A review by ojtheviking
Jenta under isen by Max Seeck

  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

I found the second novel in the Nordic Noir series about Detective Jessica Niemi to be a decent enough read, with enough solid points for it to be entertaining and enjoyable, although I had some minor gripes here and there. I did like that Seeck's style continues to convey a dark, grim vibe, exposing some of the most deviant and morbid sides of humanity.

The story takes place roughly six months after the events of the first novel, and we have a self-contained mystery involving what seems to be a human trafficking ring and dead influencers. However, there are also elements that continue from the previous book and elaborates on that overall arc. As such, I feel that the writing is very ambitious, but is sometimes on the verge of inconsistency.

It's very meticulous when it comes to a realistic approach to the investigation, although I sort of found myself missing more red herrings along the way. The overall story is a slow burn, although it has some random bursts of suspense, plus a sex scene that seemed very detailed and graphic out of the blue.  Some aspects of Jessica's reality seem somewhat less vague this time, when it comes to the concept of visions vs. hallucinations, but it seems like Seeck still intentionally keeps it ambiguous. 

As for character development, I do see some improvements compared to the first novel, but mostly revolving Jessica, and I feel that some of the characters' motivations are a bit shallow, which at times shines through with the old "male author clumsily tries to write female character" trope.

Overall, the story had some good concepts and interesting ideas, but could potentially have been executed in a few different ways. As such, this second installment felt a bit slower, and as I mentioned, less consistent compared to the first one, but I liked it for what it was.