![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI finished reading and watching two narratives that featured the victimized girl trope in two different ways. And of course there's the third one, that haunts me, the works of Joss Whedon - who of all writers appears to be the most obsessed with the trope.
[WARNING: This post is highly critical of Joss Whedon's writings, if that offends or bothers you in any way, please skip this entry. I understand why it would, I used to be the same way. It's tough to be a fan. I have hidden the criticism behind lj cut tags to aid you in avoidance.]
Just finished watching the tv series Nikita's two part season finale tonight - which in some respects is the originator of the trope in my experience. Although I'm certain people did it prior to Luc Besson, the French auteur who did both the original film Nikita and The Professional - a 12 year old Natalie Portman is taken in by a male hitman and trained to hurt those who victimized her and killed her parents. Besson did quite a few of these films. The Fifth Element is also Luc Besson. In the tv series - for those who don't know it - Nikita's family is killed, becomes a felon herself, and is taken in by Division (a counter-intelligence agency) and turned into an assassin. After Division kills her lover, Daniel, she goes Rogue, with the sole purpose of taking down Division and evening the scales - redeeming herself for the people she killed or the families she destroyed. One of those people she fights to even the scales for is Alex, who she rescues and trains to become an operative like herself and places in the heart of Division. The Television version of Nikita varies from all the other's including Joss Whedon's Dollhouse and most notably the original film and the Canadian television series starring Peta Wilson, as well as Alias another off-shoot - in this way: the trainer and rescuer of the victimized girl is female. The women take center stage in this drama, turning the tables on the men.
I was rather surprised by the season finale, where the series is completely flipped over and remade into something else entirely. It may be the first time that women are featured as the controlling force or the force to be reckoned with in the Nikita franchise. The male mentor...isn't really in force here. And the catering towards male fantasy that is promised in the opening episodes - with scanty clothes is rapidly dropped by the third or forth episode and never comes up again. Alias it's not. Nor is it Dollhouse. Here the scales are far more balanced in all ways. Having watched all the versions of this particular franchise - I was rather impressed with this unexpected turn of events.
In the two part finale, Alex learns that Nikita killed her family and then took her in to train her. Nikita takes on the Michael/Luc Besson (Hitman) role in this drama - she is both the victimizer (albeit via another's orders - a man's) and the redeemer or teacher/mentor. She saves the girl - she traumatized. But the girl can't quite forgive her for being the one who pulled the trigger.
Amanda instead of Percy, becomes the master manipulator - who pushes Percy out of the way and takes over Division - letting Alex go and bringing Alex under her wing. Amanda is the one who molds the girls and agents not Percy. And Oversight ruled by men and women - seems to be both Harris Yulin and the great Alberta Watson (who played Madeline (the Amanda role) in the original tv version).
Michael instead of leading the charge to get Nikita out, joins her, bringing her the black box. He doesn't save her - she saves herself. They are equals in this version more so than in all the others.
Up until the final twenty minutes I feared a return to the status quo, which I'd seen in the trope to date - Michael saves Nikita, Percy controls Alex...etc. But Amanda surprised me and took center stage. And they flipped it - making Michael and Nikita the two agents on the run, and Amanda and Alex the two chasing them. Alex - Nikita's creation, as opposed to Nikita being Michael's or even Percy's. The gender biasis seems to be lifted finally.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Steig Larrson (hereinafter: "Girl" or GWTDT)
Before going too in depth on this novel - I should provide a bit of background on Larrson. Larrson prior to being a journalist was a sci-fi fan, who wrote for and edited science fiction fanzines.
Here's a quick blurb from wiki:
"Girl" or GWTDT - feels a times like reading a journalistic piece in The Financial Times or
The Economist or maybe The Wall Street Journal. It has that same weird emotional distance. You can tell the writer was a journalist. Also the translator, Reege Keeland, is definitely British or UK - since the English translation has UK spellings and UK words - examples include arse (not ass) and gaol, not jail - although he uses both. Also "boot" not "trunk". These are minor but pop out. In some respects it is more realistic since someone from Sweden is far more likely to learn British English than American English. I hope Fincher is aware of this while doing an American version of the film. Possibly since he cast two Brits in the male lead roles.
The first 250 pages of Girl read like a financial journalistic piece in well The Financial Times business section. I felt like I was reading a business journal. After page 250 - when we meet Lisbeth Salander - the girl in question, or the girl with the dragon tattoo - the novel starts to take off. She's far more interesting than Blomkvist - the financial journalist who has gotten in over his head on not one but three matters. He's the damsel in this tale and the kind caretaker. Larrson unlike many of his mystery/thriller contemporaries, flips the two roles. Larrson also explores in precise and often graphic detail the victimized female trope and it is not pretty.
Unlike Nikita, or even Buffy, River, Echo, et al - Lisbeth Salander is not a pretty girl or a girl who has popped out of a magazine. She has body piercings all over her body, tattoos everywhere, and is aneorexic with no breasts or bust to speak of. She is four foot ten, if that. Tiny. Black hair. And anti-social. She looks like a victim, but it quickly becomes clear that she is anything but and has little patience for victims and refuses to be saved. It's clear from the outset that she has been victimized by a male dominated and male run social welfare system, and a patriachial society.
While it is tempting to call Girl male fantasy - it's not. Unlike Joss Whedon's Dollhouse or even Alias or for that matter Nikita - there's nothing erotic about Lisbeth or her tale. The rape that occurs in the book is told factually - like you were reading a forensic report. Dry and clear. Hard. And painful. We are told in detail that after it - Lisbeth can barely walk. That she had to call in sick and lay in bed for a week. That she couldn't sit down. That her abdomen hurt. The author does not allow the reader the privilege to look away or to get off on it, and if we do - we are shown how painful it was to Lisbeth - then she gets revenge. And she gets it - well I'll let you read the book. Lisbeth becomes a sort of avenging angel for women who have been raped, beaten or abused by men. Anyone actually who has.
And it comes as no surprise that the Swedish title was originally - "Men Who Hate Women". It's a story about a missing woman, that's the central mystery, then it rapidly becomes a tale about a serial rapist/murderer/kidnapper who along with his father before him, kidnapped, raped, and killed women. Picking those who were immigrants or had no one, people like Lisbeth. Larrson dissects the misogyny and male fantasy surrounding it with a deftness that is almost cringe inducing. The serial killer in the novel turns his killings into parodies of bibilical passages from Leviticus. And rapes his own sister repeatedly.
Blomkvist doesn't save or guide Salander in this novel, although I'm told he does do this in the next two - falling into the trap of the trope, unfortunately. But here, Salander is the rescuer. And Salander takes on the traditional role of the hard-bitten male hero. Unfortunately the comparison stops there - in the tales of the hard-bitten male hero often portrayed by Clint Eastwood back in the day...the hero mistrusts women, mistrusts men and may have been abused as child or just has Mommy or Daddy issues. He was not raped, beaten, and repeatedly by the system or his father. His not someone who has been victimized. David Baldacci's hardbitten hero is cynical but from war or the system or unlucky in love, not well like this. We don't really see the male version of this trope because it does not exist. Men aren't victimized in quite this way or if they are it is rare. Women on the other hand - are. Unfortunately in rather brutal numbers. The statistics on rape, domestic abuse, and slayings aren't pretty. We all know this of course. And since we can't really do much about it, except protect ourselves and our loved one's as best we can - we try not to think about it. Larson shines a light on it in his books.
Without going into too much detail - Blomkvist owes Salander a debt of gratitude at the end, but we and Salander are made acutely aware of the unlevel playing field they both occupy. He is free to do as he pleases, she is not. He has privilege, she does not. She continues to be victimized by the very system that he to a degree lives within, even though as a journalist he attempts to expose the underlying corruption - but since, like it or not, he is privileged and as such holds power over her - she runs from him. She knows he holds all the power here. He forgets it. Just as his gal friend and co-editor, Erika Berger, a powerful woman in her own right - and his equal or at least it seems, is also to a degree beholden to him. He holds the power there as well. The power dynamics remain uneven. The story is never really Lisbeth's so much as it is Blomkvist's. She remains the girl he wants to save or rather the author wants to save.
Which is the problem with this trope. That's not to say that the writer is not a feminist and does not do an exemplary job in exposing the brutalities committed against women in our society - he does. And Lisbeth and Erika both, to give him credit - are powerful women, women who are not established as male fantasy figures - which is what separates Girl from both Nikita (above - although Nikita stopped being a male fantasy show rather quickly) and Buffy/Dollhouse/Firefly. In some respects this is due to the genre and the fact that it is a novel not a film - although I'm told the film is similar in this respect. The failings if any in Larrson's tale, besides the sometimes dry and often humorless journalistic style (although there is a dry wit that emerges at times), is that Blomkvist does eventually save and help Lisbeth or mentor her, or try to. But this is also, realistic. As for Blomkvist being a ladies man - extremely kind to women and an attentive lover, a marked contrast to almost all the other men in the novel - I think this is the writer's way of underlining the differences between the male testrone fantasy of the macho guy who treats woman like possessions or candy and the guy who treats them like equals, human beings not a separate species to dispose of how he see's fit. He is attempting to show how women should be treated - with respect. And while it may feel a bit too good to be true - I think it is a necessary contrast.
It's hard for me not to relate Girl back to Buffy and Whedon, a horror writer who appears to be obsessed with this particular trope because he states, somewhat disingenuously, I think, that he identifies with it. I don't believe it is possible for a man to fully identify with the victimized female, any more than I believe it is possible for a white person to fully identify with a person of color. We can feel empathy, we can imagine. It has taken me years to fully realize this - even though more than one person has pointed it out to me. Larrson - I will state - does not appear to take the same condescending and at times patronizing view towards his subject matter as the television and Hollywood writers do, nor does he appear to believe that he can begin to identify with Lisbeth. Instead he just tells her story. Takes us inside her head. And inside Blomkvist. Not really judging her one way or the other. This may be due to different backgrounds - Larrson has clearly seen things that many of us cannot imagine, and been in danger for his life. He is not a Hollywood writer sitting in a mansion in California. And he died long before his Millenium series was even published. It never achieved the seven issues he envisioned. Only three were finished before he died.
While it is true that Larrson's novel is a mystery not a horror tale per se, it feels like one.
Especially if you are female. I thought after reading it - that I don't want to visit Sweden any time soon and especially not as a single woman traveling alone. Granted NYC isn't necessarily much safer. I'm careful here. There's a realism and to a degree an optimism in Larsson's writing. Lisbeth rises above her circumstances. Men don't save her. They attempt to keep her down. But she fights back. They don't win. She's not their victim, their weapon, or their tool or sex object. She has sex if she wants it. And she chooses her own path.
Whedon's tales try to go in a similar direction, but he undercuts them. The girl is reigned back in, placed under the male supervision or his guidance in some way. We are reminded that he is her God. Her creator. Her power-source. Her mentor. Sure River flies the Firefly, but only at Mal's allowance. Mal is there. And sure Buffy is out killing vampires - but she's crashing on Xander's couch. And sure Echo is off to seek her fortune, but Ballard sits inside her brain, and it's clear Boyd created her. Nikita may get to ride off into the stormy skies, but Michael drives the car and Alex may get to choose her own life, but the Oversite committee has more men than women on it. Lisbeth takes off and Blomkvist tries to help - but she ignores him. You have no power over me. The scream is a silent one, but heard all the same. We'll see if it continues throughout the series. I'm working my way through The Girl Who Played With Fire as I write this.
[WARNING: This post is highly critical of Joss Whedon's writings, if that offends or bothers you in any way, please skip this entry. I understand why it would, I used to be the same way. It's tough to be a fan. I have hidden the criticism behind lj cut tags to aid you in avoidance.]
Just finished watching the tv series Nikita's two part season finale tonight - which in some respects is the originator of the trope in my experience. Although I'm certain people did it prior to Luc Besson, the French auteur who did both the original film Nikita and The Professional - a 12 year old Natalie Portman is taken in by a male hitman and trained to hurt those who victimized her and killed her parents. Besson did quite a few of these films. The Fifth Element is also Luc Besson. In the tv series - for those who don't know it - Nikita's family is killed, becomes a felon herself, and is taken in by Division (a counter-intelligence agency) and turned into an assassin. After Division kills her lover, Daniel, she goes Rogue, with the sole purpose of taking down Division and evening the scales - redeeming herself for the people she killed or the families she destroyed. One of those people she fights to even the scales for is Alex, who she rescues and trains to become an operative like herself and places in the heart of Division. The Television version of Nikita varies from all the other's including Joss Whedon's Dollhouse and most notably the original film and the Canadian television series starring Peta Wilson, as well as Alias another off-shoot - in this way: the trainer and rescuer of the victimized girl is female. The women take center stage in this drama, turning the tables on the men.
I was rather surprised by the season finale, where the series is completely flipped over and remade into something else entirely. It may be the first time that women are featured as the controlling force or the force to be reckoned with in the Nikita franchise. The male mentor...isn't really in force here. And the catering towards male fantasy that is promised in the opening episodes - with scanty clothes is rapidly dropped by the third or forth episode and never comes up again. Alias it's not. Nor is it Dollhouse. Here the scales are far more balanced in all ways. Having watched all the versions of this particular franchise - I was rather impressed with this unexpected turn of events.
In the two part finale, Alex learns that Nikita killed her family and then took her in to train her. Nikita takes on the Michael/Luc Besson (Hitman) role in this drama - she is both the victimizer (albeit via another's orders - a man's) and the redeemer or teacher/mentor. She saves the girl - she traumatized. But the girl can't quite forgive her for being the one who pulled the trigger.
Amanda instead of Percy, becomes the master manipulator - who pushes Percy out of the way and takes over Division - letting Alex go and bringing Alex under her wing. Amanda is the one who molds the girls and agents not Percy. And Oversight ruled by men and women - seems to be both Harris Yulin and the great Alberta Watson (who played Madeline (the Amanda role) in the original tv version).
Michael instead of leading the charge to get Nikita out, joins her, bringing her the black box. He doesn't save her - she saves herself. They are equals in this version more so than in all the others.
Up until the final twenty minutes I feared a return to the status quo, which I'd seen in the trope to date - Michael saves Nikita, Percy controls Alex...etc. But Amanda surprised me and took center stage. And they flipped it - making Michael and Nikita the two agents on the run, and Amanda and Alex the two chasing them. Alex - Nikita's creation, as opposed to Nikita being Michael's or even Percy's. The gender biasis seems to be lifted finally.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Steig Larrson (hereinafter: "Girl" or GWTDT)
Before going too in depth on this novel - I should provide a bit of background on Larrson. Larrson prior to being a journalist was a sci-fi fan, who wrote for and edited science fiction fanzines.
Here's a quick blurb from wiki:
Larsson was initially a political activist for the Kommunistiska Arbetareförbundet (Communist Workers League), a photographer, and one of Sweden's leading science fiction fans.In politics he was the editor of the Swedish Trotskyist journal Fjärde internationalen, journal of the Swedish section of the Fourth International. He also wrote regularly for the weekly Internationalen.
Larsson spent part of 1977 in Eritrea, training a squad of female Eritrean People's Liberation Front guerrillas in the use of grenade launchers. He was forced to abandon that work due to having contracted a kidney disease. Upon his return to Sweden, he worked as a graphic designer at the largest Swedish news agency, Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (TT) between 1977 and 1999.
Larsson's political convictions, as well as his journalistic experiences, led him to found the Swedish Expo Foundation, similar to the British Searchlight Foundation, established to "counteract the growth of the extreme right and the white power-culture in schools and among young people."He also became the editor of the foundation's magazine, Expo, in 1995.
When he was not at his day job, he worked on independent research of right-wing extremism in Sweden. In 1991, his research resulted in his first book Extremhögern (Right-wing extremism). Larsson quickly became instrumental in documenting and exposing Swedish extreme right and racist organizations; he was an influential debater and lecturer on the subject, reportedly living for years under death threats from his political enemies. The political party Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) was a major subject of his research.
"Girl" or GWTDT - feels a times like reading a journalistic piece in The Financial Times or
The Economist or maybe The Wall Street Journal. It has that same weird emotional distance. You can tell the writer was a journalist. Also the translator, Reege Keeland, is definitely British or UK - since the English translation has UK spellings and UK words - examples include arse (not ass) and gaol, not jail - although he uses both. Also "boot" not "trunk". These are minor but pop out. In some respects it is more realistic since someone from Sweden is far more likely to learn British English than American English. I hope Fincher is aware of this while doing an American version of the film. Possibly since he cast two Brits in the male lead roles.
The first 250 pages of Girl read like a financial journalistic piece in well The Financial Times business section. I felt like I was reading a business journal. After page 250 - when we meet Lisbeth Salander - the girl in question, or the girl with the dragon tattoo - the novel starts to take off. She's far more interesting than Blomkvist - the financial journalist who has gotten in over his head on not one but three matters. He's the damsel in this tale and the kind caretaker. Larrson unlike many of his mystery/thriller contemporaries, flips the two roles. Larrson also explores in precise and often graphic detail the victimized female trope and it is not pretty.
Unlike Nikita, or even Buffy, River, Echo, et al - Lisbeth Salander is not a pretty girl or a girl who has popped out of a magazine. She has body piercings all over her body, tattoos everywhere, and is aneorexic with no breasts or bust to speak of. She is four foot ten, if that. Tiny. Black hair. And anti-social. She looks like a victim, but it quickly becomes clear that she is anything but and has little patience for victims and refuses to be saved. It's clear from the outset that she has been victimized by a male dominated and male run social welfare system, and a patriachial society.
While it is tempting to call Girl male fantasy - it's not. Unlike Joss Whedon's Dollhouse or even Alias or for that matter Nikita - there's nothing erotic about Lisbeth or her tale. The rape that occurs in the book is told factually - like you were reading a forensic report. Dry and clear. Hard. And painful. We are told in detail that after it - Lisbeth can barely walk. That she had to call in sick and lay in bed for a week. That she couldn't sit down. That her abdomen hurt. The author does not allow the reader the privilege to look away or to get off on it, and if we do - we are shown how painful it was to Lisbeth - then she gets revenge. And she gets it - well I'll let you read the book. Lisbeth becomes a sort of avenging angel for women who have been raped, beaten or abused by men. Anyone actually who has.
And it comes as no surprise that the Swedish title was originally - "Men Who Hate Women". It's a story about a missing woman, that's the central mystery, then it rapidly becomes a tale about a serial rapist/murderer/kidnapper who along with his father before him, kidnapped, raped, and killed women. Picking those who were immigrants or had no one, people like Lisbeth. Larrson dissects the misogyny and male fantasy surrounding it with a deftness that is almost cringe inducing. The serial killer in the novel turns his killings into parodies of bibilical passages from Leviticus. And rapes his own sister repeatedly.
Blomkvist doesn't save or guide Salander in this novel, although I'm told he does do this in the next two - falling into the trap of the trope, unfortunately. But here, Salander is the rescuer. And Salander takes on the traditional role of the hard-bitten male hero. Unfortunately the comparison stops there - in the tales of the hard-bitten male hero often portrayed by Clint Eastwood back in the day...the hero mistrusts women, mistrusts men and may have been abused as child or just has Mommy or Daddy issues. He was not raped, beaten, and repeatedly by the system or his father. His not someone who has been victimized. David Baldacci's hardbitten hero is cynical but from war or the system or unlucky in love, not well like this. We don't really see the male version of this trope because it does not exist. Men aren't victimized in quite this way or if they are it is rare. Women on the other hand - are. Unfortunately in rather brutal numbers. The statistics on rape, domestic abuse, and slayings aren't pretty. We all know this of course. And since we can't really do much about it, except protect ourselves and our loved one's as best we can - we try not to think about it. Larson shines a light on it in his books.
Without going into too much detail - Blomkvist owes Salander a debt of gratitude at the end, but we and Salander are made acutely aware of the unlevel playing field they both occupy. He is free to do as he pleases, she is not. He has privilege, she does not. She continues to be victimized by the very system that he to a degree lives within, even though as a journalist he attempts to expose the underlying corruption - but since, like it or not, he is privileged and as such holds power over her - she runs from him. She knows he holds all the power here. He forgets it. Just as his gal friend and co-editor, Erika Berger, a powerful woman in her own right - and his equal or at least it seems, is also to a degree beholden to him. He holds the power there as well. The power dynamics remain uneven. The story is never really Lisbeth's so much as it is Blomkvist's. She remains the girl he wants to save or rather the author wants to save.
Which is the problem with this trope. That's not to say that the writer is not a feminist and does not do an exemplary job in exposing the brutalities committed against women in our society - he does. And Lisbeth and Erika both, to give him credit - are powerful women, women who are not established as male fantasy figures - which is what separates Girl from both Nikita (above - although Nikita stopped being a male fantasy show rather quickly) and Buffy/Dollhouse/Firefly. In some respects this is due to the genre and the fact that it is a novel not a film - although I'm told the film is similar in this respect. The failings if any in Larrson's tale, besides the sometimes dry and often humorless journalistic style (although there is a dry wit that emerges at times), is that Blomkvist does eventually save and help Lisbeth or mentor her, or try to. But this is also, realistic. As for Blomkvist being a ladies man - extremely kind to women and an attentive lover, a marked contrast to almost all the other men in the novel - I think this is the writer's way of underlining the differences between the male testrone fantasy of the macho guy who treats woman like possessions or candy and the guy who treats them like equals, human beings not a separate species to dispose of how he see's fit. He is attempting to show how women should be treated - with respect. And while it may feel a bit too good to be true - I think it is a necessary contrast.
It's hard for me not to relate Girl back to Buffy and Whedon, a horror writer who appears to be obsessed with this particular trope because he states, somewhat disingenuously, I think, that he identifies with it. I don't believe it is possible for a man to fully identify with the victimized female, any more than I believe it is possible for a white person to fully identify with a person of color. We can feel empathy, we can imagine. It has taken me years to fully realize this - even though more than one person has pointed it out to me. Larrson - I will state - does not appear to take the same condescending and at times patronizing view towards his subject matter as the television and Hollywood writers do, nor does he appear to believe that he can begin to identify with Lisbeth. Instead he just tells her story. Takes us inside her head. And inside Blomkvist. Not really judging her one way or the other. This may be due to different backgrounds - Larrson has clearly seen things that many of us cannot imagine, and been in danger for his life. He is not a Hollywood writer sitting in a mansion in California. And he died long before his Millenium series was even published. It never achieved the seven issues he envisioned. Only three were finished before he died.
While it is true that Larrson's novel is a mystery not a horror tale per se, it feels like one.
Especially if you are female. I thought after reading it - that I don't want to visit Sweden any time soon and especially not as a single woman traveling alone. Granted NYC isn't necessarily much safer. I'm careful here. There's a realism and to a degree an optimism in Larsson's writing. Lisbeth rises above her circumstances. Men don't save her. They attempt to keep her down. But she fights back. They don't win. She's not their victim, their weapon, or their tool or sex object. She has sex if she wants it. And she chooses her own path.
Whedon's tales try to go in a similar direction, but he undercuts them. The girl is reigned back in, placed under the male supervision or his guidance in some way. We are reminded that he is her God. Her creator. Her power-source. Her mentor. Sure River flies the Firefly, but only at Mal's allowance. Mal is there. And sure Buffy is out killing vampires - but she's crashing on Xander's couch. And sure Echo is off to seek her fortune, but Ballard sits inside her brain, and it's clear Boyd created her. Nikita may get to ride off into the stormy skies, but Michael drives the car and Alex may get to choose her own life, but the Oversite committee has more men than women on it. Lisbeth takes off and Blomkvist tries to help - but she ignores him. You have no power over me. The scream is a silent one, but heard all the same. We'll see if it continues throughout the series. I'm working my way through The Girl Who Played With Fire as I write this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-29 10:36 pm (UTC)Actually, that can't be it, as he's constitutionally forbidden to even have a political opinion, let alone express it. ;) I think it's more the general image of Sweden as a misogynist paradise he was objecting to.
So the writer really delves into the character of Lisbeth and also in a way attacks the Swedish social welfare system or so I've been told.
It just struck me, reading this in an American setting almost makes it sound as if Larsson were some sort of Tea Partier arguing against the socialist nightmare that is a welfare state rather than the exact opposite. I know that's not what you mean, but it's funny how political terminology can take on very different meanings depending on the context, and it makes me wonder how many Americans read it like that.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 05:00 am (UTC)Yes, that caught me completely by surprise too. I never really thought of reading the books as criticism of the welfare state. A criticism of corruption within the welfare state, yes, but not of the general concept. More the old horror vision of being unfairly imprisoned in an insane asylum.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 03:57 pm (UTC)Based solely on the first novel? I don't blame the King. I'd have objected to. It does come across that way. (I only know it isn't because I know people from Sweden and lj of course. As well as recent news items. The Assange Case is a great example.)
It just struck me, reading this in an American setting almost makes it sound as if Larsson were some sort of Tea Partier arguing against the socialist nightmare that is a welfare state rather than the exact opposite. I know that's not what you mean, but it's funny how political terminology can take on very different meanings depending on the context, and it makes me wonder how many Americans read it like that.
Hee. I'm not sure to be honest. My mother who is not a Tea Partier, did comment on how it was a critique of the social welfare state as did fidhle above. In fact, lj user fidhle even stated that he'd noticed a trend in Swedish mystery writers - commenting negatively on social welfare in Sweden. He's not a Tea Partier either. I told him that the US mystery writers do the same thing - it's a popular trend right now - the government or social welfare system within the government being the bad guy, and the whole white slavery issue. More than one police procedural has played with the idea. And it is by no means new.
Also, the Tea Partier's have used this "fear" of the social welfare system - as depicted in popular mystery thrillers to push their own agenda. (Personally I think the Tea Party movement in the US is insane and wish they'd go away. I can't listen to them without cringing, talk about crazy right-wingers. If they ever get in power - maybe I'll immigrate to Sweden. What's a bit of cold weather and darkness after all?)
It's more than likely that is how they may have viewed it. Which is ironic - because I seriously doubt that was Larrson's intent.
Larrson was a political activist in Sweden, but I got the feeling he was also a socialist from his biographical data? Just against the neo-nazi party, which he apparently was an expert on.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 04:55 pm (UTC)At the same time, some of the comments I've seen from his fans, who seem to think that Teh Feminazis run the courts in Sweden and that falsely accusing men of rape is a national pastime have been rather exaggerated too. We've come further than most countries, but there's still a lot to do. It's only a little more than a year ago that one of Sweden's chief prosecutors said that non-violent rape shouldn't be considered as more than a "social faux pas" and certainly not be prosecutable (it is). Though to put it in context, he was roasted alive by every journalist in the country and had to resign.
Most Swedes, I think, would be puzzled about the phrase "welfare state" to begin with, especially in this context. That the state should provide what some Americans call "welfare" is a given, we had that debate back in the 30s and while the extent of it has been adjusted as the economy shifts, its existence has hardly ever been questioned since - hell, the conservatives (and most of our conservatives would be considered raving leftie loonies by TP standards) only managed to form a stable government when they repositioned themselves as New Labour (seriously!) and promised to defend the traditional Swedish model. Since Larsson is writing for Swedish readers first and foremost, his point is most definitely not to question the idea of a "welfare state" society, any more than John Grisham's books question whether you should have a judicial system, but to point out society's shortcomings in living up to it and the corruption on the higher levels as people betray their ideals to hang on to power. Americans are reading those books against the backdrop of a debate that's very different from the one in which they were written.
but I got the feeling he was also a socialist from his biographical data?
That's putting it mildly. He was a communist, at least when he was younger. Swedish communists tend to be very critical of how the (mostly) ruling Social Democrats have taken care of the country since the 1920s - but it's certainly not because they want less "welfare," or because they consider state intervention to be an inherently bad thing. Quite the opposite.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 07:55 pm (UTC)It is true that Americans do not understand the European Socialist model - some (as seen in the last election) equate it with facism, which probably wasn't helped by the German Nazi party in the 30s calling themselves the Socialist Party. I've gotten into fights with fellow Americans attempting to explain they aren't the same thing. 60 Minutes a while back did an episode depicting how well Sweden was doing - low crime rate, great air, lower unemployment, etc. But noted how high the taxes were. Made you want to move to Sweden. This was at the height of the 2008 election. Then analysts explained well Sweden is a much smaller country than the US and
would that model really work here - and after that I got lost with all the back and forth.
Larrson's books do remind me a great deal of John Grisham. Although I think Grisham may be a better writer - he's stories are bit less dry and move a lot faster. There's more historical detail in Larrson's novels. He takes up about 100 pages on the history of the Swedish Nazi Party. Then goes into journalistic detail on how the legal guardianship system works in Sweden. It's actually similar in some respects to the US system, except at the age of 18 - the guardianship often ends - according to Girl, it continues.
It's hard to know how much of the historical and sociological material that is related in the novel is fictionalized - since it is told in such a matter-of-fact journalistic manner. Grisham is a little less journalistic and matter-of-fact about it - I can tell that it is fictionalized and not real, but I also live in the US and studied law so can see the distinctions. (Law and Order isn't real, any more than any of the CSI shows are. But few people know that.) I'm wondering if this may also be the case regarding Larrson's novels? Are American's who read the novels interpreting the information in the manner Larrson intended? His intended audience was clearly Swedish...yet it has become an international best-seller - how much does the meaning change in each translation?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 02:50 am (UTC)Curious to know how similar they are to our own system. And how different. At least as they are portrayed in the novels. Probably shouldn't assume Larrson is an expert on Swedish law anymore than Grisham is on US law...although Scott Turow...comes across as one.
Actually Larrson's novels remind me a lot of Scott Turow in writing style, except with more historical and business detail.