Oh Carrie I am so relieved to read this. Everyone seems to love these books SOOOO much, I sat down today in fact with the first one (Dragon Tattoo) and only made it to about page 25, I got bogged down in the middle of some long-winded section about the backgrounds of the various corporations and parent companies blah blah. I have read that it takes somewhere between 100 and 300 pages to get to the "good part" of the first book, the first part is just exposition. I also think either the writing or the translation is clunky and heavy, it doesn't seem to flow easily.
One of the main problems I had with it is that I really disliked the main character Blomqvist - he seemed very emotionless, chilly, passive - I didn't care about him at all. And by page 25 there had not been a physical description of him, so I just could not get a grasp of him in my head. (Of course there is a LOOOOONG physical description of Salander when she first appears.) A friend told me that throughout the novel a string of women are so taken with Blomqvist that they fall into bed with him willy-nilly. It must be based on his looks because I can"t imagine it would be based on his charm...
I did read a bunch of reviews on Amazon (about 80% five stars, about 10% 1 star, so it's a love it or hate it thing I guess), and between the reviews and skimming through bits of the rest of the book and quizzing friends, I am pretty sure I would not like Lisbeth. It sounds like she is a pretty masculine character, Aspergian, nerdy, antisocial, she is described as being so skinny she could not even be a professional model, she has had lots of voluntary sexual relationships but without emotional entanglements, her only emotion is anger/revenge? So to me she sounds like more of an anti-feminist character, a woman who is physically unfeminine and is emotionally and interpersonally very like a man, and that is what enables her to succeed? And (spoiler alert) I saw from skimming through that Salander one day seduces Blomqvist which to me seems predictable and annoying, the stereoptypical middle-aged guy lying passively in bed and being seduced by the exciting quirky dangerous young girl. Seen it a hundred times in the movies.
OH I am so sad that I didn't like this book (what little I slogged through LOL) . I wanted to be on the bandwagon with every one else
So sorry you have not managed to like this book.
You got bogged down, you say, with the first part of the book. Shame. Larsson is setting the stage though for a trilogy, so the pacing of the book will be different than that of a stand-alone thriller. Sometimes, as readers, we need more patience and the information Larsson gives you is very much needed to understand later events. The main "action" does happen later in the novel, but the point of the novel is not the action which comes later. If you wait for the "action," you are missing so much in terms of character development and social critique which, again, you will need in order to understand not just this book but the rationale behind the characters' actions throughout the trilogy. In order for the "action" that occurs later in the book to arise, a certain amount of narration and plot exposition needs to be laid down. The "action" pertains to the solving of the mystery that is entrusted to Blomqvist: he needs time to investigate before he can go around accosting criminals. He is, after all, an investigative journalist, not a detective out of some thriller penned by John Grisham.
Blomqvist is not, in fact, the main character of the trilogy. You haven't read far enough yet to realize this. He is described throughout the trilogy in terms of his intellect, determination, dedication to investigative journalism and professional integrity rather than good looks, so if women are falling into bed with him, and I certainly did not come away from the book with an impression of him as a local romeo, then it has nothing to do with any stereotypical depiction of masculinity. Leave that to the Hollywood movie adaptation that wants to use Brad Pitt in the role.
Salander is the main character of the book, and she is the character about whom revolves the book's social critique. And since you have not read much of the book yet, you cannot really appreciate how unlike any literary "heroine" we have met before Salander truly is. It is a misconception to conflate aggressive behaviour in women to "acting like a man." Such misconceptions are worrisome because they lead to the stereotypical pairing of aggression with masculinity and passivity with femininity, which you actually do here in your post. Now that is anti-feminist, not Salander. There is no link whatsoever between "femininity" and feminism, none at all. You can be as anti-feminine as you like and be an arch feminist. You can be as stereotypically feminine as you want, and still be a feminist. Feminism is a question of social activism and politics and has nothing to do with how a person dresses or whether or not she chooses to seduce an older man.
Since you have read so little of the book, you have no real understanding of Salander's psychology. Yes, anger and revenge are driving forces in her life: with good reason. She is continuously infantilized by the state and relegated to the status of "one who cannot govern herself," just as women have been and were judged for centuries. The fact that she decides to fight back against this judgment and infantilization, against this state-sanctioned political and economic disempowerment, makes her one of the most arch-feminist icons in literature.
I challenge you to go back and read the book and judge it for yourself, rather than through the opinions of others. Whether you end up preferring the movie version over Larsson's creation, I hope you will at least consider that since the original title for this book was, "Men who Hate Women," the book stands to offer a powerful social critique that more than makes up for any possible failings in the character depiction of Blomqvist or the narrative pacing.
Reading should never be about jumping on bandwagons.
Clare
