A question for readers
When reading mystery/thriller type books, do you prefer an omniscient view-point (semi or full) so that you know who the perpetrator is and are following along just waiting for the other guys to catch up? Or do you prefer a more first person view-point (or such a limited omniscient) that only follows the guys searching, not the guys doing the bad?
For instance, a book like Dexter where we know just as much as Dexter knows at any given point, which means who the serial killer is remains as big a mystery to us as to Dexter and we can work it out along with him. Or a book like Blood Price (Tanya Huff) where it switches back and forth between Vicki/Henry/Mike (the good guys; detective/cop) and Norman (the bad demon-calling guy).
Personally I think I prefer a smart book in the first category; I want to figure it out along with you. But the down-side to those books can be (when not so well written) that you don't get a chance to figure it out. It's poorly enough written that I flounder for the entire book and then get to the end and instead of saying "oh my god, I totally should have seen that! It's obvious now you explained it to me" (a la Watson) I am more likely to say "but this character didn't even exist! What?? Who the hell?" Which is frustrating and can ruin a book for me.
On the other hand, a well-written book in the second category can, in some ways, provide more food for thought because the switch to the "bad guy's" view point can leave it being morally a lot less black and white...sometimes.
Thoughts?
For instance, a book like Dexter where we know just as much as Dexter knows at any given point, which means who the serial killer is remains as big a mystery to us as to Dexter and we can work it out along with him. Or a book like Blood Price (Tanya Huff) where it switches back and forth between Vicki/Henry/Mike (the good guys; detective/cop) and Norman (the bad demon-calling guy).
Personally I think I prefer a smart book in the first category; I want to figure it out along with you. But the down-side to those books can be (when not so well written) that you don't get a chance to figure it out. It's poorly enough written that I flounder for the entire book and then get to the end and instead of saying "oh my god, I totally should have seen that! It's obvious now you explained it to me" (a la Watson) I am more likely to say "but this character didn't even exist! What?? Who the hell?" Which is frustrating and can ruin a book for me.
On the other hand, a well-written book in the second category can, in some ways, provide more food for thought because the switch to the "bad guy's" view point can leave it being morally a lot less black and white...sometimes.
Thoughts?