History and Science: Responsibility of the Writer?

[areteus]

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...

[Filigree]

If a writer claims their work is non-fiction, it needs to be backed up by fact.
If a writer is using real-world cultures, places, and processes in their fiction, they should at least do enough research to make it convincing. In fiction, writers can riff on established facts, but they need to know those first. 'What was' is often a great way to start thinking about 'what if'.

Writers will always miss some tiny details, there is no helping that. We make mistakes, and there is always some new bit of information that comes out long after we've researched and written something. But we should at least try.

[NeuroFizz]

This is going to be genre specific. But for the most part, if some scientific technique or some historical place and time is mentioned, yes, it should be accurate. Research is part of writing, and it comes under the umbrella of writing excellence. But do the research for the right reason--because of pride of product. We will be judged by more than just your stories, and I don't want to be know as a writer who is sloppy with the real world facts.

One of my peeves is when writers get their human anatomy and physiology wrong. This stuff is readily available on the web, in texts, and in libraries. Having an MC knocked unconscious for a period of time then have him get up and do something heroic is a big one. Anyone who has had a concussion severe enough to lose consciousness can testify about the resultant physiological consequences of the injury, which can require immediate hospitalization. And when writers give one of their characters an injury and then forget about that injury just a few chapters later, it really gets me in a lather. Realistic injuries deserve realistic consequences and realistic healing times, even in fiction. This is part of excellence in writing and storytelling.

If one is going to talk about radiation and its effects, they had better know about the kinds of radiation and the properties of the various isotopes. It's not that difficult--it's at our fingertips on the web.

To me, if the information is wrong or inaccurate, it's akin to putting San Francisco on the East Coast and New York in Brazil.

[JimmyB27]

I particularly like George MacDonald-Fraser's approach to this in the Flashman books. They're presented as 'genuine' memoirs of Sir Harry Flashman, and quite often there are bits where there's a mistake, but a footnote where GMF has annotated Flashman's text with something like "Flashman must be misremembering here, this didn't happen until two years later."
I always imagine the history pedants going "Ahah - that didn't happen until two years later, this author doesn't know anything!" *Flips to annotation at back* "Oh....bugger."

[JimmyB27]

Originally Posted by NeuroFizz

If one is going to talk about radiation and its effects, they had better know about the kinds of radiation and the properties of the various isotopes. It's not that difficult--it's at our fingertips on the web.

You mean like how gamma rays turn you into a big mean green monster?

[NeuroFizz]

[For Jimmy's first post] But I would contend those are purposeful mistakes used for effect. In that case, they become writing tools.

[NeuroFizz]

Originally Posted by JimmyB27

You mean like how gamma rays turn you into a big mean green monster?

You forgot "glowing" green, in which case it fits under suspension of disbelief. Science Fiction, Horror, and other genres modify science and reality with the big stuff, but they still better get the small stuff correct or readers will notice.

[The Lonely One]

I do think if a fiction writer establishes a place as the place people know in reality, it can be detrimental to keeping the reader "in" if they screw up facts.

But do I think they have a historical obligation? Naw. As a rule I don't think novels should be read in that context.

[areteus]

Yeah, I think the Hulk is an example of 'far fetched fiction' which is fine under what I have described above. I am mainly thinking of characters wearing the wrong type of sandals or the old controversy about Romans having stirrups (which I think is still a controversy in history as there is now archaeological evidence...).

I agree about the physiological details too. A character with an injury should act as if they are injured and that means possibly fainting from shock not long after being stabbed... though, again, there is a precedent in heroic fiction for this. Heroes have more endurance than 'ordinary folk' and this is even acknowledged in some cases as in the Wold Newton family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wold_Newton_family Though I agree that it happening too much is a little annoying

[quicklime]

Originally Posted by NeuroFizz

This is going to be genre specific. But for the most part, if some scientific technique or some historical place and time is mentioned, yes, it should be accurate. Research is part of writing, and it comes under the umbrella of writing excellence. But do the research for the right reason--because of pride of product. We will be judged by more than just your stories, and I don't want to be know as a writer who is sloppy with the real world facts.

One of my peeves is when writers get their human anatomy and physiology wrong. This stuff is readily available on the web, in texts, and in libraries. Having an MC knocked unconscious for a period of time then have him get up and do something heroic is a big one. Anyone who has had a concussion severe enough to lose consciousness can testify about the resultant physiological consequences of the injury, which can require immediate hospitalization. And when writers give one of their characters an injury and then forget about that injury just a few chapters later, it really gets me in a lather. Realistic injuries deserve realistic consequences and realistic healing times, even in fiction. This is part of excellence in writing and storytelling.

If one is going to talk about radiation and its effects, they had better know about the kinds of radiation and the properties of the various isotopes. It's not that difficult--it's at our fingertips on the web.

To me, if the information is wrong or inaccurate, it's akin to putting San Francisco on the East Coast and New York in Brazil.

this. especially with the web, you can do a lot of research in a short time.

I don't ecpect anyone to get a PhD in physics so they can focus in a ridiculous, boring level of depth on neutrinos in some boring aside, but if they have a super-virus described as "closely related to the black death" (bubonic plague is from a bacterium, so that's like saying a cat is a close relative to the porcini mushroom....) then there's a problem.

[rainsmom]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

I don't believe you always have to be right with history and science, but you should try to never be wrong.

Don't tell me Abraham Lincoln was halfway across the country on the day he gave the Gettysburg speech, but it's fine to say he met with a fictional character, or even a real historical figure, at a time and place when history shows that he could have done so.

Likewise, it's fine with me if a writer uses FTL travel, as long as it isn't achieved simply by going faster and faster and faster until the ship is moving five times light speed. I don't need exact details of how FTL travel is achieved, but I need some explanation that doesn't violate the physics we're sure about.

This exactly.

I also agree that the degree of accuracy required varies by genre. Fantasy writers get to invent their own reality. Sci-fi writers get to imagine a future that hasn't happened, science that we don't yet possess. But many novels are set in the real world. If you vary from established fact, I want that variance explained or justified. Feel free to invent a town or to claim that the house on the corner of Main belongs to your character, but don't try to tell me that Union Ave. will take you to Graceland. (Lookin' at you Marc Cohn!) That's not literary license -- it's just sloppy.

[gothicangel]

This is so strange that we're having this conversation today.

I bought a book this morning, and I've just been studying the route of Dere Street [the legionary road.] And I've just realized that the route my MC takes doesn't make sense. I have him visiting Vindolanda, and crossing at Housesteads. Now, it looks dumb. It has to be Corbridge [travelling to Trimontium.]

Now that's sloppy research.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Originally Posted by NeuroFizz

One of my peeves is when writers get their human anatomy and physiology wrong. This stuff is readily available on the web, in texts, and in libraries.

In one of the Twilight books the MC was camping out and shivering uncontrollably. The big concern was frostbite. No mention of hypothermia, which would have been the more serious threat in that situation.

[The Lonely One]

Originally Posted by Devil Ledbetter

In one of the Twilight books the MC was camping out and shivering uncontrollably. The big concern was frostbite. No mention of hypothermia, which would have been the more serious threat in that situation.

Jack London should have written a letter.

[Phaeal]

Originally Posted by quicklime

this. especially with the web, you can do a lot of research in a short time.

I don't ecpect anyone to get a PhD in physics so they can focus in a ridiculous, boring level of depth on neutrinos in some boring aside, but if they have a super-virus described as "closely related to the black death" (bubonic plague is from a bacterium, so that's like saying a cat is a close relative to the porcini mushroom....) then there's a problem.

Agreed, though maybe the Y. pestis bacteria were themselves infected and genetically altered by the supervirus...

Bunny!

But, yes, the writer should do her best to get the science and history right. Besides, research can charge up your plot, like when I realized that a Puritan minister was highly unlikely to marry the uncle's widow I'd set him up with. Much better plot came out of the changes I had to make.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by Phaeal

But, yes, the writer should do her best to get the science and history right. Besides, research can charge up your plot, like when I realized that a Puritan minister was highly unlikely to marry the uncle's widow I'd set him up with. Much better plot came out of the changes I had to make.

So true.

I've just finished translating some Plautus into English, in which I had to Google a particular word, and hit on a website of Roman profanities.

Gold Dust.

[Lyxdeslic]

In my novel, one of the characters is a direct descendant of George Washington. IRL, old Georgie boy was sterile. I don't address the issue directly because it's not dire to the plot. I simply built a world where the broad history we know is b.s.

Lyx

[areteus]

Ooh, Roman profanities. I have a use for those... link?

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by areteus

Ooh, Roman profanities. I have a use for those... link?

It might be a wiki link, but it's just too good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity

[MDSchafer]

The biggest thing that looks amateur to me is to have a modern, or mostly modern woman historical fiction. Yes, it happens with men too, but in a lot of the unpublished fantasy/historical fiction I see a self-confident woman who doesn't need a man and sling a sword/run a business as well as any man and doesn't seem to suffer any sort of sexism as a result.

The other biggest thing I see is that people take freedom of movement for granted. I've seen Roman era stories where the main characters move from Rome to far flung outposts in a matter of days or week, not months, or a year.

We're fiction writers, not history professors, but more often than not I think being true to the real world details can make for a better story.

[jennontheisland]

Originally Posted by MDSchafer

The biggest thing that looks amateur to me is to have a modern, or mostly modern woman historical fiction. Yes, it happens with men too, but in a lot of the unpublished fantasy/historical fiction I see a self-confident woman who doesn't need a man and sling a sword/run a business as well as any man and doesn't seem to suffer any sort of sexism as a result.

I strongly suggest you never ever ever read historical romance.

[Karen Junker]

I was an editor for a couple of years for a small romance publisher (in their historical department) -- and the things mentioned above are some of those I most often had the author go in and correct (after recommending they do some research).

I notice things such as names for colors that were not in use during the period of the story, clothing names, Americanisms in stories set outside the US ('back yard' instead of 'garden'), distances traveled by coach or horseback being realistic, and other types of anachronisms.

As a reader, I tend to overlook this type of error if the story and characters are otherwise engaging.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by MDSchafer

The other biggest thing I see is that people take freedom of movement for granted. I've seen Roman era stories where the main characters move from Rome to far flung outposts in a matter of days or week, not months, or a year.

We're fiction writers, not history professors, but more often than not I think being true to the real world details can make for a better story.

The problem with this though, is that I would bore the t*ts off a reader by going into detail of my MC travelling from Judea to Rome. Better to jump the specifics, while leaving an accurate passage of time between the scenes in Judea, and his arrival in Rome.

[gotchan]

You cannot satisfy Sheldon. It is not humanly possible.

If a writer fails in research, or chooses to change something, it doesn't make the story worse than if every detail were correct. I demand only two things from writers when it comes to facts:
Be internally consistent, and
If something is critical to the plot or is the reason A leads to B, it had better be accurate.

[areteus]

Originally Posted by MDSchafer

The biggest thing that looks amateur to me is to have a modern, or mostly modern woman historical fiction. Yes, it happens with men too, but in a lot of the unpublished fantasy/historical fiction I see a self-confident woman who doesn't need a man and sling a sword/run a business as well as any man and doesn't seem to suffer any sort of sexism as a result.

Modern social mores is a common one, I agree. It is too easy for a modern writer and a modern reader to react as a modern person would and impose those morals on the characters. It's not just sexism, but racism and classism too.

On the one hand you have to accept that sometimes the MCs are exceptional people who are more enlightened than the average person of the period. Often the story is about how the bigoted old baron came to understand that the woman who cleaned his toilet is an intelligent and thoughtful woman he might fall in love with or how the staunch Nazi forms a friendship with the Rabbi and learns that the propaganda is not true. I think it becomes annoying when everyone in the world is happily egalitarian - as if someone from the modern day had travelled back in time and taught them all 'the error of their ways'.

I did put a throwaway line in Gods of the Sea when introducing Rachel - who is a strong woman of the type you describe above. It was a comment about how the country she came from is considered 'weird' by every other place because of their strange attitude to women (they could own businesses! Dress how they like! There was even women in the Government!) which I think covered that issue nicely.

There was a LRP game I played where the players displayed this sort of behaviour. It was supposed to be authentic medieval (around 10th - 11th century) attitudes and as a result any female players got bonuses to make up for the fact that they would get sexism. Trouble was many of the male characters were too nice and modern to actually play that out so they got the bonuses for nothing anyway And there was a specific incident where my wife decided to play a Jewess from York at a time, historically, just after the infamous well poisoning incident (where the Jews were blamed for poisoning the wells because, likely, they were a convenient scapegoat). She was looking forward to lots of accusations and drama and sidelong glances and mutterings and being socially ostrachised and Christian priests trying to preach to her. Unfortunately, as the referee said at the time, it seems as if the shadow of Belsen caused the players to be nicer than they should have been and about the worst she got was 'So, you're a Jew, are you? How is that working out for you?'

It is very difficult to play or write or think like a person from a historic period...