pet peeves in OTHER novels.... [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Adam Mac Brown

11-26-2004, 09:54 PM

Funny. I was just considering this question last night when I got annoyed by a passage in the book I'm reading. Just a small peeve.

I'll give you a made-up example.

The king's brother finally shows himself to be a sniveling traitor and attacks a castle outpost. The defenders fight valiantly but lose. The hero is tasked with the journey to inform the king.

I know the characters well and am thinking: ``Whoa man! The king is just gonna freak when he finds out.''

The next phrase in the book though: ``After three days of consultations, the king had decided he must deal with his brother.'' Or some such.

Obviously, an author doesn't want to recount the incident on the page. The reader already knows it. But I really want to see the king stomp his feet, spill his milk, whatever. At least for a few sentences.

I guess my peeve is that authors too often skip the reaction along with the recounting. I often find myself waiting for a reaction from a key character only to be disappointed. This goes against the gossipy instinct of humans. ``Wait until so-and-so finds out.''

Or is that peeve too idiosyncratic?

Terra Aeterna

11-26-2004, 10:05 PM

alright <== >: I know it's probably the way all right is going to be spelled from now on, but it looks hideous and wrong to me. There I am, enjoying the story and

alright

leaps off the page at me and then I have to slap my brain around a bit so that I'm not in proofreading mode instead of enjoyment mode.

Greenwolf103

11-26-2004, 10:39 PM

2 pages of info dump, mid-scene, about the history of the Louvre.

Maestro, you wouldn't happen to be referring to The Hunchback of Notre Dame would you? :rollin (Ugh, 10 pages devoted to a STREET!)

My pet peeves is where the author feels that they're geniuses and have to explain EVERYTHING to the readers. Point in question: City of Bones by Michael Connelly. Maybe we think that acronyms stand for this and that in our minds (and this story IS in first person) but my grief was the author immediately inserting the definition of police lingo right in the next sentence (or so).

Also: Cliched characters (oh, so she comes from an abusive past and now she's all talk until someone makes her crumble. Riight.); predictable plots; the author suddenly grabbing me back to reality to whisper need-to-know information; the author presenting a character with a crisis without giving me a chance to even CARE about him/her (and going through a root canal right at the book's beginning doesn't cut it); the whole "it was all a dream" ending; killing off the first-person-POV character (so the whole story I just read came from a ghost? Why wasn't I told in the beginning??); characters who can, without screwing up, pick a lock/hotwire a car/perform a stunt/hack into a computer, even though they've NEVER done this before; and any book that starts with "it was a dark and stormy night." :b

stormie267

11-26-2004, 10:50 PM

Okay, I'll add mine.

When authors dump too many characters into the novel. I feel like I need a notebook just to keep track of each character.

When they churn out two books a year, and you can tell. Same plot, same characters but with different names,....

When their photo takes up the entire back cover. (I know, it's picky, but I'd rather read a few blurbs.)

ChunkyC

11-26-2004, 11:05 PM

Overused phrases such as:

He swelled with pride.

The room lit up when she entered.

She gave him a sideways glance.

I'm always having to hack them out of my own stuff in the revision process.

vstrauss

11-26-2004, 11:37 PM

>>2 pages of info dump, mid-scene, about the history of the Louvre.

Cardboard characters that bore me to death.<<

Gosh, maestro, what overblown, overhyped, bogusly-researched mega-bestseller could you possibly be referring to?

- Victoria (also peeved by that one)

Writing Again

11-26-2004, 11:46 PM

two paragraphs describing the details of a sniper rifle. 'he aimed the brotworth 342 with a double-over bore of .30 on top of the .240 calibre with the gonkulator sub-assembly,' tells me nothing

This is one of those Catch 22's.

I needed a gun to do something in one of my novels. I went to the gun shop, found one that would do what I needed done, and described it just as I saw it in the case. The salesman even let me hold it so I could describe its feel.

My objective was so I would not have it shoot too many shots, or not be able to shoot the right distance, things like that.

One of the revisions the editor wanted was phrased this way: "A lot of readers know their guns. They may not be able to find a lump on their wife's breast, but they know every scratch inside the barrel of their brotworth 342 with a double-over bore of .30 on top of the .240 caliber with the gonkulator sub-assembly: So you had better include it -- And the details had better be right."

So I had to chase down a friend of mine who is a gunologist and have him fill in the details that would satisfy those readers.

Jamesaritchie

11-27-2004, 01:49 AM

Generally, it's just poor writing and poor storytelling that bother me the most.

But a lack of accuracy drives me up the wall.

Lack of knowledge about weapons is a good example, and it drives me bonkers. I hate, hate, hate it when a character has a weapon do something that isn't possible. Many readers do know all about weapons, and I'm one of them. If you're going to have a weapon used, get it right.

Don't tell me a character can hit a man in the eye at a mile with a sniper rifle. He can't. No matter how good he is, no rifle on earth is that accurate.

DO bore me with such things as ballistic coefficient (the ratio of a bullet's sectional density to its coefficient of form), mid-range trajectory (How far above line of sight a bullet rises at a point halfway to the target), muzzle velocity, etc. Any good rifle shot will know these things. Show me you know that if a rifle has a twenty power scope, every movement of the user's body, including his heartbeat, is going to also be multiplied by a factor of twenty when he looks through that scope. When you look through a high power scope, the sight picture jumps a little every time your heart beats. Show me the shooter knows something about windage. If a shooter doesn't know how far a given bullet from a given calibre drifts in a wind of a given speed, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if he were locked inside.

These things don't have to be spelled out in minute detail, but it should be apparent the shooter knows them. If he doesn't, he isn't going to be any good with a rifle, and the only way I'll believe the scene is if he misses his target.

It always best to write a scene with those who do know the facts in mind, rather than writing it with those who don't know the facts in mind.

Inaccuracies of any kind drive me crazy.

Fresie

11-27-2004, 02:18 AM

Badly researched nationalities and their traditions. The French who do nothing but drink red wine and listen to the accordion; the Russians who drink vodka to a freaky "Na zdorovie!" (Russians never toast like this) and break glasses afterwords; a Japanese geisha who is a karate black belt... you got it. Any book containing these or similar is sent flying across the room.

Writing Again

11-27-2004, 02:55 AM

Lack of knowledge about weapons is a good example, and it drives me bonkers. I hate, hate, hate it when a character has a weapon do something that isn't possible. Many readers do know all about weapons, and I'm one of them. If you're going to have a weapon used, get it right.

Don't tell me a character can hit a man in the eye at a mile with a sniper rifle. He can't. No matter how good he is, no rifle on earth is that accurate.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not Ludlum and I don't write about professional marksmen assassinating foreign diplomats from tall buildings. Or even hunters shooting deer from a bunker in a tree.

I made sure I used a rifle that would do what I needed it to do in the novel. Any rifle that would have produced the result would have worked fine.

DO bore me with such things as ballistic coefficient (the ratio of a bullet's sectional density to its coefficient of form), mid-range trajectory (How far above line of sight a bullet rises at a point halfway to the target), muzzle velocity, etc. Any good rifle shot will know these things. Show me you know that if a rifle has a twenty power scope, every movement of the user's body, including his heartbeat, is going to also be multiplied by a factor of twenty when he looks through that scope. When you look through a high power scope, the sight picture jumps a little every time your heart beats. Show me the shooter knows something about windage. If a shooter doesn't know how far a given bullet from a given calibre drifts in a wind of a given speed, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if he were locked inside.

That would be a little hard in my case because I have yet to write about a character who knows any of those things.

In the novel I cited earlier the person using the rifle is a good guy who knows nothing about guns who managed to get one of the bad guy's weapons. In fact he missed his shot. What was important was what the bullet did when it missed that caused problems for everyone, both good and bad.

In another story the guy is holding up a store with a gun he stole. I don't know if he even knew whether it was loaded. The subject never came up.

In one novel the person using the gun grabs a friend's pistol. The only thing pertinent to the story is how many shots it holds -- Yet I'm expected to become a blooming gun expert to satisfy all those little details.

These things don't have to be spelled out in minute detail, but it should be apparent the shooter knows them. If he doesn't, he isn't going to be any good with a rifle, and the only way I'll believe the scene is if he misses his target.

I suspect there are a lot of successful hunters who don't know all those things. They just point, let out their breath, hold steady and pull the trigger slowly. Not sure why they let their breath out, but the ones I know all seem to think it is a necessary part of the ritual.

It always best to write a scene with those who do know the facts in mind, rather than writing it with those who don't know the facts in mind.

True, but when I write about a television all that matters is whether the sound and the picture works, not the make and the model. When I write about a car all I have to do is make sure the car in the story will do what it needs to do. Everyone accepts that Cadillacs don't do well in the mountains and that Jeeps don't have over sized trunks. The engine, transmission, drive train, and rear end are only important if I'm writing about race cars... Another thing I don't do. This is true even though there are as many people who are dippy about cars as there are people who are dippy about guns.

There just seems to be something about guns, I don't know what it is, that makes people want to know things that are totally irrelevant to the story.

Jamesaritchie

11-27-2004, 04:12 AM

I suspect there are a lot of successful hunters who don't know all those things. They just point, let out their breath, hold steady and pull the trigger slowly. Not sure why they let their breath out, but the ones I know all seem to think it is a necessary part of the ritual.

None that I've ever known. And as a lifelong hunter and a lifelong member of the NRA, I've known a great many hunters. Successful hunters generally know far more about rifles than I mentioned. There's far, far more to making a difficult shot than just holding steady and pulling the trigger slowly. Successful hunters not only have to know the things I mentioned, but fifty other things, as well. No hunter is going to be successful in any way without knowing all there is to know about windage, about bullet penetration, about how different types of bullets work when they hit flesh, about mid-range trajectory, and half a dozen other things. Without solid knowledge of mid-range trajectory and windage, you won't hit your target, even if you're steady as a rock.

And you don't let all your breath out, only half of it. It's for the same reason you let out part of your breath when you try holding your breath under water. Too much air in the lungs makes it harder. Take a deep breath, let out part of it, and you can then hold your breath longer, and you'll be steadier in the process.

"Squeezing the trigger" is something I'd as soon never see again, too. You never really squeeze the trigger. And if you have any experience with a rifle, you don't even pull the trigger slowly. That's for beginners. Experience shooters generally do what's called a "trigger press." It's very fast.

Triggers are something else. They aren't one kind for every occasion. You have to know something about trigger pull, how much play there is in a trigger, the difference between a crispt and a soft trigger, a regular trigger and a set trigger, or a set trigger and a double-set trigger.

No one really holds a firearm steadily. Some are steadier than others, but no one is steady. It can't be done. Even with a rifle on a benchrest, there's just a bit of movement. Anyone firing offhand is going to be moving all over the place.

It's true enough that if you write about a television all that matters is the puicture and the sound, and true enough about cars. But it's also true that you still have to get the facts right, and when you don't know about weapons, you'll probably do stupid things with them in a story.

You know a Cadillac can't climb a sheep trail the way a Jeep can, so you wouldn't have it do this. But writers make equally stupid statements about firearms all the time.

It isn't just about guns, it's about any piece of technology the writer thinks he can bluff his way through. He can't. It's fine to say a character gets on his computer and e-mails someone. It's not fine when the writer has that computer do something computers can't do. If he does, he'll get caught.

But too many writers think all there is to hittting a target with a weapon is picking it up, aiming, and pulling the trigger. Doesn't matter how far away the target is, or what kind of weapon it is.

These thing sometimes aren't relevant to the story, but far more often than not, they are, even if it's behind the scenes.

It's fine to have a character who doesn't know anythong about firearms. But don't have that character be an expert shot, it simply does not ever work this way in real life. And do not ever have that character do something with a weapon that only an expert can do, or that can't be done at all, even by an expert.

People know how to drive a car, most people, on the other hand, are completely ignorant about firearms.

Sometimes such detail and knowledge can be irrelevant to the story, but more often than not, such details and knowledge make all the difference between a story that's believable, and one that's all bluff.

Sometimes "write what you know" really is meaningful. A character make have a reason for ignorance about a subject. The writer never does.

But the real point is, weapons are nothing at all like TVs and cars. If the character doesn't know enough to use a weapon effectively, then don't have him do so. You wouldn't have a person who has never driven a car jump in the car and be a good driver, so don't have a character who's never fired a weapon pick it up and be a good shot. And all using a TV generally involves is turning it on.

Most people have been using TVs and cars all their lives. Very few have much experience with firearms. It's seldom as simple as picking one up, pointing it, and pulling the trigger.

Odds are someone who lacks experience won't even know where the safety is, or, if it's a handgun, whether or not it even has a safety. Revolvers have no safety at all, while some semi-auto handguns have a trigger guard safety, a hammer lock safety, and a grip safety.

A rifle may also have different types and numbers of safeties, depending on whether it's a bolt action, a lever action, a pump action, or a semi-auto. Even a bolt action may have a trigger guard safety or a tang safety.

Fortunately, many writers do take the time to get these details right. It isn't difficult. If you don't know, someone else will. But when a writer doesn't take the time, and has a character do something really stupid or unrealistic with a weapon, it can make a lot of readers, and editors, put down the story and look for another.

mr mistook

11-27-2004, 06:56 AM

Wow! Now I need to add guns to my ever growing list of research items.

So far I need to research:

*Manhattan's Upper West Side (circa 1994)

*Applied Tae Kwon Do

*certain facets of Buddhism

*certain facets of the record industry

*and now guns.

mr mistook

11-27-2004, 07:22 AM

As far as pet peeves go...

I have to agree with the implausible or plain unimaginative science that plagues most science fiction. I read too much Carl Sagan and other hard science growing up. It spoiled me for science fiction.

I also agree with the air conditioning ducts being over used. Along those lines, many authors have a very limited understanding of HVAC, plumbing, electricity, carpentry, etc.

No drop-ceiling in the world could support the weight of a small child, much less a grown man, yet spy-types routinely crawl around on the top-side of these flimsy ceilings.

Things that go down drains and end up somehow coming out the supply lines. That's 100% impossible.

cars that explode when they fall too far or impact too fast.

People who get knocked unconscious with a single blow.

People who accept strange things too easily:

"Jan, I've come from the future."
"My god! Hmmm. Wow! Okay, let's go."

reph

11-27-2004, 07:45 AM

A series of actions that involve one or several characters but, halfway through the book, haven't added up to anything meaningful and show no promise of doing so, as if the author had constructed the story by saying "Hmm, let's see what I can make happen next."

preyer

11-27-2004, 08:36 AM

the minutae of guns was just an example. and obviously i'm not saying i hate all details, but just the make and model of a gun tells me nothing. i think it's fair to give the readers credit for knowing how a stick shift works, but to suppose just because it's a crime novel we should know what obscure weapondry can and can't do is stretching things. and i'd rather know about windage and mid-range trajectory than description that reads like a serial number out of a catalogue.

some of it's really honestly unnecessary, though, like describing the type of engine the plane has, as in, 'the cessna had a hoochability type-b engine that sam wich, P.I., listened to as he stared out the window.' just over-detail annoys me, especially the kind that provides no bearing on my understanding of what's being described. if you wanted to add that that brotworth rifle was 'what russian snipers used, accurate but not always reliable in a clinch,' okay, now that works better. assuming i know all that about a brotworth (i just made that name up, btw) is assuming too much. telling me the person wore half-rim glasses with a weak presecription is all i need to know, not what his prescription is, know what i mean? that is, if you happen to be an expert in something, that's no reason to show off every bit of your knowledge to impress the reader who will only be bored with too much info.

i know what you mean about lack of accurate detail, though. one guy's story i was reading off the net treated an old vw bug like it was a regular car, having it be an automatic, front engine with a radiator. that the rest of the story was actually pretty good didn't matter as much because there was such a pall hanging over the rest because he missed the details.

add to ductwork the ability to pull a fire alarm and within two minutes have the entire population of the skyscraper standing on the street while the hero steals the information from a computer, avoiding being narrowly caught as they hide under the desk waiting for the disk to trap the data as after four minutes people start filing in back to work.

mm, every book i do there's actually a lot of research i wind up doing. that's probably true of every novelist at some point. some will read entire libraries on the subject and could probably pass college exams on the subject. the last book i did i had my heroes steal a hot air balloon, so i did a little research on them. i looked stuff up and got some general info, some details, things like that. i'm no expert on them, but i hope to know enough about them to let the reader know i did some research, and hopefully enough for someone who does know about them to buy into it. so, i think things like that you can fake a lot easier than guns, which, yeah, people will call you on. i then had two balloons 'crash' in mid-air; did i get the physics right? who really knows. and really who even cares? as long as you don't have them explode upon collision, put a little common sense into things, it should work out good enough for most people to believe. the important thing for me was to get what details i had in there correct and learn the reader a thing or two. i love learning @#%$ when reading.

same book, i had a couple of grenades totally rip off the roof of a train's observation deck. now, i know that was completely implausible, but you know what, i don't care and neither should the reader. it's just a cheesy action/adventure. hard core sci-fi is a different beast: you gotta know your @#%$.

hey, anyone ever watch 'mythbusters'? that show rocks ass.

R Lee E

11-27-2004, 09:47 AM

originally posted by maestro "Sci-fi with inplausable science."

shucks, that rules me out ;)

Aramas

11-27-2004, 11:01 AM

'Cutesy banter' between couples - it makes my skin crawl. The worst offenders I've encountered in sci fi/fantasy are Heinlein and Eddings. I won't even pick up a book by either now.

I recently grabbed the latest Wheel of Time novel from the Library, and I can't beleive I made it through the previous installments. The poor deluded fool seems to think he understands women, and if I ever see another girl smooth her blue satin dress with gold and silver embroidered stars, a high collar and finely worked matching earings, co ck an eyebrow and think "The nerve! How dare she look at me like that!" I'll vomit.

Writing Again

11-27-2004, 11:33 AM

James, I can assure you that I have personally never had a gun do something that particular gun could not do.

I have written about "crack shots" back when I wrote pulp westerns. Quick draws and crack shots were the order of the day.

One problem I have, and you touched on it to an extent: In the world of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys the heroes were crack shots, jet pilots, and all around experts in everything -- But in the real world few people are experts in more than one or two things, if that.

My main characters are ordinary people who suddenly find themselves over their heads in trouble.

I don't relate to the super hero, or the desire to write one.

Mr Mistook,

You don't really need to learn about all of those things. One of the reasons I recommend writers have a wide circle of friends of all kinds classes and types.

People who know things are usually happy to help you. I personally know cops, hunters, and even a couple who do the "old time musket" shooting. If I need to know something they will tell me. And yes, I thank them in the acknowledgments.

OOOOPs...

You are way wrong here.

People can be knocked unconscious with a single blow.

I know for a fact.

One minute I was standing up talking to the guy.

The next I was flat on my back looking up wondering how I had gotten down there.

I never saw it coming, I never saw it land. I felt something, and a few minutes later I woke up.

mr mistook

11-27-2004, 12:39 PM

Writing Again,

Were you knocked unconscious, or were you simply knocked silly? The story you told - a similar thing happened to my brother. He and I got in a fight with two jerks on the block (we were teenagers). The whole thing was over in a matter of seconds. I managed to block the blows that were coming at me, but after the jerks ran off, I saw my brother on the ground in a complete daze. It took him several hours to get oriented, and even then, he simply couldn't remember being punched.

Anyway, I know it's possible to deliver a true K.O. and knock a guy out cold, but... it's like the Vulcan Death Grip, it takes a master to put somebody out cold with a single conk to the noggin. Just once I'd love to read a fight scene where the protagonist bashes the but of his pistol on the back of the bad guy's head, and instead of passing out, the bad guy just get's really pissed off and cries, "#U(%! That Hurt! Why you, I oughta..."

------------------

As for your advice about research, I'm inclined to side with you, and also Preyer. I don't want to totally wing it, but if theres a limit to what I can understand about guns or hot air balloons, I try to make sure the descriptions fall inside those limits.

I'd like to find people in my circles who could fill me in on the details of things, but my circles aren't what they used to be, and even in my heyday, I never knew a blessed soul who so much as touched a gun.

--------------------------

As for Sci-Fi... like I said - Carl Sagan and his ilk just spoiled the genre for me. I recognize, however, that much of the charm of Sci-Fi is in the symbolism. In other words - it's not always about the science.

Arthur C. Clarke was probably one of the most scrupulous Sci-Fi authors, but probably not the most entertaining.

Pthom

11-27-2004, 02:49 PM

I read too much Carl Sagan and other hard science growing up. It spoiled me for science fiction. ... Carl Sagan and his ilk just spoiled the genre for me.Interesting. I too have read lots of "hard science" but find it only feeds my imagination for writing SF. And, the late Mr. Sagan wrote a pretty damned good science fiction yarn, Contact (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671004107/104-7382962-2769536?v=glance). In fact, many of whom I consider to be among the better SF writers are, or were, professional scientists.
Asimov
Niven
Bear
Brin
and surely many others.

mr mistook

11-27-2004, 03:38 PM

Well, with regard to Sagan, one thing he said about aliens has wedged itself stubbornly into my mind. He went on about how all life forms on Earth are structured as they are because of the planet's mass, composition, etc. He said that an alien might have a very hard time distinguishing between a human and a preying mantis (or something like that) because we all have heads with eyes and solid appendages branching out of a torso, etc, etc.

He further argued that a sentient being from another planet might be so truly alien that we would be utterly unable to recognize it as a life form even if it were standing right in front of us.

So when you think about all the possible types of planets out there and the possible forms of life they might form, and the weird bodies and the weird technologies that could arise, many of which could be beyond our ability to grasp....

well Mr. Spock and his pointy ears just doesn't seem to cut it!

"Contact" was great, but Sagan can't commit himself to showing us the aliens' bodies, and draws their culture in very broad strokes to get around the fact that the facts of alien culture may be largely unknowable.
----------------------

As for Clarke, he's written some gems. He was hailed as somewhat of a phrophet, but I remember stories by him where the super advanced alien invaders from another galaxy had vacuum tube computers! Even Clarke couldn't forsee transistors or microchips.

That's the horrible thing about predicting the future... it's impossible!

Writing Again

11-27-2004, 08:01 PM

Were you knocked unconscious, or were you simply knocked silly?

I was silly before that. Was not dazed. Was about twenty, he wasn't a boxer in the professional sense but he knew how to box. We were talking. I had no idea I was in a fight until it was over.

well Mr. Spock and his pointy ears just doesn't seem to cut it!

His pointy ears are about all the alien most people can take.

Human beings can't even adjust to me for crying out loud let alone an alien. To a conservative I have to be a liberal because I don't think like a conservative. To a liberal I have to be a conservative because I don't think like a liberal.

Neither camp can conceive there just might be a third opinion. Same with atheists versus Christians and Communists versus Capitalists. None of them can conceive that there can possibly be a third opinion. And if they do grasp that idea then they insist it must fit upon an arc between their two opposing opinions.

"You are with me or you are against me. Now which is it?" is the slogan of mankind. There are only two reasons for disagreeing with the speaker -- you are either the enemy or an idiot.

An alien might not be able to tell a human from a dolphin. To humanity the dolphin is the ultimate alien. Even when we know it is as intelligent as the human the human will discount that as important because the dolphin shows no interest in watching Internet porn.

katdad

11-27-2004, 08:39 PM

>>So I had to chase down a friend of mine who is a gunologist and have him fill in the details that would satisfy those readers. <<

It depends on the genre, of course.

The author Stephen Hunter writes superb techno-thrillers that deal with some aspect of firearms. His "Point of Impact" is a prime example. He's skillful enough to provide technical info without belaboring the point.

But naturally he's writing to a specific audience who will ask for accuracy when dealing with firearms.

Myself, as a writer of modern urban private detective novels must maintain accuracy regarding firearms, too, since it's crime fiction. But I don't spend too much time on them as they are only ancillary to the story.

It's also incumbent on me to be accurate regarding crime & police work in general, murder scene descriptions (including pertinent medical info) and similar genre-specific details.

That being said, it's important that I tell a good story first, otherwise the book becomes a firearms instruction manual and puts everyone but the anal-retentive to sleep.

katdad

11-27-2004, 08:55 PM

>>Fortunately, many writers do take the time to get these details right. It isn't difficult. If you don't know, someone else will. But when a writer doesn't take the time, and has a character do something really stupid or unrealistic with a weapon, it can make a lot of readers, and editors, put down the story and look for another.<<

Myself, being a lifelong gun "nut" and NRA member (but not much of a hunter), I've been able to help out writers on another forum who had some questions about firearms.

I think it's good that we have forums like this for these things -- those who don't know get help from those who do.

For myself, writing private detective fiction, I of course must have my gun info accurate, but my books don't dwell on guns either. It's not the main thrust of my stories.

In fact, as a sometimes gun article writer (mostly on modern handguns, concealed carry, self defense, etc) I find excessive and boring details creeping into my books, and I have to "slap hands" to keep it out!

One short chapter deals with the two main characters visiting the gun range for some practice, but the main point of the chapter is an ongoing conversation about the present murder case, and the gun details are secondary.

It's not incumbent for a writer to include minutae about guns in a book, but it's also essential that clear errors are not included, like putting a safety on a revolver.

What peeves me is that a non-crime writer will put a safety on a revolver without thinking that's a no-no, but would not consider making his characters (as someone already said) drive a Caddy up the side of a steep rugged hillside.

In other words, some writers wouldn't dare put a stupid error about car performance in a book but don't give a damn about errors about guns, computers, or science. A turn-off for me.

EAMcGuire

11-28-2004, 12:42 AM

Hi everyone. I'm new here. Been reading for a while and just couldn't let these two go...

Mr. Mistook wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No drop-ceiling in the world could support the weight of a small child, much less a grown man, yet spy-types routinely crawl around on the top-side of these flimsy ceilings.<hr></blockquote>

The drop-in ceiling doesn't, but if it's commercial space the ceiling most likely conceals steel beams that easily support a person's weight (my network tech is frequently removing one of the tiles in our building and climbing up into the ceiling and pulling cable along the steel beams (I'm an IT Manager)).

Preyer wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>the ability to pull a fire alarm and within two minutes have the entire population of the skyscraper standing on the street while the hero steals the information from a computer, avoiding being narrowly caught as they hide under the desk waiting for the disk to trap the data as after four minutes people start filing in back to work<hr></blockquote>

Even a two floor office building with 180 employees and practiced fire procedures can't empty in two minutes,, so I agree with that. However, they don't start going back in four minutes (or were you saying that's what the author wrote and it's not realistic?). Anywho, when a fire alarm is triggered, the fire department come. If there's no evidence of fire and no one is able to tell them the alarm was pulled because of a fire, they walk through the entire building and check every room in said building. This may vary from area to area - I only have experience in our building. And it may be that if someone is able to tell 911 who pulled the alarm and that it was just a joke or an accident they'll cancel the call, I'd have to check on that with management to see if that's possible for us. But the fact remains that at least in some areas the fire department does come and does a walk through of the entire building when an alarm goes off.

I've only seen scenes about snatching computer data in movies, but I can tell you 99.9% of the computer-specific stuff is nonsense, fire alarm or not. I find it amusing rather than annoying... <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif" />

pianoman5

11-28-2004, 08:49 AM

As a long term IT person I'm irritated by so many movies that include computing scenes.

A nerdy guy explains that "this is the fastest supercomputer in the world, and it can do a billion zillion computations per second", and then they all crowd round the monitor to watch the mighty behemoth struggle to sputter out the desperately awaited result a character at a time, at the speed of a 1950s teleprinter.

writestuff24

11-28-2004, 09:34 AM

Things that bug me when I'm reading:
*ANYONE tingling in anticipation
*heaving breasts&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
*when a happy ending is forced for market appeal (sometimes I don't want the guy to get the girl-they'll both be okay, they'll move on)
*10 pages of description on an inanimate object (like a pot-bellied stove-can you guess who I'm referring to?)
*over dramatic events-if I have to read about one more woman clutching her breast and wailing over the dear John letter I will return the book and ask for my money back
What I DO like:
*prose that reads as smooth as poetry
*character driven novels
*intelligent, witty, sarcastic love-to-hate-um characters

maestrowork

11-28-2004, 01:42 PM

Last minute/second "save the world" plot. For example, please refer to the aforementioned author who wrote about the Louvre.

mr mistook

11-28-2004, 02:50 PM

hehe... just once I'd like to read a story where it was up to one man to save the world or the universe and he failed.

Last sentences of the book:

"Well, I tried my best."

BLAMMO!

Flawed Creation

11-29-2004, 11:57 AM

It is certainly possible to knock someone out with one strike.

I, personally, feel confident that i could knock out and probably kill an average person with one strike. of course, one should realize that by "kill" i do not mean instant death, but simply a lethal injury. frequently death is not instantaneous.

however, in general i agree that the one-blow KO is a cliche and frequently inaccurate. i'd be surprised if it could really happen nearly as often as it is depicted.

Stlight

11-29-2004, 12:40 PM

On drop ceilings, I've never had one that could support the weight of a grown cat or unfortunately an opossum. From standing in my kitchen and seeing the repairman's foot come through the ceiling, I'd have to say that even non-drop ceilings have trouble with the weight of a human. He swore he thought he was stepping onto the beam.

Details of weapons, after years of reading I tend to skip those paragraphs. Why? I won't remember what the gun could or couldn't do, so I take the story as it comes. However, if I do happen to know something, I do like it to be right. For some reason that I don't understand, if I wear 4" heels I hit the target at the range more often than if I wear flats. I'm not putting that in a book until I figure it out.

I feel the same way about details of cooking. Brace yourselves, to my mind, the Nero Wolf books had this flaw. I could accept that I didn't know what he was eating most of the time. That was fine, because when it was detailed I generally could have done without that. I learned not to read them after eating.

Peeves - don't need the tour guide version of any city. Again I won't remember what is where and will accept that if the hero runs inside a building it's there for him to run inside.

On the other hand (hate that phrase, don't ya?) I've used books that go into rather more detail about things I don't care about (Cussler and Hugo come to mind) to fall asleep quickly and early.

Most of all I dislike flat characters. Now I do know one author, well I've read one of his books, who does really well with flat characters. At least he does from his sales. Perhaps I picked up his "worst" book. Most of the time it didn't matter because the characters rarely lived through two chapters. That also annoyed me.

More than any of the above, I dislike it when some huge premise is changed mid-way through the book. I don't mean the characters emotional stance, that can be growth, or not. No, I mean when the books accepted laws of physics are suddenly dented and the author doesn't explain. Even if the author explains I feel cheated.

Of course, hate the "Oh, I've run out of pages and have to do the quick ending, so then they all died." This is even more annoying when I've read three or four volumes in a series and that's it.

Stlight

Stlight

11-29-2004, 12:44 PM

Oooops, forgot one little bit. When I was sparing in class, I failed to block and my partner kicked me on my right temple. He did notice I hadn't managed to block and pulled the kick as well as he could. I wasn't knocked out or dazed, but I did lose interest in pretty much everything that was going on around me for about fifteen minutes.

EAMcGuire

11-29-2004, 10:56 PM

Stlight wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>On drop ceilings, I've never had one that could support the weight of a grown cat or unfortunately an opossum. From standing in my kitchen and seeing the repairman's foot come through the ceiling, I'd have to say that even non-drop ceilings have trouble with the weight of a human. He swore he thought he was stepping onto the beam.<hr></blockquote>

I've never heard of a residential drop ceiling that could support anything other than the tiles. Some commercial buildings have drop ceilings which conceal nothing but empty space, others have drop ceilings that conceal steel beams - either way, the drop ceiling itself won't support much of anything, but if it conceals steel beams (they're above the ceiling, not part of it), then you can crawl into the space a move around on said beams (though eventually you'll hit a fire wall and have to climb out again, which may be the biggest reason not to use this technique for having someone sneak around in a building).

Drywall, as you note, will definitely not support the weight of a person, though your standard house cat should be OK.

FWIW,

Liz

Dhewco

11-29-2004, 11:41 PM

Mr. Mistook,

How would you have a sequel if he failed? Heh, the Sledge Hammer sitcom tried to end with a Nuclear explosion, then got picked up for a second season. The second season started with the same characters five years earlier, even though the woman met Sledge for the first time in the pilot.

tjosban

11-29-2004, 11:50 PM

Stlight,

That reminds me of the time when we were having a second story put on my parents' house. I was like 8 at the time but I remember coming home one day and there was a big hole in the kitchen ceiling. It seems someone misjudged a step and fell through. Really was quite funny, as our contractors were idiots anyway.

Maybe I just haven't read enough lately, but I seem to have trouble thinking of anything that really irritates me lately. I just can't stand a poor story period, though I some compulsive part of me makes me read them through regardless.

pookel

11-30-2004, 01:32 AM

Coming out of lurkdom to ask ...

Where might I be able to research guns if I want to write about them? Are there any particular books or websites that would be good resources for me?

I'm a stickler for accuracy, I'm in the middle of a first draft of a novel that involves a fair amount of gun usage, and I know nothing about guns. I want to learn, but I don't even know where to start.

Right now I'm telling myself "fix it in rewrite" and glossing over everything, but someday the time will come to rewrite and I'll need to know it then. Any advice would be welcomed.

tjosban

11-30-2004, 02:37 AM

I would guess to research firearms you can look just about anywhere. My husband and his grandfather are really into them and they have all sorts of books and things. I guess I could ask them. I did a quick Google on handguns and www.handgunsmag.com (http://www.handgunsmag.com) seemed pretty informative as well as having links to several other firearms sites.

pepperlandgirl4

11-30-2004, 06:04 AM

I needed a gun to do something in one of my novels. I went to the gun shop, found one that would do what I needed done, and described it just as I saw it in the case. The salesman even let me hold it so I could describe its feel.

I had to kill at least 3 people with a Baretta .9, so I flew all the way to Kansas and had my best friend take me out to the firing range so I could shoot the .9, the .22, and the Magnun .47.

I was a crack shot with the .22, the other two guns scared the hell out of me. BUt I got the info I needed.

My pet peeve is adverbs.

Adverbs, adverbs, adverbs. Oh, how I hate adverbs. It'll pull me right out of the story.

And 2-dimensional characters with no apparent motivation to do anything.

EAMcGuire

11-30-2004, 07:16 AM

pookel wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Where might I be able to research guns if I want to write about them?<hr></blockquote>
Gun stores (the right time of day and the right person behind the counter can be very useful). Shooting ranges - many have guns you can rent or try-before-you-buy kind of thing. Gun stores and shooting ranges will also know about shooting classes, safety classes, concealed carry classes, etc. which would give you hands-on experience which is better than all the reading in the world, IMO. Magazines - there's a huge variety - read cover to cover, including ads. Search google for "firearms". Most major firearms manufacturers have web sites. State code can be helpful in learning what's legal or not with a gun.

What type of gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun, military, police, average joe, crook) and what's the gun need to do/whose is it? It seems there's a few here who could answer some questions for you. What state (if you want to ask about the law in said state)?

pepperlandgirl4 wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I had to kill at least 3 people with a Baretta .9<hr></blockquote>
...this is one of my pet peeves - it's 9mm or .45 (for example), but never .9 or .9mm (which would be a really really small round). So unless that's an unheard of .9 inch caliber, it should be 9mm.

Liz

pookel

11-30-2004, 10:55 AM

undefinedWhat type of gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun, military, police, average joe, crook) and what's the gun need to do/whose is it? It seems there's a few here who could answer some questions for you. What state (if you want to ask about the law in said state)?

It's post-apocalyptic, so fortunately no laws, but unfortunately that means there will be a wiiiiide variety of weapons popping up in the course of the novel. I think I probably need to learn to much to get it all from asking here - I'd be annoying people with detailed questions. What I really need is a good book to cover the basics, and then I can expand from there.

EAMcGuire

11-30-2004, 11:45 AM

pookel wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's post-apocalyptic, so fortunately no laws, but unfortunately that means there will be a wiiiiide variety of weapons popping up in the course of the novel.<hr></blockquote>
Depending on how far that is in the future in your novel, current info may do little good. However, assuming it's not so far as to rule out weapons similar to current guns, research the basics of how rifles, shotguns, handguns, revolvers, semi-auto, full auto, different types of ammo, etc. all work and then look at some of the technology they're trying to come up with for "safety" purposes (none of it is near there yet, but might be there in your book's timeframe) - search for "gun control" and you'll likely find various types of such technology. I'd say google is as good a place as any to find this info (just did a quick search on "firearm technology" and got tons of hits; mix the keywords for different results).

Sorry, can't recommend a single book on the topic, but I expect the internet is better anyway...

Liz

Crusader

11-30-2004, 12:07 PM

As far as the peeve about details in general (and addressing weapons/technology in specific), i can see reasonable arguments on either side.

The key consideration is "what will best serve the reader"?

For example...

Flint pushed through the apartment door, trenchcoat rustling against the sill, patent-leathers squeaking on the dusty tiles as he strode to the far end of the moonlit room.

Bringing up the rear, Marko paused at the doorway; the black of his turtleneck, jeans and boots all united with the shadows, leaving his lanky-haired blond head to appear bodiless. Meanwhile, his blue eyes flicked a gaze around, soon stopping on a folding table near the only window... then staring at a long, cloth-covered, lumpy object upon the table's center.

"You comin'?"

The terse inquiry prompted the merc to close the door, after which his boot heels made soft thuds enroute to his associate. The grizzled man was busy tapping a red pack of smokes against his palm. "Go 'head, s'all 'dere."

Marko grunted, then pulled the cloth from his acquisition--a brand-new M16A1. Flash suppressor, floating barrel, integral folding bipod, and a SUSAT; everything he'd requested.

"Looks right..." Marko's roughened left hand trailied over the SUSAT's front lens cap. The matte finish of the M16A1 soaked up most of the moonlight, yet a faint gleam remained. "Looks perfect, actually."

Utterly uncritical reader: "Cool gun."

Average reader: "Hm, the US makes those, right? Weren't they used in Vietnam? But, what's a SUSAT? Oh well... cool gun."

Hypercritical reader: "The M16A1 is a bit obsolete, why would someone buy one in the novel's modern-day setting? Likewise with the SUSAT scope, it's been outclassed for years by anything on today's market. Maybe he was trained specifically at some point on an M-16 with SUSAT? Beyond that... why would he put a floating barrel and bipod on a general purpose rifle? i'd almost have to guess he's soon going on an operation where he needs to shoot a particular target, at night--thus the SUSAT and flash suppressor would help--but can't afford better hardware? Hmm..."

* * *

In general, i enjoy leaving "easter eggs" about the plot direction and/or character development wherever possible, all geared to the critical reader. Weaponry, clothing... any type of detail can serve that purpose.

However, if i know my novel is addressing uncritical readers who just want things to explode, then the easter eggs would be wasted, right?

So the answer is simple--i just shouldn't use them, regardless of how much i want to indulge myself. And i entirely sympathize with readers who are annoyed when an author apparently hasn't kept the audience in mind like that. Likewise if the readers are in fact critical, yet i deprive them of easter eggs or pull my punches with the details; they'll possibly see my work as shallow, and resent me accordingly.

maestrowork

11-30-2004, 04:05 PM

I've been rereading King's On Writing and he has some very good points on research/details:

Do what is best for the story. The story is the most important thing. Research and details are part of the background, things to enhance your readers' enjoyment and involvement in the story.

You can't please everyone, and there are going to be those anal retentive readers who say something like "this is ridiculous; no one in their right mind would use a gun like that" or "the gun wasn't invented until 3 months after the events in this story occur."

Man with twohanded sword

11-30-2004, 04:28 PM

I get really annoyed when writers have no idea that fighting with swords is a martial art.

You know what I mean - the blacksmith's son has no training, but never mind, because he's soooo strong he can hew all day with his 20lb broadsword. (The German miesters used to call people like this Buffaloes, and they had ways of dealing with them.)

I get even more annoyed when the writer has no concept of a melee:

Harry Turtledove's awful Young Conan(tm)(r) effort has Conan hack a hole in a pike formation and cry out some mouthful such as "See Cimerians! Look at the way I have made for you!", by which time the pikes would have filled the gap, and he would be dead.

Most of all, I loath books where all the main character does is suffer and whinge - e.g. Moon's "Packsenarrion".

Writing Again

11-30-2004, 08:36 PM

I'm not sure any amount of study, any amount of becoming an expert, is going to necessarily going to give you what you want in any particular novel. I know some of the questions I ask send my experts off to find out information they did not know or were not sure about: Often they argue and debate among themselves over what will do what and why.

Then too you have the "semi expert" who rejects things out of hand based on limited information.

The guy who will tell you you can't copy your own novel onto a CD because it is copyrighted material and reproducing copyrighted material is a federal offense.

I remember a guy who studied yoga for two years, had never been told about the sun salutation and accepted the (correct) injunction that you only do an asana (posture) once and no more.

For those here who do not know the sun salutation is more of a ritual than an asana; differing groups use differing variations that last from less than five minutes to up to twenty minutes and depending on the individual and group the individual belongs to, and the time of year, the sun salutation may be done from one to 108 times.

My character was working on being able to do his version slowly and correctly twelve times, one for each month. He had gotten to the point where he could do it four times without shaking or faltering.

Naturally I received a scathing letter as to my ignorance, lack of research, etc, etc, etc.

I wonder how many other people, who were exposed to the tenets of yoga but not to the sun salutation also considered me an illiterate ignoramus.

I had a similar thing happen when I was writing about a savate player. I wrote, without thinking about it, that the savate person dropped under the attacker's kick, (standard reflex for savate -- they aren't into blocking kicks) then swung his body forward coming up on his toes in a powerhouse return.

Nothing there to upset someone familiar with savate but as I had studied both I should have spent some time comparing the style with standard karate.

Naturally I received scathing letters from karate stylists, who were ignorant of any martial art save their own, stating that you simply cannot generate a powerful kick unless one foot is planted firmly upon the ground.

In my own writing experience I have discovered that the ignorance of the knowledgeable will trip you up faster than your own ignorance.

Gala

11-30-2004, 09:23 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In my own writing experience I have discovered that the ignorance of the knowledgeable will trip you up faster than your own ignorance.<hr></blockquote>
What a timely point!

In fact, I see this truth in play right here on AW. There are some questions I've learned aren't worth the trouble to post, unless I'm more interested in laughing at arguments than getting info I am sure is accurate.

It is important to do the research, get the info right in your novel (as in life) but so-called experts will always say they know more, better, etc.

Last night some of us were arguing with the conductor how to correctly bounce the bow on two notes. No one could do it his way, but he's the boss so we'll practice ;)

maestrowork

11-30-2004, 09:43 PM

I have an "expert" who told me I got some Chinese customs and language wrong. You see, he's lived in China for three years... well, I am a native Chinese. That just about shut him up for good.

It just goes to say there are many facts and variations and no expert is going to know everything about a certain topic but they'd sure tell you otherwise. I certainly don't know everything about Chinese cultures but I'm sure I know quite a bit more than some American who only lived there for three years. He probably knows something I don't, but please, don't tell me I'm wrong just because you have an experience different than mine.

Writing Again

12-01-2004, 02:22 PM

Speaking of Chinese I have a friend who is Native Chinese, but he is a native of Mexico, so it probably does not count.

He and I were discussing Mexican language and customs. (If you think of the Spanish spoken in Mexico compared to the Spanish spoken in Spain in the same way you think of the English spoken in The United States compared to the English spoken in Brittan you will understand the gist of our conversation.)

He was asked what a Chinese person could possibly know about Mexico or its language or its customs.

Of course the answer is that his family is native to, and has owned Chinese restaurants in Mexico for the last three to five generations, depending on which side of the family tree you examine. (A railroad was built in Mexico just as it was in the U. S. -- and guess what -- A lot of the workers were Chinese and Irish -- Just like the United States.)

But we did not bother to explain: We were too busy laughing.

maestrowork

12-01-2004, 03:06 PM

It freaks me out when I see a Chinese person speak perfect Spanish. It just does. Don't ask me why.

triceretops

12-01-2004, 04:46 PM

Just plain poor research bugs the heck out of me. Somehow just jumping on a space ship and stepping off onto another planet is pretty abrupt. I'd at least like to know the method of propulsion, the vicinity in the galactic plane, something about the on board tech systems and hardware.
It's gotten a lot better since the 40's and 50's but I'm still a hard sci-fi buff.

Triceratops

maestrowork

12-02-2004, 01:02 AM

Yeah, I kind of find the whole "going to a planet and stepping off... and it looks just like Earth, and you can breathe the air and drink the water and everything..." thing incredulous. It happens on Star Trek, Star Wars, and every space opera in between.

Meanwhile, we haven't even found one single planet out there that is remotely similar to Earth.

triceretops

12-02-2004, 03:44 AM

Correct Maestro.

Even according to the program "Ninety five worlds and counting", we've only discovered gas giants in precariously close orbits to their parent stars. Our own earth some 150 million years ago harbored an oxygen content that hovered around 35% instead of the 21% we have now. Hence the mega-fauna were giants and just kept on going to the end of the Cretaceous.
Alan Dean Foster's "Ice Rigger" was a well thought out book dealing with an ice planet and the culture that inhabited it.

Euan Harvey

12-02-2004, 06:03 AM

Even according to the program "Ninety five worlds and counting", we've only discovered gas giants in precariously close orbits to their parent stars.
But this is a relic of how we're looking for them, surely? AFAIK, planets are detected by the wobbles their gravitation causes in the star's position. With the instruments we've got, the only kind of wobble we can detect is a damn big one, which is only going to be caused by a big planet close to the star.

I also seem to remember reading something about scientists finding a rocky planet not so long ago -- also very close to the star, but not a gas giant.

katdad

12-02-2004, 06:25 AM

Where might I be able to research guns if I want to write about them? Are there any particular books or websites that would be good resources for me?

I'd be happy to help you with the occasional question regarding firearms, so long as they are modern weapons. I'm a long time gun owner and NRA member, and know modern guns pretty well. I write about them myself in my private detective novels.

sam@waas.us (sam@waas.us)

katdad

12-02-2004, 06:40 AM

I had to kill at least 3 people with a Baretta .9, so I flew all the way to Kansas and had my best friend take me out to the firing range so I could shoot the .9, the .22, and the Magnun .47.

I have no idea what a Magnum .47 is. The ".9" is invalid too. It's a "9mm" That's the inside diameter of the barrel. They are either metric (9mm, 7.65mm, etc) or "caliber" which is fractions of an inch (.22, .38, .45, etc).

Shotguns are measured by the gauge. The 12 gauge is typical, a diameter of about 3/4 inch. The lower the gauge number, the larger the bore.

It's a good thing that you're working to make your writing as accurate as possible in detailed subjects. Don't go overboard unless you're writing a techno-thriller, of course.

But imagine this excerpt in a book set in our modern time...

"Janet clicked off her cellphone, cranked the starter at the front of her battered Nissan pickup, jumped in, and drove briskly away. She was angry and distracted, and had trouble staying in the lane. She jerked the tiller back and forth, meandering across the stainless steel roadway..."

Readers would say "Huh?"

So if you have a character using a gun, it should make sense, just the same as when your character drives a car.

mr mistook

12-02-2004, 08:57 AM

Katdad,

I've got a PI character in my WIP. She's a female with a small frame (about 5'4"). She carries a small handgun on her person but rarely uses it. It's only purpose is emergency self defense. It only needs to be lethal at close range.

Can you give me some pointers for researching this type of gun?

Writing Again

12-02-2004, 07:46 PM

I figure I don't need to know much more about anything than the most knowledgeable character in my novel whom the reader comes into contact with knows.

As I write mostly about people who are ordinary Jacks and Jills and Johns and Janes, I don't feel I generally need all of that. Even most people who own guns know very little about them. In spite of James contention to the contrary I'm convinced a lot of people who hunt know very little about guns and I have personal experience to support my belief. (I was on a reservation when a horse drinking water from a trough beside the barn inside the fence was shot for a deer, and my own car was shot at once while I was driving down a two lane highway by a hunter who thought it was a big red pheasant leaping out from behind a bush)

When I do write about an expert the story centers on situations where their expertise is of no use to them to solve their current problem so they have to improvise just like the rest of us.

If I were to write about a detective who carried a gun I would learn about that gun. I might even buy one, or I would talk to someone who owned one.

Earle Stanley Gardner had one of the biggest gun collections in the world. Every time he used a gun in a novel, especially one where he used the serial number during a court case, he would buy that gun and use that serial number so he could not possibly be sued.

maestrowork

12-03-2004, 02:33 AM

My feeling is that you should always do research if there's something you don't know or are not sure about. It's just part of the job as a writer. At least, even when you're wrong and someone criticizes you, you can say "I did my best." People usually forgive you for that -- they know you're not an expert and you tried.

katdad

12-03-2004, 02:45 AM

I've got a PI character in my WIP. She's a female with a small frame (about 5'4") . She carries a small handgun on her person but rarely uses it. It's only purpose is emergency self defense. It only needs to be lethal at close range.

Any small automatic pistol is fine. But for a specific, Smith & Wesson makes a line of guns called the "LadySmith" series. These have slimmer frames and have smaller grips to better fit the hand of most women.

So I'd have her carry a S&W LadySmith 9mm automatic. You can look this up on the S&W website. And she can load her 9mm with Federal "HydraShok" ammo. This is a very popular self defense ammo with a good track record. And that will pass muster with gun-critical people.

But if you are writing a private detective novel, or have a major PI character, you should do more research in the field of modern handguns and such. Just my suggestion.

pepperlandgirl4

12-03-2004, 02:47 AM

Yeah, I got the numbers wrong here. That is why I have proof-readers who know what I'm talking about, bless them.

mr mistook

12-03-2004, 09:00 AM

Thanks for the Tip, Katdad! I'll look it up. :)

macalicious731

12-03-2004, 09:14 AM

Katdad, are you familiar with historical firearms as well?

EAMcGuire

12-03-2004, 10:25 AM

Mr. Mistook,

Don't let her carry anything less than a 9mm - less than that is useless, including, IMO, .380 (aka 9mm short). Depending on her strength, the number of rounds her gun holds and where she carries it, you may want a larger round .40 or even .45, but 9mm seems about right from what little we know.

FWIW, I have two 9mm handguns - a Kahr K9, slim and small, and a Beretta Cougar (8000F), larger in every way, but no one's ever noticed me carrying it (I carry concealed, always on my right hip - a gun's useless if you can't get to it quickly when you need it). I prefer the Beretta as it's got better accuracy than the other. I'm half an inch shorter than your character.

Liz

KLH

12-03-2004, 12:04 PM

I live with an NRA person, so I can get basic gun information and dismantling/cleaning tips as needed. (His comment: if I ever see you writing a 5'2" female character using a Desert Eagle and she does NOT fall backwards at the recoil, consider this relationship history.) When I wanted to know whether my D.E.A. agent would carry a firearm, how much paperwork he'd do, whether he'd work undercover, etc, I called the D.E.A - turns out their PR office has several agents who are more than happy to answer whatever questions they can about basic procedure. And when I needed information on how a cop deals with firearms, I trotted my ass down to the local police station and interviewed a cop. He was extremely helpful, and even demonstrated how they approach an open doorway - that sort of thing.

(I asked him if he'd read any books or seen any movies that had ever gotten it right. He laughed and said, none have; most get a few things but screw up the rest.)

But what gets me are the strange little details that bespeak a bias on the part of the writer - the "oh, this audience wouldn't care." Some book - I've blocked the title thanks to trauma, I'm sure - had a plot point in which a mechanic explains to the (female) protagonist that "well, you've thrown a piston in your transmission."

It burnssss us.

First, you don't throw pistons; you throw rods. I suppose it's possible to throw a piston if you had a *majorly* screwed engine, but it wouldn't be in the transmission; pistons are in the engine. The engine's controlled fuel/air explosions push pistons (for which failure is most often collapsing, not throwing) which push connector rods (which can be thrown), which in turn move the crankshaft, which to be really *non*technical is then connected to the clutch plate...and the transmission is ON THE OTHER SIDE of that. Not hard, Ms. Writer: rods =/= pistons; engine =/= transmission.

I mean, really. Is it that difficult to walk your ass over to your local mechanic and say, "I have a situation where I need to render the character stuck in a small town for three days. What kind of damage can I do that would take that long to fix?" But then I looked at the name on the book. A woman writer, writing for what (I assume) was probably predominantly an audience of women. So not only did she insult my intelligence as a former mechanic by having the character spout some utter tripe, but she insulted me as a reader by assuming it didn't matter enough to get it right. I mean, if the mechanic turned out to be shifty and snowing the female protagonist, that's one thing - but the author (and protag) treated him like he was being such a great guy!

I ditched the book after another two chapters, when it became obvious that a) female protagonist fell for it, and b) the author expected me to believe this mechanic was A Great Guy who's helping out a Little Lady. I could've stuck it out if protag had discovered/decided the mechanic was a shifty bastard pulling one over on her, but no, he's our Hardworking Hero! I just wanted to spit nails.

Or collapsed pistons.

Or just threaten the publisher with a few connecting rods until they agreed to send the writer to a basic car owner's comprehension class over at the local community college.

Grrrrr.

preyer

12-03-2004, 04:09 PM

hey, mm, not that i think your character would, but they make purses specifically designed to conceal and gun yet be able to pull it out quickly. it doesn't have to be a new gun, does it? they've been making guns for women for, well, for a long time, heh heh. i wanted my last book, set in the 40's, to have the lady carry the smallest gun she could get. a little research pulled up the smallest calibre gun i could find to suit my purposes, a small two-shot .11 (or maybe it was a .13, but, still, hardly a calibre that's going to blow holes in the side of a sherman tank-- or squirrel's head, for that matter). the strange guns of the old west are really kind of interesting to research.

the thing is, and this is why i mention it, is because i think your character isn't too hep to firearms to begin with, so it seems fairly reasonable that she would get a pretty basic revolver sans night-vision scopes, flash suppressors, or whatever other junk rambo might have.

doing research on a pistol for a story set in 1692, i wanted a serial number. i found out some pistols had what was called an armoury number, but couldn't find specific examples, so a little creative license came into play. and if i ever get a letter saying how i cheaped out on the research, i'll get pissed, because short of taking a trip to the one museum in new hampshire that has that gun, it's a detail that can be 'faked' reasonably well enough for 99.99999% of even 'expert' gunfolk to buy into. short story long, i put in enough research to satisfy myself, so i'm not going to worry about literally the one person out there who might catch me.

the funny part is i *would* get caught and chastised to no end over something so trivial, yet you can win best picture for a movie that practically lampoons history from every angle ('gladiator' i'm looking at you). for some reason, when one person writes they're expected to do a flawless job, yet it's okay when an entire research team gets fifty details wrong for a movie. doesn't seem fair. :)

gp101

12-03-2004, 06:38 PM

*Adverb-mania, especially after "he said"

*two dozen different ways of saying "he said"

*Starting a story with any reference to weather or color/mood of the sky

*snakes; I really don't like snakes

*The Stallone line: the funny punch line a hero gives in the middle of a life threatening situation (except with Bond--he pulls it off; it's cheezey tradition)

*"charcoal" eyes; sounds like an alien (the kind from other planets, not other countries)

*a paragraph of character description--everything from eyes and face, to shoe laces and belt buckle

*describing EVERY frickin' character that enters a scene

*Dirk Pitt--if you're familiar with the character, you know I could go on and on and on

*A "novel" chock-full of chapters under five pages

*the alcoholic PI/detective/cop with the ex-wife/dead wife

*characters who speak ONLY in complete, grammatically perfect sentences

*entire chapters of introspection

*computer lingo for the computer geek... I mean enthusiast

*characters who are dentists; I really don't like dentists

*characters who join together to laugh at another character's joke; a joke that usually isn't funny

*the word "gosh"

*sex scenes between first time partners that are always the best sex of their lives; talk about the author not doing his research (or knowing any better)

*teenaged characters with the vocabulary and tendencies of eight-year-olds

*a grown female character that has a bed full of teddies (the bear not the lingerie); I really don't like teddies (the cuddlie ones)

*the fact that SOOOOO many books are published every year with nearly half of the peeves I've listed above

EAMcGuire

12-04-2004, 11:31 AM

KLH wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>(His comment: if I ever see you writing a 5'2" female character using a Desert Eagle and she does NOT fall backwards at the recoil, consider this relationship history.)<hr></blockquote>
Tell your friend this 5'3.25" female says nonsense and if he'd like to drop by we'll go down to the range and demonstrate. And ask him what about a 5'2" male character?

Height has nothing to do with it. Strength, particularly arm and hand strength, does. Knowledge does (how to hold a gun (hands and arms are involved there) and how to handle recoil). Stance does. Practice does. Height and weight are irrelevant (ok, a 20 pound infant is another story, but let's just assume we're dealing with adults here). Gender is irrelevant.

The mechanics required for recoil to knock you off your feet are almost impossible (you'd have to be so stiff that your arms don't bend, you don't let yourself take a step back (we're assuming you start out with both feet right under you and legs stiff rather than in a proper shooting stance), etc.), your body is so stiff that the only way for it to absorb recoil is to fall backwards. For someone who couldn't handle this weapon, the most likely thing would be for the gun to leave the shooter's hand(s) or hit the shooter in the forehead.

Liz

PS: All you have to do to be a member of the NRA is pay the membership fees.

katdad

12-04-2004, 11:36 AM

Katdad, are you familiar with historical firearms as well?

No, sorry. Nor with historic firearms.

katdad

12-04-2004, 11:48 AM

The mechanics required for recoil to knock you off your feet are almost impossible

Thank you, thank you!

And someone hit with a bullet or shotgun doesn't go flying 15 feet either.

It's physics, folks. Equal reaction, y'know.

A small-framed person firing a heavy recoil firearm (12 gauge shotgun, .44 Magnum revolver, .358 Winchester Magnum rifle, etc) would be jarred and the upper torso rocked a bit if the person didn't hold the firearm properly.

Maybe an old 4-bore elephant gun or a .600 Nitro Express dangerous game rifle, but not any large caliber gun in current use.

My sister (110 lbs) would fire my .45 autos with regularity and never have the slightest problem. Of course, being from Kentucky, we knew how to shoot. (ha ha)

McGuire is correct. It's all about stance and grip. I can teach any normal size adult (including petite women) to shoot a .45 automatic or a .357 Magnum revolver (both generally regarded as heavy caliber weapons) inside of an hour.

Worst of it would maybe some stingy palms and a slightly sore wrist the next day, the latter coming from not properly absorbing the recoil (i.e., not "rolling with the punch").

As McGuire correctly states, the recoil is absorbed throughout the person's body, if the gun is held properly.

ANY law enforcement person and even a private investigator who carries a firearm will have had sufficient training and practice to shoot reasonably well. Comes with the territory.

Putting a P.I. in a book who doesn't know how to shoot is like putting an adult American character in a book who doesn't know how to drive a car. It would be very exceptional and would need special circumstances to 'splain.

KLH

12-04-2004, 12:19 PM

McGuire, with all due respect I figured there were enough gun-knowledgeable people on this thread that they'd get the joke. Obviously he was being facetious; one rarely breaks up a relationship over such a detail. As for the Desert Eagle's kabam power, yes, I've been told a local experienced person did just that: whacked himself good and hard in the forehead. Apparently it was a bit stronger than he was expecting, and I've met the guy. He's not small by any stretch.

Background on the joke is that in the American version of La Femme Nikita, the chick - whatever her name is - is a scrawny little thing, weilding a Desert Eagle that barely moves when she fires. Then again, the other thing I've been told enough times to make my ears bleed is the instruction that "people do NOT fly backwards fifteen feet when hit by a round from a 9mm, period."

And thanks for the reminder that all I have to do is keep paying my dues. I support the NRA, though I've yet to get to the range and take one of those nifty beginner classes. But my partner's been shooting for years, and when he can't answer, he knows who I can ask. Works for me.

Getting back to the question of authenticity, when writing science fiction I often prefer to make up the gun's name, number, marking system. If I were to call it a Kimber 1911, then it would have A, B, and C, and for the sake of some stories, I want A, B, and then E from a different column. It's no longer a Kimber, so I call it something else. A Jax 941-E Hawk. A TYR014. An anything not recognizable as a current manufacturer or model number, basically. I do the same thing when referencing cars by name, but then my stories have all been set in the future, and I don't have characters listening to 20th century rock at the same time and calling it 'retro', either.

Yeah, that's a major pet peeve o' mine. Stories based in the future that reference current music, cars, clothing styles, or current fads - but especially music. That's sort of like expecting otherwise hip folks nowadays to have lyrics memorized from WWI doughboy songs. ;)

preyer

12-04-2004, 02:41 PM

over hill, over dale
we will hit the dusty trail
and those caissons keep rolling along

for it's hi, hi, hee
in the field artillery
shout out your number
loud and strong (two, three, four)

for where e'er we go
you will always know
that those caissons
keep rolling along

that those caissons
keep rolling along....

rock 'n roll will never die.

Stlight

12-04-2004, 03:17 PM

What happened to bibliographies in fiction books? I think the last one I found (and read, yes, some of us do that) was in Congo (M. Crichton's). I miss them, I want them. Not for every book, but for the "I've got this mind blowing thing I found out!" Well, if the character claims to do some research to "get the goods" didn't the author? Why can't I know where he... er ... he/she found it?

Guess who just finished The Da Vinci Code?

Yes, I also enjoyed the Amazon reviewers guessing where he did his research.

Stlight

mr mistook

12-04-2004, 04:09 PM

I dare say this is the most entertaining thread on the whole board! What's that old chestnut about writing?... "When things start to get boring, have a guy with walk in with a gun?"

With all the peeves listed in this thread, the "gun peeves" stand out... me thinks... because the firearm as a literary device is nearly as potent as the real thing! The automobile is not an apt comarison. A car can be lethal, but normally it's transportation. You can't secret a car on your person. You can't hold a car in your hand and make everybody freeze. "Gun = serious business!"

Is there another prop so volatile? I don't mean to be crass, but second to the gun is probably the dildo, and nobody's life hangs in the balance when a dildo enters the scene.

--------------//

Preyer, you're right about my fem PI. She doesn't have an "itchy trigger finger" by any means. You also tapped in to my sentiments with the historical angle. She would probably idealize a WWII era handgun, but not pick something so obsolete that it would'nt be practical. We're talking about 1994 with her, so cold war guns seem passe', and modern guns are too "trendy" in her punkish view of things.

As for "recoil" and related subjects. She's studied marial arts in addition to marksmanship and archery. She knows how to "roll with the punches."

She would pick something retro, trustworthy, powerful, yet compact, for which ammo and repair were supported by at least a strong niche market.

sedawkgrep

12-05-2004, 01:47 AM

Hi - first post here.

re: guns and research/technical description - I can enjoy a technical description if well written, but often times I find they tend to destroy the effect (if factually wrong) or otherwise distance the reader. I wholeheartedly feel that knowing some technical aspects of what you're attempting to write about is good; but I also feel that in many cases an author should be strive to be accurate with general information regarding a topic rather than be incorrect (if even slightly) about specifics.

Peeves -

strings of modifier object combinations in a sentence, especially excessive descriptions of otherwise ordinary things. I've tried for several minutes to actually write what I'm trying to describe and it keeps coming out too good. I guess I should be thankful and move on.

Deus ex machina

Overuse of comparisons with the word 'like'.

Andrew

katdad

12-05-2004, 02:09 AM

She would pick something retro, trustworthy, powerful, yet compact, for which ammo and repair were supported by at least a strong niche market.

Okay. If she's into "retro", I recommend a Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver, snubnose 2" barrel, like old TV cops carry. A good choice would be the "S&W Airweight". That's a gun she'd be very likely to carry..

Remember that ".38 Special" is a specific type of ammo. It's a more powerful round than the older (and nearly obsolete) .38 "short" cartridge. The ".38" means 0.38" inside-diameter barrel, which is of course the diameter of the bullet as well. Most authorities consider the .38 Spl underpowered these days, but hey.

If you simply say ".38" you'll be fine, because the .38 short is essentially obsolete and everyone understands you're talking about the .38 Special cartridge.

katdad

12-05-2004, 02:25 AM

I can enjoy a technical description if well written... etc.

Agree totally with your post. Lengthy techno-babble makes the average reader tune out. Unless, of course, the genre is particularly for that purpose.

There's a sub-genre of the techno-thriller that's typified by the author Stephen Hunter. His mystery thriller books deal with firearms in a very detailed sense, and of course his fans know ahead of time what they're getting into. Hunter is a terrific writer and his "Sudden Impact" is first rate, by the way.

I don't know why guns are so prevalent to errors in books. That and computers are the worst offenders.

What irritates me is that people with zip knowledge of these topics try to write in an authoritive manner.

If you're writing, say, a modern romance novel, and the drunk ex-husband comes in "waving a gun" that's all you need to say. Nobody expects you, as the romance author, to include specifics about the gun's caliber or type.

Likewise if the heroine gets email on her computer, she reads the message and that's that. The fans don't need to know (or care) whether she's got a Pentium-4 processor and 512 Mb of RAM.

What peeves me is when these writers (and I'm not picking on romance writers -- all genres have this problem) try to blow smoke and pretend expertise where they have none.

The #1 gun offense is to say that a revolver has a safety: "He didn't take the safety off and so his revolver didn't fire." because (with the exception of antique weapons) revolvers don't have safeties.

The #1 gun offense in films is putting a "silencer" on a revolver. Wrong. Most of the noise comes out around the cylinder so a silencer on a revolver won't dampen the noise significantly.

ybest

12-05-2004, 02:55 AM

Humm. For me it's any "modern-day version" of a classic. I mean I know it might hold some things in common: but if you’re just telling me another Cinderella story all over again, keep it. Classics were done right the first time: they don't need a make-over.

EAMcGuire

12-05-2004, 04:04 AM

KLH,

Thanks for clearing that up (the way it was presented didn't seem like a joke to me, but it wouldn't be the first one that I didn't pick up on).

Liz

maestrowork

12-05-2004, 06:39 AM

I did include the caliber of a gun in a humorous way in my novel.. for effect only:

I head toward the door, and she takes a few steps back, away from me, her hand inside her purse--I can tell she’s ready to use her mace or stun gun or .44 Magnum.

KLH

12-05-2004, 06:55 AM

McGuire - I have a very deadpan sense of humor. I keep reminding myself to put JOKE! at the ends of things...and forgetting.

As for peeves on safeties, well...heh. When I interviewed a cop about proper procedure, I wanted to clarify when my cop-characters would put their guns away. We're going over the list: guns are out, house is searched, everyone shouts 'clear!' from where they are, and only once the area is clear, do the guns get put away.

So I, knowing what I've always seen and heard, say: "and they eject the round, put the safety on..." The cop stares at me, I stare at the cop, and I finally say, feeling like a complete idiot: "That would be stupid, wouldn't it."

He just laughed. I don't know about other counties, but turns out my county's cops don't have safeties on their guns. Yes, I adore my local DEA, CIA, and cop shop. They probably run when they see me coming, but at least if someone calls me on it down the road, I can say: "Yes, I know that's the proper way to do A, B, or C, so when for the sake of my story I changed that, I did so purposefully, not ignorantly." Not that this makes it any better, but at least it would be an active choice.

(Someday I'm going to write a story where someone has one of those really tiny guns. The kind that put holes about the size of a hole-punch...and that's if you're only two feet away.)

Another pet peeve: use of the expression, "he thought to himself." WTF else would he be thinking to? Elvis?

;P

katdad

12-05-2004, 04:05 PM

I don't know about other counties, but turns out my county's cops don't have safeties on their guns.
Of course, revolvers don't have safeties. But in other countries, few cops use revolvers. Most have autos (accurately called "semi-auto" or "autoloader", and today now called "pistol").

Most autos have safeties, but most European cops carry Glocks, which do NOT have external safeties.

It may be standard practice and regulations for some cops to keep the chamber of their pistols clear unless they're actually in a shooting situation, but I'd bet that few US cops have that requirement. Most cops I know carry their autos with a shell in the chamber.

I myself (I'm not a cop) carry a Glock (model 30, in .45 ACP) and carry it with a round in the chamber. Pull the trigger, it goes bang. Glocks are butt-ugly but they function perfectly.

KLH

12-05-2004, 09:43 PM

I said county - as in, area inside a U.S. state - did you misread that as countRy?

The police in the counties around here carry .40 semi-automatics; I think they might be Glocks but I'd have to check my notes. Seattle cops carry Kimbers, and so do some CA SWAT cops - the Kimber person in the house notes these things. ;)

katdad

12-06-2004, 06:45 AM

Yes I misread. D'oh.

preyer

12-06-2004, 02:13 PM

when i was in berlin, there happened something apparently bad. never found out what exactly, but i got a good view of their cop vehicles and noticed that all the police were toting some kind of machine-gun looking things. they looked more like commandos. maybe their version of swat, i don't know. i noticed the cops in rome's airport sported some kind of nifty machine-gun types deals, too (though having spent half my time at the venice police station, i saw they had pistols which went well with their frou-frou ornate uniforms. i swear, had they worn flashing epulets, a chest-full of medals, spangled codpieces and great feathers in their hats i'd not have been suprised).

katdad

12-06-2004, 03:27 PM

There are two types of police in Germany, in general. Their jurisdiction is divided between misdemeanor or felony, whereas cops in the USA do both.

There are the "Ordnungpoletzei" (Ordinary police) called "Ordpos" or "Orpos" for short. They write traffic tickets, write citations for public drunkeness, stuff like that.

Then there are the "Kriminalpoletzei" (Criminal police) called the "Kripos".

You NEVER want to do anything that will bring out the Kripos on your neck.

preyer

12-07-2004, 05:28 PM

thanks for that info, kat. that was interesting.

books that start off with nothing but dialogue, not even dialogue tags in the form of pronouns. at least tell me if it's a chick or a dude, will ya?

character descriptions five pages after their introduction. okay, she's beautiful, as mentioned on page one. and she's elegant. that nugget was panned on page two. she's smart, too? imagine that. who's ever said, 'she was dumb as a brick' when describing the heorine? page three. etc. etc.. in the end, the descriptors are so vague that you walk away with an image of the last person you saw in a shampoo commercial/soft porn vignette where the woman has multiple orgasms washing her hair. no wonder it's so shiny after so many 'rinse and repeat' cycles.

this really irks me and i'm sure it's out of the author's control (then again, i doubt many complain about it, either), but i hate it when the author's name is larger than the title of the book. okay, prominent authors should have their name prominently displayed. however, when you buy a book merely because of the name on the cover as opposed to the quality of the book itself (how many times do those two factors fail to intersect?), you're potentially cheating yourself.

true story: i once followed a woman into a bookstore. a few steps inside she caught a passing clerk and asked where the new stephen king book was. she didn't know the title or what it was about (i know this because she said that to the clerk), but she wanted to buy it. to me, this is the height of ignorance to place blind faith in a product, any product, especially entertainment. hey, even my favourite author has written books i couldn't bear to read one page more. you know, i love ford mustangs, and i really like how the new generation 'stangs look, but, damnit, i'm not investing one dime into one unless i take it out for a test drive, know what i mean? i don't even buy pants unless i put them on first.

book covers that look exactly like the ones around it. omagawd, heaven forbid a publisher actually try something different for once. ever.

titles with colons in them.

800 page books that say 'part one' on them. yeah, i bet i'll be seeing part two soon, say, in about a year and a half.

ugly people who have their pictures on the back cover. why do they want me to know they're homely? does that lend them some kind of credentials? what's the implication here? that since i'm handsome i can't write a good book?

Dhewco

12-07-2004, 07:41 PM

Preyer, that was funny. Can't homely people show their pride or confidence in their works by putting their faces on the works? I'm not a good looker, rather plain, in fact. But my picture will be on my book, if whichever publisher buys it agrees.

I've noticed that as my knowledge and skill at writing improve the books I loved while younger no longer shine. 'Head-hopping' feels more obvious, some of the writing is more passive, and other stuff like that.

David

katdad

12-08-2004, 12:04 AM

ugly people who have their pictures on the back cover
Preyer, you're such a baddie!

So we should have an archetypal male or female icon on the back cover to prevent the cover from bursting into spontaneous flame? ha ha

What I find amusing is the continued use of a VERY old photo for a writer, taken when the author was, like 23 and still had only one chin.

Personally, I'm on a vendetta against semicolons; they should be banned outright.

maestrowork

12-08-2004, 02:32 AM

So I guess it's a good thing that I'm very good looking and I look like I did when I was 23...

:hat

preyer

12-08-2004, 08:45 AM

despite being good-looking, i've absolutely no desire to ever put my face on my own book. why would anyone even want to do this? to serve vanity or ego? and if that be the reason, what does that say about the writer? 'i'm vain and egotistical-- buy my book!'? are these the same people who get excited about seeing their name in print? ohmagawd, i was interviewed for the news back in october: i sooo wish i'd run right home and taped myself for posterity. or even watched the damn thing for that matter. ...nah. just don't care about that nonsense.

is it some demented dream of some writers to be able to walk down the street unnoticed, yet every so often having a fan walk up for an autograph? or for the guys to have some college literatti tramp turned star-banger approach them in a bar because you look like their favourite author? or do these guys hang out in those nasty little coffeeshops attached to a lot of bookstores and sip five dollar cups of coffee, laptop purring away, awaiting to be recognized, looking around slyly to see if anyone is watching them? pretentious, sad little minds, lol. who was that said, 'they like me, they really like me!'

the pictures are pretty generic, too. romance novelists crack me up the most. where did the publisher send you, glamour shots? it's like these authors go to image consultants first, and very few seem to possess the quality of actually being in their element. ya know, if i restored a car, i wouldn't paint my picture on the side of it, so why put your pic on a book? i mean, i'd just like an opinion on why. is it just a 'hey, ma, look at me!'-type deal or is there a real reason behind it? just curious.

maestrowork

12-08-2004, 09:12 AM

It's your work, your intellectual property. I think you should be proud and have your name and face associated with it.

Gala

12-08-2004, 10:03 AM

ugly people who have their photo on the back cover

Oh damn, too late!

No really--I shall never let Tabitha King take my cover photo.

mr mistook

12-08-2004, 10:14 AM

"is it some demented dream of some writers... to have some college literatti tramp turned star-banger approach them in a bar ...?"

Hell, yes! Is she wearing glasses? :)

preyer

12-08-2004, 02:12 PM

of course, but only as an accessory to take off in a seductive manner. what's the point of having that fantasy if they all don't look like catholic school girls? and at some point the conversation should go something like, 'uncle preyer, you're such a genius. won't you please let me sit on your lap while you teach me about life... and about how to be a woman.' this is a good point to take the glasses off.

preyer

12-08-2004, 02:24 PM

political correctness. when it interferes with how life really truly is, but the writer doesn't put it in because it doesn't fit in with their value system, don't bother asking me to read it. sure, you'll write a psycho who kills appropriately aged women, but you draw the line having him smoke a cigarette.

mary sues.

bad guys who say, 'gawd, i'm such a cliche.' or anyone who says that. that said, i make it a point to have a character say that in every book just to piss my own self off. i figure if i'm pissed off that's only good for the drama. if i wake up three hours late because my wife said the boss called and told me i don't have to come into work that day if i didn't want to, and she gives me breakfast in bed then services my manly urges, what follows is *not* the time to write that big psychological breakdown of the main character hiding the corpse of her ex-lover as the cops are bearing down on her. if there's a puppy dog scene, then that's the time to write, but the only reason i have puppies and kittens in a book is to kill them off. kinda like children.