Official Review: Murder at Broadcast Park by Bill L. Evans

[R-g-R]

It's a shame when a book starts out promising, only to fall flat later. No thrill of the chase is pretty much a death sentence for a mystery thriller. While I love this genre, I will probably give this one a pass. Thanks for your insightful review!

FYI: I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative. These two perspectives are contradictory! If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer mentions a desire for more character development, that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

[R-g-R]

I might give it a try eventhough the book goes downhill and the killer is predicable. Can anyone tell me is the subplot really out of context?

FYI: I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative! These two perspectives are contradictory. If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer wants more character development (from memory), that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

[R-g-R]

Oh, that's a shame. Sounds like it needed a good content editor to put the suspense of the first half back into the book!

FYI: I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative! These two perspectives are contradictory. If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer wants more character development (from memory), that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

[R-g-R]

The book starts really well in the sample. I like the attention to detailed that the author portrays. The novelty of two murders occurring identically and simultaneously but at different locations, had me drooling to read this.

But then you only gave it 2 out of three stars and said this first few chapters were the best part of the book. I guess I'm going to have to look for some more reviews before I decide which way to go with about reading this one. Thanks for the great review.

FYI: I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative! These two perspectives are contradictory. If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer wants more character development (from memory), that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

[R-g-R]

I love the beginning/sample of the book yet am disappointed to read in your review that things slow down and the second half is not executed as well as it perhaps could be.
The initial premise is excellent and well-written - who doesn’t appreciate a murder in the news studio?! - so I would very much like to continue reading in order to make my own decision as to the success of the book

I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative! These two perspectives are contradictory. If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer wants more character development (from memory), that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

[Hephzi Lolami]

The beginning was captivating but the part where we just had to know who the killer was, that spoilt the fun. However, it is a short story and since there are a few lessons to be learnt, I won't gloat about the issue. Thanks for the amazing review anyway.

[sembryz]

This is a kind of book I love to read, wherein you will also think how thing work and how to find answers and solution to the problem. Muurder at Broadcast Park by Bill L. Evans is one of them. I would love reading suspence books that would let you not stop until you finish it because you are excited on what will gonna happen next.

[kate_nguyen]

I might give it a try eventhough the book goes downhill and the killer is predicable. Can anyone tell me is the subplot really out of context?

FYI: I have now completed the book and I think the official reviewer didn’t understand the story, the author’s intent and definitely not his execution. This is a great and well thought through murder mystery! The reviewer commented that they didn’t like the second half veering from what could be seen as the ‘usual’ presentation and unfolding of a mystery. They also commented that events then unfolded as expected (or similar), indicating that the standard process being followed was also a negative! These two perspectives are contradictory. If you don’t like the changing of ‘standard formula’ then you can’t also complain that a ‘standard formula’ was followed. If you have watched a variety of CSI-type TV shows, you would know that there are multiple ways to write or present a mystery, and descriptions of discovering bodies can, of course, be followed by the hard work of investigation and discovery. I congratulate the author on their writing and plot, and look forward to reading the next book . I also think the OBC should be careful in labelling such a negative review as ‘official’ as, based on resultant comments, it has clearly affected some reader’s decisions to read what is an excellent book.
There is no ‘sub-plot’ that detracts from the main story, rather, events in the newsroom continue, while the investigation continues too. Also, while the reviewer wants more character development (from memory), that is exactly what happens in the supposed ‘sub-plot’. The one thing I do agree with in the review is that greater editing of the book is needed, but that is not usually the fault of the author and does not have to detract from the enjoyment of the mystery. What an excellent Book Of The Day!

Thank you, I will give it a try though!

[Jay_AvidReader]

I love murder/ mystery books and it seems like a great read from the description. After your review I will add this to my list of books to only read while sitting for dentist and doctor appointments. Thanks for the thorough review.