Author errors vs. in-universe "errors"

[Bramblethorn]

Years ago I was reading a spy novel (I think either Alistair Maclean or Len Deighton) and there's a bit where Our Hero visits an island and meets a geologist. The geologist tells him something about the lovely fossils they've been finding in the volcanic rock.

I rolled my eyes and muttered "stupid author, you don't GET fossils in volcanic rock".

About a hundred pages later, Our Hero says "I knew he wasn't a real geologist because of that nonsense about fossils in volcanic rock." And I had to mutter an apology to the author.

Now I'm in that same situation again. At the start of a book, it's mentioned that out of exactly 201 children on a planet, only two survived an epidemic. Near the end it's mentioned that exactly 200 children died. This is book 1 of a trilogy, so I can't tell whether the discrepancy is just an error by the author/editor or an Important Clue.

From the reader side there's not much I can do about this problem other than keep reading. But as an author, if I want to include a deliberate inconsistency of this sort, is there any way to signal "not a mistake, I meant what I wrote" to the sharp-eyed reader who does catch it?

 

[ElectricBlue]

From the reader side there's not much I can do about this problem other than keep reading. But as an author, if I want to include a deliberate inconsistency of this sort, is there any way to signal "not a mistake, I meant what I wrote" to the sharp-eyed reader who does catch it?

It's a dilemma. You'd think you could trust something that obvious "being a clue," but to be honest, given how bad editing can be in the mainstream, I tend to default to thinking, "That's sloppy editing."

Read on, report back!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Or, or you could focus on stuff like the plot and characterization and such. Not to get oinky; I have my own list of grumble-triggers. My point is that it’s all too easy for a reader to allow trivia to derail an otherwise good experience.

For a writer? Nope. It’s like the detective hero announcing up front that he knows the butler did it.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

The only thing I can think of is to have a character react to the bad info. Either question its validity or think about it on paper or, for a lesser clue to the reader, a simple 'interesting' or the like.

 

[YDB95]

From the reader side there's not much I can do about this problem other than keep reading. But as an author, if I want to include a deliberate inconsistency of this sort, is there any way to signal "not a mistake, I meant what I wrote" to the sharp-eyed reader who does catch it?

Probably not. Some readers never get a hint no matter how obvious it is, and others just have to be know-it-alls even if it becomes clear that the "mistake" was deliberate. I wouldn't let it stop me from using that trope as a clue, though.

Besides, even world-renowned authors make mistakes like that. Remember We were the Mulvaneys by Joyce Carol Oates? It made Oprah's reading list, which of course means it sold a bazillion copies, many of them to people who'd probably never heard of Oates even though she'd been publishing for decades already and had numerous bestsellers to her name. In any event, it's about a girl who gets raped in the back seat of a Corvette.

Corvettes don't have back seats.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Or, or you could focus on stuff like the plot and characterization and such.

False dichotomy - when intended, that kind of discrepancy is often a very important part of the plot. In the first example, the fossils bit was the first clue to one of the big revelations of the story, that the "geologist" was a fake and his operation was cover for something else. If the head-count discrepancy in the other book is intentional, then it's also likely to be significant; rereading, I can see a lot of other points where the author was foreshadowing later developments.

The only thing I can think of is to have a character react to the bad info. Either question its validity or think about it on paper or, for a lesser clue to the reader, a simple 'interesting' or the like.

Yeah, sometimes an option. The tricky part is doing it in a way that establishes the clue as legitimate to readers who've noticed it, without spotlighting it to those who haven't.

 

[_Lynn_]

Probably not. Some readers never get a hint no matter how obvious it is, and others just have to be know-it-alls even if it becomes clear that the "mistake" was deliberate. I wouldn't let it stop me from using that trope as a clue, though.

Besides, even world-renowned authors make mistakes like that. Remember We were the Mulvaneys by Joyce Carol Oates? It made Oprah's reading list, which of course means it sold a bazillion copies, many of them to people who'd probably never heard of Oates even though she'd been publishing for decades already and had numerous bestsellers to her name. In any event, it's about a girl who gets raped in the back seat of a Corvette.

Corvettes don't have back seats.

I've had Corvettes. This made me shake my head (and chuckle).

 

[PennameWombat]

<snip>
Now I'm in that same situation again. At the start of a book, it's mentioned that out of exactly 201 children on a planet, only two survived an epidemic. Near the end it's mentioned that exactly 200 children died. This is book 1 of a trilogy, so I can't tell whether the discrepancy is just an error by the author/editor or an Important Clue.

From the reader side there's not much I can do about this problem other than keep reading. But as an author, if I want to include a deliberate inconsistency of this sort, is there any way to signal "not a mistake, I meant what I wrote" to the sharp-eyed reader who does catch it?

A slightly different issue but one that caused a book to drop from five stars to three for me was "Earthcore" by Scott Sigler.

It's set in the Wah Wah mountains in the state of Utah (I was born in the state, have visited those mountains couple of times). That part was fine. In fact, for his overall plot a good choice!

It was that one character was a never-married, forty-something Indian-American full professor of geology at Brigham Young University (BYU). And he was willing to engage in drinking contests with the rough-and-tumble mining crew as they explored deep caverns in the Wah Wah mountains (aliens are involved.) And, the professor was the adoptive father of a now in her twenties anglo woman when she'd been orphaned when her parents (good friends of his) died.

BYU is the flagship university of the LDS Church (aka, Mormons). They have a very rigid honor code (attending services, zero-tolerance alcohol, absolutely no pre/extra marital sex, even caffeine has been off limits!) Anyway, no way a single middle-aged man is rising to full professor without having demonstrated strict adherence to the honor code and the Church. Hell, a never-married man is likely to have no chance at all. Decades back I had an informal discussion with the then-coach and likely could've gotten a soccer scholarship but I knew I'd be kicked out before the first semester was half done...

In the book Sigler treated BYU like it was any other university. Had his professor been at the U of Utah, I'd have been mostly ok (BYU is slightly closer geographically, but they're both around 200 miles from the Wah Wah mountains). But every time he or his wild-child daughter came onstage it ripped me out of suspension of disbelief. It was obvious the author had done little more than look at the map and see "ah, a couple of universities, they'll do."

Now, this is like the geology example, only Certain Kinds of people will notice, not like the possible math error. But unlike the geology 'error' I kept waiting for Sigler to make some indication he knew his character was impossible but it never came. There were a few other more subtle clues Sigler didn't quite grok some of the, uh, intricacies of Utah's majority culture, but I managed to get around those. And likely only a person born there but not a member of that culture would've noticed those. It was the professor that, well, he was just too involved.

(P.S. For those familiar with Sigler, yeah, the book was set in the Siglerverse. But I've read a few of his books and I've never detected that it's not essentially "our" universe modulo the fact various different aliens are showing up on earth. The aliens I can deal with, as well as changes caused by their actions. But actual, live institutions, in the places they exist for real, doing what they do for real, well, sorry, those need a bit more fidelity.)

 

[LoquiSordidaAdMe]

But as an author, if I want to include a deliberate inconsistency of this sort, is there any way to signal "not a mistake, I meant what I wrote" to the sharp-eyed reader who does catch it?

The best way is probably to have a throw-away inconsistency pay off early in the story. Educate your reader to your style early on. Say "Here's a thing I do. What looks like a mistake might not be." If you put in one inconsistency up front and resolve it quickly, readers who catch your "pivotal" inconsistency are likely to recognize it as intentional and have more patience for a pay off.

Of course that's tricky in a short story format. It's probably easier in a novel, and easier still in a series. Has your 201/200 author shown any tendency to use that kind of device?

 

[Bramblethorn]

It was that one character was a never-married, forty-something Indian-American full professor of geology at Brigham Young University (BYU). And he was willing to engage in drinking contests with the rough-and-tumble mining crew as they explored deep caverns in the Wah Wah mountains (aliens are involved.) And, the professor was the adoptive father of a now in her twenties anglo woman when she'd been orphaned when her parents (good friends of his) died.

Oh wow. Yeah, even from what little I know about BYU, I can see that breaking suspension of disbelief.

The best way is probably to have a throw-away inconsistency pay off early in the story. Educate your reader to your style early on. Say "Here's a thing I do. What looks like a mistake might not be." If you put in one inconsistency up front and resolve it quickly, readers who catch your "pivotal" inconsistency are likely to recognize it as intentional and have more patience for a pay off.

Of course that's tricky in a short story format. It's probably easier in a novel, and easier still in a series. Has your 201/200 author shown any tendency to use that kind of device?

Huh, that's a very good idea. I'll have to keep it in mind.

I don't recall if she's used deliberate "mistakes" elsewhere in book 1, but she certainly does drop hints early on about secrets that are revealed later.

 

[bushyTrail]

Yeah, sometimes an option. The tricky part is doing it in a way that establishes the clue as legitimate to readers who've noticed it, without spotlighting it to those who haven't.

Yeah, but nonetheless it's pretty weird that the the character does not react or think about what the other said. Usually the narrator can "read" his protagonist mind at least, or they are the protagonist themselves. Unless this is a "there was something bugging me about the geologist that I couldn't pinpoint" situation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yeah, but nonetheless it's pretty weird that the the character does not react or think about what the other said. Usually the narrator can "read" his protagonist mind at least, or they are the protagonist themselves. Unless this is a "there was something bugging me about the geologist that I couldn't pinpoint" situation.

Yes, it was an unusual narration style. It presented what the narrator was observing/doing, but not what he was thinking, until he chose to reveal that to others. I've seen it used occasionally in mystery-type stories, and it can work well as a way to show readers the clues and give them a fair chance to crack the case, without spoiling the secrets too early by telling them what the sleuth noticed. (The other solution, of course, is to tell the story from the POV of a Watson/Hastings type sidekick, but a sidekick doesn't always fit into the plot.)

The down-side in my experience is that it can make the story feel a bit cold and impersonal, if the author doesn't give us enough access to the protag's inner thoughts.

 

[Javahead]

Obvious errors can drop me out of the story, but if the story is otherwise engaging I’ll go on. But I remember them - and if it turns out that it’s an important clue, I don’t drop out again if I encounter another. But a writer who does it accidentally annoys me - unless they’re amazing in every other way, unjustifiable obvious errors make it unlikely I’ll want to read that writer’s work again.

So I have a horror of putting that sort of errors in my own stories. Deliberately twisted facts to make a better story is fine, but I’m obsessive enough I don’t want to have factual errors in my story unless I put them there deliberately. Even if the story is over the top smut. I suspect that as long as it’s not obvious, my readers don’t care. But I do.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Desmond Bagley - Running Blind. Volcanic Island, pretend geologist, etc etc.

 

[tomlitilia]

I have a story where there's a plant called "the goat flower" after a name natives have used for it. It is later revealed that a better translation should be "the scapegoat flower". I'm well aware that scapegoat is a biblical concept, and natives would unlikely have evolved a similar term. Yet, I mentioned in the story that missionaries had visited the natives. And in the first draft, I even elaborated on how the flower's name arose in that interaction. But I cut the elaboration in editing. I felt I was over-explaining something that didn't add to the story; it seemed like taking the reader out of the story just so I could show I wasn't making a mistake. Of course I got comments saying this was a mistake.

The point is that it's not always enough to hint about plausibility. Some readers demand convincing explanations.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

All my own published books have been about real people and real incidents and things - and so if it's to do with someone I really want to protect or need to, I always deliberately distort something pretty important but then if you're smart enough you'd figure it out anyway.

There's also been a tradition among certain kinds of authors to also intentionally say something that only the true cognoscenti would realize was wrong anyway, just for quiet laughs.

I think though, those obvious things that are so out of keeping with the location used, or actual buildings, cities, environment, or dialect spoken there - are just plain bad errors that would grate on readers with some knowledge.

For me the worst stuff in recent years is the utter paucity of accurate and honest descriptions of places like London, HK, Singapore, Paris, or New York or even Los Angeles for that matter - which includes VAST overstatements about how interesting, cosmopolitan, modern, or full of rich people these places are, and (particularly) how supremely world-wise the London 'upper crust' is, or how fantastically intelligent most academics are. ...There's that much drugs in London it's not funny any more. And bollards; I've got half a mind to stop referring to the place as 'Londonistan' and re-name it 'Bollardistan.'

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

One of my early stories that was posted somewhere online featured a monster that was sitting on top of a roof, pretending to be a gargoyle. When the protagonist saw it, I described the protagonist getting uneasy at the sight, and how the "statue" was sitting on one knee, left arm resting on the other. Protagonist goes in anyway, plot happens, and eventually they come out again. Before they leave they look back at the building and I describe the "statue" again, sitting on one knee, right arm resting on the other. Then as they leave there is a rush of air as something big flies over them and the statue is gone when they look back again.

Even though I didn't expect all readers to notice the change in which arm was resting on its knee, I thought that for the ones that did the reason would be obvious when the monster flew away. Nope. Among the readers that noticed, the comments were about 50/50 between "That was clever, really made me uneasy" and "stupid mistake, you can't even remember the difference between left and right."

Point being, don't count on readers to come to the logical conclusion even though it's pretty obvious given what happens shortly after. Some seem just so excited and determined to point out your "mistake" that they ignore all other signs and refuse to see it as anything else than an error on the writer's part.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Desmond Bagley - Running Blind. Volcanic Island, pretend geologist, etc etc.

Not the one I read, though it's possible that Bagley recycled the device, or that they both pinched it from elsewhere.

My partner has just helped with enough information for me to google it - the one I read was Alistair Maclean's "The Dark Crusader" (originally published under pseudonym "Ian Stuart", and later republished as "The Black Shrike").

 

[NaokoSmith]

Maybe another way is to actually say: 'There are a couple of 'deliberate mistakes' in this story - keep an eye out for them'?

It can make people feel smart if they spot inconsistencies. You could play into that to keep the reader more engaged? Not only are they enjoying the story, they could enjoy the temporary breaking of suspension of disbelief to think 'hey, I spotted one! I'm smart'.

Anyone can make a mistake: Virginia Woolf once wrote that her characters had gone on a picnic, remembered the champagne but forgot the corkscrew It's kinda cool to feel smarter than Virginia Woolf if you spot that mistake?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think though, those obvious things that are so out of keeping with the location used, or actual buildings, cities, environment, or dialect spoken there - are just plain bad errors that would grate on readers with some knowledge.

Some of my favourites: subways in New Orleans, the book that assumed Leslie "Squizzy" Taylor was female (I later learned that the author had it right, editor "corrected" it), authors not knowing that Eva and Isabel Perón were two different people.

how fantastically intelligent most academics are.

...I've met a lot of academics. Some tremendously bright within their area of focus, but just as prone as anybody else to foolishness outside it.

 

[TxRad]

Errors happen. I have a story here set in the 70's with a digital camera. DUH!

It didn't ever hit me until a reader pointed it out.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I guess my point, feebly made, was that it happens and I wouldn't worry to much about it if it's minor. (BYU prof example above does stretch it.)

But even the most glaring errors can be forgiven if the writing is good enough. Let's consider a seasonal favourite, one bringing tears to the eyes of millions for over a century, O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi. It opens,

One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied.​

Wonderful story. Everybody know it and that opening paragraph.

However, if you've got one dollar and eight-seven cents and forty cents of that is in pennies, what kind of currency comprises the rest?

Grade 3 arithmetic error, yet we overlook it because of the supreme excellence of everything else.

(As a PS, yes, I'm working that for a story for next Christmas.)

 

[Privates1stClass]

Originally posted by TarnishedPenny:
One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied.

However, if you've got one dollar and eight-seven cents and forty cents of that is in pennies, what kind of currency comprises the rest?

TP, was the sixty cents in one sentence and forty cents in another sentence intended to show what this thread is about, or just an error on your part?

 

[Voboy]

Toughie.

Do it whichever way you want, then trust your readers. Whichever way you go, someone’s not going to like it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But even the most glaring errors can be forgiven if the writing is good enough. Let's consider a seasonal favourite, one bringing tears to the eyes of millions for over a century, O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi. It opens,

One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied.​

Wonderful story. Everybody know it and that opening paragraph.

However, if you've got one dollar and eight-seven cents and forty cents of that is in pennies, what kind of currency comprises the rest?

Not necessarily an error. There's a way to do it (edit: make that a couple of ways) though I'm not sure if it's what O. Henry had in mind.

I'll leave it up a few hours and see if anybody gets it. Australians not eligible to enter this one, as we have an advantage