Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2012 14:39:01 GMT -5
It was in the book, too. Martin's motivations are murky. If you give Larsson credit, you can say he (Martin) is trying to make sure attention is not focused on him. Or, as is my premise, you can say the book is poorly plotted. I mean, give me a break. Why would he think the cat or the shot would do anything other than make Blomkvist even more resolved? And how did he expect to do these things and not risk discovery? Just a crazy serial killer, I guess.
**Spoiler for Played with Fire**
So I slog through book 2, my patience growing thinner and thinner as the story gets dragged out further and further. Imagine my surprise when it just ends! On to Hornet's Nest.
This may be the slowest moving mystery in the history of literature. And, again, Sala = Zala? That was my first thought way back when it first came up.
I did like it better than Tattoo -- and it is better writing. But, geez, I hope this leads somewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 12:43:32 GMT -5
**Spoilers galore, all the way through Hornet's Nest**
So I finished. I like it better as a trilogy than I did as a single (Tattoo) novel. But, man, was this a bloated effort.
I kept waiting to see why Harriet Vanger was still around, but then she disappears. I kept waiting for Camilla to appear (even thought that maybe she was an invention, a Doppleganger of Lisbeth's).
I liked the relationship between Blomkvist and Salander (and the ending). But that was two whole novels where they have almost no scenes together. That will make for an odd pair of movies.
It could have used an evil female -- other than Isabel -- for just a *little* balance.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 24, 2012 13:51:28 GMT -5
*****Spoilers**********
I got tired of the girlfriend Mimi pretty quick.
I really liked the third book.
I thought we were going to see more of the boxer.
In an interview with his editor and one of his very good friends, they all had a nice chuckle about Larsson fancying himself a real ladies man and that all the sleeping around that Blomqvist did in the books were a reflection of how Larsson saw himself: journalist, muck raker, and the magnetic man of the world who is so good in bed that all the sex-crazed middle aged women in Sweden can't resist his charms.
You have to admit, some of the technical details he put in the third book is pretty clever.
I think my least favorite book is the second one.
I almost gave up when he was going on and on about the Swedish secret service and the social service apparatus.
I really did like how he resolved the relationship between Blomqvist and Salander.
I wonder about the purpose for the opening sequence in the second book. I thought introducing the vacationing couple was superfluous.
I liked that he added the bit about mathematics beginning in the second book, but he did nothing with the fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 14:40:09 GMT -5
Now that you've finished the books, watch the Swedish versions of the films.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 15:18:30 GMT -5
I was confused about where the boxer came from. I know we knew she boxed, but had we seen him prior to that?
I agree about the couple in Grenada. What was that all about except another bad, bad man? Math, too. I guess it was just to show us how brilliant she was.
I think the books could have lost Berger without suffering too much. Just seemed like one plotline too many.
Totally agree about the description of the Secret Service. Book 2's biggest problem is that it can't stand alone, not really. It's basically just a looooooooooong prologue to Book 3.
I really thought the Vangers would reappear, although I'm kind of glad they didn't.
I plan on watching the Swedish versions.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 26, 2012 14:37:32 GMT -5
This brings up a pet peeve.
A long time ago, one of my engineering professors who had an undergrad degree in writing (long story), told me his criteria for a good book: that the murder weapon used in the last page of the book should have appeared on the first page of the book. Or soemthing along that line. The point is that there shouldn't be any surprise endings involving paratrooping elements that just drops out of nowhere. The story should be resolved with elements that had been introduced earlier in the story. I have always liked that idea.
So, most of the mysteries I have read pretty much follow that premise. The authors all foreshadow their big endings by introducing crucial elements early.
But a surprising number of people don't. And many go to hysterical means to write out of the corners that they write themselves into.
The most egregious offenders?
John Grisham and Dan Briown. Grisham is really bad at popping a character into the plot and then have them disappear into thin air because he can't figure out a clever way to incorporate those characters in the overal narrative. Dan Brown is just plain lazy. The whole jumping out of the helicopter thing in Angels and Demons swore me off of his books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 14:45:06 GMT -5
Deus ex machina and all that.
Agatha Christie always drove me crazy. She'd always make EVERYONE look like they "did" it and then just pick one, usually the least of the suspicious. Larsson did that in the first book and didn't do it very well. He also did it with Berger's harassers.
When I finished this trilogy I went to see Tinker Tailor and it just reminded me how much I like reading LeCarre.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 27, 2012 1:26:57 GMT -5
I really liked the first book. Not so much the second book. I read the first half of the third book on an airplane, but when I got home I had other books to read and just dropped it. Yesterday I read the second half of the third book while also flying home on an airplane.
Blomkvist was such a Mary Sue that it almost became funny by the end of the third book. Every woman in the book was attracted to him because he just had some sort of special magnetic sexuality. And he was more or less the most successful journalist in the world. Not to mention surviving against a professional hit man when the other guy had a submachine gun and he was unarmed.
But Salander made the novels, really. A totally fascinating character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 11:09:59 GMT -5
He didn't have any luck with Isabel Vanger, however.
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jan 28, 2012 0:06:51 GMT -5
I kept waiting to see why Harriet Vanger was still around, but then she disappears. I kept waiting for Camilla to appear (even thought that maybe she was an invention, a Doppleganger of Lisbeth's). i think it is quite likely that camilla was going to appear in future books, and that there would have been more in the personal relationship between blomkvist and salander. he had planned to write 10 books in the millennium series and actually had completed about 3/4 of a fourth book when he died. i cannot imagine that he gave lisbeth a twin sister with no intention to use her as a character. i definitely did not understand the part where she was in grenada, met that kid and killed the guy who was trying to kill his wife. that whole thing seemed like a combination of pointless and preposterous to me. there was more than enough in the story to make salander the heroine without having her kill some random american wife-hater.
|
|
|
Post by OptimusPrime on Jan 28, 2012 12:32:42 GMT -5
This brings up a pet peeve. ..............criteria for a good book: that the murder weapon used in the last page of the book should have appeared on the first page of the book. Or soemthing along that line. The point is that there shouldn't be any surprise endings involving paratrooping elements that just drops out of nowhere. The story should be resolved with elements that had been introduced earlier in the story. I have always liked that idea............. +1
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Jan 31, 2012 21:56:46 GMT -5
I've watched all three movies and thought they were great(2009 Swedish Version). I thought it was crazy for the American director to do a movie so soon after the original one's were done. That's like doing another Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings two years after the originals were done.
I like the movies better when they are in raw form(without all the Hollywood) and foreign movies are known more for that than movies made in Hollywood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 1:37:37 GMT -5
I watched the first one tonight. Rooney Mara was a better Lisbeth, but I'm not sure Fincher's was better.
Interesting choices were made for each of the versions, when they departed from the script.
It's still a mess of a story, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 5, 2012 6:33:41 GMT -5
Just read Christopher Hitchen's essay on the trilogy. Pretty funny. He wasn't a fan either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 6:51:09 GMT -5
|
|