If I go with one definition of tragedy, then it's off the table. "A tragedy is when both sides in a conflict are right" (such as Eli versus her victims). I like that because it makes just about everything tragic. As for Håkan not using force -- Force includes using one's power differential to influence another. This is especially applicable in adult-child interactions.PeteMork wrote:Great beginning, GK. I like the way you use references to hoary old classic literature to give the reader a sense of not only his background, but of his dark and hypocrisy-filled present. Håkan is definitely a challenging figure to interpret, but I find him more tragic than sympathetic -- although I guess there is implied sympathy in any 'tragic' character. I suppose his only salvation lies in the fact that he never seems to physically force himself on his victims. And of course, his final sacrifice. It's interesting to me that the book, as opposed to the film, makes this, at least in my opinion, much clearer. I can hardly wait to see where you will be going with this!
I think his final sacrifice begs to be seen as the old bugger transcending who he was. I would expect no less because of who Eli is, a truly tragic figure, capable of bringing the best out in people associated with her (cf: "Seen with love").
Yes, Håkan is a complex character, but only his love for Eli elicits any sympathy from me.
Hats off to GK for such a well drawn picture of him.