354 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

Dragon Tattoo starts shooting on August 30th, but Craig will surely be busy doing Cowboys and Aliens, but thankfully alot of Dragon Tattoo centers on Lisbeth before her and Blomkist meet. Dragon Tattoo stops filming in like Feb or March, Craig will be tied till the end of the shoot, so i cant really see him jumping into Bond for a 2011 release, but 2012 still seems like a great idea.

[Germanlady]

Dragon Tattoo starts shooting on August 30th, but Craig will surely be busy doing Cowboys and Aliens, but thankfully alot of Dragon Tattoo centers on Lisbeth before her and Blomkist meet. Dragon Tattoo stops filming in like Feb or March, Craig will be tied till the end of the shoot, so i cant really see him jumping into Bond for a 2011 release, but 2012 still seems like a great idea.

This is pretty much hnow it is and IF it gets greenlit, they might be able to start shooting in summer for summer or fall release in 2012.

[Ambler]

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

GWTDT was widely acclaimed as were it's sequels so those who want to pull down it's with some elitist snobbery is pretentious to the max

That sentence is appalling. You should learn basic grammar before involving yourself in a debate on the quality of writing.

I look forward with baited breath to Ambler's debut novel.

As Larsson didn’t publish a novel in his lifetime you haven’t exactly set me a difficult challenge…

[Zorin Industries]

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

And how much "writing" have you been paid to produce yourself?

[byline]

Guess I’m going to have to get with the times and read the novel now.

It's brilliant. It might be a little difficult to begin with, because the first thirty pages or so discuss Swedish foreign and economic policy in the early 1990s, but once you skip that and get down to business, it's a really good noir tale. It's an interesting riff on the whole "A man is in a locked room with no windows - so how did he die?" concept: Craig's character, Michael Blomqvist (though I wouldn't be surprised if this version of the film is brought to America the way Nolan took the original version of INSOMNIA and moved it from norway to Alaska) is a journalist facing a prison sentence for committing libel. He gets contracted by an eccentric billionaire to write the man's family history, but quickly finds this is just a cover to solve a forty year-old cold case. There's no forensics or that sort of stuff: just good old-fashioned police work and a cast of interesting characters.

I couldn't recommend it anymore a great riveting read and the accliamed swedish film is worth a look as well, just started the 2nd book The Girl Who Played With Fire.

That's where I am at the moment. The first book was a page-turner, but I did find the early going a bit of a slog because of all the "explaining" that went on. But once the characters got involved and the real story started, I found it completely enthralling and couldn't put it down.

If they're going to make all three, hopefully they'll fix up the second two. Whilst THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO was excellent, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE and THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST wandered a bit too much and I do admit I got lost at times. If they simplified the story, synthesised the two books together to tell it as one and kept the giant conspiracy in place, they could make a real cracker of a film.

I also think Larsson ruined Salander a little in the sequels by making her bisexual and giving her breast implants and the stuff. She went from interesting character to Hollywood Lesbian.

Possibly. But I find her character to be quite the enigma. The other characters' motivations are fairly straightforward and easy to sort out; not simple, mind you, but understandable. On the surface, Lisbeth is a walking contradiction. In one moment, she's this fiercely independent, socially isolated brainiac who likes to solve math theorems. In the next, she's seems to be a fearless warrior who stops at nothing to exact revenge. Then, suddenly, she's so insecure about her body that she gets a boob job.

But . . . it could also be that she got the boob job because she knows precisely why Bjurman chose to victimize her; as he fumes later on, her small breasts made her look like a child. I haven't gotten through the second book far enough to work that out yet, whether it was genuine insecurity or cold intellect which drove her to do that. Though she does seem pleased with the reaction she gets, which points more toward insecurity.

Stieg Larsson was a a talentless hack who had about as much literary style as Dan Brown. The only reason his work is better reviewed is because of the feminist fantasy that is Lisbeth Salander.

Well, OK. But at least his books are good.

[Ambler]

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

And how much "writing" have you been paid to produce yourself?

Are you a tax man? Print editors' pay varies tremendously. Alan Rusbridger earns about £400K plus benefits. I earn somewhat less...

[jaguar007]

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

This actually explains a lot. Critics and the general public rarely see eye to eye. I have not read the book so I have no personal opinion of it.

[Germanlady]

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

And how much "writing" have you been paid to produce yourself?

Are you a tax man? Print editors' pay varies tremendously. Alan Rusbridger earns about £400K plus benefits. I earn somewhat less...

I think, he meant something different...

[dodge]

Guess I’m going to have to get with the times and read the novel now.

It's brilliant. It might be a little difficult to begin with, because the first thirty pages or so discuss Swedish foreign and economic policy in the early 1990s, but once you skip that and get down to business, it's a really good noir tale. It's an interesting riff on the whole "A man is in a locked room with no windows - so how did he die?" concept: Craig's character, Michael Blomqvist (though I wouldn't be surprised if this version of the film is brought to America the way Nolan took the original version of INSOMNIA and moved it from norway to Alaska) is a journalist facing a prison sentence for committing libel. He gets contracted by an eccentric billionaire to write the man's family history, but quickly finds this is just a cover to solve a forty year-old cold case. There's no forensics or that sort of stuff: just good old-fashioned police work and a cast of interesting characters.

I couldn't recommend it anymore a great riveting read and the accliamed swedish film is worth a look as well, just started the 2nd book The Girl Who Played With Fire.

That's where I am at the moment. The first book was a page-turner, but I did find the early going a bit of a slog because of all the "explaining" that went on. But once the characters got involved and the real story started, I found it completely enthralling and couldn't put it down.

If they're going to make all three, hopefully they'll fix up the second two. Whilst THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO was excellent, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE and THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST wandered a bit too much and I do admit I got lost at times. If they simplified the story, synthesised the two books together to tell it as one and kept the giant conspiracy in place, they could make a real cracker of a film.

I also think Larsson ruined Salander a little in the sequels by making her bisexual and giving her breast implants and the stuff. She went from interesting character to Hollywood Lesbian.

Possibly. But I find her character to be quite the enigma. The other characters' motivations are fairly straightforward and easy to sort out; not simple, mind you, but understandable. On the surface, Lisbeth is a walking contradiction. In one moment, she's this fiercely independent, socially isolated brainiac who likes to solve math theorems. In the next, she's seems to be a fearless warrior who stops at nothing to exact revenge. Then, suddenly, she's so insecure about her body that she gets a boob job.

But . . . it could also be that she got the boob job because she knows precisely why Bjurman chose to victimize her; as he fumes later on, her small breasts made her look like a child. I haven't gotten through the second book far enough to work that out yet, whether it was genuine insecurity or cold intellect which drove her to do that. Though she does seem pleased with the reaction she gets, which points more toward insecurity.

Stieg Larsson was a a talentless hack who had about as much literary style as Dan Brown. The only reason his work is better reviewed is because of the feminist fantasy that is Lisbeth Salander.

Well, OK. But at least his books are good.

Exactly. All the brouhaha over the physical change is absurd. Salander was, originally, almost deformed in her hipless, breastless body. At the end of book one, she's a multimillionaire. It hardly makes sense to blast her fro spending a bit of that money on a physical change that lets her feel more...feminine? It's hard to imagine that anyone here wouldn't spend part of a suddenly acquired fortune on fixing something or other.

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack ... armchair critics are the worse.

Well, I'm not an armchair critic - I'm paid to judge good and bad writing.

And how much "writing" have you been paid to produce yourself?

Are you a tax man? Print editors' pay varies tremendously. Alan Rusbridger earns about £400K plus benefits. I earn somewhat less...

Yes, but why are you more qualified to judge this writer than other paid critis who've admired the three books?

[Ambler]

why are you more qualified to judge this writer than other paid critis who've admired the three books?

I've not claimed anything of the sort. I merely expressed my professional opinion of Larsson and the quality of his writing. It would be true to say, however, that I suspect that many of the literati who have hailed his books have done so as part of a wider political agenda.

[bond 16.05.72]

why are you more qualified to judge this writer than other paid critis who've admired the three books?

I've not claimed anything of the sort. I merely expressed my professional opinion of Larsson and the quality of his writing. It would be true to say, however, that I suspect that many of the literati who have hailed his books have done so as part of a wider political agenda.

It's all about Politics with you Ambler, The Wire is supposedly inferior The Shield due to Simon's & Burns attacking Bush's America during the duration of the series, because you don't have a liberal agenda yourself it makes The series obviously run of the mill.

How about those critics actually enjoyed the book, it's a possiblilty you know?

[Ambler]

It's all about Politics with you Ambler

Politics with a capital P, eh? That would be a fair summary of Stieg Larsson’s life, not mine.

Perhaps when you’ve learnt to read and write you should delve into his non-fiction writings. Larsson’s maxim was ‘The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.’ What a shame he did not live long enough to see his Millennium Trilogy achieve that goal.

Edited by Ambler, 15 August 2010 - 06:53 PM.

[Germanlady]

Rooney Mara Gets Coveted Lisbeth Salander Role In 'Dragon Tattoo'
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/

[byline]

Rooney Mara Gets Coveted Lisbeth Salander Role In 'Dragon Tattoo'
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/

Interesting casting choice. Not spot-on in my visualization of the character, but pretty close.

[dodge]

why are you more qualified to judge this writer than other paid critis who've admired the three books?

I've not claimed anything of the sort. I merely expressed my professional opinion of Larsson and the quality of his writing. It would be true to say, however, that I suspect that many of the literati who have hailed his books have done so as part of a wider political agenda.

But once again your professional opinion hasn't been substantiated or even really explained--because, as you've said, you aren't paid to take the time. I question why you'd take the time to write off an author if you're unwilling to back up your claims. Now you claim that many who have hailed the books have done so because of wider political agendas? Where does this claim come from? Why is not possible, even likely, that Stephen King, Michael Connelly, Michiko Kakutani, Alan Cheuse et al, responded to a series of novels they thought were first-rate?

[MkB]

Spurred by the news of Craig's casting, I've just read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - something I was a bit reluctant to do until then, for I'm not much into thrillers, nor into world-best-sellers.

Here's the unworthy opinion of a casual reader! (no spoilers, out of the spoiler tags)

The book is definitely a page turner. The success is no surprise, despite the brick-size it reads very well.
Although, I would tone down my enthusiasm: it reads quickly and has a very efficient plot and storyline, but I did not find in this book what I have happened to enjoy in some other thriller writers (Ian Fleming in some respects, John LeCarré, or Graham Greene - when he doesn't engage in raving mad catholicism), namely some little things that have little to do with the plot, some little side-tracked remarks, some little universal truths that make you smile and realise that maybe you have just learned something more about human nature...
In a word, I would say the novel is a good thriller, but not literary.

I won't go through novel's plot, anyone can check Wikipedia for that. Just some remarks:

- Daniel Craig IS Mikael Blomqvist. Full stop. Best. casting. decision. ever (ok, maybe not, it was probably Craig as Bond! ). Seriously, I read the novel after learning he was going to play the role, and had him in mind while reading. Perfect fit.
- I was a bit annoyed by some aspects of the Salander character that seemed to me terribly cliché (

Spoiler

do all computer hackers in novels have to be gothic teenagers with Asperger syndrome? Most IT security consultants wear suits and have master's degrees!

). There are other clichés in the novel, BTW, but all in all they are forgiveable.
- There are some scenes of "gratuitous sadism, sex and violence" in the novel that can be unsettling. By the way, Craig will have to play in yet again

Spoiler

a torture scene starkers

... poor Dan!

[Captain Tightpants]

Interesting that they're going to keep it set in Sweden. I thought they might relocate to Maine or Washington state or wherever and re-tool it as an American version of the film. Kind of like what Nolan did with INSOMNIA where he moved it from Norway to Alaska.

[Ambler]

Why is not possible, even likely, that Stephen King, Michael Connelly, Michiko Kakutani, Alan Cheuse et al, responded to a series of novels they thought were first-rate?

I don't deny that lots of people like the Millennium Trilogy though I fail to see why that makes my opinion any less valid. Besides, there are plenty of authors out there who think Larsson's work is appalling, as I've already pointed out. Here's another.

[dodge]

Why is not possible, even likely, that Stephen King, Michael Connelly, Michiko Kakutani, Alan Cheuse et al, responded to a series of novels they thought were first-rate?

I don't deny that lots of people like the Millennium Trilogy though I fail to see why that makes my opinion any less valid. Besides, there are plenty of authors out there who think Larsson's work is appalling, as I've already pointed out. Here's another.

I'll reply to this at length in a little while when I've finished reading THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST. At that time, I'll consider this trilogy as a massive, but cohesive, whole...that is, imo, pretty darn well written. I'll make my arguments as best I can, with concrete examples, page numbers, etc. Till then, cheers--and I'm having the read of my life

[SecretAgentFan]

Don´t want to spoil the pleasure for anyone. But I´m with Ambler on this one. The Millenium Trilogy, IMO, is an overhyped happening. I was hugely disappointed after so many reviewers praised these books as redefining the thriller genre. In fact, all three books are very ordinary thrillers, offering nothing that hasn´t been done already again and again. IMO, the style is rather wooden and full of unneccessarily detailed description. Same goes for the dialogue.

The character of Lisbeth Salander is the only thing that redeems these books. It´s the kind of character that is fun because it defies social conventions. Again, this is nothing new but always entertaining. The main character, however, is rather bland. It needs a very charismatic actor to bring this one to life. Daniel Craig surely is a great choice for this.

Of course, the books are already a phenomenon. So the films will be huge as well. Good career choices for Fincher and Craig. In Fincher´s hands this will definitely be a fun thriller. But it´s nothing more. I expect a "Panic Room"-like suspense film.

[Ambler]

I'm having the read of my life.

That’s very sad.

I can only assume you haven’t read, say, Gulliver's Travels, Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, Moby-Dick, Anna Karenin, Crime and Punishment, Nostromo or An American Dream. Still, it means you have much to look forward to.

[byline]

I'm having the read of my life.

That’s very sad.

I can only assume you haven’t read, say, Gulliver's Travels, Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, Moby-Dick, Anna Karenin, Crime and Punishment, Nostromo or An American Dream. Still, it means you have much to look forward to.

You know, it's fine to have your own opinion about the books, and obviously you don't like them. But IMO, it's not fine to slag the tastes of others. Pure enjoyment is hard to find in this life, and if the poster is finding that in these books, then more power to him.

I enjoy the books, but more as a sort of "filler" between the more literary works which I also enjoy, but for very different reasons. These are fun summertime page-turners that don't require much of the reader except to sit back and enjoy the ride. There's a place for that in this world; not everything has to be high art to be satisfying.

I agree with SecretAgentFan that what sets this series apart is the Lisbeth Salander character. Take her out of the story, and it becomes pretty mundane. So Stieg Larsson created a memorable character with whom the public connects. Like her or not, that's a pretty noteworthy achievement on Larsson's part. Relatively few authors are able to pull that off. And in this day and age, I consider anything that keeps people reading a success.

[SecretAgentFan]

And in this day and age, I consider anything that keeps people reading a success.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Whenever I see books advertised for the new section "reluctant readers" I cringe.

Also, I do not think that all of the so-called "classics" are worth reading.

Shock. There, I´ve said it.

I believe that everybody has to find out what book he/she likes or prefers. The most important thing is that one likes to read it and that the book makes you passionate about its characters, themes and plot.

This can happen with a "classic" just as well as with the so-called "popular literature" or anything in between. Categories are just something people make up in order to make themselves feel more intelligent.

Having said that, I enjoyed the Millenium trilogy - I just did not think that these books are so special as the hype right now wants everybody to believe.

[Ambler]

IMO, it's not fine to slag the tastes of others.

Relativism is endemic these days so it comes as no surprise to see someone raise it here. I couldn't disagree more, though. There is such a thing as good writing - I make that judgement everyday when deciding what to publish.

I agree with SecretAgentFan that what sets this series apart is the Lisbeth Salander character. Take her out of the story, and it becomes pretty mundane.

I made that observation a couple of pages ago. Not that I find Salander a convincing creation; a woman who is small, gauche, boyish and otherwise socially disadvantaged is going to struggle in life not be a math prodigy/criminal genius/millionaire playgirl. Wishful thinking won't make it otherwise.

[dodge]

I'm having the read of my life.

That’s very sad.

I can only assume you haven’t read, say, Gulliver's Travels, Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, Moby-Dick, Anna Karenin, Crime and Punishment, Nostromo or An American Dream. Still, it means you have much to look forward to.

Yes, I've read the titles you've mentioned, Ambler. Along with all of Pushkin, Ovid, Horace, Catullus, Tacitus, Homer,etc. I used the words "having the read of my life" in the sort of hyperbolic way many of us do when we're excited about something. I don't expect that you've actually read all three of Larsson's books--but in my post I stated that I'd write at more length about what I admire in Larsson's writing...and why I think it's witless to call him a 'talentless hack.' And in doing this I'll be doing a good deal more than you have with your vitriolic vagueness. Anyway, that Moby thing--was that the one about the fish?

[Harmsway]

I can only assume you haven’t read, say, Gulliver's Travels, Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, Moby-Dick, Anna Karenin, Crime and Punishment, Nostromo or An American Dream.

Surely you could compile a more exciting list of literary treasures than this.

You know, it's fine to have your own opinion about the books, and obviously you don't like them. But IMO, it's not fine to slag the tastes of others.

I've not read the GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO books, so I have nothing to really bring to this debate as whether or not Larsson is a remarkable talent or merely an ordinary, run-of-the-mill writer.

But with the sentiment you put forth, I must disagree. True, in discussion, it's generally a misstep to slag the tastes of the individual with whom you're talking. You may think it, but expressing yourself on that count engenders no good will towards yourself or position. But that's generally a matter of politeness and restraint and judgment, rather than a matter of outright right or wrong. I do believe in the existence of good taste and bad taste, and there's something to be said for blunt, frank discussion. I admire folks who call it like they see it, and I admire folks with tough skin.

[Ambler]

I don't expect that you've actually read all three of Larsson's books

Come on, now. I wouldn't be stupid enough to express an opinion on something I hadn't read.

it's generally a misstep to slag the tastes of the individual with whom you're talking. You may think it, but expressing yourself on that count engenders no good will towards yourself or position.

Says the man who regularly tells me that Von Trier is a talentless hack and that Antichrist is trash.

[Harmsway]

Says the man who regularly tells me that Von Trier is a talentless hack and that Antichrist is trash.

I don't actually think I've attacked you for that, though, or, more broadly, those who like ANTICHRIST. I've attacked the film itself, so any attack on its fans is by implication, and therefore indirect. But if I was to directly attack you for liking it, I'm pretty sure you could take it.

[Ambler]

if I was to directly attack you for liking it, I'm pretty sure you could take it.

I'm not sure about that. I know I'm not as tough as Daniel Craig. Last time I had my balls beaten with a rope I was reduced to unconsciousness not a paroxysm of laughter.

I wonder how he'll play Mikael Blomkvist in the torture scene? With a giggle or a smirk?

[dodge]

I don't expect that you've actually read all three of Larsson's books

Come on, now. I wouldn't be stupid enough to express an opinion on something I hadn't read.

it's generally a misstep to slag the tastes of the individual with whom you're talking. You may think it, but expressing yourself on that count engenders no good will towards yourself or position.

Says the man who regularly tells me that Von Trier is a talentless hack and that Antichrist is trash.

I don't think you're stupid at all. I do think you're prideful enough to do just that. If I'm wrong, please accept my apology. But if we're to continue further debate, it would be an ongoing process that I believe will end up costing us more time than we may care to spend. The novels average out at about 600 pages--so even speed rereadings at a page a minute--would take 10 hours per book. 30 hours, without pay. Plus the need to compare and contrast with other mystery/thriller writers--throw in another 20 hours or so. (We can't weigh each other's opinions without knowing the standards behind them.) 10-15 hours more to organize our research...and then we go to battle.

I scarcely feel the need for this, since my objection all along has been to your calling Larsson a talentless hack. That's been the sole bone of contention. I'm content to hold my opinion, as mine, that he's actually--at his best--an extremely gifted writer, though not one without a few serious faults, who's created a great charactor who's quite rightly stolen about 40 million hearts.

But if you really do insist on trying to hammer me into sharing an opinion I think is absurd, bring it on. But before we start, I'll need some proof that you've actually read all three novels--as thoroughly as I have.

I'll be offline for the next week, but during that time I'll be preparing a list of 40-50 questions that cover the whole triolgy.

Hopefully, the list will keep you busy while I work on my new novel.