Year in (Book) Review:The Girl Who Played with Fire

Second round with little Lisbeth and her cohorts.

I do have to say that I enjoyed this one more than the last one, which I did enjoy, and I do have to say that I have no good explanation as to why. A few theories: while the first of Larsson's trilogy revolved mostly around Kalle Blomkvist, which I cannot pronounce and therefore call him, simply, 'Mike,' Fire is a lot more Lisbeth, and she's a cool character. (Side note: you know how sometimes you get something stuck in your head, even when it's ridiculous? Somehow, my tiny blonde -- and so maybe sort of Swedish-looking? -- friend is the only human being I know over the age of eleven who is as tiny and as spunky as Lisbeth is described to be. And once I thought of that, now I can't picture anyone else in the movie in my head that plays as I read. Kim is neither apparently autistic, tattooed, or known to have killed anyone, so... yeah. Moving on.) Also, this one just felt more active to me. Not that Dragon Tattoo didn't keep things plowing forward, but this felt more like a thriller to me. More of a page turner. I hope it's a trend that continues through the Hornet's Nest and, if it should come to pass, the fourth book.

What I didn't love so much. The book begins with some interesting characters and happenings that go... absolutely nowhere. I don't like getting to the end of a book only to find out that the first third of it was filler. I don't think books should start with filler. That doesn't make much sense, now does it. The circumstances don't advance the plot at all, and they don't give us any information or insight into Lisbeth's personality that we haven't already been privy to from the first book. (Another side note: some people will tell you that you don't need to read the first one in order to enjoy the second. That may be true, but it is my opinion that you absolutely need the first one to really have any clear idea what or who you're reading about in the second. And also I don't really understand people who would read the second book in a trilogy without reading the first. Those people make me uneasy.)

I take some small issue with Larsson repeatedly handing his characters the tools -- skills, knowledge, and sometimes actual, literal tools -- they need to get out of the situations he puts them in. I sort of think if they can't get out of them themselves, maybe the writer has no business putting them there in the first place. But this is nitpicky, and probably unavoidable, and is why I don't write thrillers.

But, after some of the slower stories I've been reading lately -- some good, some eh -- this is a great way to get back to movement. He'll keep you up at night with the "one more chapter" syndrome, and that is, I would have to say, probably the best thing a writer can do.

(A final side note: Just Netflixed the Swedish film version of the first novel, which is supposed to be amazing. I'm a little freaked out, not completely sure I want to see some of those things played out in front of me, but I'll let you know if I recommend it! Anyone seen it yet who wants to weigh in before I watch?)