Stieg Larsson
Why we love bad writing
Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown novels are riddled with cliches, but for many readers, that's a feature not a bug
Forget peace on earth — there won’t even be peace among the bookshelves after the salvo against popular fiction launched in the pages of the Guardian newspaper this week by the British novelist Edward Docx. Docx, dismayed to find himself on a train full of passengers with their noses stuck in Stieg Larsson thrillers, announced “we need urgently to remind ourselves of — for want of better terminology — the difference between literary and genre fiction.” This, all too predictably, ignited multiple charges of outrage across the Internet.
Guardian readers have already ably dismantled the straw men in Docx’s essay. I don’t agree with most of what he says, but he has a point when he suggests that the other side often resorts to arguments as trumped up as his own. In fact, ferocious defenders of genre fiction seem far more numerous to me than its (public) detractors, and Docx may have even done them a favor; they seem to enjoy their indignation an awful lot. The not-so-secret reason why pissing matches are so common, after all, is that some people just really love taking it out.
Instead of getting into all that, however, let’s consider the original source of Docx’s concern: the enormous popularity of Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy and the novels of Dan Brown. Certainly, these writers are far from the best their genres have to offer. Even the most vehement of genre champions will not argue that either man is a good, or even adequate, stylist. (Larsson himself seems to have been well aware that he was no Hemingway.) Rather, they are both, in many respects and apart from the whole genre question, fairly bad writers. So why do so many people devour their books?
I pose this question as someone who enjoyed all three of Larsson’s books, although I don’t care for Brown’s. I am exactly the sort of person who might be glimpsed reading “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” on a train. Docx seems to think his fellow citizens only resort to these books because they aren’t aware of the much better ones out there. “We simply have to find a way to bring the finest writers of the language more often to the attention of the carriages of people up and down the country who are evidently still willing and able to buy novels for the journey,” he writes. These hapless souls are currently being “subjected” to “atrociously bad” thrillers when they could be immersed in such Docx favorites as “Franzen, Coetzee, Hollinghurst, Amis, Mantel, Proux, Ishiguro, Roth.”
Now, I’m not only aware of all of those novelists, I’ve read much of their work, too; some of it I love, and some of it I don’t. Yet this didn’t stop me from reading Stieg Larsson with a considerable amount of pleasure. Most people who read a lot also read to satisfy a wide spectrum of moods and hankerings, and sometimes trash (provided it’s sufficiently engaging) is just the ticket. This taste, like any other, can be highly idiosyncratic. My friend Lev can’t abide Larsson, while I have in turn needled him for enthusing over a — to my mind — cheesily hard-boiled action-adventure fantasy novel. (Also: He claims to be a “Twilight” fan.)
Why do people like bad books? Some of them probably don’t read enough to know the difference. But all the same, I suspect that they wouldn’t be equally content with Martin Amis’ “The Pregnant Widow” should the bookstore clerk have mistakenly slipped that into their shopping bag instead of “The Lost Symbol.” Chances are, Amis’ strenuously inventive prose would strike them as too much work. The popular species of bad writing (for there are many, many kinds of awful prose) abounds in clichés, stock characters and conventional plot twists, and, as Amis indicated in the title of a collection of his literary criticism, he is a general in the War Against Cliché.
Until recently, hardly anyone considered why some readers might actually prefer clichés to finely crafted literary prose. A rare critic who pondered this mystery was C.S. Lewis, who — in a wonderful little book titled “An Experiment in Criticism” — devoted considerable attention to the appeal of bad writing for what he termed the “unliterary” reader. Such a reader, who is interested solely in the consumption of plot, favors the hackneyed phrase over the original
… because it is immediately recognizable. ‘My blood ran cold’ is a hieroglyph of fear. Any attempt, such as a great writer might make, to render this fear concrete in its full particularity, is doubly a chokepear to the unliterary reader. For it offers him what he doesn’t want, and offers it only on the condition of his giving to the words a kind and degree of attention which he does not intend to give. It is like trying to sell him something he has no use for at a price he does not wish to pay.
With the advent of Amazon reader reviews, such readers have finally found a voice, and a vocabulary with which to express their taste. Speed is the operative metaphor. Novels are praised for being a “fast read” and above all for having writing that “flows.” “Flow” is an especially fascinating term because it’s one that literary critics have never used, and it perfectly captures the way that clichéd prose can be gobbled up in chunks at a breakneck pace. “The Da Vinci Code” is over 400 pages long, but you can race through it in about three hours. Combine the large population of casual readers who limit themselves to such books with the hardcore bibliophiles who like an occasional dip into something easy, and you have enough buyers to create a hit.
Lewis also juxtaposed the unliterary reader with what he called the “Stylemonger,” who makes too great a fetish of words and sentences for their own sake. (Persnickety grammar and usage monitors are included in this group.) “He creates in the minds of the unliterary (who have often suffered under him in school) a hatred of the very word ‘style’ and a profound distrust of every book that is said to be well written.” Even if Docx were in a position to lecture his fellow railway travelers as to the superior merits of Proulx and Hollinghurst, he’d run the risk of activating just this sort of resentment, and doing his favorite authors more harm than good.
And, chances are, quite a few of his listeners would be well aware that Larsson and Brown aren’t very good writers. If pressed, they’d say that sometimes they just want to gallop through a story — or in the case of Larsson’s novels, proceed along with a weird methodicalness that taps into what appears to be an amazingly widespread streak of latent obsessive-compulsive disorder. They’d say that they’re not, at the moment, equal to the demands of literature, but that just last week they finished “Disgrace” or “Wolf Hall.” And then they’d say, Would you mind? Are we done here? Because I’d really like to get back to my book.
Referenced in this article:
Edward Docx on why genre fiction is inferior to literary fiction.
Laura Miller on the strange allure of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy
Things that annoy Lev Grossman about Stieg Larsson’s fiction.
Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com. More Laura Miller.
“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”: A bigger, darker Swedish nightmare
Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara lend emotional depth to David Fincher's sweeping film -- but was it worth doing?
Rooney Mara in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" There’s no question that David Fincher and screenwriter Steven Zaillian have found a degree of depth and subtlety in “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” that I’m not sure Stieg Larsson knew was in there. As always with Fincher, you get a beautifully engineered production, where even at an unwieldy 158 minutes, every shot and every ominous sound cue are there for a reason. Among living Hollywood directors, only Martin Scorsese is Fincher’s equal for meticulous brilliance. Given the sprawling procedural novel to which the filmmakers had to remain faithful (mostly), this is an ingenious and engrossing work of pop cinema. That said, when it was over I felt a wave of ennui wash over me upon reflecting that we’ve got two more of these to go. Do we really need an entire new series of these films? (Sure, the marketplace will provide an answer, but that might not be the only answer.) And do we really want Fincher devoting the peak years of his career, not to mention a significant portion of his mortal existence, working his way through the pulpy twists and turns of this franchise?
Continue Reading CloseThe mysterious case of “The Girl with Dragon Tattoo” trailer
A "bootlegged" ad for David Fincher's highly-anticipated adaptation hits the web. But where did it come from?
Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. Has Lisbeth Sanders begun her virtual games already? Although “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” the first third of the hot Swedish crime mystery, isn’t supposed to make its American debut till late December, an apparent bootlegged/pirated trailer hit the web this weekend, allegedly taken from a European theater preview. But is even this first glimpse what it seems? Many outlets are hypothesizing that the trick of the shaky, illegal copy is most likely a hoax put out by distributor Sony in order to create some viral buzz for the film.
Continue Reading CloseDrew Grant is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @videodrew. More Drew Grant.
“Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest”: A dark, rousing final chapter
Lisbeth is sidelined, but the massive conspiracy is exposed as the "Girl Who ..." trilogy hits a powerful last note
Noomi Rapace in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" By about halfway through “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” the second installment of the Swedish adaptation of late novelist-journalist Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy, I was concerned that the entire enterprise was out of gas. That movie, directed by Daniel Alfredson (whose brother Tomas made “Let the Right One In”), was a major letdown from the series’ riveting first film, Niels Arden Oplev’s “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” By contrast, “The Girl Who Played With Fire” felt like an increasingly perfunctory mishmash of American-style plotting and European atmosphere, more concerned with hitting the right notes in the right order — Lisbeth on a motorbike! Lisbeth’s evil ex-KGB dad, plotting more evil! Lisbeth’s freakish, fearsome half-brother, killing people! — than with telling a good story.
Continue Reading CloseU.S. version of “Dragon Tattoo” casts Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander
Relative unknown will portray Stieg Larsson's punk hacker opposite Daniel Craig and Robin Wright
Rooney Mara in a still from "Nightmare on Elm Street." Lisbeth Salander is one of the most vividly drawn characters to emerge from fiction over the last decade, as the pivotal figure in author Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy. Beginning with “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” and ending with the recent U.S. release of “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest,” the diminutive bisexual punk hacker with the extremely tortured past is deeply embedded in the minds of the people who have read the books. And Sweden has already produced the trilogy on film, to great acclaim and success.
Continue Reading Close“The Girl Who Played With Fire”: Out of the past
As Hollywood plans its own Stieg Larsson adaption, the second film in the Swedish series goes dark and gloomy
Noomi Rapace in "The Girl Who Played With Fire" Ordinarily, a film that was made in Sweden and is being released in the United States by a tiny indie distributor would barely merit a footnote on the overcrowded summer movie calendar. But “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” the second film in director Daniel Alfredson and screenwriter Jonas Frykberg’s Millennium trilogy (adapted, of course, from Stieg Larsson’s best-selling thrillers), is a peculiar exception. Like its predecessor, “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” this is likely to be one of 2010′s top-grossing foreign-language films — and that’s without reaching anywhere near the total audience of Larsson’s novels.
Continue Reading ClosePage 1 of 2 in Stieg Larsson