I wasn't very excited about this book. The characters were okay, but for a suspense novel this felt rather tedious. It was more of a procedural than a page-turner, I understand that, but it just didn't work for me. Plus, the investigation seemed rather bungled and the plot twist didn't come as much of a surprise. More complete review to come.
Full review:
Under a Silent Moon strives to be a layered, complicated mystery with the usual twists and turns, but it also seeks to shine some light on a little-known side of law enforcement in England: that of the intelligence analyst. Ultimately, I don't think the book succeeds all that well at either. This is my first Haynes novel, so I don't know if the structure of it is typical of her other books, but the scope felt too broad, which I think diluted the impact of the book. If you enjoy procedurals, this novel may appeal to you, but I thought the procedural side of it got in the way of the mystery. Some minor spoilers to follow.
Haynes's appendix includes some insight into the duties of a police intelligence analyst, and she explains the tension of attempting to incorporate the intelligence side into the book while also maintaining a page-turning pace. To me, this mix simply didn't work. If the intention is to write about an analyst, I think it would have made more sense to have an analyst as the main character, rather than focusing mostly on Lou. However, I do understand why Haynes took the approach she did. Unfortunately, for me, the intelligence reports sprinkled throughout the book interrupted the flow and weren't something I found particularly interesting. I can see where they'd be helpful in a police investigation in the real world, but I didn't think they added much to a work of fiction, particularly because they were often repetitive. I think Haynes would have been better off at providing either a full behind-the-scenes view or narrowing her focus to Lou and the investigation.
There are a lot of subplots to this book, and I didn't find most of them all that compelling. I thought the book would have benefited from shaving some of them off. Getting insight into what makes Lou tick makes sense as she's the protagonist, but I didn't really see the point in the long scenes describing Andy's actions. From a technical standpoint, I know they were there to document his downward spiral, but I think this could have been done using less page space. I didn't like his character and wasn't interested in reading so many detailed accounts of what he was doing. They detracted from the more interesting aspects of the plot, such as what was happening with Flora and her family. There's always a danger when using shifting perspectives because more often than not it works against the novel; some of the perspectives will be more interesting to the reader than others, and the less interesting ones feel like slogging through homework. This book is no exception.
The mystery itself was a good concept, but I didn't like the execution of it. Plenty of red herrings appear in the novel, none of which are all that confusing. There were many instances where the police missed things that came across as glaringly obvious, which just made them look incompetent rather than making the murderer seem especially clever. It didn't seem so much that Haynes was making a point about how human inclination might lead the police to focus on one suspect while ignoring others as it was a sort of inexplicable blindness on the part of the police. Their failure to connect the dots is pretty staggering, and I wasn't at all surprised by the "big" reveal.
Overall, my impression is that this book aims to be a procedural, an intriguing tale of murder, a glimpse into the obscure inner workings of the police, and a tale about human psychology. For me, that sentence clearly shows why the novel is ultimately overambitious. This bothers me because it felt like there was a decent novel there, it was simply buried under sub plots running amok.