Who Is Really the Monster?

John Ajvide Lindqvist’s Let The Right One In provides a powerful critique of the social and moral state of Sweden by drawing upon the potent socio-cultural resonances of the Vampire myth. Through carefully thought out genre manipulation and juxtaposition of a traditionally evil figure, the Vampire against the very real and non-mythical failings of society Lindqvist poses the audience with the question: Who is the monster here? The representation of the Vampire, Eli is thus very important in framing the presentation of this question.  The construction of Eli will be explored in three ways: the adherence to specific elements of Vampire myth, their physical appearance and finally the relationship between Eli and Oskar.

Unlike the vampires in hit television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lindqvist’s Vampire does not suffer any dramatic physical change when hunting. Eli is constantly kept to the form of human. This refusal to distinguish Eli from other human characters despite their vampirism visually forces the reader to understand the character as human in at least some regard. This visual strength is amplified in the visual adaption of the text.  This is also the primary source of society’s fear of Vampire. After Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859 society began to acclimate the concept of Evolution, thus Vampire by the publication of Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1897 was viewed not as an outlier of society but as a potential representation of the future of.

In the Gothic era Vampire functioned allegorically in texts as a representation of Victorian fears. In that period it was fears of shifts in female sexuality and general anxiety regarding the conflict of empirical knowledge and faith in the Age of Reason, present day fears are different. Lindqvist also thematically employs Vampire in this sense, but opposed to stressing the corruptive influence of Vampire on society (such as Stoker’s Dracula) Lindqvist illustrates the corruptive influence of society by means of comparison to this familiarized narrative.

The fear of Vampire as an allegory for the future is easily read in the odd depiction of Eli as a 12 year-old child. This narrative technique nods to the familiar view that ‘children are the future.’ Although the potency of this statement is lost in regards to Eli given that the agelessness of their vampirism prevents them from truly taking part in the future it also becomes more potent when the relationship between Oskar and Eli blossoms. The reader becomes truly uneasy about potential outcome of the real future for this child, a question Lindqvist truly avoids answering in both novel and film form.

The negation of the violence at the hands of Eli is an interesting departure from the traditionally understood Vampire. Vampires are commonly represented as not only having a blood lust but also in taking a carnal pleasure in the satiating these needs. In the popular HBO show True Blood the act of drinking blood is usually involved in the sex act, visually taking the place of climax. By removing this pleasure the audience loses much of the grounds in which they could criticize Eli. Even religiously needs are validated, it is the finding pleasure in these fulfilling needs which is sinful. (Sleep translates to sloth. Hunger to gluttony, etc) It is interesting then that the most real threat posed in narratives by vampires, the threat of attack is carried out by proxy. This narrative tool directly morally implicates humanity.

If we view the sexual (perceptibly immoral) element of a vampiric blood lust as being  primary aspect of a vampire’s evil, it is telling that it is projected into the human character of Haekan. His acquisition of blood for Eli is contingent upon his receiving in some form or another sexual gratification: “I’ll do it for you. But I want something in return. … One night. All I want is one night. … Lie next to you? Touch you?” (Lindqvist 110) Understanding the transference of this vampiric trait into humanity is crucial in assembling a reading of Lindqvist’s social critique. It is not by accident that every human character in Let the Right One In exists within a moral grey zone, even the character of Oskar. (This is not true for the character of Virginia, but it is not her thematic function which we are evaluating.) From a pedophilic Haekan, excessively violent schoolyard bullies, a small collection of drunks even extending to oblivious parents this book is not brimming with hope for humanity. Eli is an interesting way in which to explore this.

The childlike appearance of Eli as mentioned previously draws upon the potential for a corrupted future, but it also goes a ways towards deterring the common belief that the Vampire is generically threatening because of the seductive qualities they possess. It then is not by chance that Lindqvist has cast this ‘powerful’ character in a role that is historically powerless: a child. Stoker’s Dracula by comparison presents the vampire, Dracula as being a height of influence. Male and aristocratic, he is only hampered by his ‘otherness’ not in the form of vampire, but as a geographical foreigner. This though is overcome through his great understanding of the English (modern) society.

If we compare this historic character to that of Eli the contrast is phenomenal. Eli is cast in between genders, neither truly male nor female thus is not privy to any of the manipulative power techniques belonging to either. Furthermore the physical representation of Eli exemplifies the one weakness of Dracula: that of being an outsider. Eli presents a vast contrast to the Nordic norm of Aryan. One of the only characters in the novel described as having black hair. Their class is not as openly discussed as with the character of Dracula but it is not a leap to infer a lower socioeconomic bracket. Constantly Eli is said to be underdressed, shoeless and wearing the same clothes for days at a time. Furthermore they are not adept at communication: “She talked funny too, like a grown up.” (Lindqvist 57) and often described as physically repugnant: “Doesn’t she ever take a bath? The smell was worse than old sweat; it was closer to the smell that came when you removed the bandage from an infected wound. And her hair …” (Lindqvist 57) By comparing Eli to the Founding Father of the vampire myth, Dracula (a character so widely known the comparison is begged) we are presented with an entirely un-seductive prospect, on all accounts. Eli does not possess the power of True Blood vampires to ‘glamor’ nor does they possess any worldly seductive qualities. These particular choices in constructing Eli subtly hints to the question: If the ‘evil’ represented by Vampire is not seductive or particularly powerful, why is there evil in society?

It is undeniable that the most crucial element in Lindqvist’s narrative is the relationship between Eli and Oskar. Both characters are presented in the text as being outsiders: Eli for her non-human form and Oskar in spite of his. The similarities of the characters and their relationship open up a direct point of comparison for the imagined evils of the vampire and the real evils of humanity, which are in Oskar presented as potential.

From our first introduction to Oskar the reader understands the uncomfortable potential for ‘evil’ in Oskar:

“Now he was going out into the forest to select his next victim. … He would make him plead and beg for his life, squeal like a pig, but in vain. The knife would have the last word and the earth would drink his blood.” (Lindqvist 22)

The inclusion of the term “drink his blood” inviting a direct comparison to vampirism, but instead of being present in the vampire this blood lust is again transferred into a human character.  This is especially potent when presented within not only a human, but a human child which contradicts a widely held presumption of children as an embodiment of innocence.

Eli draws the reader’s attention to the ‘monstrous’ element of humanity through their relationship with Oskar, at no point is this more clear than in her direct comparison of the desire to kill of the two:

“If you got away with it. If it just happened. If you could wish someone dead and they died. Wouldn’t you do it then? … Sure you would. And that would be simply for your own enjoyment. Your revenge. I do it because I have to. There is no other way.” (Lindqvist 351)

By underlining this potential for and desire of evil as being something not exclusively contained to the ‘monsters’ of fiction, Eli breaks the literary conception of monster as being something other than human and defines it as something very human. Also in the act of saving Oskar from his bullies the potential for good and evil is highlighted in society by Eli.

Through the perversions of the reader’s expectations of the vampire myth, Lindqvist has illustrated that very few distinctions can be made between human and the ‘monster’ represented by Vampire. By exemplifying the non-mythical evils that are present in society, pedophilia, bullying, murderous desire and to a lesser extent gluttony and ignorance the reader is left to ponder whether Eli was ever truly the horrific narrative element in Let The Right One In because the question is begged: Who is the monster?

Works cited:
Lindqvist, John. A. 2004. Let The Right One In. New York: St. Martin’s Press