Why are Larsson’s books so popular?
An analysis based on psychological principles and theory
by Cecile – yet another friend of Sally’s
Among other explanations, an examination of basic human drives might explain why the books have such a strong appeal. First, we have a powerful need to feel good about ourselves. We can accomplish this goal a number of ways, including identifying with those whom we admire (Cialdini et al., 1976; Cialdini & De Nicholas, 1989). That is, if we identify with people who have desirable traits, then we also possess those traits, at least to a certain degree and in our own minds. Larsson provides us with protagonists who have enviable qualities which we would like to emulate. For example, Blomkvist makes us feel good about ourselves because he is interested in helping others and by righting wrongs. By identifying ourselves with him, we can feel good that we are on the side of justice. Also, aligning ourselves with Blomkvist and his goals “proves” to us that we are not sexist. A bonus of identifying with Blomkvist is his personal life. We get to experience vicariously having a number of attractive people offer sex, something alien to most people. Salander provides us with a number of positive things. First of all, she is interesting. She has talents which let us glimpse and participate in a world we might not have known existed and which make us feel special. Like Blomkvist, she fights for justice (so we are her colleagues and help save Blomkvist) and she is a victim of injustice (so we want to help or protect her, an additional way to feel good about ourselves).
Another way to feel good about ourselves, which is important to the books, is to distance ourselves from those we don’t like (I’m not AT ALL like him. He’s such a scumbag, and if I’m not like him, then I am not a scumbag; e.g., Wills, 1981; Wood, Michaela, & Giordano, 2000). Although the protagonists are multi-dimensional with both positive and negative characteristics, the “bad” guys are more unidimensional. Larsson gives very little information about the antagonists other than their predominant negative traits, and certainly no humanizing features. Salander’s brother has the odd genetic trait that makes him impervious to pain, but we have no idea about what makes him vulnerable (for example, what or whom he loves). To be vulnerable is to be human, and he is more superman than human being. Similarly, we learn no endearing characteristics of the other antagonists, although real humans have both positive and negative traits. Larsson’s choice (to make the protagonists multi-dimensional and to keep the antagonists one-dimensional) reflects another behavior of humans in general. We tend to view members of our own groups, or those whom we see as similar, as complex individuals; conversely, we see members of other groups as homogenous in terms of traits and personality (e.g., Holtz & Miller, 1985; Linville & Jones, 1980; Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992).
Another possible reason for the books’ popularity might be the basis of morality in Western society. According to Lawrence Kohlberg (1984), the most fundamental moral demand is that of justice, or fairness. (It should be noted that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply universally, including within Western society; Gilligan, 1977; Nisan & Kohlberg, 1969.) Many writers (e.g., Malmgren, 2001) have noted that detective stories’ appeal lies in a resolution where justice is restored and everyone gets what they deserved. Part of this appeal relates to the just-world hypothesis (Lerner, 1980) which states that we believe the world is fair. Bad things happened to him so he must have deserved it for some reason; if I don’t do bad things, I won’t have a bad outcome. I am a good person, therefore good things will happen to me. It is another mechanism to protect ourselves.
A final note concerns the discussion that Salander warrants psychological diagnosis, specifically with Asperger’s Disorder (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000), a mild version of autism. A person with Asperger’s Disorder must demonstrate “qualitative impairment in social interaction” (and must meet two of the following four specific criteria: failure to develop age-appropriate peer relationships, lack of nonverbal behaviors for communication, such as eye contact, lack of social or emotional response, and lack of seeking to share enjoyment and interests with other people. People with Asperger’s also must manifest one of the following restrictive patterns: repetitive behaviors (such as hand flapping), intense preoccupation with an interest that precludes other pursuits, preoccupation with the parts of objects, or the need to adhere to very strict routines and rituals. It is true that Salander has impaired social interactions. Also, she did not develop friendships as a child and has few of these as an adult. However, I would argue that this lack does not stem from a neurological impairment, as is believed to be the case with autism-spectrum disorders, but from her life experiences. If she had been raised by loving parents in a more typical environment, then it is very likely that her social life would mirror more closely that of her peers. Further, she clearly does not meet the second criterion. Salander shows none of the behavioral oddities that people with Asperger’s have. She is able to adapt to different environments (Gibraltar, the Carribean) and does not adhere rigidly to specific routines. That would be impossible given the nature of her work as an investigator. The antagonists in the books attempt to portray Salander as mentally disturbed to accomplish their own goals. Even if the majority of readers do not know specific criteria for diagnosing her, they are aware that this attempt is a subversion of justice, and are motivated to protect her. If we can save her from Teleborian and his ilk, then we are her saviors.
—
What do you think about Cecile’s take on Larsson’s characters and why they are so popular? Drop a comment below and let us know!
*
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Arlington, VA: American Psychological Association.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 626-631.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different view: Women’s conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1985). Assumed similarity and opinion certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 890-898.
Kohlberg. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 2, The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
Malmgren, C. D. (2001). Anatomy of murder: mystery, detection, and crime fiction. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.
Nisan, N., & Kohlberg, L. (1969). Universality and variation in moral judgment: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study in Turkey. Child Development, 53, 865-876.
Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 553-567.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
Wood, J. V., Michaela, J. L., & Giordano, C. (2000). Downward comparison in everyday life: Reconciling self-enhancement models with the mood-cognition priming model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 563-579.
