When it's clear no one bothered to research

Since a background of Wrigley Field features prominently in the promos, at least some of it has to be in the US .

I absolutely refuse to read any book where "insanity", mental illness, psychologists, or psychiatrists figure prominently. I just don't feel like banging my head against the wall.

It depends on what the particular issue is and how much I otherwise enjoy the book.

On page 5 or so of FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, the main character gets in her car and drives from Vancouver, WA toward Portland to get to Seattle. She also gets to Seattle in under an hour. The only thing I can conclude is that the author didn't realize the United States and Canada are separate countries and mistook Vancouver, B.C. for Vancouver, WA. But surely, they teach North American geography in England the same way they teach European geography in the U.S.? I mean, even with the whole Great Britain thing, I think most Americans understand that Scotland is not England and vice versa...

But I was looking for a reason to fling that book against the wall.

Conversely, I recently finished THE AGE OF MIRACLES which I can't gush about enough. However, I recognize the author made several odd physics, environmental science, and biology leaps that, upon closer scrutiny, don't hold water. But it worked, and on the whole, I thought those mistakes didn't detract from the power of the story. But I'm sure there are several environmental scientists out there who want to burn that book for its misinformation.

JSSchley said:

But surely, they teach North American geography in England the same way they teach European geography in the U.S.? I mean, even with the whole Great Britain thing, I think most Americans understand that Scotland is not England and vice versa...

Click to expand...

Brit here, and they definitely teach American geography in schools here, though not in huge detail. I think the sense of scale is lost to a lot of kids.

And you'd be horrified by the amount of Americans I've had conversations with who think England and Britain are the same place, or think that Scotland or the UK are an American state. (Obligatory Mitt Romney nod.)

EMaree said:

And you'd be horrified by the amount of Americans I've had conversations with who think England and Britain are the same place, or think that Scotland or the UK are an American state. (Obligatory Mitt Romney nod.)

Click to expand...

I was very careful to say "most." Because obviously, there are many who don't (and unfortunately, they disproportionately tend to go into politics). And I admit to not fully taken the time to understand exactly how the UK is governed and exactly how the different countries are tied and not tied. A friend of mine from Edinburgh once described the Scottish First Minister's election thusly: "He'll be elected. And then he has to ask the Queen for permission to be First Minister of Scotland. She's not allowed to say no, but he still has to ask."

I found this an hilarious description and don't quite get it. Yet, I know better than to assume a city in Scotland with the same name as one in England is somehow the same city.

DreamWeaver said:

Since a background of Wrigley Field features prominently in the promos, at least some of it has to be in the US .

Click to expand...

It's an American series and seems to be set in North America. Also, the Wikipedia outline is kind of hilarious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series)

And, sadly, I was right about the 15 years thing. Ye gods.

JSSchley said:

I was very careful to say "most." Because obviously, there are many who don't (and unfortunately, they disproportionately tend to go into politics). And I admit to not fully taken the time to understand exactly how the UK is governed and exactly how the different countries are tied and not tied. A friend of mine from Edinburgh once described the Scottish First Minister's election thusly: "He'll be elected. And then he has to ask the Queen for permission to be First Minister of Scotland. She's not allowed to say no, but he still has to ask."

I found this an hilarious description and don't quite get it. Yet, I know better than to assume a city in Scotland with the same name as one in England is somehow the same city.

Click to expand...

The Queen always does the asking. She asks the potential First Minister/Prime Minister to form a government. No-one ever asks the monarch a question unless they want a stern glare and a snippy "Orf with his head!"

Technically, if she wanted, the Queen could ask Michael Fassbender to form a government, but there'd be riots if she took the (her) law into her own hands like that.

JSSchley said:

On page 5 or so of FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, the main character gets in her car and drives from Vancouver, WA toward Portland to get to Seattle. She also gets to Seattle in under an hour. The only thing I can conclude is that the author didn't realize the United States and Canada are separate countries and mistook Vancouver, B.C. for Vancouver, WA.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make geographical sense in either case. Seattle is more than 100 miles from Vancouver, BC (and the main highway is a bitch, congested all the time, plus you have to go through customs) and probably 200 from Vancouver, WA, which is located just north of Portland, OR. But it could simply be the result of a New York editor/publisher. My experience with New Yorkers in general is that they are the most geographically-challenged of all Americans. If you live much west of Newark, it's all the same place to them.

caw

There is absolutely NO excuse for getting places wrong anymore. With the advent of satellite maps and friggin' STREET VIEW, one should accurately be able to map out the locales of their stories.

I do get irrationally annoyed when British characters use Americanisms. Irrational, because increasingly, British people are using Americanisms. But it just annoys me.

I can't watch House anymore since working in a pathology lab because I keep arguing with the characters - "A BLOOD CULTURE TAKES 24 HOURS, HOW DID YOU GET IT IN 3? What's that? You suspect lupus? DON'T START THEM ON STEROIDS, RUN AN ANA FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Why are doctors running lab tests? Where are the path staff??"

Also, defibrillating a flatline, lol.

Shaldna:
Has anyone else come across bad/lack of research that has changed a whole story line? How much did it annoy you?

Click to expand...

It's not so much lack of research that bothers me - if someone can write something that sounds credible, then it won't knock me out of the story. But I do have a big problem with books that haven't bothered to do a really basic fact check using Google.

For example, I completely agree with nkkingston - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES has a number of massive problems with it, but for me the biggest is when Elizabeth Bennett sees a group of animals burst out of an English forest. Animals including racoons and skunks - those well known, indigenous British animals ...

More recently I was reading THE LAST LITTLE BLUE ENVELOPE by Maureen Johnson (someone who has at least clearly been to the UK because she gets a lot right) but she had 2 really obvious mistakes in it, firstly by putting the Doctor Who Christmas Special as being on in the afternoon (it's always on in the early evening) and secondly by saying that an art auction house would be open on New Year's Day. In the UK New Year's Day is a bank holiday so it's very unlikely that any would open on it because no money will be able to clear (and clearance of funds is a condition for sale in a UK auction).

JSSchley:
Conversely, I recently finished THE AGE OF MIRACLES which I can't gush about enough. However, I recognize the author made several odd physics, environmental science, and biology leaps that, upon closer scrutiny, don't hold water. But it worked, and on the whole, I thought those mistakes didn't detract from the power of the story. But I'm sure there are several environmental scientists out there who want to burn that book for its misinformation.

Click to expand...

I agree - I thought that was a really good book that resonated with me for a while afterwards and I'm surprised that it's getting such a critical hammering in the UK. The science holes didn't bother me because it wasn't so much about the science as about the reaction of people to disasters they can't control or stop and I loved the central idea of the world slowly going out with a whimper.

MM

RichardGarfinkle said:

How can I put this politely.

The premise here is really, really, mindbogglingly ignorant. Matter is held together electromagnetically. Chemistry is electromangetic in nature.

Nearly everything humans experience except for gravity and solar fusion is electromagnetic in basis.

To prevent electricity you have to prevent the flow of electrons. That ability would cause the wholesale destruction of all chemical processes including life.

ETA: It sounds as if the creator of this heard about EMPs, didn't understand them and yes didn't do the research.

Click to expand...

Well, as noted, some form of this premise has been used by a number of writers, many times over the past seventy years or so. People have managed to enjoy those stories in spite of everything.

I could work around your objections, taking advantage of the qualitative differences between current in a wire and the electrochemical processes of biology (or the static discharges of lightning). I don't know if the writers of the show Revolution do so, but in any case I'm not going to bust their balls for using a premise that was good enough for Fredric Brown.

(In Brown's story "The Waveries", the effect was caused by the titular aliens; in Revolution it seems to be caused by a man-made event. Brown's story went in perhaps an unrealistically optimistic direction; but then, it would have been much easier for the world to adjust to a loss of electrical devices in 1945 than it would be now.)

Many, many of the creative works we enjoy have underlying assumptions that are probably impossible in the real world. FTL, teleportation, time travel. Accept the premise as stated, then see if they do a decent job with it.

If a writer uses the premise "something prevents electrical and electronic devices from working, but does not interfere with the electrochemical processes of life", that's fine. They don't even have to explain how it works. The premise itself is not inherently ignorant, nor is it an indication of lack of research. Now, if we find, with time, that the writers of the show are clueless about the questions such a premise brings up, then you've got a basis for your complaint.

crunchyblanket said:

I do get irrationally annoyed when British characters use Americanisms. Irrational, because increasingly, British people are using Americanisms. But it just annoys me.

I can't watch House anymore since working in a pathology lab because I keep arguing with the characters - "A BLOOD CULTURE TAKES 24 HOURS, HOW DID YOU GET IT IN 3? What's that? You suspect lupus? DON'T START THEM ON STEROIDS, RUN AN ANA FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Why are doctors running lab tests? Where are the path staff??"

Also, defibrillating a flatline, lol.

Click to expand...

The objections to House on the basis of medical reality are endless. You can read reviews of the show by an MD here: Medical Reviews of House.

I've never watched a single episode of House. Am I the only living person to be able to say that truthfully?

crunchyblanket said:

I can't watch House anymore since working in a pathology lab because I keep arguing with the characters - "A BLOOD CULTURE TAKES 24 HOURS, HOW DID YOU GET IT IN 3? What's that? You suspect lupus? DON'T START THEM ON STEROIDS, RUN AN ANA FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Why are doctors running lab tests? Where are the path staff??"

Click to expand...

I would say the answer to this is that House has a TEAM working for him. They are working on special cases--illnesses or diseases that are difficult to diagnose.

The doctors run the lab tests because they pretty much have to do whatever House wants them to do. And they're usually in a hurry to get the results because the patient is not responding to medications, procedures.

And there is the fact that it's a one-hour TV show, so everything has to be speeded up due to time constraints.

rhymegirl said:

I would say the answer to this is that House has a TEAM working for him. They are working on special cases--illnesses or diseases that are difficult to diagnose.

The doctors run the lab tests because they pretty much have to do whatever House wants them to do. And they're usually in a hurry to get the results because the patient is not responding to medications, procedures.

And there is the fact that it's a one-hour TV show, so everything has to be speeded up due to time constraints.

Click to expand...

I know there's a lot of artistic license involved, and most people won't know the difference, but it just annoys me. Like the episode on a plane where they suspected meningitis...which is spread through close contact i.e coughing, sneezing, kissing...she's somehow the first person to pick the illness up despite a) never having had any contact with the index case and b) not even sitting in the same part of the plane as him. (Of course, turns out they're wrong, but you'd think a top class diagnostician would find this suspicious.)

I still enjoy the show (right up 'til season 6 where it goes pear-shaped) but I can't help nitpicking. There are so many inaccuracies and wallbangers.

And as Shaldna says, some tests you just can't speed up. A blood culture has to be "cultivated" for growth over a five-day period....24 hours is the minimum we can get that test back, unless the US has super advanced blood culture technology, which is possible. Most labs will only deal with basic testing - for rare viruses, genetic diseases, etc, you'd need to send to a specialist lab and have the results interpreted by someone trained in virology, genetics, etc.

If you watch House in the knowledge that it is an absurdist comedy, the errors don't really matter. It is like complaining that "physics don't work that way" in Red Dwarf when they go to a dimension where time runs backwards...

BigWords said:

If you watch House in the knowledge that it is an absurdist comedy, the errors don't really matter. It is like complaining that "physics don't work that way" in Red Dwarf when they go to a dimension where time runs backwards...

Click to expand...

That's not bad advice, actually

Manuel Royal said:

The objections to House on the basis of medical reality are endless. You can read reviews of the show by an MD here: Medical Reviews of House.

Click to expand...

One of my Doc friends has a button she wears occasionally that reads, "It's never lupus."

Maybe its just me, but I think the most memorable offense to date is when someone fist-fought a zombie and won the fight without being infected.

I know it's science fiction but how is that remotely possible?

A) You don't ever get close to zombies.

B) Zombies are insanely strong.

C) You usually can only kill zombies by decapitation.

D) Even the tiniest scratch by a zombie will turn you into a zombie. Never known anyone to survive a bar fight or the equivalent without getting at least one bruise or scratch.

For me, the show that will always and forever have the single biggest WTF? is The Tudors.

And this is because in the show, Henry VIII has one sister, who dies young after producing no children.

Think about that for a minute. Go on, try to wrap your brain around that one.

I realize the show is not about historical accuracy, but FFS, they've wiped out THE ENTIRE ROYAL LINE SINCE 1603.