I stayed up last night to finish reading Hannibal by Thomas Harris. If you've seen the movie, again, you've essentially read the book. Of course, as usual, I find the book better in most ways, but the movie certainly gives an interesting perspective visually that's difficult to get just through reading the book. It's definitely a gory story, so you have to be prepared for some pretty gruesome images whether you read the book or watch the movie version.
It's a continuation of the story of Hannibal Lecter, aka Hannibal the Cannibal. One of the things that the book really brings out more than the movie is how "dirty" the FBI does Clarice Starling. She's treated like crap even worse than we get in the movie, and she's treated bad in the movie. It's hard to believe that she willingly stays in the FBI, regardless of the fact that she's portrayed as someone who was born to be an FBI agent.
One of the most shocking differences between the book and the movie is the ending. If you remember the movie ending, Clarice has put handcuffs on Hannibal and the FBI are on their way. Hannibal cuts his own hand off with a butcher knife to get away. Then we see him on a plane, eating what is obviously human brain--and sharing it with a little boy. First of all, in the book, the plane scene comes in the middle of the story when Hannibal first escapes capture in Italy. Secondly, well, wait a minute, if I share this, it'll tell too much....what if you decide to read the book some day??? I don't want to ruin it for you.....
About the ending of the book, suffice it to say that it DEFINITELY is a much more INTERESTING ending between Lecter and Starling than the movie!!!! And it is quite a shock, but still makes a lot of sense!!!!!
I will tell you that one change in the ending is that Clarice eats part of Krendler's brain and enjoys it....!
I definitely am enjoying reading the Hannibal series of books. I'm probably going to wait to read the last one since I have so many other books I'm currently reading at this time. We'll see how long that lasts....LOL!!!! I'm very curious to see where Harris takes the story, especially considering how this book, Hannibal, ends!!!! What happens between Clarice and Lecter from here....????
Great Books
To read or not to read?....that is a silly question!
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Book #4.FRANKENSTEIN
(Just FYI: it's odd saying that Frankenstein is book #4 for 2011, considering the fact that I'm also reading Hannibal by Thomas Harris and a great memoir, Zippy...both of which I started BEFORE Frankenstein, but I can't help writing about Frankenstein now rather than later.....!)
This is actually the 3rd or 4th time I've read Frankenstein throughout my life. It definitely is a book worth reading several times. I don't begrudge my students choosing it again this semester at all. In fact, I've hardly been able to keep the smile off my face or my hands off the book since the day it looked like a possibility that we'd read it!!! I'm trying very hard to read only what's scheduled to be read for each class so I don't get overly excited about the book and talk about parts of the story that give away details my students haven't gotten to yet. It's not easy. I LOVE Frankenstein.
It is so awesome to work with a novel as great as this and to have more folks realize the truths of the story rather than continuing to believe the myths that have come about as a result of modern movies and such about the story. The movies certainly have their place and are interesting in their own right, but the original book written by a very young woman (she wasn't even 20 years old when the book was originally published! I think she was 17 when she wrote it and 18 when it was published!) and the book deserves to read and understood in all its own glory.
No one in class chose to work with the novel which means that they have to put up with whatever I choose to do with it....I hope that we do or talk about at least one activity throughout the discussions of Frankenstein that everyone in class realizes what a wonderful work of literature it really and truly is....and that most of them actually READ it......
There are so many issues and themes in Frankenstein that are still so very relevant to today. One of the most important themes raised in the text is the notion of true HORROR. Not as modern Hollywood has made the horror genre to be, but true horror in the context of what literally scares the bejeezus out of a person--to the point where his/her heart palpitates, he/she shakes or convulses all over, he/she might even faint or at least become very light-headed, and he/he TRULY feels F-E-A-R down to his/her bones.
Hollywood has made the horror genre something that is quite laughable much of the time. I don't watch a lot of Hollywood-ized horror movies, but one that I've seen bits and pieces of reveals just absolute ridiculousness rather than true horror. In the older/first version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, towards the end of movie after the girl has escaped the chair and she's running from the dude with the chainsaw, she keeps turning around to look behind her. The whole screen is filled with one of her eyeballs as it rolls around crazily in its socket. Then, as the camera pans back so the audience can see the chainsaw guy chasing her, we see that's he's barely a foot behind her and if he'd just reach out with the chainsaw a tiny bit, he'd be able to hack her to pieces and put her--and, to be honest, the audience--out of her misery, but yet he continues to act as if she's hundreds of yards ahead of him, which, of course, within seconds, it appears she is.
This movie is an example of what I'm talking about how ridiculous Hollywood has taken the horror genre and made it more of a joke than true horror. I suppose there's obviously an audience for that type of film/story, but when we get down to the dirty of Frankenstein, we find true horror that makes the blood run cold in true fear. It finds our deepest fears and preys upon them in the sincerest fashion. The reader can, on some level at some time throughout the story, relate to Victor Frankenstein...whether it's in the beginning as he becomes uber-obsessed with learning about life and death and the reanimation of human tissue, or as he suffers one tragedy in his life after another, or when he debates whether or not to end his life because of the horrors he himself has created as well as the horrors he's having to live with, or when he realizes that he must take responsibility for his actions, or even as he determines to tell Captain Walton his story in the hopes that the good captain will learn from his mistakes.
I am having a very difficult time choosing which movie version of Frankenstein to watch. Every movie version ever made takes quite a few liberties with the story. Even one of the most recent versions, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with Kenneth Branaugh, which is supposed to be THE version most closely like the original text, takes quite a few liberties with the original novel that, even though I've still only seen about 30 minutes of it, make me want to screem in frustration. This version has Victor's mother die in childbirth. In the novel, she dies of severe scarlet fever after she's nursed Elizabeth back to health from scarlet fever. Granted, there is a young son (brother to Victor) who was obviously still an infant when Victor's mother dies, but in the novel, she does NOT die in childbirth. This movie uses Victor's mother's horrific death in childbirth as his motivation that drives him to attempt to reanimate dead human tissue.
What makes the movie versions even more frustrating is the fact that the "normal" public has taken whichever version they've watched and determined them to be the definitive versions of Frankenstein. I was even reading a comment to a YouTube video that complained about a silly Lego version of the story, reminding the creators of the video that Victor's inspiration for the reanimation of human tissue was because of his mother's death in childbirth!!! UGH!!!!!
I guess I'm going to have to get over that if I feel that it's important to watch SOME version of FrankensteinY in the classroom. I'm leaning towards watching Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks with Gene Wilder playing Victor Frankenstein just because it's silly and obviously meant to be a funny play on the story itself. It's not meant to be taken seriously, which makes it easier to enjoy. When I watch the version that even calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I want to hit somebody because the writers, director, producers, and especially Kenneth Branaugh, are advertising that version as THE DEFINITIVE version of the story based CLOSELY on the original novel....when in actuality, it takes as many liberties with the story as Young Frankenstein does!!!!!
If you're going to make a definitive version, make it true to the TRUE text and not your own interpretation because you think it makes good movie magic.......UGH! It's for movies like that one that make me wish Hollywood would quit trying to make movies from books.............
Of course, I love the Twilight films....they aren't nearly as awesome as the books, but the movies are still enjoyable. And I also enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but again, they're NOTHING like the awesome, amazing, so well worth reading books!!!! Of course, How to Train Your Dragon is an amazing movie; I had to watch the movie with the clear understanding, though, that it's LOOSELY based on the book....
Oh well. Movies are only getting bigger, better, badder, and more awesome. As much as I love to read, I also enjoy watching movies, so, regardless of my negative feelings of the movies made LOOSELY based on books (even though they're advertising that they're the definitive version), just like so many of my peers, I will continue to watch movies...yes, even the ones based on books....regardless of how angry I will continue to get when they ruin the original story to make their version of the movie....
This is actually the 3rd or 4th time I've read Frankenstein throughout my life. It definitely is a book worth reading several times. I don't begrudge my students choosing it again this semester at all. In fact, I've hardly been able to keep the smile off my face or my hands off the book since the day it looked like a possibility that we'd read it!!! I'm trying very hard to read only what's scheduled to be read for each class so I don't get overly excited about the book and talk about parts of the story that give away details my students haven't gotten to yet. It's not easy. I LOVE Frankenstein.
It is so awesome to work with a novel as great as this and to have more folks realize the truths of the story rather than continuing to believe the myths that have come about as a result of modern movies and such about the story. The movies certainly have their place and are interesting in their own right, but the original book written by a very young woman (she wasn't even 20 years old when the book was originally published! I think she was 17 when she wrote it and 18 when it was published!) and the book deserves to read and understood in all its own glory.
No one in class chose to work with the novel which means that they have to put up with whatever I choose to do with it....I hope that we do or talk about at least one activity throughout the discussions of Frankenstein that everyone in class realizes what a wonderful work of literature it really and truly is....and that most of them actually READ it......
There are so many issues and themes in Frankenstein that are still so very relevant to today. One of the most important themes raised in the text is the notion of true HORROR. Not as modern Hollywood has made the horror genre to be, but true horror in the context of what literally scares the bejeezus out of a person--to the point where his/her heart palpitates, he/she shakes or convulses all over, he/she might even faint or at least become very light-headed, and he/he TRULY feels F-E-A-R down to his/her bones.
Hollywood has made the horror genre something that is quite laughable much of the time. I don't watch a lot of Hollywood-ized horror movies, but one that I've seen bits and pieces of reveals just absolute ridiculousness rather than true horror. In the older/first version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, towards the end of movie after the girl has escaped the chair and she's running from the dude with the chainsaw, she keeps turning around to look behind her. The whole screen is filled with one of her eyeballs as it rolls around crazily in its socket. Then, as the camera pans back so the audience can see the chainsaw guy chasing her, we see that's he's barely a foot behind her and if he'd just reach out with the chainsaw a tiny bit, he'd be able to hack her to pieces and put her--and, to be honest, the audience--out of her misery, but yet he continues to act as if she's hundreds of yards ahead of him, which, of course, within seconds, it appears she is.
This movie is an example of what I'm talking about how ridiculous Hollywood has taken the horror genre and made it more of a joke than true horror. I suppose there's obviously an audience for that type of film/story, but when we get down to the dirty of Frankenstein, we find true horror that makes the blood run cold in true fear. It finds our deepest fears and preys upon them in the sincerest fashion. The reader can, on some level at some time throughout the story, relate to Victor Frankenstein...whether it's in the beginning as he becomes uber-obsessed with learning about life and death and the reanimation of human tissue, or as he suffers one tragedy in his life after another, or when he debates whether or not to end his life because of the horrors he himself has created as well as the horrors he's having to live with, or when he realizes that he must take responsibility for his actions, or even as he determines to tell Captain Walton his story in the hopes that the good captain will learn from his mistakes.
I am having a very difficult time choosing which movie version of Frankenstein to watch. Every movie version ever made takes quite a few liberties with the story. Even one of the most recent versions, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with Kenneth Branaugh, which is supposed to be THE version most closely like the original text, takes quite a few liberties with the original novel that, even though I've still only seen about 30 minutes of it, make me want to screem in frustration. This version has Victor's mother die in childbirth. In the novel, she dies of severe scarlet fever after she's nursed Elizabeth back to health from scarlet fever. Granted, there is a young son (brother to Victor) who was obviously still an infant when Victor's mother dies, but in the novel, she does NOT die in childbirth. This movie uses Victor's mother's horrific death in childbirth as his motivation that drives him to attempt to reanimate dead human tissue.
What makes the movie versions even more frustrating is the fact that the "normal" public has taken whichever version they've watched and determined them to be the definitive versions of Frankenstein. I was even reading a comment to a YouTube video that complained about a silly Lego version of the story, reminding the creators of the video that Victor's inspiration for the reanimation of human tissue was because of his mother's death in childbirth!!! UGH!!!!!
I guess I'm going to have to get over that if I feel that it's important to watch SOME version of FrankensteinY in the classroom. I'm leaning towards watching Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks with Gene Wilder playing Victor Frankenstein just because it's silly and obviously meant to be a funny play on the story itself. It's not meant to be taken seriously, which makes it easier to enjoy. When I watch the version that even calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I want to hit somebody because the writers, director, producers, and especially Kenneth Branaugh, are advertising that version as THE DEFINITIVE version of the story based CLOSELY on the original novel....when in actuality, it takes as many liberties with the story as Young Frankenstein does!!!!!
If you're going to make a definitive version, make it true to the TRUE text and not your own interpretation because you think it makes good movie magic.......UGH! It's for movies like that one that make me wish Hollywood would quit trying to make movies from books.............
Of course, I love the Twilight films....they aren't nearly as awesome as the books, but the movies are still enjoyable. And I also enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but again, they're NOTHING like the awesome, amazing, so well worth reading books!!!! Of course, How to Train Your Dragon is an amazing movie; I had to watch the movie with the clear understanding, though, that it's LOOSELY based on the book....
Oh well. Movies are only getting bigger, better, badder, and more awesome. As much as I love to read, I also enjoy watching movies, so, regardless of my negative feelings of the movies made LOOSELY based on books (even though they're advertising that they're the definitive version), just like so many of my peers, I will continue to watch movies...yes, even the ones based on books....regardless of how angry I will continue to get when they ruin the original story to make their version of the movie....
Monday, January 10, 2011
Book #3.SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
I saw the movie version of Silence of the Lambs years ago when it first came out and absolutely loved it. Of course, as I mentioned in my previous post on Red Dragon, I became interested in the story of Hannibal Lecter again because I watched a show on the Biography channel about the movie and it was really great. I'm absolutely amazed and very impressed by how well the movie follows the book, at least as far as I can remember. Of course, this is not the sort of story one easily forgets whether after watching the movie or reading the book. Both the book and the movie are well done with visual images that are very difficult to forget. As I was reading the book, I truly could see the whole movie playing in my head. I can't imagine another actor playing the part of Clarice Starling than Jodie Foster! Of course, Jodie isn't in the movie version of Hannibal; Clarice is played by Julianne Moore in that one. She does a decent job, but there is no denying the fact that Jodie and Anthony Hopkins had a true chemistry on screen.
If you've seen the movie, then honestly, you've read the book. They did a wonderful job following the story of the book. Only the details that can be left out without ruining the story have been left out, so if you don't read the book, you're not missing anything. It hurts to say that, but I'm trying to be honest!
Of course, if you enjoyed the movie and you like to read, you'll still enjoy reading the book. It's definitely worth the read for the plain and simple sake of reading!!!! I would ALWAYS go for the book before the movie, but this is one case where both are done superbly, so whatever you would choose, you'd have a winner!
One thing I don't remember about the move (I'll watch it again as soon as I can get it from Netflix) is whether or not they explain in the movie why Buffalo Bill's real name is "Jame" rather than "James." That IS explained in the book. It's a really "stupid" reason, but considering how very twisted Buffalo Bill is, it's an explanation that works.
I know this is really sick, but one scene the movie really brings to life better than the book--it's really difficult to understand exactly what happens in the book because there's so much detail to the scene--is the scene where Hannibal escapes. It is definitely grusome to read, but when I WATCH Hannibal pull the officer's face off his own, there's nothing scarier or more horrible!
It reminds me of the post I did several months ago about how sick our society is without needing books, movies, and other media to help. Of course, that brings up the whole "situation" (wrong word, but I can't think of the RIGHT one rigt now) that just happened in Arizona (I think that's where it took place). The horror of that scene is enough to give a person nightmares for a lifetime. To think that a madman took a gun into a public place and started shooting, not stopping until he'd hurt a large number of people, and, worst of all, killed an innocent child......may God have mercy on us all.......
If you've seen the movie, then honestly, you've read the book. They did a wonderful job following the story of the book. Only the details that can be left out without ruining the story have been left out, so if you don't read the book, you're not missing anything. It hurts to say that, but I'm trying to be honest!
Of course, if you enjoyed the movie and you like to read, you'll still enjoy reading the book. It's definitely worth the read for the plain and simple sake of reading!!!! I would ALWAYS go for the book before the movie, but this is one case where both are done superbly, so whatever you would choose, you'd have a winner!
One thing I don't remember about the move (I'll watch it again as soon as I can get it from Netflix) is whether or not they explain in the movie why Buffalo Bill's real name is "Jame" rather than "James." That IS explained in the book. It's a really "stupid" reason, but considering how very twisted Buffalo Bill is, it's an explanation that works.
I know this is really sick, but one scene the movie really brings to life better than the book--it's really difficult to understand exactly what happens in the book because there's so much detail to the scene--is the scene where Hannibal escapes. It is definitely grusome to read, but when I WATCH Hannibal pull the officer's face off his own, there's nothing scarier or more horrible!
It reminds me of the post I did several months ago about how sick our society is without needing books, movies, and other media to help. Of course, that brings up the whole "situation" (wrong word, but I can't think of the RIGHT one rigt now) that just happened in Arizona (I think that's where it took place). The horror of that scene is enough to give a person nightmares for a lifetime. To think that a madman took a gun into a public place and started shooting, not stopping until he'd hurt a large number of people, and, worst of all, killed an innocent child......may God have mercy on us all.......
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
2011 Book #2.RED DRAGON
I read Red Dragon in one full day. The other night, I was watching one of the Biography/Discovery channels that was doing behind-the-scenes episodes of some of the great movies. We watched the one on Jaws which I'd seen before, and then immediately the one that came one on afterwards, The Silence of the Lambs. I was fascinated. I couldn't stop watching it. It's always been one of my favorite psychological thrillers. I've always thought of it as a thinking person's horror story, which makes it one of the greatest stories of all time. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I've always known that the movie was originally a book, but for some reason or another, it never occurred to me to actually read the book version...until I was watching this behind-the-scenes episode. The author, Thomas Harris, talked about how he had introduced this character, Hannibal the Cannibal, as a way of helping the FBI investigators capture the Red Dragon. Even though the story isn't about Hannibal, Harris couldn't stop thinking about Hannibal. Thus, the next story Silence of the Lambs was born. Before the episode was half over, I'd gotten online and ordered the whole series about Hannibal Lecter, aka Hannibal, the Cannibal.
I watched the show on Thursday night, I'm pretty sure it was, and I had the books in my hands by Monday morning. I started the first book Red Dragon immediately and finished by Tuesday.
I know I'm sick, but I just couldn't put the book down. While Hannibal Lecter takes only a very minor roll in this particular book, Red Dragon, he is still intriguing enough that Thomas Harris couldn't stop himself from writing several books about Hannibal after that one.
Anyway, the book is really very good if you like stories about serial killers. This story focuses on a serial killer who calls himself the "Red Dragon" because of a painting by William Blake about a Red Dragon and something about a woman and the sun. (If the image doesn't show up below, you can do a quick google search about William Blake's Red Dragon. It was the first image to show up and there are several portrayals of it, just in case you're curious enough to look at it.) There was something about that painting that the serial killer was drawn to. It drove him to do the evil things he did. By the end of the story, I don't want to give anything away, but....the serial killer has split in to two separate personalities, one of which is the Red Dragon and that's the one that demands the lives, viciously.
If you've seen the Hannibal movies, you know the FBI detectives essentially are the same. They hunt down the Red Dragon, calling him the "Tooth Fairy" because he likes to bite his victims--well, more than bite, but we'll just leave it at that to keep this posting at least a PG rating! Of course, the serial killer hates the nickname "Tooth Fairy" and he makes completely certain that they change that moniker to the one he demands, Red Dragon.
The "surprise" ending where the serial killer shows up after everyone thinks he's dead isn't so surprising. It's been a plot device used for so long that it's actually tiresome when I see it in movies or read about it in books now. With that being said, though, it didn't take away from the interest in reading the book, including the ending.
I've always been fascinated with the Hannibal stories in the movies and I'm excited to be reading the books! I can't believe it's taken me this long to read them! With the interest I have in the macabre and sicko-psychos, you'd think I would have read this series years ago, and re-read them several times by now!!!!!
I watched the show on Thursday night, I'm pretty sure it was, and I had the books in my hands by Monday morning. I started the first book Red Dragon immediately and finished by Tuesday.
I know I'm sick, but I just couldn't put the book down. While Hannibal Lecter takes only a very minor roll in this particular book, Red Dragon, he is still intriguing enough that Thomas Harris couldn't stop himself from writing several books about Hannibal after that one.
Anyway, the book is really very good if you like stories about serial killers. This story focuses on a serial killer who calls himself the "Red Dragon" because of a painting by William Blake about a Red Dragon and something about a woman and the sun. (If the image doesn't show up below, you can do a quick google search about William Blake's Red Dragon. It was the first image to show up and there are several portrayals of it, just in case you're curious enough to look at it.) There was something about that painting that the serial killer was drawn to. It drove him to do the evil things he did. By the end of the story, I don't want to give anything away, but....the serial killer has split in to two separate personalities, one of which is the Red Dragon and that's the one that demands the lives, viciously.
If you've seen the Hannibal movies, you know the FBI detectives essentially are the same. They hunt down the Red Dragon, calling him the "Tooth Fairy" because he likes to bite his victims--well, more than bite, but we'll just leave it at that to keep this posting at least a PG rating! Of course, the serial killer hates the nickname "Tooth Fairy" and he makes completely certain that they change that moniker to the one he demands, Red Dragon.
The "surprise" ending where the serial killer shows up after everyone thinks he's dead isn't so surprising. It's been a plot device used for so long that it's actually tiresome when I see it in movies or read about it in books now. With that being said, though, it didn't take away from the interest in reading the book, including the ending.
I've always been fascinated with the Hannibal stories in the movies and I'm excited to be reading the books! I can't believe it's taken me this long to read them! With the interest I have in the macabre and sicko-psychos, you'd think I would have read this series years ago, and re-read them several times by now!!!!!
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Dragon Tattoo Girl #2
Finally! I finished The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo! I'm so glad to have finished it! I wish I had been able to finish it before 2010 finished, but it just didn't happen. I woke up this morning a woman on a mission, though, and I got it done. I have to say that I had to force myself to read this one. The main plot is definitely an intriguing one, but as a reader, I had to weed through a lot of other "crap" to get to the parts that were worth reading.
The frame for the story is focused on financial and political stuff that I don't understand in the slightest. It made NO sense to me. I didn't care about that part of the story. And honestly, even after reading the whole book, I still don't understand why Steig Larsson felt the need to even have the frame for the book. In guessing, I can only assume that he had to have a way to get his main character involved in the real investigation for the real story, but I thought the whole attempt was lame.
Two other details about this book make it not an enjoyable read by any stretch of the imagination.
1. The many backstories--every person in this book has a back story and
2. There are more people in this story than any one person can keep track of!
The worst part is that not all of the people mentioned are even needed or important to the story. They don't help advance the plot. They aren't part of the resolution. The don't have anything to do with the story except for the fact that they're members of the Vanger family, which is vast! UGH! It's not just the Vanger family members whose backstories have to be told, either. We have to learn the back story of every stinking character in the whole book!!! All except one who obviously is going to be used and abused in a future book....!!!! At first I felt as if I needed a white board where I could keep track of all the characters and how they were related, but I realied fairly quickly that most of them had nothing to do with the story as a whole, so I just paid careful attention to the names that kept popping up, especially names with actual people attached. There were quite a few people who are only in the story by name; they're never actually physically IN the action of the story.
The girl in the story who has the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, is definitely a character in a story worthy of having not just one story written about, but several. Lisbeth really and truly is not just fascinating, she's intriguing, smart, and so much deeper than meets the eye. I loved reading about her and I especially love the fact that she's shown to be someone who is a loner and perceived by many as "stupid" and even classified as "retarded," but she is neither to the nth degree! She's definitely a fun character and I see why Larsson uses her for his title, even though in all actuality, she is not the central figure in the story nor is she a central figure in the main plot of the story. She's there and she'd important; don't misunderstand me. It's simply that the real story is not about her and it doesn't even center around her.
I don't want to give the story away for those of you who plan to read the book which is why I'm being so cryptic. I know if you haven't read the book, you probably don't understand a word I'm saying. But if you've read or do read the book, you'll understand exactly what I mean.
Ironically, it reminds me very much of one of my favorite books by Sir Walter Scott, IVANHOE. The title of the book gives the impression that the main character of the story is going to be Ivanhoe (Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, to be exact), but Ivanhoe is featured in the beginning of the book and again at the end only. For the majority of the story, he's recovering from wounds he received during the joust at the beginning of the book! The rest of the story has Ivanhoe always on the peripherial, but never actually a major player in the story. But yet, it's HIS story, just as in this book THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, Lisbeth is always on the peripherial, she's not a major player in the story, yet it's HER story....
Do I recommend the book? Absolutely.
The frame for the story is focused on financial and political stuff that I don't understand in the slightest. It made NO sense to me. I didn't care about that part of the story. And honestly, even after reading the whole book, I still don't understand why Steig Larsson felt the need to even have the frame for the book. In guessing, I can only assume that he had to have a way to get his main character involved in the real investigation for the real story, but I thought the whole attempt was lame.
Two other details about this book make it not an enjoyable read by any stretch of the imagination.
1. The many backstories--every person in this book has a back story and
2. There are more people in this story than any one person can keep track of!
The worst part is that not all of the people mentioned are even needed or important to the story. They don't help advance the plot. They aren't part of the resolution. The don't have anything to do with the story except for the fact that they're members of the Vanger family, which is vast! UGH! It's not just the Vanger family members whose backstories have to be told, either. We have to learn the back story of every stinking character in the whole book!!! All except one who obviously is going to be used and abused in a future book....!!!! At first I felt as if I needed a white board where I could keep track of all the characters and how they were related, but I realied fairly quickly that most of them had nothing to do with the story as a whole, so I just paid careful attention to the names that kept popping up, especially names with actual people attached. There were quite a few people who are only in the story by name; they're never actually physically IN the action of the story.
The girl in the story who has the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, is definitely a character in a story worthy of having not just one story written about, but several. Lisbeth really and truly is not just fascinating, she's intriguing, smart, and so much deeper than meets the eye. I loved reading about her and I especially love the fact that she's shown to be someone who is a loner and perceived by many as "stupid" and even classified as "retarded," but she is neither to the nth degree! She's definitely a fun character and I see why Larsson uses her for his title, even though in all actuality, she is not the central figure in the story nor is she a central figure in the main plot of the story. She's there and she'd important; don't misunderstand me. It's simply that the real story is not about her and it doesn't even center around her.
I don't want to give the story away for those of you who plan to read the book which is why I'm being so cryptic. I know if you haven't read the book, you probably don't understand a word I'm saying. But if you've read or do read the book, you'll understand exactly what I mean.
Ironically, it reminds me very much of one of my favorite books by Sir Walter Scott, IVANHOE. The title of the book gives the impression that the main character of the story is going to be Ivanhoe (Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, to be exact), but Ivanhoe is featured in the beginning of the book and again at the end only. For the majority of the story, he's recovering from wounds he received during the joust at the beginning of the book! The rest of the story has Ivanhoe always on the peripherial, but never actually a major player in the story. But yet, it's HIS story, just as in this book THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, Lisbeth is always on the peripherial, she's not a major player in the story, yet it's HER story....
Do I recommend the book? Absolutely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)