Authenticity versus Common Reader Understanding
- Thread starter elsol
- Start date
If I weren't already in the Cult of Min I would sell my car and join it right now! Though getting there could be a problem...
Seattle Zack
Count each one
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,128
I think part of the fun of reading a story, or an author, is the authenticity of what you're reading. Suspension of disbelief, that sort of thing.
So, if you're reading a martial arts story, and it's obvious they have no idea what they're talking about, it's difficult to suspend your disbelief. Same thing with techno-thrillers, like the doc mentioned.
One of my favorite thriller writers, Stephen Hunter, is an absolute gun nut. He will describe a 1942 Thompson machine gun in excruciating detail. And I love reading it. But when I read another author describing a .22 caliber bullet as being "22 milimeters wide" (damn, a shell the size of a lipstick case) I lose all interest in the story and all interest in his or her veracity as a writer.
Do your research, what can I say. Tedious and boring, I know, but it adds authenticity to your writing.
So, if you're reading a martial arts story, and it's obvious they have no idea what they're talking about, it's difficult to suspend your disbelief. Same thing with techno-thrillers, like the doc mentioned.
One of my favorite thriller writers, Stephen Hunter, is an absolute gun nut. He will describe a 1942 Thompson machine gun in excruciating detail. And I love reading it. But when I read another author describing a .22 caliber bullet as being "22 milimeters wide" (damn, a shell the size of a lipstick case) I lose all interest in the story and all interest in his or her veracity as a writer.
Do your research, what can I say. Tedious and boring, I know, but it adds authenticity to your writing.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Lauren Hynde said:FRANK HERBERT
I'm lots smarter than you are. I challenge you to understand even one of my paragraphs!
Just say no. Do your thing.
Hmm. Frank Herbert:Gauchecritic. Gauchecritic:Frank Herbert.
I can't even see the join.
Contextual evidence is probably more important than common knowledge to my mind. If you're going to wear a do-bak whilst performing karate how much more explanation would you need?
Hmm, fell into my own trap there, I assumed that all readers were aware that the common translation of karate is empty hand. (even if they didn't know this piece of partly specialised knowledge surely they'd be able to work it out from Karaoke, which everbody knows means empty orchestra even if they can't spell carryoky)
Yeah fuck 'em. They're only readers. What do they know.
impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
gauchecritic said:
One is dead, though.
Sabledrake
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2002
- Posts
- 1,008
Dean Koontz is a hell of a one for showing off how much he's done his research ... read the Christopher Snow books for an example of "Look, Ma! I learned surfer-lingo, and I'm going to explain it all here in detail!"
I think that as long as the author knows all the important stuff, it's not necessary to overload the story with the details. That was one area where the Patrick O'Brian books bogged way down ... I want to know a LITTLE about sailing ships, yeah, thanks ... I don't need to know how to build one from scratch in my damn backyard.
And Herman Melville? I'm looking at you, Melville ...
In general, people don't read fiction looking to learn something. They read fiction looking to be entertained, and if they happen to learn something along the way without being beaten over the head with it, that's all to the good.
-- Sabledrake
I think that as long as the author knows all the important stuff, it's not necessary to overload the story with the details. That was one area where the Patrick O'Brian books bogged way down ... I want to know a LITTLE about sailing ships, yeah, thanks ... I don't need to know how to build one from scratch in my damn backyard.
And Herman Melville? I'm looking at you, Melville ...
In general, people don't read fiction looking to learn something. They read fiction looking to be entertained, and if they happen to learn something along the way without being beaten over the head with it, that's all to the good.
-- Sabledrake
SeaCat
Hey, my Halo is smoking
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 15,378
Not much I can add to the thread except this. If you write the story well they, (the readers) will enjoy it. If they come across a word or concept they don't understand they will pass it by. If they are truly interested in the word or concept they will go back and look it up. Unless the word or concept is centrally important to your story you don't have to beat the reader into submission describing it.
If in the case of your story the central theme of the story was how hot a certain person looked in her/his Gi and you don't think the reader will understand what you mean then you can describe it. Maybe through using backstory or another form of description/introduction.
Cat
If in the case of your story the central theme of the story was how hot a certain person looked in her/his Gi and you don't think the reader will understand what you mean then you can describe it. Maybe through using backstory or another form of description/introduction.
Cat
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
I kind of like research. In a sense, all human interaction can teach you. It's fun. So I'll be talking to a person, and it turns out he's a bona fide expert on something. Drywall, bowling pinsetters, duck hunting, monster makeup-- nearly everyone has some expertise. And I listen to them, draw them out. Next thing you know, I have a story rotating slowly in the mind, waiting for me to find the handle on it and drag it onto the page by the hair.
So for me, be accurate; take the time. Respect your reader. Better your reader fail you than you fail both of you.
edited to add: I've been talking to CharleyH, and reading that, I think it shows a little.
So for me, be accurate; take the time. Respect your reader. Better your reader fail you than you fail both of you.
edited to add: I've been talking to CharleyH, and reading that, I think it shows a little.
Last edited:
[/brief threadjack]Back before George Lucas completely sold out, I heard this bit of advice he gave about film making...
He said one of the common mistakes of so many film makers, is that, when they spend a great deal of effort/money on building a set or parts of their production design, they feel compelled to spend more camera time on those things. By way of example is the Sand Crawler in the original Star Wars. It was an effort to build the lower half as the background for like 2 scenes (yet in the original you hardly saw the thing: it was just there).
By leaving those aspects as background, not gratuitously panning the camera across it has a much better effect on the viewer. (In contrast, anybody remember Star Trek (I): The Motion Sickness--I mean 'Picture'?)
He said one of the common mistakes of so many film makers, is that, when they spend a great deal of effort/money on building a set or parts of their production design, they feel compelled to spend more camera time on those things. By way of example is the Sand Crawler in the original Star Wars. It was an effort to build the lower half as the background for like 2 scenes (yet in the original you hardly saw the thing: it was just there).
By leaving those aspects as background, not gratuitously panning the camera across it has a much better effect on the viewer. (In contrast, anybody remember Star Trek (I): The Motion Sickness--I mean 'Picture'?)
jfinn
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 593
Years ago I saw a movie called Somewhere In Time with Christopher Reeve. It's a time travel thing with a lot of goopy romance and I was looking forward to it. But fifteen minutes into it they had Reeve drive up to the Grand Hotel on Mackinaw Island. He drove! You cannot drive up to the Grand. Cars aren't allowed on the island. It's bikes, horse and buggy or your feet. It wasn't even like they were only using the place as an unnamed location, the movie clearly stated it was Mackinaw Is and yet, they drove. It ruined the whole movie for me. I mean if they took that kind of liberty with details that could be verified, why should I believe anything they said about the possibility of time travel?
So yes, I do believe that realism enhances a story and I think when you're using terms you should be very careful not to use them inaccurately. Nothing loses my interest more than something I know is glaringly wrong in a story, even if it's a minor point. The whole object of fiction is to create a believable world where whatever happens to the characters makes perfect sense. I don't care if we're talking fantasy, sci/fi or two people meeting on a bus, there has to be some kind of believability to the story or it doesn't work for me.
This doesn't mean I want everyone to write like Tom Clancy. Actually I want no one to write like that, he bores me, but I do think that when you use facts they should be correct or at least defensible. Then the only trick left is to work enough of them in to lend the necessary ambience, but not so much that you get bogged down with a lot of dry technical stuff--see above reference to TC.
When I write a story I'll sometimes use terms that aren't general knowledge and I'll do it deliberately to add color. I'm very careful though to make sure that when I do this I put them in a sentence that, while not actually explaining exactly what that word means, does give them enough context to enable the reader to at least get the gist. That way the reader doesn't have to stop and wonder what the hell I'm talking about. So when I write a paragraph like this,
I'm hoping that I've used just enough jargon to make the setting seem real without getting bogged down with a lot of technical explanations.
The other advantage to this is you don't have to be an expert yourself to get away with this. A little research and a few words strategically placed can hide a whole world of ignorance. Just make sure the words you do use are accurate and you're all set.
Jayne
So yes, I do believe that realism enhances a story and I think when you're using terms you should be very careful not to use them inaccurately. Nothing loses my interest more than something I know is glaringly wrong in a story, even if it's a minor point. The whole object of fiction is to create a believable world where whatever happens to the characters makes perfect sense. I don't care if we're talking fantasy, sci/fi or two people meeting on a bus, there has to be some kind of believability to the story or it doesn't work for me.
This doesn't mean I want everyone to write like Tom Clancy. Actually I want no one to write like that, he bores me, but I do think that when you use facts they should be correct or at least defensible. Then the only trick left is to work enough of them in to lend the necessary ambience, but not so much that you get bogged down with a lot of dry technical stuff--see above reference to TC.
When I write a story I'll sometimes use terms that aren't general knowledge and I'll do it deliberately to add color. I'm very careful though to make sure that when I do this I put them in a sentence that, while not actually explaining exactly what that word means, does give them enough context to enable the reader to at least get the gist. That way the reader doesn't have to stop and wonder what the hell I'm talking about. So when I write a paragraph like this,
At any rate, my primary mount at the time had been the Dutch Warmblood, Mihangel, or Mike as his intimates called him. He was a wonderful horse, kind and wise, and oh so talented, but he was 17, ancient by show jumping standards and more and more I found myself babying the big liver chestnut, coddling him along to get one more season, one more good show out of him. That night I was running through some TEAM exercises, muscle releases really, that I’d been using to keep his old back strong and supple. We’d finished up and now I was giving him a drink from a hose, mumbling nonsense about the next day’s schedule as if he’d understand and basically settling him down for the night.
I'm hoping that I've used just enough jargon to make the setting seem real without getting bogged down with a lot of technical explanations.
The other advantage to this is you don't have to be an expert yourself to get away with this. A little research and a few words strategically placed can hide a whole world of ignorance. Just make sure the words you do use are accurate and you're all set.
Jayne
