I did love the Larsson books (all 3 of them) even with their faults. I liked the fact that Lisbeth’s emotional reaction to her rape and torture was very realistic. The actions she took (revenge torture and breast implants) were exaggerated (‘cos it’s a work of fiction for heaven’s sake not a feminist essay) but that kind of contradictory behaviour is quite believable. I’ve done volunteer work for a crisis hotline and I’ve seen women (and men for that matter) respond in an equally contradictory ways to being abused. Of course she’s the embodiment of every abused woman’s wish fulfillment when she gets her own back on her attacker but if that was all she’d done she’d have been a caricature. Her continuing insecurity made her far more realistic and, for me anyway, more lovable.

And Kevin, I agree totally about the stats, which I found slightly out-of-place apart from anything else. You can argue with these statistics all day long, as there are usually biases and nuances within the various studies, but the fact is they’re not particularly relevant to the book anyway, as it’s ultimately a far-fetched serial killer story. I don’t doubt Larsson’s real-life credentials or sentiments, but I think the inclusion of those stats is both jarring and a little misleading.

While misogyny may well express itself along an escalating continuum, the novel takes place so far to one side that the events are almost fantastical, so quoting stats from the everyday world feels like an attempt to ground the story that never quite lands. What percentage of Swedish men, for example, are multi-millionaire industrialists with an elaborately constructed torture chamber under their house? I’m guessing it’s not a widespread problem. For me, Larsson never makes the link from his story back to “everyday” male violence that might have added an extra level.

Have to say, I thought it very old-fashioned and didn’t think it was particularly explicit in sex or violence. I did find the stats that punctuated it slightly weird, particularly having been to Sweden, and I thought it was trying to paint a picture of male sexual violence that’s out of all proportion to reality.

Having said all of that, and despite thinking that Newman’s article was the sort of thing that gives feminism a bad name (for goodness sake, she implies the settlement of his estate was somehow misogynistic, rather than a legal oversight by a man who didn’t expect to die), I’m reluctant to include sexual violence in my work because I do think there’s a danger of veering over into titilation. And I do think, if the author was interested in female empowerment he’d have had Salander embark on an Erin-Brokovich style bid to prove her mental competence (never properly explained in the book) rather than a Charles-Bronson-style vengeance attack.

Oh, finally, just to show that Newman is a fool. I know a woman who had a very traumatic upbringing who subsequently had breast augmentation and felt exactly the same sentiments as Salander. I don’t understand it, but I’ve never been in that situation – how presumptuous of Newman to assume she can speak on behalf of all such women.