How much effort should writer put into accurate portrayal of narrow topic?

[Darth Angelus]

I have been considering this a few times. It seems writers should research the topics touched upon in their scripts, but the flip side of the coin is that I believe this to be a bit of a tall order, at least if perfection is to be expected. There will always be people who are schooled in a particular subject, or just having it as an pastime interest, who may know or understand the topic better than any writer could hope to achieve with casual research, and who may thus find small (and sometimes not so small) errors here and there. Unless the writer has someone with real knowledge double check their work, I think errors are almost bound to slip through, which may irk those who find the relevant topic important.
Sometimes, it may not even occur to the writer that some research is needed. This may very well be the trickiest kind of errors to catch, because the writer will have the idea that they know what they need to in order to make an accurate portrayal.

However, I think that reasonable accuracy (rather than perfect ditto) will sometimes have to be accepted on less serious topics. For the writer to catch those last few percent of errors in trivial subjects, the writer has to put so much work and effort better put elsewhere into just that.

Let me name an example from one of pastime interests, champagne...
I hear (I haven't found this myself) that in the movie In Her Majesty's Secret Service, James Bond supposedly drinks Dom Pérignon 1957. The catch is...that vintage of DP was never made.
In fact, a person who is a real hardcore champagne nerd may even take issue with how DP is held up as the very high end of champagne in public consciousness, through pop culture. Well, it is high end...sort of. It belongs to the so called prestige cuvées, which are generally the £100+ flagship product of producers (DP is the prestige cuvée of Moët & Chandon, Cristal is that of Louis Roederer etc.). However, as much as I don't want to sound snobbish, believe me when I say there are products which are several times more expensive, countless times rarer, and even scoring somewhat higher on average from experts (it is just that most will never have heard of them). DP is well-made, technically, and it is sort of high end, but it is not the ultimate high end.
Of course, I am just noticing the last part with a smile on my lips, rather than complaining about it.

On the other hand, some people yell "nit-pick" about stuff that shouldn't really be considered nit-pick, such as pointing out that a spider is an arachnid, rather than an insect (a spider isn't even particularly closely related to an insect). I can't really stand the hyper-sensitive people who see "nit-picks" in such major distinctions.

Sorry about getting sidetracked, but this "sidetracked-ness" is actually related to the point. The narrower interest you have, the more you may take issue with stuff that few others would notice, let alone care about. Of course, I think serious subjects like medicine (where massive inaccuracies exist in pop culture, too) need more care from the author than trivial ones, because it seems more important not to misinform the public.

What do you think? Where do you draw the line when it comes to research? Was a non-existent vintage of DP sloppy, or is it just nerdy to point it out? How about if an equally large error was made regarding an actual serious topic (in real life)?

 

[Boneman]

The problem may be that, if you spend an inordinate amount of time researching and getting every tiny detail correct, you might risk losing storytelling, because your focus is on the minutiae, not the bigger picture. But: if the minutiae is correct and the storytelling is just as good (ie the rich detail is as complex/exciting/absorbing) then you have a fascinating prospect of a book.

Until you told me, I didn't know that DP 57 didn't exist, but the fact that James asked for it with such suave confidence, made me believe it did exist, without question. Does it matter that he should have asked for one that did exist? Not a bit.

Personally, I feel you must do enough research that your story detail is believable, and nothing more. But there are those whose writing will be enhanced by their perfection, and they should write that way. Ultimately the reader decides; I think of Dune and how much Herbert made it believable - admittedly there was little research he had to do - it was mostly invention, but it worked perfectly.

In real life there is no middle ground - the research has to be accurate to the nth degree, and then some... that's the responsibility imposed on a writer telling the 'truth'. In fantasy it's a self-imposed responsibility that we should provide enough detail/inventiveness to make it unquestionably believable. Truth vs Belief system.

 

[Brian G Turner]

DP is well-made, technically, and it is sort of high end, but it is not the ultimate high end.

Perhaps it is simply one of the better distributed high-end champagnes?

Remember, even Bond cannot drink what the bar does not have in stock.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I went for two. There needs to be enough for me to suspend my disbelief, but not so much that the story can't breathe. A fine line, I think.

 

[Ursa major]

I think the poll options are missing the point, at least as far as authors are concerned; they are best addressed to readers. (As a reader, my ability to forgive errors decreases where the book isn't my cup of tea: it's the same with my suspension of disbelief: I give more leeway to a good writer of an interesting and absorbing story.)


But getting back to authors....

Some errors are acceptable...

It's a slapdash author who, on seeing an error, merely shrugs and moves on. What I think you're asking is the extent to which an author researches what they write.

At this point I feel we ought to give Ian Fleming a break: there were probably only limited opportunities for him to check his facts, as he only had access to a (small) subset of the world's books and his friends and acquaintances, none of which/whom may have known about the absence of DP57. The same applies to other authors writing in the past.

We are:

• luckier: we have the reference material on the Web (not all of which may be reliable) and places, like the Chrons, where questions can be asked;
• less lucky: readers expect us to have put the effort in.

 

[Susan Boulton]

It's a slapdash author who, on seeing an error, merely shrugs and moves on.

Agree with this. Once read a historical novel where the author had the characters eating potatoes in Norman England 1066! Come on, if you go to the trouble of detailing/researching castle life in that period, *sigh*.

What I think you're asking is the extent to which an author researches what they write.

For me it depends. As most of my current work is set between 1900 and 1950 I work my socks off to get as much of the detail right as I can. I don't use a 10th of the research I have done in the finished novel. But, having researched about what I am talking about I can have my characters' act , react and talk about things as if they are normal parts of their life.

 

[Ursa major]

Agree with this. Once read a historical novel where the author had the characters eating potatoes in Norman England 1066! Come on, if you go to the trouble of detailing/researching castle life in that period, *sigh*.

What is it about potatoes? They eat them in Middle Earth, and eat them on Westeros, at least in the TV show**. (I haven't checked the books: that would be sad.)



** - Potatoes were one of the things that Davos mentioned smuggling into Storm's End when talking to Stannis on board the fleet in Game of Thrones season two, episode 9, "Blackwater". (I've only just finished watching the boxed set, and this stuck in my mind.)

 

[Darth Angelus]

The problem may be that, if you spend an inordinate amount of time researching and getting every tiny detail correct, you might risk losing storytelling, because your focus is on the minutiae, not the bigger picture. But: if the minutiae is correct and the storytelling is just as good (ie the rich detail is as complex/exciting/absorbing) then you have a fascinating prospect of a book.

Yeah, the effort is indeed often put better elsewhere than on minutae.

Until you told me, I didn't know that DP 57 didn't exist, but the fact that James asked for it with such suave confidence, made me believe it did exist, without question. Does it matter that he should have asked for one that did exist? Not a bit.

On the other hand, if he had asked for DP1955 in the exact same way, would it have made your experience worse? No. But it would have made it better for the rare viewer who is into champagne. Which means that in an ideal world, that would have been slightly better.

Personally, I feel you must do enough research that your story detail is believable, and nothing more. But there are those whose writing will be enhanced by their perfection, and they should write that way. Ultimately the reader decides; I think of Dune and how much Herbert made it believable - admittedly there was little research he had to do - it was mostly invention, but it worked perfectly.

Agreed, but then again that doesn't fully eliminate the problem. A small subset of the readership will know more than you can find on casual research.

In real life there is no middle ground - the research has to be accurate to the nth degree, and then some... that's the responsibility imposed on a writer telling the 'truth'. In fantasy it's a self-imposed responsibility that we should provide enough detail/inventiveness to make it unquestionably believable. Truth vs Belief system.

Well, James Bond is based on our world, though. Both DP and the British country James Bond serves exists in our world.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

In a work of fiction whilst it is good to get the detail right sometimes an over-read author can be as dull and as much a nuisance as an under-read one.

The story should take priority over the detail and research but at the same time it should attempt to be accurate.

I deliberately try to pick stories that can be researched well enough with a quick Google search or recourse to wikipedia will be accurate enough. (However about to ask a question from my one story that does need research).

 

[Darth Angelus]

Perhaps it is simply one of the better distributed high-end champagnes?

Remember, even Bond cannot drink what the bar does not have in stock.

Yeah, I can confirm that you have absolutely hit the nail on the head here.
The same goes for Bollinger (La) Grande Année, which Bond has converted to.

I would add that some of the ultra-rare champagnes I was referring to have not existed as long as Bond, either, even though I was talking about pop culture in general here.

Even if you can afford the ultra-rare champagnes, they do indeed tend to be quite hard to come by. Places like Harrods may have them, and star restaurants, as well. DP is made in a couple of million bottles per vintage (the exact number is secret, IIRC). Obviously, a product made in slightly over 10000 bottles per vintage is going to that much harder to obtain, price nonwithstanding.

Portraying DP as high-end is nothing I really take issue with, nor even an error. I am just pointing out that it may not be high-end in the absolutely narrowest sense, in spite of what marketing may be implying.

But anyway, the tl;dr version of this post is that, YES, you are 100% right.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think the poll options are missing the point, at least as far as authors are concerned; they are best addressed to readers. (As a reader, my ability to forgive errors decreases where the book isn't my cup of tea: it's the same with my suspension of disbelief: I give more leeway to a good writer of an interesting and absorbing story.)

I agree, and I think that is true for most of us. It doesn't just apply to research or failure thereof, but to other flaws, as well, such as lame tropes and logical error. If the reader cares about these flaws, it may be that the writer has lost their interest already.

But getting back to authors....

It's a slapdash author who, on seeing an error, merely shrugs and moves on. What I think you're asking is the extent to which an author researches what they write.

Yes, that was in essence the question I was asking.

At this point I feel we ought to give Ian Fleming a break: there were probably only limited opportunities for him to check his facts, as he only had access to a (small) subset of the world's books and his friends and acquaintances, none of which/whom may have known about the absence of DP57. The same applies to other authors writing in the past.

Yes, agreed. The Internet certainly didn't exist at the time. Judging research as poor because of something like that is obviously going way too far.

We are:

• luckier: we have the reference material on the Web (not all of which may be reliable) and places, like the Chrons, where questions can be asked;
• less lucky: readers expect us to have put the effort in.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. The reader knows we have all sorts of information at our fingertips, and will consequently expect more accurate portrayals.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What is it about potatoes?

A vegetable from the New World. Not a very mediaeval food, unless you're Mayan.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've read stories where people made mistakes they could have avoided if they took a few minutes to look up a topic in an encyclopedia. (Like a story -- otherwise very good -- that placed Machu Picchu down in the rain forest.)

 

[monsterchic]

Shoot! Put the wrong answer I really meant to say that none should be accepted on the larger, more easily researchable topics...

 

[Biskit]

I hear (I haven't found this myself) that in the movie In Her Majesty's Secret Service, James Bond supposedly drinks Dom Pérignon 1957. The catch is...that vintage of DP was never made.

Mistake or deliberate fiction?

I've watched a few Bond movies, read some of the books and know nothing about champagne (except I don't like it) but is it possible that Dom Pérignon 1957 was chosen deliberately because it doesn't exist? Speculating even more wildly, might it even be some sort of in-joke for people who really know their booze?

As a further, wild speculation - if this is purely in the film, might there have been a legal issue over referencing a real vintage?

Whatever the reason, the one thing you can't argue about is why does Bond drink that awful 195x vintage rather than the far superior 195y.

Whether it was someone deliberately taking the proverbial, a research screw-up or a script typo, how do you tell a factual error from a deliberate mistake? The geographic gem picked up by Teresa Edgerton sounds like a clear error, but if you get into fictitious towns, vintages and the like, where do you draw the line?

In the unlikely event I tried to write a story involving champagne, I would probably have a poke around on the internet, get a vague idea, and then deliberately pick a name that was almost real, or a vintage that didn't exist.

Another slug of Damned Pérignon 33.33 anyone?

 

[Biskit]

PS - didn't vote. You need a 'none of the above' choice. If the reader is getting hung up on trivia, the story must be really dull. Just write it, and if your hero happens to take a left turn off the A5 into Launceston, either live with it or blame it on the peculiarity of SatNav.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Biskit, I don't mean to put you down or anything, but I really doubt this was intentional. It is far too few who would notice this to even have a point of making a joke of it (which also makes the problem small, of course).
Anyway, he gets real vintages in other movies. Which brings us to your next idea, the legal issue. The brand name itself would likely be what is legally protected. I am not schooled in law, but it seems very doubtful that a particular year (like 1955) could be trademarked. Which means that "Dom Pérignon" would be trademarked, but what follows it would not be. At least that would be my guess.

It may be that you would play around with names or vintages, but something like "Damned Pérignon 33.33" would make it abundantly clear to anyone that it is a joke (and, at the very least, it would be comic relief, if not an actual comedy element). To James Bond, it is more about fashionable style than anything else.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

It does irritate me when an author gets something wrong that I know about, and it makes me wonder what else I'm taking for granted that might be wrong as well, but it has to be something really important to ruin the book for me if it's otherwise enjoyable.

One example I've mentioned before -- obviously bugged me a great deal because I remember it and can't remember the rest of the flipping book -- was one of the China Bayles mysteries where a character's guinea pig had 12 hairless babies with their eyes closed. Guinea pigs only have a couple of babies at a time, and they have all their hair and eyes open, and come out eating solid food. I know this because I worked in a pet store, but how many other people either knew or cared? It didn't ruin the book for me, but it bugged me because it's something that could have easily been checked. On the other hand, the author is an expert on the herbs that feature in the books, so those details are likely to be perfect. Something else, who knows?

Another of my favorite series, the Agatha Raisin books, had a scene in a Las Vegas casino wherein Agatha persuaded a security guard to take her to the surveillance room to look for her friend who had been kidnapped off the floor of the casino. I can guarantee you, from years working in casinos, that ain't gonna happen! Nobody goes to the surveillance room, including most of the employees. I was allowed into surveillance exactly one time in over seven years. So it feels sloppy, because it was a major plot point, and so clearly wrong, it really destroyed the rest of the book for me.

I wouldn't know the difference about the Dom Perignon, but obviously someone who knows might be irritated. If I did know, it would be more a guinea pig issue for me than a surveillance one -- something to gripe about but not a book-changing moment.

 

[Darth Angelus]

It does irritate me when an author gets something wrong that I know about, and it makes me wonder what else I'm taking for granted that might be wrong as well, but it has to be something really important to ruin the book for me if it's otherwise enjoyable.

One example I've mentioned before -- obviously bugged me a great deal because I remember it and can't remember the rest of the flipping book -- was one of the China Bayles mysteries where a character's guinea pig had 12 hairless babies with their eyes closed. Guinea pigs only have a couple of babies at a time, and they have all their hair and eyes open, and come out eating solid food. I know this because I worked in a pet store, but how many other people either knew or cared? It didn't ruin the book for me, but it bugged me because it's something that could have easily been checked. On the other hand, the author is an expert on the herbs that feature in the books, so those details are likely to be perfect. Something else, who knows?

Another of my favorite series, the Agatha Raisin books, had a scene in a Las Vegas casino wherein Agatha persuaded a security guard to take her to the surveillance room to look for her friend who had been kidnapped off the floor of the casino. I can guarantee you, from years working in casinos, that ain't gonna happen! Nobody goes to the surveillance room, including most of the employees. I was allowed into surveillance exactly one time in over seven years. So it feels sloppy, because it was a major plot point, and so clearly wrong, it really destroyed the rest of the book for me.

I wouldn't know the difference about the Dom Perignon, but obviously someone who knows might be irritated. If I did know, it would be more a guinea pig issue for me than a surveillance one -- something to gripe about but not a book-changing moment.

Good post! I agree on all accounts.

Yes, I also find that the most annoying part is that I don't know what other errors there might be, which could mean I might "learn" new things on unfamiliar topics that are actually wrong.

But yes, my DP1957 example is more similar to your guinea pig one than your surveillance one, because the plot doesn't hinge on it. That makes it all the mre easy to overlook.

 

[oddhero]

I'd say - and I'm influence here by my training as a journalist a while back - that you should strive to be error-free, to the extent that is common-sense. If you're writing about a topic that you don't know inside-out, then instinct for all of us would be to learn more, or touch lightly on technical details, or perhaps a mix of both. An error that doesn't affect plot or setting or that doesn't get us lampooned is fine (I am reminded here of a brilliant piece about the movie Gladiator by a historian who loved the film but also couldn't help but point out such details as stirrup use at that period and place being wrong). On larger issues, in sci-fi, such as FTL or wormhole type technology, authors are well aware they can pretty much assume anything they wish for their own universe, so long as they don't get bogged down in fine detail. of course some explanations are plain clumsy: Looper the movie had, if I recall from watching it on a crammed flight, a moment when young and old main characters are facing each other over a diner table and one says something about "don't ask me about all that time travel crap, it makes my heard hurt" or so...