December 12, 2011
The Girl Who Normalised Non-Monogamy
Around 27 million copies of the books comprising Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy have been sold worldwide to date. People everywhere have been reading and absorbing themes of systematic violence against women, financial corruption, social exclusion… and ethical non-monogamy.
A summary. Journalist Mikael Blomkvist, the central protagonist, works for Millennium magazine, edited by Erika Berger. They are lifelong friends and long-established lovers. Berger is also married, to Greger Beckman, who works elsewhere. Everyone is fully knowledgeable and consenting: we hear about their history, and we see them negotiate, divide up holidays and successfully use hierarchy.
I’ll refer to the books, in chronological order, as Dragon, Fire and Hornet here. This article has some plot spoilers, but they’re minor: the relationship arcs throughout the books are very much secondary to the rest of the plot.
A long-established triad
Non-monogamy is introduced in the first book (Dragon), but the history is not explained until the second book (Fire). Here, we discover that Berger and Blomkvist have been falling into bed with each other on a regular basis, regardless of their relationship status elsewhere, for around twenty years. When she marries, they hold back for several months, but eventually sleep together again. The next day, Beckman invites Blomkvist for a walk and a conversation: he is understanding, and they establish they can co-exist as metamours.
Berger had always been open about her feelings for Mikael, and she told her husband as soon as they started having sex again… he accepted that she could love two men at the same time.
- Dragon
When Berger admitted her infidelity, Beckman knocked on Blomkvist’s door… instead of punching him in the face, Beckman had suggested they go out for a drink… Beckman eventually convinced [Blomkvist] that if he tried to sabotage his marriage to Berger, he would come back sober with a baseball bat, but if it was simply physical desire… that was OK as far as he was concerned.
- Fire
It was not that her sex life with her husband was boring or unsatisfying. It was just that Blomkvist gave her a completely different experience… it felt as if she had achieved the optimal balance with Beckman as a husband and Blomkvist as lover-when-needed. She could not do without either of them, and she had no intention of choosing between them.
- Fire
Every so often, Berger will let Beckman know she won’t be coming home that evening, and she’ll spend the night with Blomkvist. This seems to be their main guideline:
All Berger had to do was pick up the telephone and tell him she was spending the night with Blomkvist when the spirit moved her, which it did with some regularity.
- Fire
“Have you planned anything for tonight? Would you be terribly upset if I didn’t come home?”
“Say hello to Blomkvist and … have a good time.”
- Fire
It’s not just the occasional night, either:
She even divided up her holiday so she could spend two weeks with her lover in his summer cabin.
- Dragon
Berger’s relationship with her lover also benefits her marriage:
Beckman had never uttered a word of criticism against Blomkvist. On the contrary, he seemed to regard his relationship with his wife as beneficial, and his love for her was deepened because he knew he could never take her for granted.
- Fire
It hasn’t always been all wine and roses, though. While Blomkvist and Berger do not work as a primary couple, monogamy with others has been a deal-breaker before.
They had both left broken promises and unhappy marriages behind – [Blomkvist's] own marriage had collapsed because he could not stay away from Erika Berger. He had never lied about his feelings for her to his wife Monica, but she had thought it would end when they married.
- Dragon
Berger also finds others’ gossiping difficult: it seems they’re the only non-monogamous people in their social circle, and sexist double standards are also mentioned.
… it bothered [Berger] that so many of her acquaintances still whispered… behind her back. Blomkvist was a man. He could go from bed to bed without anyone raising their eyebrows. She was a woman, and the fact that she had a lover, and with her husband’s consent… resulted in the most interesting dinner-table conversations.
- Fire
We see Blomkvist explaining matters to new lovers, reassuring them where needed; generally, other people are presented as having not heard of the possibility of non-monogamy before:
“Erika’s married and she isn’t my girlfriend. We see each other now and then, but she doesn’t care at all if you and I have something … Erika is my best friend. She and I have been together on and off for twenty years and will probably be, on and off, for another twenty. I hope so. But we’ve never been a couple and we never get in the way of each others’ romances.”
- Blomkvist, Dragon
There’s also quite a clear hierarchy: Blomkvist is happy to be a secondary to Beckman, turning down a Christmas invitation to the married couple’s home. This is not something which they seem to have explicitly negotiated: it’s more of an unspoken agreement.
‘ He said no, but thank you, certain that there was a limit to Beckman’s indulgence and quite sure that he had no ambition to find out what that limit might be.’
- Fire
Bisexuality and male unicorns
Having negotiated and established this non-monogamous arrangement, Berger and Beckman also explore opening their bed together, and Fire outlines their experimenting. Now, she’s known for years that she’s not bisexual. But, get this: they discover that he is.
On several occasions she had tried sex with other women and, disappointed, admitted that it simply was not her thing.
- Fire
With Beckman she had explored sex with two men… and discovered both that her mate had a strong bisexual inclination and that she herself was almost paralysed with pleasure at feeling two men simultaneously caressing and satisfying her, just as she experienced a sense of pleasure that was difficult to define when she watched her husband being caressed by another man. She and Beckman had repeated that excitement with the same success with a couple of regular sex partners.
- Fire
Regrettably, having her partners together is not possible -and the reason for that is not in fact that her husband might struggle with jealousy, but something else:
The maximum gratification for her would probably be a threesome with her husband and Blomkvist, and that would never happen. Blomkvist was so straight… he had zero interest in men.
- Fire
Now, here’s the thing. It’s generally assumed that non-monogamous straight women are probably going to be at least a little bi-curious, or at least somewhat up for experimenting with their male partner and a female unicorn. The idea that their partners might suddenly become sexually interested in women (and so, threesomes) is a well-known expectation on the part of many straight men in opening relationships. Aside from trivialising the identifications and experiences of actual bi and actual straight women, this means that poly and bi spaces have a tendency to be full of bi women and straight male ‘allies’ cruising, bisexual men are massively marginalised and there is never question that straight men in opening relationships should experiment with other men. It’s a double standard that exasperates and infuriates me.
So, you can imagine my delight at seeing Larsson cast Berger as straight (and she does check) and her husband as bisexual. I absolutely loved the fact that they look for male unicorns together, that Berger enjoys threesomes with her husband and another man, and that she especially likes to watch. It’s as though the stereotypical unicorn narrative has been turned around completely, and it’s so refreshing to see.
New lovers
In Dragon, Blomkvist collaborates with Lisbeth Salander, a talented hacker and the eponymous ‘Girl’, and they soon begin a sexual relationship. He is open about his love life: he sees Berger occasionally, this will continue, and that doesn’t change his feelings for Salander. She’s fiercely jealous, and Larsson seems to present this as entirely her problem. It’s never something the two really discuss, and their entire relationship ends when she, broken-hearted over his ongoing relationship with Berger, cuts off all contact.
Salander had never met her and was not sure she wanted to either. Berger seemed like some indefinable disturbance in her life.
- Dragon
Many of us will recognise the pain of jealousy when she sees them together:
The pain was so immediate and so fierce that Lisbeth stopped in mid-stride, incapable of movement. Part of her wanted to rush after them. She wanted to take the metal sign and use the sharp edge to cleave Berger’s head in two… she turned on her heel and went home.
- Dragon
Towards the end of the third book, Blomkvist begins to develop a relationship with a police officer, Monica Figuerola, with whom he’s collaborated on another case. This begins casually, and is shown to become increasingly serious. Figuerola is hostile towards Berger until they have a conversation:
“I don’t know what’s going on between you two, but I’m not your rival”, Berger said … “I hope that you and Mikael … I’ll try and stay out of your way.”
- Hornet
She’s supportive of their new relationship, and tells Figuerola she’ll keep away for now, though feels ‘deeply unhappy’ with this – later, she discusses this with Blomkvist, and there’s the implication that, though she’ll back off for now, they’ll continue as lovers soon.
“I promise I’ll keep my distance until, you know … well, maybe,” she said.
- Hornet
Incidental Polyamory
Berger, Blomkvist and Beckman embarked on non-monogamy as a practical solution to an immediate issue: namely, that Berger wanted to have both a husband and a lover. The books do not mention the word ‘polyamory’ or even ‘non-monogamy’, and the triad are presented as unusual in their social circles. It’s unknown whether any of them are aware of the existence of polyamory as a lifestyle, or of other poly people (though my guess is that Berger must have come across some in her fetish clubbing days), and it seems as though they don’t even really need the support of a local poly network. We see them living their lives, using their established guidelines, messing up occasionally and talking about it. In short, they are ordinary poly people: they’ve established a relationship style that works, things are straightforward and undramatic, and their attentions and energies seem more focused on their work. In the books, this is a side story: small and incidental.
Regrettably, the polyamory was completely omitted from the Swedish films of the books: despite its mostly incidental relationship to the main plot, it seems no coincidence that it was left out. (Well, Beckman was erased, but Blomkvist still had interest in both Berger and Salander. It seems that a woman having two long-term lovers is inappropriate, while Bond-style romance is fine.) The first Hollywood remake launches this month, and I’ll look forward to seeing whether they present it there. I’m not optimistic about Hollywood’s willingness to portray alternative relationship structures, but more exposure of the books can only be a positive thing.
Larsson has shown many millions of people that non-monogamy exists and that it need not be difficult or complicated. He portrays negotiation within the triad as well as with new lovers, and paints the characters as well-rounded, sympathetic and complex individuals who just happen to be non-monogamous. This is an ideal representation, and for this, I thank him.
23 Responses to The Girl Who Normalised Non-Monogamy
Leave a Reply
Recent Pictures
So happy to see this written. I think the points on how non-monogamy is a background, not the foreground, to the story, are really good. I’m also happy to see the erasure discussed. God forbid that non-monogamy should be encountered as anything other than a late-night Channel 4 documentary topic, or mocked on daytime talk shows.
Yes – I don’t usually like comparing poly to queer-ness, but here it seems mentioning the parallel is appropriate. I think we’re just starting to get to a stage in story-telling where many stories do have incidentally queer characters without being ‘queer stories’ – they mention a character is gay, then move on. And that’s brilliant, and exactly what we want to be aiming for with all kinds of alternative-ness.
I think it’s more prevalent in books – like Val McDermid’s crime novels, I think – than films, where it still seems like any film with a gay character is immediately a gay film. (Except, again, these ones, I guess. Given that there’s at least *counts* one bi woman, one bi man (erased from the films), one gay woman, an M/M couple…)
Yeah – it makes me think about the recent callouts from authors to agents about the erasure of gay characters from YA fiction, also talked about on Tiger Beatdown.
This is great to read – thank you. I haven’t read the books and it’s good to know that ethical non-monogamy is being presented to a mainstream readership.
…poly and bi spaces have a tendency to be full of bi women and straight male ‘allies’ cruising, bisexual men are massively marginalised and there is never question that straight men in opening relationships should experiment with other men.
In bi spaces (I’m less familiar with poly-focussed spaces) I think it’s fair to say that m/m relationships and m/m sex are marginalised, and this is problematic. I think bisexual men are less marginalised than you suggest – but they’re mostly having visible relationships and sex with women. I know a few straight men in the bi community, but not many.
Mm – noted, and thanks, that’s interesting. Looks like it’s really important to remember bi invisibility there: I think I assume men are het until they tell me otherwise, while I assume that women in the bi community are queer, and that’s something I need to remember and check myself on. Thanks!
That’s a thing I’ve done too – and have to keep reminding myself that even specific individuals well known to me are queer, because I think mainstream society’s programmed me to assume that women are usually bi or otherwise queer and men usually aren’t.
I feel like there’s so much more I’d like to write about with relation to all this: I’ve found it really interesting throughout, for example, the ways in which Blomkvist seems to be portrayed as this Bond-type alpha, and that seems reinforced by Beckman’s bisexuality (because in the mainstream narrative, that feminises him) compared to his absolute straightness, and his being unmarried, and attractive to literally everyone he meets… and the way in which Beckman is erased from the films, but Blomkvist continues to have dalliances with both Berger and Salander, because that’s fine, of course. Loads has been written about the books’ and films’ feminist themes (or lack thereof) and I’ve tried hard to limit this piece to the absolute basics about the poly, but of course it’s all interlinked, so there’s loads more to say there. And there’s a whole other article about kink-positivity and Larsson too. This piece has been literally about a year in the making – maybe the sequel will appear in a few!
I look forward to reading the sequel too.
Thanks for writing about this.
Oh, goodness – now I’ve committed myself, right? I’d just intended to do a brainsplurge :/
; )
Heh. Committed yourself to maybe possibly writing another post sometime in the next thirty years or so… or noodle about it in person sometime.
Absolutely spot on
.
I like the idea of male unicorns. I want a male unicorn.
Thank you loads! : )
I’ve read all the books and knew Larsson (we worked together for a while many years ago). I’m also poly and I loved how it was treated as incidental in the trilogy.
Regarding the films, in fairness all lengthy books get whittled down in the screenwriting process. It’s simply not possible to include every single character and every minor sub-plot. Film audiences generally expect a film of 90-180 minutes maximum with a story arc they can follow. And also, unexpectedly, stereotypes they can identify with. That’s not to say all viewers can only handle something dumbed down or simplified, because clearly there are those out there who can. But most people go to the flicks to be entertained, not have polemic thrust upon them. And the producers invest millions to bring a film to the screen – in order to return a profit they have to ensure the film will appeal to as wide an audience as possible. All these factors combine to ensure things such as unconventional love lives get left out unless they are strictly vital for the plot.
Larsson’s books have sold so widely that it was inevitable that any film versions would be blockbuster-style. Even the Swedish films, which might ordinarily have expected only an art-house release and therefore provided more flexibility for a director to keep the poly themes in, generated so much interest as soon as it was announced the film rights had been sold it was clear the producers would know they could sell the films worldwide and in order to do that, again it was a case of stripping the complexities of the books down to the basics.
It’s a shame but in all honesty only to be expected.
Perhaps someone should film a spinoff about the poly relationships!
I’d just add that Stieg himself was totally straight, totally vanilla and totally monogamous! He was the loveliest man to be around but I had no idea he had any knowledge of these things in the time we were friends and colleagues. It was a bit of a shock when I first got stuck into Fire. I guess he had friends in Stockholm who were poly and/or kinky.
I wondered about that! I figured he was probably straight, because Blomkvist is straight, but I did wonder about the kink and the poly. He gets the stuff with kink totally spot-on as well, and I loved the ways in which he really sends up the media’s misinterpretation and attacks on kink and lesbians in Fire. And I know that he didn’t marry, but it sounds like that basically what everyone does in Sweden? So isn’t necessarily a sign of non-monogamy. Thanks so much for saying, because I was really curious : ) and it’s lovely to hear that someone straight, vanilla and mono can write such accurate, positive stuff about queer kinky poly people! *happy bounce*
Many folks who worked with me for a while did not know how straight, vanilla, or mono I really was or wasn’t. Makes me wonder about the atmosphere in which you had your work-friendship. Was it conducive to coming out on these things? I don’t get the sense that we can be certain about Mr. Larsson’s (then) status.
Hiya – thanks so much for the response! That all makes lots of sense: I guess I feel like there’s a big tendency towards marginalising alternative relationship-type stuff, just because of the history of putting any film with a queer character into the box marked LGBT films, regardless of the plot otherwise. So I think I came to this expecting that the mainstream media would treat it badly, either through erasure or sensationalism. It’s good to be reminded that there’s lots of other stuff, not necessarily prejudice-related, at play!
Among other things I write about TV and film. And you’re right, a lot of films get boxed off as X or Y because there’s one character who is X or Y, certainly in the US. Less so in the UK, where I am. Making a film is basically a huge web of collaboration between director, actors, screenwriter etc. Some producers are fairly hands-off and let the director exercise their vision, while others may be a bit dictatorial because i’s “their” money. There are so many factors at play – lots of great stuff gets shot but then ends up on the cutting room floor for a zillion reasons. And the cutting room is really where the film really gets shaped – it can often change here from the original vision to become something totally different to what was first planned.
If you look at the Harry Potter films by way of comparison, there are a lot of similarities in that these are long books with complex plots and many characters. Each series shares the characteristic of an overall story arc too, rather than being standalone books. Look at how HP was brought to the screen – the final, seventh book was so complex, they had to split it and make two films; part 1 and part 2. Obviously they had JK Rowling to advise and check that the films were true to her books and that’s not the case for the Girl trilogy. But having seen the Swedish version of Dragon, I felt they had done a very good job of staying true to the main thrust of the book. I’m itching to see the Craig film – I saw the trailer a week ago and it looks really good. I love how Lisbeth looks a lot scruffier and less obviously attractive than her Swedish counterpart, much more like I imagined when reading the books – you don’t expect that in a Hollywood film. I’m confident that while the SM and the sexual abuse will be in the film, as they drive the plot forward, the polyamory will not be as it’s too incidental.
He didn’t marry to protect his girlfriend. In Sweden if you marry, your home address is on a public register and because Stieg was exposing neo-nazis in the press marriage would have put their home at risk of attack. Unfortunately, as you may be aware, he died without a will and so his partner Eva inherited nothing although they were together 30 years and there is an ongoing legal fight between her and his father and brother.
It’s weird because that period when we worked together I was already kinky (but not open about it) and looking into the possibilities of poly, but of course I never discussed these things with him. But he was an incredibly smart guy and very non-judgemental about his friends, unless of course they crossed a moral line (he cut one friend off permanently after the guy assaulted a partner).
Awwwwwwwwww. That’s awesome. Thanks loads for telling me about it: it brightened my day a lot! I knew about the legal fight, but not the reasons for not marrying (erk, scary), and I’ve never heard of any other men cutting off a friend after assault like that – it’s just unheard of, I think. Yay, Stieg, and yay for writing awesome books and turning more people on to knowing about violence against women : )
this article made my day
I have been a fan of the books for a while, and poly for even longer. A very nice summary of this key theme in the book that was forgetten in the movies to share with friends!
Thanks! Your saying that has made my day : )
[...] what Salander’s encounter with heterosexuality did to her. There’s a great post at polytical about the non-monogamy in the film. Also Feminist Fatale (writing about the Swedish version of [...]