About 50 pp into book 3. Okay so far, nothing special. If you like the thriller genre, you’ll probably like it, and the unusual setting is a plus. But if you don’t like crime thrillers, pass on it.
Can someone identify the “x-factor” is about the books (particularly the first one) that’s made them make that leap from “popular mystery novel” to “literally every other person on the train is reading them?” They sound quite unremarkable and typical of the genre, from the descriptions and reviews I’ve read.
The lead characters seem complex, lived-in, different (so we learn a different world), interesting. Not that common in this kind of book.
The plot is well laid-out - the twists seem well-earned and plausible as you digest them.
There is enough of the gruesome and titillating to keep it a bit naughty.
It just gets the basics right in a way that most books of the genre truly don’t
That was probably my downfall. I am not a fan of mysteries or procedurals.
I could not finish the first book because I could not bring myself to care what happened to any of the characters. I didn’t care what had happened to the girl in the '60s, I didn’t care that the eeevil corporation caused the reporter to lose his job, and I didn’t care that the weird girl had a tragic past.
Sorry, it did not engage me.
I’ll keep reading as I enjoy this genre, but don’t consider it anything other than an escapist quick read. I think the MAJORITY of the allure is in the “different” setting. Add in a dead author and a modest buzz re: movies.
Seems like for whatever reason every once in a while a book/series of this type becomes terribly popular. I have not yet been able to correlate such popularity with any clear “quality” of the book.
Completely agree. Sometimes it is Dan Brown, The Bridges of Madison County or the freakin’ Celestine Prophecy and sometimes it is hoity-toity like Franzen’s The Corrections (of the “too good for Oprah” incident) or and updated translation of Beowulf.
This is a solid genre book, entirely respect-worthy for what it is trying to achieve. The fact that it blew up starts there, but it is other factors - like the author’s tragic death - that have put it over the top…
We are on exactly the same page. If someone likes the genre, they should like these books. If they don’t, then they would likely be better off reading countless other things. And, if someone reads them and likes them, there are hundreds of other books in the same vein that they should like at least as well if not better.
Just for purposes of background, Stieg Larsson wasn’t some otherwise unknown individual who managed to crank out three potential blockbusters before dying prematurely. Here in Sweden he was a committed socialist who at one point edited a paper called Fourth International and was an activist with the Communist Workers’ League. He also made a name for himself in his in-depth investigations of the far-right British National Party for the British anti-fascist magazine Searchlight - work that often entailed serious threats to his life.
It’s pretty clear his journalistic career colors his work in the Millennium trilogy - when you run across a quote from Mikael Blomkvist, the main character:
it’s hard not to think that he could be tapping into something deeper in people’s feelings than simple enjoyment of a well-written thriller.
I had the same Dan Brown (who’s writing I loathe) feeling, so I’ve thus far avoided these. Also, a co-worker whose opinions I hold in very low regard raved about the trilogy; this alone may have turned me off to them forever.
What is the setting that is considered so different?
mmm
It’s possible and I would like to think so, tho the cynic in me fears that is likely wishful thinking. During the movie and so far in the beginning of book 3 this long-time leftie has repeatedly thought, “Hmm, this socialist hellhole seems downright civilized… We here in America are supposed to fear this exactly why?”
They are different to me, simply because they are set in Sweden and very much reflect that culture, which is quite different from what I am used to. I can be a bit of a snob about books, and assure you that these are definitely more well written than DB’s (tho undoubtedly far short of “fine literature.”)
I understand his background due to all the buzz. The fact that his books include deep political intrigue is no different from the 'leventy billion other thrillers - but, as you say, his first-hand experience may give his narrative voice more authenticity. But you have whack-job former Navy SEALS claiming to write books that are authentic that, so I have heard, are complete dreck…
**MMM **- what’s different? It’s an isolated island in Sweden and focused on the eccentric rich family that lives/lived there. Whether it represents anything authentically Swedish, I couldn’t say, but it feels very different from my workaday world…add to that the two lead characters who you can very much identify with in terms of empathy but who are much more open and fringe than, again, your average Joe. Blomqvist is a crusading journalist who has casual sex in a casual way and all is easy and open. Lisbeth is an archetypal small-but-strong goth outsider defined by her eccentricities but you find you can relate…It’s just different enough.
The first one is a closed-room mystery with an episode of Law & Order: SVU as the b-story
The second one is a Jason Bourne spy thriller.
The third one is the most boring police procedural ever.
One character is compelling enough that I wanted to read through to find out what happens but everything else was wasted time.
That said, the film adaptation of the first one was very good and I look forward to the other two.
I don’t think, though I can’t speak with any real backup on this particular item, that Larsson had no illusions in the Swedish system and instead is using the vehicle of a thriller to highlight the very real problems he saw in a country that many claim is socialist, for better or for worse, but which in actuality is not.
I think that’s a major element right there. I have to admit before I go any further that I haven’t read either Larsson’s or Brown’s books, but I have to wonder how many people who’ve read both find they can relate to Blomkvist and Salander more easily than they could to any of Dan Brown’s characters.
Stuck around 50 pages from the end of the first one, I would say this is a fair assessment. I found the first 100-150 pages insufferably boring, and even worse, cloying. Anytime I read an internal monologue of one character praising the intelligence of another character, it pings my Mary Sue meter. There were several examples of this, and I rolled my eyes every time.
The middle 400 pages were a page-turning good time. Quite captivating. But then that story gets completely wrapped up and there’s still 100 pages left to go, and oofa, back to the uninteresting plot from the first 100 pages.
The Thomas Harris comparison is apt. Both are far better writers than Dan Brown, (who isn’t?,) but these are basically just genre novels.
The “violence against women” criticisms are ridiculous and political. The only reason it gets brought up at all is because Larsson was an outspoken feminist, so some feminists are questioning his sincerity because his crime procedural includes crimes against women. It is no more a novel about “violence against women” than Silence of the Lambs. (Or at least the movie; that was the one book in the series I didn’t read.) Buffalo Bill was a serial killer making skin suits from his female victims. Was Silence of the Lambs anti-woman? I don’t recall the same tut-tutting about that work.
In a nutshell, the first book is a prolonged Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode, with a liberal amount of Financial Channel b-plot thrown in for no explicable reason.
I’ve read the second book and I’m halfway through the third. Someday I’ll get my hands on the first.
I like the books. In part because it has all the parties (good guys and bad guys) acting intelligently. In the latest, especially, there are a several groups at work - the bad guys trying to cover their crimes, and three groups of good guys, independently, trying to find out what they are up to. And we see exactly how they operate. The book I’d most compare it to is Day of the Jackal where both the assassin and the police are competent.
I also appreciate that the scale of what’s at stake - there’s no world beating villain who is going to change the world has we know it, instead our heroes are setting right injustices with no promise this will set everything else right.
And, I’ll admit, I’m of a Socialist bent so Larsson’s world view is one I can comfortably accommodate.
What don’t I like? Salander’s too much of a manic pixie dreamgirl. And Blomkvist seems like authorial wish-fulfillment.
The writing is a million times better than anything Dan Brown has crapped out.
Also just finished Dragon, and also had to work. But it took me longer, like 75 pages, until it hooked me. Not an amazing, must-read, but a good mystery / thriller. I’ll pick up the next one when I get the chance.
Joe
I agree that this is an important point. Based on media coverage, I expected much, much worse material, as well as more of it. This is no worse than many other serial killer/rapist fiction or even certain true crime books.
Joe
Sorry but 
huh!?
It sounds like saying, if you can get past Danish prince self-indulgent ruminations, Hamlet is a great read. Well, isn’t that what’s it all about?
Isn’t the appeal of those books EXACTLY that - very graphically depicted sexual violence against women (and, of course, logical violence in return)? Not my cup of tea, but let’s not go off the mark pretending there’s some literary high concept involved.
One thing that I think folks fins compelling, at least in the United States, is that it exposes a dark side of Sweden that we don’t typically think of here. We have a very stereotyped view that Sweden is cold and full of blone, busty women and everyone is relatively happy and the only crime is parking tickets.