Book review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

[eowyn_315]

Boy, am I ever glad I don't have a Whedonesque account, because I'm pretty sure I'd get banned today. :) Instead, I will be channeling my rage into another really disappointing pile of crap. Read on for the review

Comments

[flake_sake]

I come to the conclusion that I love you doing book reviews!

I saw the movie of that book and later took a look into the book, only to be surprized that the movie was so much better, since this is so rarely the case.

In the movie Blomkvist is not quite that much of a Mary Sue and not everyone falls madly in love with him, which I found very annoying in the books.

Also the actress that played Salander did a terrific job, though she too is different from the book.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about the violence. On one hand, yes the unsubtelty is kind of eyeroll inducing, but then everything is larger than life and highly unrealistic in those books.
On the other hand, the rapes and the violence in this books is really ugly. I don't think it read like torture porn, because it was horrible every second of the way, I don't know if anyone could actually react other than repulsed by it, which I think is what the author wanted to induce.

Rape is something that's sexied up a lot and that is not here was one of the better things I had to say about the books.

The bluntness of the would be feminism is another story. I think the authore fails there completely. The raping right back is such a typically male revenge fantasy. Not that those stories (Kill Bill and also Buffy in some ways) don't have an appeal, but they just never end up feeling real to me.

I read "Privilege of the sword" shortly after, which looks at misogyny, gender roles and also violence against women and the way the world reacts in a so much more real, varried and subtle way. It was like a culture shock from male to female feminism.

[eowyn_315]

Well, I agree with you that I don't think it was meant to be titillating, so maybe torture porn isn't the right phrase. But I definitely do think it was intentionally sensationalized, and that made it seem exploitative in a way I'm not really comfortable with. I absolutely don't think it's necessary to be so disturbingly graphic in order to get his point across, and let's be honest - shocking violence is going to sell more books. It's no different than James Patterson or Law and Order: SVU. They're always trying to top themselves with an even more gruesome crime. It may be repulsive, but audiences love that kind of violence in the same way they can't look away from a car wreck.

I've never seen Kill Bill, but I think the huge difference between this and BtVS is that Buffy didn't get her power from being a victim, and doesn't use it for revenge. She fights to protect others, not herself. Salander is portrayed as being incredibly passive for most of her life - the only time she acts is in reaction to being victimized. And if victimization is a prerequisite to empowerment, that's pretty shitty empowerment.

[flake_sake]

Sensationalized yes, and also missing the point about every day monsters and so on, yes I agree with that.

Buffy thanks god got a more complex over the years but the starting premise Joss bases her own is the screaming blond female victim of horror movies. Buffy is the victim that hits back and fortuantely she grew to be more than that, but it's still this Pippy Longstocking like motive of a girl just being strong enough not to have to take all the shit.
The bluntness and the need for unrealistic powers to overcome the victim role is something I don't like about that way of depicting empowerment.