Fear of inaccuracies

I can definitely understand the desire to be accurate in what is written. I have no idea how many times I have put down a book because of the writers horrible fact checking on something that two minutes of research could have told them. However, I have to agree that there are times where too much detail can be overbearing, or at the very least unnecessary. I myself am guilty of this far too often (which reminds me, I have to look up likely names for female natives in Papua, New Guinea).

Naturally some things are not going to be well known (unless you happen to live in Papua, New Guinea for instance), and even if your facts have some discrepancies no one is likely to know the difference (like the example above). There are, however, things that should be checked beforehand. Just like Roxxsmom gave in the reply above, there are things that anyone who has done even a tiny bit of research would know (like pythons are not venomous), and that people are likely to catch. My recommendation would be, if you are writing about something that you think people will know, make sure to do the necessary research. I do it beforehand, so that I'm already at least marginally knowledgeable when I'm doing the writing, but a the very least you should check the important facts before you submit it to your publisher.

It's sometimes hard to know which things people are likely to catch you on and which they won't, and naturally it is difficult to check every possible fact (even with the all-powerful internet, it's rather time consuming to check everything), but the more accurate you are the better you might appear to your readers.

On that note, I'm off to go learn something that is likely to never be checked by another living soul. Best of luck!

JHFC said:

I agree that sometimes details can get in the way. For example, I have a manuscript that takes place in ancient Ireland. Sucking on the king's nipples was a sign of respect in ancient Ireland. Putting that into a book would be absurd. So I chose not to include that little fact, even though I'm well aware of it.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old Tom Petty song....It's Good To Be King.

It also reminds me of some great advice, research everything, even the stuff that won't make it in your book. I blew that off at first, why research and learn stuff that you know you aren't going to use. But, I was wrong. It really helps. Especially if it's something I'm no expert at or have little experience with. When you try to b.s stuff you aren't sure about, that's where you get called out. Just take a minute and check up on it.

Axl Prose said:

Reminds me of an old Tom Petty song....It's Good To Be King.

It also reminds me of some great advice, research everything, even the stuff that won't make it in your book. I blew that off at first, why research and learn stuff that you know you aren't going to use. But, I was wrong. It really helps.

Click to expand...

One of the best reasons for doing this is that you might well find something you didn't know that could be valuable to your story.

Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

caw

Exactly. And sometimes a bizarre factoid could be the nucleus for a new story idea.

I'm the world's worst pedant when it comes to scientific inaccuracy. I used to think I was just being a nerd but really it's no different to any other inaccuracy. Writers get away with inaccuracy when things aren't common knowledge, because the average reader doesn't spot them. But people who've studied more science get kicked out of books when these details are wrong. It's no different to if someone wrote a book about investment bankers and got details wrong that the average reader wouldn't know about, but anyone who's actually worked as an investment banker can see the errors clearly and can't take the book seriously. Ditto for any other specialist field. I've lost count of how many times I've been told that I'm being too pedantic about scientific details by people who say "it's just fiction" - but it really does kick me out of the story and the same people who are telling me that would be kicked out of stories that have inaccuracies in fields that they do have more specialist knowledge in.

It's important to do your research and get the details right.

That said, if it's clear to me that a writer has researched a book very well and there's still an inaccuracy in it, then hey, we're all human. The Martian by Andy Weir has one flaw in the biology (not being specific because I can't explain it without it being a massive spoiler), but by the time I got that far, I cared enough about the character that I overlooked it ("you should be dead/in a much worse state at this point but I like you enough that I'm going to wilfully ignore that fact and be happy for you"), plus the fact that it's a meticulously researched book and extremely well written and a very gripping story. I'm willing to be told I'm wrong on this matter, it's not that big a deal (unless you get stranded on Mars). The point is that when I can see a story's extremely well researched and well written and I'm connected with the character then I'm able to ignore inaccuracies.

What I can't stomach is books where the writer hasn't bothered to check basic facts or do any research at all. Neanderthals that act like decades out-of-date myths and stereotypes and are incapable of doing things that chimpanzees can do would probably be my biggest instant bookwall (or throwing the remote at the TV) - defaulting to popular myth/misconception rather than doing any actual research, basically. I'm generally delighted by any presentation of palaeolithic people in literature or films where they at least get the basic facts right and I'll overlook small errors. I'm trying my best to write scientifically accurate fiction set in the palaeolithic era. I've studied the subject for many years (at uni to begin with, then for fun because it's fascinating) so I have the background knowledge and know where to look to stay up-to-date with new discoveries/theories and to check facts in my story (although palaeobotany sources are hard to come by!) and yet I know I'll still probably make small mistakes because I'm human and we all make them. Probably that's why I'm forgiving of mistakes in otherwise well-researched books, because the writer's human and did his or her best.

Another User said:

I guess my problem is that I'm so paranoid that I never feel that I have researched enough. I know I can be too drawn into the research to write anything. Maybe my WIP is the first one to be published for a large number of audience so I'm too nervous. Thanks for all the input

Click to expand...

If your book is published for a large audience, a good editor will call out a lot of things you're worrying about.

That said, do your homework, write the best you can and then quit worrying.

One of my frequent scientific pet peeves while reading are moon phases. People (and their editors) get them wrong more often than they get them right, and it shows up in SF, fantasy, and regular fiction. And we're not talking something esoteric and strange that needs a specialized science book. People can go outside at night (or day) over the course of a month and see where the moon is in the sky at different times of day as it goes through its cycle. And a quick google will yield all the information people need about why the moon waxes and wanes the way it does, how eclipses happen etc.

The moon only rises at sunset and sets at sunrise when it is full. When it's "new" it's not in the sky at night at all, but "up" during the day. However, it is only visible if it actually crosses the solar disc and causes a solar eclipse.

A crescent moon cannot be setting at dawn either, unless there's another source of illumination than the sun.

Roxxsmom said:

One of my frequent scientific pet peeves while reading are moon phases. People (and their editors) get them wrong more often than they get them right, and it shows up in SF, fantasy, and regular fiction. And we're not talking something esoteric and strange that needs a specialized science book. People can go outside at night (or day) over the course of a month and see where the moon is in the sky at different times of day as it goes through its cycle. And a quick google will yield all the information people need about why the moon waxes and wanes the way it does, how eclipses happen etc.

The moon only rises at sunset and sets at sunrise when it is full. When it's "new" it's not in the sky at night at all, but "up" during the day. However, it is only visible if it actually crosses the solar disc and causes a solar eclipse.

A crescent moon cannot be setting at dawn either, unless there's another source of illumination than the sun.

Click to expand...

This is one I'm battling with at the moment as I describe the things visible in the sky in a rather busy planetary system. It has to be right.

Insect names too, and the sounds thry make, where they are, in the season, latitude, time of day. But I labour over these details in the edit because they're basically stage dressings and I can swap and change if I learn something new.

WriterDude said:

This is one I'm battling with at the moment as I describe the things visible in the sky in a rather busy planetary system. It has to be right.

Insect names too, and the sounds thry make, where they are, in the season, latitude, time of day. But I labour over these details in the edit because they're basically stage dressings and I can swap and change if I learn something new.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're not always even something the characters would notice.

Though a number of fantasy writers get lazy and use the moon as a stand in for "time of night" in much the same way they use the sun as a stand in for time of day, but if the phase is completely wrong, it does stand out.