The Lunar Code

by Robert Foster

77 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 25, 2012

About the author

This is the disambiguation profile for otherwise unseparared authors publishing as Robert Foster

Reviews

[avril thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Masonry

The initial start of the story was interesting but as it progressed I found the masonic thread being stretched a bit to far and it was a little exaggerated.
I await his next short story with interest

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

A curious little crime thriller featuring cosmonauts, the Thames, Pink Floyd and an abundance of Freemasons.

[Crayboy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I suspect this is a teenagers first book - in which case, he has the potential to write something good. This book barely make fan-fiction standards. To many masons, and not enough story. It was not thrilling, or mysterious, or vaguely believable. Also, it desperately needed a proof reading. Almost every page has a gramatical error, redundant word, missing word or spelling mistake. At first I thought it was some sort of code, but it quickly became apparent that it was just sloppiness, indicating a writer who does not care about his work.

[Elizabeth Grieve · Rating 1 out of 5]

Got this as a freebie. Liked the idea of the plot, and despite the many, many errors kept reading until .... it seemed to end in mid-air. NOt sure if all the pages were actually there but it was very odd. I wouldn't read more from this author based on this one book.

As with most Kindle freebies it is in dire need of proofreading and editing.

[Joe B Loeser · Rating 1 out of 5]

A Questionable Story

This book was so inadequately edited I literally got dizzy reading it... The misspelled words and poor construction is so amateurish people are amazed. It is embarrassingly childish in its presentation. The author bears the humility. The publisher bears the stain on their reputation.


I am so disappointed ...

Joe Loeser

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good short thriller complete with Masonic conspiracy.

[David Graham · Rating 1 out of 5]

Poorly written and edited, awful dialogue, but mercifully short.