Review: Editors serve a purpose!
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 03 23, 2014
The story is...well, three stars means ok and that's about all I can say.  The characters are predictable, the action is overblown, I saw no humor, which is not necessary but it was billed as being humorous.  Oh, and the killer was obvious from the beginning.  Yes, the author made some attempts at distraction, but it was obvious that these were just ploys and the killer was set.  Additionally, the sophomoric Jerry Garcia platitudes were ridiculously simplistic; much what you would expect from a drugged out semi-literate who was trying to be philosophical.That's the good points!  Now for the bad.  Why do indie authors think having creative (if such they are) ideas qualifies them to do the job of professional editors?  I see even authors who claim degrees in creative writing who have no grasp of spelling, punctuation, grammar, or word usage.  In Ms Collins's case, she demonstrates a lack of knowledge of when to use subjective case or objective case pronouns.  Here's a hint: If it's the subject of the verb use subjective case, if an object-as in direct object or object of a preposition-use objective case!  It doesn't matter if there are 1, 2, 25, or 536 subjects or objects, the case doesn't change!Examples  She saw him setting the table.  Him is the direct object of saw and is objective case.  If she saw two people setting the table it wouldn't make any difference.  She saw him and tom, or  she saw him and Bill, and Susie, and the raggedy monkey...Case for the pronoun doesn't change!  Ms Collins continually throughout the book changed the pronoun to subjective case as in She saw he and Tom setting the table.A professional editor either would not make mistakes like this or would soon no longer be a professional editor!Suggestion for Ms Collins:  Redo the book and resubmit!  Leaving it this way can cost you future readers.  I would really be interested in reading more of your work if the editing is reliable.