Thanks for the heads-up.

Not a DL fan and I'm not a Graphic Audio completist, but Stoneface is something special.

 

Stone face was ok,well maybe better than ok,but no where near being the best book in the series(I think somebody is just a huge Mark Ellis fan)I am a fan of his too,but I prefer most LJ books to Stoneface.
Plus Mark made some mistakes like saying a 1911 fires a .38 rd(actually it is a .45 rd) and he describes Mildred using a "unweildly HKMP5".Sorry,but I disagree strongly as well as do all the Swat teams across America,The elite British S.A.S.,and anyone who really knows that the HK MP5 is among the mosr eligant.ergonomic and reliable 9MM subguns in current use.

These are however just "minor"mistakes,Mark's writing is very good though.(just hardly would I say that Stone Face is that great)

Posted By Raboy on 01 Aug 2008 08:16 PM

Finally--Graphic Audio does what is probably the best damn DL book in the series--Stoneface!

This was the book that got me back into reading DL again after several years of laying off--little did I know then that Stoneface was by a writer who would be one of my favorite authors, Mark Ellis, and that book  sewed the seeds for what would be my favorite SF series--Outlanders!

Give a listen

http://www.graphicaudio.n...89-34-stoneface.aspx

 

I wonder if they got the right sound effects for the right weapons. Hell I don't want to listen to an audio book where a 5.56mm round sounds like a 9mm one do I ?

Posted By )3az )3aziah on 19 Jul 2009 03:18 PM
. Hell I don't want to listen to an audio book where a 5.56mm round sounds like a 9mm one do I ?

Dear God, who would?

But at least Mark got the science right...which is something every science-fiction writer should to make an effort to do.

It probably was a first for a DL novel up to that point.

I cant argue there. Stomeface is my favorite post LJ (well almost post LJ anyhow) DL boks yet.

As ever Marks use of science (even in fiction) is spot on.

Posted By One Eyed Vengance on 19 Jul 2009 09:20 AM
Plus Mark made some mistakes like saying a 1911 fires a .38 rd(actually it is a .45 rd) and he describes Mildred using a "unweildly HKMP5".Sorry,but I disagree strongly

What a coincidence...so do I.

I call the cut-and-paste challenge...or the Input Challenge in this instance.

On what pages of Stoneface did these "mistakes" appear?

Full quote.

I  suspect your motivation in dredging up this nearly year-old topic has very little to do with actually engaging in an open discussion.

No problem Mark,Stone Face is sitting right in front of me and my "motivation" that you questioned is that I just re-read the book.When I read the book Years ago I was not a gun lover like I am now and did not notice your errors when I read it the first time.

Ok Mark,here we go:Sone Face pg.196 "It used a 20 rd magazine"(no it uses a 30 rd)"Ryan had considered the MP5 because of fond memories of his HK G12 Caseless,but felt it's fixed wooden stock would interfere with his movements"(wrong again,the MP5 has a synthetic polymer stock or a collapsabile wire stock)
Stone Face pg.254:"For an Instant He Forgot All About The .38 Caliber Colt M-1911 tucked in his belt slide rig"(ouch!,as we all know the M-1911 is a .45)
Stone Face pg.272 "The MP5 kept banging her shins,and she realized why Ryan had passed on choosing it.It was bulky and a little unwieldy." (again I would say WRONG as I am sure the British S.A.S./U.S. Delta Force,U.S.Swat teams,and German GSG9,and any anti terrorist group who use the MP5 as a precision  weapon would also say you most inaccurately described their submachine gun of choice)
Don't take this personal Mark,as I do think that Stone Face was a gret read and you are a gret writer,I was just annoyed at the amount of brown stuff on the lips and noses of your 2 biggest fans who bash Death Lands while praising Outlanders.(and anything else your name is associated with I suspect)

Yes I agree with you gentleman 100%!
Of course it is more important for an author to get the science(science fiction that does not exist?)right,Since it does not exist I am wondering how you might get it wrong?That does make more sense than getting the guns right,I mean they only really do exist and all?
Perhaps the ability to distinguish between the sound of a 9mm and a 5.56 mm round's sound is not as admirale as the ability to display sarcasm and ignorance in a single phrase?

The Colt M1911 was also made in .38 Super.

It has been made in .38 super in later years.But the actual 1911 (because it went into service in 1911) fired .45 like said.

Sorry, wrong!

M1911 refers to a model number. A model which has been and still is manufactured in a variety of calibers. To state otherwise, in particular to insinuate that "true" M1911s were only actually made in 1911, is, as you say, ignorant.

If you don't believe me, just ask Colt...

http://www.coltsmfg.com/p...81-COLT_PISTOLS.aspx

If you are calling me ignorant Mike,then I am sure I do not need to tell you what part of me you can blow.I did not make this personal,why are you?I am saying that the original designation was the colt m11911A1 auto pistol commonly known as the .45.This lasted for decades.Well before this was used as a designation for ant other gun!I did not say that all 1911 pistols were made in 1911,just that that is the year that the 1911 pistol went into service even though it was around a few years earlier.Maybe you should read a post before you start being a prick.

Kids, please don't fight. Don't make me stop this car.

I'll probably regret weighing in on this topic again, but I'm hoping Ron will be vigilant and keep what discussion may erupt from going too far down Nasty Road with a finger poised over the "Send to the Cornfield" button.

As Alan will attest, one of the ongoing frustations of working with so-called GE editors was their prediliction for meddling with a manuscript to no good purpose.

In the process of manuscript to published book, a writer would often find character names inexplicably changed or new and often ridiculous dialogue crammed into a character's mouth or even whole sequences altered.

Editorial hands were laid the heaviest upon the Bolan books and DL...not too much on OL (at least after its first year) but that was because I was known to raise hell about arbitrary changes.

The classic example I tend to cite was from Demons of Eden, wherein "ley lines" was changed to "lea lines"...because the editor apparently thought these geomagnetic currents were named after somebody's girlfirend ...or maybe a princess from Alderaan.

Early in that same book, a quote from Poe's "El Dorado" was mysteriously expunged from Doc's mouth ...yet at the end of the book, Mildred references Doc's quote...a quote that no longer existed.

So it is with the matter of guns, particularly in this instance.

It took me a bit but I found a copy of Stoneface in the original manuscript form.

As I originally wrote it, Mildred is carrying a "Heckler & Koch MP5-SD".

The "SD" was deleted, which makes all the difference... the MP5-SD is indeed a little unwieldy weapon if it's hanging by a strap and Mildred is moving in a "crouched duckwalk," as described in the book.

Not only are the SD models longer than the standard MP5s, they have a fixed stock...the one I handled years ago had a wooden stock...I have no idea if it was factory or custom, but the stock was fixed and it was wood.

As for the Colt handgun....

The original line reads: "he forgot all about the .38-caliber Colt 1911 tucked in his belt slide ring."

So in this instance, where an "SD" was removed from the MP5's description, an "M-" was added to that one.

In the case of the Colt, a missing letter from the alphabet and a punctuation mark makes all the difference...because a Colt 1911 is a .38 caliber.

Why did the editors do this?

I dunno...they never took responsibility. They never even admitted to having edited a manuscript.

When I tried to find out who changed "ley lines" to "lea lines", the buck was passed so fast, it burst into flames from friction.

"Oh, a copy editor made that change, I'm a line editor."

"Oh, a line editor made that change, I'm a copy editor."

What do they care? It's the writers who take the heat for their interference...the reader can't be blamed for assuming a writer has made a mistake, they can only go by what's on the printed page.

As far as messing around with gun descriptions go....most of the DL editors worked on the Bolan books so they felt they had a good grounding in musketry. If a gun showed up in a manuscript they weren't familiar with, they changed it to something they knew.

For example, when Touch-The-Sky was introduced in Stoneface, in the original manuscript he's carrying a Gewehr assault rifle. In the printed version, the Geweher has been replaced by the less exotic M-16.

However, when Touch-The-Sky reappears a couple of books later in Demons of Eden, he's back to carrying the Gewehr.

I won't even talk about the idiocy that ensued when the editors had to deal with scientific concepts in a manuscript for which they couldn't find defintions in a Funk & Wagnall's.

I'm not going to address your uncalled-for comments about fans of my work...but I really doubt you're going to be able to drive them away from this site after all these years so you might want to think about finding some common ground...

Or just ignoring their posts when they're not directed at you.

Everybody is happy that way, particularly Ron....he doesn't have to stop the car and punch the "Send to the Cornfield" button.

Great story, thanks. It's always a little unsettling to find out how the sausage gets made...

Perhaps the ability to distinguish between the sound of a 9mm and a 5.56 mm round's sound is not as admirale (sic) as the ability to display sarcasm and ignorance in a single phrase?

I find your comment puzzling as I was to the best of my knowledge directly referring to the above statement you had made. Feel free to take it as you will.

Well mike once again you are provoking me(for a 2nd time) and I can't recall ever giving you a reason to do that?
As far as me taking it as I will.I take it that you are a bit of a douchebag for insulting me without provocation.
To mr. Mark Ellis,I apologize for pointing out what I thought were mistakes made by you.They were in fact made by the editors who screwed with your writing.I do apologize sir.

LOL! I'm still confused. Didn't you bring up the whole "ignorance" thing first?

If pointing out that someone calling anyone ignorant when they are wrong themselves is another example of said ignorance makes one a "douchebag" I suppose you can address me as that with a capital "D"!

Enjoy!