Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Lately I've read some books in which I actually solved the mystery before the sleuth did. This is rare. I usually don't figure it out. I felt pleased with myself. It hasn't affected my enjoyment of the books either way. I'm equally satisfied with books in which I fail to figure out the puzzle and those where I get it early on, as long as the quality of the writing is good.
Does anyone have a different reaction? Do you hate it when you solve it early--did the author not make you work hard enough?

I had figured out the entire mystery for 'Elephants Can Remember'by Agatha Christie. I was quite proud of myself however it does kill the joy of reading the book, especially a whodunnit

I have to read that one and see if I solve it.

I found it easy because I had read another book by hte same author which had similiar elements, and that made the book rather predictable. However it is an enjoyable book

I have read just about all Agatha Christie's and after the first 30, you get better at figuring out who's the bad guys. Her toughest ones to guess would be 'And then they were none' and "The murder of Roger Ackroyd. I strongly recommend both books.

When the story is good I don't mind figuring out early who's the bad guy. I actually actively try to figure it out when I read a whodunnit.

After reading the Davinci Code, I read all other Dan Brown's and figured out who the bad guy was within a few pages of its introduction every time, but they're still great stories.

I write whodunnits myself, and coming up with ways to misdirect the readers is great fun.

I'm nearing the end of Lois Winston's Definitely Dead and was wrong about whodunnit, which was fun. In her first book in her other series I figured it out half-way but still enjoyed the book. I often enjoy a mystery regardless of solving it myself or not, for various reasons. With Winston, it's the humor that keeps me going-- and in this case may have kept me so amused I forgot to try to solve the murder.