Storytellersunplugged

Lord Byron wrote: But I hate things all fiction…there should always be some foundation of fact for the most airy fabric - and pure invention is but the talent of a liar.

Most persons would agree that adding facts to a fictional novel, especially one that includes technical matters, can improve it on several levels. Obviously, facts can make stories more realistic. To readers who enjoy learning things, facts are manna. Readers who especially cherish them are those who can directly relate to factual descriptions and comments written about such things as places, activities, items and persons with which and with whom they themselves are familiar. For all readers, facts help paint a more complete image of the sphere within which a story takes place. If they do nothing else, they can make a story more interesting.

Some subjects promote greater expectations of accuracy than others. For example, most readers of Tom Clancy’s book, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, would expect quite a few accurate details about nuclear submarine technology and operations, which Mr. Clancy delivers. If he did not, his readers would surely be disappointed.

Readers learn much from literature. It provides answers to many questions most readers might not even think to wonder about until it is brought to their attention by a story. Once questions are raised, though, many readers want answers to them. But how many stories have we read that involve, for example, smuggling? And how many authors have explained just why widgets are worth more in one location than in another and just why governments discourage free transfers between them? The existence of these two facts is the reason smuggling exists in the first place.

One of the appeals of the James Bond series of novels was that the author, Ian Fleming, would have James, early on, show off his encyclopedic knowledge by explaining such things to another character and, of course, simultaneously, to readers. The latter receive a double reward: that of having been entertained by an engrossing story and also that of having been educated. And, for those readers who need it, the educational aspect helps justify the time invested in reading the book.

One thing that writers might consider a disadvantage to adding facts, but that can often be just the opposite, is the frequently attending need for research. This activity is one where writers, as well as readers, can share rewards. Researching almost any subject opens a treasure chest of information that can lead to new ideas that can be applied to present or future stories.

The importance of using factual information can be somewhat metered by readers’ comments about its presence and absence in novels they have read. Some readers who blogged their opinions didn’t much mind inaccuracies. Many certainly did. About the ones who did, the following paraphrased remarks are telling, especially about how seemingly small inaccuracies can trigger surprisingly intense reactions by readers.

* I insist that every detail be accurate.

* If you claim something is real, it had better be accurate.

* Being incorrectly stereotyped bothers me. The Canadian-English “eh” has a specific placement in sentences, and that placement is not at the end of every single one. Having recently just begun reading a book and finding an “eh” in the wrong place, I was so annoyed that I put the book down. That might have been an overreaction, but I’m sensitive.

* Readers knew the character was from the South because the author had him use “y’all” whenever he spoke. I haven’t read that author since.

* When writing about a place I’m familiar with, I introduce much more local color. Having an accurate picture of such a place makes it fun to write about.

* If a character is supposed to be an expert on some subject, a writer had better ensure that everything the expert says is accurate.

* When reading about a real location, I automatically assume that all the details are accurate.

* One story took place in a location that had special meaning to me. The many wrong location details made it difficult and frustrating book to read.

* If writers create a fictional town, they can do whatever they want to with it. If it’s a town that really exists, then most of the details should be accurate.

* If writers create a fictional location, then everything should be fictional.

* Introducing fictional places in a real city is acceptable if done to protect a reputation or to avoid a lawsuit.

* It bothers me more when TV shows use jargon that is inappropriate for the location of a scene.

* I never found the Georgetown Metro stop that was mentioned in a book as being in Washington DC. Finding it would have spared my feet a long walk from Foggy Bottom.

* If a character drives to an incorrectly located street once, that’s no big deal. If the street is referred to repeatedly, however, it should be located accurately

* Bending the truth is fine, but impossibilities bug me.

* Even though I love books with local settings and like the author, when she had a main character drive down one street to another when the two do not, in reality, cross, I stopped reading the book.

* I read that one of the first authors to include detailed descriptions of actual places in a fictional novel was Bram Stoker when he wrote DRACULA. Doing so was tremendously effective in providing his vampire persona with a cloak of legitimacy.

* In some major languages, the spelling of such words as articles and adjectives are gender specific. Using a masculine-spelled adjective to describe a feminine character can be jarring, especially during a love scene.

* I put up with a heroine acting out of character for her historic period and perceived upbringing; but, when the author blatantly introduced chocolate, I refused to read another word. Improbable heroines are bad enough, but tampering with chocolate is unforgivable.

EXTRA FACTS

Experiments have shown that some persons tend to accept as facts information presented to them in books and movies. Surprisingly, after having read a few short stories, and after a relatively short delay, they would use information included in the stories to answer questions in subsequent general knowledge tests. Even more surprisingly, in time, the information had apparently settled in so that many believed they had known the information before the experiment had even taken place.