Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Vault101]

TL;DR version: as a teenager, Larsson stood and watched as three of his friend raped a girl named Lisbeth. He did nothing to stop them. Lisbeth never forgave him and he was haunted by guilt for the rest of his life.

imo, the fictional character Lisbeth Salander was Larsson's attempt to absolve himself for his inaction, by creating a fictional heroine who can avenge her own rape, and therefore didn't need Larsson's help.

so it's not quite a masturbatory fantasy, but it's still pretty gross and self-indulgent.

I think thats a bit unfair....as somone else said this is an adult story with adult themes

they say "wrtie what you know" and that is more or less what Larson did (the story does surprise me in a way) I also think its a bit unfair to to call it "gross and self indulgent" he was a dumb kid at the time and I guess if this was his way of trying to make up for something he never really could then...

 

[WitherVoice]

She did it for her own masochistic pleasure.

Sadistic pleasure, surely?

Original Post Snip of DOOM

It's all reprehensible at every angle. In the book (not seen movie) the POINT of the exercise is simple enough to understand... Miss Salander distrusts everyone, in particular authority figures. This particular authority figure is her legal guardian, and having him removed through legal means is one: not a solution she has faith in, and two: not a way to gain her autonomy, as a new guardian will simply be appointed. When she is raped by this person, this makes her feel justified in taking whatever action she deems necessary to wrest control of her life from him - and she is more or less successful. It also establishes a fairly central character trait - that she is completely willing to go far beyond legal actions in search of payback, and that while she is surrounded by horrible people, she is no less of a monster than they (ymmv).

 

[SpaceBat]

I honestly can't believe that some people here believe that rape is in any way justifiable. I understand people having questionable morality when it comes to justice (Such as confusing it with revenge), but I never expected so many escapist users to come up with such vile shit as they're doing now.

Rape is never justified, because it's rape. That "An eye for an eye" bullshit that people keep repeating doesn't work well when the revenge is forcibly committing sexual acts on another person.

I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt they made her to be a great person with excellent mental health, so I'm sure it works within the movie.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

She did it for her own masochistic pleasure.

Sadistic pleasure, surely?

282 posts and I'm pretty sure that was the first one to point out that error.

 

[cobra_ky]

TL;DR version: as a teenager, Larsson stood and watched as three of his friend raped a girl named Lisbeth. He did nothing to stop them. Lisbeth never forgave him and he was haunted by guilt for the rest of his life.

imo, the fictional character Lisbeth Salander was Larsson's attempt to absolve himself for his inaction, by creating a fictional heroine who can avenge her own rape, and therefore didn't need Larsson's help.

so it's not quite a masturbatory fantasy, but it's still pretty gross and self-indulgent.

I think thats a bit unfair....as somone else said this is an adult story with adult themes

they say "wrtie what you know" and that is more or less what Larson did (the story does surprise me in a way) I also think its a bit unfair to to call it "gross and self indulgent" he was a dumb kid at the time and I guess if this was his way of trying to make up for something he never really could then...

There's an actual Lisbeth out there who got to watch Larsson become famous and make millions of off her personal tragedy.

 

[gravian]

I get the feeling that the rape scene with Lisbeth and her revenge is supposed to illustrate just how screwed up of a person she is (as others have pointed out). It wasn't supposed to be painted in a light of, "oh she is totally justified in doing this to the man!" but more along the lines of, wow she is messed up. I mean...

Also, from what I recall, her whole revenge on Bjurman was done with the point of humiliating him (just as he did to her). She could have turned him in, but what would that have gotten her? Instead, she enacted the ultimate revenge fantasy and in the process was able to get FULL access to her funds AND have the freedom of not having a guardian.

For me this sums up what the book was trying to do, in establishing Lisbeth as screwed up/damaged by giving the audience a shock and not trying to be overly sympathetic or rationally justify it.

Also, the book mentions that Salander dosen't trust the police due to previous stuff that's happened to her (damn I wish I knew how to spoiler things), and has her own way of taking revenge on people who cross her.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

So, how is she any less of a rapist than the guy who raped her? Theoretically, the guy could easily call the cops and they'd both go to jail for a really long time. Isn't rape categorically wrong and a crime no matter who commits it to who? Why does this beloved (from what I've seen online) character get let off the hook? One could argue that he "deserved" it or was "asking for it," but by definition, no one deserves or asks for rape. It's not possible. It feels pretty despicable and disgusting to paint that act of violence as justifiable, which I'm pretty sure this movie does. Maybe I'm weird and looking at it the wrong way, but it feels fucked up.

Victims of traumatic forms of abuse are known to lash out. This is why the abused wife for years may one day shoot her abusive husband that rapes, beats, and basically enslaves her may shoot her husband in his sleep. You cannot expect rational and civil responses forever from those who endure such. A rape is a traumatic experience and which can trigger such responses. If you could make the argument that she would have done these acts without being a victim first then you would have some sort of point here.

Furthermore she is known to have psychological problems before hand, her very rapist is aware of this in-fact and given his position which grants him a form of power of her is just damning to him. So because of this and previous history and the traumatic experience she endured the charges would never stick against her. She would walk easily.

Now as far as the movies message this is a bit up to interpretation. But from what I took from the rape scenes is the aim to disgust and to be vile acts. This includes what she does and why she did something so brutal to make you cringe. This is a attempt to darken Lisbeth and show just what she is willing to do to those who would bring harm to her.
I don't believe the message of the movie at all through this was justice or any sort of positive act. The events that took place were mainly to show who Lisbeth is to help the viewer understand the character.

What he/she said.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I honestly can't believe that some people here believe that rape is in any way justifiable. I understand people having questionable morality when it comes to justice (Such as confusing it with revenge), but I never expected so many escapist users to come up with such vile shit as they're doing now.

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

 

[Rayne870]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

Hit the nail on the head there, not only is it just that it characterizes her methods but it enforces the idea that she is VERY mentally unstable and unable to function in society, as they demonstrate throughout the film with those oh so lovely therapy sessions.

It's also a bit of commentary on how there are a number of therapists out there that really aren't nice people.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The rape scenes in this movie where like having a really bad psychedelic drug trip. I felt physically ill.

The movie got it right then. I've never actually felt a physical response to a piece of literature before that chapter in that book. My face was deep red, my forehead was sweating, my stomach was writhing and I had a lump in throat. It's a very intense piece of literature.

Oh... I'm cautiously curious in picking up the book now just to see how it was written.

One of the reasons Rape should be avoided in fiction is because, aside from it being almost cliche, it's incredibly difficult thing to write. To much one way, and it's like a life time movie. To much another way, it's porn. It's extremely difficult to really hit the right tone to make the audience feel ill over it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the movie did the book (i've never read it) justice, however because... well from the story perspective? Aside from giving her motivation to help with the case, I feel like one could of elimnated all rape scenes and the whole "getting her money from the government douchebag" thing and it wouldn't of changed the story.

Then again, while I can't say I agreed with Lisabeth sodomizing the guy and tattooing of his chest, it did leave me... Well it's a silly notion, but I found myself wishing I could give her a hug. Homegirl is soooooooo freaking dark, and distrusting, and then at the end when she thinks she has romantic feelings for James Bond and it doesn't work out it's soooooooooo that much more heart breaking. You spend the whole movie just wanting to see her smile, just a little bit.

It's a very well written book, the last sixth or so is a little slow. I found it absorbing, I finished it in three days over winter break.

As far as the rape is concerned, it's certainly no lifetime special and it's far from pornography. It's very complex, I can almost guarantee that everybody will hate this man though. You're relating to Lisbeth at this point in the story. Lisbeth's emotions, however, are blank. She doesn't react. It almost seems like she treats sexual abuse as a unpleasant chore, at least at first. It's devastatingly awkward, devastatingly, dangerously awkward. This man thinks of it as a sexual encounter but Lisbeth is mechanically performing actions, it's disturbing. Lisbeth is more perplexed after the first incident, almost as if she is pondering what do do about a defective appliance. It's very alienating, I've never read anything that has invoked so many conflicting emotions so intensely.

...Fuck, they DID capture that in the movie. The first time the jerk makes her give him head it's just like that, and the second time she DOES seem like it's chore like "Really? This again?" before he chucks her on the bed, hand cuff her and well you know the rest.

>.< The worst fucking part of it though is right after violently violating her the guy softens up and even acts like he genuinely cares about her and it's.... AAghs;hg;shg;;sljhg Up till this movie the only other movie that made me feel this uncomfortable was Requiem For A Dream, and that was NOTHING compared to this. But you've convinced me, I have to see how this is written.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

TL;DR version: as a teenager, Larsson stood and watched as three of his friend raped a girl named Lisbeth. He did nothing to stop them. Lisbeth never forgave him and he was haunted by guilt for the rest of his life.

imo, the fictional character Lisbeth Salander was Larsson's attempt to absolve himself for his inaction, by creating a fictional heroine who can avenge her own rape, and therefore didn't need Larsson's help.

so it's not quite a masturbatory fantasy, but it's still pretty gross and self-indulgent.

I think thats a bit unfair....as somone else said this is an adult story with adult themes

they say "wrtie what you know" and that is more or less what Larson did (the story does surprise me in a way) I also think its a bit unfair to to call it "gross and self indulgent" he was a dumb kid at the time and I guess if this was his way of trying to make up for something he never really could then...

There's an actual Lisbeth out there who got to watch Larsson become famous and make millions of off her personal tragedy.

I'm sorry, did Larsson drive his limo up to the woman's home and boast about he didn't help her while she was being raped and rub the fact that he was rich in her face?

Sucks for the girl, and homeboy did a dick move once, but that doesn't mean the art doesn't have the right to exist or that homeboy isn't entitled to get rich off of it.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

If you ever get raped in the asshole, I would be very interested to know your feelings after the fact. I would venture to guess that they would be shame, humiliation, and an infinite well of anger. Perhaps you could be content with writing him a scathing note, and then deal with the mind rape that is the court system for the next however many fucking months trying to prove that you are not lying. If someone hits you, you hit them back.

Repeatedly in the asshole? Ever hear the expression "I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy?" I feel that applies here. And why would you even want to touch a "sweaty gross" guy's asshole? She wouldn't have to wait months. She had all the evidence she needed to have him locked up without bail. She made sure he wouldn't be able to do it again. She had him under her control. Hell, she could have killed him and dumped the body if she really wanted to make sure he would never rape again. The asshole rape was only there to inflict pain, and therefore, makes her a rapist. Most things in life are "grey areas." Rape is not.

So in your mind, it's okay to hit women, as long as they hit you first, right? And in your mind, if a woman raped you, it would be A-okay for you to rape her back, right? You said "If you dont get that then god protect the women you come into contact with." Let's agree to disagree and I'll say ditto on that sentiment to you as well. Good luck staying out of jail with that way of thinking.

In my mind, your initial responses don't seamlessly correlate with his/her statements. The appliance of such an expression only subsists your objective sentiment; it doesn?t have sincere relevance to the question of your emotional response in such a situation.

Then again, such a question is useless regardless, as neither of us would be capable of duplicating the implicative mindset.

As for your final statements, you're (in my mind) affronting the user with situations that may conflict with potential ideals of chivalry in order to dissuade their initial points.

To re-iterate your statement, HITTING is never ok, regardless of gender. Self-defence is another matter. If a woman was threatening my family with a deadly weapon, I would act. Gender in such a situation is obviously irrelevant (unless you're sexist.)

As for the subject in general, you're observing it from an objective perspective in a conventional mental state. It's ludicrous to expect a rape victim to consider such perspectives when engaged in such a traumatized mindset.

 

[cobra_ky]

I'm sorry, did Larsson drive his limo up to the woman's home and boast about he didn't help her while she was being raped and rub the fact that he was rich in her face?

No, he stood there and ignored her cries for help as his friends forcibly violated her. I thought i had made that pretty clear.

Sucks for the girl, and homeboy did a dick move once, but that doesn't mean the art doesn't have the right to exist or that homeboy isn't entitled to get rich off of it.

Neither of those are things i actually argued.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

**snip**

Thank you zelda2fanboy. Because of you, I now know not to watch Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

On topic... well, out of context, yeah, it sounds pretty awful. Just reading the first page of comments, apparently this character is some sort of masturbation fantasy for the author? Which I guess means that the author secretly dreams of being anally fucked with a glass dildo by a woman? Whatever, I have no desire to know more.

As to those of you who are saying that the rapist deserved it - no he didn't. He deserved to be shot in the head, sure. If she'd murdered him, I'd have been "oh, that's okay then." If she's murdered him slowly and painfully, I'd have been "well, she's insane and sick, but I'm still okay with this."

By using the same method on him that he used on her, she has sunk to his level and is now as bad as he is. They BOTH deserve to be shot. Or, you know, imprisoned. Yes, he is worse because he also breached ethics, but the mutual rapes are so far worse that that part seems rather small by comparison.

Rape is never excusable. Not even when it's done to another rapist.

I'm going to disagree with formality. The acts where committed for two different reasons. When he raped her, it was out of gratification. When she raped him, her actions were motivated by revenge (which could be classified as a mental condition.)

In a sense, the insanity plea could be applicable to her in court; her motivations were guided by mental imbalance. Bottom line, it's ludicrous to expect traumatized individuals to behave normally in such circumstances.

It's a perspective that allows individuals to overlook the factors which they fear the most (one of them being their own potentially vengeful emotions in such situations.)

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?

What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

I interpret the "chatoic good" alignment as meaning someone who plays by their own rules, doing what they themselves see as just with little regard to other people's feelings.

Rape (itself) won't prevent anything, it didn't stop Lisbeth wanting and seeking retribution. It doesn't serve any good purpose but sadism, serving personal feelings in the infliction of personal and deeply dehumanising pain.

You're applying cold, rational objectivity to someone with a mental imbalance; it's utterly ridiculous to expect someone in such a mindset to behave accordingly.

It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from the courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."

An inappropriate statement, but anger that is utterly comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

She did it for her own masochistic pleasure.

Sadistic pleasure, surely?

Original Post Snip of DOOM

It's all reprehensible at every angle. In the book (not seen movie) the POINT of the exercise is simple enough to understand... Miss Salander distrusts everyone, in particular authority figures. This particular authority figure is her legal guardian, and having him removed through legal means is one: not a solution she has faith in, and two: not a way to gain her autonomy, as a new guardian will simply be appointed. When she is raped by this person, this makes her feel justified in taking whatever action she deems necessary to wrest control of her life from him - and she is more or less successful. It also establishes a fairly central character trait - that she is completely willing to go far beyond legal actions in search of payback, and that while she is surrounded by horrible people, she is no less of a monster than they (ymmv).

(Replays record of a previous response.)

You're applying cold, rational objectivity to someone with a mental imbalance; it's utterly ridiculous to expect someone in such a mindset to behave accordingly.

It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from the courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."

An inappropriate statement, but anger that is utterly comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I was just saying that if a full-grown man gets "raped" by a woman, the majority will only point and laugh at him (because it's "extra humiliating"), not sympathize. And there's a good reason for that, because women raping men is astronomically rare for obvious reasons.

Tippy, there are a lot of things I want to say to you but can't because of the terms of use for this site, so I guess I'll have to be content with this:

This is one of the most sexist, heartless, disgusting loads of crap I have ever read in my life. Not only are you blaming the victims for being assaulted in ways that will scar them for life, you're saying they deserve to be mocked for it and are encouraging others to do so; and, for the first time since joining this site, I have reported a post, so, thanks so much for helping me cross a milestone I never wanted to cross.

"Shame on you" does not cover how ashamed you ought to be.

Victims of traumatic forms of abuse are known to lash out. This is why the abused wife for years may one day shoot her abusive husband that rapes, beats, and basically enslaves her may shoot her husband in his sleep.

No; statistically speaking, the overwhelming number of battered women kill their batterers because they feel their batterer will kill them any moment; that their death is imminent, and killing is the only way to stay alive.

Your analogy is totally irrelevant, if my wife got killed by a drunk driver, my beef would be with the driver, not his wife.

No, it isn't. You are arguing with a straight face that one horrible act is okay as long as it completely mirrors a horrible act inflicted upon me. You are saying, "Rape is wrong, and to prove it, I'm going to rape you, which will not be wrong."

If someone rapes me in the ass, then I WANT FUCKING JUSTICE, and justice is to give him his own medicine, so that the ************ knows what its like to be on the receiving end.

That is not justice. That is revenge.

Justice is just a platform which allows people to hopelessly grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair. It's a fantasy we maintain, but a fantasy none the less.

Also, in regards to the suggestion that she's no better than the rapist, the acts where committed for two different reasons. When he raped her, it was out of gratification. When she raped him, her actions were motivated by revenge (which could be classified as a mental imbalance.)

In a sense, the insanity plea could be applicable; her motivations were guided by mental imbalance. Bottom line, it's ludicrous to expect traumatized individuals to behave normally in such circumstances.

It's a perspective that allows individuals to overlook the factors which they fear the most (one of them being their own potentially vengeful emotions.)

That's just me, anyway.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

She's not as stupid as the people who expect rational actions from a traumatized individual.

 

[JimB]

Justice is just a platform which allows people to hopelessly grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair.

It does not have to be an objective force in order to be a real thing. It is a change we can enforce upon the world.

Also, in regards to the suggestion that she's no better than the rapist, the acts where committed for two different reasons. When he raped her, it was out of gratification. When she raped him, her actions were motivated by revenge...

Which is just a different kind of gratification.

...which could be classified as a mental imbalance.

Not according to any diagnosis in the DSM-IV that I am aware of.

In a sense, the insanity plea could be applicable; her motivations were guided by mental imbalance.

Did she take any efforts to avoid capture and punishment for her crime?

Bottom line, it's ludicrous to expect traumatized individuals to behave normally in such circumstances.

It's in moments of stress, when we're forced to act on instinct, that we discover who we really are. Lisbeth Salander is a rapist.

 

[lacktheknack]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

She's not as stupid as the people who expect rational actions from a traumatized individual.

Having a reason to be irrational does not make you sympathetic.