Dialing it up to 11

As you've probably heard, the big news in publishing these days is a trilogy of Swedish thrillers by the late Stieg Larsson. The first was titled The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which Entertainment Weekly calls "the hottest book on the planet," and I guess this is true, at least until the next hot thing comes along.

Curious, I bought one of the books. It happened to be the second one in the series,  The Girl Who Played with Fire, because this was the one available at my local drugstore. Having read about 100 pages of the 700-page book, I have some ideas about why the "girl" of the title, Lisbeth Salander, has become a breakout character.  

But before I proceed, I should warn you that what follows contains some spoilers, not only about the second book, but about the first book also. That's because Played with Fire incorporates some of Dragon Tattoo's plot developments into its background story. So if you plan to read these books and you want to come to them fresh, read no further.

Okay, so why is Salander (she is always identified by her last name) such a runaway success with readers?

First, here is a list of Salander's traits as we know them after 100 pages of The Girl Who Played with Fire.

She is a genius with a photographic memory, who is currently trying to solve Fermat's Last Theorem. (A mathematician did solve it a few years ago, but she refuses to look at his work because she wants to solve it herself.)

She is only 4'11", weighs 90 pounds, has a childlike face, and has many tattoos and some piercings.

Her childhood was spent in foster homes. At one point she was repeatedly raped by her guardian. She took her revenge by immobilizing him and tattooing "I am a sex pervert" (or words to that effect) on his groin. She has been shadowing this guy ever since and making his life hell.

She is an expert hacker and used her skills to drain the accounts of a corrupt financier, acquiring 3 billion kronor ($300 million US) for herself.

Now independently wealthy, she has spent a year traveling to various exotic locales.

She is a martial arts expert who can knock down an opponent twice her size.

She has no close friends and is emotionally underdeveloped.

She was also physically underdeveloped in the chest area until she used some of her newfound wealth to get breast implants.

She helps people who are in trouble.

She has an active but rather impersonal sex life and runs away from commitments.

There may be other things, but those are the highlights.

Now the obvious thing to say is that Salander is an over-the-top character, having many far-out traits. She's not just smart, she's a genius. She's not just well off, she's worth hundreds of millions. She's not just petite, she's positively diminutive.

Moreover, many of her traits are wish-fulfillment exercises. At one time or another, most of us have fantasized about being insanely wealthy, having unlimited leisure time, having kick-ass computer skills, taking revenge on someone who has wronged us, being strong enough to take down any opponent in a fight, or being so super-smart that we can handle the most complex intellectual problems with ease.

So one thing Larsson evidently did was make a list of things he wished he could do or be, and then give Salander many of these qualities.

But these over-the-top assets are balanced by equally dramatic liabilities. Salander didn't just have a bad childhood; she had a nightmarish childhood. She doesn't merely have few friends, she has no friends. She's very very short, very very thin, and (prior to surgical enhancement) very very flat-chested. She doesn't just have one tattoo, she has many. There's something creepy about her. She's sort of like Morticia of the Addams Family, in a way - a strange female with minimal affect and a bizarre appearance. Normal people are uncomfortable around her, the way they are around Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory.

So she's not a exercise in pure wish-fulfillment fantasy like, say, James Bond. All things considered, I don't think most readers would want to be Salander, any more than TV viewers want to be Sheldon or Morticia.

What, then, are we left with? In the old days, by which I mean ten years ago, it was enough to have a "strong female character" - think of Kay Scarpetta in Patricia Cornwell's books. These days, however, strong female characters are a dime a dozen. So now the strong female character has to be almost impossibly skilled in certain areas - not just smart but Albert Einstein-smart; not just self-reliant but capable of kayoing an NFL linebacker. But since this would make her too good to be true, she has to have balancing defects that are just as implausible. She's a kickass math genius ... emotionally scarred by the worst upbringing of all time. She's a nymphomaniac sex bomb ... who's tiny, anorexic, and flat-chested. She's a fabulously wealthy world traveler ... who has no friends.

Everything is dialed up to 11. Both the strengths and the weaknesses are magnified, creating a new kind of balance that seems somehow believable because it's all equally exaggerated. If only the strengths were highlighted, she would be too perfect for our cynical age. If only the weaknesses were highlighted, she would be such a mess that reading about her would be an exercise in despair.

You can see this approach in other popular characters. Take Jeffery Deaver's Lincoln Rhyme. Upside: He's not just a clever cop, he's a brilliant thinker with Sherlock Holmes levels of insight. Downside: he's handicapped, and not just with a bum leg or a scarred hand; he's a quadriplegic unable to move anything but his head and one finger. Outsized asset balanced by outsized liability.

Or take TV's Dr. House. Not just a good doctor - a great doctor, performing medical miracles every week. And not just a grouchy guy - an antisocial misfit who alienates everyone around him (and is partly crippled and addicted to pain meds). Outsized assets, outsized liabilities.

I think these characters work because they allow people to indulge in wish fulfillment ("wouldn't it be cool to be a lifesaving doc like House?") while also allowing people to stand back and feel superior ("wow, that House is one messed-up dude"). On the one hand, they give us the opportunity to fantasize about having nearly superhuman abilities, while on the other hand they allow us to feel better about who we actually are. Plus, the roughly balanced positive and negative traits somehow create an impression of "realism," even though these characters are not the least bit realistic.

As a fiction writer myself (albeit one whose career is in abeyance these days), would I want to write this kind of character? Probably not. I wouldn't know how to do it and probably wouldn't believe in it if I tried.

But this does seem to be the trend. And if Stieg Larsson had lived to see his books in print, he would have been a very wealthy man.

Comments

[dmduncan]

Interesting analysis. I think the Monk character fits into that paradigm as well.

However, I don't think Columbo fits, one of TVs all time great characters. Columbo was unkempt and appeared to be a buffoon, but he was crazy like a fox. Everything about him seemed designed to lull the suspect into a false sense of security. They thought they were dealing with an idiot. In fact they were dealing with an appearance which a brilliant detective put forward, and this was always the flaw in their scheming that got the criminals caught.

I don't like these extremely dichotomized characters, so you've given me a good reason never to read one of Larsson's books.

I'm also tired of the short skinny girl being able to kick anyone's ass meme. When is that one going to run out of gas?

[Michael Prescott]

"I'm also tired of the short skinny girl being able to kick anyone's ass meme."

Yeah, it was cool when Buffy did it, but it's been done to death. It reached the point of literal parody with the movie "Kick-Ass," in which (from what I understand) a 13-year-old girl beats up the bad guys.

[Sandy]

You know, there aren't very many fictional female characters that I find very compelling. I was trying very hard to think of one just now and all I could come up with was Anne Shirley, from the Anne of Green Gables books. I never even read those books as a kid. I finally read one as an adult just before visiting PEI, where the story takes place. I was curious about the fanaticism many Japanese women show for Anne. There were bus loads of them all over PEI, each with a red-haired tour guide to show them "everything Anne".

Anne was a very endearing little girl whose main failings were being an orphan and having red hair. Her brightness of spirit overcomes such problems in the stories. I guess Japanese women don't have anything like an Anne in their own literature. Anne of Green Gables has never been out of print since its initial publication in 1908.

Let's see Salander top that!

[tc]

it seems that characters such as Salander were created for targeted readers, who have at least many flaws if not all as the character but none of the bells and whistles. and the supernatural abilities are so extreme that it boils down to this: so you're short, skinny, anorexic, or flat chested- so the only thing you can do is to fantasizing- your own lives carry no meaning, and you are bound to live trivial life with only your fantasy character that you identify yourself with.

i think that's really sending the wrong message. I love Jack Ryan for being a man who tries to stand by his principle, and who had to make compromises in life, and who dealt with pressure by smoking- very human. I love Kay Scarpetta because she is very human with many weakness- but a very skilled medical examiner even though she lacks intuition, which her niece helps in completing. I love Harry Potter because he was by no way perfect, nor did he have super power- but he has character and heart that we look up to and we're able to achieve to.

this Salander character contains so many physical flaws (as perpetuated by the media and the 'norms'), and comes from a rough childhood that it's so easy for today's growing socially awkward, angry, and physically unfit, and promiscuous youths to identify themselves with her. so instead of encouraging them to change their lifestyles, to be more positive in their outlooks, and to lead purposeful lives, they are told that it's ok to be that way, as long you can fantasize what You could have been.

another today's modern character that really annoys me is the girl in Twilight.

this link said it all:

why i hate twilight

another empty character with no personality that girls can identify themselves with.

sigh

[dmduncan]

The meme reached zenith with Buffy.

[dmduncan]

Twilight is the self indulgent vapid teen fantasy life of Meyers that reads like a series of stories in spiral bound notebooks, handwritten during high school classes in which she wasn't paying attention.

[Bruce Siegel]

Interesting analysis Michael, of the sort of character it takes to keep some readers reading. I wanted to find out more about this author who created a character who is so deeply challenged in friendship and matters of the heart. As it turns out, he died of "a massive heart attack" according to Wikipedia.

A connection? Some psychotherapists would say that a "closed" heart is more susceptible to physical disease. But I'm assuming an awful lot here.

"all I could come up with was Anne Shirley, from the Anne of Green Gables books."

Sandy, I love Anne of Green Gables! The PBS series is television at its very best, for my money. Such a strong, resourceful, girl, and surrounded by such a loving (for the most part) community.

And what does Anne value above all else? Imagination! What's more metaphysical than that.

Which reminds me of what is perhaps my single favorite work of fiction: The Little House on the Prairie series. Though in this case, it's the books I love, and not the TV series.

Every ten years or so I read through the entire 8 or so books.

[Erich]

"On the one hand, they give us the opportunity to fantasize about having nearly superhuman abilities, while on the other hand they allow us to feel better about who we actually are...."

seems like a right on analysis, MP. What an interesting marketing ploy.

I'm not a big fiction reader, but when I do indulge, I like the story and characters' attributes to be well researched and based on interesting facts, history, scientific theories, etc.

For example, in a series with books 700 pages long I would expect to see some in depth recanting of Salander's long and arduous study of martial arts techniques derived from the authors research of this topic.... or the detail concerning her computer hacking methodologies (again based on actual processes and procedures used by top notch hackers).

I can't handle it when characters just somehow have these talents because then the whole thing seems, to me, to be shallow fantasy with poorly developed personalities. The back story of how they developed adds depth.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I'm not a big fiction reader, but when I do indulge, I like the story and characters' attributes to be well researched and based on interesting facts, history"

I agree, Erich, and that reminds me of one of the reasons I'm so fond of the Little House series (which I mentioned in this thread but don't expect to find too many fellow devotees of here. :o) )

It's a record of the author's childhood as her family traversed and settled the American frontier in the 1800's, and is jam-packed with her observations on the weather, land, plants, food, people, history, music, animals and so forth. It's an impossible-to-invent picture of a country that still was, in many places, unchanged since the arrival of the Europeans.

And for me, the story has a special magic because it's all seen through the eyes of a child, and described so simply and plainly.

[dmduncan]

These kinds of characters also seem to be saying that being a hero is screwed up and not worth the trouble. Stay "mediocre" and you'll be happier.

[Bruce Siegel]

Oh—something else you might like about the series, Erich, seeing as how I picture you as someone living close to the land.

The books describe, often in great detail, how Pa built a door and latch for his cabin, molded bullets for his rifle, how the food was preserved and prepared, how snow shoes were made, and so on.

[Erich]

Hi Bruce, I read the Little House series as a child and I remember watching it on tv as well. Until now, I had pretty much forgotten all about it. Thanks for the suggestion. I imagine if I pick it up again - which I just might do - as an adult I'll enjoy more facets of the stories.

[Michael Prescott]

One interesting thing about the Little House books is that, while they were attributed to Laura Ingalls Wilder, they were written at least in part by her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, the noted libertarian polemicist and author of "The Discovery of Freedom." Wilder Lane didn't want to be known as an author of children's books, so she let her mother take full credit. Ironically, those books are better remembered today than Wilder Lane's "serious" work ...

[Erich]

"Wilder Lane didn't want to be known as an author of children's books, so she let her mother take full credit. Ironically, those books are better remembered today than Wilder Lane's "serious" work ..."

Ha!

[Bruce Siegel]

"they were written at least in part by her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, the noted libertarian polemicist and author of "The Discovery of Freedom."

Wow—I knew that Rose Wilder Lane played a significant role in writing the Little House books, and that she was a noted author in her own right, but had no idea that she was also one of the the founders of the libertarian movement. Now that I know that the Little House story ends up in Ayn Rand's backyard, so to speak, I may never be able to read it in the same way!

So much for innocence.

I just read the very rich article on Lane on Wikipedia. The lady was evidently a firebrand. And it's interesting to see that there's still great disagreement as to how much of a role she actually played in writing the Little House books.

But the benefits flowed in both directions. To quote Wikipedia:

"Lane's editing skills brought the dramatic pacing, literary structure, and characterization needed to make the stories publishable in book form. In fact, this collaboration benefited Lane's career as much as her mother's – many of Lane's most popular short stories and her two most commercially successful novels were written at this time and were fueled by material which was taken directly from her mother's recollections of Ingalls-Wilder family folklore—Let the Hurricane Roar (later retitled Young Pioneers) and Free Land, both addressed the difficulties of homesteading in the Dakotas in the late 1800s, and how the "free land" in fact cost many homesteaders their life savings. The Saturday Evening Post paid Lane large fees to serialize both novels, and both were also adapted for highly popular radio performances."

[dmduncan]

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. Libertarians were just another one of many groups she derided. Unfortunately, I think many people come to discover free market principles through Ayn Rand — principles which she also believed in — and then go on to behave as if she invented it following the principles of objectivism.

Ayn Rand wasn't a mean old nut because she believed in the free market. She was a mean old nut because she created an impracticable philosophy, ignored outside dissent, gathered followers to it, intimidated inside dissenters, and presided over her creation with a Stalinesque demeanor, not to mention just being an incorrigible bitch to her poor husband.

I'm just now finishing The God of the Machine, by Isabel Paterson, who was once a "mentor" to Ayn Rand. I think it's an excellent book, that has some important ideas. Paterson was brilliant. I'm going to have to read it several times to fully understand her theory.

Unlike Ayn Rand, Paterson does recognize man as a spiritual being having a soul.

[Roger Knights]

Hmm ... This deliberately exaggerated balance of good and bad traits, including an anti-social personality, plus idiosyncratic eccentricities, can be found in Holmes. Also in Nero Wolfe. MP, I'd like your thoughts on that. You may have a bigger fish on your line than you thought.

[Michael Prescott]

Good point, Roger. I think Dr. House was patterned after Holmes -- right down to his name (house = home). And House's best friend is Dr. Wilson (= Dr. Watson). House, like Holmes, has a substance abuse problem, sometimes lodges with Wilson/Watson, has various eccentricities, etc.

Actually I don't think I've ever watched a complete episode of House, so this is just my impression based on reading about the show.

I haven't read the Nero Wolfe books. But you're probably right that this thing goes back a long way.

Another example is Hannibal Lecter, who combines outsized intellect, wit, and resourcefulness with outsized savagery and sadism. I suppose Count Dracula also counts, for the same reasons. And the more memorable James Bond villains, too.

[Michael Prescott]

A friend of mine just sent me a link to this dead-on parody of the "Girl" books:

tiny.cc/wlogi

By the way, after the first 150 pages of "The Girl Who Played with Fire," I lost interest. Too much stuff about magazine editorial board meetings and meaningless sex. The Girl herself started getting on my nerves, too. Apparently Nora Ephron felt the same way (see aforementioned URL).

Or maybe I'm just jealous that a dead guy is having a better career than I ever did ...

[jum1801]

Oh, I get it: what makes Larsson's books so hot right now is that they're cartoons. Which is exactly what James Bond was. And it's no great feat to predict that, although jet hot today and blurbed by all the gliteratti, like the Bond of fiction, Salander will soon enough become an embarrassment, to be denied and disavowed as the literary equivalent of bubblegum.

From your detailed description (thanks for that btw - unless you are that savant who can toss off para after para without real thought or revision, you obviously invest real care and craft in your blog, which to me is extraordinary) I think I can make something out about why she's popular, at least with young adults. The attraction is not what's different - a fantasy identification between the reader and the protagonist.

What has changed, for worse IMO, is that so many young adults think they want to be this sad, dead robot. Her "attributes" are what they value, even down to the bought boobs; while her Tragic Flaws are the "cool" ones: sexual victimization, resultant alienation and incipient cruelty.

Oh yeah, I'll be putting down Homer and Tom Wolfe this summer to get me some of that Salander, you betcha.

[Michael Prescott]

For the record, I did finish reading "The Girl Who Played with Fire." It went a bit long in spots, and I had trouble keeping the minor characters straight because there are a lot of them and they have similar names. (For instance, two editors at the hero's magazine are Berger and Varger. I never could tell them apart.) But the story offered some good twists, and Salander is a memorable (albeit weird) heroine.

Would I read the other two books in the trilogy? Maybe. "Played with Fire" was a generally entertaining read, even if it's not the thriller-to-end-all-thrillers that some critics have made it out to be.