Review Me Twice - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

This is the second time that I've read this book, and as I started to reread it, I realized WHY I liked it.  It's interesting and engaging, and Larsson can draw you in pretty awesomely, if you ask me.  He knows how to give you just the right amount of information.  That's kind of what makes an amazing mystery novel: knowing how to pace it.

I also LOVE Lisbeth Salander.  She's very independent, but still manages to make connections with people in her own way.  I really like when she becomes FRIENDS with people, because it's so hard to break into her little inner sanctum and so few people do it.

However, Larsson's book has a lot of drawbacks.  For one, if you are an American reader (which... on this blog, most of us are), it's a hard book to get into.  I remember the first time I read it, I was so off-put by the opening scene that I almost put the book down.  There's a lot of jargon that we, as Americans, don't really grasp the concept of (we're not really a libel kind of country).  There are also so many NAMES to keep track of in the beginning of the book and they're all very, well, Swedish.

Not to mention, this book is very adult.  There's a multitude of sexual relationships, not to mention rape and... some pretty awful and vicious stuff that happens.  That didn't deter me in particular, but there are a lot of people who wouldn't care for the graphic content.

I still love the book, though, and I'm still glad that I reread it.

My bottom line 4 out of 5.

I'll tell you right off the bat, I didn't finish the book. I feel like I didn't make much of a dent at all, but to be fair, I had to get the large print copy from the library because, even after several years of popularity, it's still flying off the shelves. I know; how do you  not finish a compelling mystery? But it happened. Sorry.

I can attest to the fact that I love the beginning. I've always paid close attention to how an author hooks the audience, because I've always had a hard time myself deciding where and when and with whom my stories should start. This one is great. You expect, from the title and whatever else you know about the book, to jump right in with the titular Girl, but instead you're reading about this guy who gets flowers on his birthday every year. What even? It's great. And that's just the prologue... the first chapter is yet another non-titular-girl scene, talking about some journalist and a court case and whatnot. (Clearly, Cassy and I disagree on this point, because I was totally hooked.)

We do agree on the Swedish names. It's difficult to keep track of lots of characters when their names are entirely unlike those from your culture, unless you're ridiculously familiar with that particular culture. It's why I have a really hard time with Asian literature; I don't know the names well enough to easily discern them. (And I don't pay close attention to names in books in the first place; I can get lost dealing with John and Mike and Sam.)

By Its Cover: A Study in Scarlet

The copy I read had a faintly patterned beige cover, and I cannot find an image of it - not that it was interesting enough to say much about, anyway. It made the book look like the classic that it is, tells you nothing about the story except the title and author, and was very boring.

This cover, by Oxford's World Classics, is more intriguing. You can actually see one of the clues (or, as my version called them, "clews") to the crime: a bloody handprint on a wall. Plus, there's Holmes, in his unusually bathrobe-looking coat.

This one evokes the sense of mystery appropriately, I think. A shadowy road (exactly the way I pictured the road in the book, with the carriage and everything), the silhouette of Holmes looking for all the world like he knows exactly what's going on and when to divulge it to everyone else... it's just right. Like the previous one, we get to see one of the details of the mystery (the carriage plays its part).

Yawn. This could be any of the Holmes stories, as far as I can tell. We see Holmes bent over some sort of study, probably involving chemicals, and Watson standing nearby, waiting to be told what Holmes is doing. This isn't specific enough to the mystery in this book, for my taste.

I don't really have a lot to add to this post.  I read an eBook, so I didn't really SEE a cover that often.  Also, I read an anthology of all the Holmes books/short stories.  So, the cover of it was just the door of 221 B Baker St.  Which, while effective as a cover for an anthology (really, what else would you use to represent all of the Holmes work?), it didn't tell me much about A Study in Scarlet.

Review Me Twice - A Study In Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I have never read a Sherlock Holmes book before this.  And, to be honest, I'm not sure that I'm going to read one after it.  

That's not to say that it was a terrible book; it wasn't.  Doyle writes very well, keeps the pace moving.  His characters are interesting and, Holmes especially, is very mysterious (and he's a conceited Jack Ass.  But I like that about him.)  Watson is a perfect juxtaposition to Holmes.  

But, like a lot of books written over 100 years ago, it is very much a product of it's time.  The plot, going along nicely, suddenly stopped mid-story for about 50 pages of Mormon bashing (Well, maybe less.  It's about half the book that this happens.)  And, ok yes, the story line was relevant to the story, but... still, pages of religion bashing.  I mean, it doesn't make me that mad, I understand WHY it shows up.  In 1887 everyone hated the Mormons and constantly forced them out of their homes and basically had no idea what they were and figured them for an occult and murderers (which is what Doyle basically says they are.)  Ergo, book is a product of its time.

Also, the transition into this back story was kind of terrible.  One second Holmes was telling me he had solved the case, and the next it was back story.  There was a Part II title, but I think the problem arose because I was in an anthology.  I have all of the Holmes work, so I wasn't sure if I was starting a new story or I was still in the old one (it's honestly that different.)

I might read one of the short stories, but the book wasn't exactly a page turner.

My Bottom Line 2.5 out of 5

I've always found it to be an unusual feeling to actually read something that is so ingrained in our culture. Sherlock Holmes is such a classic, people parody him without even realizing it. So it's weird to read the original text.

I liked Holmes more than I thought I would. He's a genius at observation and deduction, to the exclusion of other characteristics considered important by his peers, like knowledge of politics, and some basic social interaction skills. He has eclectic habits, but he's straightforward, about them and everything else (except when he's still piecing together the mystery).

It is very strange to find yourself, in the middle of a book and immediately after being told that hey, we found the guy whodunnit, here he is, reading an entirely different story. It was fairly obvious that we were dropped into a different narrative line that would lead to the same point, more or less, but it's still a jarring experience. I don't know if the rest of the Holmes books do this, but once you're familiar with the technique, and you expect it, it wouldn't be quite so bad.

All in all, I liked the book more than I thought I would, and I was compelled to find out the solution to the mystery, but I won't be running out to find the rest of the Holmes books.

Adaptations of Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes is an enormously famous, widely beloved, fascinating, timeless character that we don't seem capable of getting sick of. He has been adapted to the big screen and the little screen, among other media.

Film Adaptations

Sherlock Holmes (1916) In 1899, William Gillette wrote a stage adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. In 1916, that play was adapted to a silent film, and Gillette himself played Sherlock. It drew inspiration from four different cases, including this week's review book, A Study in Scarlet. Presumably, no copies of this film still exist.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and The Last Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1921-23) This was a silent, black-and-white film series comprising 45 short films and two full-length films, starring Eille Norwood as Sherlock.

Sherlock Holmes (1922) This film was released as Moriarty in the UK, and was a silent film starring John Barrymore as Sherlock. It was thought lost for a long time, but was rediscovered in the '70s.

The Sleeping Cardinal, The Missing Rembrandt, The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case, The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes, and Silver Blaze 1931-37) This was a film series starring Arthur Wontner as Sherlock.

Sherlock Holmes (1932) was also based on William Gillette's play, this time starring Clive Brook as Sherlock. 

Sherlock Holmes (1939-46) was a series of fourteen films made in America starring Basil Rathbone.

There seems to have been a drought of Sherlock Holmes films after WWII, though, because the next Sherlock Holmes film was...

     

Sherlock Holmes (2009) starring the dashing pair of Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock and Jude Law as Dr. Watson, followed by the sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011).

In the intervening year between those two movies, there was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (2010), a direct-to-DVD movie with - and I feel I cannot emphasize this enough - a T. rex on the cover. It was a mockbuster riding the coattails of the aforementioned 2009 film, and starred Ben Snyder, playing Sherlock.

TV Adaptations

Sherlock Holmes (1951) was a one-season, six-episode series on BBC starring Alan Wheatley as Holmes and Raymond Francis as Watson.

Sherlock Holmes (1954) was the first American TV adaptation of Holmes, with one season of 39 episodes, starring Ronald Howard (no, not Ron Howard) as Holmes and Howard Marion Crawford as Watson.

Sherlock Holmes (1965) was the BBC's second TV Holmes, with two series (seasons, in England-talk) and 29 episodes. Douglas Wilmer played Holmes and Nigel Stock was Watson.

Statue in Moscow of Holmes and Watson as portrayed by
Livanov and Solomin

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (1979-86) Russia got in on the action with five made-for-TV movies starring Vasily Livanov as Holmes and Vitaly Solomin as Watson.

Sherlock Holmes (1984) ran for 9 series and 41 episodes, covering 42 of the 60 stories Doyle wrote for his character. It was aired on ITV (Britain) and starred Jeremy Brett as Holmes and David Burke as Watson. It was a very popular portrayal of these familiar characters.

Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady (1992) was a made-for-TV movie starring Christopher Lee (yes, Saruman) as Holmes and Patrick Macnee as Watson. There were other made-for-TV movies in the same decade with the same stars, and there is surprisingly little information about these.

Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century (1999) made it a shocking 2 seasons and 26 episodes on Fox Kids in the US and STV in the UK, despite sounding absolutely terrible. It even got a nomination for a Daytime Emmy. Jason Gray-Stanford played Holmes and John Payne played Watson.

     

Sherlock (2010) is still on the air after two series and 6 episodes, and you've probably seen it - or at least stills from it on the internet. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch (yes, Smaug... and Khan) as Holmes and Martin Freeman (yes, Bilbo... and Arthur Dent... and Tim from the original The Office) as Watson. It was created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, whose names you may recognize from Doctor Who credits.

     

Elementary (2012) is also still on the air on CBS after one season and 21 episodes, and stars Johnny Lee Miller as Holmes and - our first woman version of the character - Lucy Liu as Watson. It is also the first American TV adaptation since 1954.

Favorite Detectives

In honor of reading a book about the world's favorite detective, Sherlock Holmes, we'll be choosing our own personal favorite detectives today.

     

Douglas Adams' "holistic detective" Dirk Gently (pseudonym for Svlad Cjelli) is my favorite detective. He looks at the interconnectedness between all things (and I do mean all) to solve mysteries. He's psychic, but he doesn't see it that way (preferring to call his ability a "depressingly accurate knack for making wild assumptions").

The first book featuring Gently is Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, followed by The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. The third was supposed to be Salmon of Doubt but it was unfinished at the time of Adams' death in 2005. What there was of it has been published alongside a number of other unfinished and small tidbits of writing, as The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time. 

The first book was born out of a two-part Doctor Who episode Adams wrote, and was heavily influenced by his time at university. Dirk Gently has a similar feeling to Hitchhiker's Guide, so if you're a fan, you may want to check it out. It was also adapted to four television episodes from 2010-2012.

Mine is a little more modern (and spurned a television show.)  And while my favorite isn't TECHNICALLY a detective, she helps solve crimes, so I think it counts.

I really love Temperance Brennan from the "Bones" book series by Kathy Reichs.  (Ok, I like her on the TV show too, but I legitimately like her in the books.  They're two very different people, really.)

Brennan is a forensic anthropologist in Canada (though the character is American.)  She does everything from solving murders to identifying old bones.  I've read two of the books in the series now, and I love her (and her cop counterpart) dearly.  She's a little reckless, but only because she wants to catch the bad guys.  And, unlike TV Brennan, is not completely socially inept (though she has her moments.)

Like most heroines in these kinds of books, she tends to disregard her own safety, but she is incredibly protective of her daughter.  I just like her.  I like that she gets so involved with her work, I like her personality and I like the writing (though... I DO NOT recommend reading the books if you're squeamish... or eating.  They get a little graphic.  I made the mistake of reading the first one on my lunch break and had to quickly stop doing that. XD)

It's one of the better crime novels I've read in my life and I recommend it, especially if you like the show.

Favorite Murder Stories

Before we get into today's favorites, I wanted to announce that we are now on Facebook!

----------

In honor of this week's novel, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind, we're discussing our favorite murder stories today.

Mine is a little bit of a cheat, because it's two books at the same time: Desperation by Stephen King, and The Regulators by Richard Bachman. (Bachman was King's pseudonym, which had been discovered and "killed off" by the time these books were released in 1996, but the inside cover of Regulators stated that this was written by Bachman and hidden in a trunk, recently discovered by his widow.)

The covers shown above are the first-edition hardback covers, designed to create one complete image when held together like that.

These books are parallel universes of each other. It's hard to describe unless you read the books yourself. Most of the characters in one are present in the other, although with differences. The settings are entirely different, with Desperation taking place in the Nevada desert and Regulators in an Ohio suburb (both of which, I have to say, are a refreshing change of pace from Maine).

In Desperation, the crazed deputy of a town named Desperation takes a number of travelers from the highway (using ruses like an arrest or protecting them from an escaped criminal). It quickly becomes clear that the deputy is crazy, possessed by an evil creature named Tak.

In The Regulators, there's a little boy named Seth who is autistic. With the help of some creature named Tak, he can control reality in unusual ways. He applies his knowledge of his favorite TV shows (one a western, one called "MotoKops") and Tak uses all of this to attack the other people who live on Seth's street.

Because this is Stephen King, there are gruesome and horrifying deaths throughout both books, but the best part about them is the small similarities between the two books. He wrote them as "mirrors" for each other, and it is so masterfully done. My favorite crossover is Collie. He's the crazed, possessed deputy in Desperation and a washed-up former cop accused of misconduct in Regulators. He has the same exact name in both books (and if I'm not mistaken, he's the only one).


When I was young, and my mother encouraged me to read just about everything.  She would throw books at me that she thought I would like.  When I was in... I think middle school, she handed me my first, bonafied murder mystery.

It even looks all spooky and scary.

So, ok, I know Mary Higgins Clark isn't the best murder mystery writer of all time.  You read a few of her books and you can always figure out who done it.  But in middle school, this book really stuck with me.  It's about a woman, Maggie Holloway, who rediscovers one of her stepmothers, and then goes to visit her.  Only, when she gets there, her stepmother has been murdered.

Of course, Maggie ends up being the one who tries to solve all the murders (because why should we leave these things up to cops!)  She ends up staying in the area because her ex-stepmother left her the house.

The thing I really liked best is that Clark adds some odd things to it that are just neat to learn about.  For instance, during the Victorian age, they used to tie bells to the grave and then run a string to the inside of the casket and post someone outside of the grave for three days.  This way, if the person in the casket was buried alive, they would just pull on the string and ring the bell and get dug up.

Maggie finds these bells buried on the graves of three women, her stepmother and two women she knew.  This leads her down the path of figuring out corrupt people, crazy men and all sorts of other things that just don't quite add up.

There's something about the book that I always just enjoyed.  I liked that there was a hint of romance without it taking over, or being the point of, the book.  I like that there was history involved and you could tell that Clark had done her research.  And I liked Maggie's character: an independent woman, wonderful photographer and a little bit like Nancy drew.  It's a decent book and nice to read if no other reason than for the nostalgia factor.