Did Anyone Else Hate This Book?

[Daniel]

Emma wrote: "I have to be honest; I hated this book.

I found the first third of the book clunky, slow and bogged down with jargon and pointless detail.

I found it disturbing and hard to read (which is not nec..."

[Daniel]

I didn't like the book either. When I start a book I finish it so I read boring page after boring page. I thought the book picked up on page 322 but not enough that I would recommend this to anyone.

[Stephen]

Blomkvist as a ladies man has long literary roots. Read the Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett or Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. Both Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe were irresistible to women on all class levels. When I read the book first I found it a bit ovet the top. But then I pictured Blomkvist as a George Clooney like figure ( or Daniel Craig ) and it was a little easier understand.

[Dudana]

It was okay. easy and interesting to read.

[Jackie]

I loved all 3 books, there are some disturbing events in the book I can understand someone being uncomfortable with it.

[Susan]

Read the first one, and whilst I didn't hate it I did think it needed editing and that it was a bit clunky - which I put down to the translation. What I DID hate was the sexism. I know nothing about Larson, and I don't wish to, but of one thing I'm quite certain - he doesn't (or didn't) like women. I've rarely read anything that so objectified women into some sort of male fantasy - presumably Larson's - in quite such a gratuitous manner. I've not read the other two.

[Kelsey]

Susan wrote: "Read the first one, and whilst I didn't hate it I did think it needed editing and that it was a bit clunky - which I put down to the translation. What I DID hate was the sexism. I know nothing ab..."

It's funny that you should say that, considering the original Swedish title was "Men who Hate Women." If you read the second two, you find that Larsson did not hate women, and that he was in fact a staunch feminist. The books are his response to society's gratuitous and systematic violence against women.

[[deleted user]]

Susan, I felt the same way! But when Kelsey suggested reading the other books, maybe I was wrong...juuuuust don't have the energy to even try it again.

[Mina]

This book was not my cup of tea. As I was reading it, I kept reminding myself that this was another culture that I don't know that much about, so I shouldn't be terribly judgmental. But I couldn't identify with the characters at all, and I just got more and more angry. Which is a good thing, I guess, since Larsson is trying to make a point regarding violence towards women. But I still have no desire to continue the trilogy.

[Euraylie]

Stephen wrote: "Blomkvist as a ladies man has long literary roots. Read the Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett or Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. Both Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe were irresistible to women on all..."

But those are all from a bygone era. We don't need those type of glorified, sexist 'heroes' anymore.

@ Susan, I totally agree. For a so-called staunch feminist, Larsson had some strange attitudes in how he wrote women. And no, it's not a 'European' thing.

[Manjula]

OMG! I totally loved it!

[[deleted user]]

Manjula, can you tell me what you loved about it? I'm just curious what I'm missing. Thanks

[Stephen]

Euraylie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Blomkvist as a ladies man has long literary roots. Read the Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett or Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. Both Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe were irresistible..."Bygone, perhaps not if your a fan of Michael Connelly whose Bosch has had numerous partners in the numerous bks. It is sex that creates the market for adult novels. If you had only read the first bk in the triogy you missed the second which is by far the strongest. In the second the women characters are stronger & more independent.

[Euraylie]

Stephen wrote: "Euraylie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Blomkvist as a ladies man has long literary roots. Read the Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett or Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. Both Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe ..."

And I like sex in my 'adult' novels.
I just don't like it when every woman in the book is throwing herself at a bland, boring character (who also doesn't hesitate to sleep with a much younger woman whom he knows has serious mental and emotional issues) without proper justification.
Seriously, what did these women see in Blomkvist?
The protagonists you mentioned were probably charming at least.

[Kristen]

I didn't love it or hate it, but I'm a woman and I didn't walk away feeling the least bit affected by the sexual violence. As others have mentioned, it all just seemed too over the top to the point of, "who cares?" If I thought there was any realistic danger being exposed (pardon the pun) I probably would have been more engrossed.

Also, I too got tired of all of the unnecessary backstory and irrelevant details. I really don't need to know every time a character drinks a cup of coffee. Seriously.

[Stephen]

I found Larsson's Blomkvist to be a bit too much also. I do not want to give the impression I did not find it a distraction, but not enough to dismiss the series. Larsson's effort led me to a slew of authors whose books may not have been released in the USA had it not been for the popularity of the series.

[Timothy]

So over-written. Way too much backstory. Characters in the village introduced like a line up in a police station. Glad bad writing can succeed -- it gives us ALL hope!

[Ellen]

I found it disturbing and hard to read...I read all three of the series and won't re-read them....did not like the books at all.

[John]

I didn't hate it, but I struggled to finish it. It didn't inspire me to buy and read the other two either. I think there was way too much hype, so it ended up disappointing me.

[Susan]

Kelsey wrote: "Susan wrote: "Read the first one, and whilst I didn't hate it I did think it needed editing and that it was a bit clunky - which I put down to the translation. What I DID hate was the sexism. I k..."

Thanks for that Kelsey. I didn't know the original title, nor that he was a feminist. I'm still not sure that regurgitating gratuitous violence against women is the best way to go about challenging it - but then, I loved, for example, Reservoir Dogs (the movie) for the in-your-face challenge it presented to violence in general, so maybe I just need to get over myself!?

[Carol]

I too hated it, I read the entire book, and kept thinking it would get better as so many people loved it. It was so slow moving, boring and the violence against women just turned me away. No plans to read the sequels.

[Michele]

Emma wrote: "I have to be honest; I hated this book.

I did as well. I stopped reading it twice and people kept talking me into picking it up again because it was "sooooo great"
Liars! all of them!

[Kelsey]

Susan wrote: "Kelsey wrote: "Susan wrote: "Read the first one, and whilst I didn't hate it I did think it needed editing and that it was a bit clunky - which I put down to the translation. What I DID hate was t..."

haha Resevoir Dogs is a good comparison.

Another interesting fact I discovered (I tend to obsessively research books I read): Supposedly Larsson witnessed a gang rape of a girl when he was a teen and wrote these books as a sort of therepeutic penance for not doing anything to stop it.

[Vivian]

I watched the movie of the first book and I continued on by reading the second and third book. Since I didn't read the first book, I don't know whether or not it was good, but I definitely enjoyed the last two books.

Larsson may have wrote about rape, but he bought justice upon her disgusting guardian. Despite Salander being brutally raped, she did get her revenge. It is pretty realistic showing the harsher parts of life.

[Harold]

I loved the books in descending order. By the third one, I had had enough.

[Patty]

Didn't hate it, but think it's really, really, REALLY poorly written. A good editor might have cleaned it up into a consistent story, at least.

That said, I found myself racing through it to find out what was going to happen. THe plot itself was very good; it was just surrounded by a lot of crap.

[Saxonjus]

I struggled with the first few chapters & gave up the ghost trying to read it! Just didn't hold my attention

[Heather]

I've read all three books. The first was great - but got tired of all that coffee drinking!

[Wendy]

I read the first one of the three. Took a while to wade through the first part (which was too drawn out and almost irrelevant) but then thought it was OK after that.

Started the second one and again wondered what relevance the first part had on the rest of the story. Persevered for a bit longer but then lost the will to live while wandering around IKEA buying things for her flat! I'd had enough by then and gave up.

A friend who read the whole thing admitted that the bit on the island at the beginning of book 2 DIDN'T have any bearing on the rest so I was glad I didn't waste my time.

I agree with Patty that even the first could have been better edited which would have improved it considerably.

[Heather]

I did not hate it, I thought it was intriguing and it was a quick read for me. I also like that it exposes crimes against women, and stands up for women. Lisbeth is one of the most interesting characters I have read about and very well illustrated.

[Joan]

I loved the book.... read it in one day. Day off work!

[Dale]

I didn't hate it but man was it crazy over rated. The heroes are all shady characters that venture into deviant lifestyles. That part made the books spicy, however, his endless overly dry descriptive writing style was enough to make me want to jump out a third story window. Not sure if it was the translation or the author but the writing style was horrific and that is being kind about it.

[Jeff]

I actually liked the books, but can understand why someone wouldn't. To me they were sort of like that summer blockbuster movie that was a lot of fun to watch, but winds up being very two dimensional and flawed. I did think the underlying story was entertaining. I'd also say if you didn't like the first one, you're safe skipping 2 & 3.

[Ana]

An amazing book. Loved it!!!

[Courtney]

Laurie wrote: "I'm also a hater. Thought it was poorly written and clunky, with unnecessary detail that served no purpose other than distraction. I never read any of the other books in the series. Scheduled root ..."

Lol, totally agreed! I'd rather have a root canal as well. Never even finished the first one!

[Hobin]

No I didn't hate it... it was brilliant! a fantastic read!

[Russell]

Timothy wrote: "So over-written. Way too much backstory. Characters in the village introduced like a line up in a police station. Glad bad writing can succeed -- it gives us ALL hope!"

LOL! To bad you can't 'upvote' people on goodreads.

[Katie]

This was an instance where I thought the movie was much better than the book (which I didn't finish reading). We watched the original movies with sub titles and they were excellent - I do not usually enjoy sub-titled movies. I found this rare as most books are far superior to movies. I have not seen the American remakes so I don't how they compare.

[Adrienne]

Loved this book and loved the series! It really got me going to read a different type of mystery novel/series. The pacing was very interesting as well as the investigative side of things; to be totally immersed in a different culture was amazing.

I think that's why a lot of Americans could not identify with the books or the movies, because of the culture clash. If you've ever read Henning Mankell's Wallander series, or seen the BBC version of his novels, you'll realize that the writing is different because the culture is different.

Don't knock the book for simply being another foreign type of mystery not everyone has to ascribe to the American way of writing genres.

[Tytti]

Adrienne wrote: "I think that's why a lot of Americans could not identify with the books or the movies, because of the culture clash. If you've ever read Henning Mankell's Wallander series, or seen the BBC version of his novels, you'll realize that the writing is different because the culture is different."

Or it is just not that good a book and the criticism has nothing to do with culture. Because I actually know something about the Swedish culture, I thought it wasn't really believable.

[E]

I agree... I could barely get through the first two chapters ~ and I tried MANY times!!

[William]

The book had so much potential that I kept waiting for it to get better. There were parts that were good like the interaction between the main character and his assistant and the assistant's geekdom. I really didn't need to know about the whole family tree considering we never met most of them.

[Angie]

I tried so hard to get absorbed in this book. Three times I've tried to get past the first few chapters and I just can't do it. I really wanted to understand what was so captivating about this book and why so many others raved over it. I now realize I am content with never knowing.

[Megan]

Yes, I hate it! I tried reading it several times, but could not get into it because of the uninteresting cumbersome babble about the scandal in the beginning of the book. Everyone tells me that once that part is done it's interesting but I gave up!

[Grim]

I neither hated nor liked the first book. Disinteresting is probably the word I'd use.

I also found the first half too slow and boring for my personal tastes. I don't mind back ground or back story, but moderated and relevant to the story, and with interesting points too make relevant too the book. I didn't feel the first half delivered any of this for me. Felt like an info dump over load.

Unfortunately although the second half of the book was better it never made up for the first halfs monotone and although I enjoyed the film, I was sad too have wasted my time reading this book. Not hatred though more apathy.

[J.D.]

I didn't hate it but I was MAJORLY disappointed. The only reason I finished it was because it had been a Christmas gift. I think there was a huge media blitz budget or something that got it the fame it has because it sure wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Much of the first third of the book, I imagine, would only be interesting to journalists. The juicy sexy mystery stuff that the book is known for only takes up about the middle third of the book.
Hmmm... You know what, let me transplant my review from another site onto the reviews here... I read it a year ago or so and had quite a lot to say about it at that time...

[C. J.]

I didn't really dislike the book. I just thought it was more okay than a great book.

I got irritated at the book's pattern at the beginning where every time a character any character was introduced it was followed by a huge dose of backstory about the person. But once I also got past Henrik Vanger's droning during that scene it turned out to get better.

[J.D.]

Had to fish back a bit, but here's my lukewarm review of this book if anyone is interested:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Karen]

It made me squirm so I had to examine WHY it made me squirm. It tears open, for glaring exposure, topics of evil and domination we don't want to believe exists. It forced me to see people as warriors and saviors who I might otherwise perceive as full of hubris, or selfishness. It made me look at the debris of self-preservation in a whole new light. I found myself cheering for Lisbeth yet praying for the repair of her soul. She pissed me off! Yet I cheered for her. I look at my belligerent students differently and I 'hear' them differently. I LOVED it!

[Stephanie]

i hated the 1st book at 1st. everyone's names were so close together and 1/2 of them didn't appear to add anything to the story except filler. but i loved the 2nd half of book 1. book 2 dragged but ended with a bang :). book 3 i got stuck a quarter of the way thru. i still have to finish it.