Devil in the details

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It annoys me when motorcycle tyres screach as they go around a corner, or when people on motorcycles have conversations with each other (without any mention of an intercom). I also read one recently where someone releases a motorcycle's handbrake before riding off.

But I blame the editors as much as the writers. That's what they are supposed to be there for.

Except that, if we're talking about fiction, the editors and copyeditors are likely to be generalists who are largely relying on the author for accuracy. Some things--like historical dates or biographical information about well-known people--are easy to check, but a novel has so many little bits and pieces of information that it's impossible to verify everything. If the editor knows nothing about motorcycles, mention of a handbrake isn't going to raise a red flag.

And while information is certainly easily accessible nowadays on the Web, it's also often contradictory and inaccurate and overwhelming.

Bottom line is, the author is responsible for the details.

[rxmom03]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Mistakes with guns bother me. The early Shadow novels are terrible about this. Including one where a gang is described as carrying revolvers with one empty chamber, so if they dropped them, it wouldn't go off (which people do, though there is some debate as to whether or not that's necessary). But then he describes them as having to pull the trigger twice to get it to fire because of it, which if of course, is not how revolvers work. The chamber under the hammer when you pull the trigger is not fired, it's rotated as the hammer goes back, and the hammer then falls on the next one (which would be loaded).

My late husband (God bless him) was probably the only man in America upset over the movie "Lara Croft:Tomb Raider" because Angelina Joele didn't handle her guns properly

Mary

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rxmom03

My late husband (God bless him) was probably the only man in America upset over the movie "Lara Croft:Tomb Raider" because Angelina Joele didn't handle her guns properly

Mary

She had guns?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

What you maybe referring to is called a "stripper clip" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_clip

Some help load ammo into a detachable magazine quickly and then are thrown away. Or help load a rifle with a built in magazine quickly.

With the M1 the clip holds 8 rounds and the whole thing is inserted into the rifle, and as said in another post when the last shot is fired, the clip is automatically ejected and the rifle is ready for another clip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

Sorry for the bend in the op topic!

But these are "Details"

So if I say something like "he put a bullet in his rifle" that will really annoy Americans?

[DustyDisks]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So if I say something like "he put a bullet in his rifle" that will really annoy Americans?

To tell the truth, most would probably not notice. You sentience should read "he put a cartridge or round, in his rifle". Active and x military types would notice, also hobby shooters, people that reload the brass cartridge to make a new "round" or cartridges.

But most would not care or even notice, and let's not even get into slang, like they shot several rounds, or there were several shells in the gun.

There also can be such a thing as too much detail!

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

But these are "Details"

Exactly so! And they matter to people who know them and see them abused.

Greg Weeks

[Apache]

Originally Posted by rxmom03

My late husband (God bless him) was probably the only man in America upset over the movie "Lara Croft:Tomb Raider" because Angelina Joele didn't handle her guns properly

Mary

I did not notice because I have never seen the movie.
On the subject of movies, if Martial Artists talk about how good a movie is or isn't, it has nothing to do with the plot.
I was always ticked off with The Highlander Television Show because McCloud's hands were positioned incorrectly. He had them touching each other. The Katana is held with the right hand touching the Tsuba (guard) and the left hand grasps the other end with the pinkie off and curled tight. If your hands are together you do not have any leverage. They finally corrected it during the last two years of the show. Thank you for listening to Apache's latest rant.
Apache

[LauraPony]

Yes! There are a couple of books that are absolutely tainted for me because of these silly little mistakes that author's make.

I just recently read Sara Gruen's Ape House, which I would have loved if it wasn't for the few times that the character ordered a "Double Shot Grande Skinny Latte". This book is set in America, and although I'm a Canadian, I'm pretty sure "Grande" refers to Starbucks. Having worked at Starbucks I know that Grandes automatically come with two shots, and even if they didn't, it would still properly be called a "Double Grande...". This ridiculous double redundancy merely grated on my nerves until a Starbucks employee character actually corrected another character by stating that this is how the drink should be named. From that point on I just felt the writing was sloppy.

[rxmom03]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

She had guns?

We went with another couple to the movie. While my husband was griping about how she was handling (or not handling) her guns, the other guy with us exclaimed "She sure does have a nice set of guns, though!"

Mary

[taosaur]

A major character frequenting Starbucks would be enough to turn me off a novel

Sorry, that's the lifelong patron and ex-barista of independent coffee houses talking.

[Native]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It annoys me when motorcycle tyres screach as they go around a corner, or when people on motorcycles have conversations with each other (without any mention of an intercom). I also read one recently where someone releases a motorcycle's handbrake before riding off.

But I blame the editors as much as the writers. That's what they are supposed to be there for.

What bothers me most is when the slips occur where the story has no place being in the first place. But thinking about it, I guess that's exactly where they would be. Why would you mention any vehicle's parking brake, unless of course, the story actually revolves around said exceptional device. If it's just a normal passage, far better to respect the reader's intelligence and leave details to assumption. We find the devil there too, but at least we can fashion it ourselves.

[melanti]

My pet peeve incorrect science in science fiction.

If your explanation makes no sense scientifically, don't bother explaining the technology. I much prefer a black box approach to lots of details that can not possibly work.

The last memorable one I read was Matheson's The Shrinking Man. I would have been much happier with the book if it had never explained why the guy was shrinking, as opposed to blaming it on mutated chemicals causing the body to loose nitrogen.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by melanti

If your explanation makes no sense scientifically, don't bother explaining the technology.

This always bugs me in zombie stories, like the CDC episode of The Walking Dead. Guys, it's not a virus. Saying it's a virus doesn't make it more plausible; it just demonstrates your feeble grasp of fundamental concepts in biology and physics, and/or your lack of respect for the audience.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Could have been, it didn't actually say what brand it was. Only that it was a powerful one that took his breath away. But if it was an old boneshaker you'd think the writer would have made a point of mentioning that?

mr ploppy, you've obviously never "mistreated" a well restored Flying Squirrel - or a quicker Brough Superior, come to that ! (The type T.E.Lawrence died on.)

And to get a real fright - but no handbrake - a big old Vincent, even unfettled, could easily put years on you. In particular a supercharged dragbike job called Nero, campaigned by George Brown in the 60's, which was possibly the first one to use a slick on the rear, and was the quickest thing in it's class in the world at one time....
I think "screech" would easily apply there - they had to pour oil on the startline to stop the thing revolving around the rear wheel !

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

So you can't load ammunition directly into a weapon using a clip? It has to first go into a magazine? or is that oversimplification in the other direction?

It depends.

The typical WWI rifle (bolt action) was loaded directly from a stripper clip. You would place the stripper clip, with 5 rounds, into a holder, push down, and the 5 rounds were loaded into the internal magazine.

With the M1 Garand, you push the entire enblock clip of 8 rounds into the firearm, and the clip is ejected after the last round is fired.

For the M-16, you load the detachable box magazines from stripper clips, using a small adapter tool. Each stripper clip holds 10 rounds, and with one push, they get loaded into the magazine. The magazines typically hold 20 or 30 rounds, so 2 or 3 clips worth.

Most magazines are loaded from individual rounds. Put one in the opening, push down and repeat until full. Then there are the drum magazines for the classic Thompson submachine gun. Those, you removed the back cover, dropped in the rounds, replaced the cover and wound up the spring in the magazine to feed the rounds.

And finally, there are clip for revolvers. When the .45 ACP was introduced in 1911, they could not produce them quickly enough, so they produced a revolver that fired the same round. Except that revolvers need a round with a lip (rim) to keep the round from slipping right through, and semi autos require rounds without a rim (rimless). So they made a half moon clip, that was semi circular and would allow 3 rounds of .45 ACP to be snapped into to hold them. Two such clips would be used in the revolver. Later, some people would weld two such clip together, making a full mooon clip, that allowed a very quick reload.