This headline crossed my field of vision on Twitter about six weeks ago. I didn’t waste a second clicking over to read it, not least because I am pickin’ up whatever James Scott Bell is throwin’ down. (But also because I’ve written some on this subject, here and here and here too.)
Bell points out there are two schools of thought on authenticity:
If you’re going to write about weapons, it’s my experience you better get that right, because there are too many gun aficionados out there who will rake you over the coals if you get a detail wrong.
But … I recall Lee Child talking about one of his books where Reacher is going through Georgia, a place Child has never himself been. He received a detailed rejoinder about the impossibility of Reacher’s itinerary from someone who knew the particular roads in that part of the state. But as this error did not seem to impact sales, Child was more sanguine than disturbed by it.
Harlan Coben has also said he is of the “make it up” school of research. Doesn’t seem to have slowed down his sales, either.
Bell goes on to say he prefers authenticity, and I’m on that side of the fence. I like accuracy. Fake names for towns are fine; that’s not what I mean. (Names for human beings are another thing entirely.) I like accuracy, within reason, about the cost of things too (here’s my latest fun resource for that). Bell says it’s the appearance of accuracy that matters—and for that, the Internet is your friend.
But no matter what side of the fence you’re on, read the article—it’s a good one.
Tweet: Do you prefer authors get the details right? I do.
Tweet: It’s the appearance of accuracy that matters—and for that, the Internet is your friend.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I have not received any compensation for writing this post. I have no material connection to the brands, products, or services that I have mentioned. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
I just sent an email to Harlan Coban via his website last week because in Six Years, he mentions the area where I live. There is a seasonal OLD place called Lee’s Hot Dog Stand that is in this book. It’s a place where I don’t stop often, but once every year Linda and I grab dinner. It’s kind of a tradition. We went last week and I probably won’t go again until next summer.:)
So he does SOME research! I’m happy to hear that!
I’d have to say, it depends on why I’m reading a book. If it’s a non-fiction book addressing a particular subject, I expect the author to be precise. I don’t usually read fiction for detailed information. However, if it’s not fantasy or science fiction, I do appreciate a level of accuracy. I guess I agree with Bell, it’s the “appearance” of accuracy that matters to me.
When I was working on a historical romance novel and found things that I just couldn’t believe, the managing editor, whom I love, told me that in such cases, I just needed to make sure a thing was possible. It didn’t have to be PROBABLE, just possible. That’s not my modus operandi, though. 🙂
Must be a bit difficult to carry on when it’s not your preferred way…guess that’s why I’ve heard so many great things about you as an editor! ( I know, I used one of those pesky exclamation marks…can’t help myself sometimes…LOL)
Oh, I don’t know about THAT. (I do my share of grumbling! Haha.) But thank you. 🙂
Even in sci-fi or fantasy, you need some level of accuracy & research. Humans still can’t live in vacuum nor does basic science change, for example, and it’s not just guns that weapons enthusiasts will complain about–there are plenty of people who will tell you that you’ve got the wrong sword for the person (too big, too heavy, can’t handle that style single-handedly, etc). There’s a reason that they say fantasy writers have some of the best and biggest personal research libraries. The good ones, anyways. Mostly worldbuilding, but still, it adds to the plausibility of a story.
Ha—great point! I don’t check every detail when I’m reading but I think some things just feel right (or just feel wrong).