The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
discussion
Is this a good book?
message 201:
by
Irma
(last edited Aug 16, 2014 03:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 16, 2014 03:13PM

reply
|
flag

I slogged through The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for a literature class in college, and I hated every second of it, with the slight exception of the character, Lisbeth, who was actually compelling. The book is densely written, much like literary fiction when you're tempted to skip over whole paragraphs of description or summary because they're boring. It's pretty depressing, as well, and fairly graphic. I'm not sure whether the style is inherently European (in which case my complaints just mark me as an American reader familiar with an American style of writing) or whether the style is inherently Larsson's, but I didn't pick up any of the other books in the trilogy or see any of the movies.


It's already been filmed twice...

This became one of my favorite books and opened me to the scandinavian authors.




the main character is so edgy so vital so wonderful
love the setting
some parts too weird....but a real thriller in a cool setting

Spoil it why don't you!


Only ten mentions of coffee? I find that hard to believe. I swear Blomkvist drank coffee every other page!

If you can take the time to enjoy the experience of the book, give it time to develop and accept some messiness in what you read, and you enjoy thinking about what you're reading even when you're not actively reading, this is a very good trilogy. I think the first book can stand alone, but if you read book two, you will have to read book three. And you should not read them out of order. Movies and books are two different things and I won't comment on the movies here other than to say that I enjoyed the original Swedish made movie as a movie.

The book certainly isn't popcorn, but then neither is it a book that stands up to much critical scrutiny.
Some people - me included - were spectacularly unimpressed by it. And that's not because we didn't think about it. Quite the opposite. The more you think about the book, the more problems you find.
But the idea that it's a good book if you enjoy thinking about what you are reading? Sorry, no. That may be your opinion, but it's not mine.


It is much, much better than the movie. It's a great book.


As far as the second/third books, they are somehow slightly less engaging for me than the original, perhaps because Lisbeth is less of a shocking and 'fresh' character in the later books? Thoughts?

i dont like this genre in particular but the books were awesome
you should read the trilogy its really intriguing

It's one of the coolest books EVER! First book 'Tattoo' is better than the rest but these books (and the female character - Lisbeth Salander) were trendsetting. Even the male journalist -Blomkvist - shapes out nicely. Infact the 'male' and 'female' characteristics are swapped in this one - Blomkvist is more 'feminine' (or has more maternal like behavior) than Salander (who is more 'masculine' not physically but mentally). Plus they make you believe that you don't need to be a superhero to find the truth - you can be an ordinary burnt-out journalist and scare-crow hacker and do it!
Also do yourself a favor - don't watch the American remake of the Swedish film. Watch the original - it doesn't matter what you do first, read the Larsson novel first or see the Noomi Rapace version first - both the book and Swedish film are great in their own way - infact it's one of the best and faithful adaptations.
Don't miss either.




It's not an American style mystery; the book, to me, seemed to be more about the development of the Lisbeth character, and how she freed herself from victimization, than about the murderer, the magazine editor / author or the magazine he owned/wrote for.
The murder mystery presented at the beginning of the book is basic, not all that exciting by American standards. The villain is telegraphed in the first pages, and there is only minimal violence involved.
What it does do is bring the two protagonists together and reveal the complex character of Lisbeth and her story of victimization, from which she finally begins to free herself. Along the way, the story evolves into a judicial and political thriller, revealing a real danger to the rule of law and the Swedish constitution.
It's not the best writing ever, but I attribute some of that to the difficulty of translating from the native Swiss to English. Yet, not all classics are the "best" writing of the period. It is the stories they tell that are timeless, and I believe this one will prove to be a classic of the early 21st century.
Highly recommended.

The Swedish version of the movies were wonderful. Very true to the books.

If you are sensitive to portrayed violence I say don't read it. I don't know how you feel about that in a story so whatever decision you make hope it's for the best(well it's a mystery and that part of it is intriguing at least about a possible murder/ disappearance)!

But when he got onto the cat... I'm Outta There (Not that I was very much "In There" to begin with... but...).
Anybody know if Larsson was eating a sandwich when he died?

Much better than the film, at least the American version film which was so noir(dark)that I could not see what was happening. The Swedish version film was better. Great book, the whole 3 book series, regret that the author didn't live to see it's publication.



Opening your mind to include Lisbeth? I'm struggling with that one. I found her to be two dimensional, unconvincing and yet more icky wish-fulfilment for Larsson.
So can we please stop suggesting that people who like this book are more intelligent or more open-minded or somehow better than the people who didn't?
Some people liked the book, some people didn't. Why can't we accept a difference of opinion without trying to claim that one side is somehow more open-minded than the other?

Maybe because I think of myself as being pretty open-minded I didn't find Lisbeth to be so special... (I am also used to seeing people who look like her, I went to school with some.) Maybe more interesting than many other characters in many other novels but that doesn't really require much. Her skills are not very believable to me, either.


I was surprised how accurate the movie was to the book! Fincher's view seemed to be conforming to the book and showed off Lisbeth's genius prowess as well as focus on a middle aged Blomkvist (the director had Daniel Craig develop a gut to be convincing and fade off from his persona as "Bond").
I see what they did to leave plot-lines hanging which did not follow the book and I hope they make the rest of the trilogy as well!

Daniel Craig's version sucked. Swedish one was brilliant and pitch-perfect in terms of casting, ambiguity of characters, and suspense. Mara is no Lisbeth! And Blomkvist's character is supposed to be that of a lamb - Daniel Craig looks too ferocious in features to pull off Blomkvist convincingly. That's why the film tanked.

First let me say that I really liked Lisbeth Salander as a character. She had my full attention in every chapter. Blomqvist was an unlikable character prone to being pedantic one minute, and heedless in another. His prolixity was mind numbing when he started preaching about feminist issues. The author overworked that soapbox a bit! The book was clearly written for women. The detective side of the story was pretty lame, and that whole photo clue was on a par with Basil Rathbone's Holmes seeing the poisoned needle on the comfy chair cushion before Watson sat on it in one of the old 40s black & whites. 3 stars for Lisbeth Salander, without her, one star. I have since seen the movies and liked them.

Although you can read them as stand-alone books, they are really best read in order.
I will read them again.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic