The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, What I’ve Learned

The Girl with the Dragon Tatto.jpg


This book was one of the longest books I’ve read so far, and I plan to read The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.  I’m not sure if I’m going to like the fourth book, The Girl in the Spider’s Websince the author was David Lagercrantz instead of Steig Larrson.  Anyway, I thought Stieg Larrson wrote an excellent book.

In the first book, a journalist has been asked to find out what happened to a missing girl. He comes up with many theories and pitches them to the person that hired him. Unlike other crime and mystery books, he doesn’t just come up with a few theories. It is a lengthy process in which he has to think about every possible thing that could have happened to her. He talks to the police and her relatives and makes sure that they have as many clues as possible. I enjoyed reading that part of it, I think there are a lot of crime books where the research isn’t nearly as through and sometimes they even lose their evidence. Which I find pretty irresponsible especially if the character has a job in crime.   However, there was a certain part of the book that I didn’t like.

I call it the the main character figured out that someone committed a crime, but now that person suddenly wants to kill them moment. How do they even know their are onto to them? I know, the anagoist has some idea that the protagonist was onto them, but why let him dig into family history to begin with? Some people might argue that even the antagonist wanted to find out what happened to the missing girl, but he already knew more than the jourist did at first! He was basically in the same area the missing girl was when she went missing, why couldn’t he have just figured it out himself? Not to mention she knew something was off about him, so if I was him I would really want to know were she went and I wouldn’t want anyone else to help because then they might know more than I’d want them to.

Also, the antagonist had a lover, that the author suddenly decides not to even mention when the protagonist finds out the bad things he did. Did she know about the torture chamber in his basement? Did she help him? I don’t remember if they had lived in the same house together, but I think she was probably around him enough to at least know something! Why have her in the story at first and then suddenly act like that character didn’t even exist? My theory is she probably helped him, the antagonist doesn’t seem to like women a all, so it doesn’t make sense for his lover to get a freebie. Unless, there’s some kind of twist that the author didn’t mention.

Overall, I thought the book was enjoyable to read, I just think that in reality at least one of the main characters wouldn’t have survived.


Published by Athena Bocock

I am vegan and I like books and writing stories. Recently I've been enjoying romance and animal stories the most.

%d bloggers like this: