I finished the book...and while it was interesting it drove me nuts. I don't know why, but I didn't buy into the characters or story, not completely. All I wanted to know was how it turned out...and I was not impressed. Let down, actually.
Stieg Larsson had two completely different stories going, here, as if he didn't trust either one on its own. One's a mystery about the disappearance of 16 year old Harriet Vanger in 1966, more than three decades prior to when the story's set; the other is about a journalist falsely convicted of libel who fights to regain his reputation. Either one could have been a book unto itself...which they wanted to be, because they certainly didn't like being connected in what was a very weak, dubious fashion.
I think that's what really set my opinion building regarding this book -- the feeling that these two stories were quietly trapped in a structure not of their making and yet not paid enough attention to make it worth their while. Instead, there was a lot of repetition of plot points, brand name referencing, extraneous details that added nothing, and half-hearted attempts at psychological depth.
Maybe it's the translation from Swedish, but I didn't care about any of the characters, not really. Mikael Blomkvist was like a series of note tags strung together, not a person. Journalist. Ethical. Attractive to women. Trustworthy. Sexually casual. That he's also a bit stupid at times...or maybe just obtuse...I doubt was intended to be one of those note cards, but he is.
Lisbeth Salander is a cipher, not a human being. She has maybe half the number of note cards as Mikael and never really works in the story except in the typical hacker-who-can-get-any-info-you-want-at-just-the-right-time sort of Hollywood nonsense. What's more...she's a real cunt. I get why but there's nothing to temper that or make her someone you worry about.
The other characters are handled the same way, and what one character is revealed to have done actually struck me as ludicrous. I know I don't have a lot of room to make these criticisms, considering some of my work, so I may be bitching about what I fear my own work shows. I don't know. I do know I want to watch the movie specifically to see how they handled one scene where Mikael is almost killed. My feeling is, they won't do it like it is in the book.
Which means it might work.
Stieg Larsson had two completely different stories going, here, as if he didn't trust either one on its own. One's a mystery about the disappearance of 16 year old Harriet Vanger in 1966, more than three decades prior to when the story's set; the other is about a journalist falsely convicted of libel who fights to regain his reputation. Either one could have been a book unto itself...which they wanted to be, because they certainly didn't like being connected in what was a very weak, dubious fashion.
I think that's what really set my opinion building regarding this book -- the feeling that these two stories were quietly trapped in a structure not of their making and yet not paid enough attention to make it worth their while. Instead, there was a lot of repetition of plot points, brand name referencing, extraneous details that added nothing, and half-hearted attempts at psychological depth.
Maybe it's the translation from Swedish, but I didn't care about any of the characters, not really. Mikael Blomkvist was like a series of note tags strung together, not a person. Journalist. Ethical. Attractive to women. Trustworthy. Sexually casual. That he's also a bit stupid at times...or maybe just obtuse...I doubt was intended to be one of those note cards, but he is.
Lisbeth Salander is a cipher, not a human being. She has maybe half the number of note cards as Mikael and never really works in the story except in the typical hacker-who-can-get-any-info-you-want-at-just-the-right-time sort of Hollywood nonsense. What's more...she's a real cunt. I get why but there's nothing to temper that or make her someone you worry about.
The other characters are handled the same way, and what one character is revealed to have done actually struck me as ludicrous. I know I don't have a lot of room to make these criticisms, considering some of my work, so I may be bitching about what I fear my own work shows. I don't know. I do know I want to watch the movie specifically to see how they handled one scene where Mikael is almost killed. My feeling is, they won't do it like it is in the book.
Which means it might work.
No comments:
Post a Comment