It's one of those that right from the off, makes it very clear that you are, at some point or other, going to be introduced to the murderer. The story never follows the murderer, never tells the story from their point of view - like ‘Dead Men's Dust,' for instance. So, at some point along the way, you will guess who it is. Before Harry Hole, in my case. I’m not saying I’m specially clever or anything, but I have read enough of this type of book to recognise when I’m being lead up the wrong garden path and so my mind tends to wander off looking for the right one. As yours does. Or, you think ‘well, they’ve not been in it much, so chances are it's them.' There’s part of the problem with the book in a way, it is, underneath all the life in Australia, the telling of ancient Aboriginal stories and parables to illuminate the way, the alcoholic Norwegian detective, just another one of ’this type of book.’ Is it better than all of ‘them,' though? That is the question the hype over him being the ’new Stig Larsson’ would seem to want you to answer with a resounding ‘yes!’ My answer is more of a cautious, on a knife edge ‘maybe.’

I enjoyed reading it, he tries a few tricks and effects with the writing style and presentation and he's clearly wanting to make some sort of statement about the treatment of the original Australians. But it is, in the end a ‘whodunit’ that tries its best to lead you a merry dance. Though, as you read they are about to trap 'the murderer' but know - from the amount of pages (or in my case listening to the audiobook version, the number of hours) left - it can't be who they, at that point, think it is. Obvious really. And a huge problem for any writer wanting to do that sort of thing, I imagine.

So, a fair bit of the final phase is taken up by the murderer painstakingly explaining to Harry - in reality those of us reading who haven't figured it out - exactly how they did it. Never a good sign. Always a sign of the author not really being sure he has communicated in the preceding book, what he wanted to do, or not crediting the audience with having figured it out.

I must admit i didn’t find an awful lot to like about Harry Hole as a character. I didn’t think he worked that well with the ‘minor’ characters here. Even his relationship with the girl, felt more than a little strained. In fact, the minor characters were the more interesting. Especially the Aboriginal ones. Maybe that was the intention? But surely, the intention was to make them part of a whole and not to outshine the main character. He felt as cold as a winter’s night in Norway.

So. The start of a trilogy (or more). That you can tell by the pages of 'tell me something about your past' conversation between detective and girlfriend. Is it enough to get me buying the next one? Is it enough to get me finding out what the next one is called? Is it enough to get me thinking I would get the most out of it/them by reading them in chronological order? I don't know. Maybe over the next few weeks it will settle in a bit better than it is settling in right now. Right now, the jury is still out.