354 replies to this topic

[MkB]

To avoid spoilers, I steered clear of this thread before reading The Girl... and posted my review before looking at the full thread or any discussion about the books.

Now I must admit that I'm a bit surprised that so many people think the Salander character is the highlight of the novel. I had many objections to this character, and my hopes were that the film version would turn the character into someone more credible, and less of a lift from what's-her-name, this absurd analyst/scientist character from NCIS.
The "tough, asocial loner on her own" aspects were a nice idea, but I felt that Salander served mainly as some sort of Deus ex machina in the storyline, and that her social features served only as an excuse to bring in a hidden genius hacker on one side, and provide opportunities for gory scenes of sexual sadism (as Armansky broods several times, she's the perfect victim).
In terms of clichés, I was also annoyed by the implied idea that powerful people and notables are twisted, rotten-to-the-core, closeted sadists with torture chambers in their basement (OK, not *all*, but... look at freak show that the Vanger family is, and add the respectable Advokat Bjurman, and you have a gloomy picture of the ruling class, haven't you?). Been there, done that, bring me something new. But as I said earlier, this is forgiveable, since the thriller works, and the book reads quite well.

I have now started reading The Girl who played with Fire, and perhaps there will be more character development there. We'll see

[Ambler]

In terms of clichés, I was also annoyed by the implied idea that powerful people and notables are twisted, rotten-to-the-core, closeted sadists with torture chambers in their basement (OK, not *all*, but... look at freak show that the Vanger family is, and add the respectable Advokat Bjurman, and you have a gloomy picture of the ruling class, haven't you?).

As Larsson was a communist I don't know why you find that so annoying. After all, the party line is that the ruling class maintain their position by eating babies rather than education, investment and ability.

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

To be precise I said Larsson was a talentless hack. He's been dead a long time. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your questions, but in the meantime I'll raise one of my own - in the age of the the Internet how plausible is it that Millennium's frequent 'rock-the-establishment-to-its-core' exclusives hinge on monthly deadlines?

[byline]

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.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But what you decide to publish is also based on a series of subjective opinions, too. It's not all quantifiable as "good" vs. "bad"; there's also this pesky issue of commerce -- among other things -- to consider. Obviously the publishers of Larsson's books couldn't care less about your opinion, or mine. The collective opinions of the however-many-millions who have bought these books are their primary consideration, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[byline]

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.

OK, so maybe it's more accurate to say that it's not fine -- in my oh-so-humble opinion -- to mischaracterize others' opinions by painting with a brush the size of the Øresund Link in order to forward one's own agenda. The presumption that those of us who read and enjoy Larsson's books have never read the classics, and therefore have bad taste in literature, is, of course, off the mark. The fact that it makes for a witty -- if largely inaccurate -- comeback does not exactly bolster Ambler's position. All it does is polarize against those of opposing opinions . . . which I'm guessing was probably the point, as that's the inevitable result of "holier than thou" language.

[bond 16.05.72]

I don't care it wasn't Chekov, Kafka or whoever else is regarded a great literary giants I enjoyed reading GWTDT, I'm clearly not the intellectual superior Ambler is and he has had great enjoyment attacking my opinion and looking down his nose at me and making sniping remarks, I can read thank you and yes maybe my grammar isn't as perfect as yours but I'm only answering to comments on a forum I don't always double check what I type but I have more things going on in my life and don't need to feel superior on a internet forum.

[Ambler]

I don't care it wasn't Chekov, Kafka or whoever else is regarded a great literary giants I enjoyed reading GWTDT, I'm clearly not the intellectual superior Ambler is and he has had great enjoyment attacking my opinion and looking down his nose at me and making sniping remarks, I can read thank you and yes maybe my grammar isn't as perfect as yours but I'm only answering to comments on a forum I don't always double check what I type but I have more things going on in my life and don't need to feel superior on a internet forum.

Freedom of expression is of no importance to you so why participate in a debate about the literary quality of Larsson's work?

Now do dry your tears. Your generation's love of victimhood is most tiresome.

[The Shark]

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.

Bog off Ambler, you are so up your own it's unbelievable! You can't help but go against the grain just for the sake of it, yeah all of us who read the GWDT and loved it are unknowing sheep fooled into thinking they just read a good book.

I'm hardly the only man in publishing who thinks Larsson's writing is appalling. See The Girl Who Deserves To Escape Her Author.

I don't care just because some pretentious types like yourself don't like it, is going to change my mind No! We see thing very differently as I can see from the nonsence you spouted in my Wire thread.

I wonder who of your old MI6 buddys will just to your defense first?

Typical anti-intellectual hogwash. Just because unlike others, Ambler is a man of cultured tastes, unorthodox opinions, and a caustic sense of humour - Doesn't discredit his opinions. Lazily tarnishing everything he says as 'pretentious' doesn't do you any favours either.

Oh, I suppose you know which one of Ambler's 'old MI6 buddys (sic) has justed (sic) to his defence first.

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.

A hack is, by definition, someone who writes without a thought in his head about quality or style, only the making of money. Larsson completed all three books for love, never believing that they'd ever see print.

A rather long-winded and convenient definition you've got there. How about this?

Noun: a mediocre and disdained writer

Ambler and countless others vehemently dislike this writer, and consider his output to be mediocre or worse.

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack, if he was talentless he wouldn't have been able to construct such a gripping page turner.

Right. And that's a veritable fact is it?

I look forward with baited breath to Ambler's debut novel, armchair critics are the worse, it's like these muppets saying Inception is rubbish I'd like to see their efforts and see if they think it's easy to make such a film, we'd find out who were the talentless hacks then.

Hate to resort to platitudes here, but the saying 'One does not to be a chef to recognise bad cooking' holds some water here.

Plus 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, it's been extremely popular with people and I wouldn't dare put in the same area as Brown's fluffy nonsense.

So everyone who holds a minority opinion, should be viewed merely as 'pretentious' and 'elitist', with their views discredited in one poorly thought out, reductivist, blanket statement, in order not to your dishevel your neat little word?

[dodge]

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.

Bog off Ambler, you are so up your own it's unbelievable! You can't help but go against the grain just for the sake of it, yeah all of us who read the GWDT and loved it are unknowing sheep fooled into thinking they just read a good book.

I'm hardly the only man in publishing who thinks Larsson's writing is appalling. See The Girl Who Deserves To Escape Her Author.

I don't care just because some pretentious types like yourself don't like it, is going to change my mind No! We see thing very differently as I can see from the nonsence you spouted in my Wire thread.

I wonder who of your old MI6 buddys will just to your defense first?

Typical anti-intellectual hogwash. Just because unlike others, Ambler is a man of cultured tastes, unorthodox opinions, and a caustic sense of humour - Doesn't discredit his opinions. Lazily tarnishing everything he says as 'pretentious' doesn't do you any favours either.

Oh, I suppose you know which one of Ambler's 'old MI6 buddys (sic) has justed (sic) to his defence first.

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.

A hack is, by definition, someone who writes without a thought in his head about quality or style, only the making of money. Larsson completed all three books for love, never believing that they'd ever see print.

A rather long-winded and convenient definition you've got there. How about this?

Noun: a mediocre and disdained writerAmbler and countless others vehemently dislike this writer, and consider his output to be mediocre or worse.

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack, if he was talentless he wouldn't have been able to construct such a gripping page turner.

Right. And that's a veritable fact is it?

I look forward with baited breath to Ambler's debut novel, armchair critics are the worse, it's like these muppets saying Inception is rubbish I'd like to see their efforts and see if they think it's easy to make such a film, we'd find out who were the talentless hacks then.

Hate to resort to platitudes here, but the saying 'One does not to be a chef to recognise bad cooking' holds some water here.

Plus 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, it's been extremely popular with people and I wouldn't dare put in the same area as Brown's fluffy nonsense.

So everyone who holds a minority opinion, should be viewed merely as 'pretentious' and 'elitist', with their views discredited in one poorly thought out, reductivist, blanket statement, in order not to your dishevel your neat little word?

No, the definition you offer is completely useless. Sorry you feel my 18-word definition is 'long-winded'--when your final question runs on to 37 words! The distinction I brought up was not convenient but essential. Some undeniably mediocre writers actually aspire to greatness. On the other hand, some enormously gifted writers and directors work for money, period. I say let's keep the distinction.

[The Shark]

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.

Bog off Ambler, you are so up your own it's unbelievable! You can't help but go against the grain just for the sake of it, yeah all of us who read the GWDT and loved it are unknowing sheep fooled into thinking they just read a good book.

I'm hardly the only man in publishing who thinks Larsson's writing is appalling. See The Girl Who Deserves To Escape Her Author.

I don't care just because some pretentious types like yourself don't like it, is going to change my mind No! We see thing very differently as I can see from the nonsence you spouted in my Wire thread.

I wonder who of your old MI6 buddys will just to your defense first?

Typical anti-intellectual hogwash. Just because unlike others, Ambler is a man of cultured tastes, unorthodox opinions, and a caustic sense of humour - Doesn't discredit his opinions. Lazily tarnishing everything he says as 'pretentious' doesn't do you any favours either.

Oh, I suppose you know which one of Ambler's 'old MI6 buddys (sic) has justed (sic) to his defence first.

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.

A hack is, by definition, someone who writes without a thought in his head about quality or style, only the making of money. Larsson completed all three books for love, never believing that they'd ever see print.

A rather long-winded and convenient definition you've got there. How about this?

Noun: a mediocre and disdained writerAmbler and countless others vehemently dislike this writer, and consider his output to be mediocre or worse.

Yeah it always makes me laugh that the likes of Ambler are calling him a talentless hack, if he was talentless he wouldn't have been able to construct such a gripping page turner.

Right. And that's a veritable fact is it?

I look forward with baited breath to Ambler's debut novel, armchair critics are the worse, it's like these muppets saying Inception is rubbish I'd like to see their efforts and see if they think it's easy to make such a film, we'd find out who were the talentless hacks then.

Hate to resort to platitudes here, but the saying 'One does not to be a chef to recognise bad cooking' holds some water here.

Plus 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, it's been extremely popular with people and I wouldn't dare put in the same area as Brown's fluffy nonsense.

So everyone who holds a minority opinion, should be viewed merely as 'pretentious' and 'elitist', with their views discredited in one poorly thought out, reductivist, blanket statement, in order not to your dishevel your neat little word?

No, the definition you offer is completely useless.

No, no more useless than the one you chose, which I consider to be rather unorthodox and circumscribed. Mine simply holds a broader definition, and can easily correspond to your definition.

Sorry you feel my 18-word definition is 'long-winded'--when your final question runs on to 37 words!

Aha! But not my definition! Stop changing the goal posts.

The distinction I brought up was not convenient but essential.

Both convenient AND essential to your argument, I barter. One doesn't negate the other.

Some undeniably mediocre writers actually aspire to greatness. On the other hand, some enormously gifted writers and directors work for money, period. I say let's keep the distinction.

Yes, but under my definition, those mediocre artists of any medium can still be classified as hacks, if the reviewer/critic so chooses.

To cut to the chaff, your definition of a hack is that of a money grabbing, opportunistic and self-aware charlatan. Fair do. Mine is broader, but can also includes charlatans as well.

[dodge]

Questions for Ambler, as promised.

GWPWF:

1) After leaving Genoa, what does Lisa do for the first time in 25 years?
2) Which tattoo did she have removed?
3) Which piercings?
4) What does Advokat Bjurman do--after Lisbeth's branded him--that causes her to pay him another frightening visit?
5) What is the size of Lisbeth's new fortune?
6) What is Lisa's twin sister's name and why does Lisbeth resent her?
7) In two pages Harriet Vanger says "You scoundrel" twice to Blomkvist: for what different reasons?
8) What use does Dr. Forbes plan to make of an upcoming storm?
9) Has Mimmi Wu ever had sex with a man?
10) What does Wu, the kickboxer, think of Lisbeth's boxing?
11) What does boxer Paolo Roberto call Lisbeth's fighting style?
12) When Lisbeth shows up out of the blue, after two years, why does Armansky lay into her--and what shocking news do he deliveR?
13) Palmgren sums Lisbeth up as a genuinely moral person, but "The problem was that her notion of morality..." What?
14) Who is the 'diabolical alpha male' hired by Advokat Bjurman to take care of Lisbeth--but who fails miserably in a street encounter?
15) What are the three parallel investigations into the Enskende murders?
16) What is Lisbeth's favorite pizza?
17) When Lisbeth is later assaulted by two bikers, she takes one's motorcycle and a souvenir. What is the souvenir and how does she use it?


GWKTHN
18) How many bone chips are picked out from around the bullet entry wound in Lisbeth's head?
19) Evert Gullberg and 11 other people knew of the 'Zalachenko matter'...Gullberg thought. Now EG learns that a thirteenth person shared the secret. Who?
20) What food served at a meeting leads Gullberg to conclude that his day has passed?
21) Aside from the Zalacheno matter, what is the most serious problem faced by Gullberg and Fred Clinton?
22) About how long a walk is it from Blonkvist's apartment to Milton Security's office?
23) Though Gullberg is no forger, he does forge twelve letters successfully. Why is this easy for him?
24) When Gunnar Bjorck looks into his living room, why does he stop short in surprise?
25) Why doesn't Blomkvist see a red Volvo parked conspicuously outside his apartment?
26) What's the name of the hospital cleaner who plays a critical part in bringing the wounded Lisbeth back into the action?
27) How do several pages detailing a proposed article on toilets turn out to relate to the story proper?
28) In the performance of job duties, what is the main obstacle for Inspector Figuerola?
29) What happens when Dor Jonasson bends over to arrange Lisbeth's pillow?
30) At what point does Lisbeth laugh aloud for the first time in weeks?
31) What does Inspector Figuerola find to be 'one conspicuous thing' about the owner of that Volvo?
32) What is the most astonishing thing about the huge apartment Lisbeth furnished after she was rich?
33) Name at least two sex toys used by Advokat Bjurman in his rape of Lisbeth,
34) Who is Inspector Figuerola's favorite novelist?
34) What is the Inspector's favorite action movie franchise?
35) How many pages is 'the crackingly terse' auto bio Lisbeth writes in preparation for her trial?
36) As she bonds with Dr Jonasson, Lisbeth smiles...thinking what?
37) Why does Lisbeth conclude that Berger's computer nemesis isn't a stalker?
38) What is the name of the 'elite body' of 'loyal idiots' working on Lisbeth's behalf?
39) What brand of cigarettes is smuggled into the hospital for Lisbeth--and by whom?
40) With whom is Dr Teleborian working secretly to have Lisbeth recommitted?

[Harmsway]

What is the purpose of these questions? Just to verify that Ambler has actually read the novels in question?

[Matt_13]

A most entertaining discussion. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has produced such a successful and acclaimed series can be nothing more than a talentless hack. Even Dan Brown, whose work I find tedious and cluttered with needless exposition, has crafted some genuinely interesting stories that are engaging and accessible, which brings me to my point. Isn't connecting on an emotional level with the largest audience possible the goal of good fiction writing? I find when digesting a work of literature that language is only a small part of the package. Clarity and flow, in my opinion, overwhelm vocabulary and complex sentence structure any day. What I find pretentious is when a writer attempts to come across as intellectually superior to those reading his work, even if he can't fully grasp what he himself is trying to communicate. Now, I'm not in the publishing business (hell, I'm going into my third year of college next week), but I've always found it annoying when individuals snipe the work of successful authors in a manner that suggests they are above what they read. Just because you think you're above the level of story telling on display doesn't mean that the work itself was produced by a hack, nor does it mean that those who enjoyed reading it simply don't grasp good writing. Fiction doesn't have to be high art to be well produced. It also doesn't need to have unnecessary complexity in the language, nor depth in meaning between the lines. It has to entertain, and clearly this author has succeeded in doing just that; entertaining. Ah well, carry on.

[dodge]

What is the purpose of these questions? Just to verify that Ambler has actually read the novels in question?

Yes. Not long ago, Ambler had published his first blast at Larsson's being a 'talentless hack'. When I first called him on this, his response seemed to indicate that he hadn't read Larsson at all. When he came back recently repeating the earlier charge, I did question whether he would have read approximately 1800 pages by someone he despises in a short period of time. As I mentioned previously, I'd be happy to continue debating, but only if I'm convinced that he's read all three novels. I've invested a lot of time in reading and re-reading Larsson's work. Now, I don't ask that you, he or anyone else share my enthusiasm for the three books. But before I do spend precious time in a debate about Larsson's writing ability, I need to know I'm not wasting my time. Ambler himself didn't object to the proposed list of questions, so I'm trusting you don't either.

A most entertaining discussion. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has produced such a successful and acclaimed series can be nothing more than a talentless hack. Even Dan Brown, whose work I find tedious and cluttered with needless exposition, has crafted some genuinely interesting stories that are engaging and accessible, which brings me to my point. Isn't connecting on an emotional level with the largest audience possible the goal of good fiction writing? I find when digesting a work of literature that language is only a small part of the package. Clarity and flow, in my opinion, overwhelm vocabulary and complex sentence structure any day. What I find pretentious is when a writer attempts to come across as intellectually superior to those reading his work, even if he can't fully grasp what he himself is trying to communicate. Now, I'm not in the publishing business (hell, I'm going into my third year of college next week), but I've always found it annoying when individuals snipe the work of successful authors in a manner that suggests they are above what they read. Just because you think you're above the level of story telling on display doesn't mean that the work itself was produced by a hack, nor does it mean that those who enjoyed reading it simply don't grasp good writing. Fiction doesn't have to be high art to be well produced. It also doesn't need to have unnecessary complexity in the language, nor depth in meaning between the lines. It has to entertain, and clearly this author has succeeded in doing just that; entertaining. Ah well, carry on.

Good post, Matt. And isn't it odd that, on a James Bond website, some are vehemently attacking a series of books that Dan Craig himself is in love with? Dan's always been praised here for his artistic integrity--now he's committed to making three movies based on books by a talentless hack? Poor Dan!

[Harmsway]

Isn't connecting on an emotional level with the largest audience possible the goal of good fiction writing?

Not necessarily, no.

As I mentioned previously, I'd be happy to continue debating, but only if I'm convinced that he's read all three novels.

Such skepticism hardly seems to be the right way to kick off a worthwhile conversation. Almost all good conversations begin in good faith. Nevertheless, it's between you and Ambler.

[dodge]

As I mentioned previously, I'd be happy to continue debating, but only if I'm convinced that he's read all three novels.

Such skepticism hardly seems to be the right way to kick off a worthwhile conversation.

Nevertheless, it's between you and Ambler. If I was him, though, I wouldn't bother, even if I had read the books in question.

Well, you've already stated that you haven't read any of them. So I'm not sure why you're even commenting here.

[Harmsway]

So I'm not sure why you're even commenting here.

Simply as an observer. I enjoy watching a good debate/conversation, and this one, in particular, touches on broader topics of interest to me.

[dodge]

So I'm not sure why you're even commenting here.

Simply as an observer. I enjoy watching a good debate/conversation, and this one, in particular, touches on broader topics of interest to me.

Then, since I really do respect you, I urge you to read at least the first novel in the series. We are talking about serious matters here and hackery versus artistry is only the tip of the berg. And, no, I won't submit a list of questions for you to answer before posting. You haven't been swinging a bucket of slime, making blanket assertions. And, actually, once serious discussion commences, I'll be among the first to deal with Larsson's shortcomings as a writer. He has some very real ones. But then so do most writers, even the very greatest. I'm looking for a balanced assessment, that's all.

[Matt_13]

Isn't connecting on an emotional level with the largest audience possible the goal of good fiction writing?

Not necessarily, no.

If a book isn't emotionally engaging and accessible how else will it be successful?

[Jim]

Oh, what fresh hell is this?

[Harmsway]

Then, since I really do respect you, I urge you to read at least the first novel in the series.

I may do that at some point, preferably before the Fincher film is released. Right now, though, I find myself overwhelmed with reading material.

I'm looking for a balanced assessment, that's all.

While I haven't read the books and am therefore uncertain as to whether or not I would share your enthusiasm for the novels, I'm sympathetic to your cry. A great many worthwhile writers are deeply flawed. You've mentioned Dumas. I'd mention many more: Mary Shelley, whose FRANKENSTEIN has some extraordinarily obvious deficiencies but is nevertheless one of the most important novels of its time, or, to draw upon someone more recent, Iain M. Banks, whose novels offer exciting stories, abundant imagination, and profound ideas, but thoroughly mundane prose. Of course, some novels are really just plain bad, even if they do find an audience. TWILIGHT has few merits.

That said, from what I know of his somewhat complicated tastes, Ambler hardly fits the mold of your standard elitist. I'm not saying you've pinned him as such, but it's worth mentioning that his tastes don't merely run to "worthy" literature (despite how he might come across in this thread).

[The Shark]

Isn't connecting on an emotional level with the largest audience possible the goal of good fiction writing?

Not necessarily, no.

If a book isn't emotionally engaging and accessible how else will it be successful?

Emotional engagement and accessibility are quite distinct features.

[dodge]

Further thoughts on the subject of Hackery that may be of interest. The definition that I've offered wasn't something I coined on a whim. Nor did I do any Googling. The following quotes are taken from HIRED PENS: PROFESSIONAL WRITERS IN AMERICA'S GOLDEN AGE OF PRINT by Ronald Weber, Professor of American Studies at the Univ. of Notre Dame. The book was published by Ohio University Press in 1997.

The book's argument: With the exception of Irving, Cooper and Longfellow, "Only in the postbellum period did living entirely by the pen become a generally realistic possibility for American writers...a whole class of..clever people...who do well a kind of acceptable work." The book is devoted to the study of this class of professionals who thrived on the new markets provided by story papers, dime novels, pulp and slick magazines, etc.

1) "To put the best face on it, the authors I treat were skilled literary craftsmen rather than high-culture literary artists. Less charitably, they could be described as GRUB STREET HACKS (my caps), adept at churning out...'good bad stuff' in a never-ending stream."
2) "Herein is my territory--the world of writing according to demand." Backed up by a vivid quote from an Upton Sinclair article, published in 1902, on commercial writers who "watch hungrily for any subject that will 'go;' who will turn you out a biography of a great man six weeks after he is dead...'
3) "The popular biographer James Parton once told Howells...that he could not "recall one instance of an author who did no task or HACK-WORK, that could safely live in the style of a prosperous grocer, unless he had property or a pension. No, not one, from Herodotus down."
4) "Jack London's fictional writer MArtin Eden (has a plan to produce) 'HACK-WORK and income first, masterpieces afterward.'"
5)"William Faulkner turned to his agent in hope of raising money: "My books have never sold, are out of print...Couldn't I do
some sort of editorial work, or some sort of HACKWRITING at home...?"
6) "Of course Poe...was a HACK writer most of the time and a literary artist some of the time."
7) "(Samuel) Johnson's eminent biographer...notes that much of what he wrote in this period--roughly from 1736 down to the Dictionary in 1755--was certainly HACK WORK but 'inspired HACK WORK' that still claims our attention.'"

I maintain that the distinction is useful. Gore Vidal, a brilliant prose stylist, had to turn to hackwork after being blacklisted as a homosexual etiyrt. Ed McBain paid the rent with some very well-crafted mysteries, written 'according to demand.' These paid the way for him to write his more serious fiction under his real name, Evan Hunter.

[Ambler]

Questions for Ambler, as promised.

1) After leaving Genoa, what does Lisa do for the first time in 25 years?
Complain about the incline on the local funicular railway

2) Which tattoo did she have removed?
'Daddy's girl'

3) Which piercings?
Frenulum labiorum pudendi

4) What does Advokat Bjurman do--after Lisbeth's branded him--that causes her to pay him another frightening visit?
Disrespects Portishead, The Wire and some hack author

5) What is the size of Lisbeth's new fortune?
about twice as big as Verkoyansk in Siberia

6) What is Lisa's twin sister's name and why does Lisbeth resent her?
Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee has a history.

7) In two pages Harriet Vanger says "You scoundrel" twice to Blomkvist: for what different reasons?
The girl in Salto Angel Falls, Venezuela and and her aunt in Tunbridge Wells

8) What use does Dr. Forbes plan to make of an upcoming storm?
Spanish omelette with fries

9) Has Mimmi Wu ever had sex with a man?
Does Ralph Johnson Bunche count?

10) What does Wu, the kickboxer, think of Lisbeth's boxing?
"Better than the United States Library of Congress"

11) What does boxer Paolo Roberto call Lisbeth's fighting style?
Catherine of Aragon meets Henry Kissinger

12) When Lisbeth shows up out of the blue, after two years, why does Armansky lay into her--and what shocking news do he deliveR?
Rear Admiral Robert E. Peary knew her grandfather

13) Palmgren sums Lisbeth up as a genuinely moral person, but "The problem was that her notion of morality..." What?
Offended Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles

14) Who is the 'diabolical alpha male' hired by Advokat Bjurman to take care of Lisbeth--but who fails miserably in a street encounter?
Mujibur Rehman

15) What are the three parallel investigations into the Enskende murders?
564 kilometres, Damascus and Venice

16) What is Lisbeth's favorite pizza?
Baby Spice

17) When Lisbeth is later assaulted by two bikers, she takes one's motorcycle and a souvenir. What is the souvenir and how does she use it?
The Caspian Sea. She folds it into itself.


Thanks for playing.

[byline]

Now, I'm not in the publishing business (hell, I'm going into my third year of college next week),

I am. Not that that makes my opinion any more important than anyone else's. It's just a statement of fact.

but I've always found it annoying when individuals snipe the work of successful authors in a manner that suggests they are above what they read. Just because you think you're above the level of story telling on display doesn't mean that the work itself was produced by a hack, nor does it mean that those who enjoyed reading it simply don't grasp good writing. Fiction doesn't have to be high art to be well produced. It also doesn't need to have unnecessary complexity in the language, nor depth in meaning between the lines. It has to entertain, and clearly this author has succeeded in doing just that; entertaining. Ah well, carry on.

I agree. While I haven't read Stephen King's books in quite some time, they did once have a place in my life more as summertime reading entertainment than the slow, steady absorption and processing of more artistic literature. King could well be called a "hack" . . . yet obviously his work resonates with many of readers, and the success of his books has, over the years, no doubt subsidized his publisher's books that didn't sell nearly so well. As in the movie business, you need those bestsellers/blockbusters to help pay the bills for the commercial disappointments (many of which are artistically superior).

Which reminds me: We are in a forum discussing James Bond films and books, after all (none of which, as entertaining as they may be, and as large an audience as they consistently draw, can be described as "high art").

One thing I think we should remember is that Larsson died shortly after submitting his three manuscripts. These books never underwent the sustained interactive editing process which benefits even the most talented published authors. I can't know for sure, of course, but I believe that had he lived and gone through that process, a good deal of the more tedious expository text would have been streamlined or dropped altogether. (I'm finding that especially problematic in the third novel, which I'm currently reading.)

To further compound things, I wonder if his writing lost something in the translation from Swedish to English. Not knowing Swedish, I can't make that comparison, so it's impossible for me to judge for myself if the quality of his writing is clearer, either way, in its original language.

But having said that, I still manage to find enjoyment in the three books, mainly because I find most of the characters engaging enough to hold my interest. Where he loses me -- again, this seems more problematic to me in the third novel -- is when he leaves his main character for long stretches of time. I see this more as a problem in the editing process, in which Larsson was never a part. Obviously his books were edited, but without his active participation in that refinement process, I have a feeling that something was lost.

Edited by byline, 27 August 2010 - 12:28 PM.

[dodge]

Now, I'm not in the publishing business (hell, I'm going into my third year of college next week),

I am. Not that that makes my opinion any more important than anyone else's. It's just a statement of fact.

but I've always found it annoying when individuals snipe the work of successful authors in a manner that suggests they are above what they read. Just because you think you're above the level of story telling on display doesn't mean that the work itself was produced by a hack, nor does it mean that those who enjoyed reading it simply don't grasp good writing. Fiction doesn't have to be high art to be well produced. It also doesn't need to have unnecessary complexity in the language, nor depth in meaning between the lines. It has to entertain, and clearly this author has succeeded in doing just that; entertaining. Ah well, carry on.

I agree. While I haven't read Stephen King's books in quite some time, they did once have a place in my life more as summertime reading entertainment than the slow, steady absorption and processing of more artistic literature. King could well be called a "hack" . . . yet obviously his work resonates with many of readers, and the success of his books has, over the years, no doubt subsidized his publisher's books that didn't sell nearly so well. As in the movie business, you need those bestsellers/blockbusters to help pay the bills for the commercial disappointments (many of which are artistically superior).

Which reminds me: We are in a forum discussing James Bond films and books, after all (none of which, as entertaining as they may be, and as large an audience as they consistently draw, can be described as "high art").

One thing I think we should remember is that Larsson died shortly after submitting his three manuscripts. These books never underwent the sustained interactive editing process which benefits even the most talented published authors. I can't know for sure, of course, but I believe that had he lived and gone through that process, a good deal of the more tedious expository text would have been streamlined or dropped altogether. (I'm finding that especially problematic in the third novel, which I'm currently reading.)

To further compound things, I wonder if his writing lost something in the translation from Swedish to English. Not knowing Swedish, I can't make that comparison, so it's impossible for me to judge for myself if the quality of his writing is clearer, either way, in its original language.

But having said that, I still manage to find enjoyment in the three books, mainly because I find most of the characters engaging enough to hold my interest. Where he loses me -- again, this seems more problematic to me in the third novel -- is when he leaves his main character for long stretches of time. I see this more as a problem in the editing process, in which Larsson was never a part. Obviously his books were edited, but without his active participation in that refinement process, I have a feeling that something was lost.

I quite agree with you about the editing process. This was nowhere more evident than in the third novel, which may have been published pretty much as it was written. I'm thinking of the ending in particular--where, at the very peak of the suspense, Larsson reintroduces a rather major character who's been absent for hundreds of pages. Not an unsolvable problem, but then Larsson shuts the suspense down completely in order to give us six pages of summary about where the character's been. That said, Larsson then delivers one of his most astonishing action sequences and winds the book up wonderfully.

Larsson was highly unusual in that he did complete all three novels before publication of the first. So he never had the advantage in the creative process of early editorial or critical feedback. Considering his handicaps, I regard his achievement as all the more impressive.

Questions for Ambler, as promised.

1) After leaving Genoa, what does Lisa do for the first time in 25 years?
Complain about the incline on the local funicular railway

2) Which tattoo did she have removed?
'Daddy's girl'

3) Which piercings?
Frenulum labiorum pudendi

4) What does Advokat Bjurman do--after Lisbeth's branded him--that causes her to pay him another frightening visit?
Disrespects Portishead, The Wire and some hack author

5) What is the size of Lisbeth's new fortune?
about twice as big as Verkoyansk in Siberia

6) What is Lisa's twin sister's name and why does Lisbeth resent her?
Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee has a history.

7) In two pages Harriet Vanger says "You scoundrel" twice to Blomkvist: for what different reasons?
The girl in Salto Angel Falls, Venezuela and and her aunt in Tunbridge Wells

8) What use does Dr. Forbes plan to make of an upcoming storm?
Spanish omelette with fries

9) Has Mimmi Wu ever had sex with a man?
Does Ralph Johnson Bunche count?

10) What does Wu, the kickboxer, think of Lisbeth's boxing?
"Better than the United States Library of Congress"

11) What does boxer Paolo Roberto call Lisbeth's fighting style?
Catherine of Aragon meets Henry Kissinger

12) When Lisbeth shows up out of the blue, after two years, why does Armansky lay into her--and what shocking news do he deliveR?
Rear Admiral Robert E. Peary knew her grandfather

13) Palmgren sums Lisbeth up as a genuinely moral person, but "The problem was that her notion of morality..." What?
Offended Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles

14) Who is the 'diabolical alpha male' hired by Advokat Bjurman to take care of Lisbeth--but who fails miserably in a street encounter?
Mujibur Rehman

15) What are the three parallel investigations into the Enskende murders?
564 kilometres, Damascus and Venice

16) What is Lisbeth's favorite pizza?
Baby Spice

17) When Lisbeth is later assaulted by two bikers, she takes one's motorcycle and a souvenir. What is the souvenir and how does she use it?
The Caspian Sea. She folds it into itself.

Thanks for playing.

I accept your graceless confession of defeat.

[Cody]

Pictures of Rooney Mara on set

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Having just seen the Swedish film version, easily the greatest movie I've watched all year and the best thriller I have seen since Silence of the Lambs, I have to say the American version holds very little interest to me despite the great man's (Craig) and the even greater man's (Fincher) involvement. There is no way they can make a better film than this. No way.

[Germanlady]

Having just seen the Swedish film version, easily the greatest movie I've watched all year and the best thriller I have seen since Silence of the Lambs, I have to say the American version holds very little interest to me despite the great man's (Craig) and the even greater man's (Fincher) involvement. There is no way they can make a better film than this. No way.

I can tell you, that the film version looses a lot once you have read the books. For me at least and its quite easy to imagine them doing better. Have you read the books? There is lots of material on which you can improve the films.

[MkB]

I have just watched the Swedish film of The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, and although it's a honest thriller with good actors, it is still very different from the novel. Some plot features have been modified (quite understandably, to fit so many pages into a 2-hour film), but the motivations and relationships of the characters have somehow been transformed. I can see how Fincher can make a totally different film from the same material.

PS: of course, I regretted I had read the novel, practically as always... One should read novels only AFTER watching film adaptations!

[dodge]

I have just watched the Swedish film of The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, and although it's a honest thriller with good actors, it is still very different from the novel. Some plot features have been modified (quite understandably, to fit so many pages into a 2-hour film), but the motivations and relationships of the characters have somehow been transformed. I can see how Fincher can make a totally different film from the same material.
PS: of course, I regretted I had read the novel, practically as always... One should read novels only AFTER watching film adaptations!

My point exactly in my mini-review on the What Movie Have You Just Seen thread. I enjoyed the Swedish version immensely, even more on a second viewing. MY main problem remains with the editorial choices made in condensing a 600-page novel into a 2-hour film. Some things clearly had to go...but I believe they made some foolish, unnecessary cuts.

Naomi Rapace did a marvelous job. But the look she adapted, for one thing, can surely be improved on. I also think her Salanger was a bit too ethereal at times.


For once I'm looking forward to a Hollywood update of a classy Euro film.