Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Hoplon]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

 

[jklinders]

Was it right that she got her revenge in the way that she did? *shrugs*

These books take place in a wacky version of Sweden where this woman is a ward of the state and kept that way well into adulthood by her psycho father. She might not have been nuts before she was abused by the system but the system kind of made her nuts. we have an author who was very traumatized by witnessing a rape but not able to do anything about it. So we have ourselves a lovely alternate reality version of the world where nearly all men are assholes. SOme of this is also point of view from Lizbeth's standpoint.

The short version is that Lizbeth has no trust of authority at all. Had little reason to trust it and needed to gain control of her situation with the social worker that had her in the palm of his hand and used that to rape her. She didn't trust the police or the courts to deal with him properly so she took matters into her own hands with a healthy dose of blackmail to boot.

It was not intended to be portrayed as right. But from my standpoint, with that asshole being a rapist pig who took advantage of a woman under the supposed care of the state, she didn't go far enough. Rapists have it too damn easy in both the courts and the prison system in my opinion.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I'm guessing that had she killed him instead of doing what she did, not as many people would have a problem with that.

 

[Hoplon]

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?

I think it's more of a feeling that to do this is wrong, despite what he did before. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not as simple as mere sympathy for the guy.

It never felt to me in either the book or the films that any one was saying that. It was just to demonstrate that she's some one that has a rather extreme view of right and wrong and how she goes about doling out the retribution she deems fit.

 

[NLS]

She's a girl with a troubled past and not the cleanest of methods, but she gets the job done. The movie isn't telling you "it's okay to rape your rapist", but rather "this woman has some fucked up methods, but then again she's been literally fucked over again and again in case you wondered how it got to this".

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

There's just more to the story in both the other (original) film(s) and books.

But, yeah, in short, how is she better than the rapist pig? Well, he raped her from a position where he considered himself to be in charge and in control, so he abused his position of power, using Lisbeth to satisfy his own unwarranted needs and lust. This is something that, sadly, happens every day, quite probably every minute.

So, since I'm already half a rape into this, let me tell you that I think Lisbeth Salander's revenge rape is not only justifiable, it's justified. It's the same proper revenge fantasy that shocked people in "Day of the Woman"/"I spit on your Grave", and it's one of the few occasions I snap into pure "eye for an eye" mode.

It's something that happens all across the globe, pretty much in every species that developed two sexes to spice up the procreation business. Thing is, we got big brains, we remember, we can snap into terrible loops of anger and despair. What Lisbeth did, as displayed in both the original and the Fincher version, can be used as therapy for the raped. Thing is, most will have switched off and snapped into eternal victim mode long before that scene.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The rape revenge scene was supposed to indicate that Lisbeth is not to be messed with. If you fuck with her, she'll fuck you right back and 10 times harder. Eric obviously didn't know what he was getting into, and must of thought Lisbeth was just a scared little pushover. And it's clear by his actions that this wasn't the first time he pulled something like this, so the dude got what he deserved and then some.

She's not too different from the character of Rorschach in Watchmen in that regard.

 

[In Search of Username]

I imagine his point of view is that if someone does something terrible, even as revenge for something equally terrible, it's still TERRIBLE. You can't just lose all sympathy for another person because they did something wrong, no matter how wrong it was. That sympathy is exactly what made you think it was wrong in the first place, which is why this stupid eye for an eye logic doesn't work.

Sure you can lose all sympathy for another person if said person does something horrible first.

Say for example you see a girl getting raped, a person steps in and beats the rapist to a pulp, will you step in and defend the rapist? Will you make the rapist to a victim?

I would hope so, yes. I'd still have no respect for the guy but basic human compassion would probably make me step in. And if it didn't I'd be pretty ashamed of myself afterwards.

 

[Therarchos]

I find it funny how almost all the user's of this site seem to assume that the actions of main characters are supposed to be role models. Almost as if every main character is supposed to be Superman.


A character in a fictional Movie/novel does not have to take the high ground. Batman is a vigilante sociopath and no matter how much I like the character I can not condone what he does.
The Punisher would be one of the worst role models conceivable. Dexter is a straight out insane character. Tony Stark is a self destructive drunk.

Lisbeth Salander is at best a psychologically broken girl that takes back the power that was taken from her.
Is it the right thing to do? Could she have done it in a more politically correct way... Definitely YES, but she didn't. That is her character.

 

[Lieju]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

It's not just because she is a woman, but because she isn't 'normal'.
The man raping her is not just taking advantage of a woman, he is taking advantage of someone put under his care because it's considered she can't take care of herself.
It's been a while since I read the book, but I think he targeted her because he thought she had no-one to go to, no-one cared about what happened to her, and that she was mentally challenged.

Her character is more about the problems people who aren't capable of 'normal' social interaction face. You could change her character to a man and at least what happened with that guy could stay the same.
I don't remember if the books had a lot of to say about patriarchal society...

(I remember there was stuff about how people who are into BDSM face prejudice)

 

[Hoplon]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

It's not just because she is a woman, but because she isn't 'normal'.
The man raping her is not just taking advantage of a woman, he is taking advantage of someone put under his care because it's considered she can't take care of herself.
It's been a while since I read the book, but I think he targeted her because he thought she had no-one to go to, no-one cared about what happened to her, and that she was mentally challenged.

Her character is more about the problems people who aren't capable of 'normal' social interaction face. You could change her character to a man and at least what happened with that guy could stay the same.
I don't remember if the books had a lot of to say about patriarchal society...

(I remember there was stuff about how people who are into BDSM face prejudice)

It's pretty dense with references to groups he thinks get a hard time unfairly.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I would hope so, yes. I'd still have no respect for the guy but basic human compassion would probably make me step in. And if it didn't I'd be pretty ashamed of myself afterwards.

That is weird, such emotions don't even enter my mind but then again the thought of someone being raped brings out hatred in me like no other thing can do.
My adrenalin just peaks and I just want to end the rapist with my fists.

 

[chinangel]

as someone who WAS molested before I gotta say this...
it sounds like the writer used a 'its okay if it happens to guys' argument to justify this.

Turn it around, if the guy was raping the girl in revenge for something? People would be outraged, angry, shocked. Because it's not right.

And it's not.

It doesn't matter if it happens to a guy or a girl, no one deserves to be raped. Period.

 

[JWRosser]

I haven't seen the American version or read the books, but I have seen the Swedish film, in which the guy rapes her multiple times, and so on, and thus, I think, his fate was justified - she comes back and (if I remember correctly) still anally dildos him and then tattoos "I'm a rapist", or something like that, on his chest. Whilst, I guess, technically, she DID rape him, it was, in a twisted sense, justified, I think; he was a pig.

 

[Lieju]

On a positive note: I don't know if it made it into the American version, but the original film also strongly implies that she's bisexual (I seem to recall we see her naked getting out of a bed that has another woman in it). This appears to have no plot relevance whatsoever, giving the film/book (depending on whether that was in the book) a big tick for including a bisexual character without it being either plot required or an excuse for a girl-on-girl sex scene.

I haven't seen any of the movies, but in the original book she was a bisexual. In fact the woman who sleeps with her (and is the closest thing she has to a friend) refers to her as 'not even bisexual, just sexual'.

She sleeps with both men and women.

One critic who had seen the movies said she was a lesbian who had 'rejected men', and that her relationship with the main character 'fixed' her, but I have no idea if he was being homophobic or if the movie came out like that, possibly since they left out stuff for time, and if they didn't portray her character arc as someone who learns to trust another human being (as opposed to someone who just hates men), it might come out like that.

as someone who WAS molested before I gotta say this...
it sounds like the writer used a 'its okay if it happens to guys' argument to justify this.

Turn it around, if the guy was raping the girl in revenge for something? People would be outraged, angry, shocked. Because it's not right.

It's an interesting thought-experiment, what the discussion would be like if it was a man raping a woman as a revenge for the woman raping the man placed under her care.

There probably would be more 'blaming the victim' and claims that the man went too far.
(When rape is wrong no matter what)

And also people claiming the man was totally justified and that the feminists are overreacting and want to protect rapists.

 

[lacktheknack]

I imagine his point of view is that if someone does something terrible, even as revenge for something equally terrible, it's still TERRIBLE. You can't just lose all sympathy for another person because they did something wrong, no matter how wrong it was. That sympathy is exactly what made you think it was wrong in the first place, which is why this stupid eye for an eye logic doesn't work.

Sure you can lose all sympathy for another person if said person does something horrible first.

Say for example you see a girl getting raped, a person steps in and beats the rapist to a pulp, will you step in and defend the rapist? Will you make the rapist to a victim?

I didn't say that...

 

[JimB]

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.

What if you got raped in the ass by some sweaty fat clown, huh? What would you do?

I have no intention of answering this question beyond saying that it is hideously smug of you to assume that you are not talking to a victim of sexual assault already.

Are you dense? No really, how do you get "rape apologist" from "we should follow the law and not act like fucking animals?"

The same way he does not get "I am a rape apologist" from his own statements saying Lisbeth's act of rape is okay because the guy had it coming.

Is she less of a rapist than him? I'd say so. She did it for revenge, she's not the type who instigates that sort of thing.

No, she isn't. A rapist is someone who rapes. That is it. It is a binary measure. Either you are or aren't; there are no degrees.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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?

Why is rape okay as long as it happens to a "bad guy?" I simply don't buy that premise. It fucking hurts (I'd imagine), in addition to all of the other things that would happen to a person's psyche. You can't rape in self defense. She did it for her own masochistic pleasure. Next will we have a movie where the protagonist is a prison rapist, but it's "okay" because he only assaults convicted rapists? And the movie sees it as justified and we're supposed to be on that character's side?

Its "ok"[footnote] I do not endorse rape in any real life setting[/footnote] because she isn't going after innocent people. The same idea is applied to the death penalty, the difference from when a criminal murders a little old lady and when the state executes a convicted murder is that the old lady was innocent while the murder was far from it.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Honestly, I didnt see the movies but I can tell you what I read from the book. She deperately needed access to her money and did not so much agree to the oral sex as much as she didnt say anything or resist. In turn, she was planning on blackmailing him afterwards by secretly filming him next time he abused her. But, instead of oral sex, he brutally anally raped her. It took her weeks to physically and emotionally recover. She decides to do what she does not because he is a rapist, but because he is a sadist who enjoyed causing women pain. The sexual assault she was going to use to gain the upper hand in their relationship, it was the brutality and sadism that pushed her over the edge.
I dont personally feel for him. He attacked her because he thought she was retarded and wouldnt know how or where to get help. He literally thought she was retarded and therefore abused her violently, which is far more despicable than mere rape.

This makes slightly more sense than what was in the movie. Slightly. The movie almost paints him as a family man (with a coffee mug labeled "daddy") who doesn't fully understand what he did to her. He acts like he's trying to create some sort of relationship with her, too, and not one of the "I'm going to bang this retarded girl who doesn't know any better." And the revenge sequence seems to take place like the next day or two, not weeks. Believe me, I'm not "sympathizing / empathizing" with any of these characters (another problem I had with the movie), it just seemed like bullshit to use this sequence to paint the character as an "insane badass" when al that comes to mind for me is "hey, you're a rapist, too."

Wrong. The man raped her out of his lust and deprivation, he didn't control himself and so another person suffered for his actions. The woman is understandably upset about having her asshole torn open by some fat sweaty piece of shit. If you dont get that then god protect the women you come into contact with. She raped him not out of lust, she did it to teach him a lesson. She did it so that he would understand what she went through. If you dont get that, well... take a class in empathy or something because you are sorely lacking

Okay, line of issue number 1: You said that he raped her out of "deprivation" and he "didn't control himself?" Think about that. He punched her in the face and beat the shit out of her, handcuffed her to a bed, and stuck his penis in a moving resisting body that didn't want it there. That's beyond losing control. That's premeditated physical assault. Rape does not happen due to "deprivation." That is an entirely wrong and incorrect assertion. But... I think the movie might be thinking the way you do. More reason I don't like the movie.

Second line of issue: You said that she raped him to "teach him a lesson." Lots of people in real life get raped for exactly that sick and demented motive. The idea that they "had it coming." This is wrong, too. It just is. No one deserves to be raped. No one.

 

[kickassfrog]

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?

Why is rape okay as long as it happens to a "bad guy?" I simply don't buy that premise. It fucking hurts (I'd imagine), in addition to all of the other things that would happen to a person's psyche. You can't rape in self defense. She did it for her own masochistic pleasure. Next will we have a movie where the protagonist is a prison rapist, but it's "okay" because he only assaults convicted rapists? And the movie sees it as justified and we're supposed to be on that character's side?

In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.
See also the scene from Super where the guy cuts in line.

It's the typical "the punishment fits the crime" justification.

Basically, this.