(no subject)

[phosfate]

Shatnerquake is disappointing, but for incredibly stupid reasons. The writing isn't very good. And when I say that, I mean that the punctuation and sentence structure could be vastly improved by a simple Word spell- and grammarcheck. Or a mildly competent human editor. And -- this will sound insane, but when you open the book, you'll see it immediately -- the typesetting is godawful. Disproportionately huge paragraph indents that actually make the pages difficult to read.

It's a damn shame, because the story itself is quite funny (yes, T.J. Hooker does cling to the hood of a speeding vehicle). With a good polish it could be a minor cult jewel. Instead, the reader spends a lot of time deciphering the sentences before being able to read them. It reminds me of when I used to try to watch A Bit of Fry and Laurie on Bravo, scrambled (it was on the next cable tier up, and we didn't subscribe). "I bet that would have been really funny," I would think, "if I had actually seen it."

All that said, as satires of sci-fi fandom go, still a better read than Lee Goldberg's dire Beyond the Beyond. And the jacket painting is pretty awesome.

Comments

[random-nexus.livejournal.com]

Awwww, I'm sorry there was some fail mixed in with your Shatnerquake. I have seen similarly poorly QC'd books and wondered WTF, myself. Glad there was a good deal of win left for you, though.

Heh, when we first got cable, 'way back in the bronze age, I did sort of the same thing, trying to see the cool sci-fi movies that weren't on regular tv yet. *grins at Tikistitch* I didn't think to try for the pr0n, but that was ignorance, not virtue. No clue in mah lil head then.

[annlarimer.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure we even had prawn channels in our system back then.