Millennium Trilogy (Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, etc...)

[kyoryu]

So I just finished these.

What's the big deal? I mean, really? They seem kinda, um... mediocre?

Blomkvist is so Mary Sue. Everyone falls in love with him and wants to have sex with him. He has no faults, no flaws.

Salander is just as bad if not worse. The only flaws she has are justified responses to the treatment she's had her whole life. Oh, and she can do anything. Give her 5 minutes with a computer, and she can solve any plot.

And don't even get me started on the "men that hate women" thing. If I never hear or read that phrase again, I will die a happy man. Apparently in Sweden there are roaming gangs of men that live for no other reason than to torment women. It is, apparently, the only motivation for any crime whatsoever.

It just seemed very mediocre. Can anyone else explain the popularity?

[Closet_Skeleton]

Blomkvist is so Mary Sue. Everyone falls in love with him and wants to have sex with him. He has no faults, no flaws.

Salander is just as bad if not worse. The only flaws she has are justified responses to the treatment she's had her whole life. Oh, and she can do anything. Give her 5 minutes with a computer, and she can solve any plot.

Its called wish fulfilment. Its only really the internet that hates it as a literary technique.

Look at the main characters in classic film noir. The Big Sleep shows it in its purest form, if you're a woman you either sleep with Humphrey Bogart or you're evil but might be able to turn good and get to sleep with Humphrey Bogart after you've lost the fiestiness that made you interesting. Its all the same old archetypes, but using a bisexual woman makes it a tiny bit fresher. Its kind of the obvious way to remake a misogynist genre as a feminist one, but it just doesn't get done that often for some reason.


And don't even get me started on the "men that hate women" thing. If I never hear or read that phrase again, I will die a happy man. Apparently in Sweden there are roaming gangs of men that live for no other reason than to torment women. It is, apparently, the only motivation for any crime whatsoever.

Violence against women is pretty common in a lot of countries. The idea that this is all caused by men that hate women seems to be a form of twisted feminist idealism, where violence isn't due to social pressure, economic difficulties or something inherent in the human condition and if we could just educate people to be less misogynist then we can reduce violent crime. Its nicer to think that gang rape happens because pornography teaches men to treat women as objects rather than to think that these men are just expressing the evolutionary need to form groups for protection and to reproduce and that these violent gangs are just the latest version of the cattle raiders and vikings marauders that have existed throughout human history. Or that makeup is evil and forces women to live their lives trying to please men (which only half true at best, no woman ever painted her toe nails because she thought a guy might find them pretty). Its kind of naive, and ironic since it often falls into using misandry to fight misogyny.

At least its trying to tackle sensitive issues and feminist themes. That's kind of important in a world where most women won't call themselves feminist because they don't want to be associated with the lesbian seperatists. There's a lot of crime fiction where women exist mainly to get killed to motivate male characters. You can't really say "this is mediocre" without comparing it to its contempories (which you may have done, if so, ignore me, I haven't even red this series).

The author's also dead, which is always a + for respectability.

[kyoryu]

Its called wish fulfilment. Its only really the internet that hates it as a literary technique.

Except that both of the characters are without any real flaw - even Salander's "flaws" are really very rational ways of dealing with the behavior that she's been subjected to. Most strong fictional characters are deeply flawed, and how they deal with and overcome their flaws is a pretty big part of most really good fiction.


Violence against women is pretty common in a lot of countries. The idea that this is all caused by men that hate women seems to be a form of twisted feminist idealism, where violence isn't due to social pressure, economic difficulties or something inherent in the human condition and if we could just educate people to be less misogynist then we can reduce violent crime.

Sure. And that's great, and would be a great character or two in a book. But every single bad guy (and there are a lot of bad guys)? These are characters that literally think things like "She was a whore, just like all women are." Again, I could see having a character messed up in the head enough to think this way - but the entire rogues' gallery?


At least its trying to tackle sensitive issues and feminist themes. That's kind of important in a world where most women won't call themselves feminist because they don't want to be associated with the lesbian seperatists. There's a lot of crime fiction where women exist mainly to get killed to motivate male characters. You can't really say "this is mediocre" without comparing it to its contempories (which you may have done, if so, ignore me, I haven't even red this series).

I'm not calling it mediocre because it does things like this. I'm calling it mediocre because I found the overall story mediocre, and tackling issues like this in a very ham-fisted way doesn't make it less mediocre in my mind.

Of course, I get annoyed at the somewhat common gambit of "let's wrap a mediocre story with a social hot-button and get called awesome."


The author's also dead, which is always a + for respectability.

Yeah, I've noticed. Especially for things (like this) that were published posthumously.

[Pie Guy]

I read the first and second. I really hated the second, because the first two hundred pages were Salander's vacation photos. The plot didn't even get any build up for TWO HUNDRED PAGES. Gah. Not reading the third.

[kyoryu]

I read the first and second. I really hated the second, because the first two hundred pages were Salander's vacation photos. The plot didn't even get any build up for TWO HUNDRED PAGES. Gah. Not reading the third.

I'd say the uneven pacing started in the first one - how long did it take before even getting into the Vanger affair? It definitely continues in the third, as well.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Most strong fictional characters are deeply flawed, and how they deal with and overcome their flaws is a pretty big part of most really good fiction.

That's only one possible way to write a story. Its a better way to write a story than some other ways, but that doesn't mean a story has to follow that scheme to be good.



Sure. And that's great, and would be a great character or two in a book. But every single bad guy (and there are a lot of bad guys)? These are characters that literally think things like "She was a whore, just like all women are." Again, I could see having a character messed up in the head enough to think this way - but the entire rogues' gallery?

It would make sense if the heroes deliberatly sought out specific kinds of cases, but having all your villains the same does make for a terrible series.

No one complains that all of Batman's villains are insane, but at least they have differant insanities.


I'm not calling it mediocre because it does things like this. I'm calling it mediocre because I found the overall story mediocre, and tackling issues like this in a very ham-fisted way doesn't make it less mediocre in my mind.

Of course, I get annoyed at the somewhat common gambit of "let's wrap a mediocre story with a social hot-button and get called awesome."

I get that it doesn't make it better writing to deal with "big issues", but it does help a story stand out and I don't think that's really a bad thing.

Maybe you're just not the right target audience. To be honest I'm pretty tired of people complaining that books aren't aimed at them. What's the target audience for these books anyway, house-wives that read crime novels? Women's studies lecturers that wish they could read more crime novels without being offended? The general crime novel consuming public? Old men in Munich named Oliver?

[comicshorse]

I've only read the first one. I thought it was okay although I did find Blomkvist rather a bland character and Salander really started to get on my nerves as the book wore on .
But what had me really shouting at the stereo ( audiobook couldn't hurl it at the wall) was...
When after Blomkvist is nearly killed by a sniper both the supposedly intelligent characters decide NOT to call the police. Two supposedly intelligent people realise they are targetted for death and decide to do nothing about it.
Almost as dumb is when they find the scene in the Chapel and again do nothing about it. A crime scene, loaded with evidence on the serial killer trying to kill them and they do absolutley nothing !

[Mx.Silver]

It just seemed very mediocre. Can anyone else explain the popularity?

I've been struggling to answer this question ever since I read the first one (I have no desire to read the sequels). What I've heard in defence is that 'It's good for a crime thriller' which really doesn't say much for the genre as a whole (and I highly doubt the genre lacks anything better).
I have similar complaints as you, but my main problem with the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the truly horrendous, dire, pacing. The actual plot doesn't even start until what, halfway through the book? Maybe later, if you're going by when Salander actually arrives. This would be ok if instead the first half was dedicated to character development and scene setting but it isn't. The first third deals entirely with the subplots involving the whole 'business fraud' story (almost all of which is told after-the-fact) and the lack of funds for Blomkvists magazine - the latter of which goes basically nowhere while the former gets one chapter of mainly off-screen, after-the-fact resolution at the end. Most of the characters involved in this have no real relevence to the actual main plot at all and the time spent on it eats into space that should have been dealing with the main plot (e.g. having all the suspects to the main crime actually show-up would have been nice, never mind having them all properly developed which all bar maybe 3 weren't).
Sure once the actual main plot begins, it's not bad but the main plot lasts for maybe 1/3rd of the book. Once it's concluded we're back to the horribly inept conclusion of the first subplot, plus the resolution of the final 'twist' which an astute reader could have guessed from reading the bloody prologue fails to achieve any real dramatic effect.
It's not a terrible book, but it is a mediocre one. Certainly not deserving of the hype it got.


Its called wish fulfilment. Its only really the internet that hates it as a literary technique.
Giving a protagonist an exceptional skill is something I'm not particularly bothered by, especially when they're still actual rounded characters. Hence why I have few problems with Salander as a character. Wish fulfilment can also work if the character is set-up as someone who the audience would wish to be, which is often hwo they're set-up in literature (James Bond is probably the single best example of this).

Blomkvist is neither of these. Blomkvist is an idealised author surrogate from head-to-toe, a prototypical Mary Sue. Like the author he's a middle-aged investigative journalist (I wouldn't be overly surprised if the two looked alike as well). Blomkvist is a highly successful journalist with his own magazine where he doesn't have to deal with unco-operative editorial staff (a luxury I suspect many journalists would like). He shares the author's political and social views and gets to put down and defeat those who go against them (see the main subplot). Moreover, Blomkvist is skilled enough to crack a decades-old police case which no one before him managed to do (note he's the one who makes the breakthrough, Salander is only brought in for support) and he seems practically irresistable to women, at least 3 of whom fall for him complete in the book (not counting his ex-wife who, the book makes clear, is still on good terms with him despite the affair he had which led to their marriage failing). Note that these last two do not seem to stem from any particular quality Blomkvist possesses, indeed he's fairly unremarkable in actual ability nor is he a particularly interesting person (and he functions poorly as an everyman character).
That he's a case of author wish fulfilment is impossible to deny, and the wishes he fulfils are way too narrow in appeal to allow him to act as a idol for the audiance. In short: he's a Mary Sue, plain and simple.

[kyoryu]

Maybe you're just not the right target audience. To be honest I'm pretty tired of people complaining that books aren't aimed at them. What's the target audience for these books anyway, house-wives that read crime novels? Women's studies lecturers that wish they could read more crime novels without being offended? The general crime novel consuming public? Old men in Munich named Oliver?

Or, maybe there's something to my complaints, as others in this thread have voiced similar ones? Really, you should probably read the books before you defend them.




It would make sense if the heroes deliberatly sought out specific kinds of cases, but having all your villains the same does make for a terrible series.

No one complains that all of Batman's villains are insane, but at least they have differant insanities.

It's not even just the villains. Just about every non-"heroic" character falls into that trap. Even random harassment subplots happen to characters, for no clear narrative purpose except to drive home "lots of men hate women." It gets old.




I get that it doesn't make it better writing to deal with "big issues", but it does help a story stand out and I don't think that's really a bad thing.


I don't have problems with that either, especially when the story is otherwise good. I do have a problem when it's used to catapult mediocre works into the spotlight. It can be a great garnish for a dish, but the dish had better be tasty first. You don't garnish bland gruel.

[ThunderCat]

Or, maybe there's something to my complaints, as others in this thread have voiced similar ones? Really, you should probably read the books before you defend them.I don't think he's defending the books as much as taking jabs at feminism.

[kyoryu]

I don't think he's defending the books as much as taking jabs at feminism.

Well, in the quoted text, granted, but he's been pretty much defending the books otherwise.

And hey, they weren't *bad* books. I managed to get through all three of them. They were just... mediocre.

[Zea mays]

So I just finished these.

What's the big deal? I mean, really? They seem kinda, um... mediocre?

Blomkvist is so Mary Sue. Everyone falls in love with him and wants to have sex with him. He has no faults, no flaws.

Salander is just as bad if not worse. The only flaws she has are justified responses to the treatment she's had her whole life. Oh, and she can do anything. Give her 5 minutes with a computer, and she can solve any plot.

And don't even get me started on the "men that hate women" thing. If I never hear or read that phrase again, I will die a happy man. Apparently in Sweden there are roaming gangs of men that live for no other reason than to torment women. It is, apparently, the only motivation for any crime whatsoever.

It just seemed very mediocre. Can anyone else explain the popularity?
I have no idea who you are, but we may be having a mind-meld. I've just finished the trilogy and had the very same thoughts.

So, I can't answer your question (sorry), just concur with your sentiments.

Also, is anyone here from Sweden? Do they really drink that much coffee there?

[Pie Guy]

You know, I never expected Sweden to have so many murders.

[Greensleeve]

...

Also, is anyone here from Sweden? Do they really drink that much coffee there?

I'm from Sweden, haven't read the books, but in all likely-hood: yes, yes we do.

Other than that, I have nothing else to add I'm afraid :smalltongue: