# Arghh! How responsible is an author for getting facts right?



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

I know it's just me, linear, detail-oriented 'ol me, but...should it be hard for me to take a _*fiction * _ book seriously when I read the foreward and find several errors? I dont mean 'generalities' for a mainstream audience, but incorrect statistics and facts.

I just started a small pub. e-book about a flu pandemic (sci-fi/SHTF) and couldnt get past the foreward. I was hoping it was written by a third party, but it's not signed so I assume it was written by the author.

I bagged the book.

Are my expectations too high? When I read books that have horses in them, as part of the story but not the focus, it's almost always unrealistic, but I ignore it because the book isnt about that. (Just as an example). But this is a book about a flu that acts on the world, on people, drives the storyline....and already it seems like the author doesnt know what she is talking about.

Because I love the genre and the subject matter....I dont think I can read it without pouncing on the BS....but it's _*fiction*_....am I just being too intolerant? (Lord knows you could write on a million other subjects and I'd have no clue if you were making it all up.....)


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I'm the same way. It's the author's job, it's an essential part of the fiction writing craft, to convince the reader to willingly suspend disbelief. 

IMO it's okay for an author to be, in reality, a dilettante in regard to a novel's main subject matter (which is the usual case, I think) but on the page s/he should never come off that way.


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

No, your expectations aren't too high at all. If the book is about a pandemic and gets facts wrong right out of the gate, there's little chance the rest of the book will be an improvement. It's author's job develop a trust with the reader, and bring them on a journey. You can't do that with shoddy research and lazy writing. Sure, we are all human and even with the most painstaking research we sometimes jank up a fact, but a reader needs to know the author at least put an effort into getting it right. That's our job. I know having written a number of westerns readers of that genre will not tolerate poor research and will pick you up on it immediately! They aren't likely to bother reading the rest of your book or chance another, either. And rightly so. 
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

It can really pull you out of a book when an author makes a factual mistake.

I was recently reading a young adult book in which the main character is at the zoo and watches a gorilla bully a chimpanzee (would they put gorillas and chimps in the same cage?)

The gorilla kicked the chimp and then spat at it and walked away.
I'm sorry, but that just does not sound like gorilla behaviour to me.  It sounds like a human bully.  And while this may seem unimportant, it really pulled me out of the story and I lost a lot of trust in the writer.

Another one is people who portray a dog's point of view and say that everything is only seen in black and white or shades of grey.  Dogs can see colour!  Just not the same range of colours we see.  They are red green blind.  People do this with birds too, and they certainly can see colour.  Grump.  Grumble.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

If it's a minor thing not really important to the plot or character development, I let it go. It may still bug me a little but it won't stop me from reading and enjoying the book as a whole.

For example, I have read two completely different contemporary books which claimed the main character's surname was altered at Ellis Island when their ancestors arrived in the US by immigration officers who only spoke English and couldn't get their complicated foreign names correct. This is a massive misconception most people have but anyone who researches their genealogy knows it's not true. If you don't believe me, you can read more about it here: 
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=4675
http://genealogy.about.com/od/ellis_island/a/name_change.htm

So it bugs me when I see this myth spread in novels but if it's a contemporary book, I let it go because it's not usually vital to the plot, setting, or characters. Historical fiction is another matter though, I probably would have stopped reading at that point because I would expect a historical fiction author to know their history better than that, since that kind of fact would be vital to the historical setting.

So it really depends on the book and how the inaccurate fact relates to the book.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

I enjoy reading Tony Hillerman books because I learn about the Navajo culture. I enjoy reading Dick Francis books because I learn about horse racing in Great Britain. Then you read a book like The DaVinci Code where the author says it's factually accurate and it's full of errors.

I think it's sloppy work and it will put me off a book. I read one not long ago and an innocent man was convicted of murder, the protagonists went and told the judge the man was innocent, and he was released from prison that afternoon. Ridiculous.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

patrickt said:


> I enjoy reading Tony Hillerman books because I learn about the Navajo culture. I enjoy reading Dick Francis books because I learn about horse racing in Great Britain. Then you read a book like The DaVinci Code where the author says it's factually accurate and it's full of errors.
> 
> I think it's sloppy work and it will put me off a book. I read one not long ago and an innocent man was convicted of murder, the protagonists went and told the judge the man was innocent, and he was released from prison that afternoon. Ridiculous.


Ditto on Hillerman, although with Dick Francis it's usually also photography, painting, banking, kidnap negotiating and a host of other things apart from racing!

That example you mentioned about the court case is pathetic. Naive!


----------



## Jim Krieger (Oct 8, 2011)

James Patterson, or who ever writes his stuff now has a bad habit of being casual with the facts.  Clive Cussler just seems to make up his own reality.  I'm well read and have a lot of life experience.  I need the book to be factually correct.  If the author can't bother to do 20 minutes of internet research then why should I care?  My books are very well researched and I take pride in knowing that.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

You have every right, of course. Sometimes we choose arching themes and complex material because we enjoy the education that accompanies the writing process, but that also means we're sometimes going to get something wrong. Two that come to mind for me immediately as embarassments (a) a short story published several times where I made an error with regards to a firearm, and (b) the use of Spanish in one novel. I speak a few words, and never studied the subkect. I ran the dialogue by our maid and her friends, and then by a pal who claimed to be proficient in Spanish, and still made a number of errors. One reviewer went bananas.

I liken it to watching a movie where a character fakes guitar playing. It drives me crazy to see their hands either remain on one chord or switch to the wrong position. I realize hardly anyone else notices, but it pulls me out of the story. It may be inevitable that we screw up from time to time, but the reader does have every right to expect us to do our absolute best.


----------



## Kimberly Llewellyn (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't think your expectations are too high at all. If blatant errors exist in the first few pages and are annoying, then why bother reading the rest of the book? This is what's called a "throw the book against the wall" moment! Unless, of course, the author is creating an alternate reality for his story, then fine. But if it is grounded in reality, then the author needs to do his or her homework.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> I liken it to watching a movie where a character fakes guitar playing. It drives me crazy to see their hands either remain on one chord or switch to the wrong position. I realize hardly anyone else notices, but it pulls me out of the story. It may be inevitable that we screw up from time to time, but the reader does have every right to expect us to do our absolute best.


Oh my husband has that too, but with violins. He used to play the viola. Just about every time somebody plays a violin in a movie or on TV he is grumbling about it. And now I notice it too, and it does get annoying. Piano players too, who spend a lot of time rocking backward and forward and grimacing but you never see their hands...


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

Re: the horse thing, I frequently read books where they get their "horse facts" wrong, and it annoys the crap out of me. I was reading something once where one of the characters created a diversion by grabbing the horse's mane and yanking really hard, thus making the horse rear up in pain. I rolled my eyes, because you can hang on a mane with your full body weight and not hurt the horse--but ultimately it didn't make me stop reading.

My father is an attorney and he is always laughing at the things movies and books get wrong about court procedure and the legal system. Apparently _Twelve Angry Men_ has a plot point that would never be allowed in real life. And my husband, a programmer, is always chuckling at the oversimplification of computers and programming in a lot of movies and TV. I guess everybody is going to have that pocket of expertise that they'll know more about...


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

There is a school of thought that says you don't need to get the facts right, your great writing will transcend such trivial things. I don't ascribe to this school, fiction is not a blank check. If an author gets facts wrong, it's like watching a movie where the boom microphone is in the shot or you can see that it is a set, rather than a real apartment.

Of course, the gaffes can be more severe or less severe. If I'm reading a book about a flu epidemic, and the author clearly knows little about the flu, that's a major problem. Smaller errors just pull me out of the story and make me grumble a bit.


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

The author is 100% responsible. Research, interviews, beta readers--there are many ways to get it right.

That said, authors are human and sometimes get things wrong. If they're notified--reader comments, reviews, etc--they should correct the errors.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

Good lord, I'm paranoid about getting my facts right, and it irks me when I see other writers playing too loose for my taste.  If you're going to write, even briefly, about a topic you're unfamiliar with, research it!  That's what I did.  I needed my character to use an antiquated piece of navigational equipment (a sextant), and I researched it to death trying to make sure that, even if I wasn't 100% accurate, I was at least accurately vague enough that I didn't get anything specifically wrong about it!

The other option that works in books I have read is simply glossing over the parts that aren't part of the author's area of expertise.  Riding a horse from point A to point B, for a character who rides horses daily, wouldn't be any different than driving a car... so there's no need for detail.  "He mounted his horse and galloped away", as opposed to "He mounted his piebald mare, pulled back sharply on the reins, and galloped the ebon stallion into the sunset", which is filled with more horsey inaccuracies than you can shake a currycomb at!


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Eh, it depends. I don't mind when authors (or screenwriters, like in 12 Angry Men -- SUCH a good movie) sacrifice strict factual or procedural accuracy for the sake of the story. It usually only pulls me out of the story when the story wasn't doing it's job in the first place. 

I guess that varies, though. Like it also depends on the nature of the error. I'm kind of curious about what the error was in the pandemic book -- I know there are different ways of compiling and looking at data, even in public health stuff (right? I think?), so if the author just picked the most dramatic or sensational statistic for the sake of the story...well, ok, fine. But if they were like, "and the Spanish flu, which was caused by a bacteria brought back from the first expeditions to the Arctic, killed an estimated 100 million people" I'd have a big record scratch moment, followed by laughter.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

Poor research would be plenty to get me to stop reading.  

The author's job is to create a world that readers can feel is so real they can get lost in it.  That's a tough thing to do and generally requires a lot of expertise on the subject matter and plenty of research on top of that expertise.  Not every reader has the same threshold to meet, but any author worth his/her salt will aim as high as they possibly can.  Of course, authors also like to read, and many consider heavy research into a subject they find fascinating enough with to write a book about, to be fun not work.

On a similar matter - there's a commercial on TV lately that's been bugging me for the same reasons.  It's a fictional "behind the scenes" on a movie shoot with a demanding director type character.  They are filming a life-size replica of a 17th century tall ship exploding in the open ocean (already that's a ridiculous stretch, but okay...)  

After the explosion, the director yells, "No!  No!  Bigger!  Bigger!"  News flash to no one - once they blow up the life-size replica ship... they're done.  That was the shot.  Ain't gonna be no retake.  Thank God it's only 30 seconds and not 300 pages, I guess.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

It makes me go cross-eyed when I read "historical fiction" and the author hasn't researched the manners of the time period.  It's one of the reasons I can't handle the romance genre.  About halfway in I want to scream at the author, "IF THEY REALLY DID THAT IN THAT TIME PERIOD, ONE OF THEM WOULD BE IN PRISON AND THE OTHER MISSING A HEAD!"  Come on, people!  Research is half the fun!


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

KateDanley said:


> Come on, people! Research is half the fun!


Exactly! And I just got the sample for The Woodcutter. Sounds very cool.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I've often been asked at booksignings how "real" my military thrillers are.
I tell them if the books were realistic they'd be one page:  We drew our weapons and ammo.  Went to the airfield.  And the plane never showed.

End of story.
Combat is 99% boredom with less than 1% pure terror.
No one wants to reads 99% boredom.

I loved how people wrote entire books rebutting The DaVinci Code.  A novel.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I know it's just me, linear, detail-oriented 'ol me, but...should it be hard for me to take a _*fiction * _ book seriously when I read the foreward and find several errors? I dont mean 'generalities' for a mainstream audience, but incorrect statistics and facts.
> 
> I just started a small pub. e-book about a flu pandemic (sci-fi/SHTF) and couldnt get past the foreward. I was hoping it was written by a third party, but it's not signed so I assume it was written by the author.
> 
> ...


No idea what the book was, but I do think authors try to get things right. Case in point: Had a friend write me recently == she was FURIOUS at the descriptions of the Natural history museum in DC. She went on at length, luckily. I had been a couple of years ago--she had been several years prior. When I visited, the museums were being renovated and the details friend shared? Right on the money or darned close to what I remembered. The Hope Diamond was in what equated to a hallway (kind of weird columns with it displayed in a column, only it had glass instead of being a support column.) There were walls on two sides--but you could look back and actually see over the railing to the first floor--or possibly could with a few steps. She had seen it in a very protected room with other jewelry in that same room.

She was furious with the author for getting it all wrong (and several other descriptions as well.) BUT I was able to reassure her that in fact, it was possible the author had visited when things were quite different. We also went through another scene (had to do with a battery experiment) and then RAN part of the experiment...and technically it probably could work as described in the book. Now it might not be a first choice of a way to do things, but technically it could have worked.

So sometimes (and I realize your example is history and mine is not) things change. A restaurant might have been a dance hall. A restaurant might have been where there is now a highway. Even something that had not changed for years--museums my friend had seen multiple times...do change!!!

But as I said, that probably doesn't help in the case of history.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

I think everyone has one area they know a lot about. So if you read about something out of place in a book about it, it is going to stick out horribly. Writers have an obligation to at least get down the basics. Like the movie Troy. Years later, I still hate that movie. Spoiler alert for anyone who saw the movie but never read the epic: Achilles died before making it into Troy. Bah. So in short, I hate Troy and if you are writing, research beforehand.


----------



## Ben Dobson (Mar 27, 2011)

I think it's alright to care and it's alright not to care, because no one can tell you how to feel about a book. If you know a lot about the subject matter, it's probably going to be important to you that it comes off right. If you don't, you won't even notice.

I do think that it's important to differentiate somewhat between inaccurate and _bad_, though. There are times when, for instance, a story isn't really trying for realism. In a pulp fantasy, I'm not going to get upset about swordplay being unrealistic when it favors crazy moves and acrobatics, any more than I'd get upset at a stylized action movie showing misleading gunplay or whatever. It might not be your (an ethereal unspecific "your", not calling out anyone in this thread) cup of tea because of that, and that's fine, but I get annoyed when I see those knee jerk one-star reviews on books that are like "I hated this more than anything because everyone knows the fuel pump of a car doesn't work that way." I mean sure, dock it some points, but negative 4 stars for that seems kind of excessive.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

In fiction books, factual errors only bother me if it pulls me out of the story.  I mean, I really don't care if everything is historically perfect in my highlander romance novel.  It's about the romance.  So long as the larger plot arc flows, the little things can slide.

But what does bug me is when the book has a historical setting and the character act overly modern.  Like, modern swear words or modern cultural standards.


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

I guess I'm probably in the minority here, but a good story is just that. A good story. It's fiction. And if I'm lost in the writing, and the author makes me believe in the story, then I don't care about facts. It's not a biography or a textbook. If the author is good enough to make me believe it, then they've done their job at writing good "fiction."


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

Depends greatly on the work. World-building is one thing. If you're setting your novel in a city like Atlanta, which I do sometimes, it's important. Reviewers pick up on setting A Lot. But if you create an imaginary city, no holds barred. I think character development is key as is plot in getting facts right. These people have to act as you would expect and theplot has to be believable. I don't think anyone told Dan Brown that when he wrote Angels and Demons when the professor jumped out of an airplane and floated down on his coattails, but it didn't seem to hurt sales. Only snickers.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

A good story is what enables you to overlook factual errors. No author can be 100% correct about everything but if you get hung up on the telephone having a dial tone when someone hangs up, the elevator door shutting on a madman's arm, revolvers having safeties, or changing the drum brakes on a modern car then that probably is an indication that the story isn't really grabbing you.

But at least some level of expert consultation is appropriate, I think. If you have soldiers in your book but never served in the military it would behoove you to have a soldier proof that section to make sure you don't make a simple but glaring mistake (having privates salute specialists, for example).


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Wonderful responses, thanks.

Just to be clear...this was in the foreward...and someone, I guess the author since it wasnt signed...was speaking directly to the reader and setting the stage for the book.

And at least 3 basic things were wrong.

Like I said, if it's not the focus of the story....like people riding horses in historical (or current) fiction...fine, I can ignore it. But this is a book ABOUT the flu and it's affects on the planet and it's societies.

"For me" if that doesnt have a solid foundation in actual science, there's no point in my reading it. So I havent.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> It can really pull you out of a book when an author makes a factual mistake.
> 
> I was recently reading a young adult book in which the main character is at the zoo and watches a gorilla bully a chimpanzee (would they put gorillas and chimps in the same cage?)
> 
> ...


Wow, yeah, that would never happen. As the ex-consort of a zookeeper....I'd probably toss the book right there.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

history_lover said:


> For example, I have read two completely different contemporary books which claimed the main character's surname was altered at Ellis Island when their ancestors arrived in the US by immigration officers who only spoke English and couldn't get their complicated foreign names correct. This is a massive misconception most people have but anyone who researches their genealogy knows it's not true.


Oh nuts. I thought that was true!

But then why did they change their names?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

patrickt said:


> I enjoy reading Tony Hillerman books because I learn about the Navajo culture. I enjoy reading Dick Francis books because I learn about horse racing in Great Britain.


Two of my favorite authors, and already greatly missed. I have a solid enough background in the 4 Corners area and horse racing to know that both of them wrote very true to reality.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> Ditto on Hillerman, although with Dick Francis it's usually also photography, painting, banking, kidnap negotiating and a host of other things apart from racing!


In the first decade or more, Dick Francis stuck exclusively with racing/'chasing. I know, I started reading his books from the 60s in the early 70s. I think he just needed to expand his canvas.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> You have every right, of course. Sometimes we choose arching themes and complex material because we enjoy the education that accompanies the writing process, but that also means we're sometimes going to get something wrong. Two that come to mind for me immediately as embarassments (a) a short story published several times where I made an error with regards to a firearm, and (b) the use of Spanish in one novel. I speak a few words, and never studied the subkect. I ran the dialogue by our maid and her friends, and then by a pal who claimed to be proficient in Spanish, and still made a number of errors. One reviewer went bananas.


I also think there is a very fine line that authors need to tread so that people _NOT _ familiar with the subject area dont get bored or feel bogged down in unnecessary details. Me, I eat up the details *on certain subjects* but I can understand how others would be bored and not need such details to enjoy and understand the story. But I really believe the foundation should be deep and accurate.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

KateEllison said:


> Re: the horse thing, I frequently read books where they get their "horse facts" wrong, and it annoys the crap out of me. I was reading something once where one of the characters created a diversion by grabbing the horse's mane and yanking really hard, thus making the horse rear up in pain. I rolled my eyes, because you can hang on a mane with your full body weight and not hurt the horse--but ultimately it didn't make me stop reading.


I think I've gotten over the horse thing....it's so common in historical fiction. "The fair maiden rode her stallion bareback and kneed him on into the moonlight." THere is so much wrong with that sentence, I cant even begin.... 

It's not the focus of the story, so it's not such a big deal.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> Poor research would be plenty to get me to stop reading.
> 
> The author's job is to create a world that readers can feel is so real they can get lost in it. That's a tough thing to do and generally requires a lot of expertise on the subject matter and plenty of research on top of that expertise. Not every reader has the same threshold to meet, but any author worth his/her salt will aim as high as they possibly can. Of course, authors also like to read, and many consider heavy research into a subject they find fascinating enough with to write a book about, to be fun not work.
> 
> ...


LOLOLOL

I know the commercial.

Tangent: There is a tall ship frequently used in the movies that I 'steered' for a couple of hrs on Puget Sound - from the Ballard Locks to Elliot Bay. As the park ranger at the Locks, I did a historical program on the ship thru the locks and then got to hang out for the rest of the trip.

That gorgous ship, the Lady Washington, is not steered by a classic 'wheel' as is always shown in the movies....I steered her with my thigh...she has a huge tiller, like 12 feet long. You can use your hands...and would in rougher waters...but I stood there and shifted her tiller with my leg...as they would have done traditionally. It was fun


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

ToniD said:


> The author is 100% responsible. Research, interviews, beta readers--there are many ways to get it right.
> 
> That said, authors are human and sometimes get things wrong. If they're notified--reader comments, reviews, etc--they should correct the errors.


Hmmmm....I do have Bad Water on my K3...it's on my reading list.....


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

This is something that can go either way really. I think if the author is giving stats on things, then yes, they have to be correct. However, I've read things that I know to be inaccurate but doesn't hurt the plot and would be generally accepted by readers. Heck, on the other side. I've seen authors write things that are fully correct and some person will come along and swear up and down it's not right. It's really a thin line on all of this. 

What is believable and what is true may not always line up.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> No idea what the book was, but I do think authors try to get things right. Case in point: Had a friend write me recently == she was FURIOUS at the descriptions of the Natural history museum in DC. She went on at length, luckily. I had been a couple of years ago--she had been several years prior. When I visited, the museums were being renovated and the details friend shared? Right on the money or darned close to what I remembered. The Hope Diamond was in what equated to a hallway (kind of weird columns with it displayed in a column, only it had glass instead of being a support column.) There were walls on two sides--but you could look back and actually see over the railing to the first floor--or possibly could with a few steps. She had seen it in a very protected room with other jewelry in that same room.
> 
> She was furious with the author for getting it all wrong (and several other descriptions as well.) BUT I was able to reassure her that in fact, it was possible the author had visited when things were quite different. We also went through another scene (had to do with a battery experiment) and then RAN part of the experiment...and technically it probably could work as described in the book. Now it might not be a first choice of a way to do things, but technically it could have worked.
> 
> ...


When I visited the National Museum of Nat History in DC in the very early 90s, it was so sad and outdated it wasnt funny. Exhibit descriptions were literally out of date. A good part of that was because as the 'national' museum, there was no charge for entrance and funding was very poor.

I'm glad to hear it has been renovated! Many of the exhibits were in terrible shape.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> Oh nuts. I thought that was true!
> 
> But then why did they change their names?


To integrate into society. Social acceptance. Sometimes it was to avoid social prejudice but equally, many immigrants actually _wanted _to be American. They embraced their new country and culture.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> Oh nuts. I thought that was true!
> 
> But then why did they change their names?


That's a weird one as I have looked at records from both Ellis Island AND in census. I can concur that in the census for CERTAIN spelling was very liberal, phonetic and often wrong. My grandmother's name is spelled differently in every census and is unrecognizable in at least once census (we only know it is her because she is listed as the wife of granddad.)

I have my grandfather's Ellis Island copy somewhere around here. I don't recall off the top of my head whether it was letter correct or not, but if the census people couldn't spell, I find it hard to believe that names weren't changed, shortened or flat our wrong at times. Many, many people didn't know how to spell their own names, so why would officials in any capacity get it "correct" all the time?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I think I've gotten over the horse thing....it's so common in historical fiction. "The fair maiden rode her stallion bareback and kneed him on into the moonlight." THere is so much wrong with that sentence, I cant even begin....
> 
> It's not the focus of the story, so it's not such a big deal.


I've ridden bareback (I am not a fair maiden, although perhaps I could have been considered such at the time. No, more "foolhardy idiot.") I'd ridden with a saddle many times. Of course I fell off as soon as the horse knew were were going home and started trotting. It's difficult.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> When I visited the National Museum of Nat History in DC in the very early 90s, it was so sad and outdated it wasnt funny. Exhibit descriptions were literally out of date. A good part of that was because as the 'national' museum, there was no charge for entrance and funding was very poor.
> 
> I'm glad to hear it has been renovated! Many of the exhibits were in terrible shape.


You wouldn't like it, at least I didn't. They took out so many exhibits and went for "bright, airy and...empty." I mean seriously. We went through some that were finished with renovations and the History, which was in the middle of it and I have to say, it was VERY disappointing. I had been years before that and even though there was clutter they at least had plenty to see. The newer renovations were all "Press this button and stand in front of ONE exhibit to hear all about other stuff you can't see." There were some placards, but not enough (I'm a reader, not a button presser.) It was very kid-friendly, but very adult boring. My parents were with me and they had been a couple of other times and were STUNNED at the lack of exhibits.


----------



## S.M. Boyce (Sep 13, 2011)

Katharina said:


> I often think what makes a great book, is the research you _don't_ use.


So true. I had a professor tell me that _I_ didn't have to tell the reader everything, but that I had to know everything about the story -- right down to the color of the characters' socks. That sort of understanding of your story bleeds into your writing and makes it richer, giving it depth and details that otherwise would have been overlooked. Who knows? That research might change whole plot points in your story.

As for getting your facts right, I think that verisimilitude is more like an extra feature that marks a good writer; if you can make someone believe that you've hiked every summer of your life even when you've never been to the Rockies, you've managed to pull them into your story. It's a great tool to create a realistic world and strong characters. So yeah, I think it's important and another way to help people suspend belief in reality long enough to slip into your tale.


----------



## Thomas D. Taylor (Oct 12, 2011)

Authors have an obligation to get their facts right. This means either doing the research themselves or paying others to do the research for them. 

Just about everything I have ever written involved some research whether it was mainstream, horror, or science fiction. 

One point, however: It is interesting that what is widely publicized as fact is not always fact, and newspapers and magazines should not always be taken as reliable sources. I have an association with a nuclear physicist at Fermilab that I often consult for facts when I write science fiction. He usually consults with his colleagues before giving me an answer to my inquiries, and sometimes what he gives me is the exact opposite of what the newspapers will publish about something. Maybe it's something on Dark Matter, or String Theory, or what have you. The newspapers and magazines will often not get their facts right, but the general public will read those articles more than they would those in a scientific publication or research study, and believe that they have the facts right and an author of a novel may have them wrong.

I have also noted that some authors will substitute opinions for fact. For example, many theories may exist about something, and an author will take a theory and present it as fact because the theory is in accordance with their personal belief system. 

Or perhaps a theory has been "proven" but an author will not accept the proof as fact and still gravitate to a different (disproved) theory. 

My own view on all of this is to stick to the facts, because as people have written here, deviating from what is fact will alienate and distract the reader.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> That's a weird one as I have looked at records from both Ellis Island AND in census. I can concur that in the census for CERTAIN spelling was very liberal, phonetic and often wrong. My grandmother's name is spelled differently in every census and is unrecognizable in at least once census (we only know it is her because she is listed as the wife of granddad.)
> 
> I have my grandfather's Ellis Island copy somewhere around here. I don't recall off the top of my head whether it was letter correct or not, but if the census people couldn't spell, I find it hard to believe that names weren't changed, shortened or flat our wrong at times.


Spelling on census records can be very inaccurate because they were collected for demographic purposes, not as a form of ID. Some census enumerators cared little for the spelling of names as they knew that was not their goal. Just because a name was misspelled on a census doesn't mean that changed a person's name legally or permanently.

Immigrants coming into the country had to be properly documented for legal purposes, just like they are today. Censuses and immigration are different records with different purposes so the people recording the information also served different purposes and has different qualifications. Census enumerators were not required to be multilingual but Ellis Island and other ports of entry employed interpretors for many, many different languages.



> Many, many people didn't know how to spell their own names, so why would officials in any capacity get it "correct" all the time?


As the articles I posted explain, their documentation was complied in their native land where "name spellings on these documents would logically conform to local spellings." So it's unlikely they would get butchered in their native lands where people would be familiar with local spellings.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I'll have to check grandfathers records.  Of course, since he left under extremely suspicious circumstances and was thought dead, it might be even more interesting.  

I would imagine it was easier to change a name, fake a name or change the spelling on a name back then, especially if a person wanted to!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I know it's just me, linear, detail-oriented 'ol me, but...should it be hard for me to take a _*fiction * _ book seriously when I read the foreward and find several errors? I dont mean 'generalities' for a mainstream audience, but incorrect statistics and facts.
> 
> I just started a small pub. e-book about a flu pandemic (sci-fi/SHTF) and couldnt get past the foreward. I was hoping it was written by a third party, but it's not signed so I assume it was written by the author.
> 
> ...


No, your expectations are not to high.

Fiction requires a suspension of disbelief and that requires that I trust the author. When the author gets facts wrong, my trust and my suspension of disbelief go right out the window. The novel soon follows.


----------



## Meb Bryant (Jun 27, 2011)

I sure hope the writers are getting all their facts correct, since I believe everything I read and often quote the information to my lesser-read friends.


----------



## AllisonKraft (Sep 13, 2011)

I can overlook little things, if they aren't central to the plot, but most of the time I get annoyed when a writer makes errors like that. Especially if it's a major part of the story. That's just lazy writing.

I made the mistake of reading James Patterson's "non-fiction" account of King Tut's murder. I'm not a professional Egyptologist, but it's been an interest of mine for a long time, and the Amarna period (Tut's father's reign) is a particular favorite. Let's just say I would have thrown that book against the wall too many times to count if it had not been a library book!

I did a ton of research for my own novel, which is set on the Titanic. It's another interest if mine, so the research was fun, and I never tired of learning more about it. Which is why I don't get how writers can be that lazy. If you like what you're writing about, wouldn't you want to be sure you were being accurate?


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

Fiction is fiction, and facts are always distorted in some fashion to enhance the story. However, writers should try to get their facts straight, particularly in the genre in which the writer creates. For example, cop stories should be somewhere near reality on police procedures and techniques. How many times in books and movies have you seen the investigator reach down and roll the body over before the coroner has arrived on the scene. In real life, they might have another homicide on their hands of the coroner arrived and found a detective tossing the body around. Writers can take some latitude in their creativeness, after they've done their homework.It is called _research._.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

My novels are set in Paris, and I decided to create a sort of "alternate reality" version of the city that suits the characters and the story. There are streets and buildings that don't exist co-mingled with real places and people. I did, however, do a lot research about the 1968 student/worker riots and tried to make those details as true as possible. Hell, I even went to Paris again last summer to make sure I had it right. I did have a reader call me out once on the characters traveling between two metro stations that don't connect in reality. I shrugged it off. Maybe the characters changed trains, but I didn't want to interrupt the flow of their inner dialogue they were having on that journey. Little details like that don't bug me at all if it's subtle and advances the plot.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

It depends. If the facts are essential to maintain credibility, yes. However, there's a technique where logic is suspended in favor of scenic verisimilitude. For example (not a novel, but) The Pirate of Penzance has a sunny first act on the beachon the Cornish shore, no mention of date or season. Then, in the second act, essential to the plot, it's February. Few people realize this or fret that Corwall in February is hardly beach weather. I also pull a similar obfiscation dealing with time zones and on purpose . . . but I'll not tell, and few readers catch it. Yet, whenit comes to historical fact (especially Chinese 12th Century ones), I'll drive my editor crazy with something that no one will care about . . . except me.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Meb Bryant said:


> I sure hope the writers are getting all their facts correct, since I believe everything I read and often quote the information to my lesser-read friends.


I know! I once got into trouble at an Art History tutorial run by a particularly snooty lecturer. I made the comment that in the past, women were not allowed to attend the Olympic games. She challenged me as to my source and I had to say "....um....Asterix and the Olympic Games?"


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> I've often been asked at booksignings how "real" my military thrillers are.
> I tell them if the books were realistic they'd be one page: We drew our weapons and ammo. Went to the airfield. And the plane never showed.
> 
> End of story.
> ...


You left out the complaining about the food, the weather, the wet, the damp, the wet matches, the blisters, the snorers, the food, the weather, the food, the weather, the food....


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

There is a great book called "Turncoat"; it's a Canadian historical murder mystery. In the author's foreward, he notes that he combines two historical events into the same year, even though he knows they are a year apart.

I always get annoyed at food in fantasy novels or how some authors base their entire Regency novels on watching Jane Austen movies and reading Georgette Heyer, as opposed to reading things from the time period itself. Sometimes, it's too bad to keep going. Othertimes, I can shrug and keep on moving (i.e. Celeste Bradley is a good example. She acknowledges that most of the dukes in London were old, married, and fat, but she is going to pretend that they were all young, single, and handsome).


----------



## Moppet (Sep 30, 2011)

I think it's clearly a case of "you can make things up, but only if you're really making them up."  I don't mind at all if an author makes up a whole new society/technology/world based on an existing one, and then sort of fudges things.  But if you're writing about something real you should get it right.

Which is why I spent a few hours researching soap making for what ultimately turned out to be about two paragraphs of story.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Ah but the boredom develops the characters.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I always get annoyed at food in fantasy novels or how some authors base their entire Regency novels on watching Jane Austen movies and reading Georgette Heyer, as opposed to reading things from the time period itself.


It is often the case that fiction is based upon previous fiction, which was in turn based on previous fiction. It is similar to making photocopies out of photocopies, it degrades over time. The problem is that people come to expect the degraded version. It's part of why I watch little TV these days. What we are presented with often has less and less to do with the reality, but it is what people have come to expect. I've known people who thought they liked cherries, until they actually had some cherries. It turns out what they liked was artificial cherry flavoring.

Perhaps most of the Dukes were old, fat and married, but it's plausible that a Duke could be young, handsome and single. If they are all young, handsome and single, then it is less plausible. If an author doesn't know the order of ranking of nobility, that can be a real problem.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

If the author is trying to establish that the events are exactly as would happen in the real world, then it's a bad thing.  If it's science fiction without caring about factual stuff, or just portrayed as pure fiction, then it doesn't bother me.  Does that make sense?


----------



## SheenahFreitas (Oct 7, 2011)

I believe it's an author's responsibility to get the facts right. Just because they're writing a work of fiction, doesn't mean they can make everything up. If the book is set in New York City, I don't want to read that the Eiffel Tower is in place of the Statue of Liberty unless there's a vital explanation that makes sense. An author has to make sure that they're work is believable and that means doing the research.


----------



## rachelsholiday (Sep 9, 2011)

Your expectations are definitely not to high.  If I'm reading historical fiction I want to believe that this story could actually happen in that time period.  And while I may not know a ton about the period in history, reading the fictional story usually sends me back to historical non-fiction to learn more.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

But Science Fiction should care about factual stuff, else it's no longer Science Fiction. It should have a factual basis, and that should be correct and plausible. This means that the author should do some (and possibly a bit more than some) reading up on science.

(Finally decided to dedicate a shelf to my science books when they started to invade my desk).


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

Facts or math errors bug me, but I'm like Bob Mayer, it's art, not life. Fiction has to be plausible, not accurate. Play with geography, invent cities and towns -- it's all OK by me, as long as the story is working.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> Facts or math errors bug me, but I'm like Bob Mayer, it's art, not life. Fiction has to be plausible, not accurate. Play with geography, invent cities and towns -- it's all OK by me, as long as the story is working.


Exactly! If it is believable enough for me to step out of reality and immerse myself in the story, I don't care if it's really true. It's fiction.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> If it is believable enough for me to step out of reality and immerse myself in the story, I don't care if it's really true. It's fiction.


This. Some readers get upset when they spot what they think are errors, even when the author has clearly noted in a foreword that some "facts" have been distorted or fictionalized to enhance the story. This allows us to use our imagine even more.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Mark Young said:


> Fiction is fiction, and facts are always distorted in some fashion to enhance the story. However, writers should try to get their facts straight, particularly in the genre in which the writer creates. For example, cop stories should be somewhere near reality on police procedures and techniques. How many times in books and movies have you seen the investigator reach down and roll the body over before the coroner has arrived on the scene. In real life, they might have another homicide on their hands of the coroner arrived and found a detective tossing the body around. Writers can take some latitude in their creativeness, after they've done their homework.It is called _research._.


I agree Mark.

I'm a scientist, so research has been hard-wired into my brain for over a decade. I don't like it when people are loose with the facts. However, I have read a number of books were I will ignore their errors (e.g. Steve Berry's Emperor's Tomb and the much debunked renewable/abiotic oil theory) because it doesn't matter if the fact is true or not, as it is the character's belief in the claim that matters. We see enough hysteria surrounding erroneous claims in real life that it is easy to see a fictional world have the same problem.

The part that really ruins it for me is when the author then has notes at the end that then suggests this erroneous fact is true. Dan Brown with his claims about Templar Knights and descendants of Jesus, Michael Crichton and his claims about climate change, just about every thriller author who has written about GM crops: the author is either trying to ramp up conjecture and sales or honestly didn't do their research properly.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

JFHilborne said:


> This. Some readers get upset when they spot what they think are errors, even when the author has clearly noted in a foreword that some "facts" have been distorted or fictionalized to enhance the story. This allows us to use our imagine even more.


Yes. Spot on. Fiction is meant to allow you to use your imagination and should be read with that in mind. If it were true it would be labeled non-fiction. Reading is an escape from the normal mundane world. I don't ever read a novel and expect it to be about factual events. Even places and times can be tweaked and adjusted as long as they make the story real enough for me to feel like I'm there with the characters, I'm happy.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

It depends on what the book is about. The pandemic one you say annoyed you is a good example of the benefits of a little research prior to writing the book. If someone writes a sci-fi novel, who is to say what is factual or not if it is based in the future or another world? I don't mind a little poetic licence, but if they are writing about contemporary science or known, accepted research, it can get a little annoying.

Police procedure, or lack of, or just plain absurd, gets on my nerves. 

Michael Crichton put a lot of research into a few of his books and referenced it all.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

JFHilborne said:


> This. Some readers get upset when they spot what they think are errors, even when the author has clearly noted in a foreword that some "facts" have been distorted or fictionalized to enhance the story. This allows us to use our imagine even more.


The case I'm basing my post on here IS the foreward of a book. The author is stage-setting for the book and using incorrect facts and statistics to do so....she's not saying she's fudging things for the book, she's using misinformation as part of the foundation of the focus of the book.

For me, if the whole premise of the book isnt founded on good and realistic epidemiological science, it wont work for me. Yuo can invent diseases but they still have to act realistically. Just like if you write about humans...when you get to a certain point that an author is changing humans drastically....you get fantasy and magic....if that's the case, the book better be sold as such. (And I dont care for fantasy or magic). But if it's a crime thriller and humans start becoming invisible...er, I'd have a problem with that.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

WriterCTaylor said:


> Michael Crichton put a lot of research into a few of his books and referenced it all.


My point was that on the face of it you could be mistaken for thinking Crichton did a lot of research. The reality was that it was poor research. Much like Steve Berry's abiotic oil research, there is tons of information out there on it, but none of it credible. So when you read the author notes it is easy to think it is a genuine claim; why aren't oil companies and geologists all over this like a groupie over the lead singer? You can ignore this though because it doesn't really matter, it is a work of fiction, but not when the author starts pretending it isn't for whatever reason.

Another great example is the author behind the movie 2012. He was carrying on like that was all possible and would happen very soon. For a movie premise, sure I'll go with it, but for reality land he just comes off like a nut-case.


----------



## Skate (Jan 23, 2011)

An author builds worlds and unless they're a fantasy author, other people may know those worlds well enough to know if their facts are not right. So, for example, if an American or English author were to write something about Australia, I'd expect them to have researched the facts and got them right (often not the case). If an author writes historical novels, then their descriptions must fit the period they're writing about and not be full of anachronisms. Even fantasy and SF authors need to make sure that the worlds they create are based on plausible fact, not entirely plucked out of the air. I will soon stop reading a novel that gets things wrong. It implies the author simply didn't care enough to take the time...so why should I?


----------



## Fleurignacois (Sep 17, 2011)

My wife just read a John Grisham book where one of the characters travelled through Italy on the Eurostar train! (no such service) Just bad research but it interfered with the enjoyment of the book.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2011)

I finished Dean Koontz's The Watchers recently. At the very beginning, the protagonist meets up with a genetically engineered dog and immediately feeds him multiple chocolate bars. He does this multiple times throughout the book to the point where the dog absolutely should've been dead, and this detail slipped by the author (a dog lover) and all the editors and proofreaders to make it into the book. I guess they corrected it in subsequent editions, but...

...it happens.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

Fleurignacois said:


> My wife just read a John Grisham book where one of the characters travelled through Italy on the Eurostar train! (no such service) Just bad research but it interfered with the enjoyment of the book.


Sorry? There is the Eurostar service in Italy, the three 'Frecce' and more: http://www.trenitalia.com/cms/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f4e43bf7c819a110VgnVCM1000003f16f90aRCRD

On the thread topic, I absolutely don't mind if the author takes some kinds of liberties, like setting a novel in a fictional town. 
If a novel is set in a set historical period or in an existing city or is based on a scientific premise, though, the author has better to have done his or her homework (two terrible examples for me are 'The Da Vinci Code and The Doomsday Book). 
Sometimes it is a small thing:I remember reading an historical novel who had a Saxon woman named Audrey in it, I didn't finish the book. I know Audrey is of Old english _origin_ but:
A) I would have liked the original form of the name in the book for consistency
B) the name nowadays as such strong associations to a specific actress that in an historical contest it pulled me out of the story every time


----------



## Fleurignacois (Sep 17, 2011)

Thanks for the correction. I thought Eurostar only ran throught the channel tunnel. One up for JG then.


----------



## TerryS (Mar 29, 2011)

Ask yourself if you're about the story, at least in fiction, of if it's about poking around for factual elements. Do you wish to immerse yourself in the world created by the author? After all, in fiction, the characters aren't real even when an author attempts to base them off a real character, it's still fictional. However there are certain things that must hold true. Rules. Whether you're creating every little nuance of your world to make it more believable especially in fantasy/sci fi or basing your world off the real world, there are certain rules that you apply according to how your world works that the author should stay true to. Once you've created your world and how its physics, metaphysics, peoples, creatures work, then don't deviate. Don't invent things on the spur of the moment that weren't included, established or hinted at, just to save your protagonist. It can tear your reader out of the story.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Maybe I just read a lot of Alternate Histories, Science Fiction and Fantasy and not a lot of Historical Fiction ... Maybe I'm just not picky ...  I've never really worried about inconsistencies in time period, names, scientific theories, etc. so long as the details are consistent within the context of that story.  You want aliens to invade Earth in the middle of World War II?  Then make it plausible within that context.  Want a virus to exist as a sentient, group mind?  Then make them think like viruses.  You want to portray the collapse of Victorian Europe after a meteor swarm strikes the Northern Hemisphere?  Then make people's reactions reflect Victorian mindsets.

I get more annoyed by deus ex machina solutions to story than whether or not there really is a high speed rail line between Seattle and Chicago .... I can see where some would and do care greatly about these details and I can see why they're annoying.  For myself, I want to be entertained so I leave worrying about authors getting the facts right to when I'm reading non-fiction authors and journalists.


----------



## EGranfors (Mar 18, 2011)

Fiction still needs accurate details in science, history, geography, and math. (I miscalculated an amount owed by my protagonist--my son caught the error).


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Seleya said:


> Sorry? There is the Eurostar service in Italy, the three 'Frecce' and more: http://www.trenitalia.com/cms/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f4e43bf7c819a110VgnVCM1000003f16f90aRCRD
> 
> On the thread topic, I absolutely don't mind if the author takes some kinds of liberties, like setting a novel in a fictional town.
> If a novel is set in a set historical period or in an existing city or is based on a scientific premise, though, the author has better to have done his or her homework (two terrible examples for me are 'The Da Vinci Code and The Doomsday Book).
> ...


This is the other thing that cracks me up. Twice (two different books, different 'facts') I've had readers contact me about my "mis-information.' I double-checked. (One was grammar, the other something the character did.) There's so much going on in the world today that some facts really are disputable. Like the above conversation about Ellis Island and the name changes. For me, it's entirely believable that someone checking in immigrants got their name wrong--because not every worker is going to be fully educated, not every worker is going to be diligent and then there's fraud. When you're dealing with human nature, laziness, greed, carelessness...I mean think about it. One day the guy at Ellis Island has a terrible cold. He's got the flu, he's been puking all morning...he could care less how a name gets spelled. Maybe he tells the guy to write his own damn name down and the guy checking in isn't literate. Maybe some days there's a poker game going on with the employees and people don't get checked in at all. Things just aren't perfect and that leaves a lot of room for gaps. Mistakes happen, some honest, some not so honest.

Now I'm not trying to say that incorrect info shouldn't be corrected or that it's okay to not do research. But I've been wrong before (*I KNOW* Unbelievable) and so are some readers. Some facts are just going to be disputable.

(This has nothing to do with your enjoyment level. But bear in mind that in this big world, some people experience life or expectations differently. They may have grown up in another country, in another time or in a place where things really were just a little bit different.)


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

gatehouseauthor said:


> ...
> The other option that works in books I have read is simply glossing over the parts that aren't part of the author's area of expertise. Riding a horse from point A to point B, for a character who rides horses daily, wouldn't be any different than driving a car... so there's no need for detail. "He mounted his horse and galloped away", as opposed to "He mounted his piebald mare, pulled back sharply on the reins, and galloped the ebon stallion into the sunset", which is filled with more horsey inaccuracies than you can shake a currycomb at!


Of course, "galloped away" risks drawing the ire of the "horse people", since 99% of the time that would probably not be the gait you would use to simply get from point A to point B, unless (a) it was really important to get there fast, and (b) it was either a very short distance or the horse's well-being was not an issue.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

If part of the marketing pitch is "this really could (have) happen(ed)!!!" then I'd like to see accuracy. But if there are zombies and pirates in the story, I'm not terribly picky about things like the Civil War lasting until 1878, and the Gatling gun getting an autocrank in 1865, and even some geographical liberties being taken with the landscape.  (Just listened to Cherie Priest talking about the letters she gets from readers saying things like: "NUH UH, construction didn't start on Smith Tower until 1909, you idiot! Your history is WRONG!" and her reply being something along the lines of, "Yeah, goes well with the scientifically accurate ZOMBIES!")

It only really bothers me in books like Cornwell's "Portrait of a Killer," where she claims to "solve" the Jack the Ripper identity, then fills her book with junk hypotheses and circular reasoning, and factual distortions. Or Christopher Golden's "The Ferryman" where (spoiler tag for grossness)


Spoiler



he has his two main characters engaging in lots and lots of sex, including oral, within a few days of the female character giving birth (to a dead baby) when she'd still be bleeding like a stuck pig.


 And it's not like there are even any Vampires to justify THAT error.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> This is the other thing that cracks me up. Twice (two different books, different 'facts') I've had readers contact me about my "mis-information.' I double-checked. (One was grammar, the other something the character did.) There's so much going on in the world today that some facts really are disputable. Like the above conversation about Ellis Island and the name changes. For me, it's entirely believable that someone checking in immigrants got their name wrong--because not every worker is going to be fully educated, not every worker is going to be diligent and then there's fraud. When you're dealing with human nature, laziness, greed, carelessness...I mean think about it. One day the guy at Ellis Island has a terrible cold. He's got the flu, he's been puking all morning...he could care less how a name gets spelled. Maybe he tells the guy to write his own d*mn name down and the guy checking in isn't literate. Maybe some days there's a poker game going on with the employees and people don't get checked in at all. Things just aren't perfect and that leaves a lot of room for gaps. Mistakes happen, some honest, some not so honest.


The sick guy probably could have been fired for that so it's highly unlikely that would have happened. If he was that ill that he couldn't do his job, he would go home and another immigration officer would take over. People who work for the government are hired because they take their jobs seriously because they know the legal process is non-negotiable. There is absolutely no way they would sit around playing poker, there was simply no opportunity to do so. This wasn't a hotel, people weren't "checking in", the process took hours with not only forms to fill out but medical exams and believe it or not, some people were not let into the country.

Fact is, the articles I posted were written by people who are experts in this field. They know their history on this and they'll have considered all factors. Yes, mistakes may have happened and the articles did not say name changes never happened at Ellis Island but obviously, they would have been very minor mistakes and highly infrequent and this is not disputable, especially when you obviously haven't done any research on the topic.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> If part of the marketing pitch is "this really could (have) happen(ed)!!!" then I'd like to see accuracy. But if there are zombies and pirates in the story, I'm not terribly picky about things like the Civil War lasting until 1878, and the Gatling gun getting an autocrank in 1865, and even some geographical liberties being taken with the landscape.  (Just listened to Cherie Priest talking about the letters she gets from readers saying things like: "NUH UH, construction didn't start on Smith Tower until 1909, you idiot! Your history is WRONG!" and her reply being something along the lines of, "Yeah, goes well with the scientifically accurate ZOMBIES!")


Yes, I'm quoting my own post for clarity. Lest anyone think that Priest takes liberties with history, etc, due to being uninformed or misinformed, she knows her history upsidedown and backwards. When she takes liberties, it's deliberate, not a mistake. I think this makes a difference.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> There is a great book called "Turncoat"; it's a Canadian historical murder mystery. In the author's foreward, he notes that he combines two historical events into the same year, even though he knows they are a year apart.
> 
> I always get annoyed at food in fantasy novels or how some authors base their entire Regency novels on watching Jane Austen movies and reading Georgette Heyer, as opposed to reading things from the time period itself. Sometimes, it's too bad to keep going. Othertimes, I can shrug and keep on moving (i.e. Celeste Bradley is a good example. She acknowledges that most of the dukes in London were old, married, and fat, but she is going to pretend that they were all young, single, and handsome).


*keeps reader's hat firmly on head*

What annoyed me most about the Regency novels I read was the belief that half of the peerage consisted of Earls and Dukes. 

I don't mind a minor fudging of events say moving one a year, especially if the author acknowledges it and it's not of great historical import. But no, you can't change the date of the Battle of Bannockburn or Waterloo. Of course, when we're talking about zombie novels, I cut some extra slack.

Names are one of my pet peeves. It isn't that hard to find out what names were actually used in different localities and nations during various periods, but so many writers are to lazy(?) to do even that much research.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Names are one of my pet peeves. It isn't that hard to find out what names were actually used in different localities and nations during various periods, but so many writers are to lazy(?) to do even that much research.


What? You don't want to name your medieval heroine Cassidi? How about Spynser? OOOH! Kaytee! Ayden? Kayden? SHANIQUA!!!

Doooooo eeeeeeet!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

history_lover said:


> The sick guy probably could have been fired for that so it's highly unlikely that would have happened. If he was that ill that he couldn't do his job, he would go home and another immigration officer would take over. People who work for the government are hired because they take their jobs seriously because they know the legal process is non-negotiable. There is absolutely no way they would sit around playing poker, there was simply no opportunity to do so. This wasn't a hotel, people weren't "checking in", the process took hours with not only forms to fill out but medical exams and believe it or not, some people were not let into the country.
> 
> Fact is, the articles I posted were written by people who are experts in this field. They know their history on this and they'll have considered all factors. Yes, mistakes may have happened and the articles did not say name changes never happened at Ellis Island but obviously, they would have been very minor mistakes and highly infrequent and this is not disputable, especially when you obviously haven't done any research on the topic.


My scenario was completely fiction and not meant to be historical--it was fabrication that *I* believe is quite plausible (people often get fired for calling in sick so they often do show up. This leads to mistakes.) Thus...plausible. I'm not questioning the day-to-day functioning of Ellis Island, but posing a "plausible" fiction. People are often fired for trying too hard or not trying hard enough. Bullies exist in every job as do mistakes and inaccuracies. Some people might be terrible at their job yet keep it because they were a relative or had curried favor in some other way. These are ways to create a plausible scenario--which is not the same thing as writing a historical book that says on April 5 xxxx, Sally came into work sick and Sally was too sick to deal with names and faces, so wrote down shortened versions. Her mistakes were later caught by Agent x on April 18 xxxx.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> this is not disputable, especially when you obviously haven't done any research on the topic.


History is always disputable because there is very little that can be done to be 100 percent certain. It can be studied, but only from afar. Many facts can be gleaned, but every day and every person cannot be accounted for. History has been rewritten many times. We have papers and evidence...but we do not have but glimpses. We can chart "for the most part" but we cannot account for every detail. And within all of that are words and translations and the meanings of words which also changes over time.

Thank God for some of that so there is some imagination left in the world.


----------



## barbarasissel (Jul 4, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Names are one of my pet peeves. It isn't that hard to find out what names were actually used in different localities and nations during various periods, but so many writers are to lazy(?) to do even that much research.


Yep, names, and other little details get to me like describing the scent of daffodils carried on a warm August breeze, say, or a la James Patterson, where in one of his books a few years back, he sprouted mountains in New Orleans. New Orleans? Really, James?!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> I finished Dean Koontz's The Watchers recently. At the very beginning, the protagonist meets up with a genetically engineered dog and immediately feeds him multiple chocolate bars. He does this multiple times throughout the book to the point where the dog absolutely should've been dead, and this detail slipped by the author (a dog lover) and all the editors and proofreaders to make it into the book. I guess they corrected it in subsequent editions, but...
> 
> ...it happens.


I've never had a dog allergic to chocolate, altho I know it's somewhat common.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Seleya said:


> On the thread topic, I absolutely don't mind if the author takes some kinds of liberties, like setting a novel in a fictional town.


But the thread isnt really about taking liberties, it's about an author displaying a substantial lack of knowlege/poor use of facts of the main focus of a book (on a pandemic flu outbreak), in the foreward no less, where she was speaking directly to the readers.

After reading that, I didnt have the faith in her to be able to write a viable story that drew me into it on that subject. You could invent all the fake towns devastated by the flu that you wanted and it wouldnt make much difference to the story, IMO.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I've never had a dog allergic to chocolate, altho I know it's somewhat common.


No dogs should be fed chocolate. That being said, some people are unaware of how much it takes to actually harm or kill a dog. Milk chocolate is not likely to do it, not enough concentrated cocoa in it. Multiple chocolate bars (assuming they are milk chocolate) wouldn't kill a real dog unless the dog was very small. I won't speculate on how much chocolate it takes to kill a genetically engineered dog, although it's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of how much chocolate it takes to kill zombies.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> But the thread isnt really about taking liberties,* it's about an author displaying a substantial lack of knowlege/poor use of facts of the main focus of a book (on a pandemic flu outbreak*), in the foreward no less, where she was speaking directly to the readers.
> 
> After reading that, I didnt have the faith in her to be able to write a viable story that drew me into it on that subject. You could invent all the fake towns devastated by the flu that you wanted and it wouldnt make much difference to the story, IMO.


I guess it's not possible to speak directly upon the inaccuracies you allude to in this particular story, without having seen said inaccuracies. *shrug*

No wonder we all wandered off on our own little rants.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I've never had a dog allergic to chocolate, altho I know it's somewhat common.


I was going to point out that it's thought to be an allergy not necessarily a death sentence, but I figured I didn't need to be any more anal retentive in public than I already am.  Some dogs are reportedly allergic to grapes as well. It's so interesting how facts take on a life of their own and merge, dwindle and reform...


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> but I figured I didn't need to be any more anal retentive in public than I already am.


I have no such qualms.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

TerryS said:


> Ask yourself if you're about the story, at least in fiction, of if it's about poking around for factual elements. Do you wish to immerse yourself in the world created by the author? After all, in fiction, the characters aren't real even when an author attempts to base them off a real character, it's still fictional. However there are certain things that must hold true. Rules. Whether you're creating every little nuance of your world to make it more believable especially in fantasy/sci fi or basing your world off the real world, there are certain rules that you apply according to how your world works that the author should stay true to. Once you've created your world and how its physics, metaphysics, peoples, creatures work, then don't deviate. Don't invent things on the spur of the moment that weren't included, established or hinted at, just to save your protagonist. It can tear your reader out of the story.


Heh heh, since one of my favorite genres is post-apocalyptic fiction, no I dont really want to immerse myself in the world created by the author. But I do want to see realistic social and cultural responses and and consequences and creative ways of dealing with such events.  And by realistic, I feel there's loads of room for creativity in there, but again, if a flu pandemic kills off 99% of the planet's humans, I dont want to see females all of a sudden able to reproduce 'litters' of kids, for example. That would be just too much BS for me...it's not remotely based on human physiology.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Of course, "galloped away" risks drawing the ire of the "horse people", since 99% of the time that would probably not be the gait you would use to simply get from point A to point B, unless (a) it was really important to get there fast, and (b) it was either a very short distance or the horse's well-being was not an issue.


briefly:

--she wouldnt be riding bareback (highly unlikely, esp a woman in the past)
--she wouldnt be riding a stallion
--she wouldnt be riding a stallion bareback
--she wouldnt just gallop off (correct!), esp bareback
--she wouldnt be guiding the horse with her knees (that one always kills me)

But like I said, this kind of thing isnt integral to the story, so while it's a little annoying (and very common) it doesnt really affect my involvement in the story.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> If part of the marketing pitch is "this really could (have) happen(ed)!!!" then I'd like to see accuracy. But if there are zombies and pirates in the story, I'm not terribly picky about things like the Civil War lasting until 1878, and the Gatling gun getting an autocrank in 1865, and even some geographical liberties being taken with the landscape.  (Just listened to Cherie Priest talking about the letters she gets from readers saying things like: "NUH UH, construction didn't start on Smith Tower until 1909, you idiot! Your history is WRONG!" and her reply being something along the lines of, "*Yeah, goes well with the scientifically accurate ZOMBIES!")*


LOLOL


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> briefly:
> 
> --she wouldnt be guiding the horse with her knees (that one always kills me)
> 
> But like I said, this kind of thing isnt integral to the story, so while it's a little annoying (and very common) it doesnt really affect my involvement in the story.


Why not? When I was a teenager, my riding instructor (English and bare) always said "use your knees." I'm sure she meant more "thighs," but probably didn't want to be shouting about a teenage girl's thighs in a co-ed class.  Her point was, of course, don't pull on the horse's head with the reins.

Re the other objections: Why not? Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. All of those things can be done. A woman can ride bareback, can ride a stallion, can ride a stallion bareback, can gallop a horse bareback. And if it's unusual, wouldn't that make it worthy of mention in a story?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> No dogs should be fed chocolate. That being said, some people are unaware of how much it takes to actually harm or kill a dog. Milk chocolate is not likely to do it, not enough concentrated cocoa in it. Multiple chocolate bars (assuming they are milk chocolate) wouldn't kill a real dog unless the dog was very small. I won't speculate on how much chocolate it takes to kill a _*genetically engineered dog*_, although it's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of how much chocolate it takes to kill zombies.


LOL

And after all that qualifying, it still bothers you? Ah well, we all have our limits on believability.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> LOL
> 
> And after all that qualifying, it still bothers you? Ah well, we all have our limits on believability.


Nope, doesn't bother me at all. The complaint was that several chocolate bars would kill a dog. I was pointing out that, no, it wouldn't kill a real dog, and in any case it was a GE dog, so why quibble about whether the imaginary dog could eat chocolate?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> I guess it's not possible to speak directly upon the inaccuracies you allude to in this particular story, without having seen said inaccuracies. *shrug*
> 
> No wonder we all wandered off on our own little rants.


It wasnt just about innaccuracies....as I just tried to point out. It was about innaccuracies in facts that supported the entire story. If the foundation is in question....can I accept the story built on it? Be drawn into it?


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

I do want to point out that it should be "Aaargh" and not "Arghh".


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> It wasnt just about innaccuracies....as I just tried to point out. It was about innaccuracies in facts that supported the entire story. If the foundation is in question....can I accept the story built on it? Be drawn into it?


And what I'm saying is how can anybody comment insightfully on the "inaccuracies of facts" when we don't have any specifics?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Why not? When I was a teenager, my riding instructor (English and bare) always said "use your knees." I'm sure she meant more "thighs," but probably didn't want to be shouting about a teenage girl's thighs in a co-ed class.  Her point was, of course, don't pull on the horse's head with the reins.
> 
> Re the other objections: Why not? Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. All of those things can be done. A woman can ride bareback, can ride a stallion, can ride a stallion bareback, can gallop a horse bareback. And if it's unusual, wouldn't that make it worthy of mention in a story?


No one said it was impossible. Just laughable. And thus it can bring you out of a story. Like I said, because it's not integral to the story, I just ignore it.

I dont know what country you took riding lessons in, but you dont use your thighs to cue/guide a horse either. You use your seat, your lower leg, your heel. Knees and thighs only contribute to 'clutching' and messing with your balance.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Nope, doesn't bother me at all. The complaint was that several chocolate bars would kill a dog. I was pointing out that, no, it wouldn't kill a real dog, and in any case it was a GE dog, so why quibble about whether the imaginary dog could eat chocolate?


My bad...I thought you were the person who originally posted that example.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> And what I'm saying is how can anybody comment insightfully on the "inaccuracies of facts" when we don't have any specifics?


Oh well. My point is specifically not about specifics.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Heh, with that, I think I'm headed back outside...to ride my gelding, with a saddle, with a good warm up first, and using the proper aids to guide him.

See folks later!


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> No one said it was impossible. Just laughable. And thus it can bring you out of a story. Like I said, because it's not integral to the story, I just ignore it.
> 
> I dont know what country you took riding lessons in, but you dont use your thighs to cue/guide a horse either. You use your seat, your lower leg, your heel. Knees and thighs only contribute to 'clutching' and messing with your balance.


I took riding lessons from a horse trainer in Oregon. I was taught not to "clutch" the horse. Makes them think you're telling them to go faster. But whatever.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Nope, doesn't bother me at all. The complaint was that several chocolate bars would kill a dog. I was pointing out that, no, it wouldn't kill a real dog, and in any case it was a GE dog, so why quibble about whether the imaginary dog could eat chocolate?


This is true that it takes some volume of chocolate to kill a dog. It also takes some smaller volume of chocolate to make the dog sick, and that didn't happen in the book either. The publisher did decide to make the correction in subsequent editions, either to preserve the imaginary dog's well-being or to pacify people like yourself who are well aware that chocolate is harmful to dogs and that reading about giving it to them may lead to bad situations for people who are less knowledgeable.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> I took riding lessons from a horse trainer in Oregon. I was taught not to "clutch" the horse. Makes them think you're telling them to go faster. But whatever.


When I was growing up I learned to always mount from the left. Being very young and taught very young, it wasn't until I was out of college that I found out that the horse can be accustomed to accepting a rider from Any Side. See, growing up, I thought it was the HORSE that had some left preference, something special about what the horse wanted. It was ingrained in me so much, I never gave it a thought until late in life that, "Oh. The horse doesn't actually CARE. It's taught that way so that the horse knows what is going on and is familiar with the routine."


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Are we really arguing over dogs and chocolate and horses and their gaits?  

This topic is going in circles and has gotten far off base other than everyone has illustrated that details are important and that these same details may be seen differently by different people.  Now lets head back to the topic itself before anyone decides this one has played itself out.

Thank your for your support,

Geoffrey


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Yeesh. My point, which I obviously completely failed to make, is that sometimes the readers complaining about writer error are in fact themselves in error. Yes, writers make mistakes of historical, geological, scientific, etc., significance, due to lack of research, but sometimes the reader wrongly accuses them of such. 

Is that the case with any of these examples? Yes, in at least one case on this thread, and not enough data points to know in a few other examples.

Here's another question: does a reader have any responsibility to fact-check before stating that Mr. Author got it wrong?

Sent by Android via Tapatalk


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Yeesh. My point, which I obviously completely failed to make, is that sometimes the readers complaining about writer error are in fact themselves in error. Yes, writers make mistakes of historical, geological, scientific, etc., significance, due to lack of research, but sometimes the reader wrongly accuses them of such.
> 
> Is that the case with any of these examples? Yes, in at least one case on this thread, and not enough data points to know in a few other examples.
> 
> ...


That was my point too!!!

And I'd like to think the reader has some responsibility, but yanno, I'm kind of biased. 

Geoffrey, there is little in life more important than chocolate. Dogs. Horses. If we add bacon and cats this thread may very well be headed toward finding the meaning of life...


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Yeesh. My point, which I obviously completely failed to make, is that sometimes the readers complaining about writer error are in fact themselves in error. Yes, writers make mistakes of historical, geological, scientific, etc., significance, due to lack of research, but sometimes the reader wrongly accuses them of such.
> 
> Is that the case with any of these examples? Yes, in at least one case on this thread, and not enough data points to know in a few other examples.
> 
> ...


These were comments and statistics about diseases and epidemics. As she prepared an audience for a book on a flu epidemic in her foreward, she made errors. And yes, even tho I recognized them, I went to the CDC website and verified one. One error does not a poor novel make, but as I said, her entire set up of the book in the foreward led me to believe that her background on the main topic of _HER _ book was weak.


----------



## Skate (Jan 23, 2011)

It doesn't just happen with novelists; screenwriters don't always check their facts either. There was a scene in a hit US drama where one of the characters, supposedly Australian, was arranging for her unborn child to be adopted. The way she was doing it would be totally illegal in Australia, but it was the way it's often done in the US. As an Australian adoptive parent, it really annoyed me that they couldn't be bothered to check out adoption laws in Australia before they showed it.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> I'm not questioning the day-to-day functioning of Ellis Island, but posing a "plausible" fiction.


But it's not that plausible if you understand how Ellis Island worked. That's my point.

Also, in these contemporary novels I mentioned, the name change at Ellis Island was put across as something which was common and my point is that it's NOT common. Sure, it may have rarely happened but when the author writes something such as "Like many Americans, his last name was altered by incompetent immigration officers when his ancestors came through Ellis Island". I could maybe buy that the main character's ancestor was among the very small percentage of people who did have their name changed at Ellis Island... but it's a misconception that it was so common or a result of incompetent immigration officers. It's a myth that has spread among the nation and everyone just assumes it's true. Like I said, it doesn't stop me from reading and enjoy a contemporary novel because it's not vital to the plot or setting. But in historical fiction, I would expect the author to do their research and not just make assumptions about what's "plausible".



> History is always disputable because there is very little that can be done to be 100 percent certain.


So it's okay to place a book printed with a printing press in a time period before the printing press was invented? I don't think so, not unless you're putting it across as alternate history or fantasy. There ARE things about history which are known, indisputable facts and this is one of them.

It seems to me you're just having problems accepting that something you assumed to be true for so long is not actually true.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

history_lover said:


> But it's not that plausible if you understand how Ellis Island worked. That's my point.
> 
> Also, in these contemporary novels I mentioned, the name change at Ellis Island was put across as something which was common and my point is that it's NOT common. Sure, it may have rarely happened but when the author writes something such as "Like many Americans, his last name was altered by incompetent immigration officers when his ancestors came through Ellis Island". I could maybe buy that the main character's ancestor was among the very small percentage of people who did have their name changed at Ellis Island... but it's a misconception that it was so common or a result of incompetent immigration officers. It's a myth that has spread among the nation and everyone just assumes it's true. Like I said, it doesn't stop me from reading and enjoy a contemporary novel because it's not vital to the plot or setting. But in historical fiction, I would expect the author to do their research and not just make assumptions about what's "plausible".
> 
> ...


Not at all. I was merely putting forth fictional scenarios that I believe are plausible given the "expert" opinion or just the nature of humans. It is true that I believe name-changes were common whether because immigrant officials were not always on the ball or because the immigrants themselves wished to change them or did not know how to spell, but that really has nothing to do with forming a plausible scenario even given the set of "facts" and experts quoted. In other words it would be plausible for me as a reader if someone managed to get their name changed on the way through Ellis Island--blame it on a bribe, a distracted official, or the person deliberately causing the fraud. I'm not planning on writing anything about Ellis Island however, so whether I choose to believe experts or not is really not of consequence to this thread. 

No, I did not say it was okay to put a printing press in use before it existed especially if it were just a mistake of someone not realizing the printing press didn't exist in 1099. You are correct, there are some facts that are pretty well documented. However, it is also possible that someone, somewhere created a printing press-like device that never caught on or was only a prototype in a basement somewhere. Now that is just a scenario. I am not claiming it as a fact nor am I suggesting that any writer go to the trouble to use a setup and claim such. But if you take a look at say, Apple and the whole "interface invention." It is largely credited that Jobs invented (or helped invent) the Apple user interface. He's famous for it. But there are also people at Xerox who claim he based his design on theirs. I've actually SEEN the Xerox machine that the claim is based on. There is some evidence that Jobs had in fact seen the Xerox design. Did it influence him? Why didn't the Xerox machine take off instead of the Apple machine? Well, turns out that maybe Jobs was better at marketing and the market timing was different...

My point is merely that WITH FICTION it is entirely possible to create plausible events outside the scattered and not-so-scattered facts IF IT IS DONE WELL. The reason it CAN work is the example with Jobs above--even in recent history there are side facts, rumors, other stories and bits of evidence. String these together and you can create a fictional account that actually relies on history and uses it. You could, for example, use the Jobs/Xerox as a base for inspiration of another poor guy creating a printing press who never received credit for it. It wouldn't make it "real" history, but it would make for plausible fiction (FOR ME.)


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Skate said:


> It doesn't just happen with novelists; screenwriters don't always check their facts either. There was a scene in a hit US drama where one of the characters, supposedly Australian, was arranging for her unborn child to be adopted. The way she was doing it would be totally illegal in Australia, but it was the way it's often done in the US. As an Australian adoptive parent, it really annoyed me that they couldn't be bothered to check out adoption laws in Australia before they showed it.


Sorry, American writers didn't get something about a foreign country correct 

I'm frankly shocked 



StaceyHH said:


> Yeesh. My point, which I obviously completely failed to make, is that sometimes the readers complaining about writer error are in fact themselves in error. Yes, writers make mistakes of historical, geological, scientific, etc., significance, due to lack of research, but sometimes the reader wrongly accuses them of such.
> 
> Is that the case with any of these examples? Yes, in at least one case on this thread, and not enough data points to know in a few other examples.
> 
> *Here's another question: does a reader have any responsibility to fact-check before stating that Mr. Author got it wrong?*


Don't be silly. Everyone knows that opinions held by the ignorant are just as good as facts 

It is a good point. I actually quoted peer reviewed science when I made factual error accusations in my book reviews (check my blog). I doubt many accusations are made with any research, let alone referencing.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

tim290280 said:


> Don't be silly. Everyone knows that opinions held by the ignorant are just as good as facts


I believe it, so it's true. (said in my best Homer Simpson voice)


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> My point is merely that WITH FICTION it is entirely possible to create plausible events outside the scattered and not-so-scattered facts IF IT IS DONE WELL.


My point is that it's only plausible if you don't know anything about it. And while some readers will fall into that category, many others won't. Many readers will know that it's not plausible because they are more educated on those particular facts and you run the risk of putting those readers off. I said from the very beginning that as long as it's not vital to the plot or setting or characters, inaccuracies aren't a big deal. But when it IS vital to the plot, setting, or characters then no, I don't agree that facts should be bent, even if it may seem plausible to someone ignorant of the facts.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

history_lover said:


> My point is that it's only plausible if you don't know anything about it. And while some readers will fall into that category, many others won't. Many readers will know that it's not plausible because they are more educated on those particular facts


Uh... you yourself have said several times in this thread that the Ellis Island scenario is rare and not likely. How is this the same as NEVER EVER EVER. If it's rare, then it happens, correct? Even if it's rare? And if it rarely happens, doesn't that mean it _could_ happen? And if it _could_ happen, doesn't that make it plausible for plot purposes? And if you confirm that it _did happen, even if it was rare,_ then how would that be "ignorant of the facts?"

Your own data seems to support plausibility.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I said from the very beginning that as long as it's not vital to the plot or setting or characters, inaccuracies aren't a big deal. But when it IS vital to the plot, setting, or characters then no, I don't agree that facts should be bent, even if it may seem plausible to someone ignorant of the facts.


In other words, you want people only to ever write fiction that could happen and is fully supported by current factual and historical occurences?

Boring.

EDITED because the above characterization isn't fair. Sorry.

I get what you're saying, really. But my opinion is that plausibility and historical/scientific accuracy only applies to fiction that bills itself as such. For instance, if you want to have the "Historical Fiction" designation, some attempt should be made to be factual. You can't move the Normandy invasion to 1943, for instance, and call it Historical Fiction. Feel free to do it and call it "Time Travel" or "Alternate Reality."

Early this year I read a book that had Europe peppered with Leper colonies, which really did happen, but placed that event 300 years after it actually happened, so they could have a witch hunt in the same storyline with the building of a new leper house. Do. Not. Like.

All I'm saying is there's a big difference between accusing something of being unhistorical because the events described _rarely_ happened, and because the events described _absolutely did not happen._ And if you accuse someone of being ignorant because they believe something could happen, that _actually did happen, even if rarely,_ there just might be 3 fingers pointing back at you.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

O.K.  Thread locked.


----------

