Adding this here because that's way too long as it is and oh my God did I really just babble away like that? -- There's a passage which could almost apply to the book itself, near the end:

Berger thought the book was the best thing Blomkvist had ever written. It was uneven stylistically, and in places the writing was actually rather poor -- there had been no time for any fine polishing -- but the book was animated by a fury that no reader could help but notice.

I love this review! You have captured the spirit of the book. Will let you know as soon as the movie is out with English subtitles.

Manny wrote: "I love this review! You have captured the spirit of the book. Will let you know as soon as the movie is out with English subtitles."

Aww, thank you! High praise, since you read it in the original.

I keep editing the review to try to weed out the various free-range colons (wtf) but it just keeps reposting the rating, so, whatever. I am DYING to see that movie. Noomi was PERFECT.



I just got volume 3 today from the UK! I'm a little sad to start reading it, because then no more Lisbeth. sigh. I had actually missed her and sort of languished for however long it took them to ship me the book.

God, this is fucking lulzy. I should rewrite it.

I really like what you say here about Henrik and Erika's husbands. I was thinking, too, that Henrik is a good example of someone who just cared about the women he knew.

I also keep feeling bad for ragging on Blomkvist and comparing his self-absorption to ritual killing because I actually really really liked him. He reminded me of a lot of my favorite guys - not in the silly rico suave way he comes off sometimes, but in just trying to be kind and missing the mark a lot of the time. I like how both Blomkvist and Salander are just sort of fucked up in their own ways, but still trying to grow as people.

But, I do think the book makes the comparison, like you're saying about the hatred of women being systemic, and I do agree with the book comparing them. I just still liked Blomkvist. Not raping people goes a long way with me, I guess.

Sparrow wrote: "I really like what you say here about Henrik and Erika's husbands. I was thinking, too, that Henrik is a good example of someone who just cared about the women he knew.

Yeah, they're in the background, but they're there -- and hell, Henrik is what kicks off the plot (I really like Henrik). Harriet sending him the flowers to let him know she's alive, and him thinking the killer is taunting him, is actually a really nice literary detail I like (altho it chimes eerily with the cabinet of trophies, yaaargh).

He reminded me of a lot of my favorite guys - not in the silly rico suave way he comes off sometimes, but in just trying to be kind and missing the mark a lot of the time

Yes! I think that's a good observation - I don't think he's actually meant to be a Gary Stu, despite the obvs similarities and the way all the women fall for him, heh. And he knows he fucked up with his daughter, and in some way with Salander too.

Not raping people goes a long way with me, I guess. "

IT DOES. Which says a lot about our culture, doesn't it!

haha! Yes! I ask so little!

I think showing Blomkvist like that makes him more identifiable as a protagonist. Like, Larsson attempting to strike a middle ground between the ideal non-woman-hating man and the serial killer.

Yeah, I don't really think it's bad that they're in the background, either, because the book isn't really about men liking women. But, having them there makes it obviously a choice on the others' parts to hate women.

Sparrow wrote: "Like, Larsson attempting to strike a middle ground between the ideal non-woman-hating man and the serial killer.

Yeah, I don't really think it's bad that they're in the background, either, because the book isn't really about men liking women. But, having them there makes it obviously a choice on the others' parts to hate women. "

Yes, EXACTLY. It annoyed me when people said either "Oh the book is full of shitty men" or "Blomkvist is just a Gary Stu," because yeah, it's not Tolstoy, but the book isn't that cruddy, either.

I also really liked Erika - she's not the major character, but she's strong and independent and IIRC helps Salander later. The actress in the Swedish miniseries who portrayed her was really good.

Sparrow wrote: "Not raping people goes a long way with me, I guess. "

You know those sarcastic "feminism cookies"? We need a "Not a Rapist!" cookie.

....oh my God there already is one. HAH.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22789525...

Agreed. I also think the part where Erika hugs Salander is totally golden. That could have easily gone the cat-fight route if Larsson had been obsessed with Blomkvist's sexual allure. It seemed like he really had a handle on his own perspective.

I have to say I can see how people, especially women, are reacting like that from a pure enjoyment level. The Gary Stu thing I'm on the fence about. Because, on the one hand, there are those moments where it's like, oy, geez, another girl's panties just caught fire in front of you? But, on the other hand that seems like a trope of detective stories and the only thing that would make him a Gary Stu is really just that he's not raping them and they're not idiots. So, that is troubling about the Gary Stu complaint. I don't feel like his general, non-sexual, abilities are particularly striking or convenient.

On the "book is full of shitty men" complaint, that one seems a little more legit to me. Like, I could really see how a lot of the things happening in this book would be serious triggers for a lot of women. And, while I think it is useful and I am really glad it exists, I could see how that would not be worth it for a lot of people and how it could be really hard to look past personal triggers about male hatred to appreciate the book.

Moira wrote: "Sparrow wrote: "Not raping people goes a long way with me, I guess. "

You know those sarcastic "feminism cookies"? We need a "Not a Rapist!" cookie.

....oh my God there already is one. HAH.

http..."

OH MY GOD! THAT IS AMAZING!

Sparrow wrote: "OH MY GOD! THAT IS AMAZING! "

I KNOW, RIGHT

Sparrow wrote: "Agreed. I also think the part where Erika hugs Salander is totally golden

It gets even better in the later books, yeah (not spoiling).

on the one hand, there are those moments where it's like, oy, geez, another girl's panties just caught fire in front of you?

//SNORT

But, on the other hand that seems like a trope of detective stories and the only thing that would make him a Gary Stu is really just that he's not raping them and they're not idiots.

Oh, yeah, I actually hadn't thought about that - Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, &c....they all wind up fucking the women in the cases and flirting with every other attractive female, yeah. And you're right, Blomkvist does seem sort of schlubby otherwise: smart, but not a superhero (he doesn't rise from the dead or anything, HAH).

On the "book is full of shitty men" complaint, that one seems a little more legit to me"

Yeah, I think there's a line between "this is a fucked-up patriarchal society" and "the book is full of shitty men," and it's sometimes hard to differentiate - I think the Colour Purple came in for that kind of criticism, long ago, when Walker was up front about domestic violence and then got accused of not being able to write good male characters and in fact of perpetuating racist stereotypes about black men, &c &c. Everyone's collusive in the fucked-up society they're part of, even gentle Henrik. Power relations in that kind of setting are pretty black-and-white: there's the privileged, and the fucked. I think it's to Larsson's credit he actually does have some good men and good relationships in his book.

(Altho there is the question of how much you can subvert a pulpy genre by writing in it - this is again like Chandler - and how much you buy into its premises, and if Larsson's doing the C.S.I. thing of reveling in the gore and rape while pretending to condemn it - I actually didn't think he was. But I know plenty of other female readers who think he did, so it's maybe open how successful he was there.)

Yeah, I definitely didn't think he exploiting the violence either. I thought the graphic nature of the violence was really important, but like I was saying before, I think if it had been directed to women, it would not have been necessary to include the violence at all. But, I think it is WAY different to factually describe what happens in a violent scene, as I think Larsson does, than to sex it up the way CSI does. And that distinction really matters to me, and I think I am pretty sensitive to when the latter is happening. Having said that, though, I have not been raped or beaten by a man, and I could see how for some people in a certain stage of dealing with that type of experience, reading about that at all would seem exploitative. Or, even how people who haven't experienced it, but are at a certain stage of dealing with the idea of violence in society at all would feel it is never worth describing it. Like, that describing it is always somehow contributing to it.

I do not feel that way, however, and I think it is important to talk about violence in order to show it as what it is. I think if these things are unspeakable, they can easily become seductive.

That's so funny you mention the Color Purple! I was thinking about it when we were talking about alternative titles for this book. I think the two are really similar! But, the Color Purple to inspire women to get out of violent situations and this book to inspire men to stand up to hatred of women. Both really cool and important.

And, yeah, the writing in this isn't poetry, but if I can set aside my writing preferences for Twilight I can sure as hell set them aside for this.

You know what would make those cookies even more awesome? Food-coloring.

Miriam wrote: "You know what would make those cookies even more awesome? Food-coloring."

Rule of thumb.