Review: Crossed Out

Crossed Out by Kim Baccellia

Summary (from Goodreads): Stephanie Stewart didn’t ask for her gift of guiding the deceased to the other side but she’s stuck with it. Why can’t dead people just follow that bright light and leave her alone? When Mr. Undead wants to use her special talent for his own evil purposes, her little gift becomes a major liability.

My Thoughts: This book has a great premise and a great idea, but it’s really not very well executed. It was interesting, but not very deep. It should be deep, but it’s not. Add to that, this book has many editing errors, from grammar errors and typos to plot inconsistencies. The typos are simple things like missing periods, missing quotation marks, or “as” instead of “a” in one spot. Then there are spots that just look like sloppy editing. One example (from page 206):

Dylan turned the car toward a huge brown building peaking [sic] out over the hill – a cross between an old boarding prep school and hospital, peeked out over the hill.

Yikes. That’s one messy, confusing sentence. Not to mention “peaking” used in place of “peeking.” There were enough of these sloppy editing errors to make it distracting, especially when I factor in grammar errors and the aforementioned plot inconsistencies. Speaking of, check out the following example:

I glanced at the phone number scratched on the back of my hand. ~ page 58

As she climbed into her car, I took another peek at the black numbers in my palm. ~ page 61

I glanced down now at the slightly smudged on my palm and called. ~ page 62

So, was the number on the back of her hand or on the palm? It makes a difference. Consistency is important in writing – and not just reporting or nonfiction. It’s important in fiction, too, if for no reason other than the fact that it’s distracting to the reader. There was another one. Earlier in the book, during a dream, Stephanie slips on a lot of acorns. She thinks about whether the squirrels could find them, because winter is coming and they would need them.

Weird, how, at a time like this, I would be worried about those fearless furry rodents. ~ page 64

But, later, rats are mentioned, and we read that she is not fond of rodents.

I hated any kind of rodent. ~ page 151

So, she’s worried about the poor squirrels, which she refers to as “rodents” early on, but later proclaims that she hates all rodents. So … why’s she worried about the squirrels, then? A minor inconsistency – and not crucial to the plot – but it’s still an inconsistency. For astute readers, stuff like that is annoying and/or distracting. The writing shouldn’t interfere with the plot. The writing should bring a reader into the story and feel like he/she is a part of the world within those pages. I was never brought into Stephanie’s world. I felt like I was being talked to, not being drawn in.

Overall, it’s a great concept, and the story has great potential. I think that the story itself isn’t to blame for the weaknesses. The writing needs some tweaking, the characters need more depth, and the editing needs to be fixed. I will say, though, that I will make sure to read the sequel. There are some questions I want answered, and I hope those answers come in the next book.

My Rating: 2.5 stars

Source: Received as part of a blog tour promotion on Pump Up Your Book.

Find me on Goodreads.com >>

FTC Disclosure: All items reviewed were either obtained by me for my own enjoyment or sent (from the author, publisher, publicist, via tour sites, etc.) in exchange for an honest review. I receive no monetary compensation for my posts. All opinions expressed are my own.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.