Through Firey Trials. Safehold book 10 up for preorder

Randomiser wrote:MrZero, I get the impression that RFC didn't so much throw away those flashbacks as rewrite them in present time, i.e. the book went from one situated 16-20 years after the last one with lots of flashbacks to those years, to one that travels through those years letting us see the "flashback" events "as they happen".

Weather "flash backs" or "real time" I can't wait to see it!

Wow...You guys are fast and better informed than I
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/076 ... r_ea_image


Note to Marketing... I got my copy of OAR as a Christmas present.

Of course... I just pre-ordered and cross my fingers that the Kindle version will be at reduced price when the hard bound is purchased... I did not see that information today.

Randomiser wrote:
Thanks. Bearing in mind all the usual caveats about cover art, those dangling baskets at least suggest the artist read the last book. Also the left-most "aircraft" appears to have propellers at each side of the gondola, suggesting that it has engines and is steerable. Let battle recommence as to which type of engine

They are pretty weird hybrids between observation balloons and non-rigid airships. Basically they just indicate that artist are banned from google and absolutely clueless how airships actually worked. Those... contraptions literally have no rudders, so they could not be steered, their inflatable stabilizers are so freakingly big, that enormous amount of engine powers are wasted on drag, and they have observation gondolas dangling below the control cabin of 1930s type.

Also, their position in air clearly indicate that they are towed barrage balloons, not airships.

In short: VERY BAD ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION.

P.S. Inflatable stabilizers were used on World War I era French and Italian airships, but they look different:

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_hVOW2 ... rter4t.jpg

Dilandu wrote:

Randomiser wrote:
Thanks. Bearing in mind all the usual caveats about cover art, those dangling baskets at least suggest the artist read the last book. Also the left-most "aircraft" appears to have propellers at each side of the gondola, suggesting that it has engines and is steerable. Let battle recommence as to which type of engine

They are pretty weird hybrids between observation balloons and non-rigid airships. Basically they just indicate that artist are banned from google and absolutely clueless how airships actually worked. Those... contraptions literally have no rudders, so they could not be steered, their inflatable stabilizers are so freakingly big, that enormous amount of engine powers are wasted on drag, and they have observation gondolas dangling below the control cabin of 1930s type.

Also, their position in air clearly indicate that they are towed barrage balloons, not airships.

In short: VERY BAD ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION.

P.S. Inflatable stabilizers were used on World War I era French and Italian airships, but they look different:

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_hVOW2 ... rter4t.jpg

Be nice to the poor artist, Dilandu! Man, you pick on everybody, don't you?

They had to commission the cover before they had the book. I told them to think more zeppelin than blimp, but I also made the mistake of saying that the pinitial airships were more blimp-like than zeppelin-like. And, for that matter, the artist couldn't have the actual physical description because he didn't have the manuscript. Not saying that's a complete excuse, just explaining the circumstances.

And I do have to say that for the uninitiated -- i.e., not the OCD historical types such as thyself and myself --- it conveys the feel of at least a portion of the book pretty well.

So stifle yourself!

runsforcelery wrote:

Be nice to the poor artist, Dilandu! Man, you pick on everybody, don't you?

They had to commission the cover before they had the book. I told them to think more zeppelin than blimp, but I also made the mistake of saying that the pinitial airships were more blimp-like than zeppelin-like. And, for that matter, the artist couldn't have the actual physical description because he didn't have the manuscript. Not saying that's a complete excuse, just explaining the circumstances.

And I do have to say that for the uninitiated -- i.e., not the OCD historical types such as thyself and myself --- it conveys the feel of at least a portion of the book pretty well.

So stifle yourself!

As someone who has pre-ordered "Through Firey Trials" and "Uncompromising Honor"

Any chance we might see a snippet or three before release

snippet 1 is up

runsforcelery wrote:

Be nice to the poor artist, Dilandu! Man, you pick on everybody, don't you?

They had to commission the cover before they had the book. I told them to think more zeppelin than blimp, but I also made the mistake of saying that the pinitial airships were more blimp-like than zeppelin-like. And, for that matter, the artist couldn't have the actual physical description because he didn't have the manuscript. Not saying that's a complete excuse, just explaining the circumstances.

And I do have to say that for the uninitiated -- i.e., not the OCD historical types such as thyself and myself --- it conveys the feel of at least a portion of the book pretty well.

So stifle yourself!

Oh please! I hadn't picked on anything much here recently! A bit more, and I'll start to lose my poison!

Actually, I'm grumbling generally because I have a soft spot for airships, and quite recently finished a story about Great War era airship actions. So, I'm literally filled with a lot of such data and could easily spot such inaccuracies.

(P.S. And also because I have an old grunge with cover art mistakes... there was a period in Russian fiction publications where nearly all cover art was horrible).

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:

Be nice to the poor artist, Dilandu! Man, you pick on everybody, don't you?

They had to commission the cover before they had the book. I told them to think more zeppelin than blimp, but I also made the mistake of saying that the pinitial airships were more blimp-like than zeppelin-like. And, for that matter, the artist couldn't have the actual physical description because he didn't have the manuscript. Not saying that's a complete excuse, just explaining the circumstances.

And I do have to say that for the uninitiated -- i.e., not the OCD historical types such as thyself and myself --- it conveys the feel of at least a portion of the book pretty well.

So stifle yourself!

Oh please! I hadn't picked on anything much here recently! A bit more, and I'll start to lose my poison!

Actually, I'm grumbling generally because I have a soft spot for airships, and quite recently finished a story about Great War era airship actions. So, I'm literally filled with a lot of such data and could easily spot such inaccuracies.

(P.S. And also because I have an old grunge with cover art mistakes... there was a period in Russian fiction publications where nearly all cover art was horrible).

And you think bad cover art was a purely Russian phenomenon because . . . . ?

runsforcelery wrote:
And you think bad cover art was a purely Russian phenomenon because . . . . ?

Please. Do I look so naive?

Scifi novels have notoriously bad cover art. Actually this series as a whole has been pretty solid all said and done, for the most part there are actual scenes from the novels on the cover... Sort of...