Message
|
I've thought about this a lot, actually. I think everyone has good points, but that it's also very subjective. For me, I'm much harder on myself about getting details right than I am other authors. I don't get knocked out of the story if they get something wrong; I get knocked out if I stop caring. So, I tend to agree more with June when evaluating other writing. Even if I know something is wrong, if I care about the characters and the story, I don't care that this one detail is wrong.
I was reading a vampire novel not too long ago, and some things just didn't make sense, even in that setting, but I loved the characters, so I couldn't put the book down. I know the Pirates of the Caribbean movies got a LOT wrong (after trying to write my own pirate novel), but I still love them and watch them over and over again. I think they'd be better with correct details, but they're great as is.
On the other hand, this is why I don't write historical fiction. I don't want to have wrong details in the story, but I struggle with researching details. I'm a perfectionist, so I want 100% accuracy, and that's just not possible if you want to actually get down to writing the novel. I would feel like a fake if I wrote a historical novel knowing I had not done the research that was needed for it. Yet, I read historical novels that I'm sure aren't perfect all the time. I know it's double standards, but I can't help it: I just can't write something I know might not be accurate, unless I'm making it up. And then it still needs to be realistic. ~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~
|
POST DISABLED 
