No less significant is Larsson’s treatment of the role money plays in the profession. Journalists, few people understand, are awfully poorly paid. Blomkvist lives on junk food, coffee, and cigarettes, with virtually no creature comforts. The freelancer who is murdered for the information he stumbles upon can only afford a secondhand laptop. Larsson is also the first storyteller in any medium I have ever encountered who has an editor attempt to balance the monetary cost of a story against its societal value, something that has been the bane of this journalist’s career but rarely merits a mention in journalism-based entertainment. (Like Woody Allen’s infuriatingly magnificent on-screen apartments, the Hollywood version of the journalist almost always enjoys an unlimited expense account.) “Blomkvist had blown 150,000 kroner on the Salander story,” complains the magazine’s acting managing editor even though it’s a story upon which the capture of myriad murderers—to say nothing of the future of the nation’s democracy—may well depend.
In many respects, these details are peripheral to the story of Salander’s struggle against the murderously evil genius she is battling. As with most entries in this genre, the blood and guts—and the suspense that accompanies them—are what keep things moving and the reader riveted. And of course the dramatic details of Larsson’s life, death, and afterlife have kept the world’s attention focused on the author himself, as well as on his warring partner, Eva Gabrielsson, and (now extremely wealthy) father and brother, and the distribution of the avalanche of proceeds from his estate. But nowhere have I seen anyone argue for the books’ value as illustrations of both the difficulties and the importance of the journalistic profession.
After all, without Blomkvist, the (really) bad guys would win. Good people would be destroyed; bad people would get away with murder. Swedish democracy would be compromised quite possibly beyond redemption. (The internal debate Blomkvist undertakes when deciding to what degree it is proper to cooperate with Swedish authorities both to punish the bad guys and to save his country’s soul is among the most sophisticated and compelling treatments of this issue I’ve seen anywhere.)
Part of the problem, of course, is that newspapers rarely pay attention to books anymore. The New York Times is the only paper that still publishes a stand-alone book review section, and fewer and fewer papers devote any daily space to even a single review. (In late July, the Los Angeles Times laid off every one of its already freelance book reviewers and columnists, leaving the job to just four remaining staffers.) This ongoing dereliction of duty when it comes to the world of literature might explain why no editor has so far tried to exploit Larsson’s magnificent posthumous achievement for the potential propaganda goldmine it contains. They are too busy touching up their résumés.

I believe the reason we haven't seen an argument for "the books’ value as illustrations of both the difficulties and the importance of the journalistic profession" is because it's a pretty weak argument. Blomkvist is a failure as a journalist as the first book opens. He succeeds via illegal means — through the talents of a gifted hacker named Salander who has a photographic memory and other superhuman intellectual powers. It's tricky to celebrate these books/movies as great PR for journalism because they are fraught with ethical problems. We shouldn't hack into the hard drives of suspicious characters. Or their cell phones, as I used to think everyone knew. I don't think readers/viewers of the Dragon Tattoo franchise walk away with admiration of journalists and journalism so much as they do with adoration of Salander the Superhacker Feminist Vigilante. Alas, she is pure fantasy.
#1 Posted by Katherine Reed, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 02:06 PM
I thought that the remarkable thing about Swedish journalism from the first book was that it has a professional organization much as a legal bar association in that profession. In the first book it dealt with ethical issues as I remember.
#2 Posted by Pete Skiba, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 03:50 PM
Her hacking talents—not unlike, come to think of it, those of the Murdoch cretins but in this case used only for good—make it possible for Blomkvist to become privy to all sorts of secrets that would elude a mere mortal journalist.
Perhaps a little more consistent metaphor isn't Murdoch but Wikileaks...except, once again, the journalist gets a free ride.
#3 Posted by Larry Darnell, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 07:54 PM
This retired newsman recently started subscribing to the WSJ, largely because they offered a subscription deal I couldn't refuse. I mention this only to segue into the question of book reviews in newspapers (or, more precisely, the paucity of same) mentioned in Alterman's column. I have been much impressed by the book reviewing in the WSJ, Every day a book review in the editorial section (frequently intended to make an editorial point, but so what) plus a weekly run down of books seemingly tailored to my interests. They somehow have my reading-preference profile down pat even though I'm WAY out of step with their editorial worldview. WSJ in my opinion outflanks The NYT's Review of Books by being lean and mean whereas the NYT is loaded with reviews they are obligated to write because they have a free-standing magazine to fill every week (sort of like cable news networks having to fill a 24-hour news hole every day) and just because they are -- after all -- THE NEW YORK TIMES. Nothing wrong with that, either.
I recently scored a reviewing gig for our local weekly newspaper which regularly reviews numerous books, some of national import as well as those written on local subjects by local authors. One need only to add a journal or two like The New York Review of Books to this mix to have a very good handle on what's going on out there in the book publishing sphere. I quite understand where Mr Alterman is coming from in his lament for the erosion of feature material in today's newspapers, but it seems to me that book reviews are not -- so far, at least -- the most endangered species thereof.
#4 Posted by Art Kane, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 05:26 PM
I almost cried while reading "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest," in which the character Erika Berger, a female editor of a large daily newspaper, confronts her CFO. She reminds him that cutting staff would hurt the newspaper's capability, therefore reducing its size and advertising revenue. They effectively tell her "not to worry her pretty little head" about it. How many times have we gone through that dance?
What I really took away from the first book was an ethical battle between hackers and journalists. Larsson makes the case that traditional journalists have checks and balances in place. Hackers like Anonymous do not. While his story does demonstrate the necessity of computer espionage regarding crimes against people across international lines, one could take away from the books that sort of thing has more of a place in law enforcement rather than journalism. This was before the British phone hacking scandal.
#5 Posted by Melissa Bower, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 11:38 AM
Not exactly relevant to article but, why a flat-abs Hollywood hunk when a Kenneth Branagh with a few added lbs would have perfectly fit the bill?
#6 Posted by ed parolini, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 04:43 PM
Enjoyed the trilogy, and the Swedish films, and this article. I do find it interesting that virtually nobody seems to comment on the huge and obvious plot hole in book 1. There are over 40 framed flowers, sent annually to Mr. Vanger since the 60's. The novel is set in the early 2000's. Even the most cautious sender 20-40 years ago (avoiding, e.g., fingerprints) would not have had the notion of avoiding deposits containing DNA, which even a drop of sweat or brushing against the frame would have left behind. With 40 frames, the flowers themselves and a week at a 2000's era lab, Vanger (or Blomkvist, in his stead) would have known that the sender was not only related to him at a certain distance (which he already suspected), but would have known that person was female. If the packages also contained DNA from the confederate (very likely), he would have known the relation and that she was female.
Samples of DNA from a few more Vanger relatives (easy enough to pick up from those on the island and in boardrooms, from the trash, basic detective work), and their identity would have easily been pinpointed by elimination.
It is curious that in all that, Vanger and Blomkvist seem to live in a world where modern DNA testing does not exist. And yet Vanger, as a man with great resources, could have easily hired such a testing lab, and both, but especially Blomkvist, would have been well aware of DNA science.
I'm just saying ...
#7 Posted by drinkof, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 09:31 AM
One extra bit of irony in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" title... The dynamic duo of this series -- combining journalism skills with illegal technology and "research" skills -- has something in common with a fictional character of 70 years ago, the original Green Hornet radio series, in which a newspaper publisher, frustrated with the ability of editorials to clean up the town, took to vigilante tactics to not only uncover facts, but intimidate, trick and frame the bad guys... sometimes with unknowing help from the paper's reporting staff.
(Not to be confused with the less journalistic and more kung-fulish TV series or the 2011 film, which features a journalism and criminology graduate seeking work as a secretarial temp and a drunken buffoon becoming publisher.)
http://jheroes.com/2011/01/26/the-hornets-nest-was-a-newspaper/
#8 Posted by Bob Stepno, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 07:58 PM
i'm so agree with all this stuff, prof Alterman! i'm from italy, journalist as well. i first read Blomqvist chapter 1 after having passed the professional exam, asbolutely by chance, and I remember i thought: "I should have read it before the exam!". anyway. moreover, i think that italian journalism environment is more similar to the swedish one than to the US way of working...
#9 Posted by giulia mietta, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 03:09 AM
It's stupid exercises like this that make a J-school degree unnecessary, in "old school" industry and today.
#10 Posted by Karen Smith, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 07:55 PM