There were dozens of different ways the ending could have come down, each terminating in the same end result. The climax as presented by the author was as dramatic as it needed to be. All five pages of it. Things happened so fast that the characters barely had time to react, which is certainly realistic, but it was over almost faster than the reader could keep up with as well. So many authors these days seem to stretch the middle 100 pages of their books into 300 only to hurry through the climax in a hand full of pages, and this is a classic example of that. I’m reminded of a 4th of July fireworks show, in which the grand finale is a disappointing 10 seconds of dazzle instead of a much more satisfying 40-60 seconds.
The purely accidental way in which Arden discovered the identity of the murderer of the aristocratic daughters could have been replaced with a more clever set of circumstances. It almost feels as if the author just wrote down the first scenario that popped into her head and said, “Oh, well, good enough.” Did she take the time to imagine several different ways it might have come about and pick the one that resonated best with her? Maybe so. The reader deserves better.
After discovering the killer’s identity, she strikes up a conversation with him in which he says, “’I offered both of them [his previous girlfriends] my heart and had it tossed back in my face.’ ‘Is that why you took theirs?’ Arden asked, the words tumbling out of her mouth as though she had no control over her mind or tongue. Where was calm? Where the hell was smart?” Indeed. What is the author telling us about this amazing woman we’ve invested an entire book in? She seems determined to destroy our good opinion of the heroine, and this, perhaps, is the final cut. To cap it off, as the bad guy starts to attack Arden, he accidentally takes the bullet intended for her, right in the forehead. Right.
Did Kate Cross feel that the climax had to be totally
unbelievable to be interesting? Were
there really no better ways to conclude the story that didn’t involve these outlandishly
unlikely circumstances? Again, the
reader deserves better. This book has a
lot going for it, especially if one can overlook the trailer trash language and
far too predictable scenes of “intimacy.”
Other books by her have been quite admirable, so I really hate to pan
this one too much. It just has too many fatal flaws in my
opinion, so I won’t be reading any more of her romance works any time
soon. But a guy gets credit for trying,
doesn’t he? For being open-minded enough
to read a Romance in the first place? Yes? Thanks.
April's books of the month...
That’s right – BOOKSSSS!
The format for the club has changed – until now, one book each month was divided into four roughly equal sections with one section commented on each week.
Starting in April, each week will feature a different book, and you pick which one(s) you would like to read with us! This will include a rating system for various aspects of each book with an optional section for comments.
April is still “Dean Koontz” month, so one of his will be included in the four. Each weekend (usually starting on Friday) is posting time. Here’s the April line-up:
“The City,” by Dean Koontz
“Midnight Crossroad,” by Charlaine Harris
“Vineland,” by Thomas Pynchon
“Specters,” by J. M. Dillard
(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so!)
No comments:
Post a Comment