Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

For discussion of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Låt den rätte komma in
Post Reply
User avatar
SpartanAltego
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:39 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by SpartanAltego » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:44 pm

metoo wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:11 pm
SpartanAltego wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:30 pm
Perhaps I misspoke - Eli kills for utilitarian purposes except when it comes to Oskar. For Oskar, Eli becomes violent through emotion rather than need, and thus all the more dangerous to anyone who threatens them. It's the double-edged nature of their relationship, wherein Eli becomes humanized yet also far more deadly. Eli killing Jonny (and the other boys save one in the film) seems like a fairly straightforward case of revenge-murder, but it could also be a practical choice. Leaving too many witnesses no matter of absurd their story would draw attention. The fewer there are to corroborate what happened, the better.
Except that in the novel a bunch of boys were standing at the other and of the pool, watching. They were not killed. Reducing the number of witnesses therefore doesn't seem to be the reason.

Eli did tell Oskar that he killed because he had to. He also stated that he was not a vampire, and that there was a difference. A very big one. We assume that by this he wanted to distance himself from the wig man and the infected woman. He was not like them. But that doesn't mean that he never killed for other reasons than to feed himself, also before he met Oskar. He could have killed some that actually had threatened him. He might have killed a few others that he just thought was threatening him. These might all be excused as "utilitarian purposes". But what if he also had killed a couple that just annoyed him, like Stefan Larsson did? He had the capacity, apparently. How can we know that Karlstad was the only occasion of this behaviour?
Again, there's a relative difference between being annoyed and having the most intimate moment of your long life being disrupted. For Eli to have exhibited this behavior in the past (provoked by intense emotion) would've required that he have equally intense attachment to someone or something. Insofar as we are aware, that never happened before Oskar, at least not to the same degree.

Killing in self preservation or out of a perceived threat still doesn't put Eli on the same path as being in the habit of killing others out of petty irritation. In both demonstrated cases we see Eli in an uncharacteristically heightened emotional state that is the direct result of having a friend in Oskar. Existing in apathy and gloom as he had beforehand would leave little room to be aroused in such a manner, emotionally speaking.

Eli emphatically says he kills only when he has to, and if we believe anything he says then we have to believe he's being wholly honest with Oskar in that moment. Perhaps killing because he "has to" includes witnesses, pursuers, or all manner of grisly deeds. It's possible. But it clearly illustrates that the pool killings and Stefan's near-death experience are new behaviors for Elias, as a direct result of forming a human connection. So Eli before LtROI seems to have clearly not killed out of malice or personal vengeance beforehand, but Eli after LtROI has demonstrated that particular fact has changed. As we measure our capacity for love, we also measure our capacity for hate - before Oskar, Eli's capacity for either was suffocated. But after Oskar, he's more happy, more sad, more ecstatic, and more wrathful than he's ever been. It's a package deal.

I don't believe Eli to have a history of such events before Oskar. After Oskar, on the other hand, is an entirely different question. Particularly when Oskar himself has the capacity for vengeance and emotional violence in him (striking Eli, among other things). The two could reinforce each other in that respect, moreso now that it's "them against the world."
"The dark is patient, and it always wins. But its weakness lies in its strength: a single candle is enough to hold it at bay. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars." - Matthew Stover

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by sauvin » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:04 pm

Eli's vampiric core is one of selfish hunger. All it cares about when it's hungry is feeding, and doesn't care about anything at all when it's not hungry, save that it not feel threatened. It's a lot like a human baby in this sense, and others elsewhere have remarked on this strong note of infantilism in that the vampire can sustain itself only by sucking.

Just how much is the little girl really a little girl, and how much a thin veneer of humanity to wear like a cloak to facilitate the monster's hunting is something we could go back and forth on for some considerable time; we've been going back and forth about it for the entire nine years and two months I've been on this board. Was the massacre at the pool over the top? Eli wasn't completely out of control if she could leave one survivor, but if she was the enraged little girl tightly holding the reins as she drove on the back of a demon, I think it strongly possible the sense of moral balance directing her fury comes from a time when little boys Elias' age could still be executed for stealing a loaf of bread. The other two boys might not have had their hands on Oskar's body actively helping, but they weren't visibly opposing it, either, and so were accessories sharing the moral weight equally with the active murderer.

Under similar circumstances, any of us might do the same. In some venues, it's called "temporary insanity", and chez Sauvin it's where humanity casts aside its cloaks and its airs, and shows its true face.

The Frankenstein novel may be a bit more layered (amongst other things is an undeniable whiff of technophobia), but the monster was an oversized baby who slid very rapidly into his middle teens: intelligent, sensitive and caring until he learns that humanity can't or won't accept him. Even Daddy found him repulsive. What's a teenager to do? Most probably just fall under the horizon, making no noise and desperately trying to avoid being noticed in a thousand different ways every day, some eat pills or make nooses, but there are those few who go on to enjoy rich and rewarding careers as pimps, pushers, arsonists and the like. It could be argued that somewhere in the brimstone bowels of the afterlife are the lost souls of kids who'd shot up high schools and could have embraced the Frankenstein monster as their personal avatars.

The Frankenstein monster's insanity is again humanity's true face, with its hair parted on the side instead of in the middle.

If Eli had met the monster (had she ever drifted towards Geneva or the Orkney Islands?), would his appearance have put her off? Maybe, but after a mere decade or so of being something Other, I think maybe she'd have recognised in him a similar Otherness. She wouldn't have needed to fear him if she's smart enough never to let him know where she sleeps because she knows she can articulate all his two thousand untouchable pieces without even wanting to. Besides, there's really no telling what other kinds of things that go bump in the night she might have bumped into to make the Frankenstein monster - or even herself - seem tame by comparison.

I think maybe a great deal depends on when she met him. While he was still the innocent outsider bringing gifts of firewood unseen, she might have shared a few of her puzzles with him, but if their meeting had occurred after he'd begun his jihad, she might have mistaken his insanity for a kind of Otherness she couldn't allow to live. Eli's vampiric core wouldn't care one tiny bit, naturally, but we're also talking about the little girl who hunted down and destroyed postmortem Haakan.

Spartan, I wonder: have you ever seen the 1976 movie 'Carrie'?
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

User avatar
SpartanAltego
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:39 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by SpartanAltego » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:13 pm

sauvin wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:04 pm
Spartan, I wonder: have you ever seen the 1976 movie 'Carrie'?
There's some insightful if cynical commentary in your post, sauvin. It was very rewarding to read. As for your question, I am aware of Carrie by reputation and cultural osmosis, I've read summaries and seen a few key scenes here and there. Why do you ask?
"The dark is patient, and it always wins. But its weakness lies in its strength: a single candle is enough to hold it at bay. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars." - Matthew Stover

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by sauvin » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:17 pm

Reading summaries ain't experiencing. It's in the same ball field as Frankenstein in important respects, but where the one is in left field, the other is in right field. If you're up for it, try to give it a gawk or three. I can't think just offhand how to approach what I was going to say without comparing it to both the Frankenstein novel and to LTROI.
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

User avatar
SpartanAltego
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:39 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by SpartanAltego » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:27 pm

sauvin wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:17 pm
Reading summaries ain't experiencing. It's in the same ball field as Frankenstein in important respects, but where the one is in left field, the other is in right field. If you're up for it, try to give it a gawk or three. I can't think just offhand how to approach what I was going to say without comparing it to both the Frankenstein novel and to LTROI.
I mean, I can see some immediate similarities with the hellishly intense bullying, violent retribution, and parental troubles shared between Carrie and Oskar's experiences. Much like Frankenstein's monster, Carrie embarks on a rampage of bloody revenge after several impressively horrible experiences (including striking out at a less than ideal parent), lashing out against guilty and innocent alike before finally destroying herself.

The greatest barrier for my interest in Carrie is that, for me, I've already seen the version of it I want to see - LtROI. It has the darkness, the violence, and the nightmarish bullies but also weighs it against a heartfelt, strange and sweet friendship/romance. It's bittersweet, whereas my impression of Carrie is that it's overwhelmingly bitter without really having much else going for it. I enjoy darkness when it serves a purpose or is underlined with faint hope, but Carrie strikes me more as "emotional torture porn" than anything else. It's sad, it's miserable, and then it ends. Perhaps I'll check it out someday, but in a period of my life where my emotional and mental state can be so easily tipped in the wrong direction I'd rather not absorb something so bitter without anything to balance it out.
"The dark is patient, and it always wins. But its weakness lies in its strength: a single candle is enough to hold it at bay. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars." - Matthew Stover

User avatar
ltroifanatic
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:35 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by ltroifanatic » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:30 am

Is their relative ages a factor?..The monster has had a short existence but Elias has been around for centuries.One is an adult while the other is a child.One capable of seeing the monster within and suiciding to redeem himself.The child,because he is a child,cannot get past surviving at any cost.Would a 12 year old be capable of using his immense power responsibly?..I find it remarkable that Eli isn't a raving lunatic after all he's been through.It would be a big ask for him to keep his cool all the time and we don't know what he's done in the past.Who knows?..If I had that sort of power people who cut in lines or angry drivers shouting at me would be a thing of the past :lol: Annoy me will you?..slash,rip and tear. :D
Please Oskar.Be me for a little while.

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3684
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by metoo » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:16 am

SpartanAltego wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:44 pm
Again, there's a relative difference between being annoyed and having the most intimate moment of your long life being disrupted.
I think that having even a most intimate moment disrupted by an innocent passer by is no excuse for acting with intent to kill that person.

Furthermore, the scene was put in LtODD by JAL, perhaps for a reason. Maybe he wanted to tell us fans that Eli isn't quite as adorable as we think?
SpartanAltego wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:44 pm
For Eli to have exhibited this behavior in the past (provoked by intense emotion) would've required that he have equally intense attachment to someone or something. Insofar as we are aware, that never happened before Oskar, at least not to the same degree.
While I agree about the intense attachment being a singular experience for Eli, I don't think we can be that certain about the behaviour. We have virtually no knowledge at all about Eli's life and doings before meeting Oskar.

"Oskar. Låt dom inte. Hör du mig? Låt dom inte."
"... nej."
"Du ska slå tillbaka. Du har aldrig slagit tillbaka, eller hur?"
"Nej."
"Börja nu. Slå tillbaka. Hårt."


"Oskar. Don't let them. Do you hear me? Do not let them."
"... no."
"You must hit back. You've never hit back, have you?"
"No."
"Start now. Hit back. Hard."
My translation.
Last edited by metoo on Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by sauvin » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:26 am

She's painfully shy, she's seventeen and she's sweet. She's so unbelievably sweet in a way that it sometimes seems only girls who grew up on farms in Iowa can be. So maybe she isn't the brightest bulb in the marquee, she just can't seem to understand why she's here, but she's here just the same, and it may be the one place she never thought she'd be: at the prom.

Never, not in a million years, could she ever even dare dream of gazing at that spinning sparkling ball just above the dance floor, feeling the music's bass punching and pulsating through her belly like a wet dream, or being greeted openly - warmly - by all these beautiful people who say things to her that nobody had ever said to her before, that she is herself beautiful, that they love the dress she'd made for the occasion, that they love her hair. It's almost as if they were saying they loved her, and this would most definitely have been a first.

Never, not in a million years, could she ever dare dream of shuffling around under that spinny sparkly ball with her arms around him, the guy with the letter on his jacket, the guy who called the English teacher an ass because he'd humiliated her for wistfully calling his poem "beautiful", the most popular guy in school and probably the principal in countless pounding, pulsating wet dreams of just about all the girls in the school - herself included. But, she's here just the same, and his arms are around her, and he's saying things to her. He's not just escorting her to the dance like a bored bodyguard, he's here, too, with her, for her. She can huff his English Leather and his Irish Spring, take comfort from the warm strength in the arms surrounding her and be lulled by the muffled sound of his voice through his chest as she listens to his heart beat.

He'd never been anything but nice to her that night - maybe he'd always been at least civil and respectful towards her for as far as she can remember - but he was warming up. He was finding that she could be very powerfully attractive, that he could honestly enjoy her company. She was finding that she could be open and vulnerable in his arms because he doesn't have any problem being patient with her. He was just going to keep on being easy and relaxed the whole night through, and he was making her be easy and relaxed with him.

When he told her she was beautiful, he said it a firm, factual kind of way. He wasn't mocking or deriding her in any way, and he wasn't trying to cozen her into yielding up the fruits (but if he had, would this also have been a first?) - if she'd said "the spinny ball is so bright", he might have said "Carrie, the sun is bright" with the same tone of voice. She'd said something about all the other girls being so beautiful, and he informed her with dead finality "Carrie, you're beautiful".

She didn't know what to do with that. For a moment, it looked like she didn't know what to do or say about anything at all.

---

Spartan, I think you may be both right and wrong at the same time. There's an inherent sweetness to Carrie that makes everything that happens to her seem just that much more awful. Her home life is oppressive, school is worse in many ways, and there's nothing else in her life. Thing of it is, if she'd not been the girl with Something Extra but the rest of the story remained unchanged up until the idgits dropped a bucket of blood on her, the story wouldn't have had an ending. Everybody would have just gone on home, a few people might have wound up in jail for a few days, and Carrie might have spent the rest of her long life in something resembling catatonia.

It happens all the time. For a great many of us, this is just what life is: a dream that comes so tantalisingly close you can hear it, you can feel it, you can smell it, and then it just vanishes, and we spend the rest of our lives living in shadow of that memory.

Maybe Margaret White is right, and the first sin really is intercourse; it condemns so many of us almost automatically to death by exceedingly slow rot. Carrie White was born doomed no matter how you look at it. Maybe it's because Margaret White liked it (oh, my, yes, she really liked it) when Mr. White laid his filthy paws on her, maybe it's because Carrie was just born in the wrong spot in the Zodiac that year or because she lived in Chamberlain and not in Bangor or Boston or some other nexal passion pit.

Was Carrie's revenge over the top? It was certainly morally indefensible - at a couple of levels - but if there's a "defeated argument" in this thread, it's in the assertion that moral reasoning could or should trump any other consideration. The wonderful thing about moral standards, after all, is that they're a bit like other kinds of standards: there are so many to choose from! There are at least three different levels of moral reasoning, and they work for (or against) individuals and communities in different ways. They often conflict, and this is the bottomless wellspring of moral dilemma.

In another treatment of the Carrie story (was it the 2013 remake?), the survivor Sue Snell (Carrie's date's actual girlfriend) told a board of inquiry that Carrie had a power that she used because "you can only push people so far before they snap" (I believe those were the words). This is what happens on the other side of the moral equals sign, and it's something we're learning oh, so very, very slowly: what goes 'round, comes 'round. Sometimes what comes around isn't what any particular person or group of people carried around or sent around because the "it" making the rounds has neither mind nor volition, it has only mass, momentum and stored potential energy.

It came around for Carrie, and she exploded. It came around for Eli, and she exploded. It came around for the Frankenstein monster, and we're supposed to lose all sympathy for him because his explosion happened in slower motion? I seriously doubt he stopped being intelligent, sensitive, articulate, caring and whatnot when he broke, but it's an error to conflate intellectual reasoning with emotional. In a very real sense, Dr. Frankenstein exposed his family and friends to unknown danger when he rushed heedlessly into areas he didn't fully understand. In further fact,
Wikipedia wrote: [Elizabeth Frankenstein's] death is significant because it gives Victor a unique understanding of his creation; he now knows what it feels like to be completely alone in the world, with nothing to live for but revenge.
I personally find no "moral" dimension to the Frankenstein monster's remorse at the end of the novel. It exonerates nothing, it condemns nothing, and the monster didn't "refute" his foregoing moral faux pas by repenting. It (he) simply recognised that his primitive "eye for an eye" reasoning conflicted with the "greatest good for the greatest number" kind of reasoning, and drew from that recognition the conclusion that the world at large would be better off with his absence... and that maybe he would be, too. The concern for the world's benefit is an example of a relatively high level of moral reasoning, and the concern for his own emotional well-being was... well... emotional reasoning.

In the novel, Carrie discovered in her last moments that Sue Snell had nothing to do with the "prank" pulled on her at the prom, and forgave her for the part she'd played in the "plug it up" scene. She then died calling out for her mother.

In every treatment of this story I've seen or read, Carrie had killed her mother out of self-defense; the one person in the whole story who probably did deserve death by slow suffocation would otherwise have been spared and even protected in perpetuity. Margaret White wasn't part of Carrie's campaign of bloody revenge. Carrie had already been dying, and may even have realised this, but the simple fact that her mother had already killed her didn't stop Carrie from hastening her own destruction out of guilt.

I sometimes think that the only real reason we could compare the Frankenstein monster, Carrie and Eli and find Eli a clear winner is that between these three, Eli is the only one who could honestly be said to have won. We do so love our winners, don't we, and hate the losers? Still, there's always going to be that loving, warm soul who, seeing the movie for the very first time, is going to ask with horrified surprise "wait... Oskar ran away with the vampire!?"
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

User avatar
SpartanAltego
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:39 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by SpartanAltego » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:56 pm

metoo wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:16 am
SpartanAltego wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:44 pm
Again, there's a relative difference between being annoyed and having the most intimate moment of your long life being disrupted.
I think having even a most intimate moment disrupted by an innocent passer by is no excuse for intending to kill that person.

Furthermore, the scene was put in LtODD by JAL, perhaps for a reason. Maybe he wanted to tell us fans that Eli isn't quite as adorable as we think?
That's not what I said. You seem more focused on railing against a perceived view of Eli demonstrated by others than the contents of the argument, metoo. I sympathize with that stance, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Eli is adorable the same way a tiger cub is adorable, or perhaps a moody stray cat. Only at any instant he can grow up into the great big murder machine he's designed to be and show you why they're best admired at a distance.

Distance is key. That scene demonstrates that Oskar and Eli are now to be observed from the outside, not from within as we're used to. We no longer get the benefit of looking in on their world, because it is only for them and them alone. Stefan could be said to represent the audience in that moment, peeking in with curiosity to see what becomes of the kids: and Eli's immediate wrathful response indicates that we are not allowed further intrusion. Whatever happens to them, it's theirs alone to know. Keep in mind, too, that this is the only scene in which they are 'present' so to speak. Elsewise they exist as rumors, trails of data, a single photo taken in 2008. Because observing them from afar is the only safe way to do so, now.

There's a similar conclusion in the third novel of the Hannibal series, appropriately titled Hannibal. After existing in a dance of psychological warfare, deadly games, and hidden sexual desire, Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter become a pair. The culmination of their relationship closes the book almost literally on the readers, the narration informing us that 'some tales can only be followed safely for so long.' Safe for whom? Ourselves, presumably - perhaps we would be dismayed at whatever future comes of our Clarice and Hannibals, our Oskars and Elis. Perhaps they would reach through the fourth wall and strangle us purple for invading their lives. But whatever else, it also sends a clear message about Clarice: she has become dangerous, just as dangerous as Lecter. She is not a single ray of light in a cloud of darkness - she is part of that darkness now.

Eli and Oskar are each other's light, but to the rest of the world they exist in darkness, they are the darkness and the monsters that hide inside it. To us, they must now exist in darkness. Because at the end of the day, can we really say that following the duo through eternity as they kill and feed in stasis, no matter how sweet the moments in between, is really something we want? Perhaps the danger is not emotional or physical, but a threat instead to the construction of what came before. The final train scene is ambiguous, and LtODD tries to maintain such ambiguity even while offering just the smallest slivers of answers. Eli, by JAL's admission, has remained a mystery to him. Oskar, too, becomes a mystery after LtROI.
sauvin wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:26 am
Spartan, I think you may be both right and wrong at the same time. There's an inherent sweetness to Carrie that makes everything that happens to her seem just that much more awful. Her home life is oppressive, school is worse in many ways, and there's nothing else in her life. Thing of it is, if she'd not been the girl with Something Extra but the rest of the story remained unchanged up until the idgits dropped a bucket of blood on her, the story wouldn't have had an ending. Everybody would have just gone on home, a few people might have wound up in jail for a few days, and Carrie might have spent the rest of her long life in something resembling catatonia.

It happens all the time. For a great many of us, this is just what life is: a dream that comes so tantalisingly close you can hear it, you can feel it, you can smell it, and then it just vanishes, and we spend the rest of our lives living in shadow of that memory.

Was Carrie's revenge over the top? It was certainly morally indefensible - at a couple of levels - but if there's a "defeated argument" in this thread, it's in the assertion that moral reasoning could or should trump any other consideration. The wonderful thing about moral standards, after all, is that they're a bit like other kinds of standards: there are so many to choose from! There are at least three different levels of moral reasoning, and they work for (or against) individuals and communities in different ways. They often conflict, and this is the bottomless wellspring of moral dilemma.

In another treatment of the Carrie story (was it the 2013 remake?), the survivor Sue Snell (Carrie's date's actual girlfriend) told a board of inquiry that Carrie had a power that she used because "you can only push people so far before they snap" (I believe those were the words). This is what happens on the other side of the moral equals sign, and it's something we're learning oh, so very, very slowly: what goes 'round, comes 'round. Sometimes what comes around isn't what any particular person or group of people carried around or sent around because the "it" making the rounds has neither mind nor volition, it has only mass, momentum and stored potential energy.

It came around for Carrie, and she exploded. It came around for Eli, and she exploded. It came around for the Frankenstein monster, and we're supposed to lose all sympathy for him because his explosion happened in slower motion? I seriously doubt he stopped being intelligent, sensitive, articulate, caring and whatnot when he broke, but it's an error to conflate intellectual reasoning with emotional. In a very real sense, Dr. Frankenstein exposed his family and friends to unknown danger when he rushed heedlessly into areas he didn't fully understand. In further fact,
Wikipedia wrote: [Elizabeth Frankenstein's] death is significant because it gives Victor a unique understanding of his creation; he now knows what it feels like to be completely alone in the world, with nothing to live for but revenge.
I personally find no "moral" dimension to the Frankenstein monster's remorse at the end of the novel. It exonerates nothing, it condemns nothing, and the monster didn't "refute" his foregoing moral faux pas by repenting. It (he) simply recognised that his primitive "eye for an eye" reasoning conflicted with the "greatest good for the greatest number" kind of reasoning, and drew from that recognition the conclusion that the world at large would be better off with his absence... and that maybe he would be, too. The concern for the world's benefit is an example of a relatively high level of moral reasoning, and the concern for his own emotional well-being was... well... emotional reasoning.

In the novel, Carrie discovered in her last moments that Sue Snell had nothing to do with the "prank" pulled on her at the prom, and forgave her for the part she'd played in the "plug it up" scene. She then died calling out for her mother.

In every treatment of this story I've seen or read, Carrie had killed her mother out of self-defense; the one person in the whole story who probably did deserve death by slow suffocation would otherwise have been spared and even protected in perpetuity. Margaret White wasn't part of Carrie's campaign of bloody revenge. Carrie had already been dying, and may even have realised this, but the simple fact that her mother had already killed her didn't stop Carrie from hastening her own destruction out of guilt.

I sometimes think that the only real reason we could compare the Frankenstein monster, Carrie and Eli and find Eli a clear winner is that between these three, Eli is the only one who could honestly be said to have won. We do so love our winners, don't we, and hate the losers? Still, there's always going to be that loving, warm soul who, seeing the movie for the very first time, is going to ask with horrified surprise "wait... Oskar ran away with the vampire!?"
I don't quite have the energy to give this my best rebuttal (particularly since by my own admission I have not watched or read Carrie in its entirety), but for me the difference between Carrie & Eli (I'd categorize them in the same place) and Frankenstein's monster once again comes down to the nature of their crimes and the circumstances therein. When Carrie and Eli explode, and boy do they, there is no place for thought or anything beyond immediate revenge. It's temporary insanity of a sort, particularly in Carrie's case, more akin to a tantrum where the child is wholly capable of destroying everything it sets eyes on. Eli's explosion is even one directly borne of concern for another life, which puts it an additional step up.

The monster is different. The monster premeditates his explosion, calculates exactly who is going to be hit by the shrapnel and whose innards will be crushed by the concussive force. He sets up his explosion in places that will reverberate for maximum effect and transmit his message of pain to his maker. It's emotional terrorism. The monster is also self-centered in his loneliness and demands that Frankenstein create him a bride with whom to be companions in the world. When Frankenstein ultimately refuses to complete the procedure, it is because he realizes not only the dangers of a reproductive race of superhuman undead, but also explicitly because the Bride has no reason to consent to being the monster's bride. What if she resented that role being forced on her, and in so doing Frankenstein unleashed a second creature of anger and resentment on the world? The equivalent would be Eli demanding that Oskar become a vampire, rather than merely offering - nay, it would be turning one of his victims into a vampire and keeping them as a thrall purely to suit as a companion.

When it comes down to body count, Eli beats then all by a country mile. The number is likely in the thousands. I retain sympathy and empathy for Eli because of the survival element in his situation - his only other choice is death, and I cannot in good conscience say that someone should take their own life purely for the benefit of strangers or 'the world.' Carrie and the monster have my sympathy and empathy as well, because Carrie was failed by the social structure of her community and so acted to 'survive' in a different sense. The monster was born into a world that abhorred him and hurt him at every turn, and when he shattered like a glass sculpture he picked up all those jagged pieces and began stabbing them into the eyes of others. I couldn't have done better in their situations.

But that doesn't change that Eli killed for survival first, then later to avenge/save Oskar's life. I don't really care if Jonny was technically not a threat, I have no reason to mourn his loss and plenty to celebrate it. Same for the other bullies who die in the adaptations - their whole lives up to that moment had been the time for self-reflection, guilt, and second chances. Any repentance is too late.

Carrie killed because she quite literally lost her mind and was reduced to an animal backed into a corner. An animal with telekinetic abilities and ample rage to go around. It was gratification but also not premeditated, if such a line really matters in the end when the result is so many dead. A crime of passion.

The monster kills because he wants to avenge himself on the world that rejects him. If his sole target was Frankenstein, I daresay he'd even deserve to succeed. But he kills a boy for the crime of being Frankenstein's brother. He murders the man's wife, frames an innocent woman who herself gets executed. Any of those moments would have been a chance for the monster to realize the error of his ways and redirect his wrath on his true target. Instead, he tortures. If Eli is a good samaritan in the pool scene (a huge stretch, forgive the wording) and Carrie's actions a crime of passion/temporary insanity, the monster is the kid who walks into school with a gas-powered semi automatic carbine and pumps rounds into the siblings, girlfriends, and teachers of the person he really hates so that they can watch everything they love die in front of them.

It's abhorrent because it is unnecessary, it is cruel, and above all else it is premeditated and designed to be exactly those things. There is no justifiable target that I can say 'that one, at least, is not a loss to the world in my eyes.' There is no flash-bang of instant psychosis that makes me able to separate the Monster as a man from the Monster reduced briefly to an animal state (Carrie). Because only man is capable of that kind of planned destruction.
"The dark is patient, and it always wins. But its weakness lies in its strength: a single candle is enough to hold it at bay. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars." - Matthew Stover

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3684
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

Post by metoo » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:42 pm

SpartanAltego wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:44 pm
Again, there's a relative difference between being annoyed and having the most intimate moment of your long life being disrupted.
metoo wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:16 am
I think having even a most intimate moment disrupted by an innocent passer by is no excuse for intending to kill that person.

Furthermore, the scene was put in LtODD by JAL, perhaps for a reason. Maybe he wanted to tell us fans that Eli isn't quite as adorable as we think?
SpartanAltego wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:56 pm
That's not what I said.
So what did you say, then?
SpartanAltego wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:56 pm
You seem more focused on railing against a perceived view of Eli demonstrated by others than the contents of the argument, metoo. I sympathize with that stance, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Eli is adorable the same way a tiger cub is adorable, or perhaps a moody stray cat. Only at any instant he can grow up into the great big murder machine he's designed to be and show you why they're best admired at a distance.
Well, I apologise for not making clear that the latter part of my post was not aimed at you. As you yourself observe, it is indeed railing against a prevailing tendency in this forum to disregard Eli's horrible aspects and make him a cute, innocent little child who is just adorable. It's a pet peeve of mine. I even wrote a couple of fan fiction pieces to illustrate my view on this [1] [2]. Note: I would write them differently today. See below.
SpartanAltego wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:56 pm
Distance is key. That scene demonstrates that Oskar and Eli are now to be observed from the outside, not from within as we're used to. We no longer get the benefit of looking in on their world, because it is only for them and them alone. Stefan could be said to represent the audience in that moment, peeking in with curiosity to see what becomes of the kids: and Eli's immediate wrathful response indicates that we are not allowed further intrusion. Whatever happens to them, it's theirs alone to know. Keep in mind, too, that this is the only scene in which they are 'present' so to speak. Elsewise they exist as rumors, trails of data, a single photo taken in 2008. Because observing them from afar is the only safe way to do so, now.
I actually agree: distance is key. I have written many short stories about Oskar and Eli after Karlstad, but these days I find it very hard. One really needs to handle the vampiric aspect in order to write anything with them as central figures. It's such a dominant factor of their existence. However, this is a moral morass, very hard to navigate. Better then doing as you suggested and write stories about other people, in which O&E flashes by at a distance. Like JAL did in LtODD.

And, of course, this might be a reason why we'll never se a sequel to LtROI.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

Post Reply

Return to “Let The Right One In (Novel)”