Every so often I wonder if I have read too many mystery novels. Of course. I read a lot - mystery fiction is, what, 70 or 75 percent of my reading. I don't want to quit, mind you, but it can be a problem at times when you know the format. Mystery often follows a pattern and anyone who reads as much as I do - or you do - gets to know how things work. Which is why we all fall over ourselves when someone truly innovative comes along.

Last night I picked up a review copy that looked interesting. I did not know the author, but the press stuff had her as a Big Deal, with a best selling debut novel. Ok, so I settled in last night. It began okay but soon I was questooning. Questioning a lot. Questioning a writing style that repeated information which is one of my pet peeves. Novel filler - the suspect tells the cop something. The cop writes up her report, mentioning what the suspect said. The cop's supervisor reads the report, noting the comment and so on and so on and oy. Enough. Ok, so this book switches points of view so maybe...but no, it's still annoying. It has to move the story forward when you do this. And it happens several times. Cop interviews person. We witness the conversation, then witness as the conversation is reported. And then pages later, it's mentioned again and nothing new ever developes out of these mentions. Filler. Literary bumf. Word countitis.

Never mind, keep going.

Okay, go back to question those people because you need more information, specifically different information that you don't have from the first interview. So why, when you do this, do you ask the exact same things. I understand cops sometimes repeat but you very specifically went to ask different questions. And you didn't. Waste of time. Waste of pages.

Okay, then the cop riding along with the other cop (who's the Chief in this small town) listens as the Chief discusses various scenarios and ends up asking "is X a suspect?" What? You are in this business and you hear everything that happened. You would NOT be the one asking this question. Of course you know X is a suspect? You're just along for the expository ride, you poor schmuck. You've been used. Dear author, if you want to explain why X is a suspect, you don't do it with someone who really should KNOW. You do it in a different way.

Finally, you claim X is a strong suspect. Why? There is absolutely no motive offered. He has no alibi, true, but there is no cause given for the acts. And I don't get why anyone would kill those people and you simply don't give a reason. You do realize that you have not explained how he would benefit if thse people were dead. Not really. Oh dear.

People read books like this and make them "bestsellers"? But it's bad writing. It's lazy writing and it's boring because it repeats what you already know.

I've said I've had a hard time focusing or concentrating on reading, especially trying to read fiction since mom died. And it's still there - I reread a lot lately. But this book had a storyline and setting that was of interest to me. Maybe it wasn't going to be great literature but it was what I was looking for - a straightforward cop novel. But my heart sank as I realized that what I had was what i think is a bad book. Alas.

So of course i have to question the whole thing. Is it me? Do I simply have high expectations? Too high? Too many mysteries? I swear to you I can still be impressed, even amazed, by books, but if this is what passes for great thriller writing, "electrifying" mystery (a word used to describe her first book) then I think we have a problem.

What do you think? Have you found books to like even when you read a lot? Do you find yourself reading even mediocre crime novels full of filler paragraphs and even pages? Am I being unfair?