In the second book I was set for about 150 pages on the wrong foot, I think. Without revealing the outcome for those who haven’t read it yet: about 150 pages before the end* there is a “revelation” of a character in which he exactly describes how he killed the 3 (svensson, johansson and Bjurman). And then, in the end it is NOT this persona at all wo killed them! Anybody noticed this too?

*English pocket version: page 512 and further, starting with “things had all gone wrong…”

Posted by Karen in Barcelona , 27 September 2009

By Editor

22 thoughts on “Mistake in 2nd book?”
  1. I agree with Karen!!I also noticed that and read it twice to confirm.Maybe the author will use this character in his third novel and surprise us.I dont think its a mistake.He is just playing with the reader.Amazing guy this Larsson!!

    Posted by nikos in Athens ,

  2. i agree with karen. made me wonder if this is something thats been “lost in translation”? after managing to weave a reasonably complex plot, this seems like a silly mistake.

    i disagree with nikos. each book needs to stand on its own. and this incongruity is way too glaring to simply be overlooked.

    am not sure if i shd put details here without giving out too much. suffices to ask how can a corrupt journalist be an excellent shot? that too without any background info?

    Posted by idiotix in goa, india ,

  3. What???? It is the same in the end…. I didn’t read anywhere in the book that said that character didn’t kill those three. In fact a the end of the book Blomkvist some what confronts him.

    Quote from book: Blomkvist said “You killed Dag Svensson and Mia Johansson. They were my friends. I’m not going to let you loose on the road, either you sit here while I tie you or I’ll shoot you in the kneecap. Your choice”

    Posted by Brittany in Fort Worth, TX ,

  4. idiotix in goa india…. didn’t it mention – briefly – that Blomkvist did his military service? wouldn’t that include weapons training?

    Posted by Whydidn’theleaveawill in johnsville ,

  5. I too noticed, but is it a mistake? I can’t wait to read the last book and hope that all the loose end tie up……….. I will be sad though as I have thoughly enjoyed this writer work

    Posted by Pauline in Colchester England ,

  6. I just finished the second book and was quite surprised to find a blatant editing mistake. On pages 227 & 330, the identical passages are translated. What happened? Has this error been corrected?

    Posted by Gail in Chandler Arizona ,

  7. There is no mistake about the ending. I think you have read a name in the “revelations” paragraphs and inferred that this is the killer. If you read carefully you will find this is not so. At this point the killer is still anonymous.

    Posted by Lesley in Auckland, NZ ,

  8. To Gail: I also noticed those passages being identical – I thought I had flipped a few pages back my mistake but it’s true!

    Posted by Juliet in Manchester, UK ,

  9. Nothing shows up twice in my copy published 1 august 2009 in the USA. So that has been cleared up. I too agree with Lesley. At the point of the “revelations” paragraph, the killer was still anonymous.

    I love this guys work. It is so sad that he died and all his other manuscripts will never get publishes.

    Posted by Jo-An in Hatfield MA USA ,

  10. This seems to be a thread about minor errors… (when we LOVE something we want it PERFECT!) so – set me straight if I got this wrong, please. When Paolo Roberto was waiting outside the apartment on Lundagatan for Wu to show up, he witnessed Wu’s assault & abduction by the Blond Hulk. “Paolo Roberto’s mouth dropped open when he saw Wu’s leg come up in a fast arc. ‘She’s a kickboxer!’…” Um, HELLO! that shouldn’t have been a surprise to him. Her kickboxing training was the reason that Blomkvist asked Paolo to contact her – he thought she’d respond to the approach of a famous boxer better than a journalist, and Paolo agreed with him. ??? Maybe it’s just me, but Paolo’s excess of surprise seemed a logical inconsistency.

    Posted by Jill M. in Rochester, NY ,

  11. I think if you read closely you will realize that the person from “revelations” and the killer at the end of the book are the same person. I mean really, who else could be described as a blonde giant?

    Posted by Kristina B. in Livingston, LA ,

  12. in the revelation the killer reflects on zala and lundin and he also mentions that he had to flee the scene of th crime because the sight of him would not easily be forgotten. i think its pretty obvious who larsson is writing about,

    Posted by vin in melbounre ,

  13. To Gail and Juliet – the more or less identical repeat of a fairly long passage is the only mistake I would have expected an editor to have picked up on easily. Apart from that inconsistency (which seems to have been eliminated since “my” edition) I thoroughly enjoyed all 3 books!

    Posted by Susan in Cape Town ,

  14. Anyone else noted that on page 220 (in chapter 13) of the 2010 paperback edition of TGWPWF that a line of dialogue was attributed to a policeman named Svensson, T

    the same name as the murdered man?

    Posted by Big Al in Smallfield ,

    1. Yes, I saw this “Svensson” too on page 220. They put the murder victim’s name instead of the police officer. Pretty obvious mistake. Who edited this book??

  15. karen i have been grappling with this conundrum ever since finishing the book this morning. i read it over carefully and thought what began as sandstrom’s confession ended with mention of facial and neck bruises and a white volvo (clearly reference to niedermin post paolo-roberto encounter) then i went back and realised that sandstrom was being mentioned as a 3rd person and “he” who was confessing was in fact not sandstrom but “he” was talking ABOUT sandstrom. it clears things up once you read it with that distinction in mind. the mention of zala’s loss of rationality once he heard salander’s name also correlates to the last pages when he expresses the same experience.

    Posted by kb_darkie in gaborone, botswana ,

  16. Yes, I agree with the opening of the thread. It wasn’t until near the end that it became clear that the hulk guy was the triple-murderer. I did get him and the guy with the beer-gut mixed up a bit, what with all that was going on. My fault, though, most likely.

    Posted by Blomkvist in Sweden ,

  17. Im confused..Im reading this book GWPWF and I’m reading the same messages that I read earlier in the book from Lisbeth to Blomkvist when their are communicating via his computer. I initially thought I lost my page but the same messages appear; the letter from blomkvist, her reply about ‘being a journalist and to figure it out’ and ‘let me think about it’. Am i missing something here ?

    Posted by paul mulheron in Glasgow ,

  18. Yeah, you’re missing the fact that the timeline shifted to two weeks earlier. The book follows the police investigation for two weeks and then switches and goes through those same two weeks fom Salander’s point of view. (Hint: At the beginning of each chapter it tells you the date.) So of course the computer conversation was the same. If you were watching a movie, and there was a flash back to the beginning, would you expect people to have different conversations the second time around?

    Posted by Derk in LA ,

  19. I agree with Lesley.

    Perhaps this is something that has been cleared up in the later english translations.

    Posted by Mike in Adelaide, Australia ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *