The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

I prefer books that are referring to the old times and that begin with a big question :)

I like plots that twist and turn, sending me down blind alleys and setting up multiple suspects, only to find each time that I've picked the wrong person. All of which has to be plausible and not feel in the least contrived.

I agree with Frances, with one exception, I like plots that keeps e guessing.

Linda wrote: "I agree with Frances, with one exception, I like plots that keeps e guessing."

Me too. That was the point I was trying to make. I like being sent off on a false scent, believing I've cracked the case, only to find I haven't and someone else must be the baddie.

I like thrillers where I gasp and say 'Oh no,' to myself because something awful happens to one of the main protagonists. Also stories where their is a thrill a page, and the suspense builds so I have to keep reading. Multi-dimensional characters and several sub plots are a must.

I really like a story with multiple plots that miraculously (Not conveniently) converge at the end. But ultimately if I don't like the characters I probably won't like the book, no matter how good the plot.

I prefer more plot-driven thrillers with lots of twists and turns and layers of interesting (preferably historical) information. Good action. Stories that start off with a bang, then keep the pace going. Think of James Rollins, Andy McDermott, Clive Cussler, Matthew Reilly--authors who write well-crafted stories that are fun to read and take me away from everyday reality!

For mystery thrillers, I prefer ones where I don't figure it out until the end. I can't stand books where it's obvious who the bad guy is but the characters just don't get it. If it's a straight thriller, ticking clock kind of thing, I prefer to be kept on the edge of my seat till the end, getting new exciting revelations along the way.

I like a fast-paced plot. I like when things are explained along the way rather than slowing down the flow of the story with needless exposition.

J. wrote: "I like a fast-paced plot. I like when things are explained along the way rather than slowing down the flow of the story with needless exposition."

Six Years is perfect for that.

For me, the visceral feeling of suspense is important - that agitation to see what will happen next. Part of that comes from twists and revelations (plot), while part of that comes from smooth, efficient writing (style).

Some other readers mentioned false trails and multiple suspects. That can help the suspense, but I'm not always drawn in by it. Maybe it's just reading too many thrillers, but I'm at the point where if someone's a suspect at the halfway mark or sooner, I'm convinced it WON'T be them! Some authors can pull it off, some can't.

I love books best described as art-house thrillers, which defies genre and embraces atmosphere,should also be an engrossing character study in which the character remains shrouded in mystery, where the action is strikingly violent, yet somehow understated. The result of which is nothing short of mesmerizing.
I loved drive by james sallis which was as cerebral as it was brutal,and it was brutal.

I prefer thrillers in which relatively normal people get caught up in extraordinary circumstances and have to try to dig their way out using their wits and ability to learn. I don't find ultracompetent, omniscient protagonists to be very interesting, and I'm seriously over the whole ex-special-forces-ninja-stud hero.

Then again, my favorite Hitchcock films are his innocent-man stories (such as North by Northwest).

There's a lot to be said for the classic spy thriller, with a twisted plot, lots of hard-to-pin-down characters and motives and not much action. They have to be done really well to keep your attention - I guess I'm thinking early le Carre. It's a rare but precious book when you find one like that.

I love thrillers that keep me on my toes, the kind that you sit on the edge of your seat. These books should have lots of actions, twists and turns that keep you guessing. The characters should be easy to relate to, but complicated enough to keep you reading. The best novel that comes to mind is Along CameA Spider by James Patterson. I really had a hard time putting it down.

I like thrillers that make my hair stand on end. I enjoy a plot that gives me a strong sense of dread in the beginning, and fear. I love thrillers with something bizarre or out of the ordinary going on in the beginning that the main character gradually becomes aware of, scared of, threatened by, etc., and then either is compelled or forced to unravel the mystery/find out what's going on. :)

I like it when the criminals are intelligent, and make use of everything that comes in their way to their advantage. If the criminals have a good bad motive, I sometimes wish that the book ends with their victory. Could also be something absurd, but going with thee psychology of the criminal.

Off the top of my head I would say that the first type of thriller I admire are ones where the characters are ambiguous; not clearly-cut or defined as either wholly evil or wholly good. Its highly intriguing to see where characters draw the lines of their morality and how they rationalize some acts but excuse others. Brutal cops, tender-hearted crooks, evil dames; gun-crazy thugs who love their mothers; psychos who hate certain kinds of people but not others. That kind of thing. Forsythe's 'The Jackal' --seemingly a man with no morality at all, except the pursuit of his own excellence. That in itself was extraordinary and fresh. Moral systems are always compelling.

This opinion seems as if it should run contrary to some of my other views on crime books and crime movies. For example, I believe that the best crime movies ever made, were produced in the 40s and 50s. Why? Well one reason would be that I believe that a stern, strict, and severely moral society is a prerequisite for quality, in such movies. That's what we had back then. When you watch a crime flick from that era, (the era of the electric chair, chain gang, bloodhounds, etc) you can see in the writing and the acting, the utter fright involved in the crimes; the dread of being caught; the high risk and high stakes involved. The social taboo of a life of crime. Whereas, in a free-and-easy society (such as we have today) where no one really thinks even heinous crimes are really 'bad'...there's no tension. Moral tension makes a great crime story.

But perhaps this film-view can't be extended back out to crime literature.

I'd agree with Yash and Feliks that I prefer a more complex bad guy. I prefer books that are character-driven and don't like those where there's someone getting killed every other page just to keep the plot moving.

Konstantina wrote: "I prefer books that are referring to the old times and that begin with a big question :)"

Me too!

Feliks wrote: "Off the top of my head I would say that the first type of thriller I admire are ones where the characters are ambiguous; not clearly-cut or defined as either wholly evil or wholly good. Its highly ..."

Me too!

There needs to be political intrigue, guns, backstabbing, and fast cars - otherwise I'm not interested! :)

I like plots with twists and turns, ones that keep me guessing.

As a character-driven reader, the first thing that I require from a thriller is a main character or characters that interest me, well developed and not 'generic' types.

Other than that, fast action with suspense, are they or aren't they going to survive this even when you know they are. I tend to avoid the most politically involved plotlines. With good characterization, my favorite plots generally seem to involve military action or nearly any 'find the buried treasure' and archaelogical-based themes.

Hi Sharon, I'm reading The Map of Lost Memories by Kim Fay. It's not a thriller, per se, but deals with old Shanghai and a woman who was passed over for a promotion as curator of a museum and now wants to prove herself. It just won an Edgar for "best first novel" and might interest you.
Terry