First of all I will point out that the author's affection for his subject is obvious. That is the plus. However, he negates any positives by his awful, sloppy writing. I would think that if you are writing about a subject you enjoy and care about, you would not do it in such a sloppy manner and you would take the time to research the most basic things such as spelling...Citizen CANE, anyone????? Memo to Mr. Law: Don't rely solely on a spell checker in a word processing program. You should print out a hard copy and go over it line by line and word for word.
The minuses are numerous, thus making for an entertaining read. However, I am sure the author did not intend for the entertainment factor to come from the reader finding the errors in the book.
Technically, this is probably the worst written book I have ever read. It is full of errors in grammar and spelling, many of them rendered even more foolish because the author could have checked these so easily and avoided looking ridiculous. The blurb on the back of the book (written by the author himself?) calls it "clearly written" which makes it even funnier.
If the author is an editor as the back cover claims, I feel sorry for any author getting stuck with Mr. Law as their editor; he can't even do a good job on his own book. And if he did not edit his own book, who did? An "editor" worse than the author?
This guy's work is so incredibly sloppy it is actually amusing to read this book just to find the errors. It seems as if there is something on just about every page that is spelled incorrectly or incoherently written. He might want to consider finding another line of work because he cannot write or edit very well.
Most of the material is re-hashed information from Castle's own autobiography, so the author does not present much in the way of new material or deliver any new insight on his subject. The "analysis" of the Castle films at the end is also rather silly.
To point out just a few of the errors that jumped out at me: Passed instead of past; bares instead of bears; look instead of looked; their instead of they're; grizzly instead of grisly; and two of my favorites: "finance" instead of "fiance" and "tailcoats" instead of "coattails"
Other errors that are hilarious simply because they would have been so easy to check are: "Ruth Gordan" "A Streetcar Names Desire" and "Doctor Shivago" to name just a few.
It's too bad this book is so horribly written and edited because just about any kid growing up in the late fifties or early to mid sixties was probably a fan of the cheesy William Castle horror films, and would probably enjoy reading about Castle if for nothing else than to bring back those memories.
Aside from his own autobiography, it would be fun to have a really good, entertaining book about Castle and his films. Unfortunately, this is not the book.
Other blurbs on the back call it "articulate and insightful" and "the only book of its kind" to which I have to disagree with the first statement and heartily agree with the second. It is certainly a one-of-a-kind book!
As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that the entertainment value of this book is derived from finding glaring errors everywhere, because this is a subject I was looking forward to reading about. There really is no excuse for such a sloppily written and edited book. An allegedly experienced "editor" really should turn out work of a higher caliber.
To echo another reviewer, the publishing industry need not worry about the proliferation of "print on demand" or self published types of books. If this "iuniverse" book is any example, the publishing industry has nothing to fear.