Reviews

Stranger than fiction

Stieg Larsson was a Swedish journalist who never wrote fiction. He had strong left-wing political convictions, and regularly wrote exposés on large, racist organisations and alleged undercover crimes. A few years ago, he took three fiction manuscripts to his publisher, wondering whether they might be of interest — he had written a trilogy about a journalist who uncovers sordid secrets about large corporations. He left, and died of a heart attack a short time later. He was 50.

So of course, conspiracy theories abound. There is nothing to suggest that Larsson's death was suspicious in any way, but with a back-story like that, it's just too tempting. There is always a fair amount of interest in a book published posthumously, but the Millennium Trilogy has taken this to another level — all three books were instant bestsellers in Sweden and are now being published all over the world. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is the first in the series.

The Girl with the Dragon TattooStieg Larsson

The aforementioned journalist's name is Mikael Blomkvist, once adored by the industry and now fallen from grace after attempting to take down a powerful (and potentially corrupt) businessman. Wondering what to do with his unexpected spare time, Blomkvist is talked into taking on an assignment of a different kind, researching the decades-old disappearance of a young girl. Aided by the extremely mysterious and somewhat eccentric Lisbeth Salander, he uncovers a family full of horrifying secrets they are desperate to keep hidden.

The plot sounds clichéd, but the book is not. Larsson writes with the detail of a journalist, and the result is a big, meaty book that has a lot more to it than your average crime novel. Don't expect to pick this book up and then be able to put it down in a hurry — the author has woven a fascinating and compelling crime story that rivals some of the great authors in the field.

Read this if you enjoyed anything by Michael Connelly.

4½ stars

Hannah Pietsch

At the Movies with Cathy and David

Harry Potter: a bit half-blooded

Cathy: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince sees 16-year-old Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), together with his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), entering his second last year at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and the painful arena of adolescent love. In order to find a way of defeating Lord Voldemort, Harry's archenemy, Harry and Albus Dumbledore (Hogwarts' headmaster and Harry's much-loved mentor) search out memories of Voldemort as a student at Hogwart's — with tragic consequences.

David: Its just so hard to be objective about this film. I cannot even imagine what it might look like to someone who has never heard of Harry Potter, or who hasn't read the books, or who hasn't seen all the previous installments. I found myself asking: does this film make sense as a story in itself? I guess one has to start with what Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is about. One would expect that it would have something to do with someone called "the Half-Blood Prince" — which the novel certainly is. But this major theme in the novel is reduced to a secondary subplot (behind the teenage romances) in the film. Very frustrating for HP fans.

Cathy: After much anticipation (the girls were very excited to be seeing HP for the first time in the cinema and on the opening day), I actually came away feeling a bit disappointed. Considerable discussion ensued on the way home about the many scenes from the book that we considered vitally important to the plot that were not included, while several scenes not even in the original story were added. I found the end particularly anticlimactic, and so at odds with the dramatic ending in the novel.

David: Nevertheless, this is a beautifully produced film, with good performances from the main characters. Michael Gambon, as Dumbledore, is the best he has ever been — very "Gandalf". He has aged into the part. Talking of which, Maggie Smith (who plays Professor McGonagall) is noticeably aging. The new character of Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) — while not quite what I expected — is absolutely delightful. There is witty humour all the way through the film (although I asked myself "Was the book this funny?").

Cathy: I agree. Great cinematography; the very grey, monochromatic look at times certainly suited the darker mood of the movie, and I am still glad I went to see it. I'm giving it three-and-a-half stars.

David: The problem is that the film just didn't, in the end, seem to present the story line of the novel in a coherent manner. I'm giving it three stars..

Cathy:  

David: