# The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Is it overrated?



## Alicia Dean (Jul 11, 2011)

I admit I haven't read this book in its entirety, but I couldn't get past the first few pages. I wonder if it's just me, or if it's overrated, or if it's worthwhile to stick with it. The head hopping and poorly written beginning put me off, but apparently, this book resonated with TONS of readers. I understand it was translated, so that could be part of the problem with it. Opinions?


----------



## MH Sargent (Apr 8, 2010)

Everyone has different tastes. As for the poorly written complaint, you have to remember it is translated into English. So it might come across as awkward at points. That said, I found this entire series to be excellent and I'd ask you to stay with it for a bit. I think you'll reach a point where you find you are really enjoying it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I've read the first 2 and quite enjoyed them.  The 3rd is queued up, but I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it.


----------



## SylviaLucas (Sep 14, 2011)

The few people I've talked to who have read it said they had a really hard time getting into, and then staying with, it. (However, I've heard the movie is fantastic. Is it bad taste to talk about movies in the Kindle forums?)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Not at all.  I think it's a fantastic series.  Love the story and characters.

As we've been discussing in the "I'm struggling..." thread on here, the first book does start out slow.  The first 100 pages or so are a bit of a slog with too much detail on the Vanger family history, the financial case that got Mikael sued for libel etc.  But after that it picks up and is a great read through the rest of the trilogy.

All IMHO of course.  Everyone has different tastes and there are plenty of people who won't like the series at all period.

One caution I'd throw out is that it is a very dark book with a lot of graphic violence, sex, rape etc., as I know some have posted that they don't like books/movies with that type of content.  So just a fair warning to those who like to steer clear of such content.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

What Mooshie says about sex and violence is true.  A very disturbing book. I thought it was excellent though.  The abuse is not just there for thrills, it is central to the plot.  I did not find the beginning slow at all though, so maybe my taste is very different from yours


----------



## Beth Dolgner (Nov 11, 2011)

I agree with Mooshie about the beginning being slow. I had a hard time getting into the book, and just couldn't connect with Lisbeth, but the second half flew by once things really got moving. I liked it well enough to go see the movie, but not well enough that I've bothered to read the second book yet.


----------



## tinytoy (Jun 15, 2011)

There is about 100 pages of back-story and I found it somewhat difficult to get through the beginning, but I stuck with it because I was told the story gets better.  And it does; I very much enjoyed the book and am glad I stuck with it.  I am just now about to start the second book in the series.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

The second book is my favorite in the series.

And there's nothing in the 2nd or 3rd book like that 100 page stretch of backstory to start the first one.


----------



## tinytoy (Jun 15, 2011)

This may sound a bit pathetic but I found that watching the movie trailer motivated me to get through the beginning of the book.  It was kind of like a promise that the story was to get good.  haha


----------



## Jen Black (Oct 17, 2011)

I  started and gave up on the Dragon Tattoo - so slow and not getting anywhere. Then a friend said keep going just a little longer, once it gets to X it really lets rip. So when I found the 3 volumes sitting on a friend's shelves, I started again (where I'd left off the first time!) and my friend was right - it did go off with a bang from about two pages further on. After that I romped through volume two and then volume three, each with their own theme and very different from the preceeding volume. What a pity the author died before he saw his success. 

The books are long and extremely detailed, but most of it is interesting. I think I just wasn't in tune to the idea of long, involved stories when I first tried reading, but I soon got back into it and it paid dividends - I can remember those plots and incidents, where I often forget a lighter book a couole of weeks after I've finished it. So I would say, keep plugging away, skip a paragraph or two if it helps, but don't give up on the books.  They're worth it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

As an aside, I think whether or not a book is overrated or underrated is largely dependent on _your_ subjective opinion of it. As George Carlin said, "Have you ever notice that everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?"


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

NogDog said:


> "Have you ever notice that everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?"


I'm glad someone else noticed. 

Mike


----------



## Brad Murgen (Oct 17, 2011)

Definitely stick with it, even if the beginning is slow.  I felt the same and wondered what everyone was raving about, but once you get past the setup and history, it moves along quite fast and you won't be able to put them down.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Count me as someone who is interested, bought the whole series, but cannot for the life of me get past the first of the first book.  I even watched the movies, still can get into the first one.

I think, maybe, there is a culture difference.  I guess libel cases are big deals in other parts of the world.  Here they just don't even make news.  So the first book starts with a court case that means nothing here.  And it goes on way too long.  But it took me months to get past the first part were he goes into detail about packages and flowers.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

It seemed as if he started out to write one book, introduced Lisbeth, and then she hijacked the novel.

I found it very slow going at first with a terrific middle, and an epilogue that was too long and anticlimactic. The movie threw out a lot of the opening stuff and compressed the epilogue, both excellent decisions, IMO.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

This discussion is pretty close to mixed comments I've heard from others. Most of the people I've talked to about it agree that the story takes a while to really get into. I've seen all three movies, though, and thought they were terrific. They make me want to read the books, long beginnings notwithstanding!


----------



## Borislava Borissova (Sep 9, 2011)

First I watched the Swedish movies based on the books and they made me yearning to read the books. Usually I like books more than movies but this time I have had an interesting experience. Some parts of the books I like more, some parts of the movie are stronger and better than the written story. Overall there is what to be learnt, to be taken despite it left me sad about all violence and abuse in our world.


----------



## SawyerKing (Jan 12, 2012)

I couldn't get through the first few pages, which surprised me, considering all the hype. But I did enjoy the movie.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Alicia Dean said:


> I admit I haven't read this book in its entirety, but I couldn't get past the first few pages. I wonder if it's just me, or if it's overrated, or if it's worthwhile to stick with it. The head hopping and poorly written beginning put me off, but apparently, this book resonated with TONS of readers. I understand it was translated, so that could be part of the problem with it. Opinions?


My wife didn't like it, even though she forced herself through it.

I went a few pages in, and decided I had better books to devote my reading time to.

Highly overrated, IMO.


----------



## DGFall (Jul 7, 2011)

I have read all three. I did not have any difficulty getting started. They made me neglect some chores that I was working on. Wonderful series.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I think that if I'd gotten this book from the library instead of buying it, I would have given up after the first few pages, but since I bought it, I hung with it.  Overall, I thought the story itself (the mystery) was terrific, and I also enjoyed the setting.  At the same time, however, I had a lot of trouble with the sex/violence thing.  I never did read the second book because of the teaser for it at the end of the first one.  B-r-r-r...

My hubby and I saw the American movie last week, and I liked it a great deal.  In fact, I liked it so much that I may actually read the second book after all.


----------



## tamaraheiner (Apr 23, 2011)

I commented a little about this on another post, but in respect for the dead, I'll keep my thoughts to myself on this one.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

I said this in the other thread about "Dragon Tattoo", but it's almost like two different books.  The first few chapters (and I don't remember now how far in I got before it got interesting) are like a dry financial report, with some other stuff thrown in to introduce the characters.  But there's a point where he gets past all that, and suddenly you're reading a "different" book with interesting characters, sex, violence, a mystery being solved, etc.  Even in the 2nd book, at times it feels like there's almost some product placement going on, and he goes on much too long about technical details of computers, Ikea furniture, and I finally googled Billy's Pan Pizza to see if it really exists (it does).  Some editing would've been good, and I suspect if Larsson had lived it would've happened.  But under the extraneous details is a cracking good mystery about a serial killer in the first book, & about The Girl's past in the second.  The third I haven't read yet, but I will.  

Clearly not all books are for everyone - but this is one that I suggest people keep slogging through (at least the first 100 pages or so) to get past the boring "first book" to see if the second book engages them.  (And don't bother with a sample - this is definitely a book that isn't well-served by a sample.)


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

KindleChickie said:


> I think, maybe, there is a culture difference. I guess libel cases are big deals in other parts of the world.


I think you nailed it. Over here (and as far as I know in the rest of Europe) a libel case is pretty serious, a thing like that involving a well-regarded newspaper or magazine would be front news for quite a while.

There's nothing 'slogging' or 'slow and boring' in a set-up that involves going to court, for us.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

It's not overrated, but it isn't perfect either. The obvious huge strength is the originality of Salander. Blomkvist isn't a bad character either, sympathetic and believable. Great atmosphere is invoked at night on the island. But Larsson goes on interminably about the history of the Vanger family at the beginning of the book, and you have to get past that before it starts to move.


----------



## David Swinson (Dec 29, 2011)

So many holes in that book, I don't know where to begin. But then, I'm a retired police detective so even the littlest thing pisses me off.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I loved the series...once I got past the beginning of book 1.  Then I thought it moved like a runaway train.  The last book was actually my favorite. The Swedish movies are fantastic.  (They were original made and aired in Europe as a six part miniseries - two installments for each book.  The versions that played in theaters in the US were truncated; about 30 minutes cut out of each film.  The original Swedish miniseries was recently released in the US on home video for anyone who is interested.)  The American adaptation of "Dragon Tattoo" was very disappointing on almost every level - and I'm a huge David Fincher fan.


----------



## Capri142 (Sep 25, 2009)

I read all three of the books although not one right after the other.  One almost needs to take a breather after getting through the first book. I enjoyed them all but certainly did notice the cultural differences. For all of the hype tho, I'm not quite sure why these books have remained on the best seller lists for so long.
There were sections in all of the books that were difficult to get through and yet others where I did not want to put the book down.  The differences were refreshing and I think that may be part of the books appeal. It was also fun trying to figure out how to pronounce some of those names!


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

DYB said:


> I loved the series...once I got past the beginning of book 1. Then I thought it moved like a runaway train. The last book was actually my favorite. The Swedish movies are fantastic. (They were original made and aired in Europe as a six part miniseries - two installments for each book. The versions that played in theaters in the US were truncated; about 30 minutes cut out of each film. The original Swedish miniseries was recently released in the US on home video for anyone who is interested.) The American adaptation of "Dragon Tattoo" was very disappointing on almost every level - and I'm a huge David Fincher fan.


It's all so subjective isn't it?  We saw the American version yesterday and both enjoyed it - I'd read the first two books and had seen the Swedish versions, DH hadn't read OR seen any of the books/movies, so was confused at times. We both thought they were well done, though.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I've written a lot of stuff in my 40+ years as a writer, and whenever I'm writing something good, a particular phenomenon happens: At some point, my characters start to rebel. They snub their noses at my outline and begin to forge their own journeys. They become the storytellers and I become their scribe.

That seems to be what happened with _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_. Lisbeth Salander just came in, became real, and took over. If Larsson had had an editor, that editor might have said, "Focus on Lisbeth." But he didn't, and I know how hard it is to toss out material you've already written.

Maybe by book #2 (which I haven't yet read), he figured that out, but #1 is pretty badly constructed. Still, the good stuff is so good that it's worth wading through the boring parts, like wandering through a museum and seeing piece after piece that doesn't do much for you...until you hit that one piece that makes the whole trip worthwhile.


----------



## kea (Jun 13, 2011)

tinytoy said:


> There is about 100 pages of back-story and I found it somewhat difficult to get through the beginning, but I stuck with it because I was told the story gets better. And it does; I very much enjoyed the book and am glad I stuck with it. I am just now about to start the second book in the series.


I had a hard time getting into it, too. But I know so many people that loved it that I plan on trying again. Good to know others had a tougher time with the beginning, but find it gets better.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I wonder if the beginning is hard for US readers because a) It's just not clear where this thing is going.  And we kind of know about Lisbeth and really want to see more of her!  And b) as people pointed out above, libel against journalists isn't such a big deal in the US.  In Europe it has a much bigger importance and so these pages seeing a respected (fictional) journalist going down are compelling.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

For me the difficulty in the first part of the book was all the minute details of the Vanger family business in conjunction with the business details of the libel case.  I get that libel is important - that wasn't my problem.  But it was like trying to read a dry financial report.  (And the minutia issue runs through the books, at least the first two.  Details of the Apple computers.  Details of the Ikea products.  Details of Salander's groceries.  I found myself editing in my head a lot - but the plot and characters became compelling enough to keep me reading anyway.)


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Meemo said:


> For me the difficulty in the first part of the book was all the minute details of the Vanger family business in conjunction with the business details of the libel case. I get that libel is important - that wasn't my problem. But it was like trying to read a dry financial report. (And the minutia issue runs through the books, at least the first two. Details of the Apple computers. Details of the Ikea products. Details of Salander's groceries. I found myself editing in my head a lot - but the plot and characters became compelling enough to keep me reading anyway.)


Yes, I know what you mean. The thing that drove me nuts is how often people turned off their cell phones because they were sleeping or working - and missed something important as a result. To me it seems unbelievable that any journalist or cop would turn off their cell phone.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

DYB said:


> Yes, I know what you mean. The thing that drove me nuts is how often people turned off their cell phones because they were sleeping or working - and missed something important as a result. To me it seems unbelievable that any journalist or cop would turn off their cell phone.


I think that's a cultural thing to.

As the saying goes..."Americans live to work, Europeans work to live." So people over there are less likely to be workaholics and thus turn off their phones when sleeping or enjoying personal time etc., where as us Americans are attached to our smartphones, responding to work e-mails at all hours etc.


----------



## liafairchild (Apr 2, 2011)

Like many I found the first 20-30 pages tough if not really confusing with all the foreign names. However, you have to stick with it because it gets much, much better. Not sure if I would consider it overrated. It's an excellent story and the writing was very good. Exceptional? Probably not but then again, if it was translated then that could account for some of the awkward wording. Definitely worth reading through.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> I think that's a cultural thing to.
> 
> As the saying goes..."Americans live to work, Europeans work to live." So people over there are less likely to be workaholics and thus turn off their phones when sleeping or enjoying personal time etc., where as us Americans are attached to our smartphones, responding to work e-mails at all hours etc.


I know what you mean, but to me the difference is that these are journalists and cops. I can't imagine either willfully unplugging themselves from their jobs, which can be extremely time sensitive. (As the books repeatedly demonstrate because they always miss something important happening which only complicates matters for them.)


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

DYB said:


> I know what you mean, but to me the difference is that these are journalists and cops. I can't imagine either willfully unplugging themselves from their jobs, which can be extremely time sensitive. (As the books repeatedly demonstrate because they always miss something important happening which only complicates matters for them.)


True, especially the cops. I mean at some point doesn't a commander (or even a partner) say "Hey - don't turn off your flippin' phone!!!" ?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

DYB said:


> I know what you mean, but to me the difference is that these are journalists and cops. I can't imagine either willfully unplugging themselves from their jobs, which can be extremely time sensitive. (As the books repeatedly demonstrate because they always miss something important happening which only complicates matters for them.)


True. At least for the cop.

Blomvkist was a journalist, but for a magazine. So that would be more indepth features, less always hunting down leads etc. So I could see that kind of journalist not being as tied to their phone/sources.


----------



## Nimbuschick (Jan 15, 2012)

I agree with the topic-starter here that the first pages are rough. Is all of that exposition necessary? Probably not. At least it could be split up and revealed bit-by-bit over the course of the book or cut down a bunch. We really just need enough about his career to show that he was well-established and an understanding of what happened with the charges filed against him.

Once you get past Michael's career history, however, you get into some compelling work. I decided, over the course of reading the book, that Lisbeth may perhaps be on the spectrum. I also appreciate, over the Swedish movie adaptation, that they took the time to explain how they actually found Harriet. The movie wraps it up with Michael randomly showing up with her, with no explanation of how he found her, after the compelling rapist fight is over.


----------



## acellis (Oct 10, 2011)

My girlfriend read it in one sitting, and loved it.


----------



## laurie_lu (May 10, 2010)

I just finished the 3rd book last week. I enjoyed the series.  I loved the Lizbeth character.

However I had a lot of trouble distinguishing among all the different characters in police department, security business, magazine company, detectives, lawywers, and gansters, etc.  There were too many of them and the names were too similar.  That drove me nuts.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Since some mentioned the movies earlier, I just saw the US version this evening.  I thought it was great.  Even better than the Swedish version that I already thought was very good.

Hope Fincher directs the two sequels as well--pretty sure Craig and Mara are signed on, but Fincher hasn't yet.


----------



## SusanKL (Sep 14, 2011)

I read this one and the second one. I have to say I didn't LOVE them, but the first (Dragon) was prob the best. The third one was, IMO, terrible and I didn't get past the third chapter before I allowed myself to quit. I know a lot of people adore these books but they never really grabbed me and they did seem to get progressively worse (violent sex for its own sake, or I guess, mainly, to shock, wooden characters, meandering plot) from the first one.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

It's always interesting how peoples opinions are so different. 

Wooden characters is the last complaint I'd have with this series.  I thought the characters were great, especially Lisbeth and Mikael, but also several of the supporting characters.  Some of my favorite characters in any story.

But to each their own of course.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

DYB said:


> The American adaptation of "Dragon Tattoo" was very disappointing on almost every level - and I'm a huge David Fincher fan.


Haven't seen this version yet, so I'm disappointed to hear this. Yeah, I too was a fan of Fincher -- I heard him being interviewed on the radio recently, and he turns out to be a very thoughtful, modest man -- but, rather like Tim Burton, he seems to have gone off the boil of late. _Panic Room_ was just plain hackneyed. I couldn't believe I was getting stuff like this from the director of _Fight Club_ and _Se7en_.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tony Richards said:


> Haven't seen this version yet, so I'm disappointed to hear this. Yeah, I too was a fan of Fincher -- I heard him being interviewed on the radio recently, and he turns out to be a very thoughtful, modest man -- but, rather like Tim Burton, he seems to have gone off the boil of late. _Panic Room_ was just plain hackneyed. I couldn't believe I was getting stuff like this from the director of _Fight Club_ and _Se7en_.


Go see it. I loved it and thought it was even better than the Swedish version (which I also love). I'm not sure why some aren't liking it as it's very true to the book. Just darker in tone than the Swedish film--but I think that matches the dark tone of the book better. And as good as Rapace was as Lisbeth, Rooney Mara is even better IMO.

Also, Panic Room came out 10 years ago (2002). Since then Fincher has done Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network and Dragon Tattoo. All of which were outstanding films IMO.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> Go see it. I loved it and thought it was even better than the Swedish version (which I also love). I'm not sure why some aren't liking it as it's very true to the book. Just darker in tone than the Swedish film--but I think that matches the dark tone of the book better. And as good as Rapace was as Lisbeth, Rooney Mara is even better IMO.
> 
> Also, Panic Room came out 10 years ago (2002). Since then Fincher has done Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network and Dragon Tattoo. All of which were outstanding films IMO.


I agree - I thought it was very well done, and while a bit different from the Swedish version (the American version felt darker, starker, more "bleak"), I thought it and the performances were just as good as the Swedish version.

Which isn't to say DYB's opinion is wrong - just different.  Movies are such subjective things - if you're interested, go see it for yourself.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Tony Richards said:


> Haven't seen this version yet, so I'm disappointed to hear this. Yeah, I too was a fan of Fincher -- I heard him being interviewed on the radio recently, and he turns out to be a very thoughtful, modest man -- but, rather like Tim Burton, he seems to have gone off the boil of late. _Panic Room_ was just plain hackneyed. I couldn't believe I was getting stuff like this from the director of _Fight Club_ and _Se7en_.


I loved the American version.. the cinematography is so much more professional and the actors are wonderful. Loved the movie -will see it again.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Meemo said:


> I agree - I thought it was very well done, and while a bit different from the Swedish version (the American version felt darker, starker, more "bleak"), I thought it and the performances were just as good as the Swedish version.
> 
> Which isn't to say DYB's opinion is wrong - just different.  Movies are such subjective things - if you're interested, go see it for yourself.


Oh absolutely, films, books, etc. are 100% subjective. I didn't mean in anyway to knock DYB's opinion.

But just to say that Tony shouldn't be put off of seeing if because of one person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like every film. If you're interested in a film, go see it and form your own opinion. Especially if it's something that's getting mostly positive reviews, and this is at 86% fresh on RottenTomatoes.

Aggregate review sites like that are about all I go by when on the fence. Any review or forum post is just one persons opinion, which may or may not match mine. But my tastes lean fairly mainstream, so I usually like most movies that are 80% or better and in a genre I like. But if it's something I'm really interested in I'll go see it (or at least rent it from Netflix) regardless of review averages. So I really only check for movies I don't know much about.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

There are many reasons I was so disappointed by the US version. Here are some thoughts, in no particular order. Rooney Mara is good. Noomi Rapace was spectacular. (I was surprised by how much I liked Daniel Craig, who I thought completely wrong for the part. He played Blomkvist very bookish and not Bond-ish at all, which was absolutely right. Craig was the one pleasant surprise.) More generally, the US film - while still filmed and taking place in Sweden (with actors from various countries speaking English with a variety of accents*) - might as well have been set and filmed in Maine. Anywhere there's snow, really. For Larsson the Swedish setting was very important. The history of Sweden and its Nazi associations was vital to the narrative. And it is almost entirely lost in the US version; that sense of history of the country, its place in Europe. The fact that the prostitutes are "imported" from the former Soviet republics, it's all lost in the US version. I suppose because American audiences in general don't care about the world outside of its own borders, and Fincher and his screenwriter simplified the story to be more "universal." But by making it more universal and by making Sweden much more of an "every country" they have actually, I felt, diluted the impact.

Lisbeth's attachment to Blomkvist makes little sense in the US version. Blomkvist certainly does not in any way encourage her "affections." And because of the changes to the narrative they don't spend a lot of time together in the first place. (In the original version they discover a lot of the old murders by traveling together and, dare I say, "bonding." By separating them in their investigations the US version minimizes the time they actually spend together and the horrors they witness.) Lisbeth's emotional attachment to Blomkvist did not at all feel earned; her jealousy in the end was kind of absurd.

I did not at all understand why Bjurman was turned into a somewhat sympathetic figure in the US version. He shows guilt and concern for Lisbeth after savagely raping her. (As he writes the check he looks with concern at her, then kindly offers to give her a ride home). And then even begins an apology when she returns to exact her revenge. I don't think they made Bjurman more complex, if that was their intent. They just seem to have chickened out. Speaking of chickening out, I remember when I saw the Swedish version with a friend - after Lisbeth exacts her revenge on Bjurman - my friend remarked that the scene would never play this way in an American film. It would make the men too uncomfortable. He was right. The US version of Lisbeth's revenge is less graphic. In the Swedish version Lisbeth takes out a sex toy - a


Spoiler



dildo


. The item Lisbeth takes out in the US version does not look like your common sex toy; it's a metal contraption that is clearly meant to be seen as a device of torture. At the same time, even as Fincher tries to make the men not feel _too_ uncomfortable, the sexual assault on Lisbeth is just about as graphic in the US version as in the Swedish. In fact, Rooney Mara shows us everything in the course of the film. Daniel Craig, conversely, shows us nothing. In a movie that is about the sexual exploitation of women it is interesting to see the director exploit his actress, but spare his male stars every embarrassment.

Then there was the dungeon scene in the end. So completely unremarkable in the US version. I really thought that's the moment Fincher would give us something to have bad dreams over. But it comes and goes with very little impact.

Also, in the Swedish version Lisbeth watches a certain someone in a car for some time before the car bursts info flames. She clearly has time to save him - and chooses not to. In the US version she is not given the opportunity. Another moment where they chickened out.

The actual change made to Harriet's whereabouts was an interesting solution; I actually rather liked it. Not sure if it makes it more or less believable though.

*Everyone in this Sweden speaks English. But newspaper headlines are in Swedish. Why?

Oh and just remembered the addition of Blomkvist's daughter who is finding God. Huh? I don't actually remember if he had any children in the book (if he did, the fact obviously didn't make much of an impression.) I realize she recognized the Biblical references in Harriet's code, instead of Lisbeth. But I'm not sure what that added to the narrative. Every time she came on screen I thought to myself: "What? I don't get it. Why? Is this a change for the sake of change?"


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

DYB said:


> There are many reasons I was so disappointed by the US version. Here are some thoughts, in no particular order. Rooney Mara is good. Noomi Rapace was spectacular. (I was surprised by how much I liked Daniel Craig, who I thought completely wrong for the part. He played Blomkvist very bookish and not Bond-ish at all, which was absolutely right. Craig was the one pleasant surprise.) More generally, the US film - while still filmed and taking place in Sweden (with actors from various countries speaking English with a variety of accents*) - might as well have been set and filmed in Maine. Anywhere there's snow, really. For Larsson the Swedish setting was very important. The history of Sweden and its Nazi associations was vital to the narrative. And it is almost entirely lost in the US version; that sense of history of the country, its place in Europe. The fact that the prostitutes are "imported" from the former Soviet republics, it's all lost in the US version. I suppose because American audiences in general don't care about the world outside of its own borders, and Fincher and his screenwriter simplified the story to be more "universal." But by making it more universal and by making Sweden much more of an "every country" they have actually, I felt, diluted the impact.
> 
> Lisbeth's attachment to Blomkvist makes little sense in the US version. Blomkvist certainly does not in any way encourage her "affections." And because of the changes to the narrative they don't spend a lot of time together in the first place. (In the original version they discover a lot of the old murders by traveling together and, dare I say, "bonding." By separating them in their investigations the US version minimizes the time they actually spend together and the horrors they witness.) Lisbeth's emotional attachment to Blomkvist did not at all feel earned; her jealousy in the end was kind of absurd.
> 
> ...


The prostitutes/human trafficking were actually in book/movie two.

I was about to say so was the part about the man burning in the car, but then remembered there were actually two different instances of a man burning in a car, one in the first, one in the second - I don't remember much about the Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo, but if she stopped and looked in the Swedish movie, that was a change from the book (I just pulled the book up & looked). The American movie is actually closer to the book in that matter, although neither showed the same type of "accident" as the book (it wasn't an accident in the book). Interesting, I'd forgotten about that bit of a tie-in between the first book & second, men burning in cars....

As far as Bjurman went, I didn't see his actions afterwards so much as "guilt" as being oblivious to the nature of what he'd done. (More like "Gee, you don't seem happy - what's the problem? I mean, you're getting the money you came for...") And believe me, that instrument of torture she used made DH feel plenty uncomfortable - he was literally squirming.

Maybe the headlines are in Swedish to remind us they're in Sweden...since they're speaking English. 

Like I said - movie viewing is totally subjective.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

DYB said:


> The actual change made to Harriet's whereabouts was an interesting solution; I actually rather liked it. Not sure if it makes it more or less believable though.


So interesting.. this is the one thing that bothered me. I kept waiting for that to happen and it didn't. So yes - movies - like books - are so subjective. Did you even like the cinematography? I thought that was wonderful.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Meemo said:


> The prostitutes/human trafficking were actually in book/movie two.


It's bigger in movie 2, but it starts in part 1 - the prostitute we are told was in the cage, for example. Plus, in the Swedish version when they show all those polaroids...harrowing. In the US version the actions of the person in question are glazed over. My background is from Russia/Europe and the European perspective on nationalism within Europe, the values, and the changes since the fall of communism are not easily understood or explained. The issue of human trafficking, of women being brought from former Soviet block, is a pandemic. And we get a first, frightening glimpse of it in part 1; it is then expanded in part 2. The entire historical and cultural place of every European nation within Europe, and what that means for every country's past, present and future, is enormously complex. These were among the issues Larsson was covering and the Swedish version got much more successfully. The US version largely erased it, which, in my opinion, makes the story so small.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

bordercollielady said:


> So interesting.. this is the one thing that bothered me. I kept waiting for that to happen and it didn't. So yes - movies - like books - are so subjective. Did you even like the cinematography? I thought that was wonderful.


Yes, it was beautifully shot. The cinematographer, Jeff Cronenweth, is one of the best in the business. I suspect the movie's budget was several times higher than the entire Swedish miniseries. Unfortunately I thought they didn't capture Sweden particularly well. It was just some place, beautifully photographed.

The solution to the mystery was an interesting solution. But like I said, I'm not sure if it makes it better or worse, more or less believable. It's definitely different.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Certainly a fair take on the movie.  Best response I have is that stuff just didn't bother me at all.  I like the books/movies for the mystery plot and the Lisbeth and Mikael characters and wasn't that fixated on/interested in the setting and other stuff.  I liked this that this version honed in more on the "meat" of the story so to speak.

But I also liked the Swedish films as well, and plan on buying the extended mini-series version on Bluray when I find a good price on it. Always neat to have different adaptations of a book you love!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> Certainly a fair take on the movie. Best response I have is that stuff just didn't bother me at all. I like the books/movies for the mystery plot and the Lisbeth and Mikael characters and wasn't that fixated on/interested in the setting and other stuff. I liked this that this version honed in more on the "meat" of the story so to speak.
> 
> But I also liked the Swedish films as well, and plan on buying the extended mini-series version on Bluray when I find a good price on it. Always neat to have different adaptations of a book you love!


I bought the mini-series version when it came out. Like with the extended "The Lord of the Rings" movies I found the extended "Millennium Trilogy" to move faster!


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

DYB said:


> It's bigger in movie 2, but it starts in part 1 - the prostitute we are told was in the cage, for example. Plus, in the Swedish version when they show all those polaroids...harrowing. In the US version the actions of the person in question are glazed over. My background is from Russia/Europe and the European perspective on nationalism within Europe, the values, and the changes since the fall of communism are not easily understood or explained.


Which may be why they didn't bring it up much in this 2.5-hr movie - hopefully they'll make the next book into a movie and they can get into it more with that one - but as you said, all the European perspective and nuances are going to be difficult to explain to an American audience in a two hour movie.

I suppose one example is that because there were probably 2 years between when I read the first book and the second, I didn't even make the connection between the mentions of human trafficking in the first book and the overarching nature of it in the second.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

DYB said:


> I did not at all understand why Bjurman was turned into a somewhat sympathetic figure in the US version. He shows guilt and concern for Lisbeth after savagely raping her. (As he writes the check he looks with concern at her, then kindly offers to give her a ride home). And then even begins an apology when she returns to exact her revenge. I don't think they made Bjurman more complex, if that was their intent. They just seem to have chickened out. Speaking of chickening out, I remember when I saw the Swedish version with a friend - after Lisbeth exacts her revenge on Bjurman - my friend remarked that the scene would never play this way in an American film. It would make the men too uncomfortable. He was right. The US version of Lisbeth's revenge is less graphic. In the Swedish version Lisbeth takes out a sex toy - a
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


They made Bjurman somewhat sympathetic in the US version? Ugh, I'm just getting a little sick here. A few days ago, I saw some clips from the US adaption and thought, "Bjurman doesn't look nearly sleazy enough."



> Oh and just remembered the addition of Blomkvist's daughter who is finding God. Huh? I don't actually remember if he had any children in the book (if he did, the fact obviously didn't make much of an impression.) I realize she recognized the Biblical references in Harriet's code, instead of Lisbeth. But I'm not sure what that added to the narrative. Every time she came on screen I thought to myself: "What? I don't get it. Why? Is this a change for the sake of change?"


I don't remember whether Blomkvist had children in the books either. He most certainly didn't have any in the Swedish film adaptions.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Depends on who's rating it...

The New York Times called it "half-formed and weak."

And also "boring and incomprehensible."

Did they underrate it?


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> Oh absolutely, films, books, etc. are 100% subjective. I didn't mean in anyway to knock DYB's opinion.
> 
> But just to say that Tony shouldn't be put off of seeing if because of one person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like every film. If you're interested in a film, go see it and form your own opinion.


Oh look, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly going to see the movie, whatever other people's opinion of it. Even rotten reviews in newspapers don't put me off -- I prefer to make my own mind up.

As for the book, there's a lot wrong with it, for sure. But books we like are like people we like ... we know what their weaknesses are, but love them for their overriding strengths. And the good aspects of _TGwtDT_ far outweigh its bad points.


----------



## Nickmiles74 (Jan 14, 2012)

Yes!


----------



## tinytoy (Jun 15, 2011)

laurie_lu said:


> I had a lot of trouble distinguishing among all the different characters in police department, security business, magazine company, detectives, lawywers, and gansters, etc. There were too many of them and the names were too similar. That drove me nuts.


I am starting to have the same problem now, a little more than 1/2 way through book 2. I keep reminding myself that I made it through (and loved) A Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire series so I should be able to handle this. hehe. Maybe I need a cast of characters chart.


----------



## tinytoy (Jun 15, 2011)

Blomkvist's daughter visits him in Hedestad in the first book.  Her time is brief but I do recall something she says igniting something in Blomkvist's mind re the link between the bible and Harriet's numbers.

I don't think the daughter was mentioned at all as part of the back story in the beginning of the book and just surprisingly shows up to pay him a visit, but I might be wrong.  The back story portion is somewhat of a blur to me.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

tinytoy said:


> Blomkvist's daughter visits him in Hedestad in the first book. Her time is brief but I do recall something she says igniting something in Blomkvist's mind re the link between the bible and Harriet's numbers.
> 
> I don't think the daughter was mentioned at all as part of the back story in the beginning of the book and just surprisingly shows up to pay him a visit, but I might be wrong. The back story portion is somewhat of a blur to me.


Been a while since I read it myself, but I think you're right on that.


----------



## Andrew McCoy (Sep 17, 2011)

The daughter who visits Blomkvist stays with his ex-wife. She's on her way to a bible camp when she stops off in Hedestad. She solves the mysterious numbers by asking him what he is doing with Bible references.

***

To answer the main question of the thread. Yes, all three books are overrated. The reasons they are overrated has to do with politics rather than with literature (they are not even remotely related to literature except in the feverish imaginations of the political far left to which Larsson belonged), and also with the timing of the launch of Larsson's trilogy in English coinciding with the arrival of the Kindle.

All three are seriously bad books, and the translator and editors are not solely to blame. Larsson simply wasn't a good writer. His Swedish editor characterised his style as "efficient" -- when your own editor can find nothing more flattering to say about your style than a compliment a council personnel officer might pay a street sweeper, it isn't much of a style!

However, inside each of those three turgid novels hides a good if much slenderer thriller absolutely screaming to get out. And for letting them be obscured behind the digressions and shopping lists, the editors are definitely responsible. Their problem was that, by the time an editor who wasn't under the spell of the handsome Larsson got his hands on the book, Larsson was dead. The convention is that an editor doesn't make substantial changes without the consent of the author. If the author is dead, the owner of the copyright is normally asked for consent. With Gabrielsson, Larsson's common-law wife, an articulate and telegenic fanatic, on the warpath, claiming to be the sole moral authority on Larsson's work, no editor dared make any changes.

***

There are readers of Larsson's Millennium Trilogy who absolutely, definitely, vocally love the shopping lists. One reader took the shopping list of Salander furnishing her apartment, priced everything at Ikea, and concluded that it was proof that Salander was a real hacker, because she spent only a little on cheap furniture for the rest of her apartment but for her computer -- the best Mac, of course -- she bought the best furniture.

***

The three Swedish movies (I haven't seen the American remakes) demonstrate how much tighter the core story inside Larsson's three fat novel could be told. They waste no time on the digressions and irrelevant subplots.

_sorry, no self promotion allowed outside the Book Bazaar_


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Other than the overlong beginning of the first book that had too much detail on the libel case and the Vanger family history, I liked all the extra detail and subplots of the books.

If it was just boiled down to the main thriller/mystery plot line, I'd have rather just seen the movie as I can consume the main plot much faster that way.

It's a big reason I don't like a lot of thrillers.  Everytime I read something like The Lincoln Lawyer and then see the movie, I end up wishing I'd just saved the time and watched the movie and thus consumed the same story more efficiently.

The one thing that sets books apart from movies is having more time and space to not just tell the main story, but also get in the characters' heads, spend more time outlining the setting and culture, getting to know the characters better through sub plots and details about them not related to the main plot etc.

If it's all just a straightforward, plot driven novel, then I'll just watch the movie if available and get the same story consumed much faster.

But that's just me, I'm a bigger movie buff than I am a book worm, and I'm not that obsessed with reading to admire the prose and all that.  I'm about stories first, and if I'm going to read a book that has a movie version, the book better do more than just tell the exact story the movie adaptation focused on.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Ahhhh, so anti-Nazism and anti-human trafficking is just the "feverish imagination of the far left?"  Who knew!  I very much doubt that the millions of people who have read and enjoyed the books all belong to the "far left."


----------



## JEV (Jan 7, 2012)

It is very slow to start, but as far as being overrated, it's become such a phenomenon that is would have to be sheer perfection not to be in some sense overrated.  It is not sheer perfection.


----------



## PAWilson (Jan 9, 2012)

I enjoyed the book. The pace was slow and there was a 'foreign' feeling to it - different pace, different clues - but I wanted to know more after book 1. I think that's what series are all about. 

I found the book much easier to enjoy than the original movies.


----------



## slandon36 (Jan 24, 2012)

This book started very slowly to me.  It finally got better around 100 pages in.  The other two books in the series were much better.


----------

