fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3924 ]

[ SECRET POST #3924 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3924 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #562.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

07. https://i.imgur.com/JHiScsV.jpg

This is the truth

Honestly that would really piss me off if I read all the way to the end of a big murder mystery and there was no answer. Like... throw the book across the room mad.

I don't agree tbh.

Sometimes mysteries don't have an answer.

In real life, absolutely. But we're talking about books. Specially mysteries, where the convention of the genre is to solve the mystery by the end of the book. That's the difference between real life and fiction.

Rules are made to be broken.

Yeah, I'm not sure quoting clichéd aphorisms are all that helpful here, really.

In genre mystery specifically, sure. That's absolutely an expectation for things that are published within that genre, and you have to work really hard to earn it if you want to subvert the standard expectation of the genre.

But outside of that specific genre, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. And OP talks about murder mystery plots, which is different from murder mystery genre. And moreover, their secret is about a book that wasn't really promoted as belonging to that genre. It's a literary novel that was promoted as a literary novel. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all books with murder mysteries in them to have satisfactory resolutions, especially ones that are pitched as literary novels and not as mystery novels.

You have a point, but I think even if you market something as a literary novel but the entire thrust of your plot is about "who killed X" and the ending doesn't actually reveal who killed X... you're going to have a lot of annoyed, disappointed readers on your hands. Telling them that well, it was wasn't marketed as a murder mystery feels very much like splitting hairs.

It's a literary novel that was promoted as a literary novel.

This is a good point. Personally, I was ultimately disappointed with The Little Friend. But I think there's a real distinction between literary fiction that involves a murder mystery and mystery genre fiction. And because The Little Friend was definitely literary fiction and not genre fiction, I disagree with the idea that the lack of resolution is some kind of slap in the face to readers.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-10-02 03:30 (UTC) - Expand

This is my thoughts on Umineko no Naku Koro ni. And also The Fifth Head of Cerberus, for that matter. And I still don't get The Assignation by Edgar Allan Poe. Explain your shit!

The Fifth Head of Cerberus is pretty straightforward for Wolfe tbh

I don't generally read Wolfe's novels but I've read a lot of his short stories and I agree with you. That said "pretty straightforward for Wolfe" doesn't mean it's always clear what's going on. (I love that particular story though.)

Do you know why the guy who's investigating throws out the recording at the end? I never figured out his motivation.

(no subject)

rosehiptea - 2017-10-01 20:58 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-10-01 21:26 (UTC) - Expand

I generally disagree with that attitude but especially when the novel isn't or shouldn't be marketed as a mystery. Thanks for the recommendation!

I read this book, and it sucked. I didn't like it before the mystery went unresolved, but when the ending happened without that resolution, I hated it even more. You dragged me through this non-adventure where this bratty kid makes everyone's life hell (even if some of them deserved it) and then you don't even tell me who did it? I'm annoyed again just remembering it.

I have "The Goldfinch" by the same author, but this one left such a bad taste in my mouth that it's getting buried farther down my to-read list with every passing day.

+1, it sucked a long time before it got to the sucky ending.

I liked The Goldfinch. I didn't read The Little Friend and after what I've heard I don't think I'll bother but The Goldfinch had a conclusion.

Personally the ending of The Goldfinch put me off more than the ending of The Little Friend did. It was a better novel than The Little Friend, but the last ten pages or so turned me right off. However, I seem to be in the minority on that, so.

The thing that ultimately disappointed me about The Little Friend was that by the end I had a suspicion of how the book was going to conclude. I had an ending in mind that wouldn't have provided much in the way of closure, but would have brought the story together for me.

But then the book didn't go that final inch like I thought it would. It stopped just the tiniest bit short, and so I felt like I was left holding onto these story threads going, "But- but- why did you include these if you weren't hinting at something with them?"

I still don't regret reading The Little Friend, though. Donna Tartt's writing is good enough that I feel like her books are worth reading, regardless of whether the ending disappoints me.

I kind of felt that way about the movie The White Ribbon. I get it, it was an art film and not a mystery but to have only hints as to who did it and why was frustrating to me. (I hated that movie for lots of other reasons though.)

I'm sure it's been said before, but I don't think any of her other books are as good as The Secret History.

I'm glad someone made a secret about this book, because I've been wanting to discuss it. While it kind of annoyed me that the mystery was never solved, I didn't really think of it as one of those stories that needed that resolution. I felt that it was more introspection of a young girl and those around them. I mean...even if the mystery was "solved" it wouldn't have undone all of the destruction it caused.

The writing was great, I still remember scenes and characters vividly; I even felt connected to the main character for a moment (when she asks herself why is she so hateful). I don't know...the mystery seemed to be more of a part of the setting and the catalyst for the exploration of the characters rather than something that actually needed solving. I do wish I would have known who did it and why....

I felt that it was more introspection of a young girl and those around them.

Yeah, Harriet was a pretty great character. As a child I was often insensitive and sometimes self-involved because my home situation had taught me that I was all I could count on, and sensitivity wouldn't get me anywhere. So it was really cool to see that so expertly characterized in Harriet, whose home life has essentially taught her the same lessons (admittedly in a harsher way than mine did).

There seems to be a tendency in fiction to characterize girl protagonists, even prepubescent girl protagonists, as quite emotionally developed and aware of others as sensitive beings. Yet as a prepubescent girl, my intellectual development quite outstripped my emotional development; as I recall, I could be remorselessly heartless at times (and not in a catty way, but just as Harriet was, in an anxious, arrogant, impatient way). That's something that feels very realistically depicted in Harriet - the heartlessness of youth.

She felt like an extremely realistic portrayal of a barely-prepubescent girl who had grown up in the midst of others' grief, had spent her life suffering the consequences of others' emotions, and had experienced long term estrangement and neglect. She wasn't very nice. But she was very believable - both as a child of her age, and as a person who'd had the formative experiences she'd had.

AYRT

I agree. She was every believable. While there are children who aren't necessarily "heartless", like her best friend, there is definitely a cruelty to children, sometimes, especially depending on the circumstances -- home life, neglect, etc., as you mentioned. Perhaps I haven't read enough books like this, but I enjoyed Harriet as a character. I also found myself feeling for Danny. The entire setting, a time and place, chains of the past and beliefs, social mores all wrapped up into a suffocating noxious miasma, really created some intense and interesting characters.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only