About Eli´s gender

[intrige]

You are the best! I dont know what to say, I am a young Norwegian fan. And, I love your books. I fell in love with Let the right one in, it shocked me, all that stuff with Håkan. I had never read anything like it. And also all the feelings inside Oskar(all his anger I sadly could recognize), and his first little love, Eli. I also like that he's a boy.

I made my mum read it, and she didn't like Eli being that animal when she was "in a sort of trance of hunger" or something like that. I dont know. And that it was such a complex that Håkan was pedofile and Eli was a casterated, or how it is spelled. I liked it all, afther some time, letting it all sink in. I am reading Harbour right now, sone done, then Papir walls is next out. I ask my school librarian to find it for me. I have heared that it contains something from handeling the undead(I also have read) and, something from let the right one in? Something about Eli and Oskar. I hope you didn't make Oskar an old "Håkan". Just, mabye not pedofile...

What I want to say is, I read faster then ever in your wonderful work. Before I didn't like book that much, you have changed my view for books, I guess I could say that. I also like to write A LOT. And you are my greatest insperation..

[crazychristina]

When I read the book I though JAL had made an error of judgement by making Eli a castrated boy, but it's interesting to see that that idea actually came first, before the central relationship became part of the story. I am reminded that in Europe at about the time Eli was born there were actually a lot of castrated boys. In Italy particularly thousands of boys were castrated every year (if they came from poor families and had good voices) in the hope that they might become famouse singers (castratos) - the rock stars of the age and very wealthy. The castrati apparently had heavenly voices, out of this world. And being rather sexless, perhaps more angelic than human. Perhaps this kind of idea informed JALs casting of Eli in that kind of light.

Despite the interest of an androgynous character I actually found that whole thing problematic. I'm a transsexual woman, and to me gender, identity and sexuality are huge issues. I feel that JAL raised these issues but made no attempt to address them further. I personally would have preferred that he didn't raise them, as the androgyny of Eli actually had very little impact on the tale in the long run, apart form raising issues that were not addressed, as I have said. Even though that idea was in at the start I don't think it should have stayed.

[lombano]

I feel that JAL raised these issues but made no attempt to address them further. I personally would have preferred that he didn't raise them, as the androgyny of Eli actually had very little impact on the tale in the long run, apart form raising issues that were not addressed, as I have said.

While it would probably be a very big issue for Eli I felt the story had the right balance and was well-served by Eli's being a castrated boy - what kindm of treatment would have been better in your view?

[gattoparde59]

Despite the interest of an androgynous character I actually found that whole thing problematic. I'm a transsexual woman, and to me gender, identity and sexuality are huge issues. I feel that JAL raised these issues but made no attempt to address them further. I personally would have preferred that he didn't raise them, as the androgyny of Eli actually had very little impact on the tale in the long run, apart form raising issues that were not addressed, as I have said. Even though that idea was in at the start I don't think it should have stayed.

You are not alone in thinking this way. Apparently this is a huge issue for many people judging from the amount of attention this one part of the novel has attracted. My feeling is that Johnajvide is attracted to androgynous characters because they have no fixed identity, they are between one thing and another. This is both a curse and a blessing in this story. As the OP says, Eli is "Nothing, Anything." Eli is a figure of both tragedy and magic, the nothing that can be anything. That is the way I see the character, and I tend to see it separate from gender and sexual issues.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I wonder how long Eli presented himself as a girl, and why.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Hi, Mr. Lindqvist. At one point, there was a plan by Mr. Alfredson to make it more explicit that Eli was a boy in the movie by filming the castration scene. Why decide against it?

Wolfchild posted a link to an interview with TA where he explains why he did not film the castration scene:

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/63/63alfredsoniv.html

I try to be true to myself: use violence only when it is necessary to say something. I tried to do a flashback scene, where we see the castration of Eli [the girl vampire] two hundred years ago, with very close shots of a knife coming close to skin, starting to cut, and I said to the make-up guys that I want to do this. They said you can't do this unless it is real animal, because if you are so close to the camera, you can't use rubber or special effects, so I said okay, let's do that then, then I forgot about it, and the assistant director said, we have the pig here now. I said, what pig? The pig for the cutting shot. A living pig. He is outside together with the slaughterer. So I went outside the studio and a butcher was standing with his knife, and this pig looking with his sad eyes. I said no. I wouldn't be able to sleep if we killed him. That's bad karma.

there are so many ways to film this without castrating a live pig.

one of the benefits of including this scene is that we get to see Eli/Lina in period costumes (and maybe short hair?)

Yeah, that sounds a bit fishy to me. Besides, I thought a country like Sweden would have strict laws about animal welfare.

[Wolfchild]

Despite the interest of an androgynous character I actually found that whole thing problematic. I'm a transsexual woman, and to me gender, identity and sexuality are huge issues. I feel that JAL raised these issues but made no attempt to address them further. I personally would have preferred that he didn't raise them, as the androgyny of Eli actually had very little impact on the tale in the long run, apart form raising issues that were not addressed, as I have said. Even though that idea was in at the start I don't think it should have stayed.

This is not story about sexual love. JAL went out of his way to exclude the issue of sexuality from the relationship between Oskar and Eli. An efficient and dramatic way to do that was to remove Eli's sexuality. Eli is really a horrible creature. Still, by the end of the story, you believe that Oskar can be in love with Eli, and also that Eli is worthy of that love. Moreover, JAL makes it clear that their love based upon just the attraction between two souls, since he excludes physical desire as a motive for that attraction. In fact, he draws a clear distinction between Håkan's "love" for Eli, which is based upon physical desire, and Oskar's love for Eli, which is based upon purer motives:

Last night he had been lying in his bed with the window cracked. Listened to Eli saying good-bye to that Oskar. Their high voices, laughter. A ... lightness he could never achieve. His was the leaden seriousness, the demands, the desire.

In these few lines, he is addressing the issue of Eli's sexuality by making it clear that sexuality plays no beneficial role in Eli's existence. Eli already has had access to sexual relationships, but it is the platonic relationship with Oskar - based upon mutual acceptance - that is finally providing him with some happiness.

[crazychristina]

This is my point exactly. Removing genitals does not remove gender or sexuality. To suggest it does is simply wrong, which is why I think JAL should not have done this. This issue is far too complex to treat in such a simplistic way. Eli was asexual because he/she was prepubescent (like Oskar), not because he/she was castrated.

[genie47]

I wonder how long Eli presented himself as a girl, and why.

Actually nowhere in the novel did it describe Eli deliberately presenting himself as a girl. We get a glimpse of his beauty as a boy when Eli tells the story of the competition in the the vampire lord's castle. So Eli is actually beautiful to the point he passes off as a girl at first contact. Jocke was drunk and he did describe Eli as a young child.

Oskar sees Eli as a girl but with a voice that is not squeaky like a girl's. Lacke describes Eli as a "creature" after seeing Eli has no genitalia. Ginia calls Eli "that child" that infected her.

The only person that somewhat sees Eli as a girl is Tomy and due to that sundress Eli was wearing.

So Eli doesn't intentionally present himself as a girl.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I wonder how long Eli presented himself as a girl, and why.

Actually nowhere in the novel did it describe Eli deliberately presenting himself as a girl. We get a glimpse of his beauty as a boy when Eli tells the story of the competition in the the vampire lord's castle. So Eli is actually beautiful to the point he passes off as a girl at first contact. Jocke was drunk and he did describe Eli as a young child.

Oskar sees Eli as a girl but with a voice that is not squeaky like a girl's. Lacke describes Eli as a "creature" after seeing Eli has no genitalia. Ginia calls Eli "that child" that infected her.

The only person that somewhat sees Eli as a girl is Tomy and due to that sundress Eli was wearing.

So Eli doesn't intentionally present himself as a girl.

Why was Eli sleeping in the blood in that scene?