Review: Accuracy counts!!!
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 02 13, 2014
I realize this is a work of fiction; however, there comes a point where even a minimum of fact checking is necessary.  If you can't fact check something is seriously wrong.What's my quibble?  One of the main characters is in the midst of reviewing his life and reveals that his wife was taking Prozac.  That's not the quibble.  The quibble is the year appears to have been 1983!!!  Prozac has been around for awhile but it was not in wide-spread use until 1987.  That's sloppy and easily fact checked.  In the same chapter again in 1984 the main character meets someone and gives her his cell phone number.  Keep in mind that cell phones were around in 1984 but they were literally the size of bricks and very expensive.  Not a thing that a police officer would have been hefting around.  Could the Prozac usage been a part of a pre-FDA approval clinical trial?  I suppose, but we're not told that.  As to the cell phone well, that's a peeve.The above leads me to this next part and the major reason for the 3 star rating.  There is a murder victim who does not fit the profile of the other victims and she and the killer know something that the police never followed up on.  That's sloppy; it would have taken 2 lines to explain it away or in the alternative, been used further into the story to explain how the police had a major clue and failed to follow up.  Didn't happen.  It's just overlooked in the story line as well.  Like I said, sloppy.Average story line, average character development (in my opinion, a little too late into the story).The good news?  No major formatting issues or grammatical errors that I caught.  Yay!