Top critical review
18 people found this helpful
Good Book, Nearly Fatally Flawed by Horrible Editing, 2-D Characters
on February 9, 2010
I really enjoyed the main story line of this book. It had a lot of elements that I always find appealing and intriguing. The science is plausible and the tie-ins with the 2012 phenomenon are not allowed to overpower the story line.
Unfortunately, the author apparently published this book without the benefit of having anyone competent at editing involved in the process. There were more run-on sentences, completely wrong punctuation and syntax, capitalization failures and other such mistakes than I've encountered in a published work in many, many years. Based on this book, the author would have a tough time passing a basic composition course at any decent college. Any number of times, I stopped, closed the book and said to myself, "I cannot read any more of this badly edited writing. It's too distracting." Admittedly, as a professional writer and long-time journalist, I am more sensitive to such issues than most readers. Still, there's no excuse for not having a copy editor go over the manuscript before releasing it.
The other major flaw I encountered was the very cardboard nature of the main characters. They did not undergo any real growth or change in the course of the book. Their reactions as a result were highly predictable, which removed a lot of potential suspense from the story. The author frequently told us what a character was feeling instead of showing us their emotion in a way that would have made them more real. It was hard for me to work up a lot of caring for what happened to any of them for most of the story.
So this book would have gotten at least four and maybe even five stars from me had the author been a lot more polished and a bit more practiced at her craft. As it is, it's a solid three-star effort. I hope she writes more in the future but heeds my advice about making the book more a polished effort.