Reality Isn't Always a Writer's Friend

[A. Lee Martinez]

Hey, gang. Sorry I haven't been blogging much lately. I've been fairly busy, and when I sit down to post something, it just feels like something I've written before.

As a writer, I think research is overrated. Not just overrated, but often harmful.

So you've read up on Victorian England and know every little detail on how your average citizen of the era would live their life. You know the type of fabric they use, the ratio of electric lights to gaslights, the exact type of fruit they have access to, and what kind of leeches they used for bleeding. You know everything and more.

Guess what? Nobody cares.

Okay, so maybe a few people do. But unless you plan on selling your Victorian era muder mystery to only a handful of anal historicians, you really didn't need to bother. The hard truth is that people don't want realism. Reality is not realistic to most people. Don't believe me?

The Pilgrims ate popcorn for breakfast. It's a fact. When is the last time you saw a movie or read a book where the Pilgrims sat down to a big bowl of popcorn? And if you saw it before reading this, would you have believed it? More likely, you would've dismissed the story as ridiculous. And why wouldn't you? It doesn't feel right, does it? It's real, but it's not realistic.

Research is great if it helps you write your story. But if it gets in your way or limits your imagination or seems . . . just wrong to your audience then it isn't an asset. It's an obstacle.

This is not to say that research can't be useful. Even necessary depending on what you're writing. But it's not an excuse to write a dull story, to drown your reader in a sea of details while neglecting to give them characters worth caring about.

When I wrote GIL'S ALL FRIGHT DINER, I knew that the rules of being a vampire were made up, that most of the laws we've come to accept about being undead were found not in folklore but in gothic horror novels and black and white movies.

When I wrote IN THE COMPANY OF OGRES, I knew I had almost no knowledge of authentic medieval military tactics or how an army really runs.

When I wrote A NAMELESS WITCH, I knew I had no interest in doing an extensive study into paganism or "real" magic.

When I wrote THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE, I knew I had a complete lack of knowledge in how a robot might actually work.

And I didn't care. Because that's not what I'm writing about. I'm writing stories of adventure, humor, interesting characters in interesting situations. If you want a plausible explanation how chemicals in the water might lead to spontaneous, beneficial mutations, you should probably look elsewhere.

Research does not make a good story.
_________________
"They say that President Taft was one baad mother..."

"Shut your mouth!"

"Just talkin' 'bout Taft."

[Jojobo]

I agree that drowning readers in a sea of details can make a story drag. That's why some people can't read Crichton- too many technical and scientific details that don't necessarily advance the story. Believe me, I'll forgive any factual inaccuracy or liberty taken with a historical detail if the story and characters are good enough.

And I tried popcorn for breakfast...but just couldn't deal with it. The milk just made them way too soggy.

[TheDarkKnight]

Actually, I have seen movies where pilgrims eat popcorn -- a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving, too

I'll agree that you shouldn't get too bogged down in details or autheticity. Master and Commander tried to re-create the drab and dark time and place it was set and the whole movie became drab and dark because of it. You should probably think when making movies set in another time and place, what does the audience really know about this? Small details could be changed for dramatic effect or a better look to the film. Large and obviously wrong details, like say having Mammoth elephants helping to build the Egyptian pyramids, should be avoided

When writing things that take place modern day, much more detail has to be added. My friends and I are often amused by movies like Con Air and 21, which mess up Las Vegas geography so bad, it's ridiculous!

[A. Lee Martinez]

On 10,000 BC, I don't think that those pyramids in the movie are supposed to be the actual great pyramids. Considering that the one shown in the film isn't even completed. I assumed that the pyramid in the movie is actually older than that, and that it will never be finished and eventually forgotten by history.

But this is a good example, not of lack of research, but of lack of care from the audience. Nobody should care about mammoths being used to build the pyramids because it's not meant to be historically accurate. It's just an excuse to not like the film. That sort of nitpicking comes up when your audience is not interested in your story. Otherwise, everyone would realize it was just a fun fantasy element.

As for the geography of Las Vegas, I think you unintentionally made my point for me. Most people don't live in Las Vegas. Most people could care less about the layout of the city. So, sure, you and your fellow Vegas citizens will be disappointed by films that portray it incorrectly, but in the end, it doesn't really matter for the success of a film. The movie could disappoint every single citizen of Las Vegas and still be a box office smash. So concern over geographic accuracy is largely a waste of time.

21, Con Air, and 10,000 BC did not succeed or fail based on how accurate their depictions of our world are. They succeed or fail based on how much the audience is involved in the story and characters. As for the details, those are just details. Audiences can be incredibly forgiving when they like something and mercilessly harsh when they don't. And it rarely, if ever, has anything to do with a lack of research and has everything to do with whether or not a film strikes a chord with the viewer.
_________________
"They say that President Taft was one baad mother..."

"Shut your mouth!"

"Just talkin' 'bout Taft."

[TheDarkKnight]

I think they showed the Sphinx at one point, so that is supposed to be Egypt. 10,000 BC was a major box office flop, based mainly on critisms of how ridiculously inaccurate it was historically and geographically. I agree that minor details can be altered to make for a better story. But, 10,000 BC was like a duel between Abraham Lincoln and Geoerge Washington, played seriously. There's artistic license and then there's just plain apathy toward your subject and lack of respect for your audience's intellect.

As for the geography of Vegas, sure most people don't know it, but enough people do to call a writer's credibility into question. If historical details get in the way of the story, it's ok to alter them slightly. But, getting the layout of the city your setting the story in correct doesn't interfere with the storytelling usually, and not doing at least that much research is simply lazy.

[A. Lee Martinez]

I thought 10,000 BC did okay at the box office, but I'm not sure. Regardless, the point is moot. I don't think 10,000 BC failed because it was inaccurate. That just isn't the way it works.

In rebuttal, I offer Pirates of the Caribbean: a grossly inaccurate film, not just in its fantasy elements, but in its history. Most people don't know any better, of course, but even more importantly, most people don't care. I don't like the Pirate films very much myself but it's not because of their historical failures. And you do enjoy them immensely thus you're willing to overlook these things. It also probably helps that you aren't a steeped in real pirate history.

Not that POTC is claiming to be accurate in any way. It's just a fun movie. 10,000 BC is a fun movie too. Or at least it's trying to be. Personally, I'd rather watch 10,000 BC than POTC2 any day. And I'm sure it's the reverse for you. But it has nothing to do with the historical integrity of either film and everything to do with how much each of these films push our buttons.

My original point about peoples' perception of what is and what isn't realistic still stands. A great example is found in 10,000 BC. Audiences saw a pyramid being built in the desert and automatically put the movie in ancient Egypt. The movie never says this. And I don't remember seeing the Sphinx either. Yet whether or not this was intended is irrelevant. All that matters is how the audience percieves it.

I still say that the wider audience doesn't generally give a damn about research or accuracy, and I stand by it.

Of course, I sidestep the issue whenever I can. Most of my books take place in fictional settings, and the stories that take place in the "real" world are usually not set in a specific city or town.

THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE actually takes place in an alternate past. I don't bother putting it in a specific year though because that would only make hardcore history buffs less interested in the story and more interested in spotting inaccuracies like when certain songs were popular and which movie stars were at the height of their career. Because yes, someone would care. But I just avoid the whole issue that way. In fact, many folks don't even realize that the story takes place in the past. Some think of it as the future. And one or two have even considered it post-apocalyptic. As long as they dig it, I'm happy.
_________________
"They say that President Taft was one baad mother..."

"Shut your mouth!"

"Just talkin' 'bout Taft."

[TheDarkKnight]

Well, Pirates was trying to be campy and live in a fantasy world. Plus, the heirachy of the British navy, the dress of the time, and so forth were fairly accurate. Much more than 10,000 BC, which was all over the place, and seemed like it was trying to be serious. Anyone with a passing knowledge of world history should know all those things didn't exist in the same time period.

In the end, you're right, though. With smaller things like the geography of Vegas in 21, most people aren't going to know and it won't be a big deal. But, I don't think ignoring research and accuracy is good thing to teach young writers. Unless the details drag the story down, it can only help to get them right, and can't hurt otherwise. Your stories are in made-up universes where there is no real world connection, so it's not a problem for you. But, for those writing about things with real world connections, I don't think it's a good idea to completely ignore research and accuracy. Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should.

And I hated Pirates 3, by the way

[A. Lee Martinez]

Once again, in the larger sense we agree, Knight. Basic research isn't a bad thing, and certainly, you don't want to create stories with obvious flaws. On the other hand, I do think that too much emphasis is placed on research, and that this can be discouraging to aspiring writers. My advice is not meant to be absolute, but to provide a counterpoint to commonly heard "common sense".

I'm only against research when it becomes detrimental to the process of writing. Otherwise, I'm all for anything that helps a writer write. And that includes as much or as little research you want to do.

Sorry to hear you hated POTC3, buddy. I didn't see it, but I can definitely relate to how disappointing it can be to be invested in a movie series only to see it end badly.
_________________
"They say that President Taft was one baad mother..."

"Shut your mouth!"

"Just talkin' 'bout Taft."

[TheDarkKnight]

I didn't love Pirates that much, or the Spiderman movies, which died with the awful third installment as well. But, on research and accuracy, we agree as usual, that a middle ground is the best approach. Not to be overlooked, but too much attention to it can detract from the storytelling itself. That sounds like some solid advice from the mind of ALM