Talk:Liza Marklund

Untitled
Removed the part that claimed Piratförlaget to be the third largest publishing house in Sweden. Depending on how yu count size (number of titles issued or annual turnover) Piratförlaget is problably somewhere in the region of place 30 to 40. Morris

Added some text regarding the Annika Bengtzon series.

The section related to the Maria Eriksson series needed some editing to comply with wikipedia standards. The description of the series was made shorter and more readable. Some superfluous details regarding the storyline were deleted. The impact of the series, i.e. the number of copies sold and the discussion in the Riksdag was kept. However, some details not needed to understand the overall story or the controversy treated later was deleted. For example the years in South America are not discussed, and the particular wordings of Maria Eriksson’s application for Asylum have been deleted. Regarding the controversy, the text was made shorter and more readable, but was also edited to better comply with Wikipedia standards regarding neutrality. For example, some references to Norwegian and Danish newspapers were deleted, and if possible new references to the original Swedish newspaper articles were added. The quote and reference to an article in Dagens Nyheter was deleted. The quote was misleading since it did not translate the first part of the sentence, where it said that “If Monica Antonsson’s allegations are true, then …” In its entirety the sentence is purely speculative, and was therefore deleted.

The controversy is an ongoing matter, and more text could eventually be added. However, to comply with Wikipedia standards care should be taken to keep and neutral perspective, and to not overburden the text with details of minor importance. For example a number of lawsuits have been filed, from both sides. Some of the lawsuits are clearly frivolous, and as long as the results are pending they should be considered to be of minor importance. Ulf1975 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

About sections deleted by Ulf1975
The publishing company has now gone public and offered regrets about having marketed the book as a true story - there is no longer an "ongoing controversy" or dispute about the fact that there is an admitted problem with the book's claim to be "a true story about a Swedish woman taken straight from reality" as was previously claimed by the author and which is how the book has  been marketed for 14 years. None of Antonsson's new revelations about the "Maria Eriksson" case (which Marklund originally single-handedly managed to put in the public eye and which she has presented and championed both in her two books and in newspaper articles about the abuse and about the 2003 asylum case) have been refuted by Marklund. The details about the asylum of "Maria Eriksson" was a journalistic scoop by Marklund - her scoop and the book was even discussed by members of the parliament and commented on by Mona Sahlin, a minister of the government, in the press.

About the other issues raised above:
 * Neutrality is not reached by excluding mention of the storyline and the main characters of Marklund's criticized book! The main characters are definitely not "superfluous details" (as demonstrated by the amount of space given to the main character "Annika Bengtzon" in the other series). Marklund's newspaper articles about the abuse of "Maria Eriksson", Marklund's involvement in the woman's flight and in her fight to win asylum in the US are the reasons the two won fame and fortune in Sweden. Marklund is the only author listed for the second edition of the book about "Maria Eriksson"'s abuse in Sweden ("Buried Alive - a true story" lists only Marklund as author, while "Asylum - the true continuation of Buried Alive" lists "Maria Eriksson" as a co-author). According to interviews and book covers, Marklund is the one who conducted the research and the fact checking for the book. She has even published the excerpts from her diary for publication in the magazine Amelia about how she did her reseach about the case.
 * This is not Swedish Wikipedia and Swedish-language articles are therefore not preferable to international coverage of the story, such as the Danish and English news reports used.
 * The shortened summary about the criticism forwarded against the book is incorrect and has been reverted: the bulk of the criticism does not concern the smaller issues introduced by Ulf1975 but concern bigger issues that question the very reasons for "Maria Eriksson's" flight from Sweden; Antonsson found no evidence of the alleged persecution of "Maria Eriksson", neither by the "man with the black eyes" or by Muslims gangs. See the press report linked in the article and also this review about the criticism. See also the statements by people interviewed at the refugee shelter in her hometown and in the building where she lived TV4 program (uploaded to YouTube under the title "The truth about the bestseller 'Buried alive' (Gömda)").
 * There is no reason to exclude mention of the complaint filed with the Chancellor of Justice by "Maria Eriksson" of Marklund's books "Buried Alive - a true story" and "Asylum - the true continuation of Buried Alive". This fact has been covered by every major and minor Swedish newspaper and by almost every media outlet in the country and is therefore not a "minor issue". It is true that the Wikipedia article is not yet mentioning both lawsuits, the one against Marklund as a journalist, for allegedly having revealed name and social security number of a source with protected identity, is excluded. But that exclusion is not based on whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not - that is not up to us to determine here. It is not mentioned because there has not yet been an official decision on whether or not the Chancellor will allow the case to go forward. The case filed by "Maria Eriksson" on the other hand has been accepted. There were also three complaints filed with Pressombudsmannen by Marklund against the first three newspapers that published reviews of Antonsson's book, but that can also wait and be mentioned later. Another part of the controversy not mentioned is the row over the attempts to have the reporter fired who produced the first two TV-news sections about the case, Annika Widebeck at TV4 as well as the dispute over the reasons as to why the second part of the series about the case has not yet aired . The TV4 dispute may not yet resolved (the first section of the TV4 series has already aired). That dispute is however only peripheral and may not be pertinent enough to mention here in this article - unless it escalates.
 * The quote from Dagens Nyheter is only one of many that compare Marklund's problems with Frey's; it concerns the dilemma shared by the two authors, namely having won fame for a product marketed as "a true story" about a person which turned out not to be in accordance with evidence later uncovered, at which point the publisher issued statements to reflect the fact that it had been mislabeled "a true story". But Ulf1975's objection against using a partial quote makes sense: it is better if the DN quote is cited in full in a footnote and a more general statement used about the comparisons made by DN and other newspapers & publications.

Shorter articles are not more neutral than well-sourced, longer articles. There is no reason to exclude information that is reliably sourced and extensively covered and discussed in the media. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and once a book is published, the author no longer has control over the notoriety it receives and therefore cannot decide what warrants mention about it, here on Wikipedia or in real life. The hoax case has now become as notorious as the flight and the asylum story covered in the books - it has been mentioned in every single news outlet in Sweden and it is mentioned as one of the note-worthy events in Swedish cultural life in 2008 by the news agency TT Spectra.

I have reinstated the section about the book and the case, with the exception of the DN quote. Sophiasghost (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Correcting some factual errors
It is incorrect that Liza Marklund made her fame through Gömda. Her break-through was with The Bomber. It was only after the success of The Bomber that Gömda was re-released. The first edition seems to have sold very poorly, whereas the second was a hit.

Gömda is a documentary novel, not only a documentary book.

The reference to a Danish paper, citing the Swedish paper Expressen, was removed and the articel instead refers directly to the article in Expressen. A quote by the spokesperson was deleted and the publishings company's opinion, as conveyed int the article, was instead summarized.

The allusion to James Frey was made somewhat softer. In the previous version it seemed like Dagens Nyheter had an official opinion. That does not seem to be the case. In the article it was simply stated that "if the allegations are true then...".

Marklund's story seems to be supported by offical documents from the Courts and from the Social Services. Even Antonsson has noted that OA, the initials of the man with the black eyes, has been sentenced three times for beating Mia and once for beating his present wife. In addition, Mia's Chilean husband did get a lower sentence for the aggravated assault, based on the Courts understanding that Mia's family was being harassed by OA.

Regarding the comparison between James Frey and Liza Marklund, it is incorrect that they share the same dilemma. Gömda did not make Marklund famous. The Bomber was her literary break-through and her articles in Expressen had also contributed to her fame. Marklund's dilemma is that she wanted to write about a true story while keeping the protagonists anonymous.

Ulf1975 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue 1: First vs. second novel:
 * Yes, it's true that there was a successful novel between the two editions of Gömda (Buried Alive). Only "first book" and "hoax accusations" are common denominators between Frey and Marklund. Her second book, The Bomber became her best-seller break-through, after she won the 1998 "Debutant Prize" (Debutantpriset) for "Best First Novel of the Year 1998". The book that is now referred to as her second novel thus won her a price as her first novel. At the time, it seems nobody had yet come up with the idea that her very first book, Buried Alive, should be considered a novel too, instead of a "fackbok" (a non-fiction book), or at least nobody seemed to be willing to make that claim against the word of the author. There are many instances where Marklund went on the record explaining that her first book was non-fiction, a true story about an an authentic case. Ulf1995 has mysteriously made one such reference disappear from this article, although the source is still used to back up other statements. Just after Marklund had become the recipient of the debutant prize for "Best First Novel of 1998" for The Bomber, she said in an interview: "Min första bok var faktiskt en fackbok, 'Gömda'. Den handlar om ett autentiskt fall, en kvinna som var förföljd." - My first book was actually a non-fiction book, Buried Alive. It is about an authentic case, a woman who was persecuted, (Aftonbladet, 13 October 1999, also quoted in Sydsvenska Dagbladet). It appears the decision that her fist book was really a novel too may have been taken in retrospect.


 * Issue 2: Documentation
 * The man referred to as "the man with the dark eyes" (called "OA" above by Ulf1995) has released police and court records and his entire criminal history for scrutiny to clear his name, according to Antonsson. The point of contention is therefore certainly not the three charges of abuse of "Maria Eriksson" during their stormy relationship in 80s, for which "the man with the dark eyes" received one sentence and served one month in prison. Details on his record that are unrelated to the accusations from "Maria Eriksson" and Liza Marklund are hardly an issue in a discussion about Marklund's books, although Antonsson does go through the man's history, including the relationships and conflicts he had with the two other women he fathered children with after he returned from Canada. There are criminal activity by "Maria Eriksson" in 1989 showing on a court record.


 * Antonsson writes that the sentence against "Maria Eriksson's" husband for running over "OA" with his car was lowered from attempted murder to aggrevated assault because the court took into consideration the impulsive nature of the crime (ie. the lack of planning). Prior harassment is not mentioned as a direct cause but is mentioned in a separate sentence. Please check Marklund's article again: she follows Antonsson's description on this issue because, she says, she has not seen the sentence herself but is "leaning on" Antonsson. Sophiasghost (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional changes
I made the following changes:

1. Moved the information regarding Bibliotekstjänst's reaction to the controversy from Literary Career to Controversy.

2. Added a quote from the publisher at Bonnier Alba, who supports Marklund.

3. I also made it clearer that there exists two editions of the book. The first published by Bonnier Alba, the second by Piratförlaget.

4. Regarding the classification of the book I also added that Bonniers Alba classified their edition as an autobiography/biography, while Piratförlaget labeled their edition a documentary novel.

5. Some changes regarding the aggravated assault.

In addition I would like to add that the section on the Maria Eriksson series lacks both in readability and in neutrality. The Swedish wikipedia articles on both Liza Marklund and Gömda are more balanced.

With regards to the issue of readability I would suggest the following:

1. Maria ”Mia” Eriksson could be introduced as such in the beginning of the section, but should otherwise be referred to as Mia.

2. The ”man with the black eyes” should be referred to as OA, although it should be mentioned (once) that he is called the ”man with the black eyes” in the book. OA are the initials of the man. He has gone public in Swedish media, so there is limited risk of intruding on his privacy. However, to nevertheless minimize that risk, I suggest that the initials be used instead of his full name.

3. Avoiding evident links. For example, can we not assume that the general reader has a good enough understanding of what asylum or aggravated assault is?

With regards to the issue of neutrality, I would suggest the following general point:

1.A careful check should be made that the references do indeed support what is claimed in the text. This is of extra importance since it can be assumed that many readers are not able to control this for themselves.

In addition, to faster reach a consensus for how this controversy should be described I suggest that future changes be argued for on this discussion page. In this spirit, I will not make the changes proposed under suggestions immediately, but await other users' replies.

Ulf1975 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With regards to the additional changes by Ulf1975:
 * The color photo taken by a Wikipedian at a book event is relevant for the article and has been re-added. There is no reason to exclude other pictures in this article. Also: The shadowy black-and-white "glamor shot", where one half of the author's face is hidden in heavy shadows and her features glossed over "Doris Day"-style, appears to be a promo-shot copied from the publishing company's website, with a somewhat shaky licensing history here on Wikipedia, causing it to be deleted for PD violation by commons once and then re-uploaded. I would prefer the use of normal, realistic color photo, like one of those used in the WP articles about her in other languages, instead of this odd promo-shot, but I will leave it as a compromise.


 * I totally agree that citations must be checked carefully. The best way to ensure accuracy is to actually quote the section in the footnote. That way the quote can be copied and pasted into for example Google translation or taken to the participants in the Wikipedia project Sweden for clarification if there is concern about neutrality or correctness of the interpretation. The changes introduced by Ulf1975 about the aggravated assault (1) and the Swedish National Library classification (2) had to be corrected for that exact reason: the Wikipedia article text cannot be made to state something that is not expressed in the original text! 1)Marklund stated that she was relying on Antonsson for the interpretation of what the court records say since she had not read it. Neither Marklund nor Antonsson claim that it was prior harassment that lowered the sentence from attempted murder to aggravated assault. 2) The statement, "The Bonnier Alba's edition was classified by the National Library Service.." is not in the Swedish Library Service press release. The press release and the news article used as sources do not make a difference in classification between Bonnier's and Piratförlaget's editions. If the argument is that the Piratförlaget edition of Gömda was classified differently from Bonniers edition, please supply a source to support this claim. In the meantime, I have reverted that change.


 * Expressions such as "Did not sell very well" need to be specified - "very well" is a relative term that says nothing, especially not when used about a debut novel or non-fiction book in a small country. It may even have been considered by some to have done rather well compared to other non-fiction biographies released by first-time authors that year. If all it means is "did not become a best-seller", then it is better to simply say so. Otherwise, please do not use unnecessary vagueness but instead introduce for example sales numbers when making comparisons.


 * Replacing the words "stated" and "said" with more loaded words like "alleges" and "claims" may introduce unnecessary bias and is normally not recommended. I have therefore reverted these changes by Ulf1975 to the original use of "said" or "stated".


 * Regarding readability and section organization:
 * Since all of her books except three are in the crime fiction genre, it is more appropriate to divide her literary production into crime novels and other. It would also appear rather misleading to lump her two controversial contributions to the creative non-fiction genre with her crime novels. I have therefore changed "ten novels and one non-fiction book" to "eight crime novels, two documentary novels and one non-fiction book".


 * I do not think it is appropriate to introduce new abbreviations or nicknames in Wikipedia articles (such as the suggested "OA"). I would instead suggest sticking strictly with the names used in the sources for the persons involved. Since we are talking about Marklund's character "the man with the dark eyes", he should be referred to in the same manner her book does. In the book, he is consistently referred to in this manner, and although I agree that it is both ugly and clumsy, that is Marklund's choice of name. "Maria Eriksson" is the pseudonym selected by Marklund's co-author herself and it is used both in news articles, on the book cover and in the complaint filed with the Chancellor of Justice. It is used with citation marks to signal that it is a pseudonym.


 * The Wiki-linking is by no means excessive in the article. It is always useful to link specialty terms, whether from natural science, from the humanities, legal terms or simply terms used to classify something. It helps students to find other instances of the same a phenomena to compare with or to find more universal summaries about issues discussed in an article, such as the legal implications of attempted murder compared to aggravated assault, or a comparisons between for example the book they are reading about and other non-fiction novels (such as for example Truman Capote's In Cold Blood).


 * '''Regarding neutrality and section organization:
 * The reason the two documentary novels have caused such a media blitz is that a story once presented as a true story and a "fackbok" (non-fiction book) has now (13 years after it was released and 8 years after it was re-released), when the facts behind it have come under scrutiny, rather suddenly become strictly a work of fiction. The publishing company and Marklund have gone on the record describing Buried Alive as a Hollywood-type fictional story from one woman's perspective that is only vaguely built on a true story. At the same time, "Maria Eriksson" is busy proving that this is in fact a totally true and perfectly authentic story about real and documented facts of her life, even sending her parents into the limelight as her truth witnesses with a photo of them in their living room blown up large in a tabloid newspaper article. Marklund on the other hand, states that her hands are tied and she cannot explain what is true and false because she cannot reveal her sources, but she says she has hundreds of documents backing up her story as true. A representatives from the publishing company (Ann-Marie Skarp) is simultaneously appearing on public radio to clarify the "true story"-confusion by explaining what the term "documentary novel" really means. She says that under their Piratförlaget label, the term can be used also for books written by people with no true sense of reality and by mythomaniacs. In other words, the publishing company's take on the term is that it has little to do with the use of documentation and facts, but is meant to signal "true from someone's perspective". The mp3 file of the radio interview with Skarp is here (in Swedish). The mixed signals from the publishing company and the two authors of Gömda (Marklund and "Maria Eriksson") make this issue very difficult to summarize efficiently. I have therefore collected all the different issues previously spread around the article and put them all into one section at the end. The genre problem discussion is only summarized because it would take to much article space to explain all the different twists and turns; Marklund has for example apologized in Dagens Nyheter over the fact that the genre classification has been "svajig" (=swinging back and forth). The confusion is to no small extent due the fact that Marklund has shifted positions several times herself regarding whether it's a true story or not. She has gone on the record calling her debut book a "fackbok"  (a non-fiction book) and "a true story" about a "real person", taken "straight out of reality", "a story confirmed in hundreds of official records" etc, and this also how it has been sold in bookstores and sorted on library shelves until just recently, namely as  as non-fiction. Her own statement about this has been deleted by Ulf1975. I have reintroduced her statement in the section about the classification.  Sophiasghost (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Annika Bengtzon
I'd like to move additional content from Liza Marklund into Annika Bengtzon to match the convention set by Liza Marklund. Any objections? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liza Marklund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724085015/http://www.icakuriren.se/Test-Rad/Konsument/Carro-och-Henke-ar-popularast/ to http://www.icakuriren.se/Test-Rad/Konsument/Carro-och-Henke-ar-popularast/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720074020/http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200811/28/20081128153403_Realtid382/20081128153403_Realtid382.dbp.asp to http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200811/28/20081128153403_Realtid382/20081128153403_Realtid382.dbp.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liza Marklund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416083943/http://www.svb.se/SvB_papper/1999/Nummer_7/46778 to http://www2.svb.se/SvB_papper/1999/Nummer_7/46778
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718204646/http://www.buchreport.de/nachrichten/presseschau/presseschau_nachricht/datum/2009/01/22/krimi-queen-im-kreuzfeuer.htm to http://www.buchreport.de/nachrichten/presseschau/presseschau_nachricht/datum/2009/01/22/krimi-queen-im-kreuzfeuer.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123184904/http://www.piratforlaget.se/nyheter-om-liza-marklund/vem-ar-james-patterson_ to http://www.piratforlaget.se/nyheter-om-liza-marklund/vem-ar-james-patterson_
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831002044/http://www.dn.se/dnbok/liza-marklund-toppar-new-york-times-bastsaljarlista-1.1161155 to http://www.dn.se/dnbok/liza-marklund-toppar-new-york-times-bastsaljarlista-1.1161155
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421094450/http://politiken.dk/boger/article613259.ece to http://politiken.dk/boger/article613259.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812150858/http://www.lizamarklund.se/ to http://www.lizamarklund.se/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liza Marklund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003050610/http://www.piratforlaget.se/forfattare/liza-marklund/om-liza-marklund;jsessionid=E0A9EED11FBCC748AA1818518C66003B to http://www.piratforlaget.se/forfattare/liza-marklund/om-liza-marklund;jsessionid=E0A9EED11FBCC748AA1818518C66003B

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Photo Album like book"
Hi Liza,I live in Tauhunu, MANIHIKI n am reading one of your books "The Long Shadow", that I borrowed from Nitika. I love reading novels especially mysterious n romantic ones. Im enjoying reading your very first book of many that I intend to read. But, therefore, I was so taken with the 'Photo Book' that you did for your hosts in Tukao. Really fantastic n beautiful. However I'm most interested if its a possibility if you can do a book for me n please name your costing. I'm not rich just a humble public servant for Manihiki, originally from a big family in Puaikura, Rarotonga. Please feel free to contact me. Email address;tepanoemi@gmail.com, (682)57-033 [mobile], anytime you wish to. FB page; Emi TEPANO. Thanks.

MEITAKI KOREREKA Emiky HEATHER TEPANO Tauhunu, MANIHIKI Emcjz (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)