I have just read it. I think there are a couple of major errors that an editor should have picked up and that show that the manuscript wasn't ready to be published.
1. Perkins explains that Mann tried to get rid of a film reel in order to avoid being connected to the murder, but this is not possible, as the murder had not happened yet when he got rid of the reel at the gas station.
2. Perkins asks Jason to organize his evening with three meetings at 7, 8 and 8:30. These times are not kept at all but still it is said that they were "right on time" when they get to the last one. I think the times should have been 6, 7 and 7:30 - that may have worked.
I recently read Drug of Choice, which Crichton wrote as John Lange. I can see the similar pacing and styles between the two. A Murder in Hollywood was actually much better. I went back and took a look at the film reel, and you’re right. What was Mann’s motive for disposing of it? It seems weak. It felt more like a red-herring but it didn’t really make sense. Unless he intended to kill the screenwriter. It just wasn’t clear. All Perkins said was that Mann was embarrassed by the reel. That’s just not motive enough in my opinion. So totally fair point.
I do remember wondering about the timing when reading, now that you mention it. That was odd.
I have just read it. I think there are a couple of major errors that an editor should have picked up and that show that the manuscript wasn't ready to be published.
1. Perkins explains that Mann tried to get rid of a film reel in order to avoid being connected to the murder, but this is not possible, as the murder had not happened yet when he got rid of the reel at the gas station.
2. Perkins asks Jason to organize his evening with three meetings at 7, 8 and 8:30. These times are not kept at all but still it is said that they were "right on time" when they get to the last one. I think the times should have been 6, 7 and 7:30 - that may have worked.
I recently read Drug of Choice, which Crichton wrote as John Lange. I can see the similar pacing and styles between the two. A Murder in Hollywood was actually much better. I went back and took a look at the film reel, and you’re right. What was Mann’s motive for disposing of it? It seems weak. It felt more like a red-herring but it didn’t really make sense. Unless he intended to kill the screenwriter. It just wasn’t clear. All Perkins said was that Mann was embarrassed by the reel. That’s just not motive enough in my opinion. So totally fair point.
I do remember wondering about the timing when reading, now that you mention it. That was odd.