I'm surprised at the popularity of the Stieg Larsson "The Girl..." novels. Not because they're not good, well written stories. In fact, I'm surprised at their popularity because they're extremely well written in the sense that he avoids the use of adverbs and adjectives in presenting the narrative. Larsson tells you, simply and often straight from the character, what's happening and why and doesn't prettify it with unnecessary descriptive words or phrases. In doing so, he has given the reader more freedom in imagining the Sweden that shaped Lisbeth Salander's life. And with that freedom, we, the readers, don't prettify the characters or the setting, leaving us with an experience that seems more real (which is also why I like the Swedish "Dragon Tattoo" movie and its casting so much and am already disappointed with the American remake, without even seeing it or the beautiful actors that will cannibalize Larsson's reality).
I think you have to say that the first book of the trilogy tells the best story, if only because it presents the culimination of the history presented in the following two books, even though the second and third move Salander's story forward in time, as well. Much of the second and third are an explanation for what happened in the first book, in which you have already learned from Larsson's writing as much as you will from the back-story he tells in the second two. It makes me wonder how it would have worked if he had told Salander's story chronologically, beginning with the history of the Sapo and Salachenko's arrival - presenting the story chronologically might be the only acceptable reason for a Hollywood remake with James Bond and Kate Mara's sister. I'll only end up seeing the remake(s) to confirm my disdain.
Anyway - I think we need to figure out some time in our book schedule for Chris to read these Larsson novels. I look forward to thoughts on my commentary from Josh, at least.
Max’s review gets at what everyone wonders, “Why are these books so popular?” As far as the writing is concerned, I think Max nails it. My question about the writing is whether this book was originally written in Swedish or English? Assuming the book was translated, I think the translator deserves props too. Either way, I think the quality of the writing clearly connects to the popularity of the book, partly because I think the writing makes up for deficiencies in storytelling.
ReplyDeleteJust as the writing is unique, two other factors – external to the story – also contribute to the overall quality of the books and their popularity: the incorporation of relatively sophisticated economic concepts, and the incorporation of Swedish culture. The former play out really well considering the global economic climate, and unlike the Da Vinci Code, I like that the story operates within an economic environment, but is not eclipsed by it. I think Swedish culture augments the story because it is very similar to American culture. Readers, thus, are even more fascinated by the amount of coffee Swedes drink, the level of promiscuity they tolerate, and the influence of a government that extends even farther than our own so-called socialism. In any case, like the writing, I think these factors too operate as a tip-of-the-cap to the reader, and indulge the use of imagination far more than similar novels in this genre.
Nevertheless, the central story still has shortcomings. Though the main characters are very interesting – in part because of the three factors listed above: writing quality, Economic expertise, and Swedish; in part due to the creativity of the author – they are also monolithic. Like typical thriller novels, the breakdown of good guys and bad guys is obvious. And, as the role of the economy declines throughout the stories, action-thriller story telling conventions increase: people's fighting ability improves, luck improves, deductive reasoning ability improves, etc.
Though I agree with Max’s analysis about the writing, I do not think Chris should read these books. I argue that the Swedish version of these films will appeal primarily to people who have read the stories. I think the Swedish version of the film is a great interpretation of the book itself, but I wonder if, on its own, it’s quite as interesting. It’s long, and to someone who hasn’t read the book, I’d bet the movie plays like something that has clearly been adapted for film and therefore is not a great movie. By contrast, I imagine the American version of the film is going to try to appeal both to readers and non-readers. To do this, the movie is going to use imagery to fill in all the adverbs the author deliberately left out, and room for imagination the author included.
I’d be really interested to know Chris’s perspective on the movies precisely because he has not read the books.