I’m working on that final confrontation scene in my book and this morning, I woke up with some questions about my killer’s motivations and who one of the victims was and why that victim was different from the others. I know some of the whys of that, but not all. And I need to figure out the rest of it. Pot and I have been kicking some ideas around and so far nothing is really gybing. So I have a question for all you readers of mystery and suspense: does it tick you off when you don’t have the essential pieces of the puzzle until the end of the story? I mean, in this case, it’s information that the investigators don’t have either, so it wasn’t like it was deliberately withheld just to taunt you as a reader. I tend to like mysteries (because I reread them) that seed clues all through the book so that if you’re astute and paying attention, you can figure things out (but not the ones where it’s just OBVIOUS from the beginning–like Nora Roberts’ Angel’s Fall…I knew it was him from the beginning…normally I don’t have that problem with her work). When the clues just weren’t there, I don’t tend to like a story as much. I was undecided about Nora’s High Noon. There was simply no way to guess who the bad guy was until the end because we didn’t know him as a character. I liked the book, but not as much as some of her others. So what do you say, readers? Inquiring minds want to know.
Do you prefer mysteries/suspense where the clues are seeded along the way?
Or would you rather be kept guessing until the last page?