Talk:Let the Right One In (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop vandalising![edit]

Whoever is being a complete ass needs to stop! It's not funny and this is not a site for fun; it's for information. Alice1869 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Alice1869[reply]

Eli's Sex/Gender[edit]

Ok, I found out that Eli was castrated, so technically, s/he is a androgynous. Here's the link from the author: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38870 I am going to change the article accordingly...please don't change it.Alice1869 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Alice1869[reply]

Eli is not "a androgynous" [sic], not in common idiom, nor in any "technical" specialized medical or scientific terminology. Some men were in the past castrated for revenge or so as to perform domestic duties, and these are commonly known in English as "eunuchs". Boys were sometimes castrated to keep their soprano voices for singing, and such have been known as "castrati". Such practices have been virtually eliminated, and today the main cause of the loss of testicles is due to cancer. But never have any of these unfortunate males been properly referred to as "androgynous". This is a term which means having the traits of both sexes. This includes "hermaphroditism" which means the physical presence of both male and female genitalia in the same person. Usually though, androgyny refers to less radical symptoms, as in general appearance, demeanor and lifestyle. David Bowie in the 1970s, for example, was widely regarded as androgynous, as was Mick Jagger. The term today is sometimes applied to Hilary Swank, and others. In the main, its use is no longer in any medical sense. But it never was applied to those men and boys who were castrated. Myles325a (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Alfredson is NOT the author. He is the director of the film adaptation. Lindquist is the author, and Lindquist does NOT say this. Please do NOT quote the dirctor as the original author in future.
Castration does not render you genderless, it only robs you of genitals. In the book Eli is referred to as male, so I'm changing it back.
Peter Isotalo 07:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, castration does not make a male "genderless". He was born male, and he is still chromosomally a male. Eli even identifies himself as male, so the idea that gender is a social construct doesn't work there either. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eli doesn't really self-identify as a male. Eli's internal monologue shifts during the course of the story between one (earlier) and the other (later). In fact, when questioned about gender, Eli simply states "I'm not anything." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.89.192 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "internal monologue"? The only lines in the film are spoken.
Peter Isotalo 07:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. It is amazing what 100 years and a good jab of female hormones can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what I mean is that after 200 years or so, it wouldn't be suprsing if Eli was suspended between being a boy and a girl if not become more feminine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's original research on your part. That being said, unless we have a synopsis of the entire book, I'd disagree with adding it in just for the sake of preventing spoilers.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes aside, I've read the interview with the author, and he has stated that Eli is genderless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wonder what interview you read then, because the word "genderless" does not even appear in the aintitcool interview. Maybe you mean "androgynous looking", which is a completely different issue. Mahjongg (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well think about it this way, casteration, mean the removal of reproductive organs as well as the genitals. When the reproductive organs are removed, it prevents hormones (in this case tetostrone) from being released, since Eli was casterated pre-puberty, very little tetosterone was released. And with that a lack of hormones for 188 years, would render Eli genderless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.28 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a key point in the book where the male protagonist is bemused he is moer concerned about the fact Eli was a male than him being a vampire, hence the gender is quite an important theme. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the section to avoid labelling Eli as any gender. It was kinda fun. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what is needed is a new section to the article just to discuss the gender issue. It could say that in the first part of the novel Eli is always referred to as "she" and is thought to be a girl by Oscar and others (although it is unclear what gender Håkan sees Eli as - especially since he seems only interested in young boys). It could then explain the revelation of Eli's "birth gender", castration, the change in the text to using the pronoun "he", and Oscar's seeming acceptance of eli as male. It might also note that there could be some ambiguity left, especially since Eli prefers Oscar's mother's sundress to any of Oscar's clothes. Anyway, however detailed it might be it could be worth addressing what the issue is in an additional section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.238.248 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd need reliable, independent sources; at best without such sources it would form part of the plot summary, and I see it as a sufficiently minor point (significant in impact, insignificant in terms of driving the plot forward) as to simply leave it vague. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion the synopsis on this page is utter bullshit. It obsesses on Eli's relationship with Håkan at the expense of his relationship with Oskar, the [co-]hero of the story, and says nothing about Eli's history with his original vampire master, the one who castrated him. It sounds like the synopsis was written by someone who never read the book and did not understand the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.136.179 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the discussion on how socially constructed gender roles are, it seems riduculous that one outcome of this debate is that ANY reference to Eli's previous life as a boy who was castrated by some demon has been excised from the plot details in the article. In fact, it is exactly THAT detail that has many movie goers questioning what the real story is. The American remake simply chickens out of the dilemma of portraying the novel accurately. The fact that it does not have the balls to deal with the book with integrity, does not mean that we editors in Wikipedia have to follow suit. I have amended those details accordingly. Myles325a (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me as if we're wasting time by squabbling about Eli's gender since the reader's understanding of it changes throughout the course of the book. I believe the synopsis would benefit from introducing Eli as female and only later explain his true identity, as it is actually revealed. The point here is to write a plot synopsis, not character biographies. That way we skip all the speculation of Eli's "true" gender identity and any erroneous associations with any of the two films, which obviously have their own plotlines.
Peter Isotalo 16:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Squabbling? I think that Eli's true gender is about the most relevant revelation in the book, which explains a lot of things that would otherwise be troublingly unexplainable. I agree that, like the book, Eli should at first be portrayed as a "girl", as Oscar clearly sees her as such at first, then later his true gender should be revealed, as Eli discovers it, and as one of the "puzzle pieces" needed to understand the complete story of the (growing) relationship between Eli and Oscar. In no case should it be "swept under the carpet", just because its not "politically correct", as seems to have happened on WP. As a side issue, I also miss in the synopsis that Oscars father has divorced his mother, and is now living with another man, another "politically incorrect" story-line which I never have seen mentioned anywhere, but which seems to me impossible to miss, even in the (first) film (can't comment on the second film as I have not seen it). Mahjongg (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By squabbling I meant users insisting on their own opinions on what gender they believe Eli is, or should be 200 years as a castrated vampire boy. But maybe the consensus is already in favor of moving away from the guesswork.
I'm working on a fuller, more focused synopsis as I'm re-reading the book. I'm even thinking it might be nice pull off a multi-article DYK with Linqvist and his books as the theme. All the notes are over at my Swedish user page for now, but I could transfer them here as well if anyone's interested in helping out. I agree with your sentiments here, Mahjongg, but not that Oskar's father is gay. There's no hint (in the book at least) that the other man is anything but a friend and drinking buddy who has a negative influence on him. If you're wondering about why he barges into the house uninvited without knocking, it's really nothing more than one of those habits that countryside folk have. In Harbour, which is set entirely in northern Roslagen, Lindqvist describes how this is a common habit among the permanent residents there. It's one of those "we never lock our doors in our community"-things.
Peter Isotalo 11:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mahjongg, I think you are wrong to use a loaded and imprecise term such as "true gender", as Eli does not seem to identify exclusively as male or female, but appears to identify more closely with female clothing and social roles.
Onto the subject of this thread, I concur with previous posters that there should not be any reference to Eli's gender for two reasons - firstly, because Eli does not identify as male, but says "I'm not anything", though interacts socially/takes on the social gender role and is perceived by others as female, and secondly, because it is a terrible spoiler, and if anyone reads this article before reading the book they will be robbed of the experience of learning Eli's history towards the end of the book after they have become familiar with he character of Eli, just as the author intended. So, I say that it should be changed back to not specifying Eli's sex, and indeed whoever changed it to refer to Eli using male pronouns should not have done so before reaching consensus here on the discussion page. If there are no objections, then I intend to remove the gendered pronouns from this article - and if whoever inserted male pronouns wants them to remain, then IMO we need to reach a consensus on this before their inclusion. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violet, by "true gender" I didn't want to raise any "gender issues", I just wanted to point out that Eli has male chromosomes, he was born male. I just wanted the same thing as you, I wanted to keep people that had problems with the fact that Eli was born male, or were simply unaware of this fact to add female gender references throughout the article. Removing all gender references is fine with me. Still generally Wikipedia doesn't want to keep information out because of "spoiler issues", at most a spoiler warning should be added, and I remain convinced that the whole story can only be understood fully if the reader becomes aware that Eli was born a boy. I think that for Eli it was simply more convenient to dress and behave like a girl, for example because it was easier to "catch a prey" as a girl. I agree that the article should reflect what the author intended. Mahjongg (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mahjongg, thanks for clarifying. As you suggest and as Peter states, my concern about spoilers was a moot point, as Wikipedia policy is not to worry about spoilers when writing articles, and though I agree that spoiler warnings would be appropriate, Wikipedia policy is against that too, so though I don't necessarily agree with the policy, I do completely respect it. As I replied too Peter, I feel that removing gendered pronouns is the least POV thing to do in this case, especially given how heated and POV-heavy the subject of Eli's sex/gender can get with many people. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 04:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict]
Wikipedia:Spoiler is very clear on this issue, and has been so for quite a while; it's just not a valid argument. I've suggested previously that we try introduce Eli as female in the synopsis and then reveal his true background and (biological) sex. That is beyond any dispute and is specifically described in the book. If you'd like to move the mention of Eli's background towards the end of the synopsis, please move it, but try to keep it readable and encyclopedic.
As for purging the text from all male pronouns, it doesn't work out since it would be a way of pushing a specific POV against established fact, and without any kind of support in policy. It just doesn't sound very reasonable.
Peter Isotalo 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, yes indeed, you are absolutely right about the spoiler policy... I wasn't aware of that, but as you say, Wikipedia policy is not to prevent spoilers, so that argument/reason I discussed is moot.
Regarding Eli's sex/gender, I disagree that removing gender pronouns pushes a POV - in fact, I would say that using male pronouns or female pronouns pushes a POV one way or the other, whereas simply removing gendered pronouns removes any POV either way.
Also, it's a minor point, but depending on one's POV, Eli's biological sex is either female or neither (I would say neither, as she does not have a vagina or secondary sex characteristics such as breast, though at her "age" she wouldn't nessearily have breasts, in any case). What you are referring to is chromosomal sex - biological sex is which sex organs are present, not which chomosomes come up in a blood test.
So, I maintain that we should remove gendered pronouns, thereby leaving the article neutral of either POV this contentious debate. What do other editors feel? ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 04:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to be said about your line of reasoning here, because it is quite tangled. But the biggest issue is that it flies in the face of what the author himself says in the book. After Eli's background is revealed, he's consistently referred to as a "he". If you wish to actually obscure that, you should point to something in the book that actually supports your speculation about chromosomes and gender-determination of castrated boy vampires.
Peter Isotalo 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...Peter, I'm trying to assume good faith here, so I'm going to ask you politely not to attribute statements or beliefs to me that I haven't expressed. I don't know if you've only scanned by comments without reading them properly before responding to them, or if your attempting some species of straw man argument, but at no point in my comments am I pushing an "Eli is a girl and not a boy" POV (though you do appear to be pushing the "Eli is a boy and not a girl" POV), and I directly rebutted your assertion that I was in my previous comment to you. I will reiterate, that I am not interested in getting into any the contentious "Eli is a girl vs Eli is a boy" debate, as I've seen people get into that and IMO it's just not productive. Individual readers can take either of those views if they wish, but what is certain, nailed-down, opinion-free fact, is that: Eli was, from all accounts, born and raised as a boy until a vampire removed Eli's sex organs in their entirety and turned Eli into a vampire; That was done against Eli's will; Eli now dresses and presents socially as a girl; and Eli has firmly asserted a non-male & non-female/"not anything" gender identity when addressing the subject of gender identity directly.
The author never at any points states that Eli identifies as a boy and not as a girl, but rather refers to Eli using both adjectives throughout the course of the book. As another editor mentioned previously and as I quoted above, when Eli addresses this matter directly in the book, Eli does not identify as male or as female, but says "I'm not anything".
Also, I thought I answered your post with quite clear and succinct reponses. If you are going to make a comment like "There's a lot to be said about your line of reasoning here, because it is quite tangled", then could you please state in which way it is tangled or unclear to you? Otherwise it comes across as diparaging/insulting. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact, Eli is simply an eunuch, the fact that he is also a vampire does not distract from that fact, and neither that he is 300 years or so old. In fact Vampires lore tells us that vampires tend to be "frozen" in the form they were when they became vampires, so they neither age, not change in appearance in any way, this should counter any (original research) arguments that Eli somehow during the 300 or so years has "turned into a girl". Mahjongg (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To be exact, Eli is simply a eunuch" - in terms of physicality, yes, we are in furious agreement about this. Regarding Eli's gender identity, however, given the fact that Eli addresses gender identity head on in the book by refusing to accept either a male or female gender identity, but instead stating "I'm not anything", I say that attributing a male or female identity to Eli is both original research, as well as going against Eli's assertion in the book of not identifying as either male or female. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that Eli is somehow intergender or transgender. From an academic perspective, there is probably some truth to that. It might be very interesting to explore that angle from an academic perspective, as an underlying literary theme or a social commentary. The problem is that the book itself doesn't say anything about this in the way you're suggesting. Ajvide Lindqvist appears to quite simply describe Eli as a vampire eunuch. The theme of the book is very much about loneliness and human tragedy, so there's every reason to believe that this is what's being described, not primarily gender issues. You keep stressing the "I'm not anything"-line, but you forget to mention that it's just that one line. It could just as well be interpreted as Eli's comment on his general situation of being an outsider, not his gender.
The conclusion you're presenting is quite dependent on a your specific interpretation of a fictional universe. If you can find any published commentary on the transgender aspects of Let the Right One In, I urge you to add that information as literary analysis, because it might be very interesting to read. But demanding that all references to gender be removed in the synopsis remains a matter of pushing an opinion where it doesn't really belong. If you wish to apply the particular angle you favor you should be able to show that it's a matter of due weight. So can you honestly say that the book consistently and candidly describes Eli as transgender creature rather than a eunuch vampire boy?
Peter Isotalo 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter: 1) No, I have never said that Eli is transgendered or, as you put it, "intergender" (do you mean intersex? If so, I've never stated that and don't think that, either). Once again, I feel that you are putting words into my mouth and misrepresenting what I have written which, appears dangerously like straw man argumentation. If you will read what I wrote, I stated that I have no interest in getting into an "eli is a boy" vs "Eli is a girl" argument, which you keep returning to. As I stated, in the one and only time in the book that Eli directly addressed the issue of gender identity, Eli stated "I am not anything". Though my personal interpretation of Eli's gender identity is not the issue here, I will clearly restate yet again that my interpretation is identical to what Eli said, that Eli is, essentially, genderless, not a boy, not a girl, and not transsexual or transgendered.
2) I have never sought to push a POV, just to reinstate the absence of gendered pronouns, which does not state a POV (not even that Eli is genderless), but instead sidesteps the issue of passing a judgement on Eli's sex/gender, though you continue with the "Eli is a boy" line.
What I have stated is absolutely not "dependent on a [a] specific interpretation of a fictional universe", it is the only time that Eli's gender is directly addressed; it is directly addressed by Eli themself; and there is nothing in the novel to contradict it. It is "canon", though of course I have never argued to have an interpretation of Eli's gender written into the article, just to have the article once again be free of gendered pronouns, so that the article doesn't push a POV either way. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its very strange we are having this discussion! What is there to discuss? Its clear form the novel, and from all later sources, that Eli is a castrated boy, an eunuch, since when is an eunuch not male? Never in the history of mankind have eunuchs been described as anything but males with their testicles removed. Removing the testicles does not turn a male in a "non-male", "academic pespective" or not, gelded boys are still boys, just like gelded bulls are still bulls, they do not turn to cows or something in-between bulls and cows. Like you can call a castrated boy a eunuch you can call a castrated bull a steer, but it is per definition still male. Mahjongg (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick double-check on the content of the novel. The full quote you're referring to is (from the Swedish original):
Jag är ingenting. Inte barn. Inte gammal. Inte pojke. Inte flicka. Ingenting.
"I am nothing. Not a child. Not old. Not a boy. Not a girl. Nothing."
That's not quite as clear as what you're insisting on. That this would be "the one and only time in the book" where Eli's gender is addressed seems to me as a rather dubious claim. At this point in the story, the third person narrative refers to Eli as "she/her" or merely by name, and continues to do so, but only until Eli tells/shows Oskar his background. After that Eli is consistently a "he" in third person descriptions of his thoughts and actions. The only exception is in descriptions from the point of view of someone observing or interacting with Eli who doesn't know him or his background. That's the kind of thing you expect from an author who includes a major plot twist where a girl turns out to be a boy, but where that boy is still recognized by outsiders as a girl (due to appearances). If there was any obvious intention to keep the reader genuinely unsure about the sex and/or gender, you simply wouldn't use gendered personal pronouns in this way. Nor would you censor those pronouns in a synopsis.
Peter Isotalo 15:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - blank, genderless - and blank in terms of age, too, due to being "stuck" by having been made a vampire as a child (which is a very interesting concept in and of itself, but that's a whole other - though very interesting - topic).
I can see what you are saying about the references to Eli's gender changing from always female in the first part of the book, to mostly male in the second half, and while this is an interesting point, it is not definitive - as another editor pointed out, for instance, Eli still shows a preference for female clothing, such as choosing to wear Oskar's mother's dress when alone with Oskar. Like I said, I'm not saying that Eli is female or male, just that if one ignores the time when Eli directly answers this question, it is very much unclear that Eli identifies as male. And, of course, Eli did answer this question clearly and unequivocally in the instance which previous editors pointed out and which I re-quoted. I don't see the reason to ignore that canon statement other than that it contradicts your own POV.
In any case, I have no interest in trying to change your POV, just in improving the article so that it doesn't push any POV. Accordingly, I have tweaked your recent edits (mostly grammatical/flow of words stuff, but at least one POV-removing edit) so that what now exists is a compromise which, I can accept and which I hope is an acceptable compromise to you also.
Take care - Violet. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is a matter of biological sex, not how fictional characters self-identify in terms of gender. Because that is clearly what you're talking about here. That is not relevant here since self-identification of gender isn't exactly a major plot theme. Your extrapolations about Eli's feelings based on a single quote doesn't change that.
Peter Isotalo 08:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. If you're saying that the way Eli identifies is not important, and only the biological sex is important, then that seems incredibly paternalistic and just plain wrong. Of course Eli's sex is how Eli identifies; if Eli were to identify as male, then the removal of Eli's sex organs wouldn't change anything, and it would be appropriate to refer to Eli exclusively using male gendered pronouns. If, on the other hand, having spent hundreds of years (all but a very distant first 12 years of Eli's life) without any sex organs and presenting socially as either female or not of any gender, Eli were to identify as being genderless, "a nothing" (which is what Eli actually says), then Eli is genderless - it's all about how Eli identifies, because there is no biological maleness or femaleness present, due partly to what happened to Eli, but mostly due to the fact that it happened before puberty.
I'm guessing you're reorting to physicality alone because I've proven you wrong and you have nothing left to argue, but fine, if you want to say that how Eli identifies has no relation to the use of gendered pronouns (and, from there, which pronouns one should use), then Eli's biological sex is actually neither, as Eli doesn't have any sex organs at all, nor does Eli possess any secondary sexual characteristics, due to the age Eli was made into a vampire.
Once again, I think you are confusing chromosomal sex (presence or absence of Y chromosomes) with biological sex (genitalia and secondary sex characteristics). And even though Eli probably would have XY chromosomes, I'm not aware of anyone ever having performed a blood test on Eli, so you can't even really turn this into a matter of Eli's chromosomal sex.
And one more thing, I happen to know a woman who was born with a condition called "CAIS", or "Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome". She was a normal woman just like anyone else and never had cause to even think about gender issues until one day when she discovered that her chromosomes are XY, which would, by your logic, make her a "man", not a woman, but she is not male, and she is not a transsexual woman or transgender either, for that matter; she is a woman in every way. Because of her chromosomal condition she is sterile, but her vagina is completely like any other woman's, her breasts are just like anyone else's, her body shape, her skeletal size & shape, the size of her hands, everything is exactly the same as any other woman who was born as a woman, because that's just what she is. Yet by your logic, where chromosomes are everything, I suppose you would want to call her a man and call her husband a homosexual and use male pronouns if you ever had cause to refer to her.... I mention this example to show you that chromosomes aren't everything. And like I said, nobody ever did a chromosomal analysis on Eli, so even though you may well be right (as these conditions are more rare than common), you can't refer to Eli's chromosomes as justification for arguing "Eli is a boy". And I've said multiple times that I never wanted to get into the "Eli is a boy" vs "Eli is a girl" argument. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Violet, I think it's perfectly clear that you have an agenda here which is about gender issues. I personally consider myself to be a feminist and I agree with you to some degree. Unnecessary "gendering"[1] is a problem and there is a lot of systemic bias in that department, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But I don't see a problem in this case. Going by what's actually in the book concerning Eli's sex isn't "passing a judgement" nor is it fair to brand it as paternalistic. If we were discussing real people with real sex change issues, the issue could be different. But we're discussing a fictional account, and the one valid source (the book itself) doesn't actually support your interpretations.
Peter Isotalo 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, this is getting quite frustrating. I have no agenda here and have constantly stated that I have no interest in turning this into an issue beyond the use of gendered pronouns in this article, relating solely to the specific character of Eli, but you have constantly sought to create straw man arguments by saying I have said or that I think things I have never said and don't think. I have never even discussed anything other than the character of Eli, except for one example I reluctantly gave you because you seem unable to see beyond chromosomal sex as reason to use male pronouns to refer to Eli. As I have pointed out to you many, many times now, the book very clearly does not support you heavy POV argument that "Eli is a boy", but rather supports what I have said, that Eli is genderless - but that's not even the point - as I have said from the very start, my support for the other editors who argued against inserting gendered pronouns is to remove the POV that people such as you seem totally unable to let go. I am not interested in the "Eli is a boy" vs "Eli is a girl" debates - my motivation has been, and continues to be, to avoid contentious POV arguments such as these.
I don't think you have actually bothered to read any of my posts properly, as your responses continually attack me for things I have never said and don't believe (and nor have you taken the time or had the good grace to apologise or even acknowledge this each time I have pointed this out to you). Since even blind Freddy could see that I have proven my points and since you have consistently replied only to imagined straw man arguments rather than to my actual posts, I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversation. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're pushing the notion that anyone who disagrees with your idea that Eli has no sex is "unable to see beyond chromosomal sex". Then you go off on tangential arguments about how only your view of the issue is the correct and decent one since it corresponds with what a fictional character actually feels about itself. And then you follow it up by having the rhetoric panache of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your analysis of the inner workings of a made-up vampire child is "paternalistic". And finally a long rant about how a friend of yours with an unusual genetic condition might compare to the made-up vampire child in question. As if that would somehow be relevant.
For someone who takes such a brave stand for the right to "neutral" sexual self-identification for fictional characters, you sure don't mind throwing about a lot of seriously high-handed insults against actual people you don't really know anything about.
Peter Isotalo 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, very straw man of you. From your writing it is clear that you have a high level of English language proficiency, so your lack of addressing my points was obviously never due to poor English language skills, but just that you like to waste people's valuable time by addressing fictitious straw man arguments rather than reponding to people's actual posts. It has clearly been a complete waste of my valuable time responding to you. I hope the next time you interact with a Wikipedia editor, you treat them with enough respect as to actually read their posts and respond to the content of their post/s, rather than ignoring their posts and choosing instead to repond to your own straw man argumentation.
I sincerely hope you choose to do this. Have a nice life. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 05:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External link inappropriate[edit]

The external link contained on this page points to a page about the movie, not the book. While interesting, it should be moved to the appropriate page, and removed here. Ninja housewife (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?[edit]

I've heard that Linquist is writing an epilogue to LTROI. Is this true? If so could this be recorded on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

There's no Russian translation AFAIK. At least none of it mentioned in the internet. --Ww7021 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A demon is the sire of Eli?[edit]

The article currently states Eli was castrated and turned into a vampire by a "demon". I just finished reading the book and it never gives the indication Eli's sire was a demon. The book is rather vague about the person in question. It just says the guy wears a wig, a cape, and likes to drink the blood from a newly castrated boy. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too, why call it a "demon", as the description suits a "vampire" much better. Lets not forget that its Eli himself who is giving the description, and he probably had never heard of the name "vampire", so he just describes the person in question. Mahjongg (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My impression was that it was implied that it was a vampire (like Eli). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to interpret it in any other way, although Eli had no words of description for his tormentor at the time, in retrospect, if he was turned into a vampire it could only have been done by another vampire (according to vampire lore). Mahjongg (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reference that implicates him quite directly as a vampire when Eli reminisces the only other (?) vampire he has known after his transformation, a woman who is described as "almost as cynical" as him (or something like that).
Peter Isotalo 11:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first film adaptation[edit]

I removed the bit about how "Let the Right One In", the film, was praised by critics and fans, since no citation had been added after almost a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.132.142 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia "darker side of humanity"[edit]

I'm deleting that because pedophilia is actually a sexual orientation, and unless you are a bigot, having a different sexual orientation is not "dark" or "abnormal" at all. That would be like saying that Portrait of Jason deals with the "darker side of humanity" since its main character is gay. Nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axisnobelity (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender[edit]

Eli isn't transgender. His POV in the book shows that he still identifies as a boy. He still identifies himself as Elias.

From the author:

"So, yes, I knew from the beginning that Eli was a boy. What happened when I let Eli meet Oskar was that Eli started to change his behaviour from what I had originally envisioned. I didn´t even know that they were going to fall in love. But I felt that Eli/Elias would try to appear more likeable in order to ge closer to Oskar, once he had decided not to kill him (The stroke on the cheek). Since Oskar percieves Eli as a girl, Eli is content with not informing him otherwise, although he can´t help himself on a few occasions. Eli doesn´t want to fool Oskar, he is uncertain if Oskar is going to leave him if the truth comes out."[2]--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let the Right One In (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let the Right One In (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_the_Right_One_In_(novel)&oldid=1208152684"