Book Review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

There I was in the Tegucigalpa airport scanning the racks of Spanish language magazines and overpriced, native handcrafts. In desperation I randomly stumbled upon this spicy murder mystery. So after a cultural and physical adventure of building a school that will educate over a 1000 kids, I needed an intellectual adventure.

To be honest, I wasn't thrilled by the first chapter and felt it was off to disappointing start. In fact, it was several weeks before I picked it up again and plowed through the first 150 pages, which was where the action grabbed me and pulled me into the story.

(Warning: some plot spoilers ahead)

A Swedish financial journalist, Blomkvist, is co-founder and partner in the bold, truth-telling Millennium Magazine. Despite his stellar prophetic intentions, he is sentenced to 3 months of prison for libel against a corrupt multi-national company, Wennerstrom. Just after cleaning out his desk he is offered a surprise job opportunity to write a tell-all autobiography of Henrik Vanger and his powerful but declining Vanger Corporation. But Henrik's real agenda is to quiet his troubled soul before he dies and quench his obsession to solve the 36 year-old disappearance of his niece, Harriet.

Along the way, the title character, Salander appears. She is a 25 year-old free-lancing private investigator for Milton security. She's a reclusive, severely inhibited yet incredibly intelligent young girl with a jaded, hard rock personality. Nobody gets into her mind, and because of her institutionally bound mother and absent father, she has no trust in authority figures. She is a ward of the State (Sweden) and still legally dependent on a guardian, but lives and works independently.

Without compacting a complicated cast of characters and furiously paced story into a couple paragraphs and giving you indigestion, there are a few things I got from this book that are worth mentioning.

The first take-away is the not-so-subtle cause of violence and sexual assault against women. Blomkvist and Salander uncover a seriously perverted serial killer who dwarfs the decrepit moral compass of the Nazis. His victims are all women. At several section headings the author, Larsson, lists statistics about violence against women. Yeah, it's a serious problem, still today in our "advanced" 21st Century. Some research reports that as many as 1 in 4 women have been assaulted or sexually abused. And while race-based slavery ended over a hundred years ago, the new billion dollar industry is sex-slaves. If I would have known before buying this book that it would involve a serial killer intent on hunting innocent women as nothing more than prey, I wouldn't have read it. I think I typify the average Christian in simply trying to avoid or ignore these dark realities.

The second take-away is in the psychological profile of Salander. Her character at once whispers sympathy and seduction. Her damaged persona is quite appealing, and her journey from lonely hacker freak to a famous journalist's undercover lover is slow, dramatic and endearing. In her evolution there is a movement from isolation to relationship, cynicism to trust, a decimated, protective self-image to one that is more alive and empowered. The key to this passage is the non-sexual friendship cultivated with the journalist, Blomkvist, who simultaneously embodies unconditional acceptance and an authentic transparency.

I enjoyed the thrilling twists and very thorough satisfaction of justice and discovery in the end. But having said that, I don't think I'll see the movie, and I'm not jumping to read the sequel. I am not sure a regular mental diet of such content is my kind of thing, but I am glad I ventured out and tried something new, and have had a small chance to digest it here with my two blog followers, one of which is my Mom! Hi Mom - love ya!

Personality and Spirituality, part DOS

In Hebrew the word for "face" is panim. Translated literally it is "faces." While this is not an uncommon feature of Hebrew grammar for other things as well, perhaps it can encourage us to look deeper at what we mean when we refer to the space between our ears that presents to the world our invisible thoughts, attitudes, feelings and words.

According to Dr. David Keirsey, clinical psychologist, historical research unveils a pattern of four "faces" of human personality, that up until relatively recently, was the default starting point for understanding human nature. Not until the late 19th Century did Freud and Pavlov point us toward defining people more by primal,natural instinct or environmental conditioning and nurture (Please Understand Me II, 22-26). Keirsey frames Myers-Briggs personality theory in the broader historical framework of philosophers, authors, and physicians from 340 B.C. through the late 19th Century that support the categorization of human personality into four broad types. While each one understandably argues for the four-part distinctions with different measurements and perspectives, there does seem to be a reliable pattern. Keirsey seeks to place himself in the stream of history, adding his own scientific observations that add to the cumulative understanding of the four personality types in the specific area of how they use words and use tools.

To clarify the difference let me use one of Keirsey's illustrations. Your temperament is like your hardware and your character is like your software. And that unchangeable temperament is a modification and specification of one of the four "faces." Thus you can't change your temperament, but only develop your character in harmony with it. Whereas Freud and Pavlov would say your hardware is singular: nature or nurture.

As I have discussed this theory of personality type with people, most are intrigued and can identify personally with having done some test and superficially relate to the concepts with a vague idea of the Galen's terminology (190 B.C.) of Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, and Phlegmatic. By the way, these are largely negative ways of describing and differentiating between the types because of which I try to avoid them. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey do a much better and balanced job at showing the positive aspects and best potentials of each type.

In a few of my discussions of type I have met a skepticism I feel I should also address here before moving forward. Some people's doubt or fear of personality type theory comes from possible association of this with fatalistic, new age astrology. I've heard two people tell me, "that sounds like the Zodiac." One respectable Christian suggested this is an area we should avoid because of the influence of secular-humanistic thought. I think both these perspectives teach me that there are people who will incorrectly associate personality type theories with anti or un-Christian philosophies or religious practices.

So far, I do not see any rationale connection or historical link between the science of human cognition and personality type and these other philosophies. There are superficial similarities, however, that I think most will see through if they study more deeply the methodology and observational aspects of personality theory. Here we need to think clearly and see the difference between association and causation. Just because some people say your character is determined by your birthday does not mean there could not be observable patterns of human behavior in the way our minds process information and make decisions. These objectors would most likely also be in the camp of those who discredit the entire field of psychology as un-scientific. But I would say that people's decisions, motivations, patterns of word usage ARE measurable, and thus scientific. Every field of science, including math and physics involve the devising of hypothetical theories that didn't originate with the Bible (E=MC2), but are nevertheless generally accepted today as morally neutral in essential character. But I digress.

Now, allow me to really freak you out with this theory:

If one fundamental aspect of human nature and character is this four-part type, delineated from Plato (Artisans, Idealists, Guardians, and Rationales) to Myers-Briggs (SP, NF, SJ, and NT), might the Bible's authors allude to it in some way, directly or indirectly?

In an attempt to win over Christian skeptics, Keirsey says yes. He uses several arguments in the appendix of his book already cited, one of which I would totally discredit with proper exegesis. But another one I would like for you to consider. Think about the narratives of the life of Christ written in the first century. There are four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - each written by a distinct author for expressly evangelistic intent, but which nevertheless, can easily be paired with the four temperaments.

Matthew presents Jesus, in Plato's terminology, as a Guardian (SJ) - concerned with the fulfillment of the law and the teaching of correct doctrine. Matthew's gospel is thought to be patterned after the five-part Torah of the OT, framing Jesus' life around five major discourses.

Mark presents Jesus in the terminology of the Artisan (SP) - acting immediately and influentially, proving himself to truly be the Son of God to Jew and Gentile.

Luke presents Jesus in a characteristically Rationale (NT) fashion - writing a thoroughly researched and accurate account of the truth of who Jesus is and what Jesus has done.

John presents Jesus in fundamentally Idealist fashion (NF) - focusing on the divine identity of Jesus as the Word made flesh and demonstrating that interpersonal connection of Jesus to many in the conversations recorded in this gospel.

Thus no matter your personality type, manner of thinking, or pattern of values and behavior, Jesus personifies and embodies the best of humanity, revealing the true image of God in human nature. Most likely this is unintentional on the part of the Biblical authors, however, there are distinct parallels in the styles of writing and portrayals of Jesus in each of the gospels with each of the four aspects of human personality type. If you are interested in studying the four gospels more in-depth, I would recommend McIver's The Four Faces of Jesus whose book is pictured with this post.

Which of the four pictures of Jesus from the four gospels appeals to you most? What is it about Jesus that you admire most? Which of the gospels do you most readily turn to or prefer to read and why? How would you explain and differentiate the four pictures of Jesus in the New Testament? Do you think human temperament has anything to do with it, or any relevance to it?