This is the perfect example of how to create quagmire in a story which most readers do not want.
The main characters investigate a death and try to figure out who did what along the way. Okay, great premise as I love these kinds of stories.
So, where did this one go wrong?
Well, instead of offering the past of certain tertiary characters up as discovery by the investigators as they unearth the evidence, the author chooses to just “tell” you the entire – completely boring – past story of three little boys.
Why is this a problem?
“Show don’t tell” for one. Second, as the story goes on, the reader ends up with conflicting main characters, thus giving the story some sort of an identity crisis. The author really should have chosen one set of main characters – the three boys or the investigators – and developed the story accordingly but that’s not what happened. As a result, the reader ends up with an overdeveloped-stretched-out-too-much storyline (past of three boys) woven into an underdeveloped storyline (current day murder). The end result being a slog of a book.
Don’t get me wrong, the current day murder investigation is great and I think the author should have focused on that and settled on one pov – that of the investigators only – and this would have been a great story. I was intrigued by the characters of Lynley and Havers enough that I just might check out the other books or the TV series.
Some readers felt this was a page turner, while others (like me) felt the author stretched the story on too long. I don’t know if this is her regular style, but some readers have noted that the social commentary evident in this book isn’t the norm for this author.
Rating for most people is subjective, but I’m not that way. If I find something wrong with a story, I deduct from the overall rating, even if I generally liked the story.
I didn’t deduct for the social commentary as to why juvenile offenders go on to do heinous acts, but more for how this commentary is presented. Again, the mixing of the two storylines presented too many main characters which weakened the overall plot and bogged the story down. While I’m all for complex characters, plots and storylines, I prefer streamlined stories that limit details relevant only to the current story. Basically, if the author needed to tell the story of the three boys, she very well could have presented that story in a separate, shorter novel with the characters alluding to case notes as they became relevant in the current day investigation.
Another deduction came for the fact that it annoys me when I figure out the killer and then I have to read through 300+ pages before the main characters catch up. I prefer to be the investigator. I want to watch the story unfold through the pov of the investigators. While I do like 3rd person omnipotent pov, I prefer third person limited when it comes to murder/crime investigation stories because it adds to the suspense and mystery. That’s why I watch investigative shows, I like to see how the investigators follow the evidence, how they interpret that evidence and how that evidence leads to the killer.
If you’re like me and prefer to follow the evidence and see how the evidence leads to the killer or prefer a more limited POV, then this story may not be for you. On the other hand if you really don’t care about following the evidence and love third-person omniscience, then this story is for you.
