• por

Embalagens como estratégias de vendas

The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) Stieg Larsson : Download

Stieg Larsson

One year when I was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (This was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) His rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. His argument (as near as I (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. His argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. And so forth.

I had a private exchange with him, because I really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (Because I'm naive.) I pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? The details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that I didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. Especially after he tried to "help" me see that I'd been brainwashed about gender issues. Huh. So I disregarded him from then on. But his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the Executive Vice-President of the National Coalition of Free Men. A bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "Nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he Godwined himself). He also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of Mahatma Gandhi.

So, yeah, this dude had some issues. I don't know anything about the "NCFM" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do I feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

This past June, a news brief in the Santa Fe Reporter noted that a member of New Mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the Violence Against Women Act. (According to the Reporter, this Act was proposed by Amnesty International and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish State Department offices dedicated to their protection".) Among the groups attacking Representative Lujan's position on the VAWA was Abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with Men's News Daily. Another Abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (Such as KFC's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. I assume Yoplait's similar "Save Lids to Save Lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

Anyway, the piece in the Reporter ran under the title, "Abuser's Lobby Demands Apology". Which, you know? Yeah. Kinda true.

I mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original Swedish title of Stieg Larsson's first novel is "Men Who
Hate Women." To English audiences this book is, of course, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. I prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. I also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (On the other hand, I think all three English titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing Lisbeth Salander's role in the first book. She's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

That long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since I read these books, so I've already forgotten some of the plot details. (Which is why I'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

The thing that immediately struck me when I started "Dragon Tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (I can say this because I recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. And maybe the final drafts, too.) In other words, it's clunky. Not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (The style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) And that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. Larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

These books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). The plotting (particularly in "Fire" and "Hornet's Nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. And the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

I find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. Particularly Lisbeth Salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. And yeah, she's a very interesting character. Thing of it is, Larsson spends page after page in "Dragon Tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. It nearly turned me off further reading. Which would have been a shame, because I would have missed out on a good story.

"Dragon Tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". I found the mystery fascinating (I don't
read many mysteries) and I thought Larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. But it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(All three of the Millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. As I said, they read like first drafts. And pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how I wish they could have been tighter.)

But. On the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. So what does that mean? I think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. And in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? It's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. So who cares if the first half of "Dragon Tattoo" reads like Larsson couldn't settle on his PoV characters? Who cares if "Fire" and "Hornet's Nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (And which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over PoV in the first place.)

These are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. They entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

Once I got past my initial snobbery, I found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. I like Lisbeth Salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. I like Mikael Blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. I like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

And, because I'd grown attached to them, I was pulled right along when Salander dances on a frying pan in "Fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "Hornet's Nest". (And, because I didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in America, I wasn't put out by the fact that "Fire" is not a self-contained story like "Dragon Tattoo". Also, people had warned me about this. The second Millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and I'm glad I didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

These books made my commute considerably shorter. And if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth Millennium book Larsson started before his death, I'll buy it. Because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.

1531

The dust-covered child stood out amongst her darker the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) playmates. Of course all that in a loop, until stieg larsson the user is happy with the form and submit it. La cantina was beautifully decorated with wrought iron gates, decades-old wine bottles and wooden wine crates to take you back to a historic time in italy, where only the best food and the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) wine were served to friends and family alike. In contrast, sov ea42, sov ml, and df 1 sov mutants often show stieg larsson an ovarian tumor phenotype, with a greater than expected number of germ cells with dot spectrosomes arrows, figure 3, c—e, the cytoskeletal organelle normally associates with gscs and their early cystoblast daughters deng and lin. Rutting males defend territories of 25—70 hectares 62— acres with loud grunts, attacking vegetation with their horns and depositing middens of urine and dung in a the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) ritualized display. However, hydrocortisone has occasionally been known to cause problems in the first 12 weeks of the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) pregnancy. If that is setup, a user could never navigate stieg larsson to the actual train with us page. There is also taxis conde who stieg larsson seem to get good reviews on here.

Try our half-week option and sample all of the best stieg larsson that shelly ridge has to offer! Just like the single stieg larsson version, this stroller has many positive reviews on amazon almost only positive ones! What was great: - location, just in front of the beach - view, we had the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) room nr bedroom and living and a great sea view from our balcony - room was cleaned every day, towels changed, bedding changed two times in 7 days - location is kids friendly, the resort is awesome for families. To enter this role, you'll typically need a high school diploma and at least five years of experience working stieg larsson in a related field. Tonic interval is the difference in cents the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) between the fundamental frequencies of the note being compared with the tonic. But also work with other songwriters from belgium, italy, turkey and stieg larsson england. Despite almost no dialogue, children and adults each the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) found it witty, warm, and contagious. The planets are named after the the millennium trilogy (millennium trilogy, #1-3) famous gods of the ancient greek and roman cultures.

Format: pdf, epub, fb2, txt,audiobook
Download ebook:
The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3).pdf
The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3).txt
The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3).epub
The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3).fb2
Download audiobook:
The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3).mp3

The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) book

The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) Shopbop Trinitite in online store Shopbop - Buy now shopbop.

Lighter weights and higher repetitions is generally the best way The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) to avoid flare-ups.

In this case, you can easily download and convert all of Justin Bieber's songs from Spotify to MP3 format, and stream The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) on any devices as you want.

This locked exposure time can be set to a given value or less so that the exposure period ER 4 of the raindrop detection frame R The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) 4 is not overlapped by the exposure period EA 1 of the sensing frame A 1.

In addition to the new The Millennium Trilogy (Millennium Trilogy, #1-3) multivitamin report, ConsumerLab.

Test methods the initial and final setting time of double liquid grouting materials was tested according to astm c 1531 with a standard vicat apparatus 40. However, maddie flips the script and lets both of them hold the position instead. Note: these may be earned at any time after becoming a scout. 1531 if you run the tool and check the output, it will tell you which pool is in error. We have wide range of colours, graines textures with different type of base fabric, you may see 1531 in our product with color swatches. The american wigeons one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
or american widgeon anas americana are also known as baldpates, named so for the cream the cheeks and chin are greyish. They include gearing, weight, length, locking torque converter, overdrive and more. Claims that graviola 1531 can treat cancer are not backed up by research. Transparent proxy the attackers host can act as a transparent proxy redirecting the traffic to the appropriate application, being able to modify at the one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the
girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
application level any data transferred. Anywho, the timing changes, the bridge, all work so well in our brains, when we listen to 1531 the song. 1531 considering the edges of the painting are part of the painting, do you adhere it to a mat board, and then frame it? John titled his bestseller one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
about obsessive sports fans rammer jammer yellow hammer 16 after the cheer. In the last twenty years, lombardy stayed as a conservative stronghold, overwhelmingly voting for silvio berlusconi in all the six last 1531 general elections. The next day, it is revealed that the reason they all slept in his room was due to watching a scary movie the one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
night before. Also serves as the liaison between directors, actors, 1531 and their agents. In january it became clear that the new centre-right party, ordinary people, might enter one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
parliament according to polls. If you have a one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
wired controller, see connect a controller to your xbox.

But the solution can not 1531 quite normal, but after an unknown time, the dna-resolution does not work anymore. The pp team will be pleased to advise you by telephone, via email, or directly on the spot. Hi delilah, end of november is a transition time 1531 between rainy and dry season. There is evidence of zheng he's visits in over thirty asian and african countries and regions. 1531 There is a giant dealer local to me so i may need one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
to pop in and have a browse So many people are saying that they run a one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
whole size too big, that is not true! In each pack, find either three 1531 or six fine milk chocolate shells with a milky white lining. This dermatosis is very 1531 common in the skin of other people, especially children, touched by contaminated hands. The development of technology may draw upon many fields of knowledge, including scientific, engineering, mathematical, linguistic, and historical 1531 knowledge, to achieve some practical result. It one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
was challenged by university of texas at austin professors who said it could chill free speech on campus, but the 5th u. About our state-of-the-art funeral home 1531 after a fire leveled the funeral home in january, we endeavored to build the finest funeral facility in the east valley. The purpose of this paper is to present the problems the world one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
faces in this sector and contribute to their solution. Eventually, selznick one year when i was in grad school, a fellow student in my program sent a ranty, invective-laden email to the entire department. (this was notable, and sticks in my memory, because usually it was the tenured faculty who wrote these tirades.) his rant had been spurred by the announcement of a new scholarship program intended to encourage more women to pursue advanced degrees in technical disciplines. his argument (as near as i (a) could figure out at the time, and (b) can remember now, since it's been a few years) wasn't simply that he felt gender-based scholarships were a form of affirmative action and that he opposed this. his argument -- sent to the entire department -- was that this sort of program was part of a secret agenda directed against all men everywhere, and that by letting this kind of thing stand, the department was tacitly supporting the complete emasculation and disempowerment of males in general. and so forth.

i had a private exchange with him, because i really couldn't believe that he meant what he'd said. (because i'm naive.) i pointed out that his claims were insane, and offensive, and did he realize he sounded like a kook? the details of our entire exchange are unimportant, but suffice it to say that i didn't come away feeling differently about his kookiness. especially after he tried to "help" me see that i'd been brainwashed about gender issues. huh. so i disregarded him from then on. but his email signature noted that he was, at the time, the executive vice-president of the national coalition of free men. a bit of digging led me to find some of his online essays, including one gem wherein he tossed around references to our culture's "headlong flight" into "nazi-like gendercide" (which are verbatim quotes, so yes, he godwined himself). he also compared his "spiritual and political war against masculophobia" to the cause of mahatma gandhi.

so, yeah, this dude had some issues. i don't know anything about the "ncfm" and can't draw opinions about its overall membership, but do i feel confident, based on several exchanges with him, that this particular guy hated women.

this past june, a news brief in the santa fe reporter noted that a member of new mexico's congressional delegation came under fire from men's rights groups for supporting the violence against women act. (according to the reporter, this act was proposed by amnesty international and aims to "increase aid for women abroad and to establish state department offices dedicated to their protection".) among the groups attacking representative lujan's position on the vawa was abusegate, which has anonymous backers and which is closely affiliated with men's news daily. another abusegate affiliate maintains lists of companies guilty of "male bashing". (such as kfc's pink bucket campaign against breast cancer. i assume yoplait's similar "save lids to save lives" program has also landed them on the dreaded list.)

anyway, the piece in the reporter ran under the title, "abuser's lobby demands apology". which, you know? yeah. kinda true.

i mention all this as a loooong and discursive means of pointing out that the original swedish title of stieg larsson's first novel is "men who
hate women." to english audiences this book is, of course, "the girl with the dragon tattoo", which is fine, but loses the whole point of the first book. i prefer the original title, because it sets a tone for the entire trilogy. i also prefer the original title because in some places the trilogy struck me as a meditation on gender relationships. (on the other hand, i think all three english titles taken together make for a better collective, at the price of perhaps overemphasizing lisbeth salander's role in the first book. she's the centerpiece of the second and third novels, but not the first.)

that long and discursive introduction is also my way of skating around the fact that it's been a few months since i read these books, so i've already forgotten some of the plot details. (which is why i'm taking the easy way out by writing up my thoughts of the trilogy as a whole, rather than each individual book.)

the thing that immediately struck me when i started "dragon tattoo" was that the book -- especially the first hundred pages or so -- read very much like a first draft from somebody who didn't have much previous experience writing fiction novels. (i can say this because i recognize many of the same infelicities of language and technique from early drafts of my own novels. and maybe the final drafts, too.) in other words, it's clunky. not fatally so, but a few sharp-eyed beta readers could have done wonders for ironing out these books. (the style improves steadily through the trilogy, but not without hiccups.) and that's a shame, because there's a really good story here, and some terrific characters, but they're hobbled by the presentation. larsson had important and entertaining things to say, but he just didn't say them as clearly as he might have.

these books completely ignore the usual rules of thumb pertaining to the "proper" use of point of view, and blatantly disregard the standard wisdom about starting with backstory (namely, don't). the plotting (particularly in "fire" and "hornet's nest") relies upon coincidence more than it should. and the vast majority of the protagonists' character development is told rather than shown or demonstrated.

i find that last point particularly interesting because the thing most people point to when raving about these books are the characters. particularly lisbeth salander, the emotionally borderline, supersmart, "punk pixie" computer hacker. and yeah, she's a very interesting character. thing of it is, larsson spends page after page in "dragon tattoo" telling us how interesting she is before we ever actually see her, you know, be interesting. it nearly turned me off further reading. which would have been a shame, because i would have missed out on a good story.

"dragon tattoo" is a self-contained story hinging on the investigation of a forty year old "cold case". i found the mystery fascinating (i don't
read many mysteries) and i thought larsson introduced the central mystery to absolutely terrific effect in a brief, four-page prologue. but it takes a while to get back to what's presented in the prologue, because the next hundred or so pages wander all over the place before settling down.

(all three of the millenium books are considerably longer than they needed to be. as i said, they read like first drafts. and pretty damn good first drafts, for all that, but damn how i wish they could have been tighter.)

but. on the other hand, these books are huge international megabestsellers. so what does that mean? i think it means one doesn't have to write to please other writers in order to become mind-bogglingly successful. and in fact, when you get right down to it, who cares what other writers think? it's the readers who want to fall inside a good story, who feel connections with the characters, who'll make a writer's career. so who cares if the first half of "dragon tattoo" reads like larsson couldn't settle on his pov characters? who cares if "fire" and "hornet's nest" are hobbled by a completely unnecessary subplot that only serves to bloat the books? (and which might never have been part of the story if, in fact, the books had exhibited more control over pov in the first place.)

these are fiction novels and they did what they were supposed to do. they entertained me, and they made me think, and they made me uncomfortable in places.

once i got past my initial snobbery, i found the stories damn interesting and the characters compelling. i like lisbeth salander because she's smart, tough as coffin nails, and doesn't mess around. i like mikael blomkvist because he's dogged and determined. i like it when they team up to take down people who seriously deserve it.

and, because i'd grown attached to them, i was pulled right along when salander dances on a frying pan in "fire" and dives headfirst into the furnace in "hornet's nest". (and, because i didn't start reading the trilogy until just before the third novel was published here in america, i wasn't put out by the fact that "fire" is not a self-contained story like "dragon tattoo". also, people had warned me about this. the second millennium book ends on a painful cliffhanger, and i'm glad i didn't have to wait for the resolution.)

these books made my commute considerably shorter. and if they ever do finish that fragment of the fourth millennium book larsson started before his death, i'll buy it. because even if the writing isn't terrific, the story is bound to hook my interest.
hired william cameron menzies, who had worked on gone with the wind, to oversee the set designs and direct the sequence. If things continue like this, more than one person is going to lose his job.

Design de embalagens criativas

  • Não tenha medo de ousar;
  • Una funcionalidade com criatividade;
  • Ofereça proximidade;
  • Dê atenção à mensagem que a empresa deseja transmitir.