A review by jdglasgow
The Absolution by Yrsa Sigurðardóttir
3.0
3.5 stars. I liked THE ABSOLUTION alright, I suppose; it’s not like it’s any worse than either of the previous books in the series, but I think maybe I’m just growing too comfortable with it? Huldar and Freyja are still enjoyable characters to spend time with and the mystery about who the killer is and whether they will strike again is entertaining, but it doesn’t seem like the series is striving to do anything new. There’s no growth, nothing exciting about this one to drive the series forward. Which is fine because, like I said, it’s enjoyable enough. But it already does feel like there’s going to be diminishing returns.
That said, one thing that stuck out to me in this book was a theme of rationalization. The murders are related to bullying: both the bullies themselves and the murderer rationalize their behavior—the bullies by convincing themselves that what they are doing is just a joke, or is less serious online than in real life, or isn’t really their fault because somebody else was the ringleader; the murderer by persuading himself that this action is good, actually, and by disclaiming any responsibility for his daughter’s condition. Even Huldar rationalizes his behavior, as when he enters Mördur’s apartment without a warrant. It all puts me in mind of Octavia E. Butler’s KINDRED which I recently read. A major part of that book was about how otherwise intelligent or good-intentioned people can come to accept and rationalize away their involvement in the institution of slavery. Obviously the context is different between the two, but the broader idea is the same: convincing yourself that what you are doing is *not bad*.
The identity of the killer, which turns out to actually be multiple people working ‘Strangers on a Train’-style under the advice and consent of a third person, is a surprising revelation in that this precise arrangement could hardly have been guessed, though the savvy reader would have pegged both culprits as suspects. However, personally I wasn’t trying to stay a step ahead and casting guesses about the responsible party like I had with the last book. Somehow I wasn’t sucked into the mystery as much this time around. Whether that’s the fault of me as reader or the book for not compelling me to engage with it in some ineffable way I cannot say.
It’s good, it’s fine. It’s a quick read—I finished in two days. I would keep reading the series but I don’t expect it to hit five stars. As peculiar as it sounds to say about a series which centers on brutal murders, the “Children’s House” series is turning into sort of a comfort read. I know it’ll be solid going forward and that can be enough sometimes.
That said, one thing that stuck out to me in this book was a theme of rationalization. The murders are related to bullying: both the bullies themselves and the murderer rationalize their behavior—the bullies by convincing themselves that what they are doing is just a joke, or is less serious online than in real life, or isn’t really their fault because somebody else was the ringleader; the murderer by persuading himself that this action is good, actually, and by disclaiming any responsibility for his daughter’s condition. Even Huldar rationalizes his behavior, as when he enters Mördur’s apartment without a warrant. It all puts me in mind of Octavia E. Butler’s KINDRED which I recently read. A major part of that book was about how otherwise intelligent or good-intentioned people can come to accept and rationalize away their involvement in the institution of slavery. Obviously the context is different between the two, but the broader idea is the same: convincing yourself that what you are doing is *not bad*.
The identity of the killer, which turns out to actually be multiple people working ‘Strangers on a Train’-style under the advice and consent of a third person, is a surprising revelation in that this precise arrangement could hardly have been guessed, though the savvy reader would have pegged both culprits as suspects. However, personally I wasn’t trying to stay a step ahead and casting guesses about the responsible party like I had with the last book. Somehow I wasn’t sucked into the mystery as much this time around. Whether that’s the fault of me as reader or the book for not compelling me to engage with it in some ineffable way I cannot say.
It’s good, it’s fine. It’s a quick read—I finished in two days. I would keep reading the series but I don’t expect it to hit five stars. As peculiar as it sounds to say about a series which centers on brutal murders, the “Children’s House” series is turning into sort of a comfort read. I know it’ll be solid going forward and that can be enough sometimes.