Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Loonyyy]

Whilst the first book largely details the Verger murder mystery, it serves as more of an introduction to the characters, in the second book, the series takes an about face and focuses more on a character piece about Salander, a mentally disturbed woman who may be psychotic, or autistic, and misogyny. So whilst the scene doesn't make too much sense in the movie, in the larger context of the books, especially the series as a whole, it makes sense.

I think Moviebob's interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Salander is indeed the "Psychotic revenge fantasy" cliche, but it's not being played that way. Her actions don't end up serving her, and her standoffish personality and refusal to work with others or be weak serves her poorly later in the series. I think the problem is that on it's own, the scene doesn't really make sense.

That said, some things about her are incredibly annoying like

Spoiler

teaching herself advanced mathematics and as a demonstration of her intelligence, Eureka'ing a shortform solution to Fermat's Last Theorem (Something which eludes mathematicians to this day)

. Or just about everything about the protagonist (I can't remember his last name, Blomkvist?). Handsome womanising polyamorous bachelor, head of a burgeoning media franchise, and incredible journalist. Then again, he does get beaten to pieces a couple of times, so I guess it balances out.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm not implying aspergers has anything to do with the likelihood of raping people, but from what I understand about the condition I figure it's relevant to how a person would deal with emotions.

Of course it's not you that is making the implication, just finding that someone else has made it. I assure you, I'm saying nothing personal against you.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't read the books at all. The Millennium Trilogy is a somewhat uneven trilogy of books. The first story is not actually centred on the character of Lisbeth Salander, despite the title

Wasn't the original book "Män som hatar kvinnor" in Swedish literally "Men who hate women" which is quite to the point and titularly not directly to do with the Salander character.

The second book was "Flickan som lekte med elden" literally "The girl who played with fire" but was that title even referring to Lisbeth?

Establishing a "The Girl who..." prefix, but that naming trend didn't continue with the third book "Luftslottet som sprängdes" literally "The air castle that blew up".

Yes, I am aware of the original Swedish title, something I later referenced near the end of my post. I was not aware, however, of the Swedish titles for the other two books so I thank you for lending me those translations.

Spoiler: Spoiler for books 2 and 3

I think the "Girl who played with fire" title is still an apt reference to Lisbeth Salander, in fact it's a very literal reference given her actions as a girl whereupon she set her own father on fire. I think this could also reference the way she makes it her mission to go after Zalachenko, a very dangerous and reckless action which could be described as akin to playing with fire.

The air castle that blew up? My memory of the last book is a little sketchy but this could be a reference to the way Zalachenko and his conspirators were brought down by Blomkvist and Salander, but I can't draw any more parallels than that rather tenuous link.

I hope you don't mind me elaborating on what you briefly mentioned. I thought it could do with a summary, how it could hardly be described as "The Girl that something something" trilogy. It's also rather patronising, "The girl" prefix, it makes sense the "girl plays with fire" as it relates to Lisbeth as a child, where she would be a girl. But it's quite condescending, like calling a grown man a "boy", you shouldn't call a grown woman a "girl".

I think "air castle blew up" must be a Swedish pun or reference to some part of Swedish culture. Who knows what an air-castle is and what significance one has blowing up to them. It's one of the titles that is in most need of a complete change rather than a literal translation.

 

[n00beffect]

See, I'm not gonna answer your questions relating to rape, since I'm no expert. But, as to your question regarding the necessity of it - one word: characterization. See, lately I've been catching a lot of reviewers using the old 'why is that there?!' argument. Or rather, the 'it serves no purpose to the plot!' argument, which usually extends to either characterization and/or atmosphere building. Something a lot of these critics (I won't name anyone) used to praise in all the retro reviews they did on various movies from about 3 to 4 decades ago. Yes, characterization, and let me explain why. In the other version, or the follow-up movies to be precise, we see the significance of that scene: It characterizes Lisbeth as a vengeful psychotic b*tch. And, true, it serves a purpose in the other movies, more so than in this one, so does that justify it? Yes, if they plan on sequels; and yes again, even if they don't.

The problem is how this characterisation may harm the motivation of the character.

How can she utterly oppose rapists later with the logic that they've committed at totally despicable, unforgivable and irredeemable act when she herself has raped someone as well? It would be the height of hypocrisy, it's like Jack Bauer dedicating all his effort to stop a foreign agent who had tortured one of his CTU colleagues for information... after he'd just tortured a load of foreign agents himself?

It hollows the motivations, you then have to either find something even WORSE than them to struggle against or operate under the most disingenuous hypocrisy.

24 could only *barely* got away with this with ridiculously unsympathetic villains operating under such massive threats, Season 7 had Jack Bauer's "heroic defiance" moment when he rants against senators in a congressional investigation into him torturing prisoners, justifying it precisely this way that he thought that torture was a lesser evil to allowing massive terrorist attacks to kill thousands.

But don't you see? That's the underlying irony of it all. We, as the audience are able to see the flaw in her logic and to pick-up on that. Plus, who's to suggest that a protagonist must carry solely positive traits? I mean, look at plays of the ancient Greeks, and their most popular structure when it comes to morality - a protagonist, who is a 'good' character, but who carries a major flaw. In this case, we can consider that her vengeful demeanor. And what I personally like is that this incident in the movie beckons the question whether or not her actions are actually justified, and I bet you that there are people who will think that they are, and that the guy deserved it. It challenges the audience in a way.

And also, in what way does it harm her motivation? In Count Monte Cristo, said count's sole motivation is, in fact, vengeance. Sure, it comes to a moment of realization and inner reflection of the whole wrongness of the process, but maybe that's the intention? (To be honest, I've not watched the last part of the trilogy so I wouldn't know if that really does happen. If there's a 'redemption' part.)

I suppose, it's good to remember that sometimes hatred, the umbrella under which most negative qualities in protagonists and antagonists alike lie, can be a motivator, and a means to something good.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

My bet is that the rape scenarios are a big part of why it's so popular. If you remove the hacker girl and her trials and tribulations then it's just another serial killer book, of which there are many.

 

[Treblaine]

But don't you see? That's the underlying irony of it all. We, as the audience are able to see the flaw in her logic and to pick-up on that. Plus, who's to suggest that a protagonist must carry solely positive traits? I mean, look at plays of the ancient Greeks, and their most popular structure when it comes to morality - a protagonist, who is a 'good' character, but who carries a major flaw. In this case, we can consider that her vengeful demeanor. And what I personally like is that this incident in the movie beckons the question whether or not her actions are actually justified, and I bet you that there are people who will think that they are, and that the guy deserved it. It challenges the audience in a way.

And also, in what way does it harm her motivation? In Count Monte Cristo, said count's sole motivation is, in fact, vengeance. Sure, it comes to a moment of realization and inner reflection of the whole wrongness of the process, but maybe that's the intention? (To be honest, I've not watched the last part of the trilogy so I wouldn't know if that really does happen. If there's a 'redemption' part.)

I suppose, it's good to remember that sometimes hatred, the umbrella under which most negative qualities in protagonists and antagonists alike lie, can be a motivator, and a means to something good.

Oh so she's SUPPOSED to be a despicable hypocrite? Well that isn't much of a "power fantasy" at all of perfect-heroic righteousness, that's deeply tragic.

"who's to suggest that a protagonist must carry solely positive traits?"

I certainly never did.

I just said not something as overwhelmingly negative as a rapist who hypocritically motivates themselves by opposing rapists.

It's not black or white, you can have negative flaws without getting THAT BAD! Vengefulness is not a seriously negative flaw, it is the galling hypocrisy and two-faced faux righteousness is deeply and depressingly tragic.

The MODE of vengeance is significant.

It's like the difference between getting justice by imprisoning or sentencing to death a child killer rather than killing the killer's child. It's an example of how an "equal retribution" is not proportional.

 

[Jonluw]

I'm not implying aspergers has anything to do with the likelihood of raping people, but from what I understand about the condition I figure it's relevant to how a person would deal with emotions.

Of course it's not you that is making the implication, just finding that someone else has made it. I assure you, I'm saying nothing personal against you.

I'm not sure the book makes that implication though. The aspergers is a part of her character that is used to explain parts of her personality. The act of raping that guy is more of a result of her childhood abuse and the fact that he, as a person in authority (her psychologist), raped her.

I think "air castle blew up" must be a Swedish pun or reference to some part of Swedish culture. Who knows what an air-castle is and what significance one has blowing up to them. It's one of the titles that is in most need of a complete change rather than a literal translation.

"Air-castle" means something like a pipe-dream. An idea, hope or plan that has no real chance of coming to fruitition.

The word, in Swedish, sort of sounds like it'd mean an inflatable castle, so saying it blew up is a clever way of saying the hope/idea was ruined. I guess you'd say the reality of the idea's hopelessness is revealed to the person holding it.

 

[n00beffect]

But don't you see? That's the underlying irony of it all. We, as the audience are able to see the flaw in her logic and to pick-up on that. Plus, who's to suggest that a protagonist must carry solely positive traits? I mean, look at plays of the ancient Greeks, and their most popular structure when it comes to morality - a protagonist, who is a 'good' character, but who carries a major flaw. In this case, we can consider that her vengeful demeanor. And what I personally like is that this incident in the movie beckons the question whether or not her actions are actually justified, and I bet you that there are people who will think that they are, and that the guy deserved it. It challenges the audience in a way.

And also, in what way does it harm her motivation? In Count Monte Cristo, said count's sole motivation is, in fact, vengeance. Sure, it comes to a moment of realization and inner reflection of the whole wrongness of the process, but maybe that's the intention? (To be honest, I've not watched the last part of the trilogy so I wouldn't know if that really does happen. If there's a 'redemption' part.)

I suppose, it's good to remember that sometimes hatred, the umbrella under which most negative qualities in protagonists and antagonists alike lie, can be a motivator, and a means to something good.

Oh so she's SUPPOSED to be a despicable hypocrite? Well that isn't much of a "power fantasy" at all of perfect-heroic righteousness, that's deeply tragic.

"who's to suggest that a protagonist must carry solely positive traits?"

I certainly never did.

I just said not something as overwhelmingly negative as a rapist who hypocritically motivates themselves by opposing rapists.

It's not black or white, you can have negative flaws without getting THAT BAD! Vengefulness is not a seriously negative flaw, it is the galling hypocrisy and two-faced faux righteousness is deeply and depressingly tragic.

The MODE of vengeance is significant.

It's like the difference between getting justice by imprisoning or sentencing to death a child killer rather than killing the killer's child. It's an example of how an "equal retribution" is not proportional.

Well there you go, the fact that we're even discussing it just goes to show that the decision to make Lisbeth a vengeful, raping psycho was, in fact, the correct one. Tell me now that it would've been more interesting if she had just done the right thing and called the police on the guy?

She's complex, and tragic, and non-standard, which for me is actually rally good. I suppose we have different view points - I'm looking at it from an artistic viewpoint, whereas you are looking at it from a philosophical one. And I do agree with you, there could've been many ways in which it would've been handled better. But, again, I wouldn't change it because it beckons a discussion. It actually made you think whether that was an appropriate response or not, whereas if she had just 'done the right thing' it wouldn't have meant anything, really.

All I'm saying is - Maybe she was meant to be 'THAT BAD!' , and tragic. And, again, this may be just a stage in her development as a character, and the fabled 'redemption part', where she realizes, that in fact, her actions are turning her into the monster she's been trying to fight all this time, is yet to come.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Well, in all fairness, the guy was kind of dick...

Anyway I guess it was to show you just how strongly Lisbeth hates men who hate women...

 

[In Search of Username]

I think it was Gandhi who said that. You know the guy who killed a bunch of people in wars during his youth, the warmongering racist

Er, wasn't absolute nonviolence pretty much the entirety of what Gandhi was known for? All I know of that you could be referring to is his recruiting for World War One. Elaborate?

 

[Schadrach]

Violence is when a situation goes from balance to imbalance. The man rapes the woman, therefore an imbalance, an inequality is created, JUSTICE would be the correction of that imbalance, from inequality to equality. Now if Lisbeth cannot move on with her life until she shows the rapist exactly what he'd shown her, then the only thing even remotely close to justice would be for lisbeth to give the piece of shit a taste of his own medicine.

*snip*

I do not consider lisbeth a vigilante. I do not group her in with morons like that guy who murdered the abortion doctor. Perhaps vigilante in its purest terms is an appropriate descriptor, but the word has been bastardised as has so much of our language, most of it's been turned into doublespeak by your courts and your fucking politicians. No one has the right to judge save the true victim.

So, would you be fine with say, for example, a certain Mr. Becker restraining his ex Catherine Kieu (whose trial starts on Monday, AFAIK) and performing an amateur infibulation at some as yet undefined point in the future? Assuming of course he makes sure to drop the removed tissues in the garbage disposal and give it a good mangling, and he performs the operation while she's conscious.

And there's a good reason for that, because women raping men is astronomically rare for obvious reasons.

One of the less obvious of those reasons is how statistics define "rape", and it covers a surprisingly large portion of the gender gap in current crime rates. Essentially, "rape" is not forced sex without consent, it's being penetrated without consent, which means that a woman forcing a man to have heterosexual intercourse with her without consent is "not rape" according to the numbers (NISVS calls that "made to penetrate", and lists it as the most common form of sexual violence perpetrated against nonconvict men [NISVS does not examine convicts of either gender]).

This is one of the most sexist, heartless, disgusting loads of crap I have ever read in my life. Not only are you blaming the victims for being assaulted in ways that will scar them for life, you're saying they deserve to be mocked for it and are encouraging others to do so; and, for the first time since joining this site, I have reported a post, so, thanks so much for helping me cross a milestone I never wanted to cross.

"Shame on you" does not cover how ashamed you ought to be.

No; statistically speaking, the overwhelming number of battered women kill their batterers because they feel their batterer will kill them any moment; that their death is imminent, and killing is the only way to stay alive.

Only way you can try to claim something equivalent to self defense for killing or injuring someone when they are defenseless. I honestly expect Catherine Kieu to try that tack in her trial next week. Bobbitt only got 45 days in a hospital after all.

What if you got raped in the ass by some sweaty fat clown, huh? What would you do?

I have no intention of answering this question beyond saying that it is hideously smug of you to assume that you are not talking to a victim of sexual assault already.

Especially since "sexual assault" is a pretty broad net. I've been subject to frotteurism and having been "made to penetrate", both of which typically qualify as "sexual assault" in the strictest sense. The frotteurism would be hard to have done anything about, since the perpetrator was a 12 year old female and I was 19, so saying a word would have basically put me in jail instead.



As an aside, is it just me, or does it seem like this author's background and this character were a definite inspiration for an episode of Law & Order: SVU -- the one where the SVU apologizes at the end because they couldn't get the female rapist anything less than trespassing after putting all of her victims away?

 

[Treblaine]

Well there you go, the fact that we're even discussing it just goes to show that the decision to make Lisbeth a vengeful, raping psycho was, in fact, the correct one. Tell me now that it would've been more interesting if she had just done the right thing and called the police on the guy?

She's complex, and tragic, and non-standard, which for me is actually rally good. I suppose we have different view points - I'm looking at it from an artistic viewpoint, whereas you are looking at it from a philosophical one. And I do agree with you, there could've been many ways in which it would've been handled better. But, again, I wouldn't change it because it beckons a discussion. It actually made you think whether that was an appropriate response or not, whereas if she had just 'done the right thing' it wouldn't have meant anything, really.

All I'm saying is - Maybe she was meant to be 'THAT BAD!' , and tragic. And, again, this may be just a stage in her development as a character, and the fabled 'redemption part', where she realizes, that in fact, her actions are turning her into the monster she's been trying to fight all this time, is yet to come.

You can get anyone to talk about anything. Talking about something doesn't make a good thing. Lots of people talk about Twilight, lots of people talk about that badly acted "Innocence of Muslims" movie. I - amongst others - are talking about how this story FAILS because of having the character do such a thing. It's like a movie about hunting nazis, where the protagonist hunting the Nazis used to be a Nazi who murdered Jews himself. There is no ideological conflict, it's just A vs B.

I don't mean tragic in a good way, I mean tragic in a way that makes the story unbearable to continue following. It's the two faced depiction, heroic yet disingenuously selfish. I don't think it's a case of unreliable narrator, more a case of two-faced author who may genuinely think rape is a acceptable as a vigilante punishment.

It depends, did the books or films depend on her perspective and sympathy, because when she investigates and hunts down rapists later, isn't this a bit like Nazi war-criminals versus Nazi war-criminals? Both unforgivable monsters.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Ohh, a rape thread agaaaain.
Hurray.
Haven't seen one of these in a long time.
And it already escalates hurray.

On topic:
I really did not like Salander.
Too much being incredible at everything ever and generally being perfect in every situation, which made her simply boring.
Also, I would accepted her "math genius" status, if the author had actually posted the theorem "solution" she came up with.

 

[JimB]

Violence is when a situation goes from balance to imbalance.

If you honestly believe that having two victims of a crime is preferable to having one, then all I can say is, I am extremely glad you are not in the legal profession.

Come out and say it or don't; this half measure BS is something I can't abide.

I do not care what you can or cannot abide. You have no need of nor right to my sexual history, and I will not publish it here for everyone with a computer to see; and in any event, I will not use rape as some kind of shield to deflect criticism from my arguments. If you will not treat the subject respectfully based on the statistical likelihood that someone in this thread is secretly (or not-so-secretly, in the case of one poster I recall but whose name escapes me) the victim of sexual abuse, then I have no reason to think you'll do anything but poke at the wound even if it turns out to be true...

If that's true, then I would be extremely interested in how you wouldn't be able to see Lisbeth's absolute right to act as she did.

...like that.

And finally we get to the issue of either/or, black or white, rapist or not a rapist. Nothing in the world is black and white, absolutely nothing.

Yes, some things are. Words mean things. If someone has committed a rape, then that someone is a rapist, because that is the definition of the word.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

So, I just watched the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (the American version) and I didn't like it. Granted, I never got bored and it was really well photographed, but I can't shake the feeling that that was an incredible waste of time and a sense of shock that so many people like it. I had no idea what was going on until about the last thirty minutes. All of the investigation stuff was sifting through photos and names of people I had no reference point for, and basically the case hinged on two pictures that apparently had such an obvious correlation that two characters figured it out separately on their own.

So you didn't like the movie because you have too short of an attention span that you can't pay attention during the scene where the guy explains that he wants Daniel Craig to investigate his daughter's disappearance? This would certainly explain why you tuned out and seem to only recall something that happens in the first thirty minutes or so of the movie. I could forgive if you were going to rant about the beginning being confusing, because I never quite got what the whole scandal was about with Daniel Craig's character or why he needed to go into hiding for a while; the movie almost seems like it assumes you've read the book and already know his back story with how little it explains of it. But to be confused about something that there's an entire scene devoted to explaining? How am I supposed to believe that you weren't getting bored during the movie when you spaced an entire scene?

 

[Doneeee]

Rather than looking into the story, look into the author. He was apparently a huge feminist and had more than a few issues.

I object to describing "do to men what men do to women" as feminism.

-_- Just google the bastard.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

So you didn't like the movie because you have too short of an attention span that you can't pay attention during the scene where the guy explains that he wants Daniel Craig to investigate his daughter's disappearance? This would certainly explain why you tuned out and seem to only recall something that happens in the first thirty minutes or so of the movie. I could forgive if you were going to rant about the beginning being confusing, because I never quite got what the whole scandal was about with Daniel Craig's character or why he needed to go into hiding for a while; the movie almost seems like it assumes you've read the book and already know his back story with how little it explains of it. But to be confused about something that there's an entire scene devoted to explaining? How am I supposed to believe that you weren't getting bored during the movie when you spaced an entire scene?

Um, it wasn't his daughter, it was his niece. Lol at the accusations of me not paying attention. Namely, my main complaint with the mystery is that there is a scene where he introduces every family member (off screen), who talks to who and why, how they're related, and what they do or don't do for the company. Even he's like "sorry it's so confusing."

Spoiler

However, none of that matters because "surprise surprise" the bad guy is the most famous actor, Stellan Skarsgaard. Also, surprise surprise, the one character in the movie who would be about that age and was introduced into the story for fairly confusing reasons (I may have spaced on that one and I wanted to rewind), ends up being the niece alive and well. Whoopdefreakingdoo.

And what was with the nazi shit? What did that have to do with anything?