I'm landing on 3★ here because I would give it 4★ for the story, but only 2★ for execution. The author has a bad case of explainitis, so although I was entertained, I was also quite exhausted from reading this book. Going into it, I didn't realise there had been an earlier book with the same main characters - I didn't really find this to be a problem, and could absolutely read it as a standalone.
Icelandic forensic geneticist Brynja Pálsdóttir receives a mysterious package from a New York acquaintance, Detective Claire DeLuca. It contains a very old diary, a map and some bones. The diary was written by a young woman named Anna, who had lived on the island of Heimaey and was abducted during the so-called Turkish Raid of 1627. Claire has asked Brynja to translate the diary in order to shed light on whether the bones might relate to a contemporary crime. Brynja is intrigued, and as she becomes engrossed in the diary, she begins to think it might contain clues as to the whereabouts of the famous, missing Lewis Chessmen.
There's a mystery, there are murders and of course there are the fascinating Lewis Chessmen. The story moves along at a really good pace, mostly in the present day, and just enough in the past (via Anna's diary). I was genuinely surprised by the ending, which is always a bonus with a book like this. It could have been a really great read but for a couple of things.
Firstly, there's the author's tendency to over-explain. She clearly knows a lot about Iceland - the culture, the geography, the language and the history - but she seems to want to convey every little piece of knowledge. This made the narrative very choppy for me. And so many facts were gratuitous. For example, there's a contemporary scene where a relative is visited (and never mentioned again). A character remarks that the get-together is hygge. Then the author explains what hygge means. It seemed so contrived. But to make it worse, it even happens in the diary entries!! Who on earth writes a diary entry, uses a word, then explains on the page what the word means??
My other issue was to do with the diary itself, because the author has committed one of my literary crimes. I'll call it out whenever I see it. The diary is written in the present tense, in complete sentences (perfectly narrative), including those explanations that irritated the hell out of me. Who does that? I always find it unrealistic, and particularly so here, where it's already kind of a miracle that Anna can write at all.
Other readers may not have a problem with these things, and may be prepared to overlook them (even appreciate them). If they do, there's a good story to be enjoyed.
With thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for a digital ARC to read and review.