This book had so many elements that I love - metanalysis, examination of genre - specifically the mystery genre, farce, mythology, Iceland.... that it's been tough to figure out why it was such an utter disappointment.

Then I realized this was put out by the McSweeney's crew, who I am consistently disappointed with. They're never as funny or as clever as they think they are or they appear to be, judging from the adulation of fans.

There was a sort of meta-thing trying to happen - some kind of nascent attempt at a self-critical mystery about the mystery genre - that just was not coming off right. There were a lot of footnotes; a somewhat annoying if not inherently pretentious tactic that's sadly becoming quite popular lately and one which I've seen used before to better effect. None of the characters were interesting, realistic, likable, or even that smart. Nor were they funny, despite what I can only assume to be attempts to make them so (especially in the case of the "metaphysical detectives" who struck me as poor knock-offs of simultaneously Croup and Vandemar from Neverwhere and the existential detectives in I Heart Huckabee's.) I think part of this might be that the characters were less supposed to be people and more supposed to fill typical mystery 'roles' or some kind of archetypes, but that falls pretty flat. I'm kind of ashamed, actually, that this book is even associated with Iceland. Lots of liberties were taken with the mythology as well as the ... feel of Iceland as a place, and its people.
I gave this book away years ago - well, donated it to the bin, really. ( )

How many times did I start this thing? It's the smarmy-ness that gets me. Oh, early McSweeney's books: if only I was 17. ( )

This book needs to be part of a series (which it pretends to be). By itself there is not quite enough room to fill out the world it inhabits, so the motivations and ambiance are a little under-done. I like the idea of skipping over/assuming huge amounts of back-story, but felt under-informed. More could have been done with the argumentative narrator. ( )

I picked up Icelander by Dustin Long a few years ago at Half Price Books based on the cover and the blurb.
A Nabokovian goof on Agatha Christie: a madcap mystery in the deceptive tradition of The Crying of Lot 49 ... an intricate, giddy romp steeped equally in Nordic lore and pulpy intrigue.
This book was actually one of the ones that had been on my TBR the longest so I decided it was time to get to it. I don't even know how to explain the plot though. There's a real-life adventurer family and a fictional literary account of their exploits and a supernatural Icelandic race that lives underground. The story is told from different viewpoints that weave around a murder and lead toward the revelation of a secret nemesis. It's very strange but also strangely compelling. It reminded me of a Jonathan Carroll novel but more scattered.

http://webereading.com/2015/12/three-quirky-reads.html ( )

I enjoyed reading this novel, but I got a little bogged down by the style. It felt at times that the novel was more about the presentation than the story; it was actually a fairly straightforward tale, not much mystery. It was the way the story was told, with the flashbacks and the changes in POV, etc, that made this better than a 2-star rating. Ironically, it was those same aspects that kept it from a 4-star rating. In all, an entertaining book, but not one I will likely read again.