Talk:The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Importance: has become international best-seller, references historic crime novelists, is a contemporary epic, award winner (Sweden), etc. Weakness: needs more reviews than one, and will add reference to the trilogy being in train for films. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why does the plot summary end midway? It reads like a proposal from the publisher, not a comprehensive encyclopedia entry. Is there a reason for this, or should someone complete the plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdarling (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the person who wrote it doesn't like spoilers. Anyway, Wikipedia:Spoiler says "Spoilers are no different from any other content". So, I guess, you can go ahead and complete the summary. utcursch | talk 03:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The plot summary is the plot summary of the film NOT the book! The timeline ist different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.2.22 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Salander, sullen, single-minded and sometimes vicious, is also incorruptible, a complete contrast to even the good guys in Larsson's world.

Is this supposed to be a joke? After reading the book, I have a hard time seeing Salander as "incorruptible", especially when contrasted to the "good guys". She does, after all, personally make off with quite a bit of Wennerström's money (which was held in Cayman Islands bank accounts, bearer bonds, etc.). Deepmath (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

She is incorruptible in terms of her own morality, which is substantially different from that of most. There is quite a bit of discussion of Salander's unusual moral framework. 124.170.91.216 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC) cojoco (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meaning what, exactly? Most criminals could well be described as incorruptible in terms of their own morality. In the morality of society, however, they are both corruptible and corrupted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.8.24 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Use the source, Luke! cojoco (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

What does 'Use the source, Luke!' mean?

Source for what? Why? Who is Luke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.8.24 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it refers (ironically) to a famous phrase of Obi-wan Kenobi's ghost to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, "Use the 'force', Luke!".Nordisk varg (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it does, and as a WP:RS says that Salander is incorruptible, then we can say it too. I don't see that there is any consensus to remove it. cojoco (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This statement makes no sense and should be removed--76.103.10.226 (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Gareth Griffith-Jones 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

just an info please

why this title in english,where the original one is so different? maybe an explanation could be interesting.

Thanks S. from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.17.23.230 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No WP:RS, but my guess is that the somewhat salacious title for a book by an unknown Swedish author gave it a toe-hold in the packed English market. It seems to have worked. cojoco (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess it that would depend on you define as "salacious." The bottom line, though, is that on the English language Wikipedia, we use the most common English title for the subject, even if it is radically different from the non-English language original. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Entirely for marketing purposes. Places the focus on something that is more sell worthy to an American market, a hot young mysterious woman vs. chauvinistic men which the original title, Men Who Hate Women, would imply. Here is a link to the NY Times[ http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/movies/19girl.html?src=twr] review of the movie that was published this Friday.Phail Saph (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The name of the second book in the trilogy is translated word for word and I guess the publishers thought it to be a good idea to tie all three books together with a similar naming scheme. I think it's a pretty good idea, one that the Swedish publishers didn't make use of. For some reason. Probably a better question. -- Henriok (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because in the USA, “Men Who Hate Women” is sadly considered inflammatory rather than descriptive. Squishyg (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Who wrote the Millennium trilogy? I think the fact that its not clear yet should be in. Not a single word about Eva? 23 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.113.247 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you're referring to this controversial claim that Eva Gabrielsson authored the books. However, the publishers have dismissed the claim as "nonsense". At best, this can find a one line mention in the article Millennium Trilogy. utcursch | talk 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stieg Larsson wrote the books but Eva Gabrielsson says that she did more than just proof read and discuss the books with her life partner, Stieg. I think it is so, since Stieg and Eva worked together on many projects during their lifetime, both authors and researchers. She's not claiming that she's the author though. She, however, is fighting for some piece of the estate that Stieg left when he died. He left no will, and she got nothing as they were not married. There's reasons to believe that she might want to exaggerate her part of authoring these books. -- Henriok (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

IMDb lists and extended (Swedish) version, and other sources distinguish between the TV version of this (and the other two films) and the DVD version released worldwide, with the former being 180 minutes, supposedly, and the DVD release being 152 minutes. But if the TV version was shown over three weeks, and had commercials, that could wipe out the differences in timing right there. If anyone has definite information, this would be a plus. As it is, the bulk of the article is fairly lightweight, and looks more like stuff copied from press releases. 24.81.25.127 (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The link to The Girl Who Played with Fire should take you to the film page, not the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowCrew (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why? --Ddawn23 (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There have recently been a couple of reverted edits over the question of whether Harriet Vanger should be described as Henrik Vanger's niece or great-niece. The ambiguity comes from the book itself: the family tree & descriptions in the text make clear that in standard English terms she's definitely his great-niece (his brother Richard's grand-daughter), but Henrik consistently calls her his niece, and he's sometimes referred to as her uncle; I guess this is to illustrate how they are close to each other within the family, or perhaps it comes from a difference between Swedish and English usage? I don't know which it'd be better to use here. Pit-trout (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I've added a brief mention of this in the "Characters" section. I haven't seen the film, so I'm only speaking for the book here. Pit-trout (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is stated several times in the novel that Millennium is a business magazine, not a political magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.121.218 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Being a frequent Wikipedia editor myself, I came to this to get a plot summary that I could read in about 30 seconds. Is there no shorter summary than the gargantuan mess that's there? No tl;dr version? I mean, if it goes much longer, we may as well just include the whole book. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been watching it grow with dismay. Trimmed now - we'll see how long that last, but thanks for posting to talk. I absolutely agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a long and very complex novel. I don't think the summary's length is as bad as suggested but here are some edits that might help (and not leave anything important out) - 1) remove "(she is separated but not divorced, ... divorced)"; 2) remove "who possibly has an accomplice"; 3) "prove to have been mostly a lure for Blomkvist and". Beowulf (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's another parody, "The Girl With the Temporary Tattoo", http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0053ZNI2O Rmd1023 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Folks, it is very hard for someone to read a phrase with at least two names and then end it with "He was ....". Which one of the two characters. For readers' sake, use the names or attributes like primer, former, etc. Otherwise confusion is taking its place. I'm talking about Plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.101.90 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Asocial" is linked to the article on 'antisocial' which is not the same thing. The link should bring you to the page on 'asociality'.

Should there be a section added to the page discussing how the book is being adapted into a two-part graphic novel? Zuko Halliwell (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The information in this article about the number of sold copies in the US seems to be wrong. I checked the source stated below in the article (libraryjournal.com/stieg-larsson-stats-by-the-numbers) and it appeared that the denoted figures refer to the Millenium triology as a whole. I couldn't find in this source any particular figures for the number of sold copies for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

In April 2011 the NYTimes wrote (‘Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’ Sells More Than 1 Million Digital Copies):

The “Millennium” trilogy has sold nearly 17 million copies in the United States.

Obviously someone confused the figures of the triology with the figures of a particular book from the triology.

The NYTimes (nytimes.com/stieg_larsson) wrote in June 2010:

His books have become a publishing phenomenon, selling 6 million copies in the United States and 35 million copies worldwide as of June 2010. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "The Girl Who Played With Fire," and "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" have caused an American fervor for "Nordic noir" in booksellers and publishers alike.

Alfred A. Knopf, the publisher of Larsson's books, states on this webpage knopfdoubleday.com/jacket-journey-of-stieg-larsson:

For the last three years, Stieg Larsson and his Millennium trilogy have been at the heart of our summer publishing list. According to The New York Times, it has sold 27 million copies in forty countries.

In March 2010 apple.com (apple.com/thegirlwiththedragontattoo) states that:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is based on the trilogy of books by Stieg Larsson and has sold over 7 million copies worldwide.

It seems to be difficult to find reliable figures for particular books of the triology, so at the moment I didn't change anything in the article. This should however be clarified. The figure in the article seems not to be correct.--Eusc (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I found in this source (digitaltrends.com/‘Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ becomes first e-book to sell 1 million copies) from April 2011 some information about sold copies of the first book of the triology:

Total sales of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which includes e-books, audio books and printed copies, are maintaining an impressive steady pace of about 500,000 copies per month. Hardback covers of the book, which first went on sale in September 2008, have reached a total of about 300,000 copies.

About 500,000 copies per month would have lead to nearly 6 million copies in 2011 of the first book of the triology, but this includes e-books, audio books and printed copies.--Eusc (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100928210748/http://www.literaryawards.co.uk:80/british.html to http://www.literaryawards.co.uk/british.html#09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100102200157/http://bookreporter.com/features/awards-anthony.asp to http://www.bookreporter.com/features/awards-anthony.asp#2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply