In the last few days, I’ve been getting a few more reviews on Amazon for the “The Sniper.” And today I got my first somewhat negative comments. Take a look.
4.0 out of 5 stars Uneven political thriller good for a slow day
Reviewed in the United States on April 3, 2026
Format: Kindle
The Sniper is a good, but uneven political thriller.
It’s not particularly deep, but entertaining. I liked the plot. I liked most of the characters.
The lack of a star was in the author’s (and maybe the editor’s) lack of basic writing. While the beginning of the novel is a great premise, the lack of detail is astonishing. It’s like someone describing a video game, but just the broad strokes. I read for the details.
The other nitpicky thing is that the basics of prose dialogue is ignored entirely. An exchange between two characters is all one paragraph. And then there’s the commas (or lack thereof). It’s the classic of “Is it Thanksgiving or cannibalism?”
It’s a casual read. If you can read past the details, the general plot is pretty good.
Very interesting.
The Good:
- The Sniper is a good … political thriller.
- … entertaining. I liked the plot. I liked most of the characters.
- … the beginning of the novel is a great premise
- … the general plot is pretty good
The Bad:
- … uneven
- It’s not particularly deep
- … the lack of detail is astonishing. It’s like someone describing a video game, but just the broad strokes. I read for the details.
- If you can read past the details
The Ugly:
- The other nitpicky thing is that the basics of prose dialogue is ignored entirely. An exchange between two characters is all one paragraph. And then there’s the commas (or lack thereof). It’s the classic of “Is it Thanksgiving or cannibalism?”
Yes, very interesting. First of all, this is honest criticism. This fellow doesn’t know me from Adam and he doesn’t owe me anything. That’s valuable to someone who wants to know whether his writing is any good. So, look at the things he likes; “entertaining. I liked the plot. I liked most of the characters.” Those are the most important basics of a story. That’s pretty good.
Look at the criticism; “uneven, not particularly deep, lack of details are astonishing.” He wants more! Okay, that’s a problem. This reader probably wants lots more technical description. So, in terms of the mining equipment and the technology for collapsing the earth under a city he wants the details. Fair enough. Well, there will be sequels and we can get that stuff fleshed out to satisfy the technical type. But since this book was about Bogey and he wasn’t a technical guy, I left that stuff aside. When Connors and Cutter get their stories, I’ll geek out on the details. So that’s okay.
Now for the ugly, I’m guessing that the reviewer was an author or an editor himself. I decided not to use a professional proofreader/editor for the book. I felt comfortable with the level of standard English I could provide. The reviewer is obviously very sensitive to the conventions of professional editing. And that’s legitimate but I’m guessing a lot of my readers won’t be as sensitive to that level of editorial finish.
So, I’m pretty happy with that review. I got an honest review and four out of five stars is pretty damn good news. So, I’m hoping to get a bunch more reviews and who knows I might even get an honest 3 stars from someone. I can take it.
