The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

There are some truths which can not, however hard we try to delude ourselves otherwise, be denied. In my case, one such undeniable truth is that it will take approx 5 years for any significant literary pop-culture phenomenon to make it's way past my my fiercely defended ramparts of established series/authors, and force it's way into my reading consciousness. It's why Order of the Phoenix was on it's way before I'd heard of Harry Potter, it's why I haven't read The Hunger Games, and it's why I have just now gotten around to reading the first of Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy; The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

You've doubtless read the praise. In all likelihood you've read the book, or at least seen one of the movie versions. Most people have. Which makes it difficult for someone to read it now without a nagging sensation of "you must like it, or you aren't normal. " Something so universally praised must be excellent, right? Everyone can't be wrong, surely?

Well, everyone can be., and everyone often is. In the case of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo though... Let's just say that the majority does sometimes get it right.

First things first. Yes, it takes a while to get going, with a lot of quite dry set up regarding the (very) extended family around which the stories main thread revolves. And yes, the epilogue is far too long; if you've wrapped up your A plot and need another 100 pages to tie up your B plot, you're doing something wrong. Those two points alone lose the book points, at least in my view. One explanation for these faults, which could have been fixed with a little editorial tinkering, could be Larsson's untimely and regrettable death shortly after handing in the manuscripts. His death precluded any collaborative editing, and to aggressively edit without his input may have been deemed disrespectful.*

But the mystery at the heart of the book; the disappearance of a young girl in 1966 which has haunted her family, especially it's patriarch, ever since; is compelling enough to make all but the most demanding reader forgive the book those flaws. To untangle the mystery is to unearth all the secrets her wealthy family strove for so long to keep buried, and as secrets go, there are some doozies here.

Enter disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist, fresh off a libel conviction, and needing something to occupy his time. Blomkvist is an odd creation, I must admit. Certainly the biggest romantic relationship in his life is one that would raise quite a few eyebrows, although since none of the other characters seem too bothered by it
that may be a cultural thing, given the novels Swedish setting; or it could just be a quirk of Larsson's sexual politics.**

Which is not to say that Blomkvist is an unpleasant lead. In all other respects he's the archetypal lead; smart, savvy, witty, charming, resourceful, honest, and totally unwilling to give up once he realises just what he's dealing with.

Of course, no-one is coming to these books for him. The draw, hence the title, is the enigmatic Lisbeth Salander; she of the big lizard. It's here that Larsson plays his master stroke, because this is a character so psychologically complex, so removed from anything we would normally expect in a hero, that the passages detailing her life; as unrelated to the main mystery as they are, are nevertheless among the most compelling in the book.

Easy comparisons could be made to the likes of Dexter Morgan; certainly she fits more closely to that breed of dark anti-hero than she does any traditional heroic role; but where his sociopathy is played, in many instances, for pitch black humour; and I'd wager doesn't bear a great deal of resemblance to any realistic conditions; Salander's detached way of life, and inability to function within normal societal parameters is presented not to amuse, but to inform. She is as she is, at least in part, because the system failed her; and her recognition of that failure, even if the system itself doesn't see it, forces her ever deeper into her shell of self reliance. Few characters can crack that shell, and it's not always a good thing when they do.

Incidentally, the 'guardianship' system under which Salander lives, if it exists in Sweden as Larsson describes it here, is as deeply flawed and open to abuse a system as I think I've ever heard of, and must surely contravene any number of the basic human rights of those placed in it's care. Larsson alludes to the fact that the relatively small number of complaints about this system could well be due to the fact that the subjects have little power with which to complain and you can't help thinking, sadly, that he is probably right.

Anyway, back to the book. The resolution to the mystery, when it comes, is both obvious, and a shocker, if that makes sense, in that it's the most logical explanation with the always helpful hindsight, but certainly not one that I got close to; my 2 theories, which I formulated at different junctures, both turned out to be about as far from correct as it's possible to get; and the villain one of the nastier examples I've come across in recent years.

All in all then, a book I thoroughly enjoyed and would recommend wholeheartedly, where it not for the aforementioned slow start and drawn out ending. As it is, I still think everyone should read it, just go in forewarned.



*I do not claim this theory as fact. Nor, in fact do I claim it as my own; it's far too insightful to have come from me. It was postulated by @McFlooze on twitter; a young lady well worth a follow.

**It wouldn't be the first time recently that I've read a book in which a character behaves ridiculously without arousing comment, leading to the unmistakable conclusion that the author 'doesn't think it's ridiculous'. Kathy Reichs, I'm looking at you, with your whole Ryan and his long lost ex thing.