I was given the privelage of reading Denial of Justice, by Mark Shaw, a probe into the mystery surrounding the death of journalist and media icon Dorothy Kilgallen. Shaw’s investigation started with The Reporter Who Knew Too Much, revealing the circumstances around the mysterious death of Dorothy Kilgallen, who was investigating the death of John F. Kennedy and the possibility of a cover up by those in high places, involving the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald and the botched trial of his killer, Jack Ruby before her untimely death.
Shaw’s in-depth investigation of Kilgallen’s death following the release of that first book raises the possibility of a full blown cover-up which explodes in Denial of Justice, presenting facts revealing evidence that Kilgallen was murdered because of the evidence of conspiricy may not have been the only one whoshe had uncovered and was preparing to publish in her upcoming Random House book, and the cover-up surrounding it denying her the justice she was entitiled to. (You can see my review of The Reporter Who Knew Too Much here.)
While Denial of Justice recaps much of the information presented in The Reporter Who Knew Too Much concerning the Dorothy Kilgallen story, it goes into much more depth, laying bare the connections between her death and her investigations into the JFK and Oswald assassinations. Shaw presents strong evidence indicating that there was, indeed, a conspiracy revolving around the JFK assassination, and that Jack Ruby was used as a patsy in it’s orchestration, taking the fall in order to protect the powerful people behind it. It was a belief Kilgallen had been a major proponent of and didn’t hesitate to proclaim publicly in her newspaper column, The Voice of Broadway. Evidence indicates that Kilgallen held the evidence which would prove her conspiracy theory and reveal the powers behind it when she died. Shaw’s in-depth investigation uncovers facts that support this belief. In fact, he reveals a mountain of evidence that indicates Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered and point an accusing finger at the likely suspect. The cover-up of Dorothy Kilgallen’s murder is an extension of a much greater conspiracy, one that reaches all the way through time into the present day.Shaw’s straight forward journalistic approach to the telling of the facts makes the story unfold with smooth finness that keeps the pages turning. You may be shocked or surprised as he reveals evidence which indicates the powers operating in 1964 beyond the public eye and the hidden agendas they carried. Not one, but two lives wasted as tools to promote their unseen goals and a reporter who came too near to the truth may be pieces to puzzle that makes up what may be the biggest conspiracy in modern history. Shaw offers evidence which indicates who may have been behind it all, and the motivations for the taking of at least four deaths as sacrifice for keeping their secrets hidden.
Those who are supposed to be the guys aren’t always so good. Mark Shaw has expertly crafted the evidence into a story that changed my view of history and made me ponder what might have been, had events unfolded differently in 1964 and Dorothy Kilgallen lived to tell all that she knew. I give Denial of Justice five quills and kudos for a story well told.
Kaye Lynne Booth does honest book reviews on Writing to be Read in exchange for ARCs. Have a book you’d like reviewed? Contact Kaye at kayebooth(at)yahoo(dot)com.
Ask the Authors (Round 2)
It’s a necessary evil. Believe me, left on my own I can make mistakes. And I never see them because I see what I think I wrote, not what is actually there. Editing and revision is a must in my opinion.
Meh! LOL. Depends on how much I enjoy the story and how much time I have spent on it. Some stories I just absolutely love, and don’t mind going over it again and again, improving it, making it better. Others I just want out of my hands ASAP. Lol.
It really doesn’t bother me at all. My editor does the hard part.
It’s a necessary evil but it’s not my favorite part of the process.
Huge, each of them. My process is: I create an outline then write chapters and send them to my critique partners, getting daily feedback while I continue to write the rest of the story. Then I incorporate their suggestions, then send that revised MS to another CP who acts as editor. Then after any additional changes, the MS goes to betas, typos and other minor errors get fixed, and then it gets released.
alpha readers – my critique partners are pretty much my alpha readers and editors, as explained below
beta readers – this step is huge. My stories get read by a group of betas (post CPs and post editing) to see if the story is tight and to spot typos or errors. Each will see something the others didn’t, too. I love my betas.
critique partners – I used to be in a free online critique group, which I joined because I was told helping others would sharpen my own skills. It worked. After a few years, I quit that group and started my own (on a pay basis), and I began editing for others for a fee, but I still have a few key people from those days that I rely heavily on. They are basically my sole CPs and editor(s) now.
editors – I reciprocate editing with two other bestselling authors, so we hold each other to high standards. Using them is what makes my stories so good.
proofreaders – I use my beta readers as proofreaders. It’s like crowdsourcing, and they are good at it.
When I first started out, I tended toward asking everyone’s opinion and trying to take what they said as gospel. I also spent a lot of time explaining to everyone why their opinions were wrong! Hah! I’ve seen that with a lot of newer writers, too, so I guess it’s just part of the process. Now I tend more toward getting fewer opinions–a good editor is worth their weight in gold, obviously, but a bad editor can drain your will to live.
After finishing a novel, I send it to my critique partners. Once I’ve addressed their comments, I send it to my publisher. My publisher then sends the book through an editor for 2 edits, and then a final proofreader. I hate it when a typo or two still slip through!
Now that I am self-publishing, my manuscripts are gone over by my wife. She goes over my manuscript before it goes anywhere, and she is good about catching wrong words, misspellings, and bad grammar.
I have a critique partner who helps me with my second edit stage, and editor on hand that I ask for all those pesky little grammar rules and to make sure I get things right, and then I slip through my own manuscript and apply them. My shorter stories that I write for anthologies I send to my editor, and I use the feedback on my editorial mistakes and learn from them, doing my best to avoid them in my larger manuscripts.
Once I’m finished writing I send my manuscript to my beta readers before anybody else. They provide me with their suggested changes and most of the time I go with their suggestions. Once that is done, then it is off to the editor for two rounds of editing. Once the editing process is done then it goes to my arc readers. And then it’s published.
I generally use a professional editor for grammar, mechanics, and to ensure the story flows.
I use a combination. If I let my MS rest, I can catch a lot of mistakes. Between the CPs, the betas, and a final edit (I trade editing with two other bestselling authors), my MS is good to go. I do this for these reasons: 1. editing is expensive, but most stories need better pace more than they need commas in the right place, and few editors do as good a job at pace than I do/my CPs do; 2. Money spent on editing – often $750 – $1500 – would be better spent on marketing; and 3. My team does a good job, but I’ve read plenty of professionally edited manuscripts that (A) have errors and (B) don’t have errors but the story is boring because the pace sucks.
Write a gripping, fast-paced story with interesting characters readers care about, and you can have missing commas. Most editors fix the commas but most writers need the story fixed. MS Word will alert you to a lot of mistakes if you let it, and there is a lot of free online software you can use if you are worried about passive tense nonsense. If you use an editor, deliver them as clean a MS as you can by using the steps I’ve discussed first. It’ll save you money.
I’ve done pretty much every option at some point or other. My current preference is for advanced readers and a proofreader for novel-length work. Short stories tend to get a little more fast and loose due to deadlines.
My publishers all handle the editing process.
Before I started self-publishing my books, publishers supplied editors to go over my manuscripts. Now I do it myself, but with my wife’s help.
As a self-published author on the smell of an oily rag budget a 130K word manuscript can be very pricey to have edited. My critique partner is a wonderful help in the editing and proofing of the monster sized stories, and I use my editorial feedback from my shorter, professionally edited ones to try and avoid my errors. Like I said, I see them as learning experiences and use them to improve. But I ALWAYS have another set of eyes go across my manuscripts to check for final proofing before I hit publish.
I hire someone to do my editing, I don’t trust myself, and I think other authors are way too critical and read more into content and they do actual editing. Although my editor helps me with content he is less biased than another author would be.
I’ve worked with in-house editors at the publishing house; I’ve done it myself; and I’ve hired a freelancer. Of the 3 I preferred the in-house editor. I believe it was because she was on a retainer so she gave my work more attention than the freelancer who seemed to rush through it. I’m not saying all freelance editors are that way but you get what you pay for indeed. As for doing it yourself, I have done that to cut corners and it always comes back to bite me. Inevitably a reader will find a mistake.
I do everything. First, I edit it on myself. Then, I apply some online media resources, like “Prowritingaid” for instance. When I can´t find any mistakes, but I know they are there, I send it to a professional editor for line editing and proofreading. While doing this, I test some excerpts of the book in writing groups so I can receive feed-back on plot, voice, and narrative. When I get it back, I start my submissions to publishers. When it is accepted by a publisher, it will be edited again. On top of all that, I have no mercy while editing, I cut and cut repeatedly until it is the core essential words within the book. My motto is “if there is an idea that has been said in a hundred words that can be said in ten; use ten.” I am very satisfied with it, I may not have a long book, but I have everything that is needed for an enjoyable reading!
Yes, I write in the old style, the way authors wrote for the pulp magazines, and more was allowed back then. Adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and colorful phrases. Editors want to eliminate a lot of extra words, but writing for the pulps paid a cent a word, and authors had to get as many words in as they could to make enough for a good paycheck. That’s not how we’re paid today, for the most part. Although I recently submitted a story that pays three cents a word, we don’t really need all the extra words. But I’m writing stories that would have fit in the pulp magazines of the 1930s & ‘40s, and I want my stories to have the same sound. Editors can’t understand that.
I’ve had edits from an editor for an anthology that showed that they didn’t know what they were doing. Some people ‘think’ they know, but really they don’t. I think it’s important to get a sample edit done from an editor to see their work before you hire someone. My first book, I had three different sample edits done and quotes for the editing – one guy almost completely re-wrote my sample with all of his editing and totally missed the point entirely suggesting name changes to make characters easier for the reader to remember – I don’t think he grasped if I changed the names of my Egyptian gods, they wouldn’t be recognised as my Egyptian gods.
Yes. I had an editor work on two different manuscripts and on the first one it was a more in-depth edit. When it came to the second manuscript they seemed to have hurried through it. I wasn’t happy with that at all.
Have you ever received edits that made you think the editor was totally off, only to find as you began to work through them, that they were actually spot on?
Sort of. My very first editor was trying to help me but I was too defensive about the story. I learned to not be defensive, and things got a lot better.
- The reader can understand what’s going on.
- The reader forms clear opinions about the characters.
- The reader had a clear feeling about the ending.
That’s hard to say. Yes, the editor is qualified to make those changes in the modern style, but are they destroying what I am doing by making me follow modern writing, instead an eighty-year-old style I’m trying to imitate? There’s no easy answer here.
My favourite editor, the one who puts up with me asking for clarification of grammar rules. At first I was confused with some of her suggestions, and then when I queried her on them – yes, you can challenge your editor and ask them to clarify – and she explained WHY something was as it was, I nodded my head, filed the information away and worked to keep that new lesson learned first and forefront in my mind as I move forward with my new works.
No, my editors help me think outside the box at times and two right in areas that are far out of my comfort zone.
For the most part the editors I’ve worked with did have some good feedback. But its the readers who have given me the most food for thought. For instance, my last book Karma has some well developed antagonists that seemed to take over the story. It told me 2 things. (1) I need to punch up my hero characters and (2) The antagonist needs a story of their own!
Like this post? Subscribe to Writing to be Read for e-mail notifications whenever new content is posted or follow WtbR on WordPress.