How Firm A Foundation – Snippet 31
         “Absolutely, Sir. On the other hand, each hit would be enormously more destructive. It takes dozens of hits, sometimes hundreds, to drive a galleon out of action with solid shot. A handful of hundred-pound exploding shells would be more than enough to do the job, and just to indicate how the weapons would scale, a rifled thirty-pounder’s shot would weigh about ninety pounds, which would give you a shell weight of only forty-five or so, so you can see the advantage the larger gun has. Of course, the smoothbore thirty-pounder’s shell is only around twenty-five pounds, and its bursting charge is proportionately lighter, as well. And if both sides start armoring their vessels with iron, anything much lighter than eight inches probably won’t penetrate, anyway.”
         “That sounds logical enough,” Rock Point acknowledged. “We’ll have to think about it, of course. Fortunately it’s not a decision we’re going to have to make any time soon.”
         “I’m afraid we might have to make it sooner than you may be thinking, Sir,” Seamount put in. Rock Point looked at him, and the commodore shrugged. “You’re talking about the possibility of beginning production and stockpiling weapons, Sir,” he reminded his superior. “If we’re going to do that, we’re going to have to decide which weapons to build, first.”
         “Now that, Ahlfryd, is a very good point,” Rock Point agreed. “Very well, I’ll be thinking about it, and I’ll discuss it with the Emperor as soon as possible.”
         “Thank you, Sir.” Seamount smiled. “In the meantime, we have a few other thoughts that should be more immediately applicable to our needs.”
         “You do?”
         “Yes. You may have noticed commander Mahndrayn’s hand, Sir?”
         “You mean that fathom of gauze wrapped around it?” Rock Point asked dryly.
         “Exactly, Sir.” Seamount held up his own left hand, which had been mangled by an explosion many years before. “I think Urvyn was trying to do me one better. Unfortunately, he failed. All of his fingers are still intact . . . more or less.”
         “I’m relieved to hear it. Exactly what bearing does that have on our present discussion, however?”
         “Well, what actually happened, Sir,” Seamount said more seriously, “is that we’ve been experimenting with better ways to fire our artillery. The flintlocks we’ve gone to are far, far better than the old slowmatch-and-linstock or heated irons we used to use. That most of our new prizes’ guns are still using, for that matter. But they still aren’t as efficient as we could wish. I’m sure you’re even better aware than we are here at the Experimental Board of how many misfires we still experience, especially when there’s a lot of spray around or it’s raining. So we’ve been looking for a more reliable method, and we’ve found one.”
         “You have?” Rock Point’s eyes narrowed.
         “Actually, we’ve come up with two of them, Sir.” Seamount shrugged. “Both work, but I have to admit to a strong preference for one of them over the other.”
         “Go on.”
         “Doctor Lywys at the College gave us a whole list of ingredients to experiment with. One of them was something called ‘fulminated quicksilver,’ which is very attractive, on the face of it. You can detonate it with a single sharp blow, and the explosion is very hot. It would reduce lock time significantly, as well, which would undoubtedly improve accuracy. The problem is that it’s very corrosive. And another difficulty is that it’s too sensitive. We’ve experimented with ways of moderating its sensitivity by mixing in other ingredients, like powdered glass, and we’ve had some success, but any fuses using fulminated quicksilver are going to tend to corrode over time, and according to Doctor Lywys, they’ll lose much of their power as they do. For that matter, she says at least some of them would probably detonate spontaneously if they were left in storage long enough. They do have the advantage that they’re effectively impervious to damp, however, which would be a major plus for sea service.”
         “I can see where that would be true,” Rock Point agreed.
         “We’ve pushed ahead with developing those fuses — for the moment we’re calling them fulminating fuses, after the quicksilver, although Urvyn is pushing for calling them ‘percussion’ fuses, since they’re detonated by a blow — but I decided we should explore some other possibilities, as well. Which brought me to ‘Shan-wei’s candles.'”
         Rock Point nodded. “Shan-wei’s candles” was the name which had been assigned to what had once been called “strike-anywhere matches” back on Old Terra.
         “Well, basically what we’ve come up with, Sir, is a tube — we’re using the same sort of quills we’ve been using with the artillery flintlocks at the moment, although I think it’s going to be better to come up with a metallic tube in the long run; probably made out of copper or tin — filled with the same compound we use in one of Shan-wei’s candles. It’s sealed with wax at both ends, and we insert a serrated wire into it lengthwise. When the wire is snatched out, friction ignites the compound in the tube, and that ignites the main charge in the gun. As far as we can tell, it’s as reliable as the fulminating fuses even in heavy weather, as long as the wax seals are intact before the wire’s pulled. It’s less corrosive, as well, and it lets us dispense with hammer lock mechanisms, completely. For that matter, we could easily go directly to it on existing guns which are already designed to take the quills we’re using with the flintlocks.”
         “I like it,” Rock Point said with unfeigned enthusiasm. “In fact, I like it a lot — especially the ‘easily’ part.” He grinned, but then he raised one eyebrow. “Exactly how do the Commander’s damaged fingers figure into all this, though? Did he burn them on one of the ‘candles’?”
         “Not . . . precisely, Sir.” Seamount shook his head. “I said I prefer the friction-ignited fuses for artillery, and I do. But Urwyn’s been exploring other possible uses for the fulminating fuses, and he’s come up with a fascinating one.”
         “Oh?” Rock Point looked at the commander, who actually seemed a little flustered under the weight of his suddenly intense gaze.
         “Why don’t you go get your toy, Urwyn?” Seamount suggested.
         “Of course, Sir. With your permission, High Admiral?”
         Rock Point nodded, and Mahndrayn disappeared. A few minutes later, the office door opened once more and he walked back in carrying what looked like a standard rifled musket.
         “It occurred to us, Sir,” he said, holding the rifle in a rough port arms position as he faced Rock Point, “that the Marines and the Army were going to need reliable primers for their artillery, as well. And that if we were going to provide them for the guns, we might as well see about providing them for small arms, as well. Which is what this is.”
         He grounded the rifle butt on the floor and reached into the right side pocket of his tunic for a small disk of copper which he extended to Rock Point.
         The high admiral took it a bit gingerly and stood, moving closer to the window to get better light as he examined. It wasn’t the flat disk he’d thought it was at first. Instead, it was hollowed on one side — a cup, not a disk — and there was something inside the hollow. He looked at it for a moment longer, then turned back to Mahndrayn.
         “Should I assume the stuff inside this” — he held up the disk, indicating the hollow side with the index finger of his other hand — “is some of that ‘fulminating quicksilver’ of yours?”
         “It is, Sir, sealed with a drop of varnish. And this” — Mahndrayn held up his bandaged hand — “is a reminder to me of just how sensitive it is. But what you have in your hand is what we’re calling a ‘primer cap,’ at least for now. We call it that because it fits down over this” — he raised the rifle and cocked the hammer, indicating a raised nipple which had replaced the priming pan of a regular flintlock — “like a cap or a hat.”
“he raised the rifle and cocked the hammer, indicating a raised nipple which had replaced the priming pan of a regular flintlock,” which strikes me as curious: How come existing rifles at the time of the invention of the percussion cap are already equipped with a cockable hammer to perform the percussion?
Ok we’ve gone from 16th century tech to mid 19th in a year. That’s progress!
@1 The flint lock has a cockable hammer holding the flint. They replaced the priming pan and striker with a tube that you fit the cap over.
This first paragraph is basically an example of the very worst of David Weber’s writing. Two characters are explaining something to each other that they both should know, so clearly the only person really receiving the explanation is the reader.
But the reader doesn’t need to know this information. This is esoteric background, not plot or characterization. Moreover, it is jargonized. Why is a “30 pounder” not 30 pounds whether rifled or smoothbore? It’s not explained. Nor, really, does it matter. So why a whole confusing paragraph on it?
This is the reason why Weber’s books tend to be 250-page novels hidden in 800 pages.
@4 A thirty pounder would fire a 30 pound solid iron ball if you didn’t have to all allow for windage and such so the ball becomes 25 pound. However if it is rifled and the projectile becomes a cylinder then 90 pounds is about right. My 12 gauge shotgun is of a bore size that twelve solid spherical balls would weigh a pound, but it would die if I used such as the choke would stop the ball leaving the barrel.
Chris, I think the point is that Merlin is pushing for as-fast-as-possible technological innovation, both because Charis is fighting for its survival and because no-one knows when the Gbaba might decide to make another sweep looking for new technological civilizations (and the fact is, Safehold will HAVE to start using electromagnetic emitting-technology at some stage if humanity is ever to get off the planet).
Is there a reason that smoothbores cannot fire shells? I know there is a loss in velocity because the shell isn’t so tight in the barrel, but other than that?
Once they start playing with coal tar, and with a little help from the college and Merlin’s AI, they should figure out how to make lead styphonate. A safer percussion material.
— Bob G
Keep in mind the difference in shot and shell weights we’re dealing with here. The standard British long gun for a 38 gun frigate was an 18pdr, while the lower deck of a 74, 80, 90/98, 100, 110 or 120 carried 32pdrs. The size and the weight of the shot and the gunpowder, carried in flannel bags was easily handled. The limitation on rate of fire was the weight of the gun itself. A 32pdr gun and carriage would weight over three tons. The gun had to be man-handled, both while aiming and returning the gun to battery after it recoiled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSBxQiLSyQ
Now compare this to a IX inch Dahlgren (US naval histroians use a convention where shot only guns are identified with the weight of their shot in English pounds, shell guns are identified by the diameter of their bore in Arabic numerals and Dahlgren shot/shell guns by their bore in Roman numerals). A Dahlgren IX inch gun weighed over 4.5 tons just for the barrel. It fired a 90lb shot and a 73lb shell. It was usually mounted on a Marseilly carriage not much improved over that used by 32pdr guns at Trafalgar. All this weight had to be man-handled. So while the weight of a broadside increased, the sustained rate of fire dropped. And so did the number of guns carried. A sloop like the USS Hartford (20 IX inch Dahlgrens) carried basically the same number of guns as the USS Constellation (20 8in shell guns, 2 32pdr long guns) of the 1850s and the USS Lexington (24 24pdr mediums) of the 1820s. Both were rated as ship-sloops, but the USS Lexington was 127′ on the deck, the USS Constellation was 181′ on the main deck and the USS Hartford was 225′ on the deck, yet all were rated in their time as 20 gun ship-sloops.
While I can buy into converting 16th/17th century galleons or their immediate successors to 18th century armament, substituting iron long guns and carronades for the sakers and so-on, and even firing shells (the British did this from 24pdr and 32pdr guns in the defense of Gibralter in 1778), as the weights and sizes were not significantly greater given the more efficient use of weight by 18th century artillery compare to that from the 16/17th century, the use of large shell guns (Paixhains or Dahlgrens) from such ships is just to much. Notice above how much larger a ship had to get to carry the same number of guns going from 24pdrs to 8in shell guns to IX inch Dahlgrens.
PS. The USN called its large destroyers built from the late 1950s (starting with the “Farragut†class) frigates in lieu of destroyer leader until the 1970s, when they were reclassified as cruisers for political reasons. They then transfered the name to the new large destroyer escorts of the “Knox†and later classes.
As far as friction primers, which is what they are talking about, they replaced linstocks around the 1830s and 1840s, but they were restricted to land-based artillery because the riming tube shoots up and out of the vent. What the navies went to was a percussion hammer system where the hammer is pulled by a wrapped lanyard, falling on the cap and then sliding down out of the way so it wasn’t blown back by the vented gas.http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/civ_ord.txt
Now on armor penetration. The XI inch Dahlgren using 30 pound charges could penetrate four inches of wrought iron and 17 inches of hard wood at point blank range. The IX inch, however, was found to be useless against the CSS Virginia and its four inches of wrought iron planking. The XV inch could penetrate the same target as the XI inch at a thousand yards and over six inches of wrought iron plate and 24 inches of oak at point blank range. CSS Alabama’s 8 inch shell gun couldn’t penetrate the “chain” armor of the USS Kearsarge.
Smoothbores can fire shells and have. I think the point was that round shells used in smoothbores would get broken up by armored hulls more easily than cylindrical shells. The latter can be designed to penetrate armor and still explode, while the only thing you could do with the former is make the shell walls thicker. The thicker the walls the lower the explosive to total weight ratio. Cylindrical shells can be made longer with the front portion almost purely armor piercing metal and the rear portions primarily explosive.
Actually,even pointed, cylindrical shells from rifled guns will not penetrate sufficiantly thick armor. Black powder is very dangerous because it will explode if compressed or sparked. For the most part, black powder shells with point or base fuses explode against armor without penetrating because the heat and flash of the impact sets off the black powder. For this reason, pointed shot (when fired from rifled guns), of chilled wrough iron or later steel, were the preferred means of penetrating armor till a stable explosive for filling shells was developed. CSS Virginia had only shells for her 7 inch Brooke’s rifles and they had little to no effect on the USS Monitor, though they were very effective against wooden ships like the USS Congress and USS Cumberland. Round shot from the USS Monitor’s XI inch Dahlgrens would have penetrated the CSS Virginia’s armor with full (30 lb) charges, but the guns had not been proved and they were limited to 15 lb charges, max.
So, how long before Mahndryn figures ut that it he’s found a way to stop exploding shells with armor…his next task is to figure out how to pierce that same armor? ;)
At this rate it won’t be long before they develop cartridges and bolt-action rifles and of course breech loading artillery pieces although in the case of artillery pieces fully sealing the breech might be quite a challenge. Don’t know if these developments will be in time for this book. Perhaps the next?
With percussion caps, breech loaded rifles are a short step away. No standing up to reload and reload times go down a bunch. Charisian infantry doctrine is about to change and get WAY more deadly – again! And when they develop the brass cartridge…
Charisian snipers in BHD could hit targets at 1000 yards, and had sights graduated to 1200 using paper cartridges. So the breech loading Sharps rifle that hit accurately at 1000 yards in the movie “Quigley down under” isn’t too far away. (Yes I know, it used brass cartridges.)
Charisians use brass for musical instruments and rifle butts already, so they know about it.
They’re running a bit short on copper and probably zinc (copper used for bronze cannons) to make enough brass for rifle cartridges, but they’re quite close to the tech to make brass cartridges possible. And with cannon production switching to iron, copper is now available. ;)
From the comments back in Snippet#30 I just noticed that tooall was kind enough to provide a listing of shell and gun weights. Just an addition because I know it sort of by heart. The USN developed and produced ‘super heavy’ rounds for most of their naval guns before and during WWII. As such USN rounds for equivalent European and Japanese guns were a bit heavier. The USN 16-inch AP round was 2,700 lbs and the HE was about 1,900 lbs. Most other navies’ 16-inch AP rounds were about 2,200 lbs. The Yamato’s 18.1-inch guns fired a AP round of about 3,200-3,300 lbs. The USN experimented and built a few 18-inch guns that could fire an AP round of 3,850 lbs but never built them as they didn’t realize during the war that the Yamato and Musashi weren’t armed with 16-inch guns as originally claimed by the Japanese. Despite the difference in AP shell weights the USN 16-inch super-heavy AP round was nearly equivalent to the heavier Japanese 18.1-inch AP round as the USN AP rounds had superior ballistic and penetrating characteristics.
Sort of what we are seeing in the Safehold series where even if the Church can manage to match each technological innovation Charis deploys, Charis will always have a qualitative edge as their industrial and scientific base is much better.
@10 Mike S, that supports the post I made last snipet about the accumulators and the Bessemer converter. Steel shells will be needed to penetrate armor and steel ribs and keels will be needed to build larger better armored ships. The ability to produce cheap steel is key to creating an insurmountable technological on the CoGA. If they can produce steel at 1/6 or 1/8 the cost in resources of the CoGA, they can begin utilizing steel in disposable weapons like shells where the CoGA simply cannot in any meaningful quantity.
The sneaky bit of tech that got by Father Paityr was the accumulator. That allows for the use of air compressors to make steel much more cheaply. With cheap steel the CoGA cannot keep within shouting distance of Charis.
@12 Totally agree on the challenge of sealing the breech on artillery. Britain used muzzle loaders until the 1880s because it was such a difficult problem to solve.
Multiple methods were devised over decades, (modern breech loaders from the 1830s to at least the 1920s) so it isn’t something Charis is likely to solve soon. (Without a BIG hint from Merlin!) ;)
Breech loading artillery were actually SLOWER to load than muzzle loaders until the latter half of the 19th century AND more dangerous to their crews. (They leaked super-heated gases.) So take your pick between the safety of not being exposed to direct enemy fire (on land) or being fried by your own gun – and possibly setting fire to the wooden ship you’re firing from. Yech!
For a more in-depth description, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_breech_loader#Early_breechloaders
To Bob G.: You can fire shells from smooth bore guns and David Weber did in the last book. The main problem is that they tend to tumble end over end. The shells had timed fuzes. It does not matter if they hit sideways. They will still go off.
Long range rifled gun shells will have contact fuzes. The spin from rifling keeps them from tumbling so that they will hit nose first. When you have longer ranges it is hard to make a reliable timed fuse
Even with rifled guns the shells sometimes tumbled. I remember reading an account of Tsushima (1905) where one of the narrators described some of the 12 inch shells as “flipping end over end.”
For examples of fuzes look at the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuze
Some of the illustrations at the bottom give samples of various types of fuze. In particular the British 131 Mk VI was activated by the shell’s spin. Lots of machining but they could do it.
To Mike: Quit griping about all of the technical detail. Different people like different things. If you think you can do better then write your own book.
@4 Mike. I think Weber can’t help it. Just look at the recent gush of Honorverse infodumps. There is no self-edit gene in his DNA. He wants it to be perfectly clear and he wants you to know EVERYTHING! Even if you don’t give a rat’s tush about the Solarian League’s economy.
By the way, this book is “only” a bit over 600 pages; does that mean that it is really a 190 page book? Kidding.
Charis is definitely going to have to develop steam powered engines/machines pretty soon and not just for military applications. The upcoming exponential increase for iron/steel and mass production of newer weapons, armor, and munitions will put a strain on what is likely a highly labor intensive mining industry. With the exception of using dynamite for blasting I’m sure the main tool of miners is picks and shovels. Steam power drilling machines would increase productivity immensely. I don’t know if Weber will address this, but it seems logical to me that the overall infrastructure to support Charis’ ever expanding tech base needs to increase just as quickly.
Re: Mike above who thinks the books are too long because of technical explanations. He may be right but on the other hand, I like the technical explanations because they give me information that I do not have about details that matter to the plot. Without the technical details, it’s all just “abracadabra shazam – and the magical weapon of crepusculated doom destroyed them all!” But to each his own as the old lady said when she kissed the cow.
@4, @18 — Look I understand that some people don’t like infodumps. I really actually do. I have RL friends who I have introduced to Weber, I know there are people out there who are intelligent and nice people who come to the same conclusions about infodumps. And there are plenty of other people out there that I don’t know but who do agree with you.
But I really wish you guys would stop griping about it. Because there are ALSO a LOT of people out there who do NOT agree with you. There are many of us who LIKE detail. Who LIKE the way his describes in exhaustive detail the universe and the people and the motivations. It makes what otherwise would just be a fun story FEEL like an alternate reality very nearly brought to life.
Some people like that. Some don’t. And neither side is composed of idiots or morons or lunatics or anything else along those lines. It just means that not everybody always agrees on everything. And that’s PERFECTLY OK!
BUT
But it’s still childish to whine about it constantly. Your whining is not in the LEAST bit going to change Weber’s style. It has zero chance of affecting him. All you do accomplish is annoy your fellow Weber-fans who don’t happen to agree with you.
Chuckle Chuckle.
FriarBob, David Weber can’t win.
He gets these complaints about “too much infodumping” *but* many of the infodumps in Pearls of Weber came about because people wanted *more* information than he had provided in the books.
In the Safehold section of the forums on davidweber.net, he posted two infodumps (in the last day or so) because of questions from his fans.
By the way, something in this current infodump will be a plot element later in the book. [Very Big Evil Grin]
@21, Friar Bob, I don’t tell other people here that they can’t make whatever comments about the book they wish to make. I wish you wouldn’t try to do that either.
@21 FriarB. I did not say that I don’t like the infodumps. On the contrary, there are some that I find useful and others are less useful. My comment was about the um, overabundant detail he goes into just to make sure that we “get it.” And Mike was not complaining about the infodumps I was referring to. He was commenting on the ones in the books, which he feels interfere with the flow of action. (did I say that right, Mike?) When I come across that kind of thing, usually when Detweiler is pontificating, I skim or skip. And so do many others. As we non-French speakers say, shack to his own goo.
Robert, that’s pretty much a correct interpretation of my post.
When somebody like Drake tells us how his tanks work, we get an idea of what they are like. But the story is about the people in the tanks, not the tanks themselves.
With Weber, as the years have passed it has been more and more like he is more interested in building his scenery than he is in telling a story. It’s clear from these comments that many people are into this. I get that. When I was 10 or so I was the proud owner of the Star Trek Technical Manual. But this stuff really gets in the way of the storytelling.
Weber’s latest books remind me of the “original” Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern — somebody needs to make a “the good parts” version.
@24 Robert: I need an infodump on “shack to his own goo.”
@the whole bunch discussing infodumps: I agree with FriarBob: I like infodumps, even if sometimes they tell something I already know, because often they don’t. I like DW just as he is; he and Lois M. Bujold were about tied as my favorite living SF authors until I picked up 1633 on the strength of DW’s top billing thereon, and found that it was a sequel to 1632, whereupon I bought and read 1632 and EF became (and remains) my #1 favorite living SF/AH author.
And speaking about EF, when are there going to be snippets of EF’s next book? I am almost sure I am not the only one who eagerly awaits them.
Ha! This sniping at each other about snippet content is comical! Just be grateful we get them. Thanks, Drak! Remember: They are free, technical details are a small part of the whole, we will buy the book.
Y’all know why I like the info dumps and Mr. Weber’s general verbosity? Why thank you for asking! Don’t mind answering one bit.
Look at the proliferation of Weber forums. How many comments are posted on these snippets? We comment on everything from musical accompaniment to the plot devices, the financial ramifications of political decisions and last but certainly not least the technical considerations to military hardware development. How often do people really consider that deeply real life situations? Whether politics, wars, diplomacy or even technological development processes; too often people do not consider things nearly that deeply.
I am all for encouraging as many people to really think about things as humanly possible. That way ideology is less likely to get in the way of wise decisions. Heck, such practice actually makes all of us test our ideologies and assumptions.
Put me in the camp of those who like to see how detailed Weber’s reasoning is about the technology, society, and economics of his worlds. I’d be highly annoyed if we didn’t learn a lot about the economics of the Solarian League.
However, I’m inclined to agree with the poster who complained about having the naval officers discussing information that they both must know, and about the way that long pauses for infodumps can disrupt the pacing. I’d rather see appendices and the like, or perhaps chapters that consist entirely of official reports to the King, which could more easily justify providing details that experts would know, because the report would have a wider audience, and which could be more easily read around for those who want what they consider “the good parts.” Trying to work memos into dialogue does get artificial and cludgy at times. But that clumsiness bothers me less than it seems to bother other posters on this thread.
@26 Bret
A short infodump:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chacun_%C3%A0_son_go%C3%BBt
Interesting that you like Bujold. I do, too. Her characters are people, interesting ones, and she is one of the most graceful writers of science fiction and fantasy, along with Lee & Miller, that I have ever read–and I have been reading this stuff since Analog was Astounding. David Weber writes interesting characters, although some are stereotypes, but generally speaking, his writing is not graceful, even when it is moving. The pages-long internal dialogues and pages-long stuff that would be better presented in an appendix keep interfering with the flow. I read it for the people and the action; I don’t give much of a toot about how one gets from place to place, whether it is wormholes, hyperspace, or Clutch drives. They all require me to suspend my grip on reality, so I do, and just skim the technical stuff because it is all BS make-believe anyway. But shack to his own goo.
De gustibus…
I like Weber, Flint, Bujold, Brust, and Stirling all because they tell good stories, though in rather different ways. I will continue to buy all of them as long as they continue to tell good stories; I’ll probably buy them a little longer than that, actually, because anyone can try for a new literary technique and trip over their own feet; maybe the next time will be better. So far these five have been worth every penny I’ve paid them and I begrudge none of their learning efforts.
Drak, you get more evil with each book, lol
put me down as a infodump junkie, the MWW has started me a many a long and twisted wiki trail
@30: Thank you, Robert; I, too read Astounding before it became Analog, but my favorite editor was Robert A. W. Lowndes, or Science Fiction Stories*, Future Science Fiction, and Science Fiction Quarterly. As you say, “De gustibus non est disputanda. (“It’s definitely drafty on this bus.”)
* BTW, my only published work (excluding letters to editors) was “Immortality, C.O.D,” a “Parodies Tossed” review in verse of Sheckley’s Immortality Delivered, in the last issue of SFS, June, 1960. Columbia went bankrupt without paying me the $10 for it.
A reminder, people. DW broke his wrist (or was it both wrists?) after a ice storm a few years ago. He now uses voice recognition software rather than typing, and I suspect that using his voice reduces inhibitions on verbosity.
In other words, it’s a lot easier to talk than to type.
— Bob G
@23. I didn’t tell you you couldn’t either. I just told you it was unwise.
You can still choose to be unwise if you wish. But it behooves the rest of us to alert you to your mistake, and try to warn you that you should choose a wiser course.
Some accuse J.K. Rowling of needing an editor. Add David Weber. If we didn’t buy their books, they wouldn’t be rich and famous and couldn’t get away with all this verbosity. Shall we not read their stuff? I, for one, can’t not read it. Would I prefer more On Basilisk Station? Maybe, OBS is a really short reread. A MIGHTY FORTRESS, on the other hand, is a great reread- takes forever.
@Friar: “Unwise”? Licking a flagpole when it is -20F is unwise. How is making a statement of literary criticism “unwise,” especially when it was directly about this very snippet?
Is this a discussion forum or not?
Saw an interesting interview with current Formula 1 champ Sebastial Vettel recently. When asked was there any downside to being the leader he said that his favourite entertainment used to be watching F1 live, but he couldn’t do that anymore. Luckily, being a leading author does allow you the opportunity to check out blogs on your books and those of your peers. I’d be astounded if someone as smart as David Weber didn’t seek out current constructive advice, and I know that he does. Somewhat startling to make a comment and have the great man reply in depth.
Weber’s infodumps are a modest part of the total book. In leaking them, he tells people almost nothing about plot or characterization, and for the most part builds interest in the stories. It is like the cave woman books — author and titles now long forgotten — and the prolonged sex scenes. As a part of the total book, they are quite modest, but they lure in a segment of teenage audience that stays with the books after the lure has done its work.
Besides, some of us enjoy this sort of thing.
Mike, yes this is a discussion forum.
However, some find the complaints about the info dumps annoying.
Nobody is telling you that you can’t complain.
You’re being told that some like the info dumps and find the complaints annoying.
If you can complain about the info dumps, why can’t people complain about your complaints? [Smile]
We all need to remember YMMV (Your mileage may vary) when it comes to any author’s work.
For example, some hate the characters’ political discussions and others enjoy the characters’ political discussions.
David Weber can not please every reader.
@40 …How is getting your readers to argue about things “not pleasing the reader” at least at some level. Think about it.
That said, personally, I am fine with infodumps. Where I get off is sentences like this: “The anchor cables, each just over six inches in diameter and nineteen inches in circumference, …”. The editor/professor/grader in me just gets offended at the completely unnecessary redundancy! I don’t think there’s an editor in the world who wouldn’t flag either 6 or 19 for deletion.
Drak, I get that. I never said Friar didn’t have the right to complain about my posts. But the tone of his posts was very clearly, “Go away, I don’t want you here.” That’s the unfriendly attitude i was complaining about. This is as opposed to the many other people whose tone was simply, “Hey, I like the infodumps.”
Anyway, he complains about my complaints, I complain about his complaints, and it’s a cycle. OK, cycle over, I’m done with it for now.
And thanks for running this site.
Hey, I like the complaints as much as the praise. I prefer a little salt in my stew…
@41. Mike, do you know what you get when you assume? My tone was NOT “go away”. If you read my tone as that, then you assumed quite falsely.
If by some odd chance you happen to get to know me in real life sometime in the next few years, you’ll likely learn very quickly that when I verbally speak off the cuff I can stay some pretty stupid things from not thinking things through first. But when I write these posts I write and rewrite and edit and massage them VERY carefully to make sure I say exactly what I mean and nothing more (or less). My statement was intended to say nothing more nor less than that it’s foolish and a huge waste of your time to complain, because it’s going to accomplish absolutely NOTHING. Weber will not change. (And that they annoyed those that disagree with you, of course.)
Even if I shared your wish for him to change, I still would feel the same way, because I know he will not. Complaining in a forum like this, which Weber has not — so far as any of us know, at least — even ONCE ever read the comments on, does not accomplish jack squat. Given that he has never responded once to any of these comments, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that he doesn’t read them. And if he never sees your complaints — and he won’t, because even if he happened to run across it anyway, he would just chuckle, ignore you, and move on with his life — it still won’t do ANY “good” (from the perspective of those who consider your desired changes good, of course). So instead, all you do accomplish is annoy your fellow readers here with complaints they’ve heard a few hundred (or more) times… AND don’t agree with. For that matter, even of those who actually agree with you, more than half probably have long-since reconciled themselves to the fact that Weber won’t change and will do the exact same thing as Weber would: chuckle (though ruefully in their case, probably shaking their heads with “would be nice, but ain’t happening”), ignore you, and move on with their lives.
And finally, yes, this is a discussion forum. But discussion is going to be FAR more profitable — and more enjoyable for everybody else who comes by — if it’s confined to discussing the storyline, and not the author’s writing style and its merits or lack thereof. In light of that, I will say nothing further on this topic, whether you choose to respond to it or not.
BTW… anybody — like Drak? — know when Gena is going to fix the forums over at Weber.net? Or does she even know that they are down yet?
FriarBob, I sent her an email yesterday but haven’t heard back from her.
Unfortunately, I lost Duckk’s email. [Frown]
Well in that case, any chance of tonight’s snippet coming out on forum time?
The way it looks, I won’t be posting a snippet on David’s site tonight. [Frown]
On the other hand, I will be posting a snippet on the Baen forums and of course, there will be one posted automaticly on this site.
Ebay auction for: HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION by David Weber! ARC!
now has 25 bids and is presently at $481! I take it that more than one person can’t wait to find out if Sharlian gets killed or if it is someone else. After all, you can get the book in about a month for $17! Amazing!
My guess is that is is probably not Mike who is driving up the bidding.
Ebay auction for: HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION by David Weber! ARC!
now has 25 bids and is presently at $481! I take it that more than one person can’t wait to find out if Sharlian gets killed or if it is someone else. After all, you can get the book in about a month for $17! Amazing!