Friday, January 6, 2012

BOOK: The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson

The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson, 724 pages

2nds Reading Challenge

I read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo over a year ago (eep!) almost two years ago and I bought this one to read soon after. Of course, once I had it, it looked so huge that I kept putting it off. I had forgotten how page-turnable the series is, because once I actually started this on New Year's Day, I flew through the seven hundred pages. I actually liked this second book better than the first one.

The first book introduced Mikael Blomvist and Lisbeth Salander, the reporter and the angry girl. The case that brought them together was sadistic and violent and pretty terrible. The original title of the first book was Men Who Hate Women, which pretty much is a good summary of the second book as well. I really liked the structure of this book as well. The first part reintroduces Lisbeth, and she becomes a fairly sympathetic character. She's anti-social, and can be very violent, but she has a strict moral code of her own, and she develops very deep attachments with a few people. Blomvist is now a more famous journalist, and is working with a couple to investigate sex crimes in Sweden. When a murder occurs, and Lisbeth appears to be the main suspect, the chase is on. The police, the journalists, and some of Lisbeth's friends all try to solve the crime, while Lisbeth is on the loose.

I could not put this down, and the reveals are spaced just far enough apart to keep the pages turning. Other than a slightly unbelievable event at the end, Lisbeth was an amazingly smart protagonist. I liked how Larsson paced the book, and I can see how the three books work as a series. I think the third book will now try to solve the whole case, drawing us more into Lisbeth and Mikael's world. Will Lisbeth let people help her? Can Mikael solve the crime?  Can't wait!

Comments (8)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Oh my, the end, the end. I had to beg my friend who lives in Sweden to send me the third book (because at the time it hadn't yet been published here). I didn't find it unbelievable so much as I found it impossible to let it be like that; I *had* to know... *shudders*
1 reply · active 687 weeks ago
Can't wait to read the next one!
the part I found unbelievable was
*******dont' read the next part if you dont' want to know*******

was the buried alive part. He was careful to have her set in the grave with a plausible position, and conveniently with the small bullets, but that just seemed a little much to me. Luckily, I was reading so fast, I didn't stop to question it too much.
At least you have read the first one in the first place. I have owned it for ages and it still resides on my TBR pile...
1 reply · active 687 weeks ago
They read very fast. It's not high literature after all, just a thrilling page turner.
I really need to read this series.
1 reply · active 687 weeks ago
Oh, yes, it's very good.
So here's my question: If a girl (say a girl called Jenny!) had seen the film of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, would she be sufficiently well-briefed on the characters and situations to skip straight into the second book in this series? I don't want to read all the rapey parts of TGwtDT, but I am a bit curious about the series. Or does the second book be equally rapey as the first one?
1 reply · active 687 weeks ago
Well, Jenny, I would say you could. Since you've already broken the cardinal rule of seeing the movie before reading the book, (tsk, tsk) and I know you don't mind reading the end before the beginning, I would recommend you do. I didn't find the second book as rapey at all, which is probably why I liked it even more. There are still some references to the first book stuff, but I don't remember any descriptions in this book.

The second book is more about Lisbeth, and Mikael and them getting on with their lives. It had been two years since I read the first book, and I was worried I needed to remember more from the first book, but he rehashed just enough that I needed.

Did you see the Swedish movie or the US one? On the one hand, why did Hollywood feel the need to remake a two year old movie? On the other hand, Daniel Craig.

Post a new comment

Comments by