I was wondering what your thoughts on the accuracy of a book is? Do you feel it is your obligation as an author to portray as many details as possible as true, or is it ok to go with assumptions? How do you feel when other authors"flub" their way through the details?
I ask this because I am currently reading a book, and within the first few pages I came across an assumption made by the author, and in turn, it almost turned me off the book, or gave me a different perception of it. I find this happens a lot when it comes to any 'facts' about Newfoundland by non-Newfoundland authors. As in the book I'm reading, it stated that the girl, while looking at Cape Spear from her window, saw icebergs float past in autumn - icebergs are a spring/early summer occurrence. In another novel by John Grisham (I think it was him) stated that the character lived in an igloo in Newfoundland.
These assumptions kinda bother me because I know the difference. It makes me wonder what other assumptions I am reading that I do not know about...
To the rest of the book club: Is there anywhere around Cape Spear where you can sit in your window and see it? Maddox Cove? I wasn't quite sure about this fact because I haven't been out that way in a while - can anyone help me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I can tell you for a fact that that Maddox Cove is out of the questions for the 'sitting and looking out by Cape Spear' There are hills in between the two. The closest village to Cape Spear is Black Head. Some area's you can see the light houses but they are small specks. Signal Hill - you can see Cape Spear from there as well.
Well, that's a tricky one. To really feel invested in a fictitious story, the reader has to willingly "suspend disbelief." I mean, you KNOW the book's not true, but you're sort of pretending it is for the sake of your own reading enjoyment.
A writer has to keep this in mind, because anytime she gets something wrong and makes a reader stop and say, "Hey, that's not true!" she's not really done her job well. She's pulled the reader out of her willingness to believe, and once that happens, it's hard for the reader to keep going.
I know for myself in Veil of Roses, since I've never been to Iran, I felt unqualified to describe it much. My saving grace was that I knew 99.95% of my readers haven't been there, either, and so they wouldn't necessarily know I'd gotten things wrong. But Tucson -- well, I live here, so I made sure to get it right. Sometimes writers will make up names of streets and schools and places and readers who are "in the know" kind of let it go with a wink and a nod. But to be careless with real streets, hills, events, etc., isn't very impressive.
I could read the book you describe and not have a problem with it at all because I don't know any better. But you do, so you're among her small percentage of readers who will be pulled out of the story anytime she gets anything wrong that is "supposed" to be right, by virtue of her using a real place name instead of a made-up one.
Post a Comment