Has firearm knowledge ruined reading for you?

[Lee]

I has ten days off over the holidays and spent much of it catching up on my reading.  I tend to read action/adventure/crime/mystery type books.  I find it hard to believe ( well...not really) that so many NYT best selling authors will research a novel to the nth degree for everything but firearm facts. Good lord, how hard could it be to ask someone about, or research, firearms?  I read a few novels that had really good story lines, but they were ruined for me by references to guns that don't exist and/or behavior that would never happen with a seasoned professional, or even a moderatley intelligent amateur.  Damn those liberal creative types LOL! 

[cosine]

It did for a while, but then I relaxed a bit and realized that if you don't expect too much, you won't be disappointed. You might even enjoy it. 

[Antibubba]

I know a lot about guns, but I'm no writer--so it all evens out. 

[meinbruder]

I read a few novels that had really good story lines, but they were ruined for me by references to guns that don't exist and/or behavior that would never happen with a seasoned professional, or even a moderatley intelligent amateur.  Damn those liberal creative types LOL! 

No, knowledge of firearms hasnt ruined my reading pleasure but it sure has loused up my ability to watch a movie.  A couple of rounds fired at a vehicle always seem to make it jump in the air, flip over, and burst into flames.  :)

I grew up on science fiction; H. Beam Piper was one of my favorites.  He was an avid shooter and his stories were always spot on.  The NYT authors are mostly just posers selling tripe to the herd, I just laugh at them.
}:)>

[gunsmith]

yup! and movie TV watching too.
Jake 2.0 last night on sci fi, the bad guy is trying to shoot his empty glock, which
didn't lock back and kept on going click click click

[roo_ster]

I stopped reading "The Postman" when he took his revolver off "safe." 

[Firethorn]

I think it's interesting that in Steven King's 'Tower' series he mentions a number of guns, but never a real one.  It's at the point you'd think that he conducted research to avoid naming a real gun.

The company and caliber can be real, for example, but they don't match up with a produced gun.

Doesn't bother me, matter of fact it's an interesting tidbit, and I wonder why that might be.  Could be that he feels that it reduces the chance of somebody copying a scene in the book.

[Lee]

The last book I read, featured an ex Secret Service agent.  The bad guy handed him a semi auto .357 magnum (just like the like the one he was issued in the Service), but the 'clip' was welded in the gun so he couldn't see if it was really loaded or not (I guess you'd have to know how to work a slide, or that there is such a thing as a slide) Aaaahhhhhhhhhh.  Additionally, everyone was always sneaking up on this former top agent (who could read a persons intent from a mile away) and physically abusing him in some manner...and he was never armed even though everyone he knew was getting violently killed around him.  I've already quit watching TV...now this.  Is MAD magazine still published?       

[cosine]

The most egregious mistake I've seen lately in a book was when the author tells of the character's possession of a "Glock revolver." 

[K Frame]

"I know a lot about guns, but I'm no writer--so it all evens out."

I'm both.

But I just chuckle a little bit and turn the page.

[Art Eatman]

It bugs me to be reading along, suspending belief and enjoying a stor line and then Wham!  Some egregious stupidity about guns. 

There might be some comment about "cop killer bullets", which is bad enough, but one supposedly ex-SEAL author had the Bad Guy using cop killer bullets in his RIFLE! 

Or the author Smith, in "Gorky Park".  His protagonist Russian detective is stated to be unfamiliar with handguns.  The author comments that snubby revolvers are inaccurate.  The author has our hero shot in the leg at close range, via a hunting rifle.  Yet, the hero manages to hobble into position to shoot this inaccurate handgun he's never used before, and center punches the bad guy with all five shots.  Yeah, right.

And then there's the super-sniper who checks a sniper rifle out of the armory and goes to the range, and BEFORE SHOOTING, adjusts the scope.  (One of the Lee Child books, IIRC.)

Yuck.

Art

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I think it's interesting that in Steven King's 'Tower' series he mentions a number of guns, but never a real one.  It's at the point you'd think that he conducted research to avoid naming a real gun.

The company and caliber can be real, for example, but they don't match up with a produced gun.

Doesn't bother me, matter of fact it's an interesting tidbit, and I wonder why that might be.  Could be that he feels that it reduces the chance of somebody copying a scene in the book.

No, the AR-15 is mentioned, though in the context of being U.S. Army, so that would have to make them pre type classified models.

I thought it was pretty amusing when he wrote of the Gunslinger oiling the bolt from his revolver.  All that writing about a guy with revolvers, and King still doesn't know how they work.

I once saw a mystery author ask a few rather technical questions about automatic pistols on rec.guns a few years ago, but never on THR.

[roo_ster]

I thoroughly respect those that are ignorant of a subject when they make the effort to learn about it.  I think that, perhaps, too many authors think they are too smart or are too prideful.  Maybe a lot of them are anti-RKBA and learning someting from the likes of us would be distasteful.

[MechAg94]

Most of my reading is SciFi so there are easy ways to get around gun facts.

[JonnyB]

If an author writes about something unfamiliar, yet refuses to do any research, it's a turn-off for me. I've put books away due to the lack of effort on the author's part. It's not just guns...

 - an airliner touching down in a "...perfect, three-point landing..." Really? Send that pilot back to school!

Lazy authors are in the same category as lazy news reporters. If you don't care to get educated about a subject, don't try to tell the rest of us about it!

jb

[Antibubba]

I stopped reading "The Postman" when he took his revolver off "safe." 

Have you looked at a S&W catalog lately?

[cosine]

You know it's really tough when your firearms knowledge ruins even the enjoyment of reading a firearms catalog.

Example:





Or the newspaper:

[wingnutx]

The poorly researched chapter on guns made me doubt the veracity of the rest of the "Zombie Survival Guide".

[mtnbkr]

I try not to let it bother me.  Stephen King's Cell made that tough though.  I got very tired reading nonsense about cop-killer "dum dum" bullets that were available "on Internet paranoia" sites, etc.  A foible here and there doesn't bother me, but he was shoveling the BS full time on this one.

There was some other non-gun stuff that also made me roll my eyes.  It makes me wonder if he wrote this himself or just licensed his name out to some nobody.

Chris

[Eleven Mike]

But that newspaper picture is a fake, doncha know.   

[HankB]

Most of us will spot the glaring errors that are firearms-related, simply because we're familiar with the subject.

But stop and think for a minute - what about things that are written or said on topics we're NOT so familiar with? Will we even notice the errors?

Why should we think they're only screwing up the firearms-related stuff? (This is especially pertinent when it comes to news reporting.)

[Perd Hapley]

HankB,

Compared to other areas of technology, reporters and writers have a level of familiarity with firearms that should embarass them as a profession.  We expect a writer to know the difference between a dump-truck and a pick-up truck, so they ought to know the difference between a machine gun (like an M60) and a semi-auto AR.  They should know that automatics don't have clutch pedals and that revolvers don't have magazines.  Does that mean they should know how to fix a truck or know the specs on every Smith and Wesson model number?  Not at all.

This really only applies to writers who might touch on subjects that involve guns.  Sportswriters and teen romance novelists probably don't need to worry about it. 

[HankB]

. . . Compared to other areas of technology, reporters and writers have a level of familiarity with firearms that should embarass them as a profession . . . This really only applies to writers who might touch on subjects that involve guns . . .

Really? There was just a news story about some "artist" planning to float a 1000 foot, lighter than air banana some 20 miles over Texas . . . in geostationary orbit. Hmmmm . . . .

Writers on TV crime shows have lab techs extracting DNA from contaminated evidence in minutes - just mix up a sample in a test tube, put it in a machine, push a button - bingo, case solved. (And it's not supposed to be science fiction.)

I remember reading a mystery once where the driver of a car killed the engine because he missed the clutch pedal . . . even though he was driving a car that had never been made with anything BUT an automatic transmission.

And who can forget reading that, if the skin of an airliner should suffer a small puncture, the passengers would be squeezed out like toothpaste?

Don't forget the almost-daily nonsense about manmade global warming, either.

It's not always a political agenda at work . . . reporters and many writers are just, well ignorant about the way things work, with a level of ignorance on, well, nearly everything that ought to be embarassing.

[Perd Hapley]

I wasn't talking about political agendas.  I was talking about media figures having a basic level of knowledge about their subjects. 

There are some things that an ordinary person would be expected to know. 

There is higher level of things that the average reporter should be expected to know.  Since crime and war make up a good chunk of news stories, reporters should know some basics about guns.  Basics. 

There is yet a higher level of knowledge that should be expected of someone who is a war correspondent or covers Olympic shooting competitions. 

Then, there are the novelists.  I thought one rule of fiction writing was to write about what you know.  Besides, it's not like they have to file the story the next day, like a journalist.  They have time to research whether HK USPs come in .357 Sig, or whatever. 

[Chris]

It all comes down to laziness.  Look at ian Fleming.  He did some bare bones reasearch about firearms and holsters, and came up with the PPK in the Triple draw holster.  Or John Gardner, who did well to give Bond the ASP auto, but then gave him Glaser's which IIRC caused a car to explode when shot with one in the gas tank.  Some writers, be it novelists, television, or film, do basic research and go from there.  If they get it wrong, who'll know, right?