Accuracy of Facts
Monday, December 6, 2010 Question of the day: When you're writing fiction, how accurately do you need to adhere to real life facts? All the time, some of the time, never?
This is a good question, and one that I've certainly wrestled with - as I know others have. For me, it all depends on context. For example, in The One That I Want, I created an entire town in Eastern Washington that - best of my knowledge- doesn't exist. This was because I knew that if I set it in an actual town, I couldn't get all of the tiny details right without having grown up there. Creating something fictional allowed me more freedoms, in terms of the characters and the background and the setting - I could never have gotten all of the strip mall locations right or the names of the restaurants or the schools or whatever. BUT, that said, once I created this town, I DID ensure that the rest of the geography and details were accurate: the climate of Eastern Washington, the town's location in terms of the rest of the state, etc.
The same holds true for Time of My Life: obviously, I created a completely unrealistic scenario - that of time-travel, but then, I was really neurotic about ensuring that the rest of the details were accurate from that era in time: what technologies were available then (for example, iPhones didn't yet exist and Google was just on the cusp of breaking out), what pop culture tidbits were prevalent, etc. Then, on the flip side, I also made up her place of business BUT used a real life example - Coke - as one of her clients.
And if I were to go even further back, to my debut, I'd say the same rule applies. I was super-super religious about getting the accuracies of breast cancer treatment right: consulting with an M.D., speaking to survivors, etc. There's no excuse for messing that sort of thing up, something that is a shared universal experience that readers can point to and say, "Well, NO, that simply isn't true," because no only do you look like a lazy writer, but it also takes the reader out of the story. But after I ensured that the facts were right, I was free to invent all sorts of things, like Natalie's political experience and all that it involved.
Does that make sense? I think the general rule is that when something is a pretty easily verifiable fact: geography, landmarks, weather, medical treatments, pop culture icons, etc, it's best to stick with the truth. If I'd had Jillian toting around an iPhone in 2003, readers would have rolled their eyes and called me on it. But the rest? Well, it's called fiction for a reason. Let your imagination run free.
Writers - where do you draw the line between fact and fiction? How do you decide when to stick with the truth and when to finagle around it?
Reader Comments (6)
Great question! Obviously I agree on the easily verifiable facts part, i.e. iPhone in 2003.
What I always say is that it's more important that something SEEMS realistic than it IS realistic. You have to sell it to your reader with your words only because you won't be at her elbow to say, "No, I know that sounds weird, but it really does happen that way."
Case in point, in my upcoming book which includes as part of the plot a point of police procedure...my editor flagged something that didn't feel realistic to her. In New York City she'd be absolutely right, but here in my smaller city, it's different. But I won't be there with the reader to say, "Hey, don't forget this is a smaller city so it won't be like in a major metropolis or like on television." So what to do? I had the characters grapple with this and discuss it briefly among themselves (VERY briefly) so it's explained and the reader is reminded of the context. Ideally that objection disappears without the reader even noticing it would have been an issue. It becomes invisible.
As a former reporter my writer friends ask me for tips on what it's like working for a newspaper. The reality is way more boring than it ever is in movies and books. (Usually.) So some things that people render in books as more exciting than they would be in real life, I give it a pass. It SHOULD be more exciting in fiction.
Kris - thanks for weighing in. I agree and love how you resolved this for your readers. (And editor!) :)
It is a hard question that brings me to another one: does referring to certain real events or pop culture facts make your book dated? Should we just forget about what was going on in the world during the period in which our novels take place unless the events are absolutely crucial to the story? Or does mentioning these things help draw the reader in?
I agree completely with you and Kristina Riggle. That's the approach I try to take -- "is it believable" vs. "is it 100% factual" -- both in my reading and my writing. After all, fiction is supposed to be real-ISTIC, not REAL. (That is the reason there's non-fiction!)
Gabriela - fun question, and one that I may have an answer to. I'll pull it out and post it on the main blog.
Great conversation over here! And I think more readers than not do note inconsistencies while reading. I recently edited a historical fiction and did a ton of research for the author to make sure it was accurate. She referenced books like Cinderella and I had to make sure it had been published after that time period; even small things like that readers will question. Readers are smart and they don't want to be taken for a ride while they are reading. I cannot stand when I find inconsistencies in a book - Allison, you're absolutely right--it just makes an author and his or her editor look like a lazy writer.
(Hope you had a great vaca -- I've been MIA for a while!)