How an author loses a historian

[Mythopoet]

The reliquary thing: the words make it sound like it is large. Dropped the reliquary into his arms, and I blink. Placed it in his hand, and I'd be happy.

Well, in this case then it sounds like your complaint isn't really related to historical accuracy but to word choice. Either way, it seems like a really trivial and overly nit-picky complaint to me.

I don't know about the 12 seconds internet search. Before I despaired of researching for accuracy in my books, I used to research a lot. I would read articles online.

But you know what? A LOT of the information online isn't accurate.

So I turned to books. But you know what? A LOT of books also have inaccurate information.

This is a very valid point. There is so much history that is not a matter of fact, but interpretation. Historians interpret the evidence and attempt to establish a picture of what the past looked like. But historians often disagree and evidence can be misleading. Especially when making a claim such as "this didn't exist at that time" one should be very, very careful because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. I cannot count the number of articles I have read where some new discovery lead an archeologist to revise their timeline. In effect changing everything that was "known" about a certain period from one moment to the next. The reality is that there's very little we can "know" absolutely about the past. The best we can do is make our best guesses based on the evidence that remains.

 

[Agam Ridelle]

This is a very valid point. There is so much history that is not a matter of fact, but interpretation. Historians interpret the evidence and attempt to establish a picture of what the past looked like. But historians often disagree and evidence can be misleading. Especially when making a claim such as "this didn't exist at that time" one should be very, very careful because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. I cannot count the number of articles I have read where some new discovery lead an archeologist to revise their timeline. In effect changing everything that was "known" about a certain period from one moment to the next. The reality is that there's very little we can "know" absolutely about the past. The best we can do is make our best guesses based on the evidence that remains.

True. I found it’s also the case when researching behavioral science, which are based more on theories than hard science. Technology, too, is ever changeable. And if you dig deep into the math that is the foundation of science, even 1+1 can be a subjective question. 1 leaf + 1 leaf = 2 leaves or a hundred veins. It all depends on the perspective. So when I write I try to stick to the point of view of the character and show their subjective truths and how it impacts the way they see the world and interact in it.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Well, in this case then it sounds like your complaint isn't really related to historical accuracy but to word choice. Either way, it seems like a really trivial and overly nit-picky complaint to me.

I wouldn't call this nitpicky at all. It's a question of accuracy in description, which could become important later. What if in the next few pages the novice monk tries to hide the reliquary in his sleeve? That doesn't make much sense, given the original (inaccurate) description of something large enough to be passed to someone's arms, and would serve to again throw the reader, not just the savvy reader, out of the narrative. How big is this thing, anyway?, they wonder.

I once stopped in the middle of the flow of writing because I had just typed that my character had not experienced the BLT during WWII. I realized I was talking out my ass, I had no idea when the BLT came about, and so I stopped everything to find out. I didn't assume, I did my homework, and it didn't take long but I would have taken longer if I needed to. And yes, the BLT came about sometime in the 1960's.

 

[skip.knox]

I picked my nit a little differently. The thing fits in the hand. It's not an armload. The author took the time and trouble to identify an actual relic and put it in the right place, but either made an assumption about the size or got wrong information and didn't verify. IOW, the author was sloppy on the historical research. As the title of the thread is how to lose a historian, that's one way to lose a historian. Sloppy research.

To someone else it won't matter at all, though A.E. Lowan makes a valid point about internal consistency. I didn't read far enough because the author had lost my trust.

My favorite story about research and historical veracity has to do with typography. Stop me if you've heard this one. I came across a blog years ago by a typeface designer. His post was about typefaces in movies. He readily admitted that this was his peculiar nit and that he was one of maybe seven people who would care about such things, but it was a thing that drove him crazy enough to write a very long blog post. You see, he knows when various typefaces were created. So when he sees a movie marquee or a street sign or a poster in a movie supposedly set in the 1930s that uses a Helvetica font, it takes him right out of the movie. They might as well have driven a Ford Mustang through the scene. It was an enjoyable read not least because the fellow had a sense of humor about himself.

But the point is valid. There are experts in all sorts of things. Trying for 100% accuracy in everything is probably impossible, and even if someone could achieve it, there would be readers with incorrect understandings who would protest about this or that. Howsoever: when a book makes a claim of historical accuracy, the historian reader is going to be demanding. The author had best up their game. They'd better know how big that reliquary is, know the difference between a monk and a friar, know that Bretagne is not a synonym for Scotland. To reference the Movie That May Not Be Named: there were no kilts at Stirling Bridge.

 

[Dark Squiggle]

A '65 'stang in '36? The reactions it would cause..... That's a book in itself!
Artists and writers play fast and free with this stuff. Makes me mad. When someone paints a train with accurate perspective and light and all that and then the coupling rod (thing that connects the driving wheels together) doesn't line up. I can see drawing the valves wrong or whatever, but seriously,do you even know what it is you're painting? I think it's the same issue.

 

[skip.knox]

In Altearth, the coupling rods never line up. I blame pixies.