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?
New here, big King fan, but his gun errors and general lack of knowledge about anything technical can drive a fan nuts.
I'm reading The Stand again for what must be the 20th time, and every single time I read about Harold or Larry at the motorcycle shop siphoning gas from an underground tank I want to shout, "NOT POSSIBLE!!!" LOL. And I wonder why, they were smart enough to run a sound system off a generator when having a Boulder town meeting, but no one ever had any ice or a fridge going and had to drink everything warm. Surely a bunch of guys are not going to drink piss warm beer when there's an entire city to scour for a generator.
New here, big King fan, but his gun errors and general lack of knowledge about anything technical can drive a fan nuts.
I'm reading The Stand again for what must be the 20th time, and every single time I read about Harold or Larry at the motorcycle shop siphoning gas from an underground tank I want to shout, "NOT POSSIBLE!!!" LOL. And I wonder why, they were smart enough to run a sound system off a generator when having a Boulder town meeting, but no one ever had any ice or a fridge going and had to drink everything warm. Surely a bunch of guys are not going to drink piss warm beer when there's an entire city to scour for a generator.
Good catch. Of course they had another way to cool beverages, and in the book, Glen used it when he and Stu met in New Hampshire: cool the containers in a stream. That works quite well for canned beer and pop. Stu even did it in the mini-series just after he and Glen had met Harold and Fran.
reply share
I think I spotted another one: when Larry meets fran for the first time, she tells him that he did well to bring them all across the country and that one in her party died. Didn't two of them die?
Also, didn't "Mrs. Vollman" in Larry's party die as well?
Right now, I'm reading the 1978 edition and when Glen and Stu are talking after the all-night drinking session, Glen mentioned Mark Braddock. Since I didn't remember seeing any mention of it during the trip west of Stu's party, I went back and checked. I didn't see it. Speculation my part here, but that episode might might have ended up on the cutting room floor before the original book went to press, and the later mention of Mark's name was not caught in the editing process.
If all you had to go on was the 1978 edition, the name means nothing.
How could Fran ever hit upon a silly idea to come back to her family town to star a family with her man, to have more kids - after you have had a c-section, you can't rather give birth vaginally again - your womb may break and you bleed to death with the fetus inside you.
How could Fran ever hit upon a silly idea to come back to her family town to star a family with her man, to have more kids - after you have had a c-section, you can't rather give birth vaginally again - your womb may break and you bleed to death with the fetus inside you.
Outstanding!!! You get a cyber Gold Star and move to the head of the class, mortarboard and all.
Something that I wonder about: when Larry first dreams of Mother Abagail after he meets Nadine, she tells him to step out where she can see them as her 'peepers ain't what they once was'. Yet when she meets Nick, Tom, and their party, it is said that 'there was nothing wrong with her long vision, even at 108'. Does this strike anyone else here as an inconsistency?
Ironically, I just came here from the 'Salem's Lot' discussion board. I have to say that I would have little to add to goofs made in the book as I have only read it once (and that was in 1997) While 'The Stand' is not my favourite Stephen King novel - that honour goes to 'Salem's Lot' I do think that 'The Stand' contains some absolutely fantastic writing - goofs aside of course.
On a slightly 'Off Thread' point, you mentioned your book 'The Pale Horse' and I read the first part of it on Amazon and it strikes me that you would be interested in a factual radio program from 'Archive on 4' (referring to Radio 4 in the UK) called 'Very British Dystopias' by Steven Fielding.
Details as follows:
Very British Dystopias
Archive on 4
Beneath the calm surface of British politics, lurking in the imaginations of some of our leading writers, terrible things have happened. Professor Steven Fielding examines these dystopian visions which have gripped creative and public imaginations in novels and dramas since the end of the second world war.
British democracy has come under threat time and again in fictions from 1984 to V for Vendetta, by way of Dr Who, The Prisoner, A Very British Coup, Edge of Darkness and others.
Britons have been oppressed by authoritarian governments, suffered alien subjugation, been threatened by extremist nationalists in Scotland, endured American-backed coups and faced Soviet attempts to install a Marxist-Leninist Prime Minister. The intelligence services have gone from hero to zero and back again, while more recently elected politicians themselves have threatened democracy.
Some of these stories have left a lasting legacy on our politics: references to 1984 have become part of our culture, and the iconic Guy Fawkes mask from the film V for Vendetta is worn as a symbol of resistance by protestors around the world. But why? And wherein lies the appeal of these visions of politics gone bad? Steven Fielding asks what the authors intended, and whether these visions make a useful contribution to the political process.
He shows how these imagined futures were rooted in the real concerns of times in which they were imagined. And at a time when the politics of Westminster is seen as increasingly irrelevant by many people, he asks what can dystopian visions achieve now?
Interviewees include authors Douglas Hurd, Chris Mullin, Frederick Forsyth and David Hare.
Steven Fielding is Professor of Political History at the University of Nottingham.
However I don't know if you will be able to listen to the link in the US. If you have any trouble, just drop me your email address, and I will send you a copy (I have it on an MP3) However, I promise you that it is well worth a listen.
Think it over and post with any thoughts.
Apologies if we have gone 'Off topic' on this particular issue.
Thank you, el_madman for the link. I'll check it out. And also thank you very much for your interest in The Pale Horse as well. It's gratifying to see some attention from the UK!!
I was wondering if you got a chance to listen to the programme ‘Very British Dystopias’ from the link on the last page.
I am not sure if it will work for you in the US. If not drop me your email address and I will send it to you on MP3. It is well worth listening to.
With reference to your writing of the novel ‘The Pale Horse.’:
David Morrell is a Canadian writer, who is well-known for the publication of the 1972 book ‘First Blood.’ He also had a career as a college lecturer and his two careers had a crossing point in the publication of his book ‘The Successful Novelist: A Lifetime of Lessons about Writing and Publishing.’
Details as follows:
The Successful Novelist: A Lifetime of Lessons about Writing and Publishing By David Morrell
The book is an absolutely superior piece of writing indeed, yet I am not going to do a book review here. In it Morrell contends that there is one reason, and only ONE reason why people are compelled to write books.
Having been through the writing process with your own novel I wonder if you know what the reason is?
I already know, but I want to leave it with you for a while and see if you know / can figure it out. I will answer later.
As both you - and Dr. Lecter - have said: ‘Thrill me with your acumen…’
Once again, apologies if we are indeed: ‘Off Topic.’
Thank you once more. The link didn't work but I found the program (programme to our British friends) on the website for the BBC, and it played. The problem for me is that my hearing is so bad that I found it hard to understand what was being said. And to make matters worse, it was a radio broadcast, so I can't read their lips. Too bad because it sounded interesting. I'll see if the BBC would be willing to send me a transcript of the program. I'd like very much to read it.
Again, thank you for the effort.
As for why I write, I like to tell stories and my speech is a bit hard to understand sometimes, and I'm not used to talking for long long periods so I write. Right now, I have one novel published on kindle, (The Pale Horse), and one other has the rough draft done and is being proofread and various other corrections are being made, and I am starting a third novel. I am jotting down ideas for other novels as I think of them.
Stephen King, in his novel, Salem's Lot, quoted another author who said that 'a novel is a confession to everything by a man who has done nothing'. Very apt in my case. When I read a good novel but especially when I write one, I am actually living the adventures that I never had, but sometimes wish that I did. What this is saying is that a novel serves as wish-fulfilment on the parts of both the writer and the reader. There is much truth to this. In my dull, humdrum life, it is a chance to escape, in my imagination if nowhere else, the sometimes excruciating sameness of my existence.
Is this close to what Mr. Morrell had in mind?
Have I thrilled you with my acumen? And please don't fret about going OT. It is permitted.
Ok, first off I would just like to say that the last post was really excellent and my hat is off to you Gary! You did not precisely hit the reason but you were certainly in the right area, and I will explain why in just a moment.
You came close to thrilling me with your acumen!
Points in order are:
With reference to the audio production ‘Very British Dystopias’ I hope you can indeed contact the BBC and get a transcript from them, not only is the program both worthwhile and interesting I strongly feel it will echo some of your own sentiments after reading the beginning of the text for ‘The Pale Horse.’ So chase it down – the transcript I mean, not the fictional horse!
I have to say that I am genuinely sorry to hear that you hearing has been impaired, and that is based on one single fact as follows: I work a humdrum job (who among us does not?) What it means is that a large proportion of the ‘reading’ that I do now, takes place with an MP3 player in the form of audio-books.
There was a time in the past when audio-books were thought of as something of a novelty or a specialist item. I am glad to say that those dark days are behind us now, the point being that I am now slightly dependent on audio-books to get as much reading done as I do, and why I can empathize with your position of being slightly hearing impaired.
With reference to ‘The Stand’ - Which was the original topic for discussion – Does that mean that you identify with the Nick Andros character?
Next up:
You mentioned a quote that Stephen King used in Salem’s Lot: ‘A novel is a confession to everything by a man who has never done anything.’ Hilarious stuff, it was originally an opinion voiced by Mark Twain, excellent fellow he was.
And so to David Morrell. I had mentioned in my previous post that he had written a book about writing called: ‘The Successful Novelist’ and the publishing details are in the previous post. There is also (seemingly) another book on a similar topic called Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ again by David Morrell, and the details are listed below:
Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing: A Novelist Looks at His Craft By David Morrell Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: Writer's Digest Books; New edition edition (28 Nov. 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 1582972702 ISBN-13: 978-1582972701
Just a word here to help our readers (and in fact would-be writers) out - both ‘The Successful Novelist’. And ‘Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ are in fact exactly the SAME book. It is perfectly Ok – and recommended - to buy either one or other of the texts, but to get them both is simply a waste of your hard-earned money.
How did this happen? Anyone who wants to post please feel free.
And so – in a most round-about fashion – we are back to our original question: Why do people choose to put themselves through the process of writing novels in the first place. ‘Fame’, ‘Money’ and ‘Creativity’ (the old standbys) simply do not rate as answers, they are simply a ‘cover’ for the real reason. Relatively few writers ever attain fame or money in a noticeable amount, and yet people still work hard and in fact strive to write books.
If there is only ONE real reason as David Morrell contends, then what is it? The answer is deceptively simple: The reason that people go through the process of writing a novel is because they are attempting to resolve a childhood trauma of some description.
I’ve thought about that issue a great deal and the more that I have thought about it the more convinced I have become that Morrell is entirely accurate. Look into the background of your favorite novelist and you will be able to see for yourself if the theory bears up under scrutiny.
Me? Well believe it or not I have never written a novel!
Gary, if you have written two books and are embarking on your third then my hat is off to you indeed, I would simply suggest to you that you take the time to read either of the two (exactly the same) David Morrell books listed in the previous discussion. There is much down-to-earth wisdom in what he has written, he expresses himself clearly and he appears to be quite a humble guy.
And I have to say I didn’t appear here to be either a David Morrell or Stephen King apologist, I enjoy the work of both of these writers, however I have never met either of them.
And so...
The post that I have written brings the responses on this thread to 199, that’s a fantastic number! Yes, obviously we have gone ‘Off-Topic’ but I think it is great when someone such as you can start a thread and get some ongoing, not to mention really interesting conversation going from it. Keep up the good work!
Ok, first off I would just like to say that the last post was really excellent and my hat is off to you Gary! You did not precisely hit the reason but you were certainly in the right area, and I will explain why in just a moment.
You came close to thrilling me with your acumen!
Points in order are:
With reference to the audio production ‘Very British Dystopias’ I hope you can indeed contact the BBC and get a transcript from them, not only is the program both worthwhile and interesting I strongly feel it will echo some of your own sentiments after reading the beginning of the text for ‘The Pale Horse.’ So chase it down – the transcript I mean, not the fictional horse!
I have to say that I am genuinely sorry to hear that you hearing has been impaired, and that is based on one single fact as follows: I work a humdrum job (who among us does not?) What it means is that a large proportion of the ‘reading’ that I do now, takes place with an MP3 player in the form of audio-books.
There was a time in the past when audio-books were thought of as something of a novelty or a specialist item. I am glad to say that those dark days are behind us now, the point being that I am now slightly dependent on audio-books to get as much reading done as I do, and why I can empathize with your position of being slightly hearing impaired.
With reference to ‘The Stand’ - Which was the original topic for discussion – Does that mean that you identify with the Nick Andros character?
Next up:
You mentioned a quote that Stephen King used in Salem’s Lot: ‘A novel is a confession to everything by a man who has never done anything.’ Hilarious stuff, it was originally an opinion voiced by Mark Twain, excellent fellow he was.
And so to David Morrell. I had mentioned in my previous post that he had written a book about writing called: ‘The Successful Novelist’ and the publishing details are in the previous post. There is also (seemingly) another book on a similar topic called Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ again by David Morrell, and the details are listed below:
Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing: A Novelist Looks at His Craft By David Morrell Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: Writer's Digest Books; New edition edition (28 Nov. 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 1582972702 ISBN-13: 978-1582972701
Just a word here to help our readers (and in fact would-be writers) out - both ‘The Successful Novelist’. And ‘Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ are in fact exactly the SAME book. It is perfectly Ok – and recommended - to buy either one or other of the texts, but to get them both is simply a waste of your hard-earned money.
How did this happen? Anyone who wants to post please feel free.
And so – in a most round-about fashion – we are back to our original question: Why do people choose to put themselves through the process of writing novels in the first place. ‘Fame’, ‘Money’ and ‘Creativity’ (the old standbys) simply do not rate as answers, they are simply a ‘cover’ for the real reason. Relatively few writers ever attain fame or money in a noticeable amount, and yet people still work hard and in fact strive to write books.
If there is only ONE real reason as David Morrell contends, then what is it? The answer is deceptively simple: The reason that people go through the process of writing a novel is because they are attempting to resolve a childhood trauma of some description.
I’ve thought about that issue a great deal and the more that I have thought about it the more convinced I have become that Morrell is entirely accurate. Look into the background of your favorite novelist and you will be able to see for yourself if the theory bears up under scrutiny.
Me? Well believe it or not I have never written a novel!
Gary, if you have written two books and are embarking on your third then my hat is off to you indeed, I would simply suggest to you that you take the time to read either of the two (exactly the same) David Morrell books listed in the previous discussion. There is much down-to-earth wisdom in what he has written, he expresses himself clearly and he appears to be quite a humble guy.
And I have to say I didn’t appear here to be either a David Morrell or Stephen King apologist, I enjoy the work of both of these writers, however I have never met either of them.
And so...
The post that I have written brings the responses on this thread to 199, that’s a fantastic number! Yes, obviously we have gone ‘Off-Topic’ but I think it is great when someone such as you can start a thread and get some ongoing, not to mention really interesting conversation going from it. Keep up the good work!
Cheers for now, and keep posting everyone.
To quote the immortal Hannibal Lecter once more, 'You're too kind!!'
I do relate to Nick somewhat, but with certain reservations. King has a soft spot if I might use that term for people who are disadvantaged. He favors racial minorities, older people, those who are disabled, and those who are outcasts for whatever reason. This, while it is commendable, often shows itself in ways that are not entirely realistic. Here, I am not just referring to The Stand, but other works such as Carrie, It, The Shining, Cycle of the Werewolf and Dreamcatcher. King's problem is that he quite often overdoes it. By presenting these characters as larger than life, or as having extraordinary abilities, he may be creating expectations among the able-bodied that cannot be fulfilled. For example, going by my own experience, I think that making Nick a leader was extremely unrealistic, and even he (that is, Nick) knew it. Making Tom, who was mentally retarded, Stu's instrument of salvation was another such moment. Likewise with Mother Abagail. In Dreamcatcher, Duddits saves the day, and the Loser's Club in It triumphs over all. In Carrie, you have the victim/heroine giving the villains their just desserts and The Shining (and The Stand) has a old Black person as one of the main 'good guys' (I have heard them and other of King's Black characters referred to as 'magical Negroes'). In Cycle of the Werewolf, later made into the movie Silver Bullet, the young hero is in a wheelchair.
Harold Lauder, in The Stand, and Carrietta White in Carrie, are very well-written characters. In fact, they are so well-written that I wonder if King was not writing about his own experiences growing up. In The Pale Horse, one of the characters is loosely modeled after me.
*Hint* I have in addition to my hearing impairment, a mild case of cerebral palsy, so if you get into the story, you will be able to deduce very quickly who it is.
Which brings us to Mr Morrell's theory. While I can see what he says, I am also afraid that he perhaps oversimplifies as well. Indeed, he reminds me of Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis. There, Freud explains all of our actions as adults as the result of childhood events, and the inner conflicts they create. I think that a good writer will draw from his own experiences, and these will influence his writing. I do it and I very much suspect that King does it as well. Indeed, like I mentioned earlier, parts of The Stand and several other of his novels are so well-written that I am almost certain that they were a reflection of King's own life.
So, with due respect to Mr. Morrell, I think that there are many reasons to write a novel and they are as varied as the writers themselves. I think that Morrell tried to squeeze us all into his own box, and that doesn't work. To give him his due, I think that Mr. Morrell has hit upon one of the reasons, but to say that that is the reason that novels are written, is to grossly oversimplify.
reply share
Ok, to cut a long story very short indeed I am going to say: ‘Bravo Gary‘ on a fantastic previous post there!
This has proved to be a seriously interesting and informative thread! Anyone who is just looking into this now would do well to think that over and consider reading the whole thing for themselves.
With reference to writing – and this is the last time I am going to mention it – I hope that you do indeed keep writing. It is not my hope for you that you become either rich or famous from it (although it would be nice to say the least) what I hope for you is that you are able to write something that fulfils you, and something that will sustain, that way you will have a legacy.
Long may you run, and may your pencil / fountain pen / typewriter / word-processor never run out of good words.
And now to get back on point:
This thread was started as a way of spotting goofs in the book ‘The Stand’ I am probably not the best person for this – as I mentioned before – I’ve only read the book once in 1997. I did, however, watch the mini-series over the past two days and there seems to be two glaring goofs in the TV adaptation (and I am sure there are more) firstly: no-one who is driving through long deserted stretches of post-apocalyptic America bothers to carry any extra stores of fuel with them in the understanding that the outbreak of Captian Tripps has magically caused the gas tanks of the survivors vehicles to become bottomless and eternally filled with fuel.
Also…
The character of Randall Flagg, for all his (would-be) satanic powers and badness doesn’t seem to be able to control any of the female characters: both Nadine Cross and Dayna Jurgens off themselves before they can be of proper use to Randy F. and Julie Lawly, through bad timing, never gets to impart her information directly to Flagg, at a time it would have been useful.
That’s just two things I noticed on re-watching the miniseries, but to be honest I think that the TV version is a pale imitation of the book that inspired it. That's just an opinion.
Ok, people, thanks for reading this far, as usual post with any thoughts you might have.
One thing I always wondered - who now names their kid "Harold" in the first place? It takes place in the 90's, so he was born in the 70's. Sorry but this name is outdated; I think the last Harolds were born like in 1930;s at best.
One thing I always wondered - who now names their kid "Harold" in the first place? It takes place in the 90's, so he was born in the 70's. Sorry but this name is outdated; I think the last Harolds were born like in 1930;s at best.
While I grant that it is not too common now, the name is still around. I know of at least two Harolds born in the 1950's who were classmates of mine.
But it was the 50's. My mother was born then and one guy also born then I know has the name Franciszek which in my generation - I was born in 1984 - was like your Harold/Howard/Horacy/insert any name than is associated only with someone's old grandpa. Even then it was obsolete and it was even more so in our generation - when you have a name from your parents' generation it isn't that bad but when your have one from your grandparents' one, it's just ridiculous. But I did have one Franciszek in my class - my peer. It was VERY obsolete. But - ironically - in this very generation this name got supercommon again - I swear that every second kid/teen has this name now. I just checked - this name is on frigging FOURTH place now. While in my generation he was I bet, like one of few Polish boys having this name. (And one of MANY old folks having it).
The original novel was set in 1980, which would make Harold's birth year 1963 or 1964. I'll grant it is not too common a name, but to call it completely gone by the 1930's is definitely not true as the examples I gave show. It is very likely not true even today.
Here is an example of an actor with the first name Harold who was born in 1963, which is quite close to Harold Lauder's age in the 1978 edition of the book.
No one claims this name is COMPLETELY gone - I even read recently that a couple of years ago - when i was reading about the name Gladys - that even a couple years ago there was a year when like about 60 baby girls were given this name. And this is a typically grannie like name. So everything can happen, yet still no one commented on the name the boy had - i mean, SK could write that Harold got his name after his grandfather or that his parents liked old names and that's why he ended up with this very name or, I don't know, that some of his classmated tesed him for having a name like one for someone's old grandpa etc. Even Perion was commented on - by Fran - that she had a beautiful name.
My mom has a workmate who in turn has a son and this son has a name Bronislaw which is a Harold/Arthur/Edward like one name too, here in Poland - and he is in his middle teens. Oh, btw, what about the name Edward if we are already talking about? Because in Twilight Bella comments on how weird it is that her new friends have obsolete names like from the generation of their grandfathers. What about Edward? Because Eddie Dean from The Dark Tower was born in the 60's or Eddie Furlong - in the 70's and their names are treated normally - no one ever comments on Eddie Dean's name as one that is obsolete, I also never heard about Eddie Furlong referred to as an actor having an obsolete name.
One thing I always wondered - who now names their kid "Harold" in the first place? It takes place in the 90's, so he was born in the 70's. Sorry but this name is outdated; I think the last Harolds were born like in 1930;s at best.
No one claims this name is COMPLETELY gone - I even read recently that a couple of years ago - when i was reading about the name Gladys - that even a couple years ago there was a year when like about 60 baby girls were given this name. And this is a typically grannie like name. So everything can happen, yet still no one commented on the name the boy had - i mean, SK could write that Harold got his name after his grandfather or that his parents liked old names and that's why he ended up with this very name or, I don't know, that some of his classmated tesed him for having a name like one for someone's old grandpa etc. Even Perion was commented on - by Fran - that she had a beautiful name.
I thought that this was precisely what you were claiming, as the first quoted post indicates. However, I'll cut you some slack as I might not have understood you correctly. I agree that 'Harold' is an unusual name nowadays.
No one claims that there are completely NO Harolds AT ALL - they do happen, yet they are superrare now, until we talk about old folks. This is what I meant originally - yet there do happen such babies - from time to time. But they are unusual. And I was wondering why no one in the book commented on the name Harold had - for it was so rare. This is what I meant - and what about Edward's?
This goof involves Trashy. When he breaks his wrist in Powtanville, Indiana, he runs away from the Cheery Oil refinery with his 'right hand flopping' and yet a few paragraphs later, he is pressing both hands against his ears to protect them from the explosion. If, as the book implies, a few minutes earlier he had broken the wrist, and it was 'flopping', how could he have pushed that hand /wrist against his ear?
I have just come over here from the 'Salem's Lot' board to re-print part of a post from there (albeit 'Off Topic' it related to this post about 'goofs for The Stand') as follows:
I have to say that the thread on 'goofs' for 'The Stand' is actually a seriously interesting and educational read, although admittedly a lot of the stuff is 'Off-Topic'
It does indeed cover 'goofs' in The Stand (both the novel and TV version), however there is also a fair amount on there about the (real world) technical details of firearms, writing, writing about writing, the nature of dystopian fiction, and some interesting thoughts on the name 'Harold'.
Anyone with some time on their hands would do well to drop by and get a wide-ranging education.
I read the entire thing yesterday, and is actually did fire off a few synapses for me as follows:
People such as 'gary_overman' and 'Jefbecco-1' who know a great deal about the technical specs of firearms and guns in general would do well to get (paid) work to proofread the work of writers who knowledge is not up to par on that level. Someone who was already working as a writer (not me) made that point during the ongoing discussion.
Well and good, and that is something for those concerned to think over.
Secondly:
The British actor Hugh Laurie (who used to play the part of Gregory House on House MD in the US TV series) is actually a very talented guy (he is a musician, actor, singer, comedian and author) He once wrote a book called 'The Gun Seller' and the details are as follows:
The Gun Seller by Hugh Laurie Paperback: 339 pages Publisher: Washington Square Press; Reprint edition (October 1, 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 067102082X ISBN-13: 978-0671020828 Product Dimensions: 5.3 x 0.9 x 8.2 inches
The book is an action comedy spy caper, and there are a serious amount of one-line jokes - enough to make anyone laugh.
The book is worth reading and a good laugh, but the reason I bring it up (in this context) is that it is also choc-full of technical details about guns and weaponry of all descriptions, and (although I am no expert) it makes me think that Hugh Laurie must have had some editorial assistance from someone who really knew their firearms specs.
As I say I am hardly the person to comment, but for people such as 'gary_overman' and 'Jefbecco-1' who really know their stuff it might prove to be well worth a read, not only because the book is a good laugh, it would also be a way of putting both the readier and the writer to the test on technical firearms stuff.
Anyway, I thought it might be worth a mention. I also might copy this post and drop it onto the 'goofs' page for 'The Stand' just for more info there, and to keep the thread going...
OK... As you can see that's been done now, anyone with any further thoughts, please post.
This goof involves Trashy. When he breaks his wrist in Powtanville, Indiana, he runs away from the Cheery Oil refinery with his 'right hand flopping' and yet a few paragraphs later, he is pressing both hands against his ears to protect them from the explosion. If, as the book implies, a few minutes earlier he had broken the wrist, and it was 'flopping', how could he have pushed that hand /wrist against his ear?
This is related to the post I'm quoting: Trashy has a broken right wrist. His left arm is burned to a crisp. Yet King still has him riding his bike with a broken wrist. This same wrist was later twisted to a Quasimodo-like claw.
How was he able to control his bike especially at first?
reply share
Ok, first off I would just like to say that the last post was really excellent and my hat is off to you Gary! You did not precisely hit the reason but you were certainly in the right area, and I will explain why in just a moment.
You came close to thrilling me with your acumen!
Points in order are: With reference to the audio production ‘Very British Dystopias’ I hope you can indeed contact the BBC and get a transcript from them, not only is the program both worthwhile and interesting I strongly feel it will echo some of your own sentiments after reading the beginning of the text for ‘The Pale Horse.’ So chase it down – the transcript I mean, not the fictional horse!
I have to say that I am genuinely sorry to hear that you hearing has been impaired, and that is based on one single fact as follows: I work a humdrum job (who among us does not?) What it means is that a large proportion of the ‘reading’ that I do now, takes place with an MP3 player in the form of audio-books.
There was a time in the past when audio-books were thought of as something of a novelty or a specialist item. I am glad to say that those dark days are behind us now, the point being that I am now slightly dependent on audio-books to get as much reading done as I do, and why I can empathize with your position of being slightly hearing impaired.
With reference to ‘The Stand’ - Which was the original topic for discussion – Does that mean that you identify with the Nick Andros character?
Next up:
You mentioned a quote that Stephen King used in Salem’s Lot: ‘A novel is a confession to everything by a man who has never done anything.’ Hilarious stuff, it was originally an opinion voiced by Mark Twain, excellent fellow he was.
And so to David Morrell. I had mentioned in my previous post that he had written a book about writing called: ‘The Successful Novelist’ and the publishing details are in the previous post. There is also (seemingly) another book on a similar topic called Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ again by David Morrell, and the details are listed below:
Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing: A Novelist Looks at His Craft By David Morrell Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: Writer's Digest Books; New edition edition (28 Nov. 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 1582972702 ISBN-13: 978-1582972701
Just a word here to help our readers (and in fact would-be writers) out - both ‘The Successful Novelist’. And ‘Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing’ are in fact exactly the SAME book. It is perfectly Ok – and recommended - to buy either one or other of the texts, but to get them both is simply a waste of your hard-earned money.
How did this happen? Anyone who wants to post please feel free.
And so – in a most round-about fashion – we are back to our original question: Why do people choose to put themselves through the process of writing novels in the first place. ‘Fame’, ‘Money’ and ‘Creativity’ (the old standbys) simply do not rate as answers, they are simply a ‘cover’ for the real reason. Relatively few writers ever attain fame or money in a noticeable amount, and yet people still work hard and in fact strive to write books.
If there is only ONE real reason as David Morrell contends, then what is it? The answer is deceptively simple: The reason that people go through the process of writing a novel is because they are attempting to resolve a childhood trauma of some description.
I’ve thought about that issue a great deal and the more that I have thought about it the more convinced I have become that Morrell is entirely accurate. Look into the background of your favorite novelist and you will be able to see for yourself if the theory bears up under scrutiny.
Me? Well believe it or not I have never written a novel!
Gary, if you have written two books and are embarking on your third then my hat is off to you indeed, I would simply suggest to you that you take the time to read either of the two (exactly the same) David Morrell books listed in the previous discussion. There is much down-to-earth wisdom in what he has written, he expresses himself clearly and he appears to be quite a humble guy.
And I have to say I didn’t appear here to be either a David Morrell or Stephen King apologist, I enjoy the work of both of these writers, however I have never met either of them.
And so...
The post that I have written brings the responses on this thread to 199, that’s a fantastic number! Yes, obviously we have gone ‘Off-Topic’ but I think it is great when someone such as you can start a thread and get some ongoing, not to mention really interesting conversation going from it. Keep up the good work!
Cheers for now, and keep posting everyone.
Due to not knowing where this post will appear in the thread, I offer the quoted post in its' entirety. The response is to the part that I highlighted about British dystopias.
The script that Mr E so kindly provided was an examination of British dystopian fiction. Given the definition of dystopia I am frankly surprised that the series Threads was not included in the discussion. Since the term means
relating to or denoting an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one.
I'd think that Threads certainly qualifies, as it concerns life in the UK after a nuclear holocaust.
Be that as it may, the common theme of such works both in the UK and here in the US, is that we are only a stone's throw away from such a state of affairs and extreme caution is needed lest we fall into the 'trap for the unwary fly'. Mr E, that phrase should be familiar to you.
The program pointed out that with the exception of people such as Frederick Forsythe in The Fourth Protocol, that the overwhelming majority of such threats are portrayed as coming from the political Right, as their reaction to the Soviet threat was commonly seen as more of a threat that the Soviets themselves were. However, much of this was nothing more than political posturing. On this side of the pond, Keith Olbermann could be seen in these terms from the left and Alex Jones might be in this position on the right wing side.
In reality, Obama, while I disagreed with him a great deal, was not even close to being a dictator, and Trump won't be either. I took away from the script that we should be ever vigilant, but also should not engage in paranoia.
It was an interesting read, Mr E, and I thank you for taking the trouble to send it to me.
reply share
Thinking that I found another one. In the chapter introducing Flagg, (Chapter 17 in the 1978 edition, and 23 in the 1990 version) we are told Chris Bradenton was kicked out of school when he was in his thirties, for 'getting too chummy with the SDS'. Even during the early 1960's this would not have been done, unless there was something more to it than that. Especially at a public college. The SDS was not really violent until the late 1960's, and even then it was mostly the Weathermen that used violence.
Maybe not a definite goof, but it is something that I wonder about.
Excuse me if these questions have come up before, but:
1. Is there any such thing as a 'recoil-less' rifle?
2. What is a 'gas-tipped' slug?
Is this complete fantasy or do such things exist?
Cheers for now.
Not as King has it here, no. In order for a device to be 'recoilless', there has to be an opening for the backblast. And besides that, if a cartridge arm has no closed breech, the projectile can't go very far.
There are such things as 'recoilless' weapons, but the breech is open and the projectiles are rocket-propelled. A bazooka is the only example that I can think of off-hand or maybe a LAW. That is an acronym for Light Anti-Armor Weapon.
[b]A fanciful invention by King. Outside of this novel, I have never heard of such a thing. BTW, 70 rounds per second is a neat trick as well. That is 4200 rounds per minute, weighing at least 100 pounds, depending on the rounds being used. reply share
BTW, 70 rounds per second is a neat trick as well. That is 4200 rounds per minute, weighing at least 100 pounds, depending on the rounds being used.
Yes. I have read all the way thought this particular thread within the last year, and I have a funny idea that this query might have come up before:
4200 rounds per minute seems like a SERIOUS rate of fire - Even to the uninitiated.
I have to acknowledge that I know little or nothing about firearms - but wouldn't such a rate of fire cause the gun / rifle to overheat and blow up in the users hands, or be simply downright dangerous?
BTW, 70 rounds per second is a neat trick as well. That is 4200 rounds per minute, weighing at least 100 pounds, depending on the rounds being used.
Yes. I have read all the way thought this particular thread within the last year, and I have a funny idea that this query might have come up before:
4200 rounds per minute seems like a SERIOUS rate of fire - Even to the uninitiated.
I have to acknowledge that I know little or nothing about firearms - but wouldn't such a rate of fire cause the gun / rifle to overheat and blow up in the users hands, or be simply downright dangerous?
In fact, could it even be a misprint?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Excellent!!! I do believe I'll make a gunman out of you yet!
The only thing I can think of with a rate of fire even approaching this would be a multi-barrel device such as a chain gun. It really does not take all that many rounds fired in rapid succession to overheat a single-barrel system. In fact, the US M-60 machine gun and other similar designs are designed with this in mind. You can change the barrel out on an M-60 quite rapidly as they do quite often burn out. Also, these are big bulky weapons designed for a two- or three man crew, and I believe that the chain gun is vehicle-mounted.
It might also amuse you to know that there are videos on youtube showing what happens to the wood furniture on a military Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle. The barrel grossly overheats and the wood catches fire. In a case like that, the weapon is ruined.
reply share
It might also amuse you to know that there are videos on youtube showing what happens to the wood furniture on a military Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle. The barrel grossly overheats and the wood catches fire. In a case like that, the weapon is ruined.
Here is a link. I do not think this is a good idea, BTW.
Here is a link. I do not think this is a good idea, BTW.
Hat's off to you for the last post! That's well said, in fact I couldn't have said it better myself. I watched the video in the link, and it does indeed show the weapon eventually going on fire and being too hot to handle.
I think it's fair to say that the rate of fire that SK was suggesting in 'The Stand' is simply so preposterous as to make it a goof.
Think I spotted another one. After Mother Abagail returns, the novel says that Ralph took Frannie to see her in his 'clattering old truck'. Hadn't he switched vehicles in Nebraska?
Stephen King is not a "gun-guy". This is obvious when he creates something like that fantastical recoilless rifle that is capable of firing over 4,000 rounds per minute. As Gary stated the only weapon capable of such a high rate of fire is the multi-barreled Gatling Gun or Vulcan cannon.
I have no idea of what a "gas tipped slug" is supposed to be unless King was thinking of High Explosive Incendiary/Armor Piercing Ammunition which combines a tungsten carbide penetrator with an incendiary and explosive tip. However those types of rounds are fired by tanks and other larger guns - not a handheld rifle. They do manufacture rifle rounds that are designed to penetrate armor but they don't have explosive tips.
King will often have his characters carry something that is impractical for real world usage such as one of his characters using a Desert Eagle pistol in "Duma Key" or ,in one of his short stories, a character grabs a .410 gauge shotgun (a small bore shotgun) and refers to it as a very powerful firearm - which it isn't. If you have read any of the Dark Tower books you probably have also noticed that he really has a thing for Ruger's single-action Blackhawk revolver. An infatuation which he seemed to have passed onto his oldest son Joe Hill. In Hill's novel "Heart Shaped Box" a Blackhawk revolver plays a pretty large role.King is impressed with firepower, but has never looked into what is practical for real world activities (i.e. hunting vs. concealed carry and target shooting vs combat shooting). The one time this works though is in Road Work which he wrote under the Richard Bachman pen-name. In that novel he has his protagonist buy a Weatherby Mk V rifle in 460 Weatherby Magnum (a cartridge used in Arica to take elephants and cape buffalo) and a Smith & Wesson 44 magnum revolver. But the character doesn't know guns and he's influenced by the Dirty Harry movies. Since the story is set in 1973 that works perfectly.
I've often suspected that much of what King learned about firearms came from his youth when he grew up watching westerns, World War II movies and television. I also get the impression that since it was him and his mother he was adopted (so to speak and in a positive way) by men who had some influence on him. Possibly many of those men served during World War II (this would have been in the fifties and early sixties) which is why the M1 carbine, M1 Garand rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle and the Colt 1911A1 Government pistol (Colt 45) play such a large role in his (earlier) writings. Those were standard issue firearms in WWII. An example of this would be in The Stand (novel not mini-series) when Trashy goes to the nuclear weapon storage facility and picks up a Browning Automatic Rifle. The BAR was declared obsolete in the late 1950's and was long gone by the mid-seventies (when King wrote The Stand). You wouldn't have found an obsolete weapon at a DOD facility where nukes and other high level/top-secret weapons are stored. But King knew the BAR so he put it in there.
Like I said not a gun guy. I like much of what he writes, but I just take the inaccuracies in stride.
Hey there, Mr C!! Good to see yuou here again. How you been? A month or so ago, I read 11/22/63, and posted a comment on the board for the 1979 version of 'Salem's Lot. Here is a C&P.
So far, 11/22/3/63 is pretty good. I just got through with the trip to Derry in 1958 and the guy is returning to Lisbon Falls. I think I'm going to like it, but I still will likely think The Stand is better.
A postscript if I might. King still goofs on guns. The gun used in the Derry episode is described as a Colt Police Special. That is barely acceptable, although to the best of my knowledge, Colt never made a revolver with that particular model name. All right; I'll give King a pass on that one. But where he really shows his abysmal ignorance is when he describes the sales clerk 'rolling out the barrel and giving it a spin. clickclickclick' The price on the gun is way too low as well. Military surplus Enfields and Mausers cost more than that in the days when you could get them mail-order. Even surplus Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers cost a bunch more than that.
Glad you enjoyed it. I've been a "gun-guy" most of my life. Both privately (I collect vintage or old revolvers) and professionally (U.S. Army and law enforcement). I try not to get morally outraged by mistakes made by authors. Like any specialized field the knowledge comes from years of experience and knowing how to find the correct information. I'm not a cook and even if I researched the topic for several months before writing a novel involving a chef I would make some mistakes. It's to be expected.
I enjoyed your post as well--thanks for writing it. It's funny how everyone has their own expertise in things like this. I never notice goofs about guns since I simply know little of the details about them. But horses! That's my field and I get irritated by anachronistic tack, or imcorrect terminology.
I'm also a historian, and it drives me nuts when shows depict Salem witches being burned. They were hanged, dammit! lol
I caught that as well Gary. I let it go because not many folks would know the difference between the Colt Police Positive (which is the model used in the mini-series) and the larger framed Colt Official Police (just middle aged men like the two of us). I did like the fact that the show went with a Colt revolver. In 1960 Colt was starting to lose ground to Smith & Wesson, but many still preferred Colt revolvers and I've read that Colt's metallurgy was stronger than Smith & Wessons steel.My paternal grandfather (1917-2004) was a Colt man to the end. He told me that S&W steel was "soft" and to only go with Colt. I still have the Colt Detective Special that he gave to me back in 1983.i His son, my father, didn't agree when it came to revolvers. Dad is a dyed in the wool S&W wheelgun fan. But he was a cop in the seventies and eighties.Different generations and different attitudes. The prices weren't accurate at all. I have a 1963 Gun Digest and the MSRP for a Colt Police Postive was around $80.00. Colt was always a bit more than S&W.
I caught that as well Gary. I let it go because not many folks would know the difference between the Colt Police Positive (which is the model used in the mini-series) and the larger framed Colt Official Police (just middle aged men like the two of us). I did like the fact that the show went with a Colt revolver. In 1960 Colt was starting to lose ground to Smith & Wesson, but many still preferred Colt revolvers and I've read that Colt's metallurgy was stronger than Smith & Wessons steel.My paternal grandfather (1917-2004) was a Colt man to the end. He told me that S&W steel was "soft" and to only go with Colt. I still have the Colt Detective Special that he gave to me back in 1983.i His son, my father, didn't agree when it came to revolvers. Dad is a dyed in the wool S&W wheelgun fan. But he was a cop in the seventies and eighties.Different generations and different attitudes. The prices weren't accurate at all. I have a 1963 Gun Digest and the MSRP for a Colt Police Postive was around $80.00. Colt was always a bit more than S&W.
They actually used the Police Positive in the show, huh? Intriguing. It might have been mentioned before, but the Police Positive Special is a model of which I have always been inordinately fond.
And while my current EDC is a S&W K-, or L-frame, I think there is definitely something to the idea of superior Colt metallurgy. The late Chic Gaylord wrote a classic book called Handgunners Guide (which my brother gave me for Christmas more than 50 years ago) and he takes the stand that the Official Police revolver was not only the finest service revolver made, but it was much stronger than the K-frame S&W. In fact, the last DA Colt authorized for patrol carry by the NYPD, the Metropolitan MkIII, had a reputation of one of the most rugged 38 service weapons ever made. The Metro MkIII is one of my Holy Grail guns. The Metro, was basically the Lawman MkIII only chambered in 38 special, and it came about because agencies like NYPD would not permit their officers to carry 357's even if they were loaded with 38's.
If you by any chance ever run across a Metropolitan MkIII in decent condition, let me know, would you please?
reply share
Sure thing. However don't hold your breath that either of us will find one, but you never know. Back in 2009 I ran across a pre-war S&W 38/44 Heavy Duty revolver with 5" barrel. The sticker price was $550.00. I went home and grabbed a Luger and a Ruger GP100 and the dealer took my offer of two for one. I had to have that Heavy Duty. I still have it. I've never come across one since. Just seen them on the Internet auctions. So it does happen sometimes.
Going to an estate auction this Friday (July 8th). Among the many things being auctioned off is a ninety-two piece gun collection. I'm going to make a run for a Colt New Service in 45 Colt and a Colt Officer Model Target. There are also two Mauser Broomhandles and a Mauser 'Bolo' being auctioned off, but I suspect those will go high, but then again.....
Sure thing. However don't hold your breath that either of us will find one, but you never know. Back in 2009 I ran across a pre-war S&W 38/44 Heavy Duty revolver with 5" barrel. The sticker price was $550.00. I went home and grabbed a Luger and a Ruger GP100 and the dealer took my offer of two for one. I had to have that Heavy Duty. I still have it. I've never come across one since. Just seen them on the Internet auctions. So it does happen sometimes.
Going to an estate auction this Friday (July 8th). Among the many things being auctioned off is a ninety-two piece gun collection. I'm going to make a run for a Colt New Service in 45 Colt and a Colt Officer Model Target. There are also two Mauser Broomhandles and a Mauser 'Bolo' being auctioned off, but I suspect those will go high, but then again.....
Thank you, Mr C; I'd appreciate it. The Colt Metro MkIII is, like I have said before, one of my Holy Grail guns.
However, back to The Stand; your recent response in another thread brings to mind a question that I have had for a long time, and that is; was there a supernatural enhancement of some kind to the virus that causes CT? You have asked this same question.
I can't say with any certainty that there was, but I still wonder.
reply share
I understand that this particular thread is both long and seriously detailed (and not to mention, a lot of it is also 'off-topic' and yet is remains always interesting!)
Long story short - this one might have been covered before, if so then please say so.
On the subject of 'Electricity.'
Towards the end of the novel 'Trashy' or 'The Trashcan Man' is on his quest for the holy grail (that being a nuclear warhead) King makes much of the fact that there is no electrical supply to the military compound where Trashy locates the warhead in question, but he also allows Trashy to drive an electric powered tug vehicle with which to move the thing around.
King also suggests (but does not ever say) how Trashy is able to manoeuvre both the warhead and the electric tug (which he needs to transport the thing to NV) up five flights of stairs without the electric that he needs.
Does this qualify as a 'goof' or is this simply a case of 'artistic licence?'
And now an 'Off-Topic' question for fans of 'Lord of the Rings':
At the end of the 'Rings' trilogy Golem bites of Frodo's finger (such is his desire to be with 'The Ring' and then promptly falls into Mount Doom (as you do!) which brings the whole thing to a rather snappy conclusion.
If 'The Stand' bears comparison to 'Lord of the Rings' does that mean that Trashy is standing in for the Golem character in this insistence?
An interesting thought, please post with any thoughts.
King has Trashy basically build a power winch. Trashy thinks about it and decides he will have to find a motor (presumably gas powered) then build a chain winch to haul everything up the stairs. Trashy realizes that he won't be able to find five hundred feet of chain so he will weld the links together - unsure if they will hold. King then leaves Trashy before this monumental task begins. Trashy is an idiot savant when it comes to mechanical things so I suppose there was no reason to stay with him. The next time we see Trashy is in Vegas - with the nuke. Again the implausibility ties in with God's Will. God helps those who help themselves ( or so I've heard) and God needed Trashy to get that nuke to Vegas. I know many don't seem to want to discuss the obvious religious aspects in the story and I'm not a Bible Thumper, but it's all there. Even King ,in the introduction to the revised edition, calls it a tale of Dark Christianity. I believe in his book Danse Macabre King writes that he initially conceived The Stand as being a modern Lord of the Rings story set in post-apocalyptic America. So your observation is dead on in my opinion.
Just watching the mini-series and when Nick is with the sheriff and the doctor, Nick seemed to be able to answer the Doctor's questions even when he is not looking at him. Nick is looking down when the doctor is checking him over and the doc asks him 'Does that hurt?' and Nick responds with a thumb-and-index finger gesture 'a little', but there was no way he could have heard the question.
King tells us in the book that Nick was profoundly deaf, and not able to experience sound, which is rare as most deaf people are able to do so, at least on a limited basis.
Just watching the mini-series and when Nick is with the sheriff and the doctor, Nick seemed to be able to answer the Doctor's questions even when he is not looking at him.
I didn't catch that; but I did notice that during Abigail's laments to Nick just before they depart for Boulder ("My family used to own all this land," etc), much of the time Nick wasn't looking at her at all.
Here's a goof in the Kindle edition; I haven't looked to see if it's in the hardcover edition. From Chapter 25. Nick is doing deputy duty at the Arkansas jail, and things are already falling apart. We read that Nick "had gone down to the truck-stop to get his three prisoners lunch, but Vince Hogan hadn't been able to eat. He was delirious."
Doesn't surprise me that Vince wasn't able to eat, since he died at the end of Chapter 18.
Here's a goof in the Kindle edition; I haven't looked to see if it's in the hardcover edition. From Chapter 25. Nick is doing deputy duty at the Arkansas jail, and things are already falling apart. We read that Nick "had gone down to the truck-stop to get his three prisoners lunch, but Vince Hogan hadn't been able to eat. He was delirious."
Doesn't surprise me that Vince wasn't able to eat, since he died at the end of Chapter 18.
Excellent!! That is something that I did not pick up on.
reply share
Here is something that I just noticed. In the very beginning of the book, Stu is described as going to work at the age of nine, for the owner of the truck-stop where his mother worked as a waitress, for thirty-five cents an hour. Since at the time of the story, he is thirty years old, that would have put the time that he worked for the truck-stop as roughly 1969. That strikes me as awfully low wages, even for that era. Even for a nine-year-old kid. This is from the uncut version.
I notice that the burning-down of the truck-stop is updated from 1979 in the 1990 version from 1969 (which it was in the 1978 edition), but Stu's wages are not. Probable editing error.
Something that I wonder about. I'm reading the 1978 edition right now and I just got past Larry and Rita's episode in the tunnel. In the C&U version set in 1990, Larry goes to Manhattan Sporting Goods to pick the rifle up. In the 1978 version, the rifle just appears out of nowhere, and we have no idea where it came from; the first mention of it in the 1978 edition is just before Larry goes in the tunnel when it is mentioned as leaning against his backpack.
Almost certainly an editing mistake. King probably included the mention of the sporting goods store in the original manuscript, but it was edited out and no corrections were made later in the text.
This concerns Harold's in toto nomination of the ad hoc committee in Chapter 53. After the public meeting, Stu said that that was 'sharp' and wondered why they never discussed it. Yet at the very start of Chapter 53, we have the minutes of the second meeting of the committee, and Fran said that Stuart and her had talked about how it would have been easier if Mother Abagail had endorsed the entire slate. So, it appears that they did talk about it, at a minimum.
Perhaps not a definite for certain goof, but something that I, at least, wonder about.
Perhaps found another one. Harold's Colt is described as being held in the shoulder holster by a strap across the butt. I have never seen anything like that. On any shoulder rig that I have ever used, (not that I use them all that often) the strap most commonly goes between the trigger guard and the grip, and rarely over the hammer. Am I missing something here?
For those who want to reference this, it is mentioned just after Harold and Nadine have parted ways.
One is that Stu's eyes are first described by a character as being blue. Then the narrator says something like "his eyes grew dark but then returned to their soft brown" (maybe not exact words but this is the general meaning), and later his eyes are blue again.
The other thing is that Stu gives up his sport scholarship to raise his younger brother after their mom dies. The brother then moves to a big city and has a white collar job and apparently wants little to do with Stu. No family is mentioned. Then later Stuart is musing about the book Watership Down that he got "for a nephew", as if he had lots of them. It doesn't sound like his brother's son. Maybe it was his late wife's nephew but that's not specified.
And I was even going to create a new topic to talk about what someone else mentioned here: Fran's stupidity at getting pregnant five months (or less) after having a c section. It is possible to have a vaginal birth after a c section but doctors recommend you wait at least two years. But even then it's risky, much more with no doctors, hospitals or electricity. So the Fran haters can at least be happy knowing that she probably didn't survive that second pregnancy lol
Haven't posted here before so not sure if I'm doing this right! Two things bothered me about the movie, when Ralph meets Nick and Tom cycling on their way to Nebraska, he picks them up and continues driving they way they just came from.
Also how could Tom and Dayna reach Vegas before the Judge, when the Judge left before them and Tom was on a bicycle. Been awhile since I read the book so not sure if this is the case there too.
Few parts in the movie too where mother Abigail is talking to Nick but she is not facing him or they are both facing the corn field, so how would he be able to lip read what she is saying.
Haven't posted here before so not sure if I'm doing this right! Two things bothered me about the movie, when Ralph meets Nick and Tom cycling on their way to Nebraska, he picks them up and continues driving they way they just came from. Also how could Tom and Dayna reach Vegas before the Judge, when the Judge left before them and Tom was on a bicycle. Been awhile since I read the book so not sure if this is the case there too.
Few parts in the movie too where mother Abigail is talking to Nick but she is not facing him or they are both facing the corn field, so how would he be able to lip read what she is saying.
Small things I know but annoying all the same :)
Good catch on your part. I'm glad that others noticed this as well.
The Judge never reached Vegas; he was met in eastern Oregon. He deliberately took a circuitous route to Flagg, presumably so it wouldn't appear that he had come in from Boulder.
Not only then but also while he was in the Shoyo Jail. An owl hoots and he reacts to it, and when Doc Soames is speaking he understands even though he is looking away. reply share
Thanks for reply. I knew the Judge never reached Vegas, just thought it odd that Tom left on a push bike and is already shown to be working in the Indian Springs airbase while the Judge is still en route.
I noticed that too about the owl hooting while he is in jail but thought it was maybe a residue of the dream he had just been having where he could hear things.
WOW!! A whole lot of data seems to have been lost. It looks like we're going to have to start building this thread up all over again. So, let's get started, shall we?
In the 1978 version of the book, (taking place in 1980) Stu is described as having been 'in the war'. Since he was thirty years old, that would put his year of birth as 1950 or possibly 1949, and the Vietnam conflict was going at the time of Stu's military service.
The 1990 version still has Stu serving in the war, but his age has not changed. He is still thirty and there was no recent conflicts for him to have served in.
What likely happened here is that when the 1978 version was expanded, this little tidbit was missed in the editing.
Something I noticed in this re-read, a minor thing but that bothers me a little, is that when the murder of Ray Flowers is set-up the text states that when the nearby soldiers (about 50 miles away) are ordered to go and shut him down, two soldiers refuse and are executed. Presumably this was summary execution right there in the field since there wasn't time to arrest these guys and put them on trial. So next the rest of the platoon or whatever arrives at the radio tower and the NCO in a charge guns down Mr. Flowers, only to then be gunned down by one of his men, in shock. Why the surprise at the murder of Mr. Flowers? This same NCO had executed two of their ranks just an hour so previously so what did they think was gonna happen when he ordered the troops to shoot their way into the studio and confront the radio host? It just seems that little tidbit about the two soldiers being executed first should have been cut or should have been part of some other incident.
Also, earlier in the thread somebody mentioned an apparent slip with Nick and his prisoners on Shoyo, who one of the men is described as delirious and then dead by six o'clock that evening. In the next chapter, all three men are alive. However I think this is not actually a goof but a bit of convoluted writing. Vic is indeed stated as dead at the very end of the previous chapter, but the next chapter starts several days later and then goes back and recounts previous events, which includes Nick going to the get the men food and finding Vic dead that evening when he returns to the jail. So it isn't actually a goof. Just a bit hard to follow.
Now, one gun goof I noticed is that the military in the book is frequently described using .45 caliber handguns. However if I my knowledge is correct, the military switched to the 9mm Beretta in the mid 80's. So in the 1990 edition of the story they should primarily be using those pistols as sidearms and not what are, presumably, colt 1911's.
> Frannie tells Stu she wants to leave Boulder and return to her hometown in Maine
Well, actually she said she wanted to return to Maine, but when Stu asked her if she wanted to go to Ogunquit she said, "Eventually, maybe. But not right away." But yeah, it struck me as creepy too that she might want to do that at all. I can't imagine anything more depressing than wandering around my hometown, now a ghost town with almost all the bodies not buried but lying in their death beds inside the houses I was walking past.
But as far as leaving civilization (electricity, doctors, etc) ... well, I get that, if not directly. I'm in my fifties, and I've been close to dying a couple of times. I've seen a fair number of other people die. And there comes a time when you realize that you are mortal, you will die eventually, and you make a decision; how will you use the short time you have? You can opt for timidity and safety, prolonging your life as long as possible. At the other extreme you can eschew safety and live recklessly, valuing each experience as it comes. Most people do something in between.
Under normal circumstances Fran would be way too young to be at that decision point. But she's seen the world die, and has personally seen hundreds of corpses, dying people's last words, etc. Now, living with just my spouse and children, away from all other human companionship, isn't exactly my idea of the good life. But if it's what she wants, it doesn't surprise me that she'd do it if possible.
But it would have struck me as more plausible if their family and a few others had picked some spot a few dozen miles away from Boulder and started a village there. Glen foresaw that Boulder would become so big they'd have to start seeding communities around them. Something like that. I've lived in cities and in small towns, and over the years I've come to prefer small town life, so I get their wanting to get out of increasingly "metropolitan" Boulder.
On a side note -- a little later it's mentioned that Mark Zellman is going to learn to fly and go to Hawaii. Having spent some time in airplane cockpits, I can say that this is flat out crazy. Even if he had an instructor, under normal circumstances he'd have to learn to fly a multi-engine plane in no visibility (using instruments only) before he could sanely attempt that; and now, all the navigational aids are out of service and there's no weather data.
Furthermore, it's never even hinted that there's someone in Boulder who could teach him, and even flying the simplest of planes is not a thing you can teach yourself how to do, even if only for a quick jog around the runway traffic pattern.
I'd give this fool a one hundred percent chance that he'd crash within his first few flights; and then 50/50 whether he killed himself in that crash, or lived through it and realized that the whole thing was a very bad idea.
Good point about the flying instruction, Mr Schmidt. My oldest brother used to fly for a living and while he was a darned good pilot, he had to be taught how. Some have more talent than others (me? I have NO flying talent) but even those have such talent must be taught by competent instructors.
BTW, since this thread is so long, it has become extremely unwieldy so I'll start another one.
When Nick has the fight with Ray Booth's bunch in Shoyo, he suspects 'by the sound' that he has broken one of the attacker's noses. How could he do this if he was profoundly deaf?
I wish that we could get this thread going again. Does anyone have something that they can add or maybe a question about the book or the 1994 miniseries?