El's Reviews > The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Millennium #1)
by
That's just to give you a little taste of what one is dealing with by picking up this book. If you can handle that and the previous x amount of paragraphs and the following x amount of paragraphs, you're golden. If that sort of makes that thing in your throat rise up a little bit and make your mouth taste sour, you might reconsider reading this book.
Carry on.
I wasn't going to read this book, ever. But then I saw the theater up the street from me (a cool one that plays those indie and art films, and their popcorn is always sort of either stale or slightly burnt, and the employees all have an air of snootiness - it's one of my favorite places in town) is showing the foreign movie. My first thought was, "When did they make a movie of this book?" My second thought was, "Dammit. I sort of want to see that movie." My third thought was, "Sonsofbitches. I can't see it until I read it." (Yes, I'm hard on myself, thanks.) So last weekend when we went out of town I decided it was the best time to purchase it and read it. The mini-break was going to entail my boyfriend spending hours playing guitars with his brother and then later with his BFF, and his brother's fiance and his BFF's wife were all conveniently elsewhere for the most part, so I had the fantastic opportunity to tag along and not have to do a damn thing. I sat on the couch/futon/floor and read. I read a freaking lot. This was the book I had along to read.
It passed the time. It didn't bore me. It held my attention.
And... that's about it.
It didn't turn my world upside down, or even teeter it necessarily. This is what I like to refer to as a nice popcorn read. I didn't have to give it a lot of thought, the story sort of did the work for me, I was just an innocent and willing bystander. I actually got a little annoyed the few times when it felt like I was beginning to have to work. Like figuring out who the hell Larsson was talking about at any given moment - he was apparently one of those authors who liked to use a character's first name in one sentence and then refer to the same character by their last name in the next sentence. What's up with that? Make a freaking decision and stick with it. Eventually I stopped caring so much.
My biggest annoyance with the book (and likely to be the most offense to lovers of this book who stumble across my humble review here) was not the violence and the rape; it actually was Lisbeth Salander. The female protagonist. Okay, so she's cool. I get that. She's Hotty-McHotterson, all corporate and world-weary and a computer hacker to boot. She's pierced and inked, and for some reason this is such a source of fascination for Larsson (and apparently everyone who reads this book). Every time Salander comes into the story there is a mention about her piercings, her surly attitude, her tough clothes, her tattoos. At one point another character counts her tattoos. Six. Six. This apparently contributes to some point Larsson was trying to make that Salander is a social freak, but he's still clearly obsessed with the image of her. For the record, numerous piercings, surly attitudes, tough clothes and six tattoos sums up just about every female I know. It's not all that bizarre. This is, after all, the 21st century. Anyone who lived through the 80s/90s either embodies all of those things or at least doesn't bat an eyelash at those things in others. Maybe it's different in Sweden. Maybe they're just now getting the whole dyed-hair-pierced-faces-crazy-tattoos craze there. Wow. Way to go, Sweden. Maybe if you all hadn't spent the last 30 years listening to ABBA and Europe obsessively, you might actually not find kick-ass girls in boots all that magical.
All of these unfair generalizations aside, I can honestly say that I read this book and I'm not all that excited about it. I'm not dying to read the next one, but I'm sure I will eventually (probably if they make a movie of it too). I'm certainly not waiting with bated breath for the third book in the trilogy to come out. I guess I'm just not that fascinated by Salander in particular, so I don't really care what happens to her next. Maybe the movie will make me feel differently. We'll see.
ETA (01/14/12): I have since read The Girl Who Played with Fire which I enjoyed more than this first book, though my impression of Lisbeth hadn't changed that much. I have also seen the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which I liked more than the book because the performances were fantastic, Fincher is a wonderful director, and I felt like the characters could breathe which is something I felt they were unable to do in the book because they were so constricted and pigeon-holed.
by

He slapped her hard. Salander opened her eyes wide, but before she could react, he grabbed her by the shoulder and threw her on to the bed. The violence caught her by surprise. When she tried to turn over, he pressed her down on the bed and straddled her.
That's just to give you a little taste of what one is dealing with by picking up this book. If you can handle that and the previous x amount of paragraphs and the following x amount of paragraphs, you're golden. If that sort of makes that thing in your throat rise up a little bit and make your mouth taste sour, you might reconsider reading this book.
Carry on.
I wasn't going to read this book, ever. But then I saw the theater up the street from me (a cool one that plays those indie and art films, and their popcorn is always sort of either stale or slightly burnt, and the employees all have an air of snootiness - it's one of my favorite places in town) is showing the foreign movie. My first thought was, "When did they make a movie of this book?" My second thought was, "Dammit. I sort of want to see that movie." My third thought was, "Sonsofbitches. I can't see it until I read it." (Yes, I'm hard on myself, thanks.) So last weekend when we went out of town I decided it was the best time to purchase it and read it. The mini-break was going to entail my boyfriend spending hours playing guitars with his brother and then later with his BFF, and his brother's fiance and his BFF's wife were all conveniently elsewhere for the most part, so I had the fantastic opportunity to tag along and not have to do a damn thing. I sat on the couch/futon/floor and read. I read a freaking lot. This was the book I had along to read.
It passed the time. It didn't bore me. It held my attention.
And... that's about it.
It didn't turn my world upside down, or even teeter it necessarily. This is what I like to refer to as a nice popcorn read. I didn't have to give it a lot of thought, the story sort of did the work for me, I was just an innocent and willing bystander. I actually got a little annoyed the few times when it felt like I was beginning to have to work. Like figuring out who the hell Larsson was talking about at any given moment - he was apparently one of those authors who liked to use a character's first name in one sentence and then refer to the same character by their last name in the next sentence. What's up with that? Make a freaking decision and stick with it. Eventually I stopped caring so much.
My biggest annoyance with the book (and likely to be the most offense to lovers of this book who stumble across my humble review here) was not the violence and the rape; it actually was Lisbeth Salander. The female protagonist. Okay, so she's cool. I get that. She's Hotty-McHotterson, all corporate and world-weary and a computer hacker to boot. She's pierced and inked, and for some reason this is such a source of fascination for Larsson (and apparently everyone who reads this book). Every time Salander comes into the story there is a mention about her piercings, her surly attitude, her tough clothes, her tattoos. At one point another character counts her tattoos. Six. Six. This apparently contributes to some point Larsson was trying to make that Salander is a social freak, but he's still clearly obsessed with the image of her. For the record, numerous piercings, surly attitudes, tough clothes and six tattoos sums up just about every female I know. It's not all that bizarre. This is, after all, the 21st century. Anyone who lived through the 80s/90s either embodies all of those things or at least doesn't bat an eyelash at those things in others. Maybe it's different in Sweden. Maybe they're just now getting the whole dyed-hair-pierced-faces-crazy-tattoos craze there. Wow. Way to go, Sweden. Maybe if you all hadn't spent the last 30 years listening to ABBA and Europe obsessively, you might actually not find kick-ass girls in boots all that magical.
All of these unfair generalizations aside, I can honestly say that I read this book and I'm not all that excited about it. I'm not dying to read the next one, but I'm sure I will eventually (probably if they make a movie of it too). I'm certainly not waiting with bated breath for the third book in the trilogy to come out. I guess I'm just not that fascinated by Salander in particular, so I don't really care what happens to her next. Maybe the movie will make me feel differently. We'll see.
ETA (01/14/12): I have since read The Girl Who Played with Fire which I enjoyed more than this first book, though my impression of Lisbeth hadn't changed that much. I have also seen the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which I liked more than the book because the performances were fantastic, Fincher is a wonderful director, and I felt like the characters could breathe which is something I felt they were unable to do in the book because they were so constricted and pigeon-holed.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
May 1, 2010
–
Started Reading
May 7, 2010
– Shelved
May 7, 2010
– Shelved as:
21st-centurylit
May 8, 2010
–
Finished Reading
December 16, 2011
– Shelved as:
peer-pressure
Comments Showing 1-50 of 100 (100 new)
message 1:
by
Mila
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jun 05, 2010 07:46AM

reply
|
flag


Jen, I still sort of feel weird about the whole thing, like so many people have loved it so maybe I'm doing something wrong. But then I think about it again and decide that I was right the first time. I'm still not sure if I'll finish the trilogy. Are you going to continue or are you done with Larsson?

To be honest, I even feel just like you do about reading the rest of the trilogy. I will probably end up doing it eventually, simply because my Dad owns the other two. And I'll probably end up seeing the movie out of curiosity. (I can't wait to see how Lisbeth will look and act.)

My mother did see the movie and said it was pretty good. She hasn't read the book though, so she couldn't compare them. My intention was to see the movie (as I said in my review), but the movie was taken out of rotation or whatever like the day after I finished the darn book. I'm still a little sour about that.


You should really get to know people before you make snap judgments about the width of their horizons, their worlds, or their imaginations. Nothing like a little case of the pot calling the kettle black.

OLO! You almost made me pee my pants. You are so not going to enjoy the other two books if you don't like Lisbeth. (To me) this was the best one (because there was so little of her).




What I like about her character is that she is very non-female, has everything against her and is still so strong. And no, it's not because all females in Sweden are weak barbies, it's because it's refreshing to read something with not so stereotype characters. Usually women are portraited as very feminine (especially by all American movies), if they are gonna be the protagonist or awesome. She has not a bit feminine, and is still the biggest hero of the series.
Get it now?

But she's just not that original.
The whole ass-kicking, tough-girl left of center just isn't that unique anymore, it's what everyone wants to be, it's what everyone wants to portray. I don't particularly care in the real world, by the way. But as a character? I don't need to be reminded on every page just how much a bad ass Lisbeth was. I don't need that much constant reiteration of character details no matter who the character is, but it was even more annoying when it came to Lisbeth because it just wasn't necessary. And the more I was hit over the head with the same details, the less impressed I was. It's fine that Lisbeth is tough. I'm okay with that. But it was repetitive and tedious to have to be reminded over and over again.
It also implies that a woman can't be a bad ass unless they're pierced, inked, or rides a motorcycle, which is certainly not true.

And I don't think it implies that she must look that way to be bad ass, rather the opposite. There is a stereotype with heroines always having big boobs and looking sexy in a traditional Hollywood way which she doesn't fit in. I think that's more liberal.
Can you recommend something with this type of character in main stream movies or books? I would like to read/see them. :)


Just to give some perspective.

But that's not really the point - even if it's a brand-spanking new and shiny thing that Sweden has going on today (or when Larsson wrote the books), my point is there's still no reason to give the same descriptions every time Lisbeth walks on the page. It distracts from the story, actually. I had similar complaints with The Girl Who Played with Fire as well - Larsson would get so fixated on a concept and his characters would never let things go. In the second book, some characters are obsessed with Mimmie Wu being a lesbian, and it comes up every time Mimmie Wu is discussed. It's repetitive and only seems to serve as a way to fill space.
A good writer only needs to show his readers Salander's scowl once or twice; not every time she makes an appearance.


I do find it interesting that people feel the need to question my review. I'm not going to the reviews of those that loved this book and telling them they are wrong. To each their own. I'm glad this book worked for you and many other people. Who cares if it didn't excite me?

The only thing I criticized was this attitude that's so pervasive among readers, which says "Well it's an entertaining book but it's less than fifty years old and it didn't cure cancer, so I'm not impressed." When I detect this tone in the writing I start involuntarily reading the review in the voice of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. I didn't mean to single you out, and for that I apologize. I'm new to this site and my response was really the culmination of annoyance with the overall snooty elitism of book reviewers. Yours wasn't even a good example of it.

I wouldn't say "defensive" necessarily, but snide comments about ones intellect causes one to become a little rankled. Particularly by someone who claims not to care about ones opinion on something.
I'm wrote: "This is what happens when you post your opinions online: people have opinions about them."
That works both ways. You're writing comments on my review, so I will respond.
Welcome to Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, by the way. If you're annoyed by "snooty elitism", you might not be that happy on this site. It's a place for people to post their opinions (as you pointed out) which may differ from your own. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun with you (it's hard to detect tone on the Interwebz), but you'll see over time here that some people come around just to stir up drama; they like to pop on, leave a comment about how wrong someone is, but then get all nasty when the original reviewer comments in return. "Whoa, man, it's a free country, I can say whatever I want."
Yeah, it works both way.
I'm wrote: "The only thing I criticized was this attitude that's so pervasive among readers, which says "Well it's an entertaining book but it's less than fifty years old and it didn't cure cancer, so I'm not impressed.""
Wait, this book didn't cure cancer? Damn. Maybe I should knock off another star.

Spoiler alert, I guess: doesn't she get a boob job in the second book? (I haven't read any of these because I only read ancient books that cure cancer, but I swear I heard that somewhere.)
Like you say, El, all books are more or less written to entertain - except fucking Umberto Eco's, obviously - but then, all food is to eat; there's still a difference between steak and popcorn. Bullshit book is bullshit, and I've read some old-ass books that were also bullshit. It is valid to say, "This book isn't very good."

Your love for Eco is overwhelming at times, Alex.
Don't get me started on the boob job!

Yup, and not all books "written to entertain" (wtf does that even mean?) are going to entertain everyone. If we all had the same taste in books, there wouldn't be the variety we have now. If popularity on GR is anything to go by, it would be a Sparkly Vampire Wizard who Runs Around Rescuing Women With Tattoos While Fighting Racism. puke.

My point is-- all books are written for some form of entertainment, with different types of entertainment appealing to different readers.
I can't decide if it's rude or just funny to get all huffy with someone when their taste in entertainment is different than your own.

BUT her review made me giggle because I could see what annoyed her about it. It just didn't annoy me. Granted, I listened to the audio version which is prolly a totally different experience. For instance, listening to the long lists of Ikea furniture made me laugh out loud. Maybe that's not the effect Larsson was looking for, but I enjoyed it.
Should I carry on talking about El in the third person? It's not like we are on her page or anything.

Also: I can't help now but think about in what time period would I be considered middle aged? Maybe the late 19th century?

On a less humorous note, I didn't like Lisbeth either. I didn't find her to be a strong female role model. I think that her choices are often not the strongest - especially not going to the authorities to tell her story. I can understand why she wouldn't want to, but no one wants to be subjected to the shit you get for reporting rape. That would have been a sign of strength, IMO. I'm less impressed with her violence than I can see I'm supposed to be, and that distracted from the plot.
And yeah, that boob job. And the sleeping with a minor. And the way she goes all crazy when dude doesn't love her back. IMO she represents a lot of stereotypes about women that I don't like.
Also, I totally see El's comment about the repetition. It was annoying, just like the obsession with tiny details about computer products, or the food they ate, or what she bought from Ikea was annoying.
I read it, I found it enjoyable, and it's nowhere near as shit as Dan Brown. But it's not good. It's not a book that changes your life or stays with you. It is a great book for opening up discussion though.


What I couldn't get into was Larsson's endless telling me stuff instead of showing it to me. The pacing was beyond clunky, especially switching between the Millenium magazine conspiracy and the mystery on Hedeby Island. I thought it was painfully obvious that Larsson was a journalist, not a novelist.


This is amusing:


Was it revealed? I can't remember any diagnosis of her ever being agreed upon, which seems all the less likely when you take into account the fact that she refused to speak to almost any professional. (view spoiler)




Sorry, I vaguely caught the rest of this conversation but I was mostly caught up with this fucking sentence, which is funny. Chinook, you are the wind beneath my wings. And I mean that, by which I mean I'm making fart noises in my armpit, literally, at this moment. Wait, now it's turned into beatboxing. Fartboxing! That's what I'm doing.
I may have had a beer or six.

Oh, hey, Alex. You've fartboxed on my review. I feel like I've arrived or something.

I feel like fartboxing is what unicorns must do to duel. Their horns having the sole purpose of opening doors, afterall.

And, okay, I am. A little bit.