You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.39 AVERAGE
3.39 AVERAGE
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This was a struggle for me to get through, because the main character really sucked at the start. I kind of hated her. She was a drunken, selfish, egotist.
Did she get better? Kind of. Barely. Technically. But it was a weird place to start from anyways. And I didn't find the mystery that great either.
Did she get better? Kind of. Barely. Technically. But it was a weird place to start from anyways. And I didn't find the mystery that great either.
I liked the set up but it went downhill shortly thereafter. I didn’t want to finish it.
Danska deckare brukar passa mig väldigt bra och jag är alltid nyfiken på debuter. Trettio dagars mörker är både dansk, deckare och debut (ha, de tre D:na!), så den blev jag omedelbart intresserad av. Plötsligt en dag i juli så dök den upp i posten och nu (när det faktiskt är rätt årstid) var det till slut dags att läsa.
Jag tror mig förstå vad författaren vill med den här boken. Detta är en parodi på deckargenren och jag tror att varenda deckarkliché dyker upp. Det som är viktigt, för mig, när det gäller parodier är att jag kan tolka om den är positiv eller negativ till det den driver med. Det kan jag inte till 100% göra här, eftersom den faktiskt driver med båda "sidorna" och då vet jag inte riktigt om jag ska skratta eller bli irriterad. Kanske hade detta funkat bättre som film.
Som deckare betraktat är Trettio dagars mörker inte speciellt bra, tycker jag. Det kan vara så att deckarparodi helt enkelt inte passar mig, som läser deckare för problemlösningen.
OBS! Detta är en kraftigt förkortad text. Hela finns på min blogg
Jag tror mig förstå vad författaren vill med den här boken. Detta är en parodi på deckargenren och jag tror att varenda deckarkliché dyker upp. Det som är viktigt, för mig, när det gäller parodier är att jag kan tolka om den är positiv eller negativ till det den driver med. Det kan jag inte till 100% göra här, eftersom den faktiskt driver med båda "sidorna" och då vet jag inte riktigt om jag ska skratta eller bli irriterad. Kanske hade detta funkat bättre som film.
Som deckare betraktat är Trettio dagars mörker inte speciellt bra, tycker jag. Det kan vara så att deckarparodi helt enkelt inte passar mig, som läser deckare för problemlösningen.
OBS! Detta är en kraftigt förkortad text. Hela finns på min blogg
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
I didn't mean to read two mystery/thrillers with a vague theme of "sell-out crime author vs pretentious literary author" back-to-back like this, but things just happen sometimes! Anyway. I am always drawn to books about authors, but this didn't really work for me. A book isn't "meta" just because it's about an author writing a crime book while investigating a crime. The blurb says this book is the first in a new series, but I can't find much in this worth making a series about. Hannah is not a compelling enough protagonist for me to want to read a series about her, and the plot here wasn't interesting enough in its own for me to feel like "wow, can't wait to see what other twisty plots this author comes up with!"
I did really love the remote Icelandic setting and how quickly the darkness comes on each day. Loved how in this tiny town, everyone has history and knows each other.
I'm still trying to figure out for me personally, why sometimes an "unlikeable" protagonist works well and sometimes it doesn't. I guess it comes down to whether I find them to be a compelling narrative voice--but of course, that's subjective, and I still don't know what factors make someone compelling or nor. All I know is, Hannah absolutely was not. Her immaturity (despite being a 45 year old established author who has published several beloved novels and supposedly has a great understanding of ~the human condition~ or whatever) grated on me from the beginning, and although her character absolutely grew throughout the book, that cynical teenage edge never fully left her. That scene near the beginning with her smoking near the schoolchildren had me rolling my eyes so hard it hurt. And her "investigation" style...having your narrator constantly thinking to herself "wow that was a stupid question" or "wow why did I do something so stupid" immediately after doing something doesn't actually make up for her making those stupid choices in the first place. It doesn't make her look self-aware, it just makes her look like she's stumbling through life, and makes me wonder why everyone else seems to be going along with it.
I did really love the remote Icelandic setting and how quickly the darkness comes on each day. Loved how in this tiny town, everyone has history and knows each other.
I'm still trying to figure out for me personally, why sometimes an "unlikeable" protagonist works well and sometimes it doesn't. I guess it comes down to whether I find them to be a compelling narrative voice--but of course, that's subjective, and I still don't know what factors make someone compelling or nor. All I know is, Hannah absolutely was not. Her immaturity (despite being a 45 year old established author who has published several beloved novels and supposedly has a great understanding of ~the human condition~ or whatever) grated on me from the beginning, and although her character absolutely grew throughout the book, that cynical teenage edge never fully left her. That scene near the beginning with her smoking near the schoolchildren had me rolling my eyes so hard it hurt. And her "investigation" style...having your narrator constantly thinking to herself "wow that was a stupid question" or "wow why did I do something so stupid" immediately after doing something doesn't actually make up for her making those stupid choices in the first place. It doesn't make her look self-aware, it just makes her look like she's stumbling through life, and makes me wonder why everyone else seems to be going along with it.
challenging
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
relaxing
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Alt for urealistisk og overfladisk. Beskrivelsen af miljøet er det mest vellykkede.
Polar plutôt facile et léger, mais héroïne trop antipathique à mes yeux et persos secondaires manquant clairement d'épaisseur