![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagNumber two in Larsson's Millennium trilogy is a much of a muchness with the first. Larsson is eminently readable (or at least, his translator is). What he's not is (a) much of a voice, really, on the social state compared to other luminaries in the ScanPolProc field, (b) much of a mystery writer (thriller, maybe, mystery, no), or (c) able to provide much depth when you come right down to it, in his characters.
Larsson's characters seem constructed pretty firmly out of one or two notes. They don't necessarily ring falsly; on the other hand, if you try to look past the edge of the flat, you can certainly see the wooden braces holding them up.
What did I like about this book? Well, like the first, it did keep me turning pages. There were mysterious goings on, and gradually, information was revealed that was key-ish to the general story happening. Said information was, in the end, an odd mixture of surprising and you-have-to-be-freaking-kidding-me-of-course-it-is disbelief.
The middle book in the three suffers rather more strongly than the first from middle-book syndrome; in the end, very little actually gets resolved. "Horrible sekrets" are revealed, but there's nowhere near the same sense of closure achieved for the characters' dilemmae as with "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo".
What did I not like about this book? Once again, Salander plays an improbable proto-fascist revenge-tragedy force-of-nature-in-cycle-boots. I will not spoiler her backstory unearthed in this book, but suffice to say that (a) it does not add one iota to the probableness of her character, and (b) it does make her whiff a wee bit more like "what if Bjork were cast as Bruce Wayne", and (c) I see that Larsson still hasn't managed to rise from his decision to pardon any crime or cruelty as long as "it's done for a good cause".
There must be something hideously compelling about the dreadful hand of unchecked and irresistible vigilante violence when harnessed to something that's even remotely portrayed as a noble quest forjustice revenge (see the aforementioned Mr Wayne). Responsible and thoughtful authors take those characters, let the audience indulge a bit in the gignol, and then start asking the tough questions with a mirror and harsh white-blue lighting present. Do you really think it's a great idea for you to be cheering right now? Does the tragic childhood really justify these acts? Can statist corruption really excuse anarchy? Just how fond are you of stiff leather boots, and should that frighten you a bit about your own outlook on the whole "criminal element" question?
In the end, as with the first, I don't really see much evidence that Larsson is on the level of asking those tough questions: he glosses over the hideous social corruption that ostensibly lies at the spine of this book's plot, and he seems all to willing to paint Salander as some sort of fetishistic fantasy figure. There's something (as with the first) verging on distasteful about Larsson's seeming painting of his book as a socially conscious story about liberal issues, when, in reality, it's just another tale about thuggery-in-the-cause-of-justice.
But it is a very readable thriller, and I'll probably read the third book at this point.
If you're fully capable of ignoring subtext and just want a "quick read" to go with the boys of summer on the radio, your feet up on a Muskoka table, and a weepingly chilled tumbler of whatever, well go right ahead: B+.
Don't kid yourself, however; Salander is not your friend.
Larsson's characters seem constructed pretty firmly out of one or two notes. They don't necessarily ring falsly; on the other hand, if you try to look past the edge of the flat, you can certainly see the wooden braces holding them up.
What did I like about this book? Well, like the first, it did keep me turning pages. There were mysterious goings on, and gradually, information was revealed that was key-ish to the general story happening. Said information was, in the end, an odd mixture of surprising and you-have-to-be-freaking-kidding-me-of-course-it-is disbelief.
The middle book in the three suffers rather more strongly than the first from middle-book syndrome; in the end, very little actually gets resolved. "Horrible sekrets" are revealed, but there's nowhere near the same sense of closure achieved for the characters' dilemmae as with "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo".
What did I not like about this book? Once again, Salander plays an improbable proto-fascist revenge-tragedy force-of-nature-in-cycle-boots. I will not spoiler her backstory unearthed in this book, but suffice to say that (a) it does not add one iota to the probableness of her character, and (b) it does make her whiff a wee bit more like "what if Bjork were cast as Bruce Wayne", and (c) I see that Larsson still hasn't managed to rise from his decision to pardon any crime or cruelty as long as "it's done for a good cause".
There must be something hideously compelling about the dreadful hand of unchecked and irresistible vigilante violence when harnessed to something that's even remotely portrayed as a noble quest for
In the end, as with the first, I don't really see much evidence that Larsson is on the level of asking those tough questions: he glosses over the hideous social corruption that ostensibly lies at the spine of this book's plot, and he seems all to willing to paint Salander as some sort of fetishistic fantasy figure. There's something (as with the first) verging on distasteful about Larsson's seeming painting of his book as a socially conscious story about liberal issues, when, in reality, it's just another tale about thuggery-in-the-cause-of-justice.
But it is a very readable thriller, and I'll probably read the third book at this point.
If you're fully capable of ignoring subtext and just want a "quick read" to go with the boys of summer on the radio, your feet up on a Muskoka table, and a weepingly chilled tumbler of whatever, well go right ahead: B+.
Don't kid yourself, however; Salander is not your friend.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 16:41 (UTC)I'm not sure Larsson approves of Salander's actions in 1 (haven't read 2): he seems just to report them. My impression was that she was deep in unknown territory and decided to do something, but didn't have much recourse or much idea beyond the tactical of what she ought to do.
But I find the chatter on Amazon about what sort of person Blomkvist is really to be completely confounding, like the runaway popularity of the series. I think you have him pegged: he's an interface for a story.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 16:56 (UTC)The voice of the psychologist in this book that attempts to provide some balanced analysis of Salander is muted by his seeming characterization as an ineffectual intellectual and a participant in the perpetration of statist-abuse of which Salander is a victim.
Salander is a fundamentally dangerous and unlikeable human being, to the point of being repellant.
Yet readers seem to like her.
Viz Hannibal Lecter and Batman, I suppose.