ROBUST discussion

Here's a five star review
http://www.amazon.com/LARSSON-unautho...
for THE LARSSON SCANDAL the unauthorized guerilla critique of Stieg Larsson from an express fan of Larsson.

In fact all but one of the high-star reviews are from fans of Larsson who do not necessarily agree with everything we say, and some disagree strongly with quite a bit of what we say. They clearly rated the quality of our book, and perhaps the sincerity of our intention (though no one says so expressly), rather than let any personal difference of opinion knock down the rating. The only one-star rating is from an apoplectic, semi-literate Larsson fan going postal.

The reviewer who is not a fan of Larsson doesn't think he deserves the attention of quality critics, but gives us four stars for writing quality criticism.

I conclude that most people are not only capable of recognizing quality criticism but also of giving an objective opinion of the quality of a book, regardless of their agreement with its views, as long as they are sincerely held and argued. One of the reviewers (Alina Holgate) mentions that we give the people we accuse of failing in their professional duty adequate space for their side of the story — in short that we try to be fair and even-handed.

Looks like fairness is still valued by readers, even in the special-pleading battlefield that literary criticism has now become.

I agree with this. I offer a review service on my blog for short stories only and I am extremely strict about adhering to what each star rating means. This is made very clear on my review policies.

At first I was a bit apprehensive about being so strict with the stars. But it has actually resulted in quite a few requests from people wanting "honest feedback."

Interesting. Some of those reviews say things that are fairly biting (e.g., calling your voice 'nasty and arrogant') but still are full over overall praise. Definitely speaks well to them liking the quality of your book and analysis.

I said some people might find the voice nasty and arrogant, not that "I" found the voice nasty and arrogant.

I wouldn't worry overly much about sounding "nasty and arrogant" in a book of criticism. Criticism, as distinct from mere analysis, is by its very nature a nasty and arrogant activity, and anyone who doesn't sound nasty and arrogant at least once, isn't doing the job right. Show me an intellectual without enemies and we can start looking for where and when he sold out. People who want to run in popularity contests don't write literary criticism.

In the particular case of Larsson's Millennium Trilogy, we're dealing with the kind of books that are not normally treated to a critical overview. Worse, we are dealing with a readership — 50 million of them — of whom a large proportion have made an emotional commitment to Larsson as a serious moral writer, because of the hype, and of whom only a tiny fraction have ever been exposed to literary criticism. They see criticism of Larsson as a personal assault on themselves.

A good question for a writer on the receiving end of a review is this: Suppose someone else had written the book, and I came to it fresh as a reviewer, what sort of a review would I give it?

In the case of STIEG LARSSON Man, Myth & Mistress I'd probably give it the same review as my peers gave, a little more strongly worded because that's my style. "Demystifying the Stieg Larsson legend is a dirty job but someone has to do it. Andre Jute and Andrew McCoy are up to the job, and cracklingly funny as they go about it. But, clearly, Larsson's fans will want to lynch them, not least for refusing to pull their punches, though the thoughtful will find them scrupulously fair. Jute admits that they have deliberately — provocatively? — made the book short to attract all of Larsson's readers, for which there is a price to pay in abrupt transitions and only a single example per criticism, which skimpiness costs them a star. Recommended for those who like bare-knuckles literary criticism. Four stars."

No surprises there; it's been said by the critics. The two most interesting things about the reviews on Amazon are Alina Holgate inviting us into her thought processes as she reviews the book, and the hostile review by that fellow Jones, who clearly felt personally affronted that we didn't take to Larsson as uncritically as he did. An interesting question to Jones would be, "How many books did you read in the year before you lost your job?" I think we'll find Jones is a brand new reader.

Gail M. Baugniet gives STIEG LARSSON Man, Myth & Mistress 4 stars:

****
It's hard to tell how much of this book's contents are written tongue-in-cheek and which parts truly reflect the authors' (Andre Jute and Andrew McCoy) ire.

I have read and enjoyed the first two novels of Stieg Larsson's "Girl" trilogy, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played With Fire. But, due to a shallow pocketbook, I waited in vain for the paperback edition of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and finally lost interest.

Sometimes, I've found, it's more fun to read about a book than to read the actual book. This could be one of those cases. For me, reading STIEG LARSSON Man, Myth & Mistress was like flipping through the National Enquirer or following Sarah Palin's bus - something entertaining or voyeuristic kept popping up.

If you love the books and find Stieg Larsson fascinating, be aware that this literary evaluation of the man and his work at times appears less than complimentary. If you keep an open mind, though, you might find that the harsh comments are rarely directed at Mr. Larsson.

— from http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

***

If you want a different sample than the one on Amazon, try http://coolmainpress.com/larssonsampl...

Mr. Jute: Do you see parallels between Wikileaks and the Millenium narrative? Or is that comparison overdrawn, as you see it?

Ken wrote: "Mr. Jute: Do you see parallels between Wikileaks and the Millenium narrative? Or is that comparison overdrawn, as you see it?"

I'm intimately familiar with the lengths to which governments will go to keep their grubby little secrets from the public gaze. My problem with Larsson isn't the overarching theme of the misdoings of secret policemen but the editorial failures and the lies either told in the marketing campaign or permitted to stand and then further promoted. So the parallel is probably good, as long as it isn't personalized to Larsson too much: his bete noire, the Swedish Nazis, are in no danger of taking over anything, so Larsson was a minor sort of campaigner whereas the Wikileaks feller could possibly be revealed by posterity as important.

Interesting. Thanks.

For Larsson Fans and Larsson haters alike
5 stars

STIEG LARSSON Man, Myth & Mistress
reviewed by Matthew Posner

This book really exploded my relatively uncritical view of Larsson’s novels, which I had read with relish and without paying much attention to most potential complaints. While I can still reread those books with satisfaction, now I will have the greater satisfaction of understanding their strengths and weaknesses. As a person well-trained in literary analysis (I teach high school English and college literature) I enjoy having a deeper understanding of what I’m reading.

Andre Jute has an entertainingly wry style which turns to outrage at just the moments it is most pleasing. I certainly recommend this book both if you like Stieg Larsson and if you don’t and are trying to figure out why.

[review copied from Amazon; also on Goodreads]