Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The concept of the story may have been entertaining, even interesting, had it not been so difficult to read. The best terms I can use to describe it are "clunky" and "awkward" and "flat". The science was questionable and clunky, the writing was awkward and the characters were flat. By far, the greatest problem I had with the book was the language. I might have been able to enjoy the book and overlook the science problems but I kept being pulled out of the story by it's many problems. I recognize that this is the author's first published work and it may have been self-published but I think his attempt would have been greatly improved by a competent editor. Even asking a high-school language arts teacher look it over would have helped tremendously. Here are a few examples of the types of things I mean (there may be spoilers): -there are simple typos: "The artifact yew called Dis Pater..." -poor grammar/missing words: "Obviously, the deposit reacted with the something in the drill..." "They spread was enough misinformation to keep the masses on the edge of doubt." "The sight before him was so grand that it was a good minute before Alex the absence of artificial gravity in the room" "Once it was brought into public knowledge of his near-screw-up..." "I will treat him like my one of my own" -and then there are times when a dictionary would have been helpful: "He had hoped for the young boy's *forbearance*, but did not really believe anyone could have survived that kind of trip." "This is Klaus Voglesburg, my young *ingénue*." "When the needle was *injected* in his arm and blood taken..." (sorry you don't inject the needle, only the contents of the syringe) And lastly, just a pet peeve, it seems that 80 years or so into the future no one "checks their watch" or "looks at a clock" but they always "glance at their chronometer". Never in this story is there a term used for a time-keeping device other than "chronometer". Is 80 years really enough time for "watch", "clock", etc. to so completely fall out of disuse? Why is it that authors sometimes think it necessary to "dazzle" us with a "fancy" word for an everyday object. We still call the device strapped to our hip a "phone" even though it bears no resemblance to the original telephone. Am I to believe that 80 years from now we may refer to it as a "personal telecommunications device". What really bothers me most is that this book was recommended to me by Amazon with multiple stars and glowing recommendations. I wonder, as did other reviewers, if the 5 stars were granted by friends and family of the author.