The prologue instantly pulled me in. Initially I thought the "writer" was intended to be Alex himself, not the character telling the story. But I do think that the prologue set the scene by creating a landscape of a windy island. You don't often hear that as a way the weather is described in a book. As he mentions, its usually the rain referred to. Therefore I instantly have a distinct image in my mind of how the scene unfolded.
With Act 1, my mind was already trying to investigate from the start as to whether Alex was retelling a true tale. So I'd say he succeeded in already making me believe in the story. And nothing makes a great story like a murder mystery. We immerse ourselves in these repeatedly in media like movies, tv, and books. But the way in which it begins being told has me invested in the outcome already.
I also think I was easily pulled in by his statement that a its not a whodunit but a whydunit. How do you tell a murder mystery without focusing on the culprit? I already am ready to read more.
With Act 1, my mind was already trying to investigate from the start as to whether Alex was retelling a true tale. So I'd say he succeeded in already making me believe in the story. And nothing makes a great story like a murder mystery. We immerse ourselves in these repeatedly in media like movies, tv, and books. But the way in which it begins being told has me invested in the outcome already.
I also think I was easily pulled in by his statement that a its not a whodunit but a whydunit. How do you tell a murder mystery without focusing on the culprit? I already am ready to read more.