Fiction: the matter of authenticity
Oct. 21st, 2007 08:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseSeeing as I’m up at a stupid hour of the morning and have been awake for some godforsaken reason since around half past six; now seems like the perfect opportunity to talk about something that’s been irritating me on and off for quite some time now. I keep neglecting to say anything about it; it being the general matter of authenticity in fiction but seeing as I’ve just indulged in an early morning cigarillo I may was well break the topic down into increments.
The fact of exactly what I’ve smoked this morning has some bearing on the matter too.
For example, anybody writing about a character smoking either cigars or cigarillos should be well aware that they simply don’t function like cigarettes for the most part. A cigarette tends to come with a filter and ash must be knocked from the tip periodically where as a cigarillo will collect a long stem of ash that ideally should be allowed to fall off of its own volition, if you listen to the purists or that you knock off about half way through, if you’re me or anybody else with a floor they’d like to keep clean. You’re not meant to light the things with a lighter but rather with a splint but since I’m rather more likely to carry a lighter round in my pocket; I tend to forgo that particular detail. Though on the good authority of my lieutenant; attempting to light one with a zippo is not exactly the best of ideas. You also don’t inhale as you would with a cigarette. Likewise while the tobacco and sundry in cigarettes is wrapped in paper; with a cigar the tobacco is wrapped in tobacco leaf. And so on in other tiny variations.
Not that that exactly is the point of what I’m trying to say but rather that it’s a good object demonstration. One of these things is not like the other one. I could have used Romantic composers versus Baroque as an example really since the principle is just the same. The devil is in the details and your character is no more likely to consider the alleged counterpoint in something by Brahms than he or she is likely to talk about Poulenc’s flute sonatas, of which there is in fact only one that has had use in both the ABRSM Grade 7 and 8 practical flute exams.
Of course I am complaining right now about things with which I’m familiar but that both is and isn’t really the point that I’m attempting to make, because for any single thing that you include in your writing there’s absolutely no way to know whether or not somebody in your target audience is going to be intimately acquainted with it. And there’s nothing more jarring than to be reading something charming only to find a character suddenly do something ludicrous because the writer has strangely chosen to go into elaborate detail about something that they obviously have no knowledge of.
It’s not that people should only write what they know exactly but that I’ve seen rather too many occasions where a writer has gone into detail about something they’ve really done no research on. I’m not talking about throwing in a suggestion that your character is bored out of her skull filling well after well of an electrophoresis gel if you’ve never done that yourself because that sentiment doesn’t necessarily require false elaboration. But if you then mention that she’s using a glass pipette for allegedly extra authenticity, and this is set in the modern day; you’re going to throw your reader off because in this day and age she should be using a Gibson.
It’s that unnecessary or, as is often the case, unresearched extra layer of detail that causes the problem. And what I’ll never understand is why if you’re not going to do that little bit more research, which is often tantamount to simply using Google or picking up a reference book quickly; people still insist on fabricating inauthentic details. If you’re going to write about a character playing the piano then at least go dig up a video of some pianist and ideally; have a go at it yourself. Though granted the first solution there smacks a little of Suzuki method which I’ve seen employed quite deplorably on occasion by mechanics with absolutely no feeling for what they’re playing. Which is either getting away from the point entirely or highlighting it quite accurately again really.
It’s not even the case of write what you know but rather think about what you write. Break it down into little increments and figure out exactly what does and doesn’t make sense. If your character is a stickler for routine and regularly drinks Gordon’s gin then he’d better have a very good reason for suddenly picking up a bottle of Bombay Sapphire. If he’s likely to profess that smoking Silk Cut is akin to not smoking at all then don’t forget that detail later when you write him trotting down to the newsagents and bitching about the low nicotine content of British Camel Lights. Have reasons for the extra details and if they’re simply the product of whimsy; at least stick to your guns and don’t just change what you’re trying to establish as extra habits erratically simply because you’ve forgotten your established canon.
All of which makes this a twofold argument really which can be distilled into; do some bloody research and for goodness sake don’t just make things up with no regards to sense. In fact, I’d say that ideally the best bet might be to forgo writing in things that you find novel and fascinating at the current time because you’re liable to over inflate their charm, which is more likely than not to ring false with your readers. A truth that has been born out by innumerable attempts by non-smokers and tea-totalers to write assorted characters indulging in those particular vices after all.
The fact of exactly what I’ve smoked this morning has some bearing on the matter too.
For example, anybody writing about a character smoking either cigars or cigarillos should be well aware that they simply don’t function like cigarettes for the most part. A cigarette tends to come with a filter and ash must be knocked from the tip periodically where as a cigarillo will collect a long stem of ash that ideally should be allowed to fall off of its own volition, if you listen to the purists or that you knock off about half way through, if you’re me or anybody else with a floor they’d like to keep clean. You’re not meant to light the things with a lighter but rather with a splint but since I’m rather more likely to carry a lighter round in my pocket; I tend to forgo that particular detail. Though on the good authority of my lieutenant; attempting to light one with a zippo is not exactly the best of ideas. You also don’t inhale as you would with a cigarette. Likewise while the tobacco and sundry in cigarettes is wrapped in paper; with a cigar the tobacco is wrapped in tobacco leaf. And so on in other tiny variations.
Not that that exactly is the point of what I’m trying to say but rather that it’s a good object demonstration. One of these things is not like the other one. I could have used Romantic composers versus Baroque as an example really since the principle is just the same. The devil is in the details and your character is no more likely to consider the alleged counterpoint in something by Brahms than he or she is likely to talk about Poulenc’s flute sonatas, of which there is in fact only one that has had use in both the ABRSM Grade 7 and 8 practical flute exams.
Of course I am complaining right now about things with which I’m familiar but that both is and isn’t really the point that I’m attempting to make, because for any single thing that you include in your writing there’s absolutely no way to know whether or not somebody in your target audience is going to be intimately acquainted with it. And there’s nothing more jarring than to be reading something charming only to find a character suddenly do something ludicrous because the writer has strangely chosen to go into elaborate detail about something that they obviously have no knowledge of.
It’s not that people should only write what they know exactly but that I’ve seen rather too many occasions where a writer has gone into detail about something they’ve really done no research on. I’m not talking about throwing in a suggestion that your character is bored out of her skull filling well after well of an electrophoresis gel if you’ve never done that yourself because that sentiment doesn’t necessarily require false elaboration. But if you then mention that she’s using a glass pipette for allegedly extra authenticity, and this is set in the modern day; you’re going to throw your reader off because in this day and age she should be using a Gibson.
It’s that unnecessary or, as is often the case, unresearched extra layer of detail that causes the problem. And what I’ll never understand is why if you’re not going to do that little bit more research, which is often tantamount to simply using Google or picking up a reference book quickly; people still insist on fabricating inauthentic details. If you’re going to write about a character playing the piano then at least go dig up a video of some pianist and ideally; have a go at it yourself. Though granted the first solution there smacks a little of Suzuki method which I’ve seen employed quite deplorably on occasion by mechanics with absolutely no feeling for what they’re playing. Which is either getting away from the point entirely or highlighting it quite accurately again really.
It’s not even the case of write what you know but rather think about what you write. Break it down into little increments and figure out exactly what does and doesn’t make sense. If your character is a stickler for routine and regularly drinks Gordon’s gin then he’d better have a very good reason for suddenly picking up a bottle of Bombay Sapphire. If he’s likely to profess that smoking Silk Cut is akin to not smoking at all then don’t forget that detail later when you write him trotting down to the newsagents and bitching about the low nicotine content of British Camel Lights. Have reasons for the extra details and if they’re simply the product of whimsy; at least stick to your guns and don’t just change what you’re trying to establish as extra habits erratically simply because you’ve forgotten your established canon.
All of which makes this a twofold argument really which can be distilled into; do some bloody research and for goodness sake don’t just make things up with no regards to sense. In fact, I’d say that ideally the best bet might be to forgo writing in things that you find novel and fascinating at the current time because you’re liable to over inflate their charm, which is more likely than not to ring false with your readers. A truth that has been born out by innumerable attempts by non-smokers and tea-totalers to write assorted characters indulging in those particular vices after all.
