Good?

I'm currently reading another self-published book. And, yes, I'm reading it because while it is deeply flawed, the author keeps finding enough ways to keep me interested that I haven't removed it from my ebook device. This book seems to me indicative of what is wrong with the self-publishing market. That is, the writing is often good, but the project very much needed an editorial hand. Or at least the author needed to have had to run the editorial gauntlet to print the way traditional writers have to do to reach publication.

I don't want to mention the title of the book or the author. Why? Because I don't like to leave any kind of review at all if I can't give it a hearty recommendation. That is, if I can't give the book four or five stars I'd rather not bother. If you can't say anything good, and all that sort of thing. As I have mentioned before, I don't leave negative reviews of fiction because the job of trying to be a writer is tough enough without having people try to drag your ass down.

But the book is pretty good. It's fun. There are flashes of imagination and the occasional displays of skill. But the book also has many, many flaws. It's the kind of situation in which I would have encouraged the author to keep trying back in the days when I was serving as a first reader. This is the type of writer who needs encouragement, who shows much talent, and who needs just a little more experience under his belt.

Still...I may promote the book and leave an online review if, by the time I've finished reading it, the book entertains me. We'll see...

Am I a unique anti-hero? Will I make the grade?

A competent space opera? Or a failed attempt? Stay tuned!