me wrong. I still like both, the novel and movie(s) and Hakan is still a reminder to me, how things can go wrong beeing pedophile. But i don´t like are all the prejudices describing his character. JAL stated, he knew a "fighting pedophile" so he should know better. Instead of trying making him a round character, he is beeing maked a mokery for the sake of balancing the novel. There´s no dept in his role, he´s just there to be pedophile and die a horrible death. Is that what you wish to do in a subliminal way to the pedophiles out there? Well even here i won´t blame you, it´s totally understandable. But please be honest.

Would his fate be the same, if he, let´s say he was a jew? Ask yourself!

Can´t you see why i am resentful? We are regarded beeing the worst scum wandering the earth. I hear the same hateful speeaches against pedophiles nearly every day. And i don´t think i can handle it until the "regular" end of my life. As JAL claimed he knew a "fighting pedophile" this makes things even worse, as i said above.

All i would like to see is that pedohilia is regarded more as a severe diease, rather than an "extra horror" what will probably sell a few more copys of a novel.