Authors and Fact Finding

[Chanileslie]

I am currently reading a book by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child Brimstone first published in 2005. It is actually quite enjoyable, but I keep getting stopped by glaring factual problems. It is like an unexpected brick in the face while doing something pleasurable. Such as the presentation of Spontaneous Human Combustion as a phenomenon with no rational explanation and that Stradivarius violins beauty and perfection (music wise) comes from the varnish rather than any other or all other elements of the instrument and has not been reproduced. A simple internet search finds plenty of information on both subjects, and easily debunks both ideas, and yet the authors continue blithley on as if no other belief could possibly exist.

I just can't believe in a time when information is just a typed phrase away, people continue to do such shoddy research or just choose to ignore facts so to further their storyline. I feel ripped off when that sort of thing happens. Of course maybe that is why I can never finish a story of my own because I keep getting tripped up on those inconvenient facts.

[TragicMonkey]

For books of that sort, you just have to do the suspension of disbelief thing. Yeah, it would be nice if all their work didn't give the impression they find six interesting things from an "Isn't Nature Weird?" website and then run with them....but we can't expect too much. It's just for entertainment.

It's like historical novels with errors in them. They can still be good, even while being wrong. Hella Hasse is sometimes regarded as the most accurate historical novelist, ever. It took her twenty-five years to write a book.

[athon]

I'm not sure if I'm being elitist here, but this bugs more with books than it does with movies. It might because writing is more personal to me (writing fiction myself), and on reading a poorly researched book that has been published, I get a little miffed.

The thing is, if a plot requires a fact to be incorrect, then you as the writer should have the talent and creativity to find a way around it. I know from experience that it can be heartbreaking to rewrite entire sections because of a factual inconsistency, but to not do it is to committ your ignorance to paper forever. To me, something far worse.

With the web these days it's not hard to do. I wrote a novel centred in Petra, and had the opportunity to go there last year. I met an archaelogical dig team there and discussed a heap of recent discoveries they had made. It was fantastic, because I learned so much. It was also difficult as I learned of a number of problems my book had. While they were only new discoveries, it still troubled me that I had newly erroneous facts in my book. Lucky it isn't published and I can still change them.

I've heard the 'it's only fantasy' excuse so many times. One thing I do have published is (ironically) a guide on how to write fantasy (DMP, 2002). One thing I've said in my section is 'what percentage of your readership will know that a fact is wrong. Then ask, 'are you happy with that number'?'

For me, that number has to be damn small.

Athon

[Piscivore]

The question I have, are these erroneous "facts" being presented by the author, or by the characters? Because I have my characters saying all kinds of deliberately wrong things, because they are people, not Google. I actually find it annoying when characters know too much, especialy when they are just a mouthpeice for exposition. IMO people usually have some opinion of what is going on, and most of the time they are just making it up as they go.

[athon]

Originally posted by Piscivore
The question I have, are these erroneous "facts" being presented by the author, or by the characters? Because I have my characters saying all kinds of deliberately wrong things, because they are people, not Google. I actually find it annoying when characters know too much, especialy when they are just a mouthpeice for exposition. IMO people usually have some opinion of what is going on, and most of the time they are just making it up as they go.

This needs to be a clear distinction, though. Personal opinion is good for character development but it is not an isolated thing.

For example,

Dr. Smith knew that the brain was where sperm was produced

or

Dr. Smith was convinced that the brain was where sperm was produced

Both create character. The former implies wider knowledge than just Dr. Smith's. It is a statement that hints at a universal truth within the story, while the second says the same thing but tells you more about the character.

Athon

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by athon
This needs to be a clear distinction, though. Personal opinion is good for character development but it is not an isolated thing.

For example,

Dr. Smith knew that the brain was where sperm was produced

or

Dr. Smith was convinced that the brain was where sperm was produced

Both create character. The former implies wider knowledge than just Dr. Smith's. It is a statement that hints at a universal truth within the story, while the second says the same thing but tells you more about the character.

Athon

Good point.

[LW]

Originally posted by athon
The thing is, if a plot requires a fact to be incorrect, then you as the writer should have the talent and creativity to find a way around it. I know from experience that it can be heartbreaking to rewrite entire sections because of a factual inconsistency, but to not do it is to committ your ignorance to paper forever.

I don't completely agree with this. Sure, I prefer my historical fiction to have correct facts, but in the end the deciding factor is the strength of the writing and plot.

If the text is good enough, I'm willing to ignore even the most blatant chronological errors. For example, R. E. Howard's Kings of the Night is about as inaccurate that a piece of fiction set in a historical setting can be, but I'm not bothered a bit because the plot and action is good. This can be contrasted with Howard's another tale: The Night of the Wolf contains less errors than the Kings, but they annoy me a great bit more because the short story itself is at most mediocre.

[JAR]

Originally posted by athon
I'm not sure if I'm being elitist here, but this bugs more with books than it does with movies.
I'm the same way. I've become so used to finding out the facts were changed for a historical movie that when I see a historical film, I assume that the facts were changed.