Hi...Libby. I just made a comment on Kathy's review of your new Georgia Davis...NOBODY'S CHILD... at another place on "our" blog. (I love your post about finding the title). Take a look.
I just ordered ToxiCity...the Georgia Davis prequel and decided to read a few reviews. This is not a review but a comment on a review....by a little old lady named Tuli Reno who loves Chicago and found some proofing errors in her Kindle version of your tale. She also gives her SO grief by commenting on actors looks when watching movies....her review of CAMELOT with Richard Harris was hilarious. I may have to point out to her that Kindle editions don't go through a proofing person...it seems to be a common complaint. (The reviewers' note about the geographical error seemed legit..." Georgia traveling south from Fullerton to get to Diversey (which is north), and Halsted Street repeatedly spelled Halstead"...yet she gave your tale 4 stars.)
Meanwhile I'll read ToxiCity in paperback to see if your proofer really goofed on the punctuation errors...and if I can find the other five "errors".....I doubt it....
Tuli's comment about jtb1951's review of ToxiCity:
I was unable to finish the book because of all the mistakes in it (as well as poor [IMO] story elements), so I am not leaving a review, but would like to add to your comments about the mistakes. I don't think anyone proofed the book before uploading. Maybe some of the problems are in the digitizing process but others not.
Loc 820: "Georgia's is looking into it." Loc 710: "What s your name?" (No apostrophe.) The beginning of chapter 10: "Afterward services that evening Matt grabbed some coffee..." These are just examples. There were others similar to those.
In 21 instances of the word gonna in dialogue, 20 had a single beginning quotation mark (not an apostrophe) at the beginning of the word. One use of the word had a double quotation mark at the beginning. Of the seven instances of the word gotta, only one had the quotation mark. I wondered at the inconsistency but even more at the purpose of the quotation marks. Is this something new?
The victim was introduced with one name and then given a different name throughout the rest of the book. Yes, it was a variation, but something I noticed and wondered about right off.
I love Chicago and I really like police procedurals. That's why I picked up this book, after having read Michael Harvey and Sean Chercover. I managed to get through about a fourth of the book but I had problems caring about any of the characters, either way - good or bad. And there were too many characters introduced in the first couple of chapters for this old lady to keep up with. Some of the scene transitions were...well, without transitions, which left me occasionally confused.
Since I discussed proofreading, several of you who love this book will inevitably find mistakes in what I wrote above and proceed to chastise my hypocrisy. Since I am not asking you to pay for these comments, I don't feel bad. However, I have intentionally left five mistakes for you to find just to bring you joy.
No one, I think, has read this comment previously. At least, no one has "chastised" her "hypocrisy." Yet.
Jane
