# Is Research By Acclaimed Authors Becoming Shoddy?



## G.Hugh (Sep 24, 2009)

I have been accused of being a stickler for accuracy in novels as to reality related content being accurate.  I read and have been reading between 2 and 3 novels a month for over 20 years and I am noticing that authors that I used to respect for researching the minutest details are now obviously saving effort on even the simplest factual material.

I was recently reading a novel by an author of dozens of spy/mystery novels and noticed that the reference to a newspaper "The World Telegram & Sun.”  An article in the subject paper was pivotal to the plot and the author referenced the paper by name.  The scene took place in 1943 during the Second World War.

The newspaper was a rather famous New York evening broad sheet.  I recognized it having grown up in NY and it was one of the household newspapers.  Something did not hit me right so I researched the paper…problem with our author, the newspaper did not come into existence until 1950, seven years after the scene, prior to that it was two separate newspapers.  The research took me all of 1.5 minutes.

This is only one of an ever expanding number of incidents I keep uncovering, indicating that research, although far easier today than ten years ago, is becoming a victim of speed/economics over pride.

The one guy who seems to not be following this trend appears to be Clancy…but that is what his readers love him for so he isn’t about to destroy that fantastic quality.

For my part, I will continue to do extensive research on every part of my books that call for the integrating of fact into fiction…I just don’t always tell the reader which is which.

What do you think is accuracy in factual content in novels becoming obsolete or are authors just assuming a less than alert reader population?


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Like you sometimes something strikes me as "off" in a book and I'll check.  I must admit pre-Internet I didn't do that.  If the author is wrong, depending on what it is, it may spoil the story a bit or make me think less of that author.  There are also some things that I know about that when I come across them wrong really irritate me.  The latest is in Elizabeth George's new book where she several times refers to ponies "lapping" water.  As a horse person, it seems incredible to me that anyone is so ignorant as to think horses "lap" water.  I imagine when people write about things they don't actually know about, avoiding that kind of error is very difficult.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

What bothers me is when they miss things that are easily checked like car models. One big name writer recently had a Chevy Challenger in a book. Might as well say that Olds built the Model T.


----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

intinst said:


> What bothers me is when they miss things that are easily checked like car models. One big name writer recently had a Chevy Challenger in a book. Might as well say that Olds built the Model T.


You mean Olds did not make the Model T?Man...


----------



## jesscscott (Aug 5, 2009)

G.Hugh said:


> For my part, I will continue to do extensive research on every part of my books that call for the integrating of fact into fiction&#8230;I just don't always tell the reader which is which.


I too continue "to do extensive research on every part of my books that call for the integrating of fact into fiction" -- regardless of what others are up to ^^.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Oh, this irks me too.  I understand it's fiction, and I try to get over it, but when authors don't stop for one second to check on simple facts it really rubs me the wrong way.

Vicki


----------



## G.Hugh (Sep 24, 2009)

This is great, you are all making me feel almost normal.    I thought I was maybe being unreasonable to expect authors to check facts!  I am beginning to see how widespread the issue is and how many are annoyed by it.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

G.Hugh said:


> This is great, you are all making me feel almost normal.  I thought I was maybe being unreasonable to expect authors to check facts! I am beginning to see how widespread the issue is and how many are annoyed by it.


I am not sure that comparing yourself to me should make you feel almost normal, several people would debate you on my normal qualities anyway.  However, I do agree that authors should go farther checking their books for accuracy in names, places, dates and other easily checked items, even if it is fiction. Sci-fi writers get jumped all the time for being outside the realm of possibility, surely fiction writers can ensure that their work is accurate.


----------



## mparish6 (Apr 14, 2010)

I'd hate to say just based on the one book that factual errors like this are becoming more common. I think it's easier for us to spot mistakes like this now thanks to Ye Olde Internet. Of course, given how easy it is to access info on the Information Superhighway, it seems like it would be even more important for authors to cross-check their facts...


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I don't know if it's more common now... or if I just notice things more now... but I do know the problem is more widespread than just one book.

Ha ha ha!  Laughing at what G.Hugh said.  

Vicki


----------



## Ilovetoread (Apr 4, 2010)

It isn't a new thing, and sometimes an author does it on purpose. Mallory wrote King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and it is full of castles, but historically castles had not yet been built prior to or during the time King Arthur was supposed to exist. But it makes the story more interesting. I think there is a difference between an author knowing it isn't historically correct, but choosing to put it in their fiction, and just "being poorly researched." Is it possible, in the OP's book example, that it is possible the writer knew what was what historically, just choose to write it differently?
*King Arthur and Knights of Round Table takes place in the 6th century.
*First castles were built by Normans in about the year 1000-1050


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Ilovetoread said:


> It isn't a new thing, and sometimes an author does it on purpose. Malory wrote King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and it is full of castles, but historically castles had not yet been built prior to or during the time King Arthur was supposed to exist. But it makes the story more interesting. I think there is a difference between an author knowing it isn't historically correct, but choosing to put it in their fiction, and just "being poorly researched." Is it possible, in the OP's book example, that it is possible the writer knew what was what historically, just choose to write it differently?
> *King Arthur and Knights of Round Table takes place in the 6th century.
> *First castles were built by Normans in about the year 1000-1050


Hmm, I know what you mean, and *those* kinds of things don't bother me as much. Just like court scenes... they don't really go that way. Real court scenes are boring. Actually, most of real life is boring... so there's a reason we're reading!

But if you're taken out of a story because of a fact that's wrong, that's where it irks me.

Vicki


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

And of course, if you are _truly_ a stickler for the facts, then researching anything only on the Internet could be considered "shoddy research".


----------



## Joyce DeBacco (Apr 24, 2010)

Isn't that called literary license? Although some writers do take it to excess, what would a story about medieval times be without a castle or two?

Joyce
Serendipity House(kindle)


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

NogDog said:


> And of course, if you are _truly_ a stickler for the facts, then researching anything only on the Internet could be considered "shoddy research".


Depends on what dark corners of the internet you delve into. I haven't been to the library for my papers at all since going back to school and I'm a history major so my entire school career is pretty much research. It takes a little knowledge of what's good and bad out there (and having access to resources like JSTOR helps) but you can definitely do a lot of your research online. Just don't go to wikipedia for your answers! It's fine to go there and see if the articles cite actual usable references, but stick with sites that end with .edu and you should be safe.

As for the answer to the original question... Acclaimed authors actually do research?

And now I'm off to write my final research paper for Roman History with all my online sources


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think things bother people more if they are knowledgable in the topic the book is about.  If I were to read a novel and a character was a quilter, I want it to be authentic.  I would probably be less upset if the character were a welder or one of the gazillion other professions I know nothing about, as long as the character carried the story well.

Betsy


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I thought Wikipedia was always right... someone posted on there that it was.    J/k

Vicki


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> ...
> And now I'm off to write my final research paper for Roman History with all my online sources


Is that why you've not been around here much lately (at least posting-wise)?

And yes, I know that there are many good sources on the 'net. I mean, the much of the initial growth of the internet was driven by scientists as a means for researchers to exchange data, hypotheses, etc. I was really just poking fun at people who find one internet source and take it as fact. For that matter, having participated many years ago on a WWII history listserv discussion group, I became increasingly aware of how much conflicting printed information is out there and how hard it can be to find the facts, if they're even findable. (The worst thing is when many different authors do their "research" and end up citing the same source, and then you find out how unreliable -- or outright fabricated -- that original source was, yet it has become "common knowledge.")


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeah, I figured you were kind of just poking fun... and yes, this semester has been really bad.  If I manage to take Geology over the Summer I'll be done in the Fall, but not sure that'll happen.  Either way, by this time next year I'll have my Bachelors at least.  And the problem with history is that you're forming biased opinions based on biased sources... so a lot of it is going to conflict anyway.  But you can at least stay away from wikipedia and get peer reviewed conflicting arguments


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't go out of my way to search mistakes but it's really jarring when you know something's wrong. Stephen King's "novel for television" Storm of the Century referred to Roanoke, Virginia, as the site of the Lost Colony when the actual site was Roanoke Island, North Carolina. A friend who's a retired officer is always busting me on my use of fictional guns, saying I should just call them guns instead of pretending to know what I'm talking about...

Scott


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I write fantasy; so much easier.  Whenever something doesn't make sense, it's just "because a wizard did it."

Seriously, though, I love how easy research is these days.  I remember, back in the 1990s, taking the bus downtown, walking a good mile or so, then spending hours in a dusty old library... all to do research for my fiction.  Not much was available online back then.  Today Google is my friend.

When I find an obvious mistake in a book, it shatters the illusion.  I like books that suck me into their worlds.  When an error shows up, it pulls you out of that world, sort of like being woken up from a dream.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

DArenson said:


> I write fantasy; so much easier. Whenever something doesn't make sense, it's just "because a wizard did it."
> ...


Be sure to read On Thud and Blunder by Poul Anderson.


----------



## chiffchaff (Dec 19, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think things bother people more if they are knowledgable in the topic the book is about. If I were to read a novel and a character was a quilter, I want it to be authentic. I would probably be less upset if the character were a welder or one of the gazillion other professions I know nothing about, as long as the character carried the story well.
> 
> Betsy


I agree. I can chalk a lot of things up to artistic license but when authors (or movie producers) get something in my field wrong, it's incredibly distracting. I'm a wildlife bio, and am forever noticing that the bird songs playing in the background of a movie scene are all wrong for the locale, or the pheasant feather in the main character's hat is out of place because pheasants weren't introduced til after the story's time period, etc. But the things that bother my geologist friend don't phase me at all!


----------



## MAGreen (Jan 5, 2009)

DArenson said:


> I write fantasy; so much easier. Whenever something doesn't make sense, it's just "because a wizard did it."


And that is all well and good, but "just because" is never enough of an answer. I haven't read your books yet, although I did add them to my ever growing TBR list, so I am not directing this at you at all. Just using your comment to make a point. 
Even in fantasy books, it is irritating when something comes up that is a real challenge, and instead of finding a good answer, they summon a wizard and he fixes the problem with a wave of his staff. Lame. If the magic it's self has consequenses, or requires some kind of sacrafice or has some kind of reason for working, then it's not so bad. But the random "wave of the wand" magic...just sucks!!

Back to the point of this thread, I can't stand when simple facts are wrong. If there is a reason behind changing the facts, that's one thing, but just being lazy and making it up while trying to base it in reality...well, that just makes me want to stop reading and never pick up another book by that author!


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

Maybe in the past, some authors relied on editors to double check these things, and now because of downsizing those editors don't have time or don't work there anymore. It's no excuse for the author, of course, not when information is so readily available, but it may explain some mistakes. 
L.J.


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I write alternate history(I know, I'm not acclaimed  ) and I purposely change things around a little bit, but, I've gotten angry e-mails about how my time lines are all wrong and people shouldn't be in a certain location until such and such a time. I don't want to get into an argument with them, but, come on, its fiction, not non-fiction. So why so serious?  Whatever happened to allowing certain kinds of fiction writers to be creative?

Anyway, I too get annoyed with writers, especially the ones who are famous, who are just writing regular fiction who make obvious mistakes and it looks like they were being lazy. I'm an English major with a history minor and sometimes it just sticks out like a sore thumb if something is historically wrong and that author isn't purposely doing it.  No wonder the old media is dying...


----------



## DenverRalphy (Mar 24, 2010)

Just cuz a couple replies to this thread got my gears turning...

Even a Fantasy novel can have glaring defects in fact checking. Sure you have the leeway of producing your own rules of physics/magic/fae etc... however I don't know how many times I've seen the term _Riposte _used incorrectly, _Greaves _being worn on the shoulders, descriptions of the wrapping around the _Pommel _of a sword rather than the _grip_/hilt (hilt being the entire combination of pommel, grip, crossguard) etc...

As well, I find very often that Science Fiction/Fantasy authors don't keep notes or outline as well as they should. It's all well and good you can create your own rules to how things work... but you should stick with them and not contradict them. CJ Cherryh is famous for not keeping proper notes... I've read books she wrote where the main character's horse will go from being a mare in one book, and later in the series the same horse is a stallion or a gelding. And don't get me started on inconsistencies in Robert Jordan's - Wheel of Time series.

However; in the event of a lack in fact checking, I tend to overlook them and not criticize an author for it unless it gets to the point of ruining the story. There are many times I have mentally re-read a sentence and simply changed a couple words in my head to keep the story moving.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

For my novella, *Our One and Only*, I spent months doing research. Ask me about the second wave of D-Day in France! Western Union delivery boys in the forties...amusements at Ocean City, Maryland and how the entire city was blacked in WWII...and on and on. I thought I had covered every detail until a reviewer noted that the expression "living on the down low" didn't come into use until the 1980s (I had a character say it in 1964). So, even with the very best of intentions and trying my hardest to get it right, I still slipped up.

Given that, I am willing to give authors a little bit of slack, but really huge, glaring anachronisms do bother me. Probably one of the worst (in recent memory) was when Kathryn Stockett, author of the *The Help*, who had a number of anachronistic errors in her book. Instead of fixing the mistakes, however, she wrote about it in an endnote, with sort of an "Oh, well..." attitude. I was so annoyed I blogged about it.

http://historicromance.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/historical-accuracy-why-it-matters/

L


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

MAGreen said:


> And that is all well and good, but "just because" is never enough of an answer. I haven't read your books yet, although I did add them to my ever growing TBR list, so I am not directing this at you at all. Just using your comment to make a point.
> Even in fantasy books, it is irritating when something comes up that is a real challenge, and instead of finding a good answer, they summon a wizard and he fixes the problem with a wave of his staff. Lame. If the magic it's self has consequenses, or requires some kind of sacrafice or has some kind of reason for working, then it's not so bad. But the random "wave of the wand" magic...just sucks!!


MAGreen, I was being facetious, of course. Sometimes my humour makes sense to few people other than me.  I was actually paraphrasing an old Simpsons quote; it was an excuse Xena had used to explain inaccuracies in her show's plot to fans. Of course the "because a wizard fixed it" doesn't belong in serious fantasy literature. 

So to clarify: Even when writing fantasy, I take research, plotting, character development, and all the other components of good storytelling VERY seriously.

A good example is Lord of the Rings. Gandalf never had ultimate, unstoppable power. He was very wise, but his power had limits, and he faced much adversity throughout the books. Had he just been able to wave his wand and fix everything, there would have been no story. Or WORSE -- had a powerful wizard just shown up at the end, waved HIS wand and fixed everything, readers would have felt cheated.

In my own book (Firefly Island







) magic always has its limitations and requires sacrifice. The villain, for example, uses magic to turn himself to impenetrable stone, wishing to protect himself from injury. However, this turns his heart to stone as well, rendering him insane and cruel. The heroine can use magic to share all senses -- everything she sees, hears, feels, or thinks, she can share with another. This also comes at a sacrifice; to hurt the villain past his stone skin, she must hurt HERSELF. These characters cannot use magic to shape the plot as they will; they're limited to their own powers, with all their drawbacks. I think that good fantasy works that way. Magic is not an unstoppable force that can be used at will; that would make for a dull story. But if magic requires sacrifice, and CAN'T just fix everything, we have components for some good drama.

As for researching fantasy... I often research old weapons, armor, castles, warfare, foods, drinks, etc. The best guides for fantasy authors (especially those whose worlds are set in pseudo-Medieval times) are history books. I love history and I love reading history books. Now, my novel is set in an imaginary world, so I'm allowed to use my artistic license here and there and change things. But so long as I'm aware of what I'm doing, I feel that's fine. To use Tolkien as an example again -- he showed the hobbits eating tomatoes and potatoes, even though these were unknown in Europe during the Middle Ages, and Middle Earth is clearly inspired by medieval Europe. And why not? Professor Tolkien knew all this; he also knew Middle Earth was after all an imaginary realm set in some mythic past, and if he wanted potatoes in it, potatoes there grew. 

Daniel


----------



## askenase13 (Mar 1, 2009)

I lob\ve historical novels, and do expect SOME factual basis within the book, but it is a NOVEL, it is FICTION.  Facts don't necessarily apply.  I'm looking ofr a good story and intteresting characters.  i don;t need exact facts on all the details.  in fact. too many authors show off their research in unnecessary sidetracks discussions.  Stick with the story guys.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

See, if (when?) I decide to try to write a book I think I'd want to make it alternate history.  I love history, but sometimes it's just more fun to have Aristophanes running around at the same time as Caesar and Alexander the Great.  I think in that case, though, that I might make a little index at the end of the book pointing out which bits -were- accurate because I would be a stickler and not be able to get through the book without some sort of research to make certain bits of it historically correct.  I also think I'd probably fall into the realms of fantasy, but like someone was saying I would still need to know my ripostes from my parries and my hilts from my guards... and greaves on your shoulders?  Really?

It's really for your own good to be accurate whenever you can be.  It's part of your reputation.  I didn't have all that much respect for Dan Brown to begin with, but after actually researching things that fell into the realm of his novels I lost what little bit I did have and found it hard to enjoy his books even as a lark.  The big problem with Dan Brown is he tries to sell his misguided research as fact... I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of history teachers being called to task by a student who read the DaVinci Code and decided they were now expert medievalists who knew more than their tenured professors.  So there are definitely different degrees of being inaccurate and some ways to get around it if you really don't want to do the research or be accountable for the quality of it.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Aaaah, the fantasy genre, where many authors know of medieval warfare only by vague assumptions and prior history reading The Lord of the Rings.

Of which I'm guilty.

Thankfully my best friend is a history major, and he isn't too hesitant about smacking me upside the head when I do something wrong, or insert something that wouldn't have existed then.

As for systems of magic, mine is usually limited by the inherent power of the user, and grows with repetitive use (just like a muscle). I tend to favor a more elemental use of magic: fire, water, lightning, etc. Necromancy is a bit more fun, but dabbling in that will most certainly lead down some dark roads and broken graves.

David Dalglish


----------



## lib2b (Apr 6, 2010)

Scheherazade said:


> See, if (when?) I decide to try to write a book I think I'd want to make it alternate history. I love history, but sometimes it's just more fun to have Aristophanes running around at the same time as Caesar and Alexander the Great. I think in that case, though, that I might make a little index at the end of the book pointing out which bits -were- accurate because I would be a stickler and not be able to get through the book without some sort of research to make certain bits of it historically correct. I also think I'd probably fall into the realms of fantasy, but like someone was saying I would still need to know my ripostes from my parries and my hilts from my guards... and greaves on your shoulders? Really?
> 
> It's really for your own good to be accurate whenever you can be. It's part of your reputation. I didn't have all that much respect for Dan Brown to begin with, but after actually researching things that fell into the realm of his novels I lost what little bit I did have and found it hard to enjoy his books even as a lark. The big problem with Dan Brown is he tries to sell his misguided research as fact... I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of history teachers being called to task by a student who read the DaVinci Code and decided they were now expert medievalists who knew more than their tenured professors. So there are definitely different degrees of being inaccurate and some ways to get around it if you really don't want to do the research or be accountable for the quality of it.


This is why I appreciate when historical-based novels have an author's note at the end that explains what they were going for, what parts are meant to be accurate, and what parts are changed on purpose, as well as sources used if possible. I don't want a 20 page bibliography necessarily in the back of my historical novel, but if a few sources were especially helpful to the author or a pointer to the author's website that *does* give a more detailed listing of sources...it doesn't hurt.

I have no problems with authors changing bits of history on purpose for the sake of the story, as long as they acknowledge that's what they're doing and, most importantly, it works in the context of the story.


----------



## historywesternromancelvr (Apr 6, 2010)

For me, minute details don't matter.  I'm more interested in the story.  Now, if someone heard a helicopter flying overhead in 1850...  Yeah, that's something I can't overlook, unless there is alternate history or whatnot.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

One of my pet peeves that appears in all sorts of genres is the idea that a bullet (or arrow or sword point) in the shoulder is a minor wound. If it's a bullet, it probably shatters some bone, depending on caliber and velocity likely leaves a huge exit wound, and potentially hits a major vein or artery. An arrow or sword, while maybe doing a bit less initial damage, is usually occurring at a time before antibiotics, so besides all the possible disabling damage to ligaments, muscles, etc.; there is the huge risk of a fatal infection. Of course, this is typically handled by applying a few herbs to the wound and having the victim drink some willow-bark tea, and s/he recovers with nothing other than a scar.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Not even that.  Just get the bullet out and put on a bandage.  Good as new!  I see this in shows a lot more than books, though I guess I don't really read a lot of books with firearms come to think of it...  I think the last thing I saw get stabbed or shot by an arrow in a book was a mouse warrior, or maybe it was a bird.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I have a friend who is a gun nut who delights in pointing out all the mistakes about guns in the thrillers that Lee Child writes. My friend likes the books, but the mistakes drive him crazy.

As several other people on this thread have said, errors really jump out at people who are very knowledgeable about that specific thing, while just zooming right by the rest of us. I'm pretty well-versed in several areas, and I do notice those thing. Fortunately, people seem to have gotten a bit more computer literate in the last 10 years or so, so I see less of those kind of errors.


Mike


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

Usually I don't worry too much about historical facts being a little off. I chalk it up to literary license or a simple mistake and move on. Though I try hard to do accurate research for my own books, I'm very well aware that I'm not perfect and I could make a mistake like this, too, so I'm usually pretty tolerant. But I'm with Ellen on things like ponies lapping water. If you know anything about ponies, you know they don't lap water, so something like this really jars you. I once stopped reading a book by a famous author because he referred to a cart horse as a flea-bitten gray--so badly bitten by fleas that the animal could barely pull the cart. I threw the book across the room. Flea-bitten gray in horses is a color, not a reference to actual biting by fleas. In fact, horses don't normally get fleas, and supposedly fleas hate the smell of horses. I read online that they can get fleas, but I used to raise horses and I never, ever encountered a flea on my horses or heard of any horses with fleas. 
As for mistakes with guns, I'm clueless about firearms, so I manage to avoid getting specific. And one more thing authors have to do is avoid getting their "research" from other authors' fiction.


----------

