speaking of cranky

What is this trend of setting up a mystery in the first chapter and then not solving it by the end of the book?

Stay tuned for book two? No. No. no. NO. That is not how it works.

I do not mind series. I love those puppies in fact. But when you have a murdered person at the start of the book, you solve the mystery. Or maybe, maybe, fine, all right if you must....you can set up another mystery and solve that one, leaving the first one to linger.  But something must be solved by the end of a book. Period. You can keep some threads open, sure. You can grab the readers' attention and make sure they don't let go and want more more more. BUT YOU SOLVE AT LEAST ONE GODDAMN MYSTERY.

Kim Harrison gets away with not telling us who killed Kisten, Rachel's lover, for a couple of books because she had other mysteries/issues/plot arcs she DID solve.

I'm looking at you, Shelly Shepherd Gray. I do not get how the book Missing has so many five star reviews. Seriously. I do not. I don't generally rant about authors who aren't multimillionaires, but this trend must stop--especially in a book labeled freaking mystery--and I am going to be on the No More Of This bandwagon when it creaks out of the Yard of Indignation.

I've seen this in YA books lately. The Liars woman had the same thing: murdered person and we don't find out who does it in book one or two. I refused to buy book three because No. No. No. I am annoyed when I buy books that promise me something they do not deliver. GAH!!


Popular posts from this blog

what I'm talking about above--the letter in RWR

My Writing Day with an Unproductive Brain