Hmm. Well, considering the word-of-mouth this one has been getting for quite some time, I was expecting either the best mystery book I've ever read, or the usual crushing disappointment that comes from reading hyped books. I got something in between: a competent, enjoyable read, but not anything that hasn't been done better elsewhere.
This book begins with a very long, very detailed backstory for Mikael Blomkvist, a financial journalist facing a libel trial for an investigative piece on a less-than-upright CEO. Blomkvist's travails attract the attention of Henrik Vanger, an aging industrialist who has been mourning the disappearance (and, as he believes, murder) of a favored niece for years. Vanger offers Blomkvist a huge salary if he will work for a year writing a family chronicle and, in the process, see if he can uncover anything new about Harriet Vanger's disappearance. As the investigation takes on new life, Blomkvist enlists the help of a brilliant, damaged young hacker named Lisbeth Salander. Between the two of them, they discover that the historical murder mystery may be something altogether more immediate, and dangerous.
Over and over again, I have seen this book described as gripping. I'm going to come right out and say it: if not for the fact that Larsson was a good writer that could depict interesting characters, this book would be utterly boring.
Larsson loves his details. Like, really loves them. We get thorough breakdowns of our character's afternoons: what sort of meal they ate at what time, before the detailed route they took to the store, etc. Technical specs abound, as well. Any scene that includes a computer reads like a catalog, and I swear, there is even a helpful website URL in parentheses at one point.
This obsessive-compulsive description extends to the characters through backstories, side-plots, exposition, and even wardrobe. This is a saving grace, as far as I'm concerned; even with Larsson's spartan, Nordic prose, the characters are fascinating in their flaws and idiosyncrasies. By extension, the situations in which they find themselves keep the reader's attention. Despite the too-even keel, I never lost interest at any point; I kept reading because I perpetually wanted to find out what happens next.
The big problem this book has is the completely broken pace of the story. The main mystery doesn't pick up steam until literally 300 pages in. In the meantime, after getting a novella on Blomkvist's journalistic troubles, we are treated to strangely flat chronicle of Salander's difficult life, punctuated by a buffet of rape that is curiously absent of any psychological consequences. It must be said that this smacks of being explored more fully in a future book, but for now, the treatment of Salander's character development comes off as almost crass. Furthermore, it's unclear what any of it has to do with the main narrative. All of the subplots in this book are completely orphaned from the big story; while the book is nicely bookended by the libel stuff, it has almost nothing to do with the Vanger business. And Salander's introductory adventures are as aloof and unconnected with the rest of the book as her character is.
Again, none of this ever put me off enough to stop wondering how everything was going to turn out, but I really don't understand all of the praise heaped on the narrative. It's clumsy. At best. All of the seams show. The stories being told about Blomkvist and Salander are fantastic, but the big mystery nearly drowns in them.
This is a good, solid mystery that is definitely worth reading, though, even if its brilliance is a bit exaggerated, in my opinion.
Verdict: 3 out of 5
I completely agree with your review! I actually didn't finish the book because it was taking so long to go anywhere, and the amount of pointless description was baffling to me (like listing the technical specifications of her laptop!). It's almost like the author read some old-school "tips for writing mysteries" which included "add lots of superfluous details to help throw the reader off track." The characters were interesting enough that I ended up watching the film version (which also took me 2 tries to finish, but ultimately I did enjoy the film and will probably watch the sequels). Oh and I really didn't like how Salander and Blomkvist hooked up. What was the point of that? Couldn't they just have a normal professional relationship/friendship without sex involved? Seemed like it was just to satisfy people's (or maybe the author's) fantasies about a "damaged bad-girl" heroine. Women who endure that much sexual abuse are more likely to become completely turned off of sex, so to portray her as horny, bisexual and promiscuous was kind of sick.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I had heard some complaints about Larsson being misogynistic, and while I don't think he goes quite that far, I can definitely see where the complaints come from. The original title of this book is "The Man Who Hated Women," so I figure misogyny is going to play into the story at some point, but yeah... middle-aged man that every lady wants to bone meets young nymphomaniac with no interest in emotional attachment? That really does smack of wish fulfillment.
ReplyDeleteI didn't hate it, though. And I think we'll watch the movie today to see if it handles the narrative better.