Dragon Tattoo

I have finally finished The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and I am ready to share my thoughts with the world! Note to those in the world who have not yet finished the book, I will be discussing all of it, so if you want the mystery to remain a mystery, stop here!

This book is about many things. It really consists of two separate stories: the mystery of who killed Harriet Vanger, and the journalist Blomkvist's vendetta against Wennerstrom. (Yes, I know some of these names have umlauts and no, I don't know how to make my computer produce umlauts so there won't be any on those names that should have them.) I'm not sure I can say that I enjoyed the book, given the level and type of violence in it (and see below for further comments), but it was interesting reading. Will I read the rest in the series? Probably not, actually. Yes, I do want to know more about Salander and her background, but I want to know without having to read another book about the characters. It is not that they weren't compelling, or that the book was uninteresting, it's just not my type of book.

The Mystery
My taste in mysteries usually runs to Agatha Christie - emphasizing psychology and deductive reasoning. I'm not really a "thriller" type of person. Therefore, I was very excited when the premise of the mystery was revealed. A young girl disappears, only a certain number of people could have committed the crime, and the detective has to go back into the past to solve the case. Paging Hercule Poirot!

I was almost disappointed to find out that the murderer was a serial killer. None of Agatha Christie's killers are serial killers, per se. Yes, they might have killed a number of people, but they are not characterized as serial killers. Instead, they are relatively normal people who turn to murder to solve a problem, whereas a serial killer murders as a matter of fact and as part of that person's everyday life. For example, the Agatha Christie killer kills because they are threatened, for money, for love, etc. A serial killer kills because he is a serial killer. End of story. Less interesting, in my opinion.

(The killers' actions are still horrible, by the way, no matter who is doing the killing.)

Salander
Lisbeth Salander was a very interesting character. From the beginning, I decided that despite what the courts in Sweden might say, she was not mentally deficient and could take care of herself. So why does she act the way she does? She is refusing to play the game. The game of politeness that everyone, to a certain extent, plays to fit in and get along with society. But Lisbeth doesn't play the game. She doesn't follow the rules. Sometimes I just wanted to yell at her to follow the rules, take the tests and you can prove you don't need a trustee. But sometimes I wanted to admire her stubbornness. Of course, she also may act the way she does due to some kind of syndrome (Asbergers, as Blomkvist theorized) in which case she does not have a choice as to the way she acts and cannot play the game at all, even if she wanted to.

Journalistic Ethics
I thought there were some very interesting ideas in the book about journalistic ethics. Blomkvist wanted to report the crimes of the killer despite the effect it would have on the sister, but had no qualms about using stolen (hacked) computer data to write a story to bring down Wennerstrom. I think the police needed to know about the crimes, but Blomkvist did not need to publish a story about them. Sometimes the media is a little too intrusive in their quest for "free speech". Where there are rights, there are responsibilities. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Writing the story would have a big effect on the sister and cause her further torment and pain. Yet writing it is an exercise of free speech, right? Not everything needs to be made public. But the police should be told, to privately work on the case and help the families of the victims.

While I did applaud that Wennerstrom's empire was taken down at the end, I deplored the methods. Evidence from someone's hacked computer would never stand up in court! I'm not sure I can justify stealing from someone's computer, even if that person is a jerk.

Violence
I was somewhat put off by all of the violence in the book. Frankly, there is enough violence happening in the world without having to read about fictional violence too. Also, I'm not sure what purpose the scenes with Bjurman were designed to serve. Lisbeth could just have easily done research on sexual sadism without having been subject to such.

Further, I was disgusted when I read about the cat. Or, rather, didn't read. I have a bad habit of scanning ahead and just barely caught the paragraphs before I made myself stop reading and turn the page to start the next chapter. Reading or hearing about violence against animals is an especially touchy subject for me. It makes me very upset. We have domesticated these animals (cats and dogs especially) and had them give up their wild behaviours in exchange for food and shelter and protection with humans. When a human injures or hurts an animal, they are breaking this "contract" we have with the domesticated animals. We are the ones who have bred them to become dependant on us, therefore the responsibility is on us to take care of the animals. Hearing about any kind of animal abuse makes me mad and upset whether fictional or (sadly) non-fictional.


In summary, while I did not hate the book, I'm not entirely sure I really liked it either. I would recommend it as an interesting and fast-paced read (toward the end) (and despite the author's tendency to explain a lot about things), but with a strong caveat as to the nature of the violence in the book.

Keeping on the subject of mysteries, my next book is by Ngaio Marsh - New Zealand's answer to Agatha Christie!