All I know is what I've read in books.

Supposedly, readers get a great deal of enjoyment out of guessing what happens next. How will Emily react when Jacob tells her that she is trans? If the author has made that answer plausible in the story the reader will feel good about continuing. If the answer has been guessed correctly the reader pats herself on the back and reads on -- looking for more self-affirmation.

There has been much discussion about whether are not writing a synopsis is preferable to writing a complete story.

If the above premise regarding one main reason why people read is valid, a synopsis robs people of that method of enjoyment.

I'm currently reading Shauna's series about Amadeus. She carries the exposure of reactions to the extreme by using multiple narrator's to show several reactions to the same scene. The book is one of the current best sellers on Amazon. There will soon be two more books to buy.

Writing anything is preferable to writing nothing. Writing a great synopsis will attract an audience as Reader's Digest proved to us for years with their truncated books.

I'm simply trying to add a little logic to this debate and explaining why I've been nagging about going beyond a synopsis.

Jill