-I did find it surprising that the trio from the first book isn't even introduced until well into the story. To be honest, by that point I was so into the story of Morrie et. al. (that narrative was just freaking exquisite--classic mature King. I liked it better than Doctor Sleep or Revival) that I could have cared less about Hodges, Holly, and Jerome. And I didn't care much about them as the story progressed.
-Hodges felt like a paper cut-out: "weary detective". He was not irritating as much as...undeveloped.
-Holly fared a little better--she was more interesting than Hodges by far, and I think I'd enjoy a stand-alone story about her.
-Jerome. Ah Jerome. As much as I hate to say it, he was a character that was absolutely pointless in this book. He did nothing for the story, not even his computer geek thing from the first book. His screechy voice was diminished, but still there, and still embarrassing. I REALLY hope Mr. King gets over that. It comes off as borderline racist stereotype, and is ridiculous for someone Jerome's age, living in our world today. The social context is different for kids now (if that would have even been a thing in the 70s), and the screechy, over-the-top Prissy from Gone With The Wind thing is something they don't reference.
-tiny thing: Tina has a Mrs. Beesley doll. I had one when I was a little kid, but I'm 48. I don't even think you could buy one outside an antique toy shop/online in 2009. That jarred me.
-the end. One one hand, I loved it--it moved fast and made sense in the parameters of the story. I even loved the storied clack . BUT. BUT... I think it was a mistake. This is Mr. King's first published crime fiction trilogy. To many people, readers of crime fiction but not necessarily supernatural fiction, Mr. Mercedes might have been the book that brought them to Mr. King, especially after it won the Edgar. So they move in, start to get comfortable, think, "Yeah, that Stephen King... maybe I misjudged him. He can write other types of stories." (and I do understand that most of us would find this a no brainer, but to the general public he's Scary Book Guy #1). They pick up Finders Keepers, trip merrily through an interesting crime story, then... BOOM. Supernatural sh*t. They roll their eyes, shut the book, and toss it in the corner, never to return to Casa King. It's a 'cockadoodie cheat' to them. They bought crime fiction--they don't want no steenkin' stupid paranormal crap. They want crime that could happen! I loved it, because I like that supernatural sh*t. But this is crime fiction. It cheats the genre, KWIM?
-last thought: I'll go out on a limb, but not far, I expect, and say crime fiction bores the crap out of Mr. King (writing it, anyway). It goes back to what I was talking about in the NY Times review thread: though he says he doesn't like 'relationship stories', those are the stories that he's really good at writing. The most interesting parts of this book deal with relationships and how they affect someone, both externally and internally; it's the characters' personalities and the people they know that drive the story, not the other way around. It's when he tries to be a 'crime writer' that the story falls flat. He doesn't seem to care much for his intrepid trio, so we don't either. Crime fiction is most often story driven--the characters aren't nearly as important as what happens around them. Mr. King is a master of the character driven novel: we climb right in their heads, and whether we've entered hell or heaven, we enjoy where they take us. Crime fiction denies his greatest strength, IMHO.