Unfortunately, I must say that Anne Holt's "Presidentens valg" was quite a disappointment. There's not much to say about that book except that it made me remember why I don't read more criminal novels. One thing that really irritates me in so many criminal stories is an awkward and embarrassing way to "teach" the reader. Sooner or leater, out of nowhere, main caracters just start to have these conversations where they explain each others USA's political system or old religions or some psychological theories that writer obviously wants to tell reader but can't find an easy way to tell them.

One of the worst examples was of course "Da Vinci Code", oh my god, all those conversations! As a reader I don't want to feel that book caracters are stupider than me, but in quite many criminal novels writers just have to put their caracters to talk these stupid instructive conversations. "Yeah, maybe we are now running away from police but would you maybe like to hear about this thing called christianity?" "Oh, of course! What is that? Something to eat?"

Why does so many criminal novelists want to teach the reades in the first place? To show how hard they have studied while writing those books? To show that they have opinions about things? Well, if you are writing an entertainment book and you still have a lot to say about politics or art history or whatever, please try to learn to give that information (or those opinions) in a less oblious way. Or at least, please, don't slide them into a conversation, it just never works out.