(Taking a short break in the streets of Bristol)
For this week´s alphabet in crime meme, I´ll comment on what the crime writer does not tell us. I was inspired by a very interesting CrimeFest panel where the writers discussed the endings of crime novels, their own as well as those of other writers. Good endings, brilliant endings, disappointing endings - and the endings we will never see because their wives or publishers vetoed them.
The Rule Book was an impressive debut which I enjoyed very much, and the ending worked very well for me, but there are aspects I hope he will take up in later volumes of his great Colm McEvoy series.
Another trend is mysteries of the kind where we know who committed the crime almost from the beginning. There are wonderful examples of the why dunnit around, but after a very promising beginning, the ending of Louise Doughty´s Honey-Dew was a disappointment for me. I didn´t feel she added enough suspense after the first few chapters so in my opinion she should have structured her story very differently, or kept a few surprices up her sleeve.
Do you prefer endings where everything is nicely wrapped up, or is it okay with you when the author hands you the villain but leaves some - or several - unanswered questions?