MovieChat Forums > The Stand Discussion > Goofs (or Things that You Wonder About) ...

Goofs (or Things that You Wonder About) in the Book


The Stand is my favorite SK book and one of my all time favorites from any writer. Even so, I notice a number of things that are definite goofs and other things that I wonder about.

Among the latter is this. The town of May, Oklahoma, is about 150 or so miles west of I-35, which is the most direct route for Nick to take to Polk County (and Hemingford Home) Nebraska. Why didn't Nick, once he got to I-35 just turn north? After all, he had to cross I-35 to go to May, so why didn't he just go straight north? Also in the same vein, why was Ralph so far out of his way? Nick and Tom met him as he was going east. Ralph presumably knew the general area, as he was from Okie City, so what was he doing so far to the west?

Nadine Cross, when she notices Larry looking at her hair, tells him that her grandmother had pure white hair by the time she was 40 (Nadine, it might be remembered, was 37 at the time of the story) yet later on, we find out that she was adopted soon after birth. How could she have known about the grandmother's hair?

In the 1990 edition, we are told that Lloyd Henreid dropped out of school after repeating his junior year for the third time after saying how proud he was of the educational opportunities that were offered in Vegas, but earlier when he is talking to Andy Devins, his lawyer, we are told that he quit after the sixth grade.

There are a whole bunch of goofs concerning guns as well.

In the two earlier editions of the book, Lloyd's late partner's last name is given as both Waxman and Freeman.

Granted, a lot of this stuff is just editing errors; things that the editor is supposed to catch, but missed in this case.

And, if anyone thinks of me as being excessively picky, I'd probably agree with you. But what the hell?

Can anybody think of anything else?

reply

[deleted]

Hey there, Mr McD.

Good points, and certainly food for thought, but I notice that in the first two editions of the book (the ones set in 1980 and 1985) there is no mention of her having been adopted. The parents who were killed in an automobile accident when she was a small child were presented as her natural parents.

I just finished reading the edition set in 1985, and her remark about her grandmother caught my eye. I skipped ahead and read the passage where her parents were killed, and I noticed the change. In the version taking place in 1990 she is definitely adopted.

That is why I am thinking it was probably an editing error.

reply

Does anyone else here have the two earlier editions fo the book? Mr C, I believe that you have the version set in 1985 if memory serves. Or is it simply that you had it at one time?

reply

In the two earlier editions of the book, there are references to 'Inspector' Underwood, but it is not until we get to the 1990 version that this is explained. When he sees Harold's directions in Ogunquit and elsewhere, he is transformed in his imagination into "Inspector Underwood of the Yard".

reply

another notable difference is that The Kid is a "dirty old man" who smokes cigars and wears a wife beater T-shirt in the orginal edition. The oldman dies of a heart attack when they reach the Eisenhower Tunnel.

Also if I remeber correctly in the 1985 version Kojak was a dog who Old Baldy saw now and again, but in the 90 version Glen knew Kojack's former owner. I believe in the 90 version Kojack's former owner was a professor at the university where Glenn had taught before he retired.

There are other differences, but I'm at work right now and don't have the books with me.

reply

No I own it Gary. What are you needing to know?

reply

<No I own it Gary. What are you needing to know?>

Nothing, Mr C. I recall that you said that you read it and owned it once and was just curious if you still had it. That's all.

In case you didn't recall, I have it as well. Do you know if it ever came out in hardback or was it only done in paperback?

As a matter of possible interest, Harold's taste for candy changes in the 1985 edition. What were they in that version? Answer the question and go to the head of the class.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Another goof from the book.

I believe it's chapter 8 where we see how the virus spreads so easily. At one point we follow a traveling salesman who stops to eat at a diner (in East Texas) and then is asked for directions by a vacationing New York City Police officer who is with his family. That's fine until we find out that the officer and his family were at Disney World in Orlando Florida and are now heading back the NYC. If that's the case why are they in East Texas? Talk about adding hundreds of miles to the trip. Why would they go so far west? There is nothing about them getting lost or going to Texas to see something else.

So I would classify this as a goof.

reply

<Another goof from the book.

I believe it's chapter 8 where we see how the virus spreads so easily. At one point we follow a traveling salesman who stops to eat at a diner (in East Texas) and then is asked for directions by a vacationing New York City Police officer who is with his family. That's fine until we find out that the officer and his family were at Disney World in Orlando Florida and are now heading back the NYC. If that's the case why are they in East Texas? Talk about adding hundreds of miles to the trip. Why would they go so far west? There is nothing about them getting lost or going to Texas to see something else.

So I would classify this as a goof.
>

Mr C, you have outdone yourself. That is something that never entered my head. I'd have to put it right up there with Nick going so far out of his way in Oklahoma.

Excellent!

reply

[deleted]

True. That's some really bad navigating. To get to East Texas they would have had to travel through Alabama, Mississippi,and either Louisiana or Arkansas before asking for directions? Holy cow! And he's a Detective Lieutenant with the N.Y.P.D.?

reply

I believe it's chapter 8 where we see how the virus spreads so easily. At one point we follow a traveling salesman who stops to eat at a diner (in East Texas) and then is asked for directions by a vacationing New York City Police officer who is with his family. That's fine until we find out that the officer and his family were at Disney World in Orlando Florida and are now heading back the NYC. If that's the case why are they in East Texas? Talk about adding hundreds of miles to the trip. Why would they go so far west? There is nothing about them getting lost or going to Texas to see something else.

Really? I don't remember that, that is a huge goof. I'll have to look that up!

reply

[deleted]

The traveling salesman name was Harry Trent and he gets the virus directly from Joe Bob Brentwood when Joe Bob gives him a speeding ticket. He gives the virus to N.Y.P.D. Lieutenant Edward M. Norris and his family when they stop to ask him directions outside of Babe's Kwik-Eat cafe somewhere in East Texas. All in Chapter 8. Pages 70 and 71 in my copy.

reply

That joke went right over your head, didnt it?

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

I have to admit that it did.

reply

Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but I didn't know that there were two versions set in the eighties. I suppose I should have; I'm pretty sure the first edition I read was set in '80 and the second (or rather third, as I read the '90 version in-between) in '85, which kind of confused me. I just chalked it up to my own forgetfulness. Are there any deviations in the '85 version? I honestly can't remember much about the first copy I read.

reply

<Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but I didn't know that there were two versions set in the eighties. I suppose I should have; I'm pretty sure the first edition I read was set in '80 and the second (or rather third, as I read the '90 version in-between) in '85, which kind of confused me. I just chalked it up to my own forgetfulness. Are there any deviations in the '85 version? I honestly can't remember much about the first copy I read.>

Not many people have the version set in 1985. Other than the dates, and the fact that Harold's candy bar of choice is changed from a Payday to a Milky Way, I can't really think of any other significant changes from the edition set in 1980.

I will call upon the erudite Mr C to help me in this regard, as, like me, he has the 1985 version. Is the above a fair statement in your view?

reply

"Not many people have the version set in 1985. Other than the dates, and the fact that Harold's candy bar of choice is changed from a Payday to a Milky Way, I can't really think of any other significant changes from the edition set in 1980."

The version set in 1985 is the first paperback edition from Signet, printed in 1980. I'd think more people have that than the expensive original hardcover edition. Strange that SK felt he needed to set the first two versions a little in the future, but the 1990 long version is set in 1990. That last one is a bit of a mess because he changes some of the old cultural reference points and forgets about most. He should have left the dates alone. It's literary time, not real time.

And does the 1978 edition set in 1980 has Harold eating Paydays, when they become Milky Ways in the 1980 paperback set in 1985, and then back to Paydays in the 1990 long version--set in the same year? I never read the first (hardback) version) so that's very strange.

reply

Another thing about the candy of choice, were PayDays ever chocolate?? I've never had a PayDay, but from recent commercials I've seen, they are covered in peanut butter and nuts. I have the 1990 uncut edition and Harold eats Paydays. But he leaves a "Chocolate" thumbprint in Fran's diary. I've noticed that in other versions of the book it is a Milky Way and I know those are chocolate.

Soooo....

reply

No idea what a Payday even is. But the person to whom I initially replied said that the 1978 hardback edition said "Payday," then switched to "Milky Way" in the first paperback edition of 1980, then back to "Payday" in the expanded and reworked 1990 edition. Is that right? If so, it seems very strange.

reply

<No idea what a Payday even is. But the person to whom I initially replied said that the 1978 hardback edition said "Payday," then switched to "Milky Way" in the first paperback edition of 1980, then back to "Payday" in the expanded and reworked 1990 edition. Is that right? If so, it seems very strange.>

The first edition set in 1980, had Harold's candy-of-choice as Paydays. The paperback version, set in 1985 changed them to MilkyWays, and the final version, taking place in 1990, switched them back to Paydays.

As I understand it, a Payday is some kind of candy bar with a peanut-butter based center, that is coated with roasted and salted peanuts. Next time I go to WallyWorld, I might just get one and try it out.

In Harold's honor of course.

reply

Paydays are actually sweet caramelly nougat in the middle, then covered with slightly salty peanuts. They are delish, and my favorite candy bar! But I don't think they ever came in chocolate.

reply

Payday does not have chocolate in it. My husband doesn't like chocolate and this is his favorite candy bar.

reply

A blooper that many have commented on over the years. Call it a pre-Internet mistake. In 2014 30 seconds on Google would ensure such a mistake wouldn't make it on paper.

reply

Payday does not have chocolate in it. My husband doesn't like chocolate and this is his favorite candy bar.
Oh My GAWD!!!! Your husband doesn't like chocolate?? What kind of a man is he?

Just kidding of course. One of my brothers doesn't like coffee and I practically live on it. My late uncle didn't like pizza and I love it. So there you go.

reply

" Sigh" When it comes to the Geography of, "The Stand" All you Americans have an advantage over us Australians. I have a rough idea of where the states are but I have no idea of the location of highways! Google earth really comes in handy at this point!

reply

<" Sigh" When it comes to the Geography of, "The Stand" All you Americans have an advantage over us Australians. I have a rough idea of where the states are but I have no idea of the location of highways! Google earth really comes in handy at this point!>

Just don't go looking for Shoyo, Arkansas, Arnette, Texas, or Hemingford Home, Nebraska, because they don't exist.

Hey Attila, how's it going? Good to see that you are still kicking.

Please pardon my lapse on the Highway thing. We have in the USA what we call the Interstate Highway system. Interstate Highway 35 runs north-south and is smack dab in the middle of the country. In fact, I live about 20 miles to the west of it. That would be a little more than 30 KM. Nick Andros had to cross I-35, to get to May, where Tom Cullen lived. May does exist, BTW, as do many of the small towns that Nick and Tom entered in both Kansas and Oklahoma. May is about 135 miles (about 200 KM) to the west of me, and the question is why would he go so far to the west if he was headed for Hemingford Home, which is almost due north of I-35 in Oklahoma. All Nick had to do once he reached I-35 was nead north to Wichita Kansas, and then again straight north on US highway 81 to Polk County, Nebraska where Hemingford Home is supposedly located.

The goof that the astute Mr C pointed out would be about like me going from Sydney to Perth and just stopping for a cold one in Darwin. An exaggeration, but I trust that you get my point.

reply

Another thing that Gary and I have posted about in the past is SK's strange ideas about firearms. One of my favorites (well I guess that's the word to use considering the subject matter) occurs in Chapter 26 when the radio talk show host Ray Flowers is killed by the soldiers when he refuses to stop his radio broadcast. The sergeant in charge is then shot by three of his soldiers. One of the three soldiers fires a recoilless rifle (trust me that would be a neat trick. A handheld recoilless rifle. Where would the back-blast go?).

The same rifle is described as firing seventy gas-tipped slugs per second. That works out to 4,200 rounds (bullets) being fired per minute. That is a very fast rate of fire. The only automatic weapon that I know capable of such a high RPM is a Vulcan Gatling gun. That is an electrically powered multi-barrel weapon.It's also large and heavy. The multi-barrel feature is important because such a high rate of fire would melt a single barreled weapon.Oh I suppose some engineers could come up with something, but that design would be heavy and bulky. I doubt a single soldier would be able operate it by him/herself much less fire it from the shoulder.

The average shoulder fired automatic rifle and light machine gun fires somewhere between 500-700 rounds per minute.And that's a theoretical rate of fire. they normally average more like 200-250 rounds per minute. After all the weapons have to be reloaded. Nor do they fire gas-tipped slugs. I'm not even sure what the advantage of gas-tipped slugs would be. But I do have to admit that they sound really neat.

Anyway just some odd technical observations.

reply

Good one, Mr C. Besides, outside of this novel, I have never heard of 'gas-tipped' bullets.

Another goof was when Elder came to carry out his orders on Stu, he hits Elder's gun arm with a chair, causing his revolver to discharge; he drops it and then when it hits the floor, it fires again. Now, Mr C, you and I have discussed this in the other thread, so if you would please, let someone else move to the head of the class.

Why is the second discharge impossible? Come now, children; thrill me with your acumen.

reply

Okay I'll keep my hand down.

reply

Good one, Mr C. Besides, outside of this novel, I have never heard of 'gas-tipped' bullets.

Another goof was when Elder came to carry out his orders on Stu, he hits Elder's gun arm with a chair, causing his revolver to discharge; he drops it and then when it hits the floor, it fires again. Now, Mr C, you and I have discussed this in the other thread, so if you would please, let someone else move to the head of the class.

Why is the second discharge impossible? Come now, children; thrill me with your acumen.



Here is a hint children: why is a revolver called a revolver?


If no one else has answered in one more day, the erudite Mr C can do so. I can practically hear him champing at the bits.

reply

How about a revolver must be cocked in order to rotate the next shell into firing position to fire? It won't cock and fire it'self by being dropped.

K/H D

Mr. Obama. If you stop lying about me. I'll stop telling the truth about you!!!

reply

<How about a revolver must be cocked in order to rotate the next shell into firing position to fire? It won't cock and fire it'self by being dropped.>

In the immortal words of Old Baldy "Brilliant.........utterly brilliant!"

By way of further explanation, when Stu brought the chair down on Elder's gun arm, it is very concievable that the trigger finger could contract and fire the revolver. Okay, so far King has it correct. But like the erudite Mr Jones tells us, the round under the hammer has already been fired. So without the hammer coming back a second time, the cylinder (the part that holds the cartridges) could not rotate and when Elder dropped the gun, the hammer was down on what was effectively an empty chamber.

Mr Jones, you are now officially at the head of the class, and you even get a gold star to affix to your forehead.

reply

The thread on the KId brought this goof to mind. It is (you guessed it!) another gun goof.

The Kid is described as carrying two matching 45 pistols (in criss-cross holsters) and while it is never said for certain what they were, I think that they were 1911-style semi-automatics. However they also could have been the old Colt Single-Action, otherwise known as the Peacemaker or the frontier six-shooter.

Regardless of which one they were, King writes that the Kid 'thumbed the triggers to half cock'. Both handguns do have a half-cock safety feature, so that part is all right, but the way that King puts it has a glaring error.

Can anyone tell me what is? Mr C, would you care to take a stab at it?

reply

<Regardless of which one they were, King writes that the Kid 'thumbed the triggers to half cock'. Both handguns do have a half-cock safety feature, so that part is all right, but the way that King puts it has a glaring error.>

Come now, people; surely some of the more firearms-savvy posters that we have here should have been able to answer this by now.

reply

Sorry Gary haven't checked in with this thread for many days. I went back and reviewed the section you're talking about and I have to confess that I don't know what the mistake is. My only excuse is that I haven't owned a Single Action for many years and that was a Ruger New Model Blackhawk. Which is somewhat different from the Colt SAA.

reply

Mr C, I am shocked; do you hear me? Just shocked!!!

All right; here is the problem: you don't 'thumb the trigger back to half-cock'; you move the hammer.

Okay, perhaps I am getting a tad technical. I admit it. I'm into guns and in my story, you won't find such a goof.

You might find other goofs but never about guns.

reply

Ahhh. I was wondering if it had something to do with the use of the word "thumb" but truth be told I've been guilty of that myself. Just like I refer to cartridges as "rounds" - which is a left over from my years in the Army. But in civilian law enforcement they want us to call them cartridges. Even though I left the Army over twelve years ago I'm still struggling with that one.

reply

As I have said before, both the old Colt Simgle Action revolvers and the 1911-style semi-auto pistols have the half-cock feature, so in all fairness to King, I truly believe that he had the right idea here. He just used the wrong terminology.

Your department's preference for 'cartridge' vs 'round' does not seem to be universal, as my sister-in-law referred to them as 'rounds' when she was with a big department in the state of Washington.

Also, as an aside, I am just about to get the rough draft done on my story. It should be finished by the end of the month.

reply

Correct terminology is a relative term.

reply

[deleted]

Bullseye or to use another Army phrase "You're good to go".

reply

This might very well not be a goof, but it is something that does not quite compute, at least to me. We know from the book that Harold was very angry at Stu for, as he saw it, 'stealing' Fran away from him. He also planned on going west to Flagg very early on, like before they even arrived in Boulder.

The question that this intention raises is this: if he was planing on going west from the start, why bother to invest the great effort to make the denizens of the Free Zone like him? What was the point? If it had been me in this situation, I don't believe I would have lifted a finger to help the Free Zone, especially not the exceedingly unpleasant job of being on the Burial Crew..

I was reading the 1990 edition today and this question suddenly popped out at me.

Does anyone else see this as an inconsistency?

PS to Mr C; It might interest you to know that I got the rough draft for my novel done a couple of days or so ago.

reply

Even before Stu's party arrived in Boulder, Harold intended to go west.

The question that I have is this: if he was planning on going west from the start, why bother with all of the effort to make the denizens of the Free Zone like him? What was the point? If I were in this situation, I wouldn't have done a thing to help those that I hated, especially not the exceedingly unpleasant job that he took.

Why should Harold care what the people in the Free Zone thought of him if he was planning to go west?

I am hoping that if I re-phrase it, the question will perhaps be better understood. To coin a phrase: inquiring minds want to know.

reply

The only answer I can give to that is that I believe that Harold still thought there was perhaps a chance that he would still get Fran. Plus, I also think that he felt that he (before he got there) would find himself in a place of importance within Boulder.

Neither of those situations took place.

I think that, before arriving at Boulder, there was still a part of Harold that was essentially decent. I think this is why he didn't just break off and leave for Vegas.

I also believe that Harold reveled in his hatred, in his anger, and that he actively enjoyed writing his ledger. I think he actually enjoyed envisioning himself being 'higher' than those who lived in Boulder. However, I think he grew tired of this, and eventually made the decision to fully enact his revenge.

reply

[deleted]

Sometimes people do things for other than logical reasons, too. Life might be a lot better if people had logical reasons for everything they did, but it's obviously not like that in the real world.

reply

speaking of logical reasons.......this has bugged me for about 40 forevers.....i know that in the original version, harold's candy bar of choice was a milky way, but why change it to a chocolate payday? as far as i know, the only time payday was covered in chocolate was in 2006 or 2007. which is certainly much later than when the version of the book with the paydays in it was released. if he had to change the candy bar because mars inc. was on his tail, then fine, but replace it with another chocolate bar, not a peanut covered nougat bar that contains no chocolate. the chocolate, of course, is the key, without it fran would never have known that harold read her diary. does this bother anyone else, or is it just me?

reply

[deleted]

You folks might not be aware of it, but there were actually three versions of the book. The first one came out in hardback originally and was set in 1980. The second came out only in paperback and was set in 1985. The third one was also originally in hardback, and was set in 1990.

In the original book, Harold's candy of choice was the chocolate-covered Payday. The version set in '85 changed it to Milky Ways, and then in the 1990 edition, we see Harold revcerting back to type and returning to the old stand-by, Paydays.

Okay children, here is The Stand trivia question of the day: answer this correctly and go to the head of the class. What minor character had his name changed and the change was not always caught in the first two versions of the book? This was obviously an editing error.

reply

[deleted]

<Would it be Len Creighton, by any chance? On Page 30 of the 1980 edition, his name is listed as Carsleigh, then on Page 119 it's Creighton. The same thing occurs in the 1985 edition. That time it's Carsleigh on Page 29, and Creighton on Page 116.>

Even though he is not the one that I had in mind, that is an excellent catch on your part, my good Colonel. Very good! To be perfectly honest, that was one that I hadn't caught. Again, my compliments. You are now at the head of the class, and I give you a cyber gold star to affix to your forehead.

Like I say, however, that was not the one that I had in mind. Would anyone else like to try to match the Colonel's erudition?

reply

[deleted]

Okay, I admit it; I goofed. The one that I had in mind was the one I mentioned in the OP. Sorry about that.

To the good Colonel, Poke Freeman was identified as Poke Waxman in the part just after a very angry Carl Hough confronts Lloyd about Trashy. The 1990 edition corrects the error, but the 1978 and the 1985 versions both give the name as Waxman.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've heard about this "Boarder" flub but I've never seen it in either of my 1990 editions.

"Mr. Bond, you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you."

reply

The Kid is described as attempting to reload one of the pistols and fumbling with the bullets. When the wolves attack him, he drops both gun and bullets and they spill everywhere. This suggests his .45 pistols were revolvers, and he was individually loading each bullet. If they were automatics he would've just taken out the empty clip and put in a new one.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

Another thing that Gary and I have posted about in the past is SK's strange ideas about firearms. One of my favorites (well I guess that's the word to use considering the subject matter) occurs in Chapter 26 when the radio talk show host Ray Flowers is killed by the soldiers when he refuses to stop his radio broadcast. The sergeant in charge is then shot by three of his soldiers. One of the three soldiers fires a recoilless rifle (trust me that would be a neat trick. A handheld recoilless rifle. Where would the back-blast go?).

The same rifle is described as firing seventy gas-tipped slugs per second. That works out to 4,200 rounds (bullets) being fired per minute. That is a very fast rate of fire. The only automatic weapon that I know capable of such a high RPM is a Vulcan Gatling gun. That is an electrically powered multi-barrel weapon.It's also large and heavy. The multi-barrel feature is important because such a high rate of fire would melt a single barreled weapon.Oh I suppose some engineers could come up with something, but that design would be heavy and bulky. I doubt a single soldier would be able operate it by him/herself much less fire it from the shoulder.
Mr C, would this be the multi-barreled weapon used by Jesse Ventura in Predator, by any chance?

reply

That would be the one. Of course they never show where he carries the batteries to power it or the 60,000 rounds of ammo. I guess he was very strong.

reply

Although Ogunquit, Maine, does exist. I was there this past summer for my brother-in-law's wedding, and was all excited because it was Fran's hometowm! Yeah, my family was rolling their eyes at me, but what can you do.

reply

Although Ogunquit, Maine, does exist. I was there this past summer for my brother-in-law's wedding, and was all excited because it was Fran's hometowm! Yeah, my family was rolling their eyes at me, but what can you do.
I hear you!!

Not only Fran's, but Harold's as well.

May, Oklahoma, is a real town as well, and about three or so years ago I went there, (I live in Oklahoma, BTW) and it is quite a bit smaller than SK leads us to believe.

BTW, a lot of the towns in Kansas and Oklahoma that Nick and Tom went through in the book, do exist, even if some of their characteristics have been altered to fit the story.

reply

Ontario, Oregon where the judge is killed is an actual town as well. Just across the Idaho/Oregon stateline. I live about twenty-five miles east of Ontario and I can't count how many times I've been there.

reply

This was the book that taught me American geography (British here). Back in 2004 I had an Atlas next to me so I could trace the ensemble characters movements across the map. This time around, I know the location of every US state by heart thanks to this book.

reply

<I think I found another minor goof. It's regarding the "Zoo" incident in Chapter 47 of the 1990 edition. There were 4 men in charge of the "harem", and on the top of page 545 of the paperback book, their names are listed as Al, Garvey, Virge and Ronnie. But throughout the rest of the chapter, the fourth man's name is stated as Doc, not Al. On pg. 548 it says "The man with the sandy beard and sunglasses they has known only as Doc", and he's never known by any other name from that point on. And since the novel clearly states that there were four men, Doc and Al could not have been 2 different guys. So what was up with that? Was Al his real name, and Doc maybe just a nickname for him? Or was it a simple editing mistake? It's an extremely small glitch, but I noticed it just the same.>

It is more likely that Al and Doc were the same person. Was it Al who was the former army medic? Right now, I'm reading the 1990 edition over once more, and right now I am with Larry when he first meets Nadine and Joe/Leo.

BTW, in reading over Lloyd's encounter with his lawyer, I noticed that at first, Devins (the lawyer) tells Lloyd that he goes to trial in nine days. A page or so later, Devins tells Lloyd that he is going to trial in four days. Or maybe it was the other way around. Probably an error in editing.

reply

[deleted]

You could very well be right, but it still seems to me as though I did see somewhere that one of them was a medic.


I am just now at the point where Mark and Perion have both died, so I will be coming up on the Zoo very soon.

reply

[deleted]

<I don't see anything about him being a medic, although that would make more sense since they call him Doc. The book just states that he and Virge had been part of an army detachment in Akron, Ohio when the flu began, and their job was "media relations" (a military euphemism for "media suppression"). After that job was done, their next duty was "crowd control" (a euphemism for shooting looters that ran, and hanging the ones who didn't). Then all their colleagues died, and they appointed themselves as keepers of the harem. The other two guys joined up 2 or 3 days later.>

You could very well be right, but it still seems to me as though I did see somewhere that one of them was a medic.



It turns out that the good colonel is correct, and I was mistaken. I just got through reading about the Zoo, and there was no mention of any of them being medics. So, mea culpa.

And that was a very good catch on your part about Al very likely being Doc. It is probably an editing error.

reply

[deleted]

This is extremely minor, I know, and I do it mostly to bring this board back to life. It is a gun gtoof that was briefly mentioned in the earlier thread

The rifle that Larry picks up in New York City is referred to as a '.30-.30'. Trivia question # 403: what is wrong with the term '.30-.30'?

Answer the question and go up in my esteem. And the erudite Mr. C can answer this if he wishes, although to be honest, he is already pretty high up there.

reply

Thanks Gary. I'll let somebody else answer.

reply

No one wants to take a stab at it? Come children, thrill me.

reply

Very well; I'll tell what the problem was with calling the rifle that Larry had a .30-.30. It is the decimal point in front of the second 30. It should be .30-30. When Winchester introduced the cartridge in the 1890's, cartridges were very commonly named after the caliber (expressed at the time in the USA in hundredths of inches) and the number of grains of the then-new smokeless powder. Thus, the 25-20 Winchester cartridge consisted of a bullet that was 25/100ths of an inch in diameter, and 20 grains of smokeless gunpowder. The .30-30 Winchester had a bullet 30/100ths of an inch in diameter and 30 grains of powder. Later on, the practice of adding the decimal point to the bullet diameter was adopted, but the number of grains by weight of smokeless powder was expressed as a whole number.

For you folks that use the metric system, the closest equivalent of the bullet diameter would probably be 7.62 mm.

This was, I should point out, certainly not a misprint, as the same error was made whenever Larry's rifle was mentioned.

Admittedly, this was fairly minor, but if there had indeed been .30 grains of 1890's smokeless powder in the cartridges instead of 30, the bullet probably would have left the case, but it wouldn't have gotten out the bore of the rifle.

King, while he is one of my favorite writers, knows next to nothing about firearms and it shows. For some reason, he seems to have a fixation on World War II era weapons, having the guard at Stovington, Elder, armed with a 45 revolver instead of a semi-auto pistol.

reply

Don't forget that he has Trashcan Man finding (and using) a Browning Automatic Rifle when at the nuclear weapon storage facility.

reply

<Don't forget that he has Trashcan Man finding (and using) a Browning Automatic Rifle when at the nuclear weapon storage facility.>

Quite so, Mr C. I mentioned both in this thread and the earlier thread, that King had a fixation on WWII-era weaponry. The army carbine (it sounds like an M1 Carbine) that he obtained when he got out of Stovington; Elder's 45 revolver; the BAR mentioned in the preceding post by the erudite Mr C; the M1 Garand rifles that the Judge had on his little trip as well as the one that Stu had on one of his trips. I probably have forgotten some, but these are good examples. All of these are obsolete and yet King has his characters using them.

Ah well; one of life's little mysteries, I suppose.

reply

I'm rereading the book and I did find a goof.

When we first meet Lloyd & Poke (before they enter the convience store), it says they killed 6 people in 6 days. As you read on, it says they killed their accomplice Gorgeous George, a man who owned a general store they robbed, and 3 people in a Continental. That's only 5, who was #6??

reply

<I'm rereading the book and I did find a goof.

When we first meet Lloyd & Poke (before they enter the convience store), it says they killed 6 people in 6 days. As you read on, it says they killed their accomplice Gorgeous George, a man who owned a general store they robbed, and 3 people in a Continental. That's only 5, who was #6??
>

Indeed you did find one. Good catch on your part.

reply

Oh those two were so wasted during their interstate killing spree they probably just forgot Number 6. It happens.

reply

True, but this was SK's narration that said who they killed.

reply

<True, but this was SK's narration that said who they killed.>

Quite so, sara; quite so.

reply

Referring to Flagg, Old Baldy, when he first meets Paul Burlson, says, "Call him Beezebub, because that's his name, too. Call him Nyarlahotep, and Ahaz and Astaroth. Call him R'yelah, and Seti and Anubis. His name is Legion and he's an apostate of hell and you men kiss his ass."

Ahaz, Astaroth, Beelzebub, and Legion all come from the Bible; Seti and Anubis come from Egyptian mythology, and Nyarlahotep and R'yelah come from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos.

One of these names does not quite fit with the others. It is out of place, much like in the group, cow, dog, cat, book, the word 'book' is out of place, because all of the other words describe animals.

Which of the words in my quote from the book, is out of place?

Come, children; thrill me.

reply

R'yelah (which was actually spelled R'lyeh in the mythos) is a city whereas the other names were of beings.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

<R'yelah (which was actually spelled R'lyeh in the mythos) is a city whereas the other names were of beings.>

Excellent!!!! A fellow Lovecraft fan. I am officially thrilled by your acumen.

Incidentally, I think that I am going to start in on my Lovecraft once more.

reply

Well back when he wrote The Stand he was doing drugs and alcohol on a regualr basis. Perhaps the author was wasted? Might explain the little lapses. You never know.

reply

I think it said they killed the owner of a pickup truck prior to obtaining the Continental. Or was the truck owner also the general store guy?

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

I think this is one... When Frannie and Harold are having their picnic (I believe that is the scene) he mentions that possible evacuation center place in Vermont. She responds, asking how he isn't sure that all the people are not dead there as well and he replies somewhat curtly, obviously a bit annoyed at her question.

However, maybe three paragraphs later, she says something along the lines of that she refuses to believe Harold's theory that they're all dead. Which, to me, makes no sense seeing as she was the one who suggested it and obviously if he thought so he wouldn't have brought it up.

reply

<I think this is one... When Frannie and Harold are having their picnic (I believe that is the scene) he mentions that possible evacuation center place in Vermont. She responds, asking how he isn't sure that all the people are not dead there as well and he replies somewhat curtly, obviously a bit annoyed at her question.

However, maybe three paragraphs later, she says something along the lines of that she refuses to believe Harold's theory that they're all dead. Which, to me, makes no sense seeing as she was the one who suggested it and obviously if he thought so he wouldn't have brought it up.
>

At first it didn't quite register with me what you were saying, so I re-read the passage, and then the fog liftd.

Good catch on your part. How ya doing? It's been a while.

reply

Susan Stern. I always wondered why she had such little backstory or development despite playing a somewhat significant role in the story.

I'm writing a play. It's a cross between Glee and The Road.

reply

[deleted]

Here is yet another gun goof. After Harold's motorcycle accident, he kills himself with a gun that King identifies as a Colt Woodsman. King says that it was a 38 caliber and the way King describes the gun, you would get the impression that it was a revolver.

Now, Colt did make a handgun that they called the Woodsman, but it was a 22 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Colt had also ceased production of the Woodsman sometime in the 1960's, so it was an unusual gun for Harold to have acquired.

reply

I never caught that before. Good catch Gary.

In all fairness to Mr. King Colt manufactured the Woodsman for over sixty years (1915-1977)so at the time he was growing up in Maine (still a relatively friendly gun-owner state in 2012 and more so in the fifties and sixties) ,and writing the novel, it would have been a fairly common pistol.

According to R.L. Wilson's research in his classic book Colt: An American Legend/the Official History of Colt Firearms from 1836 to the Present Colt made over 500,000 units during the 62 year production run. The exact number is unknown which is typical for that company. Colt made some great pistols and revolvers (I personally own two of their pistols and five of their revolvers in my collection) but the company sucked when it came to financial management and record keeping. Anyway if we treat The Stand as reality (or at least as an alternate Earth) Harold wouldn't have had any difficulty finding a Colt Woodsman in Maine in the post-Captain Trips world. Certainly not in the 1980's when the Woodsman was still considered to be an old 22 caliber pistol by many and could be picked up for a couple hundred dollars in many a gunshop and pawnshop.

As I've said (or posted - more accurate I suppose) in the past I think growing up King watched a lot of WWII movies and television shows - like Combat! with Vic Morrow. I also suspect that he knew a few guys who had served in the Army during World War II and Korea so that would explain his fixation with WW II firearms. I have also figured that those some men (more than likely they would have been men in that time and place) were big advocates of the 45 caliber handgun. Both the revolver and semi-auto. Those same men would have also owned a 22 caliber pistol. I own a 22 caliber Browning Buckmark pistol. It's more affordable to shoot that on a frequent basis.

I know that you know this Gary. That last bit is for those who aren't gun-owners.

Anyway just speculating and trying to generate some activity on this now moribund forum.

reply

Interesting: I had always thought for some reason that Colt had stopped making the Woodsman in the 1960's but I stand corrected.

Admittedly OT, but speaking of old Colts, I have a couple of what was Colt's longest produced revolver model, the Police Positive Special. One of them is almost fifty years old and is still new in the box, the cylinder has not even been turned on it. Another is from the Royal Hong Kong Police, in 38 S&W--not 38 Special, mind you--but 38 S&W, the old British service cartridge of WWII. It seems that while the British Home Office has not traditionally armed their constables, in the Colonial Office it was a lot more common to do so. I have yet another Police Positive Special in 32 S&W Long, that has an action so smooth, it will put most Pythons to shame.

The last two guns mentioned were both made in the 1950's, but I have seen and shot other Colt revolvers that were more than 90 years old, and they are still sound, robust little revolvers.

Colt has always put a lot of quality into their revolvers and I am proud to own a few of them.

reply

Last November I added a 4" Colt Trooper .38 Spl (mfd. 1960) and a 6" Colt Officer Model with the heavy barrel .38 Spl (mfd. 1941). I'm now on the lookout for a Official Police. Preferably with a 4" barrel, but I'll go with the 5" or 6" barrel if that's all I can find. I like those Colt .38 Spl revolvers.

reply

<Last November I added a 4" Colt Trooper .38 Spl (mfd. 1960) and a 6" Colt Officer Model with the heavy barrel .38 Spl (mfd. 1941). I'm now on the lookout for a Official Police. Preferably with a 4" barrel, but I'll go with the 5" or 6" barrel if that's all I can find. I like those Colt .38 Spl revolvers.>

Mr. C, it seems that you are truly a man after my own heart!! I have a former NYPD OP made in 1954 and purchased by an NYPD probationary patrolman in early January 1955. Right now, it is at my gunsmith, having, among other things, a heavier mainspring put in it. My Old Model Trooper is a 357 and was made in 1962. Darn fine revolver.

As an aside, I just got back from my farm. I had three gentlemen down from a Kansas gun group doing some shooting. We shot our EBR's and a couple of them had S&W Model 64's that they had just picked up. One of them, a Kansas cop, even had his Ruger Scout Carbine. That is a good rifle. I love mine.

reply

About a year ago one of my favorite local pawn shops (favorite because they always have revolvers and they always give me a discount) had an NYPD S&W Model 64 for sale. From the eighties (when it was authorized) it had a 4" barrel, bobbed hammer, Double-Action Only and the round butt configuration. The action was very smooth.Lots of holster wear but bore and mechanics were in very good shape. As I would expect from an NYPD revolver. Most of those cops aren't known to be gun nuts. I really wanted to buy it, but I just didn't have the money at the time. It went a couple days after I looked at it.

reply

<I really wanted to buy it, but I just didn't have the money at the time. It went a couple days after I looked at it.>

Don't you just hate it when that happens?? OTOH, I have seen guns at shows that I bought just after others have looked at them, saying they were coming back for them.

So, for me at least, that cuts both ways.

reply

Yeah I did that once as well. All's fair in love, war and gun buying.

reply

<Here is yet another gun goof. After Harold's motorcycle accident, he kills himself with a gun that King identifies as a Colt Woodsman. King says that it was a 38 caliber and the way King describes the gun, you would get the impression that it was a revolver.>

Just after Mother Abagail disappeared, Harold and Stu were out looking for her. Harold had intended to kill Stu with a 38 Smith & Wesson. Not really a goof per se, but I do wonder why King had Harold using an S&W in one scene, and a Colt in the other.

reply

Editing mistake.I imagine that the the transcript was so thick that King forgot what he had written months earlier. I'm currently reading a novel from 1973 called Shoot by Douglas Fairbairn. It was made into a movie in 1976 with Cliff Robertson and Ernest Borgnine. Anyway King considers it to be one of the best novels of the 1970's and credits it with having some influence on him in his early days. I can definitely see this books influence on his Bachman novel Roadwork. Several of the characters in the novel are WW II vets and World War II weapons figure prominently in the book. This novel might have had influence on his choice of props in his writings.

reply

I saw that movie in the Army theater in the 70s. I have it on DVD. ;)

reply

Just finished the book. I'm going to submit a review on it on Goodreads. Interesting. In the vein of Deliverence only more violent and muscular. IIs there a genre called Tough Guy Noir? I have no doubt this book had some influence on SK in his early days at least.

reply

I will need to read the book again. I recall that when Larry left New York, he met a pill popping older yet not bad looking woman...but that she died of an overdose....so she was not Nadine. I guess they merged that character with Nadine in the miniseries so they could have more screen time for Giacomo.

reply

[deleted]

I've been enjoying this thread; in fact, it's the one that made me finally get an account so I could post! (After literally years of reading the message boards....) I admit I don't know much about guns, but since you seem open to other possible goofs or just strange things about the various versions of the book, I thought I'd jump in with something that's always bugged me. Maybe it's obvious and not worth the time I've spent wondering about it, but here goes:

I am puzzled about the immediate effect that the virus had on the people at "ground zero" as compared to the slightly longer trajectory that the disease took after it got out in the world. I'm NOT a microbiologist, but I've never seen the sense in this discrepancy. A germ is a germ is a germ, right? Would a germ kill you more quickly if you were in closer range to it? I don't think so. Yet we have an image of the original researcher dead on the floor of his lab next to the endlessly-spinning centrifuge, as well as the famous image of the guy in the cafeteria whose death was so sudden that he fell face-first into his soup. These sound like people who had almost no warning at all about their demise or even knowledge that they were sick. On the other hand, there were people in the lab complex who obviously had a little bit more time before they died. Not much, but there was the couple that had had sex and then killed each other, and that one man who had a sign around his neck for posterity to find, reading something like "It works -- any questions?" So these folks obviously knew they were doomed, but still, their death seemed very sudden.

Furthermore, I would imagine that Charles Campion (was that his name?) was on an eight-hour shift, or 12-hour at the most, and the release of the virus had happened so very recently that he barely managed to escape before the gate automatically closed and locked. Yet when he got home, he told his wife that "they were all dead down there." (I've been assuming that he had a monitor or something, but maybe not -- maybe he was just guessing.)

Anyway, once the disease gets loose, it seems to take a few days to kill people, although it's quicker in some cases. It just seems that inside the lab it was instantaneous, or close to it, and that just seemed inconsistent to me.

I have just one goof that I've noticed, but I can't post it until I figure out how to cover up text with the Spoiler tag. (This is only my second post so I hope I haven't done anything wrong so far.)

reply

<I've been enjoying this thread; in fact, it's the one that made me finally get an account so I could post! (After literally years of reading the message boards....) I admit I don't know much about guns, but since you seem open to other possible goofs or just strange things about the various versions of the book, I thought I'd jump in with something that's always bugged me. Maybe it's obvious and not worth the time I've spent wondering about it, but here goes:

I am puzzled about the immediate effect that the virus had on the people at "ground zero" as compared to the slightly longer trajectory that the disease took after it got out in the world. I'm NOT a microbiologist, but I've never seen the sense in this discrepancy. A germ is a germ is a germ, right? Would a germ kill you more quickly if you were in closer range to it? I don't think so. Yet we have an image of the original researcher dead on the floor of his lab next to the endlessly-spinning centrifuge, as well as the famous image of the guy in the cafeteria whose death was so sudden that he fell face-first into his soup. These sound like people who had almost no warning at all about their demise or even knowledge that they were sick. On the other hand, there were people in the lab complex who obviously had a little bit more time before they died. Not much, but there was the couple that had had sex and then killed each other, and that one man who had a sign around his neck for posterity to find, reading something like "It works -- any questions?" So these folks obviously knew they were doomed, but still, their death seemed very sudden.

Furthermore, I would imagine that Charles Campion (was that his name?) was on an eight-hour shift, or 12-hour at the most, and the release of the virus had happened so very recently that he barely managed to escape before the gate automatically closed and locked. Yet when he got home, he told his wife that "they were all dead down there." (I've been assuming that he had a monitor or something, but maybe not -- maybe he was just guessing.)

Anyway, once the disease gets loose, it seems to take a few days to kill people, although it's quicker in some cases. It just seems that inside the lab it was instantaneous, or close to it, and that just seemed inconsistent to me.

I have just one goof that I've noticed, but I can't post it until I figure out how to cover up text with the Spoiler tag. (This is only my second post so I hope I haven't done anything wrong so far.)
>

You seem to doing fine and welcome to the board!!

As far as your question goes, there are a couple of possibilities why the folks in the lab die so quickly. One is that they simply got a much larger, stronger dose of the virus, and this made them die off faster. The second possibility is that the virus mutated (changed) when it reached the outside.

A combination of the two is also possible.

Hope this helps, and again, welcome.

reply

As far as your question goes, there are a couple of possibilities why the folks in the lab die so quickly. One is that they simply got a much larger, stronger dose of the virus, and this made them die off faster. The second possibility is that the virus mutated (changed) when it reached the outside.


I just started re-reading The Stand (the later, 'extended' edition). Whenever I re-read, I like to do it right around the end of June or early July, because that's when the whole thing starts in the book, and it just feels right somehow.

Something that always never made sense to me about the miniseries (bear with me, because it's been a while since I've seen it) is that the opening sequences show people who suddenly died of Captain Trips while doing everyday, ordinary things like being on a roller-coaster. The superflu must have struck really quickly in the outside world if a person was at an amusement park when they died! I'm guessing they wouldn't have gone on any type of ride if they were feeling really sick with even the regular flu!

reply

I have just returned the book to the library, but I could have sworn I spotted a goof here:

When Harold is leaving his final note in his diary, I think it says he replaces the book in the saddlebag of the Vespa. But when the others come along, I think it says they find him holding the book.

I didn't go back and check this one before posting, though, so please feel free to correct me.

reply

Mr C, this refers to The Kid's little encounter with the wolves. SK tells us about the breeze dispersing the gunsmoke, and then in the same paragraph, he tells us that he was shooting cordite cartridges.

Does something not quite compute here?

reply

Yes indeed. Very characteristic of black powder and cordite is smokeless.

reply

Bingo. Also, isn't cordite primarily used on the other side of the pond? Isn't it (cordite) obsolete? Of course I could be mistaken, in that cordite is a colloquial term for smokeless powder.

BTW, (and this is somewhat OT) I just picked up a brand-new in the box S&W revolver that is almost 40 years old. I will shoot it today, and evaluate it for the gun forum that I belong to. It is a six-shot J-frame chambered in 32 S&W Long. I also picked up a few boxes of wadcutter ammunition for it and in a couple of hours, I'll head out to my farm. Looking forward to that.

reply

Yes cordite is obsolete. Developed in the late 19th century it was the first modern smokeless powder - or propellant as some people insist on calling it.

I just picked up a brand-new in the box S&W revolver that is almost 40 years old. I will shoot it today, and evaluate it for the gun forum that I belong to. It is a six-shot J-frame chambered in 32 S&W Long. I also picked up a few boxes of wadcutter ammunition for it and in a couple of hours, I'll head out to my farm. Looking forward to that.

I have also added to my collection. This time an auto pistol - which is different for me since I collect revolvers. Anyway it's a S&W Model 745. Smith only made 5,000 of them between 1986-1990. It's a 45ACP single action only with Novak low profile rear sights, an adjustable trigger stop, comp barrel and a stainless steel lower receiver and a blue carbon steel upper slide.

It was a competition pistol and was used by several ispc shooters in the late 80's and early 90's.Of course by 2012 standards it looks very utilitarian - not even close to the race pistols that are now being used. But it was a very solid platform pistol.

The owner of a local pawn shop where I have purchased several revolvers sold it to me for $375.00 out the door. Like I said I'm a collector of S&W revolvers, but this was a great deal. I took it.

Here is a link to my posting and review of it over on the Smith & Wesson forum.


http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-semi-auto-pistols/268335-got -s-w-m745-home-today.html

Speaking of J frames I'm always on the look out for a .38 Spl J frame with the 3" barrel. Several years ago I found a Model 49 Bodyguard with a 3" barrel. Those are fairly rare, but the price was $600.00 and I just didn't have the money at the time.But I am always looking.

reply

For some reason, I was not able to get into the S&W forum, Mr C. But I do know what the 745 looks like and it is a snazzy pistol. Good find on your part.

However, we digress, so back to the book.

I don't know if this is a goof, but it is something I do wonder about. When Stu was escaping from the facility at Stovington, just after he gets out of his room, he sees his clothes, shoes and medical charts all on a gurney, ready to be disposed of, along with him. It is said that he gathered up his clothing in his arms and then went about, trying to find a way out of the building.

What I wonder about is: at what point did he get dressed? I have been through this section a couple of times, and I haven't found this yet. Stu did not impress me as the type who would go about through the Stovington facility and then outside with nothing on but a backless hospital gown.

Am I missing something?

reply

The S&W Forum has been having problems recently. Try again. I believe it's fixed now.

I went through and I can't find a sentence saying Stu took a moment to put his clothes on. Not in the 1980 print or the 1990 Directors Cut.I guess that's one of those things in which King just didn't think about it and the editor didn't catch it.

However somebody caught it in the mini-series because Stu is wearing pants. I know there are many reasons why Gary Sinise would have been wearing pants, but nevertheless there you go.

Good catch.

reply

After Nick and Tom leave May, the book has them heading for a town callled Rosston. Rosston is NW of May and both towns really do exist. I was in May once, as a matter of fact. The problem for me is that Rosston is in the wrong direction once more. They should have been heading to the NE, not the NW, and the next logical town after May should have been a town called Buffalo as it was on their way to Polk County, Nebraska, which is to their north and about 100 miles (160km) or so to the east of May.

So, again we have Nick making a move that seems to make no sense whatever, because it actually took him farther away from his ultimate objective, which was Mother Abagail. Once they got into Kansas from Oklahoma, however, Nick's sense of direction seems to have been restored, because his moves appear to make a lot more sense.

reply

Where does King get his figure of more than 300 miles from Ogunquit to Stovington? I checked on Google Maps and found that Burlington--a bit further on, from what I gather--is about 288 miles from Ogunqiut, if you take the Interstate, which adds about twenty or thirty miles to the trip. From what I gather, Stovington is about twenty or to thirty miles east of Burlington,

If you skip the Interstate, which is what I would do, that makes the distance quite a bit less. So the way I figure it, Stovington would likely be about forty to sixty miles closer to Ogunquit than King has it.

I wonder about the discrepancy.

reply

Found another possible gun-goof. It concerns the Colt Woodsman mentioned a few posts earlier. SK informs us that Harold checked the loads and that he had expended two rounds, leaving three in the weapon. This implies that the capacity of the gun was five rounds, and if it was a Colt revolver, the cylinder capacity would be six rounds, not five.

Earlier in the story, King has Harold carrying a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver concealed in his 'flak jacket' and the smaller S&W 38 wheelguns do have a cylinder capacity of five rounds. Mr C and I have discussed this change from a S&W to a Colt a little earlier and I think we both concluded that it was a likely editing goof.

It looks more and more like that (an editing goof) is the case. What does Mr C think?

reply

Having gone into the book and looked at the details I suspect an editing mistake. Big book with lots of information (and words) and both an author and editor who probably weren't real knowledgable when it came to firearms. Read his Bachman book "Roadwork" for some interesting gun goofs as well Gary. Nothin real bad but they are there.

reply

Hey guys, just wanted to say two things, as a writer:

1. None of my editors have ever really been knowledgeable about guns; my characters don't use them often, but they do use them, and I've never been questioned by either my editor or copyeditor (or my agent, for that matter) about any of the details. It technically is something that would fall more under the copyeditor's aegis when it comes to edits (as they're supposed to do whatever fact-checking may be needed), but it's the responsibility of the author. Saying that, though, most readers don't know a lot of that stuff either, so it slips through.

2. Thank you all so much for these details! That bit above about cordite being smokeless just made me run to my current ms to make a change, since I have a character in Victorian London shooting a gun and smelling cordite & seeing smoke. (I did do some research on it but the smokelessness either wasn't mentioned or I missed it.)

Seriously, your discussion here in this thread is incredibly helpful. If any of you are interested, I'd say you could probably do pretty well writing a little guide for writers and self-publishing it for a buck or so. There are not a lot (well, to my knowledge there aren't any, but I haven't really looked) of inexpensive guides like that, which focus on the details writers need rather than details gun users/collectors want. Which means that even if we do research, we miss things. I grew up around guns and I'm a decent shot, but all my characters can't use the kinds of guns I'm familiar with, and I don't have anywhere near an encyclopedic knowledge of different calibers and what they're used for, or the different types of ammunition.

Just a thought, and again, thank you!


People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.

reply

There is a writer on Goodreads who has used me for technical detail (regarding firearms) for a couple of his books. He sends me copies of his books which is payment. Works for me. It's fun helping out. Maybe one of these days I'll see if I can make money. Glad that we can be of assistance to you.

reply

Hey guys, just wanted to say two things, as a writer:

1. None of my editors have ever really been knowledgeable about guns; my characters don't use them often, but they do use them, and I've never been questioned by either my editor or copyeditor (or my agent, for that matter) about any of the details. It technically is something that would fall more under the copyeditor's aegis when it comes to edits (as they're supposed to do whatever fact-checking may be needed), but it's the responsibility of the author. Saying that, though, most readers don't know a lot of that stuff either, so it slips through.

2. Thank you all so much for these details! That bit above about cordite being smokeless just made me run to my current ms to make a change, since I have a character in Victorian London shooting a gun and smelling cordite & seeing smoke. (I did do some research on it but the smokelessness either wasn't mentioned or I missed it.)

Seriously, your discussion here in this thread is incredibly helpful. If any of you are interested, I'd say you could probably do pretty well writing a little guide for writers and self-publishing it for a buck or so. There are not a lot (well, to my knowledge there aren't any, but I haven't really looked) of inexpensive guides like that, which focus on the details writers need rather than details gun users/collectors want. Which means that even if we do research, we miss things. I grew up around guns and I'm a decent shot, but all my characters can't use the kinds of guns I'm familiar with, and I don't have anywhere near an encyclopedic knowledge of different calibers and what they're used for, or the different types of ammunition.

Just a thought, and again, thank you!
Thank you for the very kind words.

I am a writer myself and in case you are interested I will point you to my book which is on Kindle and is called The Pale Horse. I use my real name on IMDb, so you can easily identify mine. It's quite long, but with all due modesty I think it is pretty good. A bit of shameless self-promotion there.

Your idea of a guide for writers is something to think about. For those writers who care about technical details, it could prove quite useful, but in the meantime, you can, if you have questions about guns, ask either Jefbecco or myself and we will be very happy to help however we can. Right, Mr C?

Some of the errors writers make concerning guns are absolutely hilarious. And we might also include politicians as well, except that they have the capacity to make laws and sometimes attempt to do so on the basis of their misconceptions. Stephen King's telling us about the gun shooting seventy 'gas-tipped' slugs per second is a good example of this.

Another example was the California Assemblyman who described the '30 caliber magazine clip that could be emptied in half a second'. He was holding a standard 30-round magazine for the AR-15/M-16.

Or when Rep. Carolyn McCarthy was on Tucker Carlson's program, discussing the bill that she was the prime sponsor of and since they would be banned under her bill, he asked her what a barrel shroud was. She tried to change the subject, telling Calson that cops overwhelmingly favored her bill because it would ban high-capacity magazines, and make their jobs so much safer. (That statement about cops overwhelmingly supporting her bill is questionable, BTW) Carlson asked her again what a barrel shroud was, and he did this several times telling her that since she was the prime sponsor of the bill, she ought to know what was in it. Finally she gave up and told Carlson that a barrel shroud was 'the shoulder thing that goes up'. This is is a classic example of ignorance, and the you.tube video of McCarthy and Carlson still provides a good laugh on some of the gun forums. BTW, a barrel shroud goes over the barrel and its' function is to protect the shooter's hand from the heat that is quite often generated from shooting.

Sorry for the long post, but I sometimes get carried away. Again, thank you for the very kind words.

reply

Digression again Gary. I have found a beautiful Colt Woodsman (DOB:1928) with the 6.5" barrel. Price tag of $850.00 but this time I'm just paying the asking price. Very clean and it has the original box and papers with it. A real find. I have it on layaway at this time. I'm going to be working some overtime events and hope to have it in my safe by the end of August. Figure you can appreciate this.

reply