Ok, in the 'would you like someone to point out errors in your published work' thread, there was a small offshoot about errors in history knowledge. I thought this deserved its own thread and I am chucking science in there as well because, well, science is my thing and I think the same problems occur there too...
So, here is the situation. You are writing a story, you want to include some historic setting or show some science. Two things to think about:
1) Should a writer strive to achieve as accurate a portrayal of history or science as they can, making best use of research that they can because there is a chance that a history or science geek will spot the errors and make a massive thing out of them (as many will do given half a chance... Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory is not so much of an exaggeration as some might think...)
2) Additional to the above, does the writer have some responsibility for ensuring accuracy because someone may read their version of history or science and assume it is true and this could potentially impact thier understanding of the subject in question?
Now, I am not talking about clear parallel universes where you have quite blatantly made it clear there are differences. Nor am I talking about far future sci fi or space opera where it is obvious that warp engines and so on are not real. I am talking about stories that are stated as being 'set in X period of history' or are clearly based on the real world and I am not even talking about things that the characters could achieve (i.e. assassinating Henry VIII and putting someone else on the throne) because in those cases the cause of that is obvious... I am talking about the little things, the details which most people might not know were inaccurate but which an expert might go apoplectic about.
So, discuss...
So, here is the situation. You are writing a story, you want to include some historic setting or show some science. Two things to think about:
1) Should a writer strive to achieve as accurate a portrayal of history or science as they can, making best use of research that they can because there is a chance that a history or science geek will spot the errors and make a massive thing out of them (as many will do given half a chance... Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory is not so much of an exaggeration as some might think...)
2) Additional to the above, does the writer have some responsibility for ensuring accuracy because someone may read their version of history or science and assume it is true and this could potentially impact thier understanding of the subject in question?
Now, I am not talking about clear parallel universes where you have quite blatantly made it clear there are differences. Nor am I talking about far future sci fi or space opera where it is obvious that warp engines and so on are not real. I am talking about stories that are stated as being 'set in X period of history' or are clearly based on the real world and I am not even talking about things that the characters could achieve (i.e. assassinating Henry VIII and putting someone else on the throne) because in those cases the cause of that is obvious... I am talking about the little things, the details which most people might not know were inaccurate but which an expert might go apoplectic about.
So, discuss...