Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a safety.

And no such thing as an ex-Marine. :)

David wrote: "Glocks do not have a safety."

I wrote a review for Severance Kill, where I criticized the lack of review. As pertaining to Glocks used in the novel:

"Calvary relieves someone of his semi-automatic pistol and thumbs the safety before he slips it in his pocket. When he takes the pistol from his pocket a few pages later and hands it to someone, the pistol turns out to be a Glock 17. And Glocks have not safety to be thumbed. The safety of the Glock is a small ‘second trigger’ inside the trigger."

David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a safety."

That's a good point. The problem is that safety mechanisms are in the process of evolving, and I found this out when I was doing this kind of research. If you are writing a book that takes place in the future, Glocks might have some sort of thumbing safety mechanism. Writing about weapons is like writing about tech. It's changing faster than authors can keep up with.

Stan wrote: " If you are writing a book that takes place in the future, Glocks might have some sort of thumbing safety mechanism."

If you're writing a book that takes place in the future, it's better to not use a contemporary brand. Maybe make it a G-Lock. And thumbing mechanisms are old-fashioned - it's more likely that grips will have pressure points that require being held firmly to pull the trigger. Or require palm prints like a fingerprint to keep anyone but the owner from firing the gun.

So, in the story, how would you phrase it? She doesn't put the safety on, on her Glock. She thumbs the safety trigger? Give me the right form of words here. (My heroine is using one.)

David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a safety."

I'm a prosecutor. I have simply given up on getting an accurate portrayal of criminal investigation, procedure or trials in fiction. Even the best police procedurals generally screw up the procedure (and not in a "different jurisdictions can do it differently" way, but in a "that would never effing happen" way).

Do not even get me started on The Following.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a safety."

I'm a prosecutor...."

Ha! My kid did Mock Trial in high school. Sometimes I ask him questions.

Stan wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a s..."

I coach mock trial. It doesn't even pretend to accurately portray the rules of evidence.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "Stan wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do..."

Out of curiosity, have you seen any fiction TV shows that accurately portray the rules of evidence?

Stan wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Stan wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, pl..."

Law and Order comes close from time to time, but overall, no. No one seems to understand what "hearsay" really is, the exceptions to it, and how it actually works. Nor do they understand how and when evidence is suppressed. They just decide how they want their plot to move forward and make up some rule that gets them from point A to point B.

I was just reading a book (published by a traditional publisher) by an author that I love and he totally effed up the entire concept of entrapment. It was super-annoying (to me only, I'm sure), but I give him a pass because I really like his books.

Edited to add - even books by authors who are lawyers do this. Sometimes the rules won't cooperate with the story, so (I assume) they just assume that the few people who actually understand that it doesn't work like that will give them a pass because the book is fun. Either that, or their bio that claims that they were amazeballs trial lawyers are full o'shite.

Brenda wrote: "So, in the story, how would you phrase it? She doesn't put the safety on, on her Glock. She thumbs the safety trigger? Give me the right form of words here. (My heroine is using one.)"

Familiarize yourself with the safety features of the Glock, check this link: http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-a...

What Glock does is 'eliminate' the safety lever by installing safety features that won't allow you to shoot until you hold the grip firmly in your hand and curl your finger around the trigger.

So, your heroine doesn't bother to 'put the safety on' because it's a Glock. If you need to 'put the safety on', have your heroine use a Sig-Sauer P225 (the compact version of the military P220, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Saue...). Or a Heckler & Koch P7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_...)

The thing is, I'm Dutch. I wasn't raised with firearms, so I went with a buddy to a shooting range to experience shooting various firearms and I research the guns I use by perusing the websites of the arms manufacturers.

In the old days, before the internet, you'd have to go to the library or write the companies for brochures, but nowadays every gun manufacturer has a website with all the information you need, from the different models to animated instructions on how to clean your gun.

So there's no excuse for sloppy research anymore.

Martyn V. wrote: "So there's no excuse for sloppy research anymore. ...."

I like your attitude, but if I had a nickel for every author who said "it's FICTION! If you want it to be accurate, go read some non-fiction" in relation to an obvious, glaring error in their history, plot, setting, whatever, I'd be rich.

Once again this is why it's good to have beta readers to catch things that may be inaccurate. And if you're writing about guns, I'd suggest a couple readers who have backgrounds with guns.

I had a deep discussion with one of my beta readers about the history of forging iron, "bloomeries" and Chinese vs. European smithing in the 1500's for my fantasy novel.

Which reminds me--don't go with just one research source. It may be wrong. Look at multiple sources.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "I like your attitude, but if I had a nickel for every author who said "it's FICTION! If you want it to be accurate, go read some non-fiction" in relation to an obvious, glaring error in their history, plot, setting, whatever, I'd be rich."

I had the same thing. 'I write for entertainment, not information'. Sure, but that doesn't excuse a writer from putting a safety lever on a Glock.

The thing is, I do the kind of research that takes days, sometimes weeks to set up. I'm not a medical student, but I convinced a forensic pathologist to allow me to witness an autopsy and even touch the various parts to feel the consistency of the brain in situ, the intestines, the gallbladder, etcetera. I doubt if many authors would go that far to be able to write about a fictional autopsy.

So, if I do that kind of research, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to criticize writers who didn't even bother looking up the safety features of a gun on the manufacturer's website.

Martyn V. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "I like your attitude, but if I had a nickel for every author who said "it's FICTION! If you want it to be accurate, go read some non-fiction" in relation to an obvious, gl..."

Or who doesn't even bother to call up a friend who is a detective and ask him/her what happens in an autopsy on a suspected homicide. Seriously, if people want to know, ask around.

Here's a further Glock Q then. She is going to put the gun away. What should she do before shoving it into the glove compartment or whatever? Take the magazine out?

Brenda wrote: "Here's a further Glock Q then. She is going to put the gun away. What should she do before shoving it into the glove compartment or whatever? Take the magazine out?"

If she wants the Glock to be instantly available to shoot someone, she would just stuff the gun in the glove compartment*. The safety features would prevent an accidental discharge.

If she doesn't want the gun to be fired, she'd have to eject the mag(azine) and rack back the slide to remove the bullet seated in front of the firing pin. Then put that bullet in the magazine.

To make the Glock ready to fire, you put the magazine back grip until it clicks and rack back the slide so the magazine will feed the first bullet into position (in front of the firing pin).

Brenda, if you have no experience handling firearms, go to a shooting range and explain to them what you need to know to write convincingly about firearms. Most gun buffs enjoy providing information that would depict the accurate use of firearms in fiction...

*I wouldn't stuff a gun in a glove compartment, no matter how often this happens in movies. Flimsy lids, bumpy roads... I'd attach a holster under the driver seat and put the gun in the holster.

Mmm. The car is being driven by an idiot. Of course he would stuff his Glock into the glove compartment. Thanks for your input! I am in reasonably good shape for research, because I pump my kids relentlessly for these details -- they are both officers in the US Army. It's just when they go overseas I get into difficulty.

Brenda wrote: "The car is being driven by an idiot. Of course he would stuff his Glock into the glove compartment."

In general, glove compartments have flimsy locks on their lids. So you can put in some gloves, a few CDs and the cable for you GPS, but a gun often weighs too much and if it has room to pounce in the glove compartment, it wil probably open the lid and slip out.

Brenda wrote: "I am in reasonably good shape for research, because I pump my kids relentlessly for these details -- they are both officers in the US Army. It's just when they go overseas I get into difficulty."

There are several books on firearm knowledge for fiction writers, and if you feature contemporary firearms a lot, you might want to become buddies with a shooter or shooting range proprietor.

Martyn V. wrote: "Brenda wrote: "Here's a further Glock Q then. She is going to put the gun away. What should she do before shoving it into the glove compartment or whatever? Take the magazine out?"

If she wants th..."

Unless you have a concealed carry permit, this is going to get you arrested in many states.

David - couldn't agree more.

I recently read a book where the main character couldn't figure out how to get the safety off - a revolver!

The other thing that irks me is getting military ranks wrong - like a colonel in the Navy or an admiral in the Air Force.

It's so easy to do research. 95% of what you need is right through Google. An author must be incredibly lazy these days if they can't even do that.

I'm amazed when people make stupid mistakes they could have cleared up in literally 5 seconds.

I would also suggest if you want to write about guns - go to a range and fire one. Every range usually has firearms for rent. Go and experience it and you might write with at least some authority.

Heh. I am a science fiction writer. I can fix ALL of that, trust me. The trick is to make all the mundane stuff like Glocks absolutely solid, so that when the big stunt appears you believe me.
To evade many political and history issues I simply made up a nice country for my novel to be set in. I have however borrowed the entire structure of the US Army, so that I can pump my kids about it. A little back history is easily created to explain this. (A Maoist regime until 1972, when with the help of the CIA a pro-Western government is installed; massive US military aid...)

David wrote: "for authors: as a retired Marine, nothing makes me crazy like poor research. If you write a weapon into your story, please look it up. Glocks do not have a safety."

Excellent advice.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "Unless you have a concealed carry permit, this is going to get you arrested in many states."

Of course. They'd have to have a reason to search your vehicle, though. Anyway, better a gun in a holster under the driver seat than rattling in the glove compartment. You might even be able to disavow knowledge of the gun, especially if the car is not in your name. Not so much if the gun is in your glove compartment, though. Nobody is going to believe you ride around in a car without checking the glove compartment. Also, the glove compartment is often used to store the car papers. Would be awkward if the car is stopped for a routine traffic violation and a gun drops from the glove compartment when the state trooper asks you for your car papers...

Judy wrote: "Once again this is why it's good to have beta readers to catch things that may be inaccurate. And if you're writing about guns, I'd suggest a couple readers who have backgrounds with guns.

I had ..."

You are correct,Judy, but you run into problems when your story covers a variety of information that should be researched. While I was writing my Sierra Nevada Mountains, post apocalypse book, I purchased a book about edible plants, but wikipedia remains my most reliable source. I did do some research on the difference between pistols and revolvers, and I have researched soap making, portable sawmills, and medical clinics in the Sierras. It would take a lot of beta readers to cover everything.

I bought several books about edible plants because I write a lot of traveling through natural settings and knowing what herbs and plants are good for what is vital. And I'd never depend on beta readers to catch everything. But the more eyes, the more likely to catch something you might have thought was right but wasn't.

And I second the advice to go to a shooting range. Some of them also have Ladies Nights where you can get a discount. There's no substitution for actually handling a gun and feeling it fire.

As to covering everything: the trick is to know what issues you MUST be correct on. Guns is one. Horses is another (how many novels I have read where horses seem to be cars, you can just hop off and leave them there, idling until you get back on). In historical works fashion and cultural issues are essential; if your 14th century nun talks like Betty Friedan I will drop the book immediately.

Brenda wrote: "As to covering everything: the trick is to know what issues you MUST be correct on. Guns is one. Horses is another (how many novels I have read where horses seem to be cars, you can just hop off an..."

These are all good examples.

One of my most recent pet peeves has been dystopian fiction where the writer clearly has no understanding at all of biology and they haven't even bothered to find out the most rudimentary basics before launching into some sort of a book about a pandemic. Usually the books will collapse in about the fifth chapter.

I read one book (that was traditionally published, btw) where the entire premise of the book was that a smallpox epidemic decimated the population. In this particular book, the disease had a much greater impact on the "parent-aged" population. This was pretty clearly a convenient device to make sure that we could have attractive teens running about unsupervised.

Problems: well, to start with, the population that would have some existing smallpox resistance is the "parent-aged" population, since we actually still received smallpox vaccines when we were children. In addition, small children and the elderly almost always fare worse in a pandemic because they are immunocompromised.

The worst part of the story, though, was the ridiculous hole in the premise. There was a shadow organization that was trying to kidnap our female protag because her blood possessed a natural immunity and they wanted to use it to create a vaccine. They were going to kidnap and kill her to make their vaccine.

This is utterly ridiculous. She is much more valuable alive and producing replacement blood for additional vaccines, and there was absolutely nothing in the book to suggest that she wouldn't have willingly cooperated with the researchers who needed her blood in order to experiment to create a vaccine that would save humanity. So, why would they want to kill her?

It was terrible, displayed absolutely no understanding of basic biology, and made no sense from a plot-perspective.

I write Science Fiction, which involves a lot of space travel and in researching my next book I wanted to have scenes involving two planets, both nearly Earth size, each with one side eternally facing the other, and orbiting each other in about 24 hours. Unlikely? Yes, but the universe is infinite. Possible? Yes. I managed to find the math necessary to work out the orbital mechanics, and not only found how far apart the planets would be, but how big they would appear to each other on the surface of both. I use it in only a few scenes, but it makes reading the scenes far more interesting. The main reason for my research was not because I needed such specifics, but to make sure that no one could say it was impossible. I think there are few things worse about reading a novel than to find that it's badly researched and that the hero is continually saved by coincidences.

You are saying two different things here. That something is SCIENTIFICALLY possible is fine. Remember that most readers will not much care. Far more important for the work to be emotionally gripping, with characters that people care about. If the thing is boring, its scientific soundness will go for nothing.
That the hero is continually saved by coincidences is not scientific at all. That's just bad writing.

Differences between genres:

Sci-fi = Possible
Paranormal = ?
Fantasy = Impossible

Brenda wrote: "You are saying two different things here. That something is SCIENTIFICALLY possible is fine. Remember that most readers will not much care. Far more important for the work to be emotionally grippin..."

Believe me, if something is clearly impossible and you present it otherwise, Science Fiction readers WILL care. You don't have to include the math, but you have to figure someone is going to double check and call you on it. Ed is right; Fantasy and paranormal can present almost anything and explain it away, but in Science Fiction it has to be possible or else have a REALLY REALLY solid explanation.

Ken wrote: "Brenda wrote: "You are saying two different things here. That something is SCIENTIFICALLY possible is fine. Remember that most readers will not much care. Far more important for the work to be emot..."

But even fantasy and PNR have to possess internal consistency. So, if you have magic, which is impossible, it has to make sense within your system.

Yes, consistency is always part of it.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "The worst part of the story, though, was the ridiculous hole in the premise. There was a shadow organization that was trying to kidnap our female protag because her blood possessed a natural immunity and they wanted to use it to create a vaccine. They were going to kidnap and kill her to make their vaccine.

If the female protagonist was being shepherded by an adult male, I think I saw the movie but DNF.

Mercia wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "The worst part of the story, though, was the ridiculous hole in the premise. There was a shadow organization that was trying to kidnap our female protag because her blood ..."

Not a movie.

yes research is definitely key, even when its fiction smh I've had to ask my EMT friends what they do when arrive to a specific bdsm scene just to make sure what I thought would make sense and sci fi is not my thing but there is a manuscript that I want to write but the research for it alone has made me put it on the back burner (has a lot to do with bending and manipulating elements)

T.N. wrote: "yes research is definitely key, even when its fiction smh I've had to ask my EMT friends what they do when arrive to a specific bdsm scene just to make sure what I thought would make sense and sci ..."

Hmmm, EMTs, a BDSM scene - I'm there!

Well, like I say, this character is a moron, which is why he's carrying a Glock in the glovebox. Alas, I doubt if most readers will appreciate this as a sign of his idiocy. The heroine slams the trunk lid down on his head as he's reaching for heavier armaments in the trunk, which is the best I can do.

Henry wrote: "sorry, you do not have a bullet in front of a firing pin. You have a round in the chamber. The round consist of a casing, a primer, a charge, and a bullet. The bullet is seated in the casing and crimped."

I know. I was trying to explain to someone who would most likely be confused when I'd say, 'rack back the slide to chamber the first round', so I wrote bullet in line with the firing pin.

I love your explanation, by the way, but I don't know if someone new to guns would understand it. That's why I tend to direct researchers to manufacturer's websites where they can see animations of what you described.

Click the link below for an animated film of a Glock:

http://youtu.be/uT_B1HoaR_E

Or this link for an animated film with explanation of a Browning 1911:

http://youtu.be/rJMXXuGhINE

Moonlight Reader wrote: "Not a movie."

My comment last night never got posted. I know that you are reading a book, but I believe that the movie I watched part of is the movie of that book. If it is a recent book, then the author is rehashing something that has been done before, which means two people writing the same distinctly odd plot.

Henry wrote: "Well, I know that you know better, and that you do your own research very well. I was just using your line to illustrate what actually happens."

It's cool. I know you meant no disrespect. And you're right in the aspect that I should've used the correct terminology in my explanation, to avoid novices calling a cartridge or round a 'bullet'.

When I was writing my novel about opera students, although I had been an opera student I checked at rechecked all my old opera scores to make sure I had got my facts right, and even when the novel was published I was terrified some opera expert would find something wrong, but fortunately they didn't.

Well, thanks goodness for this thread, because it allowed to catch me one glaring mistake I had left in a chapter. (This will teach me to switch from one manufacturer to another, then forget to edit the bit about the safety. ^^;)

Hm. Can someone please confirm that suppressors only dampen noise, and don't make it so that the gun just produces some "pshuit" sound, like we often see (hear) in movies. I'm really not convinced you can fire a gun in a room, and have people in the corridor next to it not notice anything. It just seems too... convenient.

And swords. Seriously. You can't cut someone's head with a foil. Nor a rapier (I mean a true one, not the generic "rapier" term sometimes applied to basically any one-handed sword out there). Not to mention the physical strength actually needed to perform such a move.

Yzabel wrote: "And swords. Seriously. You can't cut someone's head with a foil. Nor a rapier (I mean a true one, not the generic "rapier" term sometimes applied to basically any one-handed sword out there). Not to mention the physical strength actually needed to perform such a move..."

However, you can cut through a human neck with a katana, provided you honed your technique through the practice of tameshigiri.

A foil, bwahaha. I was interested, watching the videos, to note that working the slide is not very noisy. That, however, does not seem to be something that a silencer would help with.

@Henry, thanks. I've found contradictory sources on that specific point, and since I can't exactly try a silencer IRL (I'd already be happy if I had a library where I live, lest a firing range), I'm never completely sure if suppressors are really so efficient, or if it's more of a trope. I haven't had time to compile enough personal research about that yet, unfortunately—probably because I haven't needed it yet.

@Martyn: Katanas I'd agree on, but they're quite an exception. (Recently I read a book in which a character neatly cut his enemy's head with a rapier. I guess this was what prompted my comment on that specific point.)

I'm laughing at the idea of a foil as well.

Now a large knight wielding a two-handed sword? That might work.

And I own a katana. I once experimented with it, letting it simply fall with its own weight against a cantaloupe. Cut the thing right in two. I wasn't even swinging it.

Henry wrote: "Yzabel,

Just go behind the house. Who needs a firing range. :)"

Yeah, but this would make me an outlaw. Owning firearms isn't exactly listed in the French Constitution.
(Now, I'm sure this would give me quite an insignt into the black market, on the other hand. ;))