fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3200 ]

[ SECRET POST #3200 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3200 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #457.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sigh... both. But especially this. I suck at secrets apparently, case didn't even think it was one.

It probably came down to the way it was phrased. It's like how a Jeporady! answer must be in the form of a question, so must a Fandom Secret be in the form of a secret.

The novel(s) are a self-insert of the author, Stieg Larsson. That's why he continually describes Blomkvist as an average looking guy - and even out of shape - and yet Blomkvist manages to hook up with the unquestionable gorgeous, intelligent, successful and fit women of the books. Lisbeth, who is pretty well established as anti-social, doesn't just use him for sex but genuinely has feelings for him.

Lisbeth is also the name of the girl Larsson saw get gang-raped when he was a teenager. The real Lisbeth never forgave him, so the books are wish-fulfillment - Blomkvist saves her, but she can save herself just as easily (and take revenge too).

I fully believe that had the books continued (and they still might, considering he left copious notes behind when he died), Lisbeth would end up with Blomkvist. Because that's not weird or anything.

I liked the movie (I've only seen the US version), because it cuts out a lot of the issues I had with the book, which mostly had to do with the writing itself. But there's some real issues with the source material and its inspiration. I wish he hadn't publicized his motivations, because it casts a really skeevy shade on everything. I don't know if the real Lisbeth was an "edgy broken woman-child", but it's clearly his ideal for what his avatar would be saving and his own redemption.

"
Lisbeth is also the name of the girl Larsson saw get gang-raped when he was a teenager. The real Lisbeth never forgave him, so the books are wish-fulfillment"

Wow, publicizing that seems...really creepy and invasive. It would be one thing if he kept that to himself. But telling it, wow no.

Exactly. I haven't delved too deep into it (maybe someone else can chime in and confirm) but considering Larsson was pretty young when he died, it's entirely possible the real Lisbeth is alive and well in the world. I can't imagine what it'd be like to be fictionalized and my childhood trauma publicized like that.

It's fine to have inspirations. I'm pretty forgiving of the artistic process and writers using others' pain to get ideas, but it really rubbed me the wrong way about how he seemed to make that pain and trauma about himself and how *he* had never gotten closure about it. I get that it's a horrific thing to witness, but let's not lose focus on the person who was actually being assaulted. And that sense of it being really about him echoed through the books for me.

Yeah I see what you mean. That was another issue i saw with it. SHE got raped but HE needed closure about his guilt or whatever.

Well, he wasn't the one telling it, tbf. This was only publicised after his death. The only interview Larsson gave pointed to her as being a grown up Pippi Long stocking. Which is awesome.

I was so happy when I read the books without knowing the background. I did actually enjoy them a lot, for all their flaws, and I thought Lisbeth was awesome (less excited about Blomkvist), and I actually appreciated the way that it showed the crimes against women. Unlike, say, Jo Nesbo, which are crime procedurals and there's something really skeevy and voyeuristic about how it's always these women getting killed in ~horrible ways~.

But having all the context and background for the books kind of pushes it from being books that I enjoyed that have some iffy elements to something kind of uncomfortable.
I definitely am not sure I want to read any continuations. I liked where the trilogy stopped.

They're definitely page-turners. Most of my issues with the trilogy have to do with the writing itself - a heavier hand with editing would have gone a long way with the first book in particular. And I did like Lisbeth a lot overall. (Blomkvist was done a great service by having Daniel Craig play him.) My main non-writing issue with the books is like I mentioned above, but I agree - the only real torture-porn stuff is actually against Blomkvist and less so the crimes against the women. Those are portrayed unflinchingly without making a spectacle of them.

I like where the trilogy stopped too. (Although I literally laughed aloud at the idea of not-Daniel-Craig Blomkvist making a good match with a former Olympian.) On the other hand, in the hands of another writer, the creepy background stuff would get scrubbed off, at least a bit. It might be a borrowing-from-a-friend sort of read. If it even happens, of course.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3200 ]

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP