Yes, because the story was good. Not great but good. It suffers from a common malady, that of adult authors trying to sound like kids. They never seem to get it right. But the story held together in spite of that.
The tension of the individual set pieces was well done.
This may be the poorest match of reader and story ever. Miller seems to just be reading the words as written with no attempt at all to tell a story. As a person reads a book, their brain fills in the missing elements - the atmosphere, the cadence of the voices, the sights and sounds that are suggested by the story. But when listening to someone else read a book, those nuances that make the story come alive need to come from the narrator.
Miller provides none of that. His reading is flat and uninflected, a real disappointment. And the fact that it is a horror story that relies on building tension, well, if the story hadn't been such fun, I'd have asked for a refund.
I would listen to Will Patton or Campbell Scott read road signs for 24 hours straight. But if I see Dan John Miller's name on another book, I will avoid it no matter how great the story.
For the story - and only the story - yes.
There is no such thing as "a myriad of." Myriad is a plural modifier. You don't have "a myriad of" grammatical mistakes in a book. You have "myriad" grammatical mistakes. The word was used incorrectly at least twice in this book. I know that I'm being pretty anal but seriously, authors should know stuff like this.
Report Inappropriate Content