Lousy editing makes for a tough read.
352140
Topics covered are relevant and the concepts are methodically presented.  However, it's clear (to me at least) that this set has not been edited adequately.  It appears that the extent was a cursory "spell check", since the wrong words appear frequently.  In a legal reference volume, probably more than any other type, words mean very specific things: Nuance is king. The reading is already slow to ensure that those nuances are digested in their proper context, so with the wrong words sprinkled throughout so generously, it turns a deliberate read into deciphering "why didn't that make sense? Oh, wrong word. What word do I THINK that they meant...? Now what does that mean with what I THINK the right word inserted?"

As I said in my email to the publisher Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, there's simply no excuse for that sort of miserable quality control in a second edition of a book which preaches quality of plans and specifications to avoid confusion, delay and claims. Ironic at the very least.
4147455
After hearing the author on a radio program, I immediately got my hands on this book.  I wanted to love it.  It tells a compelling story, but the writing and editing are so awful that it was a major distraction from the theme, and made it much harder to read than it should have been.

Positive elements: It's a pretty quick read, and the parts of the book dealing with forensic evidence actually move along almost like a thriller.  The examination of dust, pollen, linen, and means and effects of crucifixion are pretty well presented.

Negative elements: The writing style is frustratingly repetitive.  Quite often a sentence is repeated, even without significant variation of vocabulary or word order. Sometimes even whole paragraphs are repeated for no real purpose other than to fill up pages. For example, on page 101 is a paragraph labeled "Legend of King Abgar," without attribution.  The very next section, "Eusebius the Historian," starts off with basically the same paragraph, only this time attributed to Eusebius.  An example of sloppy editing is found on page 180, where the last paragraph in the section "The Rise and Fall of the Iron-Oxide Theory" has nothing to do with iron oxide, and obviously belongs as a conclusion to the previous section, "Is the Shroud a Painting?"  These problems of writing style are much more evident in the sections dealing with the history of the shroud, perhaps where the author felt on less sure ground.

For some reason, the author then returns to scientific evidence to discuss the infamous carbon-14 tests of 1988.  Here the confidence level picks up again.  Although a careful examination might shake that confidence: On page 160 is the section "Carbon-14 -- What is it?" where we read that C-12 and C-13 are "stable atoms, that is, atoms likely to hold on to their electrons."  Radioactive stability has nothing to do with electron affinity, but with the likelihood of the atomic nucleus (where there are no electrons) holding together.  It is neutrons that distinguish isotopes, not electrons.

On a final technical note, the author points out that the blood type on the shroud is AB. According to sources, this blood type did not exist until about 700 AD.  Also, according to Barrie Schwortz of the original STURP research team, as blood ages, its enzymes decay such that eventually ALL stains test as group AB. In other words, just because the blood on the shroud tests AB, that's no indication that Jesus' type was AB. Iannone probably should have known this.

Overall, it's an enjoyable book with a compelling argument.  Iannone fairly points out dissenting arguments.  It just could have been better written.
4076515
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to get past the first chapter. One of the other reviewers mentioned that copy editing was not enough--I only wish that the manuscript HAD been copy edited! The (lack of) grammatical structure, punctuation errors, incomplete sentences, missing words, and more made this a veritable chore to read. So far in the story, there's been a lot of telling and not much showing, a stiff style, but it is very hard for me to get into the story when there is so much mechanical clutter throwing me out of it.
3227326
I'm not writing this to be mean. After the first couple of pages, there were so many editing errors including, but not limited to, tense changes, run on sentences, and even missing words...that I couldn't go another page and had to return. Perhaps the hard copy has better editing, but the Kindle edition needs serious work. I can't even offer a review of the story because I never got through the first chapter. If the author is serious about publishing, a good editor would be a wise investment.
1244168
This book seems it bypassed editing and went straight to print. It's a fascinating read, to be sure; but it's fraught with typos and is very often confusing in content.

The story jumps from one event and/or person to the next without warning and without context. While the author is obviously knowledgeable on the subject, he might have done well to co-write this with a better writer. The writing style is very stiff, purely relaying facts without a lot of flair.

I was quite looking forward to this book, but was sadly disappointed.

Disclaimer: I received this book from Blogging for Books in exchange for an honest review.
2181029
Couldn't put it down.
However; it was in dire need of editing.
1463575
The story is intriguing, if far fetched, and the dialogue between the friends is believable. However the writing is stilted and choppy, awkward and clumsy. It seemed as if it was written by a highschooler, which made some of the sex scenes uncomfortable to read, thinking of a 15-year-old writing them. The book also needs some serious editing - everywhere there should not have been an apostrophe, there was  one (they had some beer's), and when an apostrophe was required, there wasn't one. There was little punctuation (commas make a difference!), lots of run-on sentences that I had to read two or three times to understand, and the requisite their/there mistake. I'd actually like to know how the story continues (this was part1 of a series , not standalone), but it's not worth paying for. Classes or a writer's  circle could benefit this author immensely.
2346135
I tried to keep reading but the mistakes are so prevalent that I finally had to stop. The story is good and if I were able to finish it, would probably get 4 stars. But, I cannot get past the fact that this book needs serious editing. Please consider republishing a corrected version.
1848334
This book shines  an interesting light on an important time in history.  HOWEVER it has been badly served by editor(s) who didn't give a damn about their work.  It has obviously been subjected to the American version of spell-check but no one cared enough to check on spell-check. Among the many errors: Hitler has "intuitions " instead of ambitions,  Elaine has been inflicted with a "bear-shaped" behind, and Esme is supposed to have hidden in a farm shed storing MARIGOLDS instead of MANGOLDS which are a type of beet which was used as animal feed. These frequent discords break ones concentration and are very irritating. Unfortunately, this problem is all to common in ebooks.
3997933
I had high hopes for this book.  The reviews were high, and I'm still amazed how they could even read the story, let alone understand it.  I just have one word for this book.  Editing.  Even better, proof reading!  I staggered through several pages of the book, to find it mostly written in one long continuous paragraph, with very little ending of sentences.  There were so many typos, some of the words I couldn't even begin to figure out what the real word would have been.  It was so badly written, it was hard to distinguish who was saying what or thinking the thoughts.  It drove me nuts!  I couldn't get past the bad editing to understand what was going on in the story.  I couldn't finish it, and I definitely wouldn't recommend it.
2083918
The proofreading is so bad that I barely made it through these books. It's not a bad story but the writing is awkward so along with the errors it just took from being able to enjoy the story.
776344
The author provides an interesting insider's view of von Braun's rocket team. However, the book suffers from poor editing: names of cities in Germany and Belgium are quite simply incorrect. It also seems to me that the measurements of the missiles mentioned in the book cannot possibly be correct; they are given as metric, but are no doubt recalculations of English engineering units. The results are ludicrous. Range of the A4 is given as a convenient conversion of miles; engine diameter is a conversion of 1 foot, etc. If you are interested in a good read you will find lots of hard to find historical anecdotes in this book, but for me the story is spoiled and seriously flawed due to the aforementioned inconsistencies. Unfortunately this is not atypical for these kinds of histories. Some serious editing required!
2383495
So badly written and even worse is the editing.  I was interested in the story but the author repeated herself over and over and over... you get it.
I found myself flipping through skimming the pages wondering if I had read it already. I am having a hard time finishing, but I do want to see how it ends.
2406268
This story depicting how many victims and their families are treated within the legal system was quite informative - However, whoever edited this book should take a refresher course in editing. The numerous spelling and grammatical errors made for a chop pu and often irritating read
4164381
The author has compiled many interesting first-hand accounts amd much official history, but the writing, or perhaps the editing, is so abominable that only a PBY fanatic will be able to endure it to the end. I mean no offense to the author, but there is a reason publishers employ editors. The continual outrages against grammer, punctuation, capitalization and sentence structure make this book an agony for anyone who stayed awake through high-school English. That said, I'm still glad I read it, but then I'm a PBY fanatic. If you are too, go ahead.
2582893
The author told an interesting story but the misuse of words, horrible punctuation, poor grammar, and the missing structure or format of paragraphs made this book very hard to read. I have never seen so many semicolons used incorrectly. Several sentences throughout the book just did not make sense and I found myself constantly wanting to correct or edit the book. These distractions made it difficult to focus on the story. I find it hard to believe that this book was read or edited by anyone prior to publication and I will not be reading any more books by this author.
4554584
This comprehensive telling of the Royal Navy's roles throughout the world in WW2 is researched and retold well enough, but all this is severely compromised by terrible, unprofessional editing.  Redundancies appear from the get-go - what were the three names of Germany's navy between 1914 and 1940, again? - and syntax and style are often awkwards.  This is a shame, because the poor editing completely destroys the flow of the narrative, requiring the reader to double back and reread passages and sometimes whole pages in order to understand them.  Misplaced modifiers and mismatched pronouns and antecedents come and go like, ... ships in the night.  With a thorough and professional
re-edit, this could be an excellent book, but as it is now, it's a hulk much in need of a refit.