Intriguing beginning, interesting set up, boring performance.
Do editors even read the last third of a book?
This is a novel that cries out for a hard-nosed, competent editor to sit the author down and tell him frankly he has lost focus and credibility.
Let’s start with the endings, shall we? The author rushed to three separate endings, none of which had any believable relation to the next. Was he thinking of movie rights? Did he perform an “audience poll” to see what would be most conventional to the paying public? Or did he just get bored with his own story. I vote for the last.
Ending number one: the author just takes us by the necktie and throws us into the solution to serial murders of women. He doesn’t develop the present day murders committed by Harriet’s brother Martin. He has given us little hint that these murders were even committed. Hang a light on it, I guess – it must be that Martin is so much better at stalking and capturing his victims than was the hideous Nazi-loving father. Sure. Try another tactic. Poor story development. Lazy, in fact.
Ending number two: Harriet is still alive, in Australia, very rich, a shining example of a perfect woman. Cecilia’s almost twin sister Anita helped Harriet off the island, gave Harriet her own passport. Harriet runs to Switzerland and lives in a convent until she meets a landed Australian. Marries him. Moves to Australia. Manages a sheep farm. They get rich. She’s a shining example of a WONDERFULLY competent woman. Comes back to the island and turns the Vanger family business around. Tears and applause all ‘round.
We have no hint that Harriet would be this person. Last we heard of her, she was vacillating in the ‘tween teen world of church-girl and wanton-bitch. And during the gratuitously violent sex-scene with “suddenly revealed as crazy” Martin, we find she was abused by both her father and her brother – abuse that began only when she became a young adult; is that really possible in the world of ugly, sadistic hate-filled men that Larsson presents? One cannot suspend disbelief that far. These men would have been hurting her from the time she was a young child. But that would not support Larsson’s story-line because otherwise how could Harriet have had an authentic relationship with Uncle Henrik? So normal and authentic that he would obsess over her disappearance for forty years and never suspect that Ugly Man was having his way with a vulnerable child? So camouflaged, in fact, Uncle Henrik did not even have a hint of suspicion that ugly brother Martin was abusing the teen. Doesn’t wash. Not believable.
Ending number three: Mikael exacts revenge on the nasty, bad industrialist who sent him to prison for libel. Which wasn’t libel, the author says. Mikael just didn’t have the goods on the industralist. Lisbeth provides the data, obtained through illegal hacking, that brings boogey man capitalist down, down, down. The author has Mikael striking a pose for ethical behavior in prosecution. How many lines does he devote to this purist stance against pressure of his two colleagues? Oh, just a few lines. The conversation that explores this dilemma reads like a wart on the nose, it is so disconnected to the themes of the novel. It sounds like someone asked, what about the moral principle here? So the author deals with it just enough to strike a pose of ethical purity but must have the protagonist give in to unethical behavior just for the revenge to proceed.
And speaking of moral principles, what of the girls that Martin and his ugly father tortured and murdered? Martin conveniently kills himself rather than suffer the disgrace of being tried in the courts. Therefore with this convenient plot twist, the Vanger family avoids nasty exposure because of this convenient death. Only Mikael and Lisbeth could pull the plug from that drain and let loathsome sewage roll down to the gutter. But if author Larsson would let that happen, there would be no business left for the shining example of a WONDERFULLY competent woman (Harriet) to rescue. The author must find a way to avoid that catastrophe even if poor murdered women and their families are denied justice. Oh, find out who they were and give them money under the table. Money covers all sins, whether one is a hated industrialist or a crusading Trotskyite journalist. Disgusting example of moral failure.
And on the subject of disgusting examples of moral failure, what of Mikael’s casual and bloodless relationships with women? First: This affair with his business partner where she divides her time so smoothly, so casually between the beds of her artiste husband and “little head” Mikael is strange and improbable. It is flatly two-dimensional characterization and an expression of male fantasy, clear and simple. It is not an issue of religious morality but rather heart-deep, fundamental feminine reality. When a woman behaves this way, there is a profound emotional dysfunction underneath the behavior, usually a history of abuse resulting in a lifeless emotional life. The author proves himself incompetent and inept by avoiding any issue there.
Then, Mikael’s casual habit of slipping the little head into any available slot whenever presented with no thought of consequences. Vanger niece Cecilia throws herself at him. Poor abused girl with the dragon tattoo forces herself on him. Gotta do it if it is available. Male fantasy. Nonchalant masculine callousness.
And the killer example of the author’s lack of coherent emotional connection is Mikael’s relationship with his daughter. She was just a plot device for Larsson. The sperm donor father is a cardboard cut-out man. Sad.
What about this novel has so many people uttering such slobbering acclaim? I wonder if they read the same book I did, gushing as they are in unbridled praise and all aflutter with excitement. The book is amateurish, uses falsely dramatic plot devices, wraps up unsatisfactorily and is downright boring. The author started off with strong character descriptions and an interesting plot projection. The story seemed believable at first but as various lines played out, I became less and less interested and thoroughly disengaged. A true disappointment.
The book has only one saving grace; it is evocative of place.
If I lost this book in the middle of reading it I would not go out and buy a new copy to find out what happens. I just do not care. I’ll sell this paperback at my next garage sale for fifty cents.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Part 4: Hostile Takeover, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
SPOILER WARNING.
Okay, dear readers. It is getting close. At the end of Part 3: Mergers, we are suddenly presented with the solution to who is the Man Who Hate(s) Women.
Let’s define suddenly. Abruptly, unexpectedly, out of the blue. It is obvious that the author Stieg Larsson is so bored with writing this part of the novel that he takes handfuls of torn up laser paper fresh off the printer, and throws it to the wind. Larsson is running for the first finish line so that he can get to the real fantasy finish of the novel, the novel he really wants to write, not this one.
Mikael discovers that Martin was on the island the afternoon that Harriet went missing. Mikael goes to Martin’s house in the late evening to ask him about this discrepancy between report and fact. Martin pounces on Mikael, drags him down to his torture room, shackles him, strips him, and confesses all.
Martin. Harriet’s brother. Oh and the father too, by the way. Serial murderers. The father sexually abused Harriet when she was a teenager. The father made Martin sexually abuse Harriet. The father forced Martin to perform fellatio on him and initiated Martin into the cult of sadistic serial slaughter. Just how it is. Just a few pages here of fevered conversation.
(And, you know, come to think of it, Swedish men in this novel seem to treat their women badly. Let’s see, there are a few in the novel who are good guys. Dragan Armansky is a good guy but he’s Croatian, after all. Oh, perhaps Palmquist, the lawyer/guardian, is on the good list. He’s Swedish. But I digress. As does Larsson quite often.)(No, Mikael is not on my good list. He is emotionally disassociated from his women. Even from his daughter.)
Now, don’t worry, dear reader. Lisbeth saves Mikael. Don’t know how she knew to come looking for Mikael at Martin’s house, but – hey! Hang a lantern on it; she’s good. Must be.
Lisbeth takes a golf club to Martin. Doesn’t kill him. But Mikael is freed. Don’t worry, dear reader. Martin kills himself. Something about a car crash, turning headlong into a big truck. Yada-yada. Don’t quote me on the details here because I was skimming through this part. Boring.
(The famed authors of “Structuring Your Novel” – Robert Meredith and John Fitzgerald – say “Don’t write the parts that readers won’t read.” Exemplary example here. Gratuitously violent, nasty sex-torture, or boring chase scenes. Won’t read. Don’t write.)
[Big sigh here. Pant. Pant. Pant.] Must finish blogging, must finish blogging. It’s a race to the boring end …
Martin doesn’t know what happened to Harriet. But we find through a quick and implausible twist of the plot, that Cecilia’s almost twin sister Anita helped Harriet off the island, gave Harriet her own passport. Harriet runs to Switzerland and lives in a convent until she meets a landed Australian. Marries him. Moves to Australia. Manages a sheep farm. They get rich. She’s a shining example of a WONDERFULLY competent woman. Comes back to the island and turns the Vanger family business around. Tears and applause all ‘round. End of story.
Well not quite.
I can’t stand it anymore. Here is the last paragraph of a book review by Alex Berenson, New York Times 9/14/08, who says it so much better than I:
But the real disappointment in “Girl” comes in its final section, after the mystery of Harriet’s disappearance has been solved. Without any warning, “Girl” metamorphoses into a boring account of [Mikael] Blomkvist’s effort to take down the executive who originally won the libel lawsuit mentioned at the start of the novel. The story of his revenge is boring and implausible, relying heavily on lazy e-mail exchanges between characters. And so “Girl” ends blandly. Only Ake Daun and the Swedish tourist board can be happy about that.
Thank you, Mr. Berenson. I’ll read every novel you ever write in gratitude for your succinct synopsis of the ending chapters of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. You saved me.
I must go now and lie down for a rest. This novel was so bad, I need a swooning couch.
Okay, dear readers. It is getting close. At the end of Part 3: Mergers, we are suddenly presented with the solution to who is the Man Who Hate(s) Women.
Let’s define suddenly. Abruptly, unexpectedly, out of the blue. It is obvious that the author Stieg Larsson is so bored with writing this part of the novel that he takes handfuls of torn up laser paper fresh off the printer, and throws it to the wind. Larsson is running for the first finish line so that he can get to the real fantasy finish of the novel, the novel he really wants to write, not this one.
Mikael discovers that Martin was on the island the afternoon that Harriet went missing. Mikael goes to Martin’s house in the late evening to ask him about this discrepancy between report and fact. Martin pounces on Mikael, drags him down to his torture room, shackles him, strips him, and confesses all.
Martin. Harriet’s brother. Oh and the father too, by the way. Serial murderers. The father sexually abused Harriet when she was a teenager. The father made Martin sexually abuse Harriet. The father forced Martin to perform fellatio on him and initiated Martin into the cult of sadistic serial slaughter. Just how it is. Just a few pages here of fevered conversation.
(And, you know, come to think of it, Swedish men in this novel seem to treat their women badly. Let’s see, there are a few in the novel who are good guys. Dragan Armansky is a good guy but he’s Croatian, after all. Oh, perhaps Palmquist, the lawyer/guardian, is on the good list. He’s Swedish. But I digress. As does Larsson quite often.)(No, Mikael is not on my good list. He is emotionally disassociated from his women. Even from his daughter.)
Now, don’t worry, dear reader. Lisbeth saves Mikael. Don’t know how she knew to come looking for Mikael at Martin’s house, but – hey! Hang a lantern on it; she’s good. Must be.
Lisbeth takes a golf club to Martin. Doesn’t kill him. But Mikael is freed. Don’t worry, dear reader. Martin kills himself. Something about a car crash, turning headlong into a big truck. Yada-yada. Don’t quote me on the details here because I was skimming through this part. Boring.
(The famed authors of “Structuring Your Novel” – Robert Meredith and John Fitzgerald – say “Don’t write the parts that readers won’t read.” Exemplary example here. Gratuitously violent, nasty sex-torture, or boring chase scenes. Won’t read. Don’t write.)
[Big sigh here. Pant. Pant. Pant.] Must finish blogging, must finish blogging. It’s a race to the boring end …
Martin doesn’t know what happened to Harriet. But we find through a quick and implausible twist of the plot, that Cecilia’s almost twin sister Anita helped Harriet off the island, gave Harriet her own passport. Harriet runs to Switzerland and lives in a convent until she meets a landed Australian. Marries him. Moves to Australia. Manages a sheep farm. They get rich. She’s a shining example of a WONDERFULLY competent woman. Comes back to the island and turns the Vanger family business around. Tears and applause all ‘round. End of story.
Well not quite.
I can’t stand it anymore. Here is the last paragraph of a book review by Alex Berenson, New York Times 9/14/08, who says it so much better than I:
But the real disappointment in “Girl” comes in its final section, after the mystery of Harriet’s disappearance has been solved. Without any warning, “Girl” metamorphoses into a boring account of [Mikael] Blomkvist’s effort to take down the executive who originally won the libel lawsuit mentioned at the start of the novel. The story of his revenge is boring and implausible, relying heavily on lazy e-mail exchanges between characters. And so “Girl” ends blandly. Only Ake Daun and the Swedish tourist board can be happy about that.
Thank you, Mr. Berenson. I’ll read every novel you ever write in gratitude for your succinct synopsis of the ending chapters of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. You saved me.
I must go now and lie down for a rest. This novel was so bad, I need a swooning couch.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Part 3: Mergers, 2nd blog on this part of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Mikael falls into a brilliant strategy for investigating Harriet’s disappearance. He enters the time machine through photos of the day and looks around. He finds new avenues to pursue.
Also, Mikael finally meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Mikael finds out that the Vanger family had him investigated and demands to read the report. Lisbeth pegs him like an insect under a bright light. It is obvious that she is an accomplished hacker, member of a hacker underground. She can get into anything, given time.
Mikael charms this head-shy, abused filly of a girl. They become sexual partners. You had to expect it, right? I am beginning to disconnect from this author on his treatment of female sexuality and its masculine corollary: “I always think with the wrong head.” Does protagonist Mikael even pause to consider the ramifications of his casual sex? Or – to put it as a statement – author Stieg Larsson uses female sexuality as a prop in his novel to support a personal identity, “Studman, Healing Power of the Little Head.”
I digress – just as Larsson digresses. But I will pick up this thread later under the category “Larsson’s artificial struggles with ethical behavior.”
Protogonist Mikael points Lisbeth on the trail of the serial murders. He goes looking for photos in the time machine.
Lisbeth’s search is interesting to follow. Mikael’s search is … contrived. BUT, this is a novel after all. Let us suspend judgment. They both need to find answers for the plot to proceed.
Lisbeth finds that there were ghastly murders throughout Sweden that follow the travels of Harriet’s father. Mutilation of the body after death allude to the scripture verses. Mikael finds that Cecilia and her sister Anita look almost like twins and Mikael has confused the two when studying the photos of the day. The person in Harriet’s room was Anita not Cecilia. Also we find that although Harriet’s brother Martin, who was reported to be absent during the critical time period, was in fact present.
Mikael then becomes a target from someone unknown. First, an article in a newspaper associated with Birger Vanger. Martin comes to Mikael’s cottage door, very solemn, to show him the vitriolic article. “I didn’t do it. Perhaps Birger did because you and he had a set-to at Henrik’s hospital bed.” Then Mikael’s cat is killed, mutilated and thrown on his cottage porch. Then Mikael is shot at and wounded. Then pressure is applied for Mikael to return to Stockholm and the magazine. Martin was behind that “suggestion”. Mikael and Lisbeth find that the Vanger mausoleum looks to be desecrated but only someone who has key access could have done it.
So action is beginning, action is accelerating. Mikael is getting close to something tender and someone who is still living is trying to get Mikael off track.
It gets bad from here, dear reader. Not the action but the plot. Larsson is running for the first finish line so he can get to the real fantasy finish of the novel.
Do editors even read the last third of any novel? Cheeee-zz.
Also, Mikael finally meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Mikael finds out that the Vanger family had him investigated and demands to read the report. Lisbeth pegs him like an insect under a bright light. It is obvious that she is an accomplished hacker, member of a hacker underground. She can get into anything, given time.
Mikael charms this head-shy, abused filly of a girl. They become sexual partners. You had to expect it, right? I am beginning to disconnect from this author on his treatment of female sexuality and its masculine corollary: “I always think with the wrong head.” Does protagonist Mikael even pause to consider the ramifications of his casual sex? Or – to put it as a statement – author Stieg Larsson uses female sexuality as a prop in his novel to support a personal identity, “Studman, Healing Power of the Little Head.”
I digress – just as Larsson digresses. But I will pick up this thread later under the category “Larsson’s artificial struggles with ethical behavior.”
Protogonist Mikael points Lisbeth on the trail of the serial murders. He goes looking for photos in the time machine.
Lisbeth’s search is interesting to follow. Mikael’s search is … contrived. BUT, this is a novel after all. Let us suspend judgment. They both need to find answers for the plot to proceed.
Lisbeth finds that there were ghastly murders throughout Sweden that follow the travels of Harriet’s father. Mutilation of the body after death allude to the scripture verses. Mikael finds that Cecilia and her sister Anita look almost like twins and Mikael has confused the two when studying the photos of the day. The person in Harriet’s room was Anita not Cecilia. Also we find that although Harriet’s brother Martin, who was reported to be absent during the critical time period, was in fact present.
Mikael then becomes a target from someone unknown. First, an article in a newspaper associated with Birger Vanger. Martin comes to Mikael’s cottage door, very solemn, to show him the vitriolic article. “I didn’t do it. Perhaps Birger did because you and he had a set-to at Henrik’s hospital bed.” Then Mikael’s cat is killed, mutilated and thrown on his cottage porch. Then Mikael is shot at and wounded. Then pressure is applied for Mikael to return to Stockholm and the magazine. Martin was behind that “suggestion”. Mikael and Lisbeth find that the Vanger mausoleum looks to be desecrated but only someone who has key access could have done it.
So action is beginning, action is accelerating. Mikael is getting close to something tender and someone who is still living is trying to get Mikael off track.
It gets bad from here, dear reader. Not the action but the plot. Larsson is running for the first finish line so he can get to the real fantasy finish of the novel.
Do editors even read the last third of any novel? Cheeee-zz.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Part 3: Mergers, 1st blog on this part of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Merger: vesting of the control of different corporations in a single one by the issue of stock of the controlling corporation without dissolution of the consolidating companies.
merge: to cause to combine or coalesce, to lose identity by absorption or immersion in something else.
Whose identity, what identity is merged with another? The financial relationship with the Vanger family was not a merger of the magazine. Has anyone lost their identity to something? Hmmmmm.
Mikael returns from prison and begins again to research Harriet's disappearance. Just about the first thing he does is to go see his girlfriend, Henrik's niece, Cecelia, looking for a little comfort, I am sure. She does not wish to continue their sexual relationship. One wonders why but there is normal emotional reality here because it is all too complicated for Cecilia. (Thank God the author is back on earth. This improbable affair with his business partner flies in the face of emotional logic. Cecilia doesn't like it.) But Cecilia does have something to hide. In the past she consistently asked him if her answers were on or off the record.
Mikael focuses most of his renewed search reliving the day that Harriet disappeared by reviewing the photographs. This is an interesting line of approach and perhaps brilliant. It’s a time machine and he is the ghost who observes. He puzzles over the phone numbers from Harriet’s diary.
The photographs in Henrik’s album were taken by the local reporter from the small newspaper. He delves into the paper’s archives. A photographer takes hundreds of photos and prints only a few because of focus and composition. He finds three things: that Harriet looks in one direction and the change in her facial expression indicates that she sees something that upsets her. What is it? Second, it is obvious that a couple in the crowd was taking pictures of the bridge accident at the same time the local reporter was photographing the incident. Their camera was turned so that they may have snapped in the direction that Harriet looked. Third, in an archive photo, out of focus but visible, he sees a figure in Harriet’s bedroom window. It is a blonde girl wearing a light dress. The only person fitting that description is the young Cecilia. Cecilia said she never entered Harriet’s room that day.
Cecilia has left the island and rather than turn over heaven and earth, Mikael tries to contact her gently and privately to ask her why she lied to him. He doesn’t tell Henrik either. Weeell, Henrik gets sick so it makes sense that Mikael would wait for him to recover. But the rest of the family becomes aware that Mikael may have discovered new evidence.
The “phone numbers” are scripture verses. Aaahhh. Very clever. In English, the convention is Lev. 20:16 but obviously in other cultures, it is 3 20 16. and that clever Harriet pushed the numbers all together. But the female names associated with the numbers? Mikael thinks that they are murder victims because the horrid murder of one girl back in the 50’s appears to be patterned after one of the scripture verses.
Three pieces of new evidence to track down. Why did Cecilia lie to him? Can he get photos from the tourist couple? Do we have a serial murderer?
Who were the religious people at this time? Harriet had found religion. Mikael finds out from the old pastor that Harriet may have dabbled in the apocryphal texts – which could mean Roman Catholicism or satanic texts. (One and the same it would seem to some very fundamental Swedish Protestants.) The passel of nasty Nazi brothers are candidates. Although, German Nazis were not Christians per say. But I guess our Trotsky author may be blurry about that since he doesn’t like religion at all. (Obvious.) And you know religious crazies are as bad as Nazis. Ergo.
Go after the easy one, I say. Confront Cecilia first.
He doesn't.
merge: to cause to combine or coalesce, to lose identity by absorption or immersion in something else.
Whose identity, what identity is merged with another? The financial relationship with the Vanger family was not a merger of the magazine. Has anyone lost their identity to something? Hmmmmm.
Mikael returns from prison and begins again to research Harriet's disappearance. Just about the first thing he does is to go see his girlfriend, Henrik's niece, Cecelia, looking for a little comfort, I am sure. She does not wish to continue their sexual relationship. One wonders why but there is normal emotional reality here because it is all too complicated for Cecilia. (Thank God the author is back on earth. This improbable affair with his business partner flies in the face of emotional logic. Cecilia doesn't like it.) But Cecilia does have something to hide. In the past she consistently asked him if her answers were on or off the record.
Mikael focuses most of his renewed search reliving the day that Harriet disappeared by reviewing the photographs. This is an interesting line of approach and perhaps brilliant. It’s a time machine and he is the ghost who observes. He puzzles over the phone numbers from Harriet’s diary.
The photographs in Henrik’s album were taken by the local reporter from the small newspaper. He delves into the paper’s archives. A photographer takes hundreds of photos and prints only a few because of focus and composition. He finds three things: that Harriet looks in one direction and the change in her facial expression indicates that she sees something that upsets her. What is it? Second, it is obvious that a couple in the crowd was taking pictures of the bridge accident at the same time the local reporter was photographing the incident. Their camera was turned so that they may have snapped in the direction that Harriet looked. Third, in an archive photo, out of focus but visible, he sees a figure in Harriet’s bedroom window. It is a blonde girl wearing a light dress. The only person fitting that description is the young Cecilia. Cecilia said she never entered Harriet’s room that day.
Cecilia has left the island and rather than turn over heaven and earth, Mikael tries to contact her gently and privately to ask her why she lied to him. He doesn’t tell Henrik either. Weeell, Henrik gets sick so it makes sense that Mikael would wait for him to recover. But the rest of the family becomes aware that Mikael may have discovered new evidence.
The “phone numbers” are scripture verses. Aaahhh. Very clever. In English, the convention is Lev. 20:16 but obviously in other cultures, it is 3 20 16. and that clever Harriet pushed the numbers all together. But the female names associated with the numbers? Mikael thinks that they are murder victims because the horrid murder of one girl back in the 50’s appears to be patterned after one of the scripture verses.
Three pieces of new evidence to track down. Why did Cecilia lie to him? Can he get photos from the tourist couple? Do we have a serial murderer?
Who were the religious people at this time? Harriet had found religion. Mikael finds out from the old pastor that Harriet may have dabbled in the apocryphal texts – which could mean Roman Catholicism or satanic texts. (One and the same it would seem to some very fundamental Swedish Protestants.) The passel of nasty Nazi brothers are candidates. Although, German Nazis were not Christians per say. But I guess our Trotsky author may be blurry about that since he doesn’t like religion at all. (Obvious.) And you know religious crazies are as bad as Nazis. Ergo.
Go after the easy one, I say. Confront Cecilia first.
He doesn't.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Part 2: Consequence Analyses, 2nd blog on this part of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
But Henrik Vanger is an accomplished consequence analyser.
He brings Erika Berger to Hedestad and proposes to back the magazine with significant sums and to reorganize the Board of Directors to include the Vanger family. Mikael returns as executive editor. Why does Henrik do this? He says to get Wennerstrom. Perhaps also to calm Mikael. Hmmmmm.
Henrik proposes to announce the changes at the magazine on the day that Mikael goes to prison. Ooooh. Niiice. Stick Wennerstrom in the eye.
What this will do (it will come out later) is flush out the mole in the editorial offices of the magazine. Good thing. I think Erika sees this as a possibility but we do not hear her internal voice.
In Part 2, Mikael goes through all the material that Henrik has amassed about the day that Harriet disappeared. The material focuses on that day and on the police investigation. I notice that Henrik does not follow the suspects and family through the 37 years to the present. Much discussion is expended on Henrik's brothers (and their Nazi sympathies) during the war and until 1966. We hear about their children and grandchildren only through current conversations with family. If I were Henrik, I would have watched all these people closely through the years and just noted what they were doing. To be true to real life, this is how it would have been. I suspect most readers slide by this fault but I wonder, is this a reflection of Henrik's involvement or a literary fault to be attributed to the author.
I am inclined to think it is the author's fault. I really like Henrik, this octogenarian. I'm sure Henrik is a crafty businessman. But he has won my heart over with his stance on the Nazis, his love for Harriet, and because he saved, loved and married a German Jewish girl. He has a blind spot for his family -- either disgusted by members or reliant on members. On whom does he rely that he should not? Who does he rely on? Cecilia (lover of Mikael), Martin, Anita (who is absent since the '70's). If he were to be involved in Harriet's fate, I would feel betrayed.
I continue to be critical of Mikael's sexual relationship with the married Erika. We are supposed to admire her -- business woman, confident, genteel ... Nope. Not enticed. She is a flat character. Two dimensional. Male fantasy.
This part ends with Mikael's entrance into prison for three months.
With all my criticisms of plot and character details, I still like the voice and cadence of the novel. I enjoy the tutorial on war-time Sweden, descriptions of the land, and the peek into current Swedish culture. (How much coffee do they drink in a day? I'd be flying.)
I am intrigued by the girl with the dragon tattoo -- Lisbeth.
He brings Erika Berger to Hedestad and proposes to back the magazine with significant sums and to reorganize the Board of Directors to include the Vanger family. Mikael returns as executive editor. Why does Henrik do this? He says to get Wennerstrom. Perhaps also to calm Mikael. Hmmmmm.
Henrik proposes to announce the changes at the magazine on the day that Mikael goes to prison. Ooooh. Niiice. Stick Wennerstrom in the eye.
What this will do (it will come out later) is flush out the mole in the editorial offices of the magazine. Good thing. I think Erika sees this as a possibility but we do not hear her internal voice.
In Part 2, Mikael goes through all the material that Henrik has amassed about the day that Harriet disappeared. The material focuses on that day and on the police investigation. I notice that Henrik does not follow the suspects and family through the 37 years to the present. Much discussion is expended on Henrik's brothers (and their Nazi sympathies) during the war and until 1966. We hear about their children and grandchildren only through current conversations with family. If I were Henrik, I would have watched all these people closely through the years and just noted what they were doing. To be true to real life, this is how it would have been. I suspect most readers slide by this fault but I wonder, is this a reflection of Henrik's involvement or a literary fault to be attributed to the author.
I am inclined to think it is the author's fault. I really like Henrik, this octogenarian. I'm sure Henrik is a crafty businessman. But he has won my heart over with his stance on the Nazis, his love for Harriet, and because he saved, loved and married a German Jewish girl. He has a blind spot for his family -- either disgusted by members or reliant on members. On whom does he rely that he should not? Who does he rely on? Cecilia (lover of Mikael), Martin, Anita (who is absent since the '70's). If he were to be involved in Harriet's fate, I would feel betrayed.
I continue to be critical of Mikael's sexual relationship with the married Erika. We are supposed to admire her -- business woman, confident, genteel ... Nope. Not enticed. She is a flat character. Two dimensional. Male fantasy.
This part ends with Mikael's entrance into prison for three months.
With all my criticisms of plot and character details, I still like the voice and cadence of the novel. I enjoy the tutorial on war-time Sweden, descriptions of the land, and the peek into current Swedish culture. (How much coffee do they drink in a day? I'd be flying.)
I am intrigued by the girl with the dragon tattoo -- Lisbeth.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Part 2: Consequence Analyses, 1st blog on this part of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
A consequence analysis is an examination of the sequence of interrelated events a proposed action will logically produce.
Mikael does not carry out a competent consequence analysis of his flight to the hinterland.
* He wants to get out of Wennerstrom's view and therefore save his magazine from the onslaught of bad press and a shaky financial status, orchestrated by Wennerstrom. He leaves it up to his lover/business-partner and the staff to handle the storm that will decend on them.
* He does not consider fully the impact of his investigation into Harriet's disappearance. In this closed room mystery all the players in the drama can be identified, and if the perpetrator is not dead, Mikael himself could be in danger as he gets close to the mystery.
* He does not question how Henrik is connected to Wennerstrom and what kind of information Henrik has that would be damaging to Wennersrom, but instead proceeds to enter in a contract with Henrik where one of the rewards is a good "Wennerstrom shellacing" with new -- and one would hope -- damning information.
* He does not consider the downside of starting a sexual relationship with Henrik's niece.
* He doesn't consider -- and this is his biggest failure -- what if all this information provided him by Henrik about the day Harriet disappears, what if something Henrik fully documents is not true.
He seems to not care. He is prone to laziness. Intellectual laziness is my judgement.
On the other hand, Lisbeth is quite proficient at consequence analyses since she has reaped the rewards of not caring; she is a ward of the state, vulnerable to the excesses and whims of its representatives, specifically its social workers. She is legally a minor, unable to conduct her life without intrusion.
Lisbeth gets into a fix. Lisbeth's guardian (who really cares about her) was removed because he falls ill. She gets a pervert assigned to her by social services. It's fairly disgusting. Her plan of action is astonishing. And from this we come to understand that she will exact revenge and safeguard herself even if she gets hurt in the process. Wow. I won't ruin it for you.
Mikael does not carry out a competent consequence analysis of his flight to the hinterland.
* He wants to get out of Wennerstrom's view and therefore save his magazine from the onslaught of bad press and a shaky financial status, orchestrated by Wennerstrom. He leaves it up to his lover/business-partner and the staff to handle the storm that will decend on them.
* He does not consider fully the impact of his investigation into Harriet's disappearance. In this closed room mystery all the players in the drama can be identified, and if the perpetrator is not dead, Mikael himself could be in danger as he gets close to the mystery.
* He does not question how Henrik is connected to Wennerstrom and what kind of information Henrik has that would be damaging to Wennersrom, but instead proceeds to enter in a contract with Henrik where one of the rewards is a good "Wennerstrom shellacing" with new -- and one would hope -- damning information.
* He does not consider the downside of starting a sexual relationship with Henrik's niece.
* He doesn't consider -- and this is his biggest failure -- what if all this information provided him by Henrik about the day Harriet disappears, what if something Henrik fully documents is not true.
He seems to not care. He is prone to laziness. Intellectual laziness is my judgement.
On the other hand, Lisbeth is quite proficient at consequence analyses since she has reaped the rewards of not caring; she is a ward of the state, vulnerable to the excesses and whims of its representatives, specifically its social workers. She is legally a minor, unable to conduct her life without intrusion.
Lisbeth gets into a fix. Lisbeth's guardian (who really cares about her) was removed because he falls ill. She gets a pervert assigned to her by social services. It's fairly disgusting. Her plan of action is astonishing. And from this we come to understand that she will exact revenge and safeguard herself even if she gets hurt in the process. Wow. I won't ruin it for you.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Part 1: Incentive - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Incentive: that which arouses to action, spurs on, urges on; the motive behind an action.
There will be a wide range of characters in this complex plot. Larsson assists the reader by leaving nameless lesser players in the action. Thank God becasue we have so many characters to watch. The protagonist, the antagonist, the uncle, the uncle's right-hand man, the Vanger family, the people in the village, the supporting personalities around the main characters, and all their impulses and motives.
The obvious protagonist is Mikael Blomkvist. "St. Michael, the Archangel, be our defender this day in battle. Protect us against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke [the evil one] we humbly pray..." [Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel]
Larsson sees himself in real life as a St. Michael, exposing evil and protecting children, "counteracting the growth of the extreme right and the white power-culture in schools and among young people", "exposing Swedish extreme right and racist organizations; he was an influential debater and lecturer on the subject." [from Wikipedia]. Mikael Blomkvist is a reflection of a cleaned up Stieg Larsson.
As Part 1 opens, our Protagonist Mikael has been convicted of 15 counts of aggravated libel in a Swedish court. Mikael libeled Wennerstrom, a shadowy Swedish financial figure in an Eastern Euorpean development deal. Mikael is fined a hefty sum and sentenced to three months in jail. He was set up to be taken down it is revealed. Mikael has enemies.
Do I have sympathy for Mikael? A crusading journalist, handsome, tall, a ladies man, proud. He's having an open sexual relationship with the married business partner in their weekly news magazine. (The husband of said woman doesn't care we are told. She goes from bed to bed as she wishes.) Mikael is pretty pleased with himself (Lisbeth makes this observation in the course of her investigation of the Wennerstrom affair). Mikael's resume is presented so that we should at least admire him if not like him. I am not persuaded at this point to respond either way.
We soon meet Lisbeth Salander, described on the back cover as a pierced and tattooed punk podigy. She's a very closed, icy, contained, controlled personality. A victim of child abuse, but we don't know the details yet. She works for a security organization as a Personal Investigator. (One would not enjoy having her looking into your background because she will find all your secrets. She has so many secrets herself, she knows how to find everyone else's.) I like Lisbeth very much and read with great interest when she enters the scene. Later on we find she is under guardianship of the state social worker system. I have a feeling her experiences with the system will not be pretty.
But it is not Lisbeth who has been approached to unravel the center mystery. The 82 year old, wealthy uncle of an industrial family approachs Mikael the investigative journalist to discover what happened 37 years ago in the disappearance of the then 16year old niece Harriet. Uncle Henrik has puzzled over her apparent murder, has kept copious notes and detailed photographs, and he wants to solve the mystery before he dies. She disappeared just before Michaelmas term. Henrik offers Mikael millions of kroner to solve the mystery. Here's a nice dramatic touch: every year on his birthday Henrik receives a pressed flower from ... Harriet? Someone who wants to keep him obsessed with her disappearence.
We have four characters here: Mikael, Henrik, Lisbeth and Harriet. Lisbeth and Harriet are mirrors of each other. Lisbeth has been abused and broken by her past but not crushed. She is loved and protected by two men: her employer (a wonderful Croatian) and her state appointed guardian (a thoughtful, warm-hearted lawyer). Harriet was ignored and finally abandoned by her parents to Uncle Henrik who adored her and raised her in the family compound in northern Sweden.
We see the mysteries.
Why and by whom was Mikael set up to take a fall in the Wennerstrom deal? He has enemies but what caused them to castrate him? Who betrayed him?
What happened in the disappearance of Harriet? Who murdered her? Why? There is no apparent motive. (Her murder is a "closed room mystery", as they say in the genre.)
What is Lisbeth's story of childhood abuse? How will Lisbeth impact the solving of the mystery of Harriet and the Wennerstrom mystery? How are all these nasty family members interconnected?
Is Mikael's odd "domestic" situation with married Erika a factor in his betrayal? (I always have trouble when male authors negate the natural female impulse to be at least serially sexually exclusive. Any real woman who humps two men at the same time without emotional consequences has a twisted story of emotional abuse in her past. Period. Don't argue with me. Sleeping around is a male fantasy not a female truth.)
What is Henrik's connection with Wennerstrom? Henrik uses this bait to lure Mikael into this investigation. Well, the millions of kroner help, otherwise who would leave comfortable Stockholm for the back of the beyond in Northern Sweden in wintertime?
Why does Henrik's right-hand man suddenly drop the investigation of Wennerstrom with no explanation? Lisbeth was put on the trail. Will she drop the scent now?
The book was first published under the title: Men Who Hate Women. Who are the men who hate women in this story? They are not yet revealed yet.
What are the incentives? What has caused the characters to be aroused to action? What urges them on?
There will be a wide range of characters in this complex plot. Larsson assists the reader by leaving nameless lesser players in the action. Thank God becasue we have so many characters to watch. The protagonist, the antagonist, the uncle, the uncle's right-hand man, the Vanger family, the people in the village, the supporting personalities around the main characters, and all their impulses and motives.
The obvious protagonist is Mikael Blomkvist. "St. Michael, the Archangel, be our defender this day in battle. Protect us against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke [the evil one] we humbly pray..." [Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel]
Larsson sees himself in real life as a St. Michael, exposing evil and protecting children, "counteracting the growth of the extreme right and the white power-culture in schools and among young people", "exposing Swedish extreme right and racist organizations; he was an influential debater and lecturer on the subject." [from Wikipedia]. Mikael Blomkvist is a reflection of a cleaned up Stieg Larsson.
As Part 1 opens, our Protagonist Mikael has been convicted of 15 counts of aggravated libel in a Swedish court. Mikael libeled Wennerstrom, a shadowy Swedish financial figure in an Eastern Euorpean development deal. Mikael is fined a hefty sum and sentenced to three months in jail. He was set up to be taken down it is revealed. Mikael has enemies.
Do I have sympathy for Mikael? A crusading journalist, handsome, tall, a ladies man, proud. He's having an open sexual relationship with the married business partner in their weekly news magazine. (The husband of said woman doesn't care we are told. She goes from bed to bed as she wishes.) Mikael is pretty pleased with himself (Lisbeth makes this observation in the course of her investigation of the Wennerstrom affair). Mikael's resume is presented so that we should at least admire him if not like him. I am not persuaded at this point to respond either way.
We soon meet Lisbeth Salander, described on the back cover as a pierced and tattooed punk podigy. She's a very closed, icy, contained, controlled personality. A victim of child abuse, but we don't know the details yet. She works for a security organization as a Personal Investigator. (One would not enjoy having her looking into your background because she will find all your secrets. She has so many secrets herself, she knows how to find everyone else's.) I like Lisbeth very much and read with great interest when she enters the scene. Later on we find she is under guardianship of the state social worker system. I have a feeling her experiences with the system will not be pretty.
But it is not Lisbeth who has been approached to unravel the center mystery. The 82 year old, wealthy uncle of an industrial family approachs Mikael the investigative journalist to discover what happened 37 years ago in the disappearance of the then 16year old niece Harriet. Uncle Henrik has puzzled over her apparent murder, has kept copious notes and detailed photographs, and he wants to solve the mystery before he dies. She disappeared just before Michaelmas term. Henrik offers Mikael millions of kroner to solve the mystery. Here's a nice dramatic touch: every year on his birthday Henrik receives a pressed flower from ... Harriet? Someone who wants to keep him obsessed with her disappearence.
We have four characters here: Mikael, Henrik, Lisbeth and Harriet. Lisbeth and Harriet are mirrors of each other. Lisbeth has been abused and broken by her past but not crushed. She is loved and protected by two men: her employer (a wonderful Croatian) and her state appointed guardian (a thoughtful, warm-hearted lawyer). Harriet was ignored and finally abandoned by her parents to Uncle Henrik who adored her and raised her in the family compound in northern Sweden.
We see the mysteries.
Why and by whom was Mikael set up to take a fall in the Wennerstrom deal? He has enemies but what caused them to castrate him? Who betrayed him?
What happened in the disappearance of Harriet? Who murdered her? Why? There is no apparent motive. (Her murder is a "closed room mystery", as they say in the genre.)
What is Lisbeth's story of childhood abuse? How will Lisbeth impact the solving of the mystery of Harriet and the Wennerstrom mystery? How are all these nasty family members interconnected?
Is Mikael's odd "domestic" situation with married Erika a factor in his betrayal? (I always have trouble when male authors negate the natural female impulse to be at least serially sexually exclusive. Any real woman who humps two men at the same time without emotional consequences has a twisted story of emotional abuse in her past. Period. Don't argue with me. Sleeping around is a male fantasy not a female truth.)
What is Henrik's connection with Wennerstrom? Henrik uses this bait to lure Mikael into this investigation. Well, the millions of kroner help, otherwise who would leave comfortable Stockholm for the back of the beyond in Northern Sweden in wintertime?
Why does Henrik's right-hand man suddenly drop the investigation of Wennerstrom with no explanation? Lisbeth was put on the trail. Will she drop the scent now?
The book was first published under the title: Men Who Hate Women. Who are the men who hate women in this story? They are not yet revealed yet.
What are the incentives? What has caused the characters to be aroused to action? What urges them on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)