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.
Categories: Books, Characters
5 Comments » (Including One Discussion Thread)
« Share your favourite Millennium experience | Home
August 19th, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Yes I agree with her. Felt the same thing as Bergkvist when he walked through her apartment on Mosebacke. And when he couldn’t hold her when she got the message on her mother’s death. Then I could feel his helplessness
August 20th, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Something I find compelling about Blomkvist is that he is somewhat of a personification of the idea of unconditional love- that it is embodied in a white, middle aged, man who surrounds himself with other “vanilla” type people is equally interesting . Specifically in his friendship with Lisbeth- he simply accepts her- when 99% of other people, who might be his peers, would not even give her the time of day. The idea of being able to be yourself, and having someone from a completely different social background accept and love you is a powerful thing. I think people become attached to these two characters because they are exploring that road together- readers are rooting for them to work it out, because if they do, then maybe the reader might have a chance.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:33 PM
There are also strong parallels to the ending of Shaw’s Pygmalion, in which Eliza and Higgins contemplate all the aspects of love that do NOT involve sex.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:29 PM
I would like to hear what you think of this, Cecile… It just occurred to me that Salander’s not really a girl you’d wanna identify with as a woman, if one thinks about it – not too much anyway? After all, she may be a tough cookie, yes, but on the other hand she’s also a victim with a big V. She gets raped several times, she gets beaten, she gets humiliated…. without sparing us, the readers, too much detail. So, how can especially women keep finding this character attractive to identify so strongly with (if I’m to believe any of the feedback I’ve gotten about that question before I did my interview with that journalist back in July) – unless – well, unless they don’t think too much about the ‘hurt’ parts of Salander? Just focus on her strong sides…
I realise that one could of course argue that that’s exactly the reason why many women identify well with Salander – they may feel hurt themselves, for whatever reason; maybe not having been raped outright or anything like that – but maybe some humiliation or other, a feeling of powerlessness that’s just as acute to them. And then of course they see this character who revels in ‘kicking back’ and does so very efficiently. The bad guys get theirs! Maybe Bjurman forces her, but her revenge is so devilish (without being outright sadist) that it kind of makes one feel ‘relieved’ – the ‘sides are balanced’ now, also in emotional terms. I believe I discussed this with another sally friend – Trai over at http://fyeahsallyandkalle.tumblr.com... but what’s your take on it`?
If I’m making sense at all here…
September 6th, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Excellent points, Chris, and I agree with you. Many women have been brutally victimized, like Salander. Many have not, but know that generally women occupy the inferior position. Because of this, we can identify with Salander, although this is not a way to feel good about ourselves. As you also mention, Salander’s revenge on Bjurman is wonderful, and perhaps makes us feel like we could get the upper hand over those who wield the power (and especially over those who abuse it). When the bikers confront Salander at Bjurman’s cabin, we are terrified that they will harm her. However, it is so rewarding that she is able to take control of the situation, with such apparent ease. It gives us hope that we do not have to be victims, either.