In chapter 24, Blomkvist thinks to himself “It could have been no accident that Bjurman and Björk had both worked at Sapö.” (p. 454 in my edition.) However, he has not discovered that they both worked together at this point in the book. Later, Eriksson tells him as much, and he replies, “‘That bastard. He didn’t say a word about having actually worked with Bjurman.” (p. 473)
Is this a plot hole, or did Blomkvist actually find out that they worked together at some other point before Eriksson tells him?
Posted by Derk in LA , 18 July 2012
13 comments on “Plot Hole”
Bjork and Bjurman worked at two things. Bjork hid their first work from Blomkvist.
Posted by Quill in Awkland ,
Yes, I realize that, but Blomkvist somehow knows about this connection before Eriksson informs him of this fact. My question is whether this is simply an editing error or whether there is an earlier instance where Blomkvist obtains this piece of information.
Posted by Derk in LA ,
Another plothole is: how on earth did Henrik not realise that it Harriet sending the flowers? And it’s really ignorant to portray the police as bumbling fools. My father is a detective and informs me that there is NO WAY ON EARTH that the evidence presented would’ve been overlooked the way that Larsson proposes. Some researcher!
Posted by Jack in Ireland ,
Jack in Ireland: I totally agree. The question of whether it is Harriet that is sending the flowers is not even raised as a faint possibility. It became obvious to me at the beginning that it must me Harriet sending them. The theory of a “tormentor” is left out for far too long. And why would Vanger not draw even some faint hope that his beloved niece was alive since the flowers kept coming? It was a simple and fairly transparent message from Harriet to her uncle.
Posted by Albygiddeon in Toronto ,
Cheers Albygiddeon in Toronto. I’m tired of this inexplicable praise for Larsson. As a reviewer on amazon pointed out: he’s only half as good as Dan Brown!
Posted by Jack in Ireland ,
Given the hatred that the family has for each other, and Henrik for the others in his family (even before Harriet’s “death”, although that event does sour Henrik even further on his family) I didn’t find it that unbelievable that he would think “THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE MURDERED MY NIECE AND ARE TORMENTING ME ABOUT IT” rather than thinking the girl they searched the whole bloody island for and who has existed under a false identity since she was sixteen was somehow managing to send anonymous gifts to him.
I also didn’t think the police were portrayed as “bumbling” at all; it was a simple case of it being a far different time, where a family like the Vangers would have been too well thought of for something serious to be done. It wasn’t until Henrik’s insistence that Morell dug into the family at all outside of the cursory interviews, and once he did start, he did do a very thorough job of interviewing.
Posted by Alvie Fletcher in Charlotte ,
Sorry Alvie.Despite your love for the story, it simply does not work on the page. Try Silence of the Lambs for an airtight plot and brilliant writing.
Posted by Jenny in Dublin ,
Jack in Ireland – half as good as Dan Brown???? Nobody’s that bad! and Stig Larson was a hundred times better than Brown.
Posted by Merlin in London ,
ANOTHER plot flaw:
In “The girl with the dragon tatoo” why did they not show the photo of the murderer (man in blue striped jumper) to someone in the family who could identify him???
Posted by The Dragon in Dragonville ,
Find fault with S.L.’s plot if you must, but he beats most writers (certainly Dan Brown) in his original and well-developed characters.
Posted by Dragonreader in Alamogordo ,
I know the plot has wrinkles, but please – I have just read the books for the 3rd time. And then, because it was lying on my bedside table, I read Da Vinci Code again, and Dan Brown simply irritated me with his caramelized explanations in the middle of a car chase. I liked the movie, actually. But there’s something magical about Lisbeth, and Millenium, and Larsson saw it and managed to get it across.
Posted by Iz in Durban ,
There’s an old Hollywood anecdote. Someone once asked John Ford why, in his classic “Stagecoach,” if the Apaches wanted to stop the stage, they didn’t just shoot the horses? “Because that would have been the end of the movie,” Ford replied. More seriously, as Tolkien pointed out in “On Fairy Stories,” the “willing suspension of disbelief” actually requires an affirmative desire to believe: not just disbelief’s willing suspension. Can anyone actually believe the plot of “Vertigo”? Or “Orpheus”? How hokey is “The Three Musketeers”? I think if each of us went back and really inspected the seams and joints on our favorite books, movies, plays, we’d be confounded by the gaping holes we would find.
Posted by abg in Takoma Park ,
An insight from abg! If you really think about it this is true of all fiction (and a lot of nonfiction).
Who would join the crew of captain Ahab–whalers were a tough lot and in it for the money and there was a lot of money made on a whaling expedition the coin he (Ahab) nailed to the mast would not move them to go out after the white whale
Just sayin…(I love that bit of tripe it is sooo meaningless)
Posted by CowboyBob in Napa Ca ,