Hullabaloo and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Hi All,

(This post and the thread it relates to can be found on KindleBoards:)

... So funny you mention the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. Hadn't thought of that, but you're right.
(This is a fantastic yearly contest for bad writing. Check it out for a laugh: http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/)

My intention with starting this thread was not to start an argument. It was to try and understand how such a poorly edited book became a bestseller. The novel has a lot of potential--I'll agree with that. I’m just trying to understand how people were able to tolerate the poor writing for the sake of the plot and Lisbeth. Didn’t the accumulation of lackluster diction and syntax bother those who liked the book, at least a little bit? It seems somewhat telling that the translator of the series appears to have used a pseudonym as he was unhappy with the editing job that someone in Scotland did. It seems that even he wished that it had been edited in a more professional manner.

The CSI analogy I made a while back was just that—an analogy. If you like, consider instead any number of literary analogies—Hemingway, Shakespeare, Marquez, Salinger, Plath, whomever. Even Tolstoy, who could go on forever, had a reason behind most of his tangents and epilogues. Most writers who stand the test of time were ruthless redactors, or had ruthless editors, and had many arguments with them over what to leave in and what to leave out. I would say that the process of revision should apply even more in books than in the TV business. Less is more. Every word should count. A writer should show some consciousness of craft behind every decision. I understand wanting to show imagery and description and detail. I can understand a lot of unorthodox choices if there is an intention behind them. But to repeatedly focus on the rising and falling temperature, as I mentioned earlier, doesn't add to the reader's experience. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, one of the masters of the detective story, might describe the weather outside to create atmosphere, but he wouldn't do it over and over again unless it were linked to the solving of the crime itself.

On the other hand, to be fair, perhaps Larsson would indeed have made more redactions had he lived longer. But that duty fell to the editor/publisher since they are now selling the work, and they failed to perform basic and necessary revisions. Perhaps they could have
sold even more books, or received greater accolades if they had done so.

Finally, I spoke of art in my last post. I realize we can’t only dedicate our free time to the appreciation of “art.” Although that may be the ideal, I understand that we all need other forms of entertainment. That’s what I was hoping from in this book, and unfortunately, I feel like I didn't get my money's worth. Oh well.

I just went to the library today and checked out an odd assortment of books: A Study in Scarlet/Hound of the Baskervilles (Doyle);
Double Cross (Patterson); The Dante Club (Pearl); and tinkers (Harding). Maybe I can lose myself in these and forget about my disappointment with Dragon.

Thanks for all the intriguing discussion. Wishing you happy reading.

Sincerely,

Kevin