After reading The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, many readers, myself included, wondered all the more about the mysterious title character, Lisbeth Salander. The bits of her background that we were fed in that first book gave the impression that she came from the school of hard knocks.
The Girl Who Played With Fire gives great detail to just how truly awful her life has been. And the title is quite accurate, as fire was the catalyst for the horrid things that have happened to her in her life.
The Girl Who Played With Fire starts off with two stories that seem entirely separate. After events in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth has taken a holiday, traveling around the world. She’s in the Caribbean when a hurricane hits and she decides to head home. She uses the money she gleaned at the end of the previous book to finance this, as well as to provide for the care of her former guardian.
At the same time, Mikael Blomkvist is getting ready to publish quite a scandalous story in his magazine, Millennium, as well as a book to accompany it. The story has been crafted by a freelance reporter, Dag Svensso, and his girlfriend (?), Mia Johannsson, who is going for her doctorate. The story is about the sex trade in Sweden, and this story promises to “out” some quite prominent public figures as frequenting underage prostitutes who are essentially captives brought here from Eastern European countries.
Mikael has been fretting over the loss of Lisbeth’s friendship and has been trying to contact her to no avail. All that changes when Dag and Mia are found murdered. Mikael is the one who makes the discovery when he’s dropping by to pick up the manuscript late one night. The murder weapon is found nearby. When the police test it, they find one set of fingerprints on it, belonging to Lisbeth Salander.
Lisbeth soon becomes Sweden’s most wanted, and the sordid aspects of her life are spread across newspapers and television for all to see. She manages to evade authorities and takes it all in, trying to sort out what to do. Soon, her current guardian is also found dead, the victim of a gunshot from the same gun that killed Dag and Mia. All fingers are pointing at her, although those closest to her defend her and want to help her, including Mikael Blomkvist.
The Girl Who Played With Fire reads quite well as a mystery thriller. By the end of the book, we know what really happened as well as a good chunk of Lisbeth’s background. It’s getting there that’s dicey at times. The level of detail in Steig Larsson’s manuscript is daunting, and at times maddening. Do I really need a shopping list every time someone goes to the 7-11? If the mystery and characters weren’t so compelling, I likely would have walked away from the book. It can be annoyingly tedious and I found myself taking more breaks in this book than the first one.
But what’s right in The Girl Who Played With Fire makes up for it many times over. The characters are, for the most part, excellent. They all have multi-faceted personalities and depth that keep them from being caricatures. Even the villains who seem to have no redeeming qualities to them are interesting and don’t end up being caricatures. The details of the crimes are vivid. From the sex trade to the murders, it’s easy to picture what’s going on and why the stories are creating (or have the potential to create) such a furor in the public’s eyes.
The only other fault I found was some of the way Mikael Blomkvist was written. He’s a womanizer and seems to attract every woman from 15-60 who happens to come across his path. He has sex with most of them too (well, above 18). I suppose it’s supposed to make him seem desirable, but all I kept thinking was Larsson was living out some fantasy in the character of Blomkvist.
The book was translated from its original Swedish into English, and I don’t think anything was lost in translation. I didn’t struggle as much with Swedish names here as I did in the first book, and the locations around the city also felt familiar. It was no different than reading a book that was set in Los Angeles (where I’ve never been).
I’ll read the final book in the trilogy to find out what happens, but I’m not as enthused about the series as I was after The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I think there could have been heavier editing for certain. It was good, but I’m glad to have a bit of a break before I tackle the final book.
Previous book in the series:
Next book in the series:
Share this:
Categories: Book Reviews
I think most – if not all – writers tend to live out their dream lives through their fictional characters. I will cop to that…Jim Garraty in my “Reunion: Duology” not only shares some of my real-life experiences (mostly the bad ones), but he also is the version of me that I wanted to be when I was 35.
So, if a major character tends to bed a lot of people in a novel, and that character shares many traits with the author…well, more than likely this reflects some wish-fulfillment fantasies that the author has!
It’s typically called “Mary Sue syndrome”.
I tend to associate “Mary Sue” or “Gary Stu Syndrome” with stories where the writer creates a character who does everything right (at work, play, love) and is so perfect that he or she is not believable. One-dimensional characters with no Achilles heels, human flaws, and save the world (or get the love interest) at the end of the story easily are common in fan fiction, especially in Star Trek, Star Wars, and other popular fandoms. And they’re as exciting as dishwater!
And, dogged journo that I USED to be once upon a time….I did some digging: The term you’re looking for is “author surrogate” or “writer’s avatar.” This is when an author creates a character that reflects aspects of their own personality or experiences. Unlike a Mary Sue, which is an idealized and often flawless character, an author surrogate can be a more balanced and realistic portrayal, with strengths and weaknesses that mirror the complexities of a real person. This technique allows writers to infuse part of themselves into their work, adding depth and authenticity to the character’s actions and reactions.
“Mary Sue is a derogatory term used to criticize a character that fits into either or both of these two character archetypes:
An author-insert character used for wish-fulfillment
An idealized character who is talented at everything and has no meaningful flaws, but may have a tragic backstory”
https://screencraft.org/blog/what-is-a-mary-sue-character/
I think the “Mary Sue” term is slightly overused. Just my two pennies’ worth. (Bloggers and writers, including Yours Truly, have biases.)
And, from the article you cited:
“It’s important to note that not everyone will agree that these characters are Mary Sues. The term is subjective and some of the criticism may be unfair or based on stereotypes and biases about characters or stories.”
I enjoyed that blog post, Patti. It’s detailed and informative, with great examples of what makes a character a Mary Sue/Gary Stu.
There doesn’t seem to be one interpretation of the term, though, which was my point.
D’accord! 100%! Absolutely.