I just read a fascinating discussion at Dear Author about a review of JD Robb’s novel, Creation in Death. The reviewer, Jane, thinks the heroine did something out of character. Some commenters didn’t see the action as out of character, and others did, but didn't have an issue with it.

That’s all fine and dandy, and not what this post is about. You can’t help how you feel about a book or what you think the author was doing. What I’m talking about is trust. At one point Jane says about the heroine, Eve, “Either she has to deal with the repercussions [of acting out of character] and that makes me dread the future books or this is a blip that won’t be addressed again which makes me think – plot contrivance.”

That comment made me wonder WHY she (and probably others) would think the out-of-character thing might be a blip, considering this is a series — mainly because my first instinct is to assume that this plot occurance would be dealt with in a future book. So what makes a reader NOT assume the same thing?

One comment that fascinated me was one that came after the author, Nora Roberts, explained why she handled the out of character action and that there would be consequences/discussion in a later book. The commenter said that they would now think on the book in a different way, knowing that the action would be explained/justified/whatever.

Her exact words are, “reading that Nora wrote it with this in mind makes me feel better about the whole thing. If she’s going to address all of this in upcoming books it will make a big difference in how I perceive this one. There are going to be serious repercussions within Eve if she has to redefine herself, and I look forward to reading them.”

What I’m wondering is why people would assume that an author would do something that won’t be explained in a future book – especially if said book is part of a series. Do some readers not trust an author to tie up threads? And why not? Is it because of the way the book was written? Is it because they've been let down before, by series books or even TV or movies? Is it something else?

Steph and I have been lucky in that 99% of the reviews for Riding The Storm have been wonderful, but some of the criticisms have to do with the subplots – some readers think that because they aren’t neatly tied up, we dropped the ball. Others think that because the special world/operatives special powers aren’t fully explained, we dropped the ball. The answers are all coming in future books – we promise. It has all been carefully thought out. So why do people think it isn’t?

Perhaps in our case, it could be that Sydney Croft is a new author and trust needs to be earned. Maybe we could have done a better job for those readers in making it clear that the loose ends would be tied up/explained (as Jane says about Creation in Death, “some clues should be put out there,”.) But in Nora Roberts’ case…I don’t know. Seems to me that someone of her caliber and reputation would know exactly what she’s doing when she does something that seems…off.

Personally, when I read a series (and I do prefer series over stand-alones,) I trust the author to answer all questions and wrap up all loose ends as the series progresses. Yes, there I times I finally give up, but that's usually because the series has gone on so long that I'm tired of waiting for the story I really want.

So what about you? Do you automatically trust authors to answer questions and address issues in future books, do you trust them until they burn you, or do you not trust until they’ve proven themselves to you? I'm especially curious because my first Demonica book kicks off a series, and I really want to know what people think!

Yeah, my subject line is a little confused.

I just finished reading an older manuscript of mine, and I spent a lot of time groaning. I can't believe how much I've grown as a writer…and not just grown, but changed.

But the strange thing was that one day I'd read the manuscript and groan, and then the next, I'd read and think, this isn't so bad.

I've noticed I do that when I'm reading published novels, too. I remember the first time I tried to read the first JR Ward book. Couldn't stand it. Put it down after 5 chapters. A year later, I tried again. Loved it and didn't put it down until it ended. It's possible that so much had happened during the span of time between when I first picked up the book and the next that maybe my outlook on paranormals or life or writing styles changed.

But the same thing happens to books I'm reading over the space of a few days. One day I'm loving the book, but the next…bleh. Mood must play a huge role in whether or not we (or at least, I) like a book. So then I started thinking about movie and book reviews. Had I reviewed the JR Ward book when I first read it…er…it wouldn't have been pretty.

But the second time? 5 stars, coffee cups, hearts…whatever. I've never been one to base my movie viewing or book buying decisions on reviews, but as I wonder how much mood, lack of sleep, time, etc., plays a role in how we read or watch something, I'm wondering how many books and movies might have gotten a different review from someone had they read/watched on a different day.

Interesting. (Yes, okay, I'm WAY overthinking this.)

Anyway, what about you? Have you read or watched something, hated it, and then tried again later only to revise your original opinion? Or vice versa–loved something and then hated it the next time you watched/read?