When, in the third book, we do learn the identity of the Blue Rose murderer, the information comes in a muted, nearly off-hand manner, and the man has died long before.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The actual Blue Rose murders, which lie at the core of the three novels, yield various incorrect solutions which assume the status of truth.
I really hate those books where the murderer turns out to be somebody you never heard of who pops up in the last chapter.
As a writer, you're making a pact with the reader; you're saying, 'Look, I know and you know that if this book was really a murder investigation, it would be a thousand pages long and would be very dull, and you would be very unhappy with the ending.'
When people talk about the death of the novel, they are speaking of the need for the birth of something different.
I simply don't understand authors that know everything before they write it; it seems so cold blooded. I think it's lovely when the story takes over and goes somewhere else.
What the detective story is about is not murder but the restoration of order.
History could pass for a scarlet text, its jot and title graven red in human blood.
A writer's definitive death is when no one reads his books anymore. That's the final death.
We've been hearing about the death of the novel ever since the day after Don Quixote was published.
When the characters are really alive before their author, the latter does nothing but follow them in their action, in their words, in the situations which they suggest to him.
No opposing quotes found.