General Mistakes in Novels

[Lolly]

There's a thread here about changing POV's in a novel, and whether it's a mistake. Have y'all ever caught any other mistakes in a book?


For instance, I was reading a novel set in Russia at the turn of the century. The main character attended a party where he met the famous composer Tchaikovsky. The only problem was, Tchaikovsky had in real life died a few years before the party was set. Doh! :Headbang:


I know everybody makes mistakes, but I must confess that that kind of thing irritates me. I mean, would it have been too hard to look in an encyclopedia to see when Tchaikovsky lived?

[maestrowork]

A major tense change (and awful) in one of James Patterson's best-selling novels.

[Carlene]

A woman putting bullet into the barrel of her .38! I couldn't stand it and wrote the author and told her, nicely that's not where they go! She wrote back to thank me and said she'd never been around guns and didn't know a thing about them! This from a mystery writer - and so easy to remedy.

Carlene

[icerose]

Backstory on each and every character the moment they are introduced, you get to read about their life story. Tom Clancy is horrible at this and it stops me almost every time because it bogs the story down.

[Scrawler]

One of my favorite authors gave a female Middle Eastern character a common Middle Eastern men's name. Sure, there's a slim chance you might find a woman named "Joseph" or "William" (or its foreign equivalent) but I think if she had checked, she would have chosen a more suitable name.

[Gary]

The book I'm reading now has a murder committed with a 20 ga. shotgun shell placed in a 12 ga. shotgun. She also calls it a rifle....many times!

[novelator]

After reading this, I have to wonder how some "writers" managed to get published at all.

Makes a great case for doing your research though.

Mari

[gp101]

Backstory on each and every character the moment they are introduced, you get to read about their life story.


Oooh... I hate this one. Really does get annoying fast. Especailly when even the throw-away characters (a vendor at a sausage stand where the MC grabs a bite to eat before continuing her quest) gets a full description or partial life history. Who cares.

[Ken Schneider]

This topic should make us all realize that we can, and do make mistakes as writers that editors miss, and the books are still published.

It gives me more confidence in my work to see those mistakes.

Also, some of the items mentioned above are silly things that one shouldn't take for granted if you know in your own mind that you don't really know the answer.

"I've never owned a gun, so I wouldn't know about that." ????

So I'll assume that no one else knows either?

Proving to us all the the reader,(Carlene) is much more aware of what we are writing about than we give h/them credit for.

There is a lesson to be learned with that statement, and shows the laziness of the writer.

I don't like it when any writer used a certain tag line numerous times in a chapter, and never uses it again, but switches to another favorite tag line in each proceeding chapter.

Boo for tag lines other than H/S/ anyway, if any at all.

[blacbird]

In Tony Hillerman's The Sinister Pig, the name of Vietnamese communist rebel leader Ho Chi Minh (for whom Saigon was renamed Ho Chi Minh City, which appears on any modern map of the country) was consistently misspelled as Ho Che Min. At least Hillerman and his editor were consistent.

This book also suffers from other lapses, including one egregious error in dialogue attribution in the middle of the book that had me re-reading a page repeatedly to try to figure out what was going on.

But God help you if you have a typo on the first page or two of your submitted manuscript.

caw.

[Jamesaritchie]

In Tony Hillerman's The Sinister Pig, the name of Vietnamese communist rebel leader Ho Chi Minh (for whom Saigon was renamed Ho Chi Minh City, which appears on any modern map of the country) was consistently misspelled as Ho Che Min. At least Hillerman and his editor were consistent.

This book also suffers from other lapses, including one egregious error in dialogue attribution in the middle of the book that had me re-reading a page repeatedly to try to figure out what was going on.

But God help you if you have a typo on the first page or two of your submitted manuscript.

caw.

Well, in Hillerman's defense, that really isn't a typo, but a spelling choice based on how the name was often spelled in this country for a good long while, particularly in regional newspapers. Hillerman tends to spell everything based on how it was spelled when he was a reproter, and from the part of the country he was raised in.

He usually spells "cigarette" as "cigaret," for example. This isn't wrong, and isn't a typo, it's a legitimate, alternative spelling based on where he was raised.

It's fine to question such spellings, but they aren't typos, and he does have a reason for his alternative spellings.

I'm not sure I'd make the same choices, but I do think his "incorrect" spelling of some words does add a regionalism, a time and place element, he wouldn't achieve if he always used the "correct" spelling for every word.

[Mayor of Moronia]

I wish I had a nickle for every spelling change of Peking, China since I was a kid.

[Anonymisty]

Have y'all ever caught any other mistakes in a book?

I don't know if this is a mistake or merely an out-of-fashion turn of phrase, but it annoys the bedoodles out of me when an author writes,
"Little did she know what would happen next."

Unless you're writing about someone with precognitive powers, of course she doesn't know what's happening next! Yet it happens all too often. More often in YA novels, but I see it sometimes in adult novels. And I'd really prefer not to see it at all.

[L.Jones]

After reading this, I have to wonder how some "writers" managed to get published at all.


That certainly seems to overstate the issue. Research is good - a case can be made you shouldn't be writing about something like guns without finding out about the way they work, etc - but does any of this call for questioning how someone ever got published?
For the most part what's been mentioned here are slip ups and style choices. Stuff happens. Often small mistakes pop up in editing, spelling changes, or an editor puts a hand in and the writer either doesn't have the chance to change it or doesn't find it or agrees with the change on page 200 not realizing they've created a continuity issue back on page 98. A lot of mistakes happen in production and have nothing to do with "writers" research or ability. I am often surprised on a final read the things I never wrote that show up or did write and got by the editors that needed to be fixed.


Many steps go into making a book better, hopefully the Best it can be, there is nothing that can make it perfect. And if it were perfect for one person someone else would find something to bellyache about.

annie jones

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't know if this is a mistake or merely an out-of-fashion turn of phrase, but it annoys the bedoodles out of me when an author writes,
"Little did she know what would happen next."

Unless you're writing about someone with precognitive powers, of course she doesn't know what's happening next! Yet it happens all too often. More often in YA novels, but I see it sometimes in adult novels. And I'd really prefer not to see it at all.

Depending on how it's written into the story, this can either be author intrusion, or omniscient POV, both of which were once a great deal more common than they are now.

[Jamesaritchie]

That certainly seems to overstate the issue. Research is good - a case can be made you shouldn't be writing about something like guns without finding out about the way they work, etc - but does any of this call for questioning how someone ever got published?

annie jones

I'd say it definitely calls into question how such a writer gets published. This is not a small mistake, and it's one any writer should have caught. It is, at best, pure laziness, and takes away any and all credibility the writer has.

It's also a case for firing a copy editor, but that's another story.

We all make mistakes now and then, but if you say Washington D.C. is in California, you have no right to be published. And when you won't take ten minutes to get the most basic facts about weapons correct, then either don't write about them, or pray you find a publisher, and some readers, who are just as ignorant on the subject as you are.

It's none of my business whether such a writer gets published, but it sure means I wouldn't read her, and I'd warn everyone possible away from her books.

[Zolah]

Small mistakes can slip past even the most careful author, editor and copy-editor. I did bags and bags of research on my first ms, making sure that I knew everything I needed to know about, for instance, medieval animal husbandry, how woodframe houses were put together, how traditional herbalists used plants for medicines, etc. Those were areas where I knew my knowledge was lacking, so I knew I had to be careful and watch what I wrote.

But somehow I managed to misspell the word 'callus' (as in an area of thickened or roughened skin) every single time I used it. I thought it was spelled 'callous'. My editor and copy editor both throught it was spelled that way too. It only got picked up at the very last stage just before it went to be typset, by a random (very observant) person glancing at the first page and going 'Hey, I don't think that's spelled like that'. And I just KNOW that if it had gone to press without being noticed, someone (perhaps many someones) would have thrown the book across the room in utter rage that such a ridiculous error riddled the story.

[Scrawler]

I agree with Jamesaritchie.
I'm not writing something that requires extremely detailed research, but I won't write "I drove down the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica " because it's a pedestrians-only section and if my novel is set in Santa Monica, I should know that.
I have since changed the part where my MC watches the car leave the parking lot of a restaurant that doesn't have a parking lot. Is that too small a detail to worry about?

[Jamesaritchie]

Small mistakes can slip past even the most careful author, editor and copy-editor. I did bags and bags of research on my first ms, making sure that I knew everything I needed to know about, for instance, medieval animal husbandry, how woodframe houses were put together, how traditional herbalists used plants for medicines, etc. Those were areas where I knew my knowledge was lacking, so I knew I had to be careful and watch what I wrote.

But somehow I managed to misspell the word 'callus' (as in an area of thickened or roughened skin) every single time I used it. I thought it was spelled 'callous'. My editor and copy editor both throught it was spelled that way too. It only got picked up at the very last stage just before it went to be typset, by a random (very observant) person glancing at the first page and going 'Hey, I don't think that's spelled like that'. And I just KNOW that if it had gone to press without being noticed, someone (perhaps many someones) would have thrown the book across the room in utter rage that such a ridiculous error riddled the story.

This seems like something spellcheck would catch, or that you would certainly check a dictionary about.

[Bleak House Books]

This seems like something spellcheck would catch, or that you would certainly check a dictionary about.

Spellcheck wouldn't catch it because both are words.

From Dictionary.com--

Usage Note: Do not confuse the adjective callous, as in Years of dealing with criminals had left her callous, with the noun callus, as in I have a callus on my thumb. Also, do not confuse the verb callous, which means “to make or become callous,” with the verb callus “to form or develop hardened tissue.”

[alleycat]

The book I'm reading now has a murder committed with a 20 ga. shotgun shell placed in a 12 ga. shotgun. She also calls it a rifle....many times!
What book is that? I'd like to see it.

[Ken Schneider]

I have since changed the part where my MC watches the car leave the parking lot of a restaurant that doesn't have a parking lot. Is that too small a detail to worry about?


Yes. It is not widely known that this certain eatry doesn't have a parking lot, and who really cares about that.

Maybe I've been there sometime in the past and they've added a parking lot.

It's not as glaring like a bullet being dropped down the barrel of an m-16 or something.

[Gary]

What book is that? I'd like to see it.

A Faint Cold Fear, by Karin Slaughter.

[Jamesaritchie]

Spellcheck wouldn't catch it because both are words.

From Dictionary.com--

Usage Note: Do not confuse the adjective callous, as in Years of dealing with criminals had left her callous, with the noun callus, as in I have a callus on my thumb. Also, do not confuse the verb callous, which means “to make or become callous,” with the verb callus “to form or develop hardened tissue.”

Good point. Another reason not to trust spellcheck.

This is a more complicated issue than most words. A "callus" produces "calloused" skin. And, as a noun, many seem to think either "callus" or "callous" can be used. Even the OED merely lists one as a variant spelling of the other.

I think "callus" is only wrong if you use it as an adjective or a verb, and it seems to be perfectly fine with most to write "I have a callous on my thumb."

[ibid.]

Usage Note: Do not confuse the adjective callous, as in Years of dealing with criminals had left her callous, with the noun callus, as in I have a callus on my thumb. Also, do not confuse the verb callous, which means “to make or become callous,” with the verb callus “to form or develop hardened tissue.”

I always thought they were one and the same. Like say to be blistered by somebody's attitude, and to be blistered by a hot iron. Wonder what the real difference between callous and callus is -- same root? or not?

Anyhow, seems this topic is focusing on the microscopic level of novels -- probably because it is much much easier to pin point where an author has 'been wrong' rather than 'gone wrong' -- which is probably the difference between a doctor pin pointing a particular, say, aching back, and applying their knowhow to fixing that -- or, on the otherhand, that same doctor trying to recreate the posture, movement, and psychology that has lead to the ache.

What makes a book bad? Spelling? Facts? Things of that nature we can agree are 'wrong' because we have a common standard to evalute with. But a novel, by deffinition, is a work of art that approaches some sort of independent 'thing-in-itself' -- and how we judge that 'thing' 'in itself' speaks much about where we're coming from, what we want, and all that other subjective crap.

What generally peeves me in a novel is when it is good enough to keep me reading, but sort of hovers on this side of 'going there', really following through on all that dramatis and idea that has got me involved.

And I'm not speaking simply of plot. But of that world, that 'itself' that the book promises to be, become, or take me.

[L.Jones]

I'd say it definitely calls into question how such a writer gets published. This is not a small mistake, and it's one any writer should have caught. It is, at best, pure laziness, and takes away any and all credibility the writer has.

It's also a case for firing a copy editor, but that's another story.
.

I said and you even quoted back the case can be made for knowing about guns, etc. then went on to say the small mistakes people were mostly pointing out are just that, mistakes or style choices in some instances. Not the kind of thing one says 'how'd they ever get published" over.

As to firing a copy editor? Over an author's laziness?

The only case that makes me want to make is that a writer who did that would be better served investing more time in research and a little bit of cold hard cash in some panties that don't wad so easily.

Mistakes happen. It's fine to note them and sometimes fun to do so. Writers owe it to their readers to get everything as right as they can.
If something bugs you as a reader, move on, don't support said author anymore, you have choices.

and really, y'all, wad-free panties ;)
or better yet - go commando!

annie jones

[Jamesaritchie]

I said and you even quoted back the case can be made for knowing about guns, etc. then went on to say the small mistakes people were mostly pointing out are just that, mistakes or style choices in some instances. Not the kind of thing one says 'how'd they ever get published" over.

As to firing a copy editor? Over an author's laziness?

The only case that makes me want to make is that a writer who did that would be better served investing more time in research and a little bit of cold hard cash in some panties that don't wad so easily.

Mistakes happen. It's fine to note them and sometimes fun to do so. Writers owe it to their readers to get everything as right as they can.
If something bugs you as a reader, move on, don't support said author anymore, you have choices.

and really, y'all, wad-free panties ;)
or better yet - go commando!

annie jones

A good copy editor, and a good editor, should also act as fact checkers, at least to a point. Everyone I've had has questioned me to death about this point or that point, and I've often had to show documentation. Writers should not be lazy, but neither should editors and copy editors. An editor or copy editor who merely rubber stamps mistakes is no better than the writer who makes them.

It all depends on the mistakes. Tiny mistakes are one thing, making mistakes such as those with the guns are not tiny, and as an editor, that writer would have been told to get it together, or I would not have published her. Mistakes of that scope reflect just as much on the editor and publisher as on the writer.

The writer should not have got her panties in a wad, but the editor, copy editor, publisher, and readers should have been so wadded they couldn't talk in a normal voice.

One big problem with this business is that we've reached the point where not nearly enough people get their panties in a wad when they should. Perfection may not be possible, but this is no excuse for lousy.

[virtue_summer]

It all depends on the mistakes. Tiny mistakes are one thing, making mistakes such as those with the guns are not tiny

They're not? I don't know about you, but what I consider makes a great book are the characters and the story. To me, problems in the storyline, unrealistic characters or characters acting against their natures are big issues. Mistakes in details having to do with props may be annoying, but it's not going to stop me from reading the author again if I enjoyed the story and characters. Guess that's just me.

[DamaNegra]

I just read a book in which the back cover blurb reads: "The story starts when the King dies." But alas! the book starts like one year before the king dies!! So I had to read more than 50 or 60 pages of absolutely nothing 'cause the darned king didn't want to die! The next thing the cover promised was a revolution, but it didn't happen until 100 pages later! And then, when action finally started, I had to read another 10 pages of this guy walking in darkness. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! Talk about driving me nuts!

[Bleak House Books]

They're not? I don't know about you, but what I consider makes a great book are the characters and the story. To me, problems in the storyline, unrealistic characters or characters acting against their natures are big issues. Mistakes in details having to do with props may be annoying, but it's not going to stop me from reading the author again if I enjoyed the story and characters. Guess that's just me.

That's me, too.

Prop details are certainly way low on my list of reasons to freak out about a book, an author, or even the editor.

Is it an unfortunate that a mistake like that makes it through? Of course. Editors can't fact check everything or be expected to have an encyclopedia for a brain. Should the author know what he/she is talking about? Sure. But how a gun is loaded in the grand scheme of the book is certainly not a "big" issue as far as I'm concerned.

[blacbird]

Well, in Hillerman's defense, that really isn't a typo, but a spelling choice based on how the name was often spelled in this country for a good long while, particularly in regional newspapers. Hillerman tends to spell everything based on how it was spelled when he was a reproter, and from the part of the country he was raised in.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, James. Tony Hillerman's book is the only place I've seen Ho Chi Minh spelled Ho Che Min, and I was a reporter both military and civilian, and did the Vietnam tour in 1969-1970. Ho Chi Minh is a standard spelling, used by the Vietnamese themselves (who routinely use Romanized alphabet from their days with the French). Ho Chi lived a long time, fought a guerilla campaign gainst the Japanese in Indochina in World War II, and became famous as the leader of the rebellion against the French that culminated in the French defeat in 1954 that resulted in the division of the country. He's not a minuscule historical figure, and his name has been spelled Ho Chi Minh throughout his public life. This misspelling is akin to spelling Abe Lincoln's last name as "Linkun". It was pure, distilled, sloppy editing.

I'd have brushed it off, frankly, except for the other issues that bedevil this novel, and my general disenchantment with Hillerman's late work, which annoys be greatly as I think his earlier novels are superb. I get the sense that lately he's been rushing out inferior, unfinished manuscripts in order to meet some contractual commitments, or something like that. It's a pity.

caw.

[Ken Schneider]

But how a gun is loaded in the grand scheme of the book is certainly not a "big" issue as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure you would change that view if the book were non-fiction about guns.

Otherwise, if I read a book with a glaring dumb mistake like the gun thing, the writer and book lose credibility in my eyes.

Should I read on and see just how sloppy the writer and publisher are?

The moral to the story is, people will know if you don't know what you're talking about, we see it in our own lives, daily.

[ChaosTitan]

Yes. It is not widely known that this certain eatry doesn't have a parking lot, and who really cares about that.

Maybe I've been there sometime in the past and they've added a parking lot.

It's not as glaring like a bullet being dropped down the barrel of an m-16 or something.

If the eatery is the Russian Tea Room, you bet most New Yorkers reading that novel will know if the RTR has a parking lot or not. When it's a real place, whether a famous bistro, or a mom and pop diner in Kansas City, someone is likely to notice when something is wrong. Maybe only one or two people, but someone will.

I wouldn't have noticed the gun discrepancy, because I know nothing about guns. But if I were to use guns frequently in any of my stories, you bet your buns I'd make sure I got the facts straight.

[Scribhneoir]

I agree with Jamesaritchie.
I'm not writing something that requires extremely detailed research, but I won't write "I drove down the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica " because it's a pedestrians-only section and if my novel is set in Santa Monica, I should know that.
I have since changed the part where my MC watches the car leave the parking lot of a restaurant that doesn't have a parking lot. Is that too small a detail to worry about?

Nope. For most of your readers it won't matter a bit, but for those who are familiar with the area it will pull them out of the story. If it's a real place, describe it accurately. You might also want to be careful about where you put invented businesses, too, if you're using real geography.

When T. Jefferson Parker's Little Saigon came out, I lived on the edge of that area. I was intimately familiar with the neighborhoods he described in his book, and the errors he made, while not really important in the scheme of things, nonetheless jerked me out of the story every time they popped up. The worst thing for me, though, was his placement of an invented restaurant (important to his story) in a real spot, which just happened to be exactly where I lived. It was a bit hard for me to get past that and my reading experience suffered.

[Bleak House Books]

I'm sure you would change that view if the book were non-fiction about guns.

Otherwise, if I read a book with a glaring dumb mistake like the gun thing, the writer and book lose credibility in my eyes.

Should I read on and see just how sloppy the writer and publisher are?

The moral to the story is, people will know if you don't know what you're talking about, we see it in our own lives, daily.

This conversation has been limited to discussing fiction as far as I know.

I would certainly agree that if those sorts of errors existed in a non-fiction book that the book would lose credibility. Non-fiction is about information.

However, fiction isn't.

Should you read on? That's between you and your God. You're a consumer. You can do whatever the hell you want with your time and money.

My only point is that the misloading of a gun does not ruin the overarching literary power of a book to me, ESPECIALLY when it's not integral to the plot or development of the characters.

Do you send Black Angus steak and expensive wine back to the kitchen if the soup isn't the right temperature? And then, on top of that, swear off the restaurant for good?

[NightWynde]

For me, it really depends on the genre of the book I'm reading as to whether or not I'll be thrown out of it due to an apparent lack of research. The example cited above where the mystery author didn't know about weapons would certainly have done it for me. Especially since Writer's Digest has a book devoted to them.

In a romance though, not so much. Unless, it was part of a major scene in the book (ie, the climax) then it would bother me.

On the other hand, if a book is littered with errors *cough*DaVinci Code*cough* then I'll chuck the book across the room.

Sure, it's fiction, but that doesn't mean the writer has to be lazy about it.

[ggglimpopo]

I had a glaring error in a submitted (and accepted!) manuscript - I always thought that Julian of Norwich was male; well, you would, wouldn't you? In fact, he is a she called Julian.

The mistake was picked up by a friend who read the book months after the first submission. She was the only person to have found the sex change odd.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Wow. Are you guys picky. I guess I've never noticed any mistakes in the books I've read. I never would have noticed putting bullets into the barrel of a gun or that they called a shotgun a rifle. Or that Ho Che Min should be something else.

Are you guys reading for enjoyment or just to pick apart the author's work?

Maybe once I noticed a mistake, when some author called a ferret a rodent. But usually, unless it's a bad story all around, I tend to turn off my logic portion and just try to enjoy the story.

I do the same with movies.

I don't like it when any writer used a certain tag line numerous times in a chapter, and never uses it again, but switches to another favorite tag line in each proceeding chapter.

Boo for tag lines other than H/S/ anyway, if any at all.

What's a tag line? Like "Stronger than dirt?" Or "Subway, Eat Fresh!" ??

[novelator]

Just to clarify things, my panties were never in a wad over another writer's laziness in research, as intimated by someone earlier on in the thread. It's amazing to me how someone could take my simple statement to such an extreme. I consistently wonder how some writers manage to get published as I read all the time. This is my right as an individual and an author. I get to wonder. Believe me, I do.

But that aside, the real question to me, as a writer, is whether or not I want to field complaints from readers, who might've been fans had I not failed to take five or ten or thirty minutes and find out whether a 12 gauge shotgun shell will work in a 16 gauge shotgun. Ditto for any other minor or major happenings or places or procedures of which I am not absolutely certain.

The Devil is in the details. But the details complete the picture.

Just my humble opinion here

Mari

[Bleak House Books]

For me, it really depends on the genre of the book I'm reading as to whether or not I'll be thrown out of it due to an apparent lack of research. The example cited above where the mystery author didn't know about weapons would certainly have done it for me. Especially since Writer's Digest has a book devoted to them.

In a romance though, not so much. Unless, it was part of a major scene in the book (ie, the climax) then it would bother me.

Just out of curiosity,why do you hold the authors to different standards? What would you expect out of a romance writer, but forgive from a mystery writer?

[ChaosTitan]

Are you guys reading for enjoyment or just to pick apart the author's work?

Maybe once I noticed a mistake, when some author called a ferret a rodent. But usually, unless it's a bad story all around, I tend to turn off my logic portion and just try to enjoy the story.


I read for enjoyment. But as you have just admitted, there are certain things that will make a reader stop and go, "Wait a daggone minute!" We all have our quirks, our hobbies, and our special areas of knowledge. You know ferrets, so calling a ferret a rodent would stand out to you. Others know about guns, so such a blatant error would stand out to them.

If anyone ever tried writing a novel set in my hometown, and said that there was a fancy restaurant where a hotel stands (and has for decades), I'd roll my eyes and call the writer lazy for not getting such a simple detail correct. Simple to me, because I know the area. But if you are writing about something that you do not know about first hand, research it.

An error like that won't bother everyone, but it will bother someone.

[NeuroFizz]

I won't even start on the multitude of mistakes in human anatomy and physiology that appear in fiction. I'll just throw out one very minor example that irks me to no end. An author wants to show how scared a character is, so he/she makes the character urinate. The appropriate response to a scary stimulus (under autonomic control) is to relax the general muscle of the bladder and to tighten the spincter found at the bladder-urethra junction (internal sphincter). Unless the character has previously been shown to have an incontinence problem, or unless he/she recently consumed a 64-ounce Big Gulp, the likelihood of pi$$ing himself/herself during a scare is very low. Hands up, all who've wet themselves when startled...

I am so moved by this lack of readily available information, I'm going to volunteer to teach a one-credit seminar in the (highly regarded) Creative Writing program at our university--the proposed seminar titled, "Human Anatomy and Physiology for Fiction Writers."

[Gary]

I don't read to be picky, but some things just leap out at you, and I thought that was the premise of this thread.

In the case of the 20 ga. shell in a 12 ga. shotgun, there is only a tiny chance of it going off, and if it did, it probably would have destroyed the gun, but certainly wouldn't have done the damage to the person as was described in the story.

Actually, the book was moderately entertaining and the gun thing wasn't the worst part of the book. The plot was pretty good, but her inability to understand and to accurately describe male thoughts and actions was far more disconcerting than a few technical errors.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Hands up, all who've wet themselves when startled...


One more think I wouldn't have known. My friend had a dog that was rather nervous and if you made a loud noise (I loved clapping my hands and go "HA!") it would pee on the floor.

So I would have assumed this was the normal response for being startled.

I don't read to be picky, but some things just leap out at you, and I thought that was the premise of this thread.

In the case of the 20 ga. shell in a 12 ga. shotgun, there is only a tiny chance of it going off, and if it did, it probably would have destroyed the gun, but certainly wouldn't have done the damage to the person as was described in the story.


It IS the premise of the thread. I'm just saying that not every reader would catch that. I know squat about guns, so if he said he put a 20 ga. shell in a 12 ga. shotgun, I'd go, "Uh, well, OK. He probably knows more about it then I do."

On the flip side, I would NEVER write that either. If I don't know anything about guns, I'm not going to write about my fully-automatic revolver. I'm going to do some research if I need something in the story and I know nothing on the subject.

So I guess I agree that these writer's should have done their homework first. As a writer, it is my responsiblity to have to my facts straight and not give the readers a reason to go, "Hey! That can't be!"

However, like the peeing thing, sometimes you just THINK you know something even though you don't.

[DeborahM]

If the eatery is the Russian Tea Room, you bet most New Yorkers reading that novel will know if the RTR has a parking lot or not. When it's a real place, whether a famous bistro, or a mom and pop diner in Kansas City, someone is likely to notice when something is wrong. Maybe only one or two people, but someone will.

I wouldn't have noticed the gun discrepancy, because I know nothing about guns. But if I were to use guns frequently in any of my stories, you bet your buns I'd make sure I got the facts straight.

That's called research and it's so easy to tell when the writer hasn't done their research!

[zornhau]

David Gemmel once opened the door to a fan, who handed him a longbow. "Here, you try stringing this while prone."

Myself, I hate it when the author misunderstands swordplay to the extent that they give the advantage to a muscular ploughboy and his 100lb sword.

[FloVoyager]

I often find spelling and punctuation mistakes in published books, and occasionally missing words. I used to circle them and fold down a corner of the page, so I could find them again later. It made me feel better to know that even after numerous pairs of eyes had looked at a manuscript, some things could still slip through, no matter how hard you work to weed them out. As long as the story is good and there aren't too many of these things, I don't find them too distracting.

Now, continuity mistakes (a character is blond, then brunette, and then back to blond, with no explanation why), and lack of basic research, does bug me. It's so darned easy to use Find & Replace if you change your mind about something like hair color, and releatively easy to look up stuff, or ask someone who knows, about guns, etc. Imo, there's no excuse for that kind of error.

[NeuroFizz]

My friend had a dog that was rather nervous and if you made a loud noise (I loved clapping my hands and go "HA!") it would pee on the floor.

What works for dogs doesn't work for all mammals, and humans in particular. Dogs have a culture that revolves around peeing, it sometimes seems. I, for one, don't go around peeing a little squirt on all of the bushes in the yard, although I do have behaviors that are like that--they just don't involve releasing urine. Some dogs get so excited at times they pee on the floor. I'm waiting for the day when I return from a trip, and my wife is so excited she pees on the floor.

We all get startled on occasion--little startles can occur on almost a daily basis. Once again (for all of the humans out there), hands up all who've peed themselves when startled... Yet, this reaction appears over and over in movies and in novels.

[Zolah]

This seems like something spellcheck would catch, or that you would certainly check a dictionary about.

Nope. Because 'callous' is a real word, meaning to be unfeeling or cold: the spell-check (as spell checkers are wont to do) assumed that was the word I wanted (rather than 'callus') and did not highlight it. And since myself, my editor and my copy-editor all knew it was spelled like that, none of us went to the dictionary to check it. How do you know to check a word which looks and sounds right to you and which you are convinced is correct? You don't, of course.

And that's how s**t happens.

[Zolah]

David Gemmel once opened the door to a fan, who handed him a longbow. "Here, you try stringing this while prone."


<Snigger>

[Zolah]

Once again (for all of the humans out there), hands up all who've peed themselves when startled... Yet, this reaction appears over and over in movies and in novels.

I peed myself laughing once. Does that count?

[blacbird]

Wow. Are you guys picky. I guess I've never noticed any mistakes in the books I've read. I never would have noticed putting bullets into the barrel of a gun or that they called a shotgun a rifle. Or that Ho Che Min should be something else.

Well, see, now you know. We've enriched your life. You're welcome.

caw.

[CaroGirl]

We all get startled on occasion--little startles can occur on almost a daily basis. Once again (for all of the humans out there), hands up all who've peed themselves when startled... Yet, this reaction appears over and over in movies and in novels.
You haven't met many women with a weak pelvic floor (I think that's what it's called) due to childbirth (not enough Kegel exercises). Sadly, I know several women who pee themselves when they sneeze. Startling them causes a veritable gusher. Surprise!!

Note: I, myself, have no problem retaining water, believe me.

[NeuroFizz]

I peed myself laughing once. Does that count?
Not unless laughing is included in the broad class of sympathetic responses of the autonomic nervous system (responses that prepare the body for intense physical activity, i.e. flight-or-flight).

[NeuroFizz]

You haven't met many women with a weak pelvic floor (I think that's what it's called) due to childbirth (not enough Kegel exercises). Sadly, I know several women who pee themselves when they sneeze. Startling them causes a veritable gusher. Surprise!!

Note: I, myself, have no problem retaining water, believe me.

I am well aware of such things, and I have no objection to inclusion of them in fiction as long as it is done in terms of the altered physioloogy of these individuals. I object when it is passed off as a normal physiological response--as a highly dramatized indicator of the startled state. It has great metaphoric potential, and great realism in mothers whose bladder function has been compromised by pregnancy and childbirth.

And, yes. I do know women with this problem. I'm related to one through marriage (a sister-in-law).

Despite the possibility of this from individuals who have altered bladder physiology, I don't "hear" many hands going up. My point was use of the pee reflex as a normal physiological response to the point that it was an indicator of a startle. The human body is not designed to work like that.

[MicheleLee]

Backstory on each and every character the moment they are introduced, you get to read about their life story. Tom Clancy is horrible at this and it stops me almost every time because it bogs the story down.

That's why I don't like Stephen King. I'm usually sitting there thinking "Get to the story already."

[MicheleLee]

One of my favorite authors gave a female Middle Eastern character a common Middle Eastern men's name. Sure, there's a slim chance you might find a woman named "Joseph" or "William" (or its foreign equivalent) but I think if she had checked, she would have chosen a more suitable name.

I purposefully named a female character Molochai. Maybe it was on purpose.

[UrsusMinor]

Since we have degenrated from larger details to pickiness, one of the things that makes me slightly nuts is when people misuse expressions. Some of these have become so widespread that no one remembers what they originally meant.

For example, the expression "the exception that proves the rule."

This has been misused so long that it has come to mean, in most people's minds, "Hey, there's an exception to every rule!"

The original intent used the word "prove" in the sense of "test" (which it still means--that's why military test areas are called "proving grounds").

The meaning of the statement wasn't, "here's an exception, but all ruels have exceptions." The meaning was "Here an exception that TESTS your rule," with the implication that your rule is in big trouble.

Another one is "begs the question," which people now use to mean, "this statement is just begging to have someone ask the following question."

"Begging the question" is from logic, and when someone begs the question, it means that they have engaged in circular logic--that is, that one of their premises implicitly assumes the truth of what they set out to prove.

Call me picky. These things drive me nuts--as does "reigning in" some activity (as if we are talking about royalty rather than the reins of a horse)--because the expression is used without thought of real meaning, or on the basis of a confused sense of meaning. And I don't mind it so much when I hear it on the street, but wordsmiths ought to understand their tools.

[MicheleLee]

It's none of my business whether such a writer gets published, but it sure means I wouldn't read her, and I'd warn everyone possible away from her books.

Whoa... I hate that Anne Bishop writes stories where men are simply abusers or servants of women. Her stories are very sexist, against men. But her worlds and language are beautiful. so even though I resent her use of men like that I still love her stories. I don't know about guns, and I may make a mistake like that, though I try not to. But a smallish mistake like that should not, Alone, end the story for you. If it does, perhaps the language and such was not pulling you in to begin with. I admit I hate KAthe Koja's run ons. But I stopped reading Skin because of the subject matter being too close to real life, not because of the form.

[dragonjax]

I just read a book in which the back cover blurb reads: "The story starts when the King dies." But alas! the book starts like one year before the king dies!! So I had to read more than 50 or 60 pages of absolutely nothing 'cause the darned king didn't want to die! The next thing the cover promised was a revolution, but it didn't happen until 100 pages later! And then, when action finally started, I had to read another 10 pages of this guy walking in darkness. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! Talk about driving me nuts!

This is SO not the author's fault.

From my limited experience, the author gets very little say in the back cover copy (and ditto the cover art). The tone of my back cover copy, for example, doesn't match the tone of my novel very well -- but it's what the marketing folks decided would help sell the book. That's the whole point of the back cover copy: to encourage shoppers to decide to actually buy the book in their hands. As long as the BCC doesn't outright lie to the reader, I think almost anything goes.

I've read BCC that's had NOTHING to do with the story (Katie MacAlister's VAMPIRE series, for example) but instead set a tone. I've read BCC that was written in the POV of a character that doesn't have a POV in the actual story. Both drive me nuts. But again, that's not the author's fault.

As for the actual content of the book...

Well, authors make mistakes. So do editors. So do copy editors.

But we also have the opportunity to catch those mistakes.

Example: I reviewed the copy edits for my novel. I stetted (didn't accept) certain changes -- including one word change that the copy editor made consistently throughout the book. I now have waiting for me the page proofs for me to review. This is my LAST CHANCE to read the entire thing to make sure (as best to my ability) there are no errors. Like spelling Tammy Faye Bakker's name incorrectly...which I DID do in the original MS and again in the copy edited version, and was brought to my attention not by my copy editor but instead by...my dad. :-) Oops. Thank goodness for page proofs!

Anyway, my point is this: the author makes mistakes, but the author also has the chance to correct those mistakes. And, sometimes, even when the author makes changes...ultimately, it's up to the publisher to make sure those changes get made.

[UrsulaV]

Hands up, all who've wet themselves when startled...



Uh....

Some people do. Who haven't had kids or anything else. Some of us just have...err...nervous plumbing.

You're gonna have to trust me on this one, because proving it to you would be highly unpleasant for everyone involved.

[Zolah]

Not unless laughing is included in the broad class of sympathetic responses of the autonomic nervous system (responses that prepare the body for intense physical activity, i.e. flight-or-flight).

Cor! You learn somefink every day, dun'cha?

[Christine N.]

You haven't met many women with a weak pelvic floor (I think that's what it's called) due to childbirth (not enough Kegel exercises). Sadly, I know several women who pee themselves when they sneeze. Startling them causes a veritable gusher. Surprise!!

Note: I, myself, have no problem retaining water, believe me.


Well, for quite a while after I had my son, I had to stay near the bathroom. Until the muscles that pushed the 10 pound monster out went back to normal.

So, yea, I can see it. It was rather embarassing. Now, no, I'm fine, but that was a strange time.

[NeuroFizz]

Uh....

Some people do. Who haven't had kids or anything else. Some of us just have...err...nervous plumbing.

You're gonna have to trust me on this one, because proving it to you would be highly unpleasant for everyone involved.
Acknowledged. Every person is an individual with differences in physiology just like their diffrences in appearance. Something like unusual bladder control could be used in fiction to give a character a more personal, unique flavor. The challenge of going into a job interview with acting-up allergies, for a person with sneeze induced incontinence, could be a personal challenge that would be right up there in terms of nervousness and apprehension. Bladder control is a tool that can be used in fiction, as long as startle-induced incontinence isn't passed off as a normal response of the masses. It has become a bit of a cliche in film and fiction, and that is where it is inappropriate--as a common enough occurrence to be cliche.

[Vomaxx]

For example, the expression "the exception that proves the rule."

This has been misused so long that it has come to mean, in most people's minds, "Hey, there's an exception to every rule!"

The original intent used the word "prove" in the sense of "test" (which it still means--that's why military test areas are called "proving grounds").

Another one is "begs the question," which people now use to mean, "this statement is just begging to have someone ask the following question."

"Begging the question" is from logic, and when someone begs the question, it means that they have engaged in circular logic--that is, that one of their premises implicitly assumes the truth of what they set out to prove.

Call me picky.

I don't call you picky. These are very good points. Another example is using "devil's advocate" to mean someone who supports something bad, when it actually means someone who argues against something good.

[Zolah]

I don't call you picky. These are very good points. Another example is using "devil's advocate" to mean someone who supports something bad, when it actually means someone who argues against something good.

Or people saying 'I could care less' - a phrase which a moment's thought on anyone's part would reveal is meaningless. Not to mention using 'tow' in what should be 'Toe the line'. Argh.

[waylander]

Uh....

Some people do. Who haven't had kids or anything else. Some of us just have...err...nervous plumbing.

You're gonna have to trust me on this one, because proving it to you would be highly unpleasant for everyone involved.

You know there's a good treatment for this condition these days.
Google Duloxetine.

[UrsulaV]

You know there's a good treatment for this condition these days.
Google Duloxetine.

Jesu Christos! The cure sounds worse than the disease!

It's really not a major problem. If I've been scared THAT badly, the condition of my pants is generally the least of my worries.

[AncientEagle]

A review of all the postings on this thread convinces me that what's important depends very much on the individual reader's experience and background. I've spent most of my life around guns, which is not to say I'm an expert, but an error in something so fundamental as where the bullet goes affects me like having my fingernails pulled out. Also, having spent the best years of my life in the Army, I go bananas when a writer describes the three volleys of rifle fire at a military funeral as "a 21-gun salute." Such salutes are fired for presidents, kings, etc., not us common folk, and they are fired with guns, which in Army parlance means cannon, usually 105 millimeter howitzers, not rifles, which are not identified as guns. The rest of us just get three volleys of rifle fire, the number of rifles often being a product of how many riflemen can be assembled for the duty.

I'm sure most members of my own family (except my wife) would never notice such an esoteric matter, nor get bent out of shape by it if they did. But I do because that's my background. I don't try to assassinate the writer over it, but it bugs me. Just as I suspect a surgeon would be bugged by a surgical impossibility being passed off in a medical novel as routine, while I wouldn't know the difference, nor care.

I further suspect that most of us, being writers of one degree or another, have become much more sensitive to errors in print than is the average reader. In any case, I'm willing to let people go on being published even if they aren't perfect. I just reserve the right to be annoyed, one of my few remaining pleasures.

[Linda Adams]

One more think I wouldn't have known. My friend had a dog that was rather nervous and if you made a loud noise (I loved clapping my hands and go "HA!") it would pee on the floor.



We had a dog that we needed to give--think it was Benedril--to stop her from wetting the bed at night. Since she was such a little dog, even half a pill was too much, and had the opposite effect. When she started barking, things got rather interesting. Unfortunately, she was in the front driver's seat of the car at the time ...

[clara bow]

I just finished a book whose heroine was targeted by a killer and her hero, sent from the future, never explained why she was being targeted. She was just a regular gal. Why her and not someone else, I dunno...except that it was what the author wanted, I guess. It was set up as a mystery about why she was being targeted and then...nothing. How does someone forget that kind of detail? It's frustrating to not have closure. I suppose the editor got so carried along by the other action in the story that she forgot.

I think it was telling that the author thanked her editor for patiently waiting while the author completed two major revisions. hey, why not three while she was at it.

[NightWynde]

Just out of curiosity,why do you hold the authors to different standards? What would you expect out of a romance writer, but forgive from a mystery writer?


It all has to do with the world that the author is trying to place me in and what each of the characters should know about what they're dealing with. If, for example, you have a crackshot detective who doesn't know a .38 from a .45 (not that I do, it's just an example), I'd be suspicious as to the validity of the entire fictional world. On the other hand, if you have in a romance novel someone calling a shotgun a rifle or vice-versa (even if it's the narrator voice) and the MC is not an expert in rifles, then I'll let it go.

As far as romance and what I'd be stricter on? It's really hard to say because each MC in a romance has a different set of skills.

It also has to do with constant themes within a story. For example, even if the characters aren't expert rock climbers, but if the subject of rock climbing keeps coming up and you call a rope something like "dental floss" I'll have trouble agreeing with the validity of the book. If, on the other hand, there's a couple of small details wrong with something that doesn't show up again (one that comes to mind is there was this vase in the story that was from the Ming Dynasty and it was referred to as a Tiffany. Anyone who knows anything about vases wouldn't mix up the two, but since it only showed up once I didn't worry about it).

In other words, it has less to do with genre and a heck of a lot more to do with what the characters can reasonably be expected to know. Since guns show up in a lot of mystery tales, I expect the author to have his or her facts straight in that area.

[TrickyFiction]

Or people saying 'I could care less' - a phrase which a moment's thought on anyone's part would reveal is meaningless.

Whenever I hear or read that, I have to finish it.
"I could care less, but I don't. I care more."

[UrsusMinor]

Whenever I hear or read that, I have to finish it.
"I could care less, but I don't. I care more."

I once had to try to explain to a friend from Indonesia why Americans say "I could care less" and "I couldn't less" interchangably (not to mention I could/couldn't give a ****). It's inexplicable.

Not to mention "Can't hardly wait..." . Yikes.

[Lolly]

If the eatery is the Russian Tea Room, you bet most New Yorkers reading that novel will know if the RTR has a parking lot or not. When it's a real place, whether a famous bistro, or a mom and pop diner in Kansas City, someone is likely to notice when something is wrong. Maybe only one or two people, but someone will.

I wouldn't have noticed the gun discrepancy, because I know nothing about guns. But if I were to use guns frequently in any of my stories, you bet your buns I'd make sure I got the facts straight.


That's kind of what I was thinking. I'm originally from Dallas, and if any author mentioned a detail about the city that was wrong, I'd definitely notice. If you're going to write about a real place, then I think you should strive to represent it accurately.

[NeuroFizz]

Slang, as well as incorrect (illogical) but common phrases, are acceptable even useful in dialogue. They can also help set the tone for a story. Many illogical phrases have come under the umbrella of slang due to common (though incorrect) usage. So, many of those phrases that make us grit our teeth can be used as tools in our writing.

[Lolly]

Or people saying 'I could care less' - a phrase which a moment's thought on anyone's part would reveal is meaningless.


That one drives me crazy.

[Zolah]

Whenever I hear or read that, I have to finish it.
"I could care less, but I don't. I care more."

It's one of my regular teeth-gritting phrases. I don't have a snappy saying to answer it with though: I usually just mutter 'f***-wit!' to myself (referring to the writer, of course).

[jules]

One of these days I'm going to write a character who uses "could care less".

He will die horribly.

[Writing Jedi]

It's one of my regular teeth-gritting phrases. I don't have a snappy saying to answer it with though: I usually just mutter 'f***-wit!' to myself (referring to the writer, of course).

I have never heard the insult "f***-wit" before and I must say it has dissolved me into laughter. It is my new favourite. Thanks Zolah.

And GJJ Walter, I am glad you clarified that love phrase. It has never made any sense to me, now it does.

Gotta love AW.

[blacbird]

I have never heard the insult "f***-wit" before

I've heard it applied to myself many times.

caw.

[DamaNegra]

This is SO not the author's fault.

Ooooooooooooh yes it is. Because the story really starts at the point when the back cover blurb describes. All the pages before that? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The characters get introduced and a tiny bit of conflict mentioned in one paragraph. But really, you could cut off that entire piece and the book would still be as good. It's not as if you learn something about the characters you don't re-learn later on. Sheeesh.

[Saint Fool]

Hmm - just finished reading a romance novel where it was impossible to follow what was happening in the first big love scene. After five pages of hard-to-follow acrobatics, much complicated removing of clothing, many passionate kisses, and way too many allusions to marble, fire, and pounding blood, the author finally wrote what I thought was an overly metaphoric climax, when to my surprise the heroine insisted that "the time wasn't right for the consumation of their love." (Or words to that effect - yes, I know it is a convention of the genre but sheesh - at least have the actions make some sort of sense.)

[Zolah]

I have never heard the insult "f***-wit" before and I must say it has dissolved me into laughter. It is my new favourite. Thanks Zolah.

Er, it's a British thing, I think. Feel free to use it to surprise and delight your friends and family.

[L.Jones]

Originally Posted by dragonjax
This is SO not the author's fault.


Ooooooooooooh yes it is. Because the story really starts at the point when the back cover blurb describes. All the pages before that? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The characters get introduced and a tiny bit of conflict mentioned in one paragraph. But really, you could cut off that entire piece and the book would still be as good. It's not as if you learn something about the characters you don't re-learn later on. Sheeesh.

wrong.

Cover blurbs are often (not always but in 28 books I've never had one done later) BEFORE the book is done (before it's written sometimes, before it's edited for sure). The cover itself is in production sometimes before the author is really much beyond an outline. Some authors do take the step of writing their own blurbs. My Dec book was lifted from my proposal.

annie jones
awa Luanne Jones

[Qazz]

Okay, under the category of "mindlessly nitpicky"...
... To each their own... as in, let's use the wrong pronoun so as to be politically correct. Yes, yes, I know that it is now considered sexist, or something "ist" of some kind, but for me it's fundemental: "each" "one" "everyone" "everybody" are singular forms, and "their" or "they" are plural. I generally stick to "his" or, if I'm that concerned about political correctness (which rarely I am), I might add "his or her own". Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's okay if we disagree, after all, "to each their own"...

[mesh138]

Albert Camus changes tense so many times in "The Stranger," but it got published and I haven't yet so he's the winner in the argument. But... well, he's dead and I'm still alive.

[Forbidden Snowflake]

Albert Camus changes tense so many times in "The Stranger," but it got published and I haven't yet so he's the winner in the argument. But... well, he's dead and I'm still alive.

Are you sure he does and not the one translating him? I did not notice that while reading the book in French, I must read that again and find out if I really would miss such a thing.

[Lolly]

The one that gets me is "Love means never having to say you're sorry."

It was intended to mean "Love means never doing anything to be sorry for." It is often obscured as "Love means when you do something to be sorry for your partner should just get over it."


Thank you for clarifying that. I always thought that line was incredibly cheesy, but now I've changed my mind.

[Lolly]

Er, it's a British thing, I think. Feel free to use it to surprise and delight your friends and family.


As an outsider living in Britain, I have enjoyed learning the language. Y'all are so creative when it comes to insulting people. Now I find myself calling people "plonker" or "twit." (Usually not to their face, though!) I used to say the word "twat" until friends of mine politely told me you're not supposed to say that. Whoops.

[Niggle]

I could care less

I've always interpreted that phrase as being a shortened form of something like: "I suppose I could care less, if I really put my mind to it". But I've only really seen it written down, rather than heard people saying it. How is it stressed, typically?

[PODLINGMASTER]

It is important to do research when setting your story in the past. This was from two movies, but you can see how mistakes in continuity happen even to the big boys.

In Star Trek II "wrath of Khan"--Khan recognizes commander chekov, "I never forget a face." --the only thing is, chekov wasn't on board the enterprise in the series when the original "space seed" episode about Khan aired on T.V. --they caught this later and published a star trek II diaries, in which chekov notes this and says, he must have remembered me from scanning star fleet records. Only thing is, Khan did not recognize Chekov's Captain Terrell in the movie and he outranked chekov and so should have been found in any records Khan supposedly would have looked at to know chekov.

They flubbed the continuity and then flubbed the continuity of the excuse for the original flub!

Also, In Star Wars III--Obi Wan sees the security recordings of Anakin killing people in the Jedi temple...he then asks Yoda to let him go after the "Emperor" instead of Anakin--even though no one had called him "The Emperor" yet and the empire had yet to be announced by Palpatine. Obi Wan has information that only people seeing the original trilogy should know. Continuity mistakes, they can happen to the best of us.

Podlingmaster

[Shadow_Ferret]

Not sure why either "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less" would bother anyone if it's used as dialog since that IS the way people speak. I hear both versions all the time. Plus everyone understands what is meant.

Ferret, who could care less, but just doesn't have the energy

[Susan Gable]

Guilty! But mine is vomit in it's many names. I didn't realize I was using it so much until I finally read the finished manuscript in a short period. But heck. I've been there. I have almost tossed my cookies at the sight of a dismembered body, on a few occasions. And nervousness could make my friend throw up. And there is the psychological effect when a character is forced to pick up a severed heart and he thinks it beats. Also when a character ultimately realizes his girlfriend is dead, he has to pull over and throw up. Is it too much?

There is something that makes me feel that it will one day be a complaint on a forum like this. "Eww, people don't do that!"

LOL! I've notice a trend in my own books that some character generally throws up in them. (But only ONE character per book. <G>) Often it's a kid, because kids are known to spew at the most inopportune times. But sometimes it's one of the adult characters.

Puke happens. <G>

Susan G.

[MarkEsq]

Good point. Another reason not to trust spellcheck.

This is a more complicated issue than most words. A "callus" produces "calloused" skin. And, as a noun, many seem to think either "callus" or "callous" can be used. Even the OED merely lists one as a variant spelling of the other.

I think "callus" is only wrong if you use it as an adjective or a verb, and it seems to be perfectly fine with most to write "I have a callous on my thumb."

I think this may be one of those UK v. US spellings. I'm English and would have spelled it "callous." If so, and for no real reason, it amuses me that a different vowel has been dropped this time. Usually it's the "u" not the "o," for example "honour" to "honor" or "colour" to "color." Maybe it should be spelled "callos." :)

[PattiTheWicked]

My husband hates to watch movies with me because I'll rip them apart for stuff like this. The hub actually had a part as an extra in a movie with Tom Berenger years ago, and there's a scene where the troubled PI with a dark past, played by Berenger, is fleeing the bad guys. He races through Charleston, South Carolina -- straight into the mountains, which sends me into hoots of laughter every time.

Later on in the same movie, a car goes from brown to red back to brown.

It's the little things that make life fun.

[Mike Martyn]

I won't even start on the multitude of mistakes in human anatomy and physiology that appear in fiction. I'll just throw out one very minor example that irks me to no end. An author wants to show how scared a character is, so he/she makes the character urinate. The appropriate response to a scary stimulus (under autonomic control) is to relax the general muscle of the bladder and to tighten the spincter found at the bladder-urethra junction (internal sphincter). Unless the character has previously been shown to have an incontinence problem, or unless he/she recently consumed a 64-ounce Big Gulp, the likelihood of pi$$ing himself/herself during a scare is very low. Hands up, all who've wet themselves when startled...

I am so moved by this lack of readily available information, I'm going to volunteer to teach a one-credit seminar in the (highly regarded) Creative Writing program at our university--the proposed seminar titled, "Human Anatomy and Physiology for Fiction Writers."



I reluctantly raise my hand. Admittedly it was 47 years ago. During a grade two spelling test, I slipped my speller out of my desk to check on a word and Miss McIntosh caught me. I pissed myself in fear. So it does happen though mostly to little kids I would think.

[DamaNegra]

Cover blurbs are often (not always but in 28 books I've never had one done later) BEFORE the book is done (before it's written sometimes, before it's edited for sure). The cover itself is in production sometimes before the author is really much beyond an outline. Some authors do take the step of writing their own blurbs. My Dec book was lifted from my proposal.

But my point is that nothing happened in the story before the king died, and that made the book completely bogus and difficult to read because by page 60 I was bored because nothing ever happened.

[Qelenhn]

If you're reading the book I think you're talking about, DamaNegra, all that exposition at the beginning really does make the climax make more sense. In the sense that if you read the series reasonably close together you'll be very familiar with the layout of the castle and know exactly where everything is happening. There doesn't seem to be a payoff for the excrutiating crawl through darkness bit. But the series is pretty good overall. The author I'm thinking of does tend to start out really slow in pretty much every series. In one case, most of the first book could be cut without losing too much. But since I happen to be particularly fond of world-building and character development, I seem to have a higher tolerance for that than most people I know. It worries me some when it comes to writing my own.

I don't know that I've ever caught an obvious error in something I know a lot about, but I am prepared to go take horseback riding lessons before I start final revisions on my book with a character who works in a stable, and I seem to do a lot of research about geography so that my fantasy world can be realistic. I even did research on wings before I tried to describe my flying race for the first time. And then promptly didn't describe the wings in much detail at all, but I know what they look like. I'm not so much surprised that a mystery author can be published without learning anything about guns, but rather that an author would send it to the publisher without researching something that is vital to the story and many readers will have firsthand knowledge of.

[Inkdaub]

I don't think I've ever read a book that didn't have at least one small error. The book I just finished...Connelly's The Poet...has several including missing words and a character who spends a page with a different but similar name. I remember when Jordan was at the height of the Wheel of Time popularity and the books were full of small errors. The theory was that since the sales were so good and anticipation of each book so high they were rushed through the publication process. Sounds logical. Anyway, I don't have a problem with most errors. They only pull me out of the story if they are research based.

[iSAM]

After reading all this talk about errors, I had to share this jem:

In a recent fantasy novel about dragons, the author describes how dragons are psychic, and never use spoken words to communicate with each other.

THE VERY NEXT PAGE, the author mentions that as the head dragon spoke, the others could see her yellowed teeth.

How about "researching" your own writing from the previous page?

[Elektra]

It's one of my faults to always notice inconsistencies in stories, and it generally ruins the story for me. One of the most "did anybody actually read this before it got published" errors was in the Animorphs series. In the first book, the kids are able to communicate telepathically; and then in every other book it's made a point that they can't. When asked about it the author just said "Yeah, I forgot".

[Lolly]

My husband hates to watch movies with me because I'll rip them apart for stuff like this...

It's the little things that make life fun.


Same here! My sisters and I are devoted Trekkies, so we used to sit and nitpick every episode we watched. It became such a habit that now I do it for every TV show and movie I see. I try not to say too much out loud, though, because I know that people don't always appreciate it.

[Liam Jackson]

I recently read a story in which the protag boarded a commercial 767 in Kansas City at 11:00 AM and landed in Knoxville at 2:00 PM...after a one hour layover in Chicago.

[Carrie in PA]

I wish I could remember what book it was, but I ran into a doozy... about 2/3 of the way into the book, the spelling of the main character's NAME changed!! :Wha: Something like Katherine to Catharine. It was vile.

I never did finish it...

[arrowqueen]

I love the Miss Read books (charming stories about village life, written by the headmistress of the village school) - but one thing drives me mad. Her cat, Tibby, keeps changing sex!

[aadams73]

I recently read a story in which the protag boarded a commercial 767 in Kansas City at 11:00 AM and landed in Knoxville at 2:00 PM...after a one hour layover in Chicago.

*sigh* It's just not that difficult to check a legitimate flight schedule. Heck, I was able to find a bus timetable online for a small bus company in a small european country.

[pdr]

I review quite a few historical novels and whilst I prefer the literary and faction ones I am always allocated several historical romances because so many are published and have to be reviewed. I can guarantee that the American writers of these Regency or Victorian novels will:
1. Have their heroine a sweet young thing brought up by unconventional parents so that she may behave like a 21stC female, particularly in matters sexual where she bed hops like modern females. It also covers mistakes revealing the writer's lack of research in matters of correct behaviour for each social class.
2. Have their heroine, a wealthy, well bred young lady, travel alone on a public stage coach, going from a remote rural spot to London or Edinburgh in half a day. Or she travels alone on a train and alas, often the wrong line and the wrong train.
3. The lady's maid will be friend and confidante. She will sit down to afternoon tea with her lady. They will chatter and giggle in equality like a pair of school friends.
4. The male lead will use his horses - as Diane Wyn Jones puts it - like a bicycle and treat servants either like close friends or swears at them.
5. The dialogue will use lots of so called 'cant' between the male lead characters, but often it's actually thieves' cant and not upper crust cant.

It is not difficult to research class structure, the railways, how servants and their mistresses or masters actually worked together so why do so many of these romance writers fail to do it? One writer told me that it didn't matter as the books were for an American market and Americans wouldn't notice. 'And besides which it didn't matter.' I kept a civil tongue, but with difficulty!

[Lolly]

I love the Miss Read books (charming stories about village life, written by the headmistress of the village school) - but one thing drives me mad. Her cat, Tibby, keeps changing sex!


She's in good company. In one of Jane Austen's novels, a character has a pug dog that changes gender mid-way in the novel and then changes back again by the end.

[Lolly]

I review quite a few historical novels and whilst I prefer the literary and faction ones I am always allocated several historical romances because so many are published and have to be reviewed. I can guarantee that the American writers of these Regency or Victorian novels will:
1. Have their heroine a sweet young thing brought up by unconventional parents so that she may behave like a 21stC female, particularly in matters sexual where she bed hops like modern females. It also cover mistakes revealing the writer's lack of research in matters of correct behaviour for each social class.
2. Have their heroine, a wealthy, well bred young lady, travel alone on a public stage coach, going from a remote rural spot to London or Edinburgh in half a day. Or she travels alone on a train and alas, often the wrong line and the wrong train.
3. The lady's maid will be friend and confidante. She will sit down to afternoon tea with her lady. They will chatter and giggle in equality like a pair of school friends.
4. The male lead will use his horses - as Diane Wyn Jones puts it - like a bicycle and treat servants either like close friends or swears at them.
5. The dialogue will use lots of so called 'cant' between the male lead characters, but often it's actually thieves' cant and not upper crust cant.

It is not difficult to research class structure, the railways, how servants and their mistresses or masters actually worked together so why do so many of these romance writers fail to do it? One writer told me that it didn't matter as the books were for an American market and Americans wouldn't notice. 'And besides which it didn't matter.' I kept a civil tongue, but with difficulty!


Thank you for this. I used to love reading Regency novels, but I did wonder at some of the things you mention.