Why people love Stieg Larsson's Novels
newyorker.comWhile I didn't care so much for the violence, I thoroughly enjoyed the novels. I thought they had a comparatively unusual plot and unusual characters. They are definitely much better written than, say, Dan Brown novels.
Funny to see the the NYT complain about 12 page long boring descriptions. Surely any regular reader of the NYT should have no problems to cope with those.
Also that article just quotes things out of context to make them sound silly.
Funny, I place Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown in the same section: writers who are good at constructing a compelling story, but not so good in actually writing it down.
With Stieg Larsson, I got really annoyed with the amount of boring expositions, pseudo-cliffhangers at the end of every other chapter, overuse of clichés ("and then they talked for X hours"), etc.. It reads like a very rough draft of a book, not as an edited text ready for publication.
That said, I've read both authors and enjoyed the books. I just feel that they could have been so much better with some serious rewrites (as apparently the English translation of Stieg Larsson had, I have to check that one out).
It reads like a very rough draft of a book
Given that Larsson died before the final edits where completed, that is probably a quite accurate description.
I suspect the same. I've considered reading the one of the books in English also just to see if they are improved. I found Dan Brown to be slightly less annoying in Swedish than in English, since some parts had been cleaned up.
Maybe the roughness was part of the charm for me. It gives it more of a reality feel. But also, I guess I am not that critical a reader, I care more for ideas than presentation.
I enjoyed the books for their ideas also. The fact that the presentation is flawed is unfortunately a hindrance that breaks the spell ("oh no, not that trope once again"). On the other hand, some authors are so good at the presentation that their writing also breaks the spell, but for the reason that I want to stop and admire it. The latter is a less hurtful problem of course :)
Single page link: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/10/110...
> (And that welfare state may soon be disabled by the recently elected conservative government.)
Uhuh. They've been in power since 2006 and the welfare state has not been "disabled".
That and the fact that the current government hardly classifies and 'conservative' in any meaningful international comparison. At best they're a "slightly less socialist" government.
To be fair, they have to have some (arbitrary) name for the coalitions.
The semantics of political parties and ideologies are one of the most confusing things. Both the Democratic and Republican party are to the right of most, if not all, Scandinavian political parties.
In a system with more than two parties, you have to name your party something that actually connotates the party's policies (Democrats and Republicans doesn't exactly mean anything to outsiders), and considering that many of these parties have existed for over 100 years, their policies have obviously changed since they got their names. (This makes it pretty awkward for the parties who deviate from their historic names. Consider the parties that were created when Communism was all the rave, but are still around. They need to distance themselves from the past without denouncing their party's raison d'etre. I'm sure that's why we have so many nebulous party names cropping up: "Freedom", "People's" parties and whatnot.)
You often hear people refer to American policians as liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian and so forth, which are ideologies more so than something reflected by the party names. Democrats can also be conservative (Blue Dogs), and so on and so forth.
In a system that isn't (basically) a two-party system, people use their party name to characterize their policy: "Social-democratic, moderate, conservative, socialist, liberal, (which means something akin to libertarian on that side of the Atlantic)" as using other attribute would be a denouncement. Instead, silly buzz words like "welfare", "freedom", "fair", "tough", "rewarding", "equality", "Danish", "Swedish", "Norwegian", etc. crop up to frame their policies. This makes it an enormous clusterfuck to get a grasp of the - actual - politics in a political environment where basically all the parties are social-liberal.
You have to find some word to delineate the coalitions from each other, and there isn't any great way to do this. Sometimes, you use colours for the coalitions, but these make no sense to outsiders. (The left coalition in Denmark is red and the right blue, whereas Democrats are blue and the Republicans red. Is your head exploding yet?)
The Swedish economy is basically the envy of most countries in Europe at the moment.
You're probably wasting your time. The US has its own Steve Jobs-esque distortion field when it comes to politics. I'm not sure the majority of them could ever be educated what "left" and "right" actually mean and you'll certainly never convince them that both their main political parties are actually center right and far right.
This "distortion field" sounds suspiciously like relativity. Are you sure you aren't just declaring your political sphere the center of the universe and labeling anyone who uses a different reference point as a heretic?
Wait, what? I'm declaring the rest of the world the "center of the universe" and labeling the one (first world) place that uses a drastically different reference point as wrong.
It is relativity, but the problem is that most people here don't understand that the parties are center right and far right relative to most other developed countries.
What does that have to do with the state of welfare? If anything economics is usually used as a justification for not having a very inclusive welfare system.
The "funniest" part is that there really was a a scandal recently in Sweden about an upper class guy using his position for e.g. raping and abusing women.
He was a police chief which, despite police union criticism, got reinstated by the social democrat minister - because he was so politically correct...
Quite fun, considering the political leanings of Larsson.
Hmm source? I assume you mean Goran Lindberg, but there is nothing out there about him being reinstated to anything after being convicted. In fact wikipedia says he is in prison right now. How has he been reinstated?
I don't know what this has to do with Larsson at all.
Sorry for the late answer, I was busy today and didn't check hn until now, long after it went from the front page.
Lindberg was going to be fired because of complaints from the employees -- but he got reinstated, by Bodström himself! That was a few years before the big scandal.
That is well known and has been in the major media. Google gave me this link. IIRC, I originally read it in DN or SvD.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.1862998/lindberg-raddades-...
>>I december 2002 skickade polisfacket i Uppsala ett brev direkt till justitieminister Thomas Bodström där de krävde att Lindberg skulle avgå.
>>– Från justitieministern fick vi inget svar över huvud taget, säger Gunnar Elrud, som då var ordförande för polisfacket.
(And being at -3 in the original comment for posting well known facts, while that simple questioning got +11, is really funny...)
You may be right, I do not speak Swedish, so I cannot read your references. It really depends on how believable the complaints were.
But nevertheless your post was misleading because you made it sound like he was reinstated after the scandal. Also, again I do not really see the connection with the writer Larrson. Just because he is a leftie, he is not responsible for every remotely left wing politician out there.
Try translate.google.com
Ah, you mean it can be read as being reinstated after the crime last year? Sorry for being unclear, I was on the way into meetings.
The connection is that there really was a conspiracy where someone was misusing power and influence -- but it was political influence with a left wing government, because the psychopath claimed to be so politically correct...
Considering that Larsson was too left wing for the normal communist party, that was quite funny.
Edit: To back my claim about Larsson's politics, consider that Larsson was active with Eritrean guerrilla fighters. That regime he supported is much, much worse than even that rapist psychopath of a police chief...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/15/stieg-girls-with...