The Inner Circle

Since they're very fast reads, I decided I would polish off the third Mari Jungstedt novel I had on hand, next in the series that started with Unseen and continued with Unspoken, as previously discussed (here and here).  It's generally a sign of stress when I start burning through mysteries in clumps or serial killer novels in any quantity.  But at least Jungstedt's are fairly high-quality, and written with sufficient distance that I am not compelled to dwell morbidly on horrific details.  Her third Gotland mystery, The Inner Circle (2005; English translation 2008, St. Martin's Minotaur), is set about six months after Unspoken and continues to follow Police Inspector Anders Knutas and television journalist Johan Berg, now stationed in Gotland near his beloved Emma.  Tiina Nunnally serves ably again as Jungstedt's translator from the Swedish original.

This time I was careful not to read the inside blurb beforehand, after the severe spoilers offered in that of the previous book.  But I was annoyed upon reading it afterwards to see at least one plot spoiler in it.  Who's writing the copy for these things at St. Martin's?

With this novel Jungstedt returns to the serial killer theme, which ups the suspense level a bit more.  Anders and Johan investigate from their separate angles the parallel killings of a pony and young archeology student, both found with most of their blood drained and taken away.  In the pony's case, the head is also missing, which of course suggests to anyone who's read or seen The Godfather that it's likely to reappear messily later in the book.  The killings are clearly ritual of some kind, though it takes some time to become clear what kind that is.  I was impelled to do a tiny bit of research afterwards, and she seems to have gotten that part at least superficially correct. 

I liked this novel better than the second one, where the killings were more rationally motivated and thus less scary.  I read these things for thrills, and since Jungstedt's police inspector co-protagonist reads as emotionally distant (he claims to be deeply affected by the crimes, but I don't feel it in the writing) they don't deliver the psychological punch of, say, a Thomas Harris novel.  The killings are also left offstage, so there's little or no victim-terror to feed off emotionally.  Jungstedt satisfies on a less intense level and would probably be less bothersome to people without my occasional taste for terror/gore.

There is a problem with reading two of Jungstedt's novels in quick sequence, though: she has a fairly a standard formula for solving these things, and the pattern becomes easier to spot with repetition.  She did manage to juggle her suspects well enough that I didn't quite solve it, but I got a little too close for comfort.  I suspect this would be less of an issue if I'd given it more time between novels or possibly read this one as a standalone.  The problem with the latter idea is that, having followed the characters through three books, I don't mind having a relationship story mixed up in my mystery novel, that might be less pleasing to someone coming in without the prior history.

Once again, I recommend this book to fans of police procedurals or not-too-intense serial killer novels, though with the minor reservation that reading the series in close sequence may make patterns too obvious. 

If you want to pick up this book or the series-so-far:

Comments

[Kip W]

It burns me up that publishers and producers seem to want to give away the ending or significant twists before the consumer even has a chance to turn away. One of our Nero Wolfe books has black magic marker over some of the inside-front blurb, because it was more of a blurt. Back when TV GUIDE used to give synopses and cast lists, they managed to give it away more than once (it was almost as bad as saying "SURPRISE MURDERER ... Jack Albertson.")

Add to that the number of movie reviewers who know only how to present a plot outline, and who seem determined to comment on how clever the final twist was, and the sheer number of folks at online forums who believe that "if it's been out there for a couple of weeks, there's nothing wrong with giving away the ending." (I've had this view expressed to me.)

Put me down as one who doesn't want spoilers for Shakespeare, operas, Beowulf, the Bible, or "Gilligan's Island." If the writer went to the trouble of arranging a surprise, let it be so.

I did, however, laugh immoderately at a review in one of the "Psychotronic" books that said something like: "It is always wrong to give away the ending of a quality motion picture. The kid's uncle did it! He wasn't dead after all! He wanted revenge because his mother ruined his birthday party!")

[Serge]

Pssttt! Wanna know who Rosebud was?

[Susan de Guardiola]

Kip,
I like "blurt" as a name for this kind of misguided spoiler-filled blurb. I will steal this.

I actually pre-read some classical plays before seeing them, since it frees me from concentrating so hard on the language that I miss bits of plot. This isn't particularly relevant for Shakespeare any more, since I've seen pretty much all of his plays, most multiple times. But I often get more out of a performance and can savor the details better when it's a show I already know. I may start doing this for Marlowe, though so far all the Marlowe I've managed is three productions of Edward II.

I never thought of it this way, but displaying a cross is kind of a spoiler for the New Testament, isn't it?

Serge,
That's already been spoiled for me, thanks, and I've never bothered to see the movie partly as a result.

[Serge]

Susan... Citizen Kane is an excellent movie, even if you already know who Rosebud was. Watching it again, it gives everything a tint of sadness.

The TV series Dead Zone once advertised next week's episode with a warning that only one of the two main characters would walk out alive, but that turned out to be quite a clever bit.

[Susan de Guardiola]

I try really hard to avoid spoilers when I talk about books here, or at least to warn people about them.

[Susan de Guardiola]

(Note that the Rosebud spoiler was in the Julie Brown song "The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun.")

[Neil Willcox]

Put me down as one who doesn't want spoilers for Shakespeare, operas, Beowulf, the Bible, or "Gilligan's Island."

I've been known to say that anything in the Bible is not a spoiler. On the other hand I always state that before discussing anything that uses biblical themes, so anyone sufficently averse can leave at that point. It's rarely a problem; I think I last said it in a review of horror film The Reaping, which is loosely based on the 10 plagues of Egypt.

[Serge]

I've never seen "The Reaping", but didn't "The Abominable Doctor Phibes" also have Vincent Price use the plagues as the inspiration for wreaking vengeance against his enemies? He used Shakespeare to kill his critics, in Theater of Blood.

[Susan de Guardiola]

I didn't see The Reaping (what a shock) but I did see the trailer, which looked interesting enough for me to remember it.

I am quite fond of the animated Moses film Prince of Egypt and thought it did a nice job with the plagues.

I agree that the Bible, or at least the Old Testament and probably some of the major points of the New, is sufficiently spoiled for anyone growing up in Western culture that citing it shouldn't require spoiler warnings.