‘Dear Mr. Author.
Whilst reading your book ‘Oh what fun and laughter we had during the time the Black Death wiped out our village’ the other day, I was disappointed to notice that you mentioned July 23rd 1449 as having been a sunny day in your fictitious village. From the descriptions you provide, you have clearly located said village a little to the south of present day Norwich, and my extensive researches prove that July 23rd 1449 would have been a rainy day there.
Yours disgruntledly,
A Pedant.’
How accurate do you need to be, as a writer, with historical facts?
If you are writing a non-fiction book, you have to be scrupulously accurate, no matter what subject it is.
End of.
On the other hand, if you are writing fiction, you have a certain amount of leeway. First of all, though, it is worth saying that if you sell enough copies of your book you will eventually attract correspondents like the fellow above. Is that something to worry about? Only if they get to know where you live, perhaps. Otherwise, send them a nice reply, thanking them for their diligence, and assuring them that you will correct your dreadful fault in the next edition. On the other hand:
‘Dear Mr Author.
The Black Death was actually sweeping the country in 1349, not 1449.
Yours smugly,
A Historian.’
This time, you’ve screwed up.
And yes, it matters.
Very minor inaccuracies are bound to slip through, and very few people will notice them. And if they do, they will not think anything of them.
Except for Arthur Pedant, of course.
The big things are another matter. Imagine reading a novel set in the days around the Russian Revolution, and then the author tells you that the Bolsheviks rose up against the state in 1927 instead of 1917. Or that they were led in the beginning by Stalin. Immediately, the author’s credibility has evaporated, as has their story.
Because the reader no longer believes the author, and they no longer accept their story.
The moral here, then, is don’t skimp on the research!
It is possible to radically change the facts of history, but the difference is that to do this the author must present it as the whole point of the story. In steampunk novels, the whole history of Victorian Britain is altered, but the reader accepts this as it is the premise behind the genre. It is seen not as a mistake, but as a narrative invention.
In many science fiction novels, the premise is a future that is the result of a different history than that which actually happened. For example, the Germans won the Second World War, or of different worlds or dimensions in which history diverges from the accepted version. Again, this is accepted by the reader, as it is the premise that the story is set on.
It is possible to break this rule, but to do so the author has to break it in such a way that it is quickly obvious that they have done it deliberately, and not by mistake.
One might, for example, set a novel in Victorian England that is not steampunk – a detective story, perhaps – but in which Queen Victoria is assassinated in 1860. As this is something that no one could possibly put in by accident, it will be seen as part of the invented narrative and accepted.
Well, probably. Where is Arthur Pedant?
This reminded me of an interview with Ian McEwan that appeared in The Guardian this week, and which discusses his latest book which is narrated by a foetus:
. . . he keeps an archive of all the letters readers write, alerting him pedantically to some obscure error or other… “Oh yes, I love that.” He always writes back and thanks them, and corrects the mistake in future editions. When I suggest he won’t be getting any letters like that about Nutshell, he looks doubtful. “Oh yes, I may get a letter from someone saying, ‘Excuse me, those foetuses can’t say a word.’”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/27/ian-mcewan-author-nutshell-going-get-kicking
LikeLiked by 2 people
There will always be someone who wants to pick holes in what you’ve done. Perhaps it would be best to leave one obvious mistake for them to pick up, and then they might be happy with that. Just a thought…
LikeLiked by 3 people
you will know they have been diligently reading your work then…. although you may be disappointed if no one sees the error….????? You would then be riddled with self doubt wondering if anyone really did read it. Cant win… give up now!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nah, I’d just think they’d all read it and seen it and thought it wasn’t even worth commenting on, or they just pitied me or something…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think they would ever pity you. Come on .. whats this new sack cloth you are wearing
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t you like it? I think it goes well with the brogues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No – it was better with your sandals. More earnest… LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Damn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its a bit out of sync but your comment re butting in on your own blog… its us who are hijacking it. Sorry…( anyway I only text when I have had 2 glasses and never regret it in the morning 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, no…I love the comment strings growing and diverging occasionally. think of it as a bit of an open forum!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you but I shall ensure that H doesn’t get too carried away…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and just found your review on Amazon. Thank you for putting there!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wrote my reply before I read the comments and I was pleased to see I was right. You did have something to say. I love the way you always have a topical reply. That’s class! What is questionable, though, Dear H, is your admitting that you read the Guardian. That’s almost as embarrassing as “the Mail on Line”. …. 🙂 ( definitely an elliptical moment , me thinks)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian often drives me nuts, Jackie, but less nuts than the other MSM rags. I loathe the way they’re currently attacking Corbyn, for example, in favour of yet another Neoliberal fake and Mandelsonian stooge. It’s a Liberal paper, and so is tediously earnest on identity politics, amongst other things, but where does someone of The Left go in the MSM – there isn’t anywhere! Am I to take it that you read The Torygraph? 😛 Anyway, you’re a sweetheart for your kind words, and I do always try not to offer platitudes and fawning sycophancy in BTL comments, especially not on a blog like Mick’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nailed it. You are right. The Guardian is frightfully earnest,
( zzzzz, yawn) I actually rather like the New Yorker, although Clare may raise her eyebrows and if you want some interesting news reporting you cant beat Al Jazeira although it seems to have gone off my TV since I was away. Toynbee makes her living on being earnest, she should do a guest spot for the Torygraph I do read it occasionally having a very tenuious link to one of the most brilliant and sensitive War Correspondents who wrote for it, ( NO, NOT Max Hastings).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I look at Al Jazeera occasionally, and used to like Riz Khan’s video show. The New Yorker, eh? Very stylish, one does appreciate a well-placed diaeresis so, but it’s more a magazine than a newspaper, I suppose? And it’s got a paywall. The only paper with a paywall I’ve ever subscribed to is the FT, and which I think is probably the best of all the newspapers; well, now that The News of the World has met its sorry fate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t paid, they send me something each Monday. Long long articles but rather well written ( for Americans…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe have a disclaimer that the novel is set in an alternate universe (possibly, based on what errata pedantic readers find in the text. In the absence of same this is to be construed as historical fiction)? 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s another possibility, yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A great post, Mick! Research is so important, but there are always going to be people in the world whose chief joy is to pick holes in others work. As you say, a big mistake is a mistake and should be pointed out, but in fiction we should have a bit of leeway in the small details. That being said, my next book mentions Valhalla, and I’m going to have to put a disclaimer in about how I’ve interpreted the research. Even though (supposedly) it’s not a real place! 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not a real place, Helen, what are you saying?!?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, what am I saying? Of course it’s real! 😁😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I actually thought it was a clear but cold day…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, don’t you start!
LikeLike
Where indeed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love this! I’m slightly paranoid about having someone pick out a mistake I made in history! Thusly my research is probably way more extensive than it needs to be for fiction!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guess you check the big things first, then work downwards. I suppose, also, that it’s wise to stick to historical periods you at least know a bit about. I would hate to have to research it from scratch – I just know I’d miss something important!
LikeLiked by 2 people
If writers are not willing to do some research, then I think it is best for them to stick for fiction, and to make absolutely everything up, including the setting. Because as a reader, it is very jarring to be “into” a novel, and then see something that is so obviously wrong that you react to it. I was reading a very interesting mystery set in St. Louis when the main character went into a restaurant and ordered toasted ravioli, which arrived “swimming in butter.” I felt as if I had run over a very large speed bump, because toasted ravioli are NOT served in butter. So then I questioned how much the writer knew about my city at all….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, you lose faith in the writer, and hence the narrator, and distrust anything they say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s very funny. I am checking to see what H has to say. I can see you two having a bit of “an exchange ” re this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great post. Research has to be precise. A good writer has to invest time in research and rely on more than one source to verify its accuracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and trusted sources at that. Anything that comes up Wikipedia when I Google it, I always check against another site with some authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m into sci-fi rather than historical fiction, but even there, the author has to stick to what is at least /possible/ via some weird and wonderful quirk of science or they’ve lost me.
Events or ‘things’ that contravene the laws of physics [or sometimes just plain commonsense] drive me insane and I’ll stop reading that author forever more. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s another large trap. Unless the author can come up with some compelling reason for it, events must never contravene the universal laws of physics.
LikeLike
Unless it’s fantasy 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeess…you seem to be able to get away with most things in fantasy.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! That’s intense. The complicated world of a writer and the importance of thinking like a reader. One of the main things that makes writing hard for me is that I overanalyze and overthink everything. But apparently I’m not alone. Excellent article Mick. I guess I’m going to have to meet myself somewhere in the middle. 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like the idea of meeting yourself somewhere in the middle! yes, it’s about finding a balance, isn’t it? Knowing when to stop…
But the best writing advice I have ever had was to just do it. Write. You can always go back and edit, but the important thing is to just get that stuff down on paper or the laptop!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post, my Dear Mick! Happily, have not taken too difficult a time as my background for my novel. Have had to do some researches, though. …Have to keep Arthur Pedant at bay! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do indeed, Swami. He tends to crop up everywhere!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike