Tai_Mai_Shu
New Member
I'm still not sure as to whether or not I should pick up parts two and three as I wasn't particularly pleased with part one.
I'm skipping it. I thought the first one was overhype.
We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
I'm still not sure as to whether or not I should pick up parts two and three as I wasn't particularly pleased with part one.
I've plenty of books to read and I don't want to spend time reading one I don't like much.
I'm skipping it. I thought the first one was overhype.
Blindsided-I decided to dig in as well on #2. The beginning wasn't so dreadful as the first one, and it alluded to it quite a bit. I'm to the part whereI hope to get a lot of reading done tonight, reserving judgment on this book for a later time.a contract has been put on Lisbeth.
I read the three novels - fantastic!
I did a little research about Steig Larsson and some believe that his deceased is not natural because of the nature of his books - exposing a scary crime in that country.
'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' was entertaining, but I haven't read the others. Books about newspapers don't interest me: they're often written by journalists who always find their own occupation incredibly fascinating and feel the need for self-glorifying masturbation on the subject.
As said, it was entertaining, but it wasn't THAT good, it wasn't The Name of the Rose. I'm reaching the stage at which I think most of the public, and a good portion of the reading public, might actually be half-wits, for whom any book is worth hyping up, as if they're astonished anyone can write a book.
Perhaps I'm just becoming cynical.
Thank you, I love being called a "half-wit" first thing in the morning. So...you didn't care for the books, that makes me stupid?
'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' was entertaining, but I haven't read the others. Books about newspapers don't interest me: they're often written by journalists who always find their own occupation incredibly fascinating and feel the need for self-glorifying masturbation on the subject.
As said, it was entertaining, but it wasn't THAT good, it wasn't The Name of the Rose. I'm reaching the stage at which I think most of the public, and a good portion of the reading public, might actually be half-wits, for whom any book is worth hyping up, as if they're astonished anyone can write a book.
Perhaps I'm just becoming cynical.