History and Science: Responsibility of the Writer?

[gothicangel]

I think this discussion with a friend sums up the subject of a film:

Friend: "Well, the costume was cliched, wasn't it?'

Me: "What? You mean historically accurate?"

[I'm still trying to pick my jaw off the floor.]

[areteus]

Yeah, everytime you dress a Roman in a toga you are just perpetuating the cliche that all Romans wear togas

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by areteus

Yeah, everytime you dress a Roman in a toga you are just perpetuating the cliche that all Romans wear togas

Which [strangely enough]is similiar to the response I gave.

Another classic is 'it has cliched ideas of honour.' Well, duh, that's exactly how the Greeks and Romans thought about honour.

[VictoriaWrites]

I think authors should strive to be as accurate as possible- in most cases.

When authors purposefully change history for the sake of the novel, I like it when there's an afterword. (I made this up, but that was true, etc.)

What really got me was when I read a(n) (amateur) review of Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan. It's an alternate history, where WWI is fought using giant "Clanker" machines and huge fabricated "Beasties". The entire history- the entire world was different. But this person was more concerned about the fact that the Archduke Ferdinand was poisoned, not shot. (A matter that was addressed in Mr. Westerfeld's afterword.)

You will never please everyone. But you can do your best.

[Lyra Jean]

I remember when Titanic came out. I believe it's one of the most historically accurate movies at the time. They tried their best to make it accurate without turning it into a documentary and people were still complaining.

The town that Jack said he is from wasn't founded until 5 years after Titanic sank. The corset that Rose is wearing didn't come into fashion until 2 years later. The song that Rose is singing wasn't written until 1914.

I have no idea if those times were right. I was making the time up as an example but they did complain that those particular facts were wrong. I'm like wow really that is what you are going to complain about with this movie.

I know it's a movie and not a book but thought it fit.

[Lyra Jean]

There is a book I used to like the author was a scientist. I think she specialized in biology. One of her characters is a doctor and she went into boring detail about heart defects. It was part of the characters job to try and come up with new cures, programs, or something for the sick on his homeworld. Yes it was science fiction. But she went on for chapters at a time and it was like I know this stuff so I want my readers to know I know this stuff. I ended up giving the novel away. I swear you could skip large parts of that novel and not miss a thing.

[gotchan]

Originally Posted by Lyra Jean

I have no idea if those times were right. I was making the time up as an example but they did complain that those particular facts were wrong. I'm like wow really that is what you are going to complain about with this movie.

I was involved in a discussion about the objectification of women, and, fooling around in Photoshop, I came up with a cow pin-up. (Link here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gotchan/5830255062/ Possibly NSFW, in case the phrase "cow pin-up" didn't give you a clue.) I've gotten several critiques that were nothing more than accusing me of never having seen a cow, because udders aren't built like that nor is that where they are located.

I'm like you, Lyra. I'm thinking, "Really? You look at that picture and your complaint is the udder's in the wrong place?"

You can't satisfy Sheldon.

[thothguard51]

Originally Posted by areteus

Yeah, everytime you dress a Roman in a toga you are just perpetuating the cliche that all Romans wear togas

And exactly when did togas go out of style? Geezzzz, no one tells me anything...

[Becky Black]

I like to be able to tell that the writer has done their research and has a grasp of the subject. But if the facts are bent a little in a mindful way to suit the story I don't mind that. Historical events annoyingly don't always arrange themselves to fit a nice story structure, so have to be tweaked. Things like taking a couple of real life incidents that happened during an event to a couple of different people and giving them both of one character instead, just to cut down on the dreaded "cast of thousands" problem for a story is very common.

But in the end I have to say to myself, it's just fiction. If I want to learn about the actual facts I should read a history or science book as well. The story writer's first obligation is to keep me entertained by and enthralled in that story. If I'm fool enough to think that what I read or see in fiction is the way things really are, then that's my funeral. And people definitely fall into that trap. The number of people I've talked to who've cited The Da Vinci Code as their source for their claims about the iniquities of the Vatican is worrying!

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by thothguard51

And exactly when did togas go out of style? Geezzzz, no one tells me anything...

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by Becky Black

Things like taking a couple of real life incidents that happened during an event to a couple of different people and giving them both of one character instead, just to cut down on the dreaded "cast of thousands" problem for a story is very common.

Oh, my God. The Tudors, for morphing Margaret Tudor [who married King James IV of Scotland] with her sister Mary [who married the King of France.] Which really f***ed up the Scottish history.

http://www.thetudorswiki.com/page/Pr...Margaret+Tudor

[amlptj]

My series takes place in the real world and my Freaks i want to be completely explainable by science. I strive and pride myself on making everything explainable by real world science and historically accurate. To do this i painstakingly do a massive amount of research.

For days in question in my stories i even look up what the weather was like!

For the science aspect. I'm already a chem major in college right now but i have sat in and secretly taken biology classes that are not relevant to my major just so i would get a better understand of the human body so i could make my Freaks completely explainable by science. There mutations I've actually done research to figure out what genes they effect and such. Yes there abilities and the outcomes of the mutations are only theories but i still base it off of hard core real science.

Personally i find it is the writers job to do there homework and create a real world experience for there readers as much as within there capabilities.

[areteus]

Lyra's point about going on too long with the details is a good one. There is a limit between 'realistic setting' and 'lecture' and a good editor should have cut all that stuff about heart defects out or at least minimised it a bit to reduce the drag on the flow...

I've only once been impressed by the accuracy of biological science in a story. That was Greg Bear's Blood Music. In it there are descriptions of cell biology techniques which tallied with how I've done similar research on blood cells so I felt comforted to know that the detail was there. I suspect only a small number of the population would even care about this but it reassured me

Of course, the fact that phycisists tend to get riled by sci fi more than biologists (because more sci fi touches on concepts like time travel and ftl travel than it does on genetics in general) is another issue I shall have a rant about later

I remember watching the X files once and they were 'doing PCR' and not only was the investigating officer (Scully) doing the actual work (slightly dodgy from a procedural PoV due to risks of skewing the evidence due to having a vested interest) but it seemed to take her less than 2 hours to do the whole process - from isolating the DNA (at least 30 minutes in my experience, even using a kit which speeds the process up), to amping it up in the minicycler (anything from an hour to 8 hours depending on the program you use - common practise is to leave it running overnight) to running the gel (30 minutes to an hour again, depending on the length of the gel) and analysing the results... OK, you could do it in about 2 hours but I've never managed it- most of the programs take at least 2 hours to run to get enough DNA to work with. If they wanted accuracy in that they should have said 'next day, minimum' but the plot needed the result quickly so a bit of a stretch was done...

[shaldna]

I think it all depends on the genre and the rules you set up for yourself.

For instance, if you are wititing military hisotry then I expect you to get dates right, and to know the available technology and the key players involved in big events.

If you are writing alternate history then you can do as you please, I'll not care.

If you are using, as the example upthread was, radiation then how you handle that depends on what your end goal is and what your genre is. If you are writing a superhero type novel then I have no issue with your character gaining superpowers, it fits my expectations of the genre. But in other circumstances, say you are writing a sci-fi type thriller about a terrorist attach on a nuclear power plant, then I expect you to know all about radiation and what it really does and how it works,.

That said, is you are clever in how you write these things then the average reader will overlook the mistakes, even when they spot them.

For instance, CSI is a case in point. I have a science background and can frequently be heard shouting at the TV when it's on - luminol, for instance picks up lots of stuff, including fruit juice, so that purple lit 'murder' scene is probably, in the real world, where someone spilled their orange juice. And all those women who AREN'T WEARING HAIR NETS, not even tying their hair back, CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE!! (breathe in, breathe out) it annoys me because I know the protocol and I know the science.

BUT I'm still willing to overlook those things because of the way they are presented to me, and I would say that most people, even those who are familiar with the science, would overlook those mistakes.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by shaldna

That said, is you are clever in how you write these things then the average reader will overlook the mistakes, even when they spot them.

If the story is good enough, then I will overlook errors. But saying that, I set myself high standards. I would never say, 'oh X author got away with this, why can't I.'

I had an instance yesterday while reading Ken Follet's The Pillars of the Earth. One character employs a torture method that wasn't used until the Spanish Inquisition [300 years later.] Though a quick Google would have told him the Romans had quite an ingenious variation.

[Becky Black]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

Oh, my God. The Tudors, for morphing Margaret Tudor [who married King James IV of Scotland] with her sister Mary [who married the King of France.] Which really f***ed up the Scottish history.

http://www.thetudorswiki.com/page/Pr...Margaret+Tudor

Now that sounds like a bit much!

[Lyra Jean]

Originally Posted by areteus

Lyra's point about going on too long with the details is a good one. There is a limit between 'realistic setting' and 'lecture' and a good editor should have cut all that stuff about heart defects out or at least minimised it a bit to reduce the drag on the flow...

I've only once been impressed by the accuracy of biological science in a story. That was Greg Bear's Blood Music. In it there are descriptions of cell biology techniques which tallied with how I've done similar research on blood cells so I felt comforted to know that the detail was there. I suspect only a small number of the population would even care about this but it reassured me

Of course, the fact that phycisists tend to get riled by sci fi more than biologists (because more sci fi touches on concepts like time travel and ftl travel than it does on genetics in general) is another issue I shall have a rant about later

I remember watching the X files once and they were 'doing PCR' and not only was the investigating officer (Scully) doing the actual work (slightly dodgy from a procedural PoV due to risks of skewing the evidence due to having a vested interest) but it seemed to take her less than 2 hours to do the whole process - from isolating the DNA (at least 30 minutes in my experience, even using a kit which speeds the process up), to amping it up in the minicycler (anything from an hour to 8 hours depending on the program you use - common practise is to leave it running overnight) to running the gel (30 minutes to an hour again, depending on the length of the gel) and analysing the results... OK, you could do it in about 2 hours but I've never managed it- most of the programs take at least 2 hours to run to get enough DNA to work with. If they wanted accuracy in that they should have said 'next day, minimum' but the plot needed the result quickly so a bit of a stretch was done...

I remember that episode. I have a couple of books about the science behind the X-Files. That is the only sciency thing that Chris Carter really cheated on. He put a lot of time, effort, and research to make sure that everything was as accurate as could be. Which is why Scully isn't an expert in all things science and actually has to refer to other science type people for things.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

What really annoys me is when an author goes into very specific detail and then gets it wrong. Stephen King is particularly bad for that - especially with cars. If you're going to go into make, model, and year get it right.

[areteus]

Originally Posted by Lyra Jean

I remember that episode. I have a couple of books about the science behind the X-Files. That is the only sciency thing that Chris Carter really cheated on. He put a lot of time, effort, and research to make sure that everything was as accurate as could be. Which is why Scully isn't an expert in all things science and actually has to refer to other science type people for things.

Oh, I know, which is why it stood out more than it might have done in CSI who break the rules all the time

Though I find CSI useful as a teaching aid sometimes - either to give an example of where science may be useful or to point out their mistakes. A pop culture reference is always handy to have to hand in an emergency

[Lyra Jean]

Originally Posted by areteus

Oh, I know, which is why it stood out more than it might have done in CSI who break the rules all the time

Though I find CSI useful as a teaching aid sometimes - either to give an example of where science may be useful or to point out their mistakes. A pop culture reference is always handy to have to hand in an emergency

Ah okay. I was just like oh goody something I know. LOL. There are even classes like this in college. One I took was Ancient Rome in Film.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I say either get it right, or be vague. Don't be specific and wrong.