Comparison between LMI and LTROI

[Phobos]

and seems to be something more "healthy" than the Hakan

When i first saw the "old guy - Abby interaction scene" in which Abby is caressing him, i thought "there´s something really wrong here.
As i dug deeper in LTORI universe, i found my presumption to be right.... to my dismay...

[sauvin]

and seems to be something more "healthy" than the Hakan

When i first saw the "old guy - Abby interaction scene" in which Abby is caressing him, i thought "there´s something really wrong here.
As i dug deeper in LTORI universe, i found my presumption to be right.... to my dismay...

Eli and Abby's existence is just wrong. There's a point in the novel where Eli is musing that she could hire a cab and just go far, far away, but she doesn't want to. She screams "Why can't I have anything?"

(because you should be dead)

It's not my intention to press any anybody's vulnerabilities or affront anybody's sensibilities, but consider this scenario: a boy and a girl meet in the fifth grade while they're ten years old. They quickly become deeply intimate and committed to each other, and are still just as intimate and committed fifty years later when they're sixty.

We throw our hands up in dismay and disgust that ten year old children could have such a relationship, citing all sorts of concerns for their moral and emotional well-being. Of course, we have no such qualms when they're sixty, and if we were to meet them for the first time when they're sixty and learn that their relationship began when they were ten, we might be surprised and even vaguely squicked, but probably not very outraged.

In other words, at some point early in their lives, their relationship stops being a transgression. Exactly what that point in time might be depends on where you live and what your beliefs are on what an intimate relationship is supposed to be for. Some people feel that this kind of relationship isn't particularly wrong when they turn fourteen or fifteen, and others feel they have no business being involved like that until they're in their middle twenties.

The only real difference between this scenario and what we think we're seeing in the caress Abby shares with her old man is that one of the two kids never aged where the other left physical childhood behind a very long time ago. It's bad enough, if what we think is true, while they're both still apparently twelve, but as time passes and he's thirteen, or fourteen, or... At what point does it go from being wrong to being utterly unacceptable?

... and, why?

This is a question I've asked before, and more than once. What sometimes boggles me is that some people can take Eli and Abby's need for blood in stride but are put completely out of step by the suggestion that the little girl and the old man might be "inappropriately" intimate. Which is the greater evil: the masses of corpses she's left behind over the centuries, the throngs of lives destroyed by grief and fear, and the masses and throngs she'll leave behind in the centuries to come - or the emotional and moral well-being of a serial murderess who cannot be rehabilitated?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that older people should be allowed to be intimate in this manner with children. Far from it, and for this exact reason: concern for the emotional and moral well-being of the younger person.

What I'm questioning is this: how do we arrive at the assessment that this wrongness (for any kind of wrongness) is so much greater than that wrongness (for any other kind of wrongness)? For any given pair of wrongnesses being compared, different people will come up with different answers without necessarily being able to furnish reasonably debatable reasons or chains of reasoning to support them.

[cmfireflies]

Eli and Abby's existence is just wrong.

Big disagree on this one. Why would you say that anything's existence is wrong? I don't think in the book or movie, vampirism was treated as anything demonic. Both stories are fairly grounded and the only overt "magical" element of the vampirism is the invite rule, which can be explained by a severe psychological reaction, I guess. Anyways, even with Abby being the evil vamp that she is, her existence isn't intrinsically wrong.

The only real difference between this scenario and what we think we're seeing in the caress Abby shares with her old man is that one of the two kids never aged where the other left physical childhood behind a very long time ago. It's bad enough, if what we think is true, while they're both still apparently twelve, but as time passes and he's thirteen, or fourteen, or... At what point does it go from being wrong to being utterly unacceptable?

... and, why?

Because it's a tragedy. Because Thomas will not be the same person he was at 12 when he's forty. Obviously even if they were sexually attracted to each other when they were both tweleve, they will not remain attracted to each other a decade or two later. They will "fall out of love" because Thomas will mature and change. What they had at 12 will be only a memory. In your first scenario, the two lovers grow up together, they both change and if they are lucky enough to love each other as they age, there's nothing wrong. The reason we think that the situation may be icky in the beginning is that it isn't normal for children to be sexually active. And even if they are,"naturally" and not as a result of abuse, it's not responsible for them to do so. It's like I'm sure there are 12 year olds who are physically capable of driving, but it's dangerous to have 12 year olds behind the wheel. That's all. Just a rule of thumb. Not anything decreed by the heavens.

This is a question I've asked before, and more than once. What sometimes boggles me is that some people can take Eli and Abby's need for blood in stride but are put completely out of step by the suggestion that the little girl and the old man might be "inappropriately" intimate. Which is the greater evil: the masses of corpses she's left behind over the centuries, the throngs of lives destroyed by grief and fear, and the masses and throngs she'll leave behind in the centuries to come - or the emotional and moral well-being of a serial murderess who cannot be rehabilitated?

Well, I think that "taking in stride" is the wrong description. I think people are just a bit rightfully defensive over people saying that Eli needs to die just because she has to kill to survive. Eli's crimes are driven by survival while Hakan's are driven by lust. Eli is a child while Hakan is an adult. And Hakan was pressuring Eli for intimacy. His need is less pressing than survival and his moral responsibility is greater because he's adult with Eli dependent on him to a degree (with him abusing or at least attempting to abuse what power he has over Eli.)

What I'm questioning is this: how do we arrive at the assessment that this wrongness (for any kind of wrongness) is so much greater than that wrongness (for any other kind of wrongness)? For any given pair of wrongnesses being compared, different people will come up with different answers without necessarily being able to furnish reasonably debatable reasons or chains of reasoning to support them.

Yay! It's time for "Literal Answers To Philosophical Musings!" For an assessment of wrongness we compare the harm to the potential benefit of the act. For example the reason that sometimes, "murder" may seem less wrong than pedophilla is that, just off the top of my head, I can think of several good reasons to kill someone. I really cannot see a good reason for an adult to be "intimate" with a child for any reason. That's the rational reason for it anyway.

[Phobos]

Eli and Abby's existence is just wrong. There's a point in the novel where Eli is musing that she could hire a cab and just go far, far away, but she doesn't want to. She screams "Why can't I have anything?"

well, of course for this novel there´s a special situation, which i later took into consideration as i read the book.
But there´s NO WAY of this happing in real life. For me in particular there´s no way of thinking of that, as i want to comply with kTw.

To be clear, i feel sorry for Eli for having to depend on such realtionships. Finding out about the nature of the Hakan-Eli relationshp threw me into utter sadness, as my early posts here might tell.

[a_contemplative_life]

I think their analysis is steeped in the misconception that Håkan is the former Oskar. Their discussion of Oskar’s path to become a serial murderer is a result of this.

I don’t understand from where this idea originally came. Perhaps the film isn’t sufficiently horrible, so some watchers felt the need to improve it by inventing this scenario instead of taking the film at face value: It’s about two lonely kids who seek friendship and a companion in each other. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I have a few observations on this. First, I think that people who see LMI before they see LTROI are more inclined to view Håkan as Eli's former childhood companion, because that is precisely where Matt Reeves took the storyline of LMI. The pathway for this interpretation is laid open in LTROI because TA intentionally downplayed Håkan's pedophilia, since he knew it would not be well-received, particularly by American audiences. With the pedophelia issue hidden away from everyone except those who have read the novel, the few film hints of his jealousy over Eli's budding relationship with Oskar are thus readily explained by the conclusion that he must have been a "former Oskar." This conclusion then shapes the view's attitude about Eli's intentions toward Oskar (whether Eli is acting out of self-interest or genuine feelings of love), and his future fate as a substitute for the worn-out adult caretaker.

I tend to fall out on the side who view Eli's actions as non-manipulative, because I can see many missed opportunities that Eli had to be much more manipulative and covetous of Oskar's affections than he was.

[a_contemplative_life]

Also, without the internal dialogue of the book, the invite scene can be read as Eli saying to Oskar, let me in or I'll kill myself. That's really, really, manipulative and with the need for an invitation being one of the only limitations on a vampire's power, someone who is not a fan Eli may see evil intent.

I think a counter-argument can be made that Eli's decision was a sacrificial act, with no guarantee of a good outcome for him. Eli is not the only child here, and he had no way of knowing for sure what Oskar's reaction would be, particularly given how childish and stupid Oskar was behaving in the moment. It could very well have been complete disgust and horror at seeing this blood-filled tic of a creature suddenly ooze gore from every pore.

[metoo]

I have a few observations on this. First, I think that people who see LMI before they see LTROI are more inclined to view Håkan as Eli's former childhood companion, because that is precisely where Matt Reeves took the storyline of LMI.

Well, LtROI was released in the USA two years before LMI, so I guess this idea was around long before LMI. Still, having seen LMI before LtROI would set one's mind.

The pathway for this interpretation is laid open in LTROI because TA intentionally downplayed Håkan's pedophilia, since he knew it would not be well-received, particularly by American audiences. With the pedophelia issue hidden away from everyone except those who have read the novel, the few film hints of his jealousy over Eli's budding relationship with Oskar are thus readily explained by the conclusion that he must have been a "former Oskar." This conclusion then shapes the view's attitude about Eli's intentions toward Oskar (whether Eli is acting out of self-interest or genuine feelings of love), and his future fate as a substitute for the worn-out adult caretaker.

Hmm, I wouldn't think TA bothered to much about American audiences. Rather, the paedophilia was left out because the issue was too big, it would have required a movie by itself.

But you have a point. Anyone contemplating the movie LtROI at some depth will wonder about who Håkan is, and may come to this conclusion. After all, it really isn't contradicted. Furthermore, as soon as you have got those glasses on you will se the movie that way, which I gather many viewers did, given the popularity of the idea on the web fora. Unfortunately, one of those viewers seems to have been Matt Reeves. I wonder if he read the novel at all...