Saying “I Think You’re Wrong.”

Last week, “CBI” asked, “What are the ethics and protocol when an author is reading a draft and one notices a prickling inconsistency or physics problem?”

Politely and Off-stage

As I said in the Comments, the short answer is “Off-stage and politely.”  After all, authors are human and I’ve never met anyone who really likes being embarrassed in front of an audience.

However, this question actually opens up a rather complicated bottle of worms.  Let’s break CBI’s question down into parts.  The first I’d like to touch on is his careful statement: “reading a draft.”

The word “draft” implies that the author has stated this is an incomplete work.  In such a case, a reader offering a correction can be very useful.  As every writer knows, the writer is the worst proofreader, because it is entirely possible to read not what is actually on the page but what one intended to put on the page!

One of the rare times I read from a draft was when Thirteen Orphans was coming out.  After the reading, an audience member mentioned to me that the name I’d given one character was the same as a rising performer.  Even though it was a complete coincidence (and I’ve never heard of that person since) I decided to change the character’s name.  Why create accidental confusion?

What do you do if you catch a problem in an already published work?

Well, the first question I’d ask myself is “How major is the problem?”  If it’s very major – something that makes the book simply not work, then I think you need to tell the author.  I know I’d want to be told – but politely and off-stage.  This  isn’t hard to do in these days when e-mail makes it possible to contact an author even if you can’t manage to do so in person.

The second question I’d ask myself is “At what part in the publication process is the book?”  If the book is a hard cover release, then there is likely to be a paperback publication.  The writer might be able to make the fix for that edition.

When one of the Firekeeper novels was published, my friend Kennard Wilson gently told me that there were all sorts of problems in the list of characters at the end.  I couldn’t fix these in the hard cover, but I made sure I did for the paperback – and I was grateful that Ken took the effort to write these out for me.  You see, the list of characters had been done at the last minute.  Moreover, I’d been struggling to find a way to write the list that would not provide “spoilers” as to the plot of the novel (something that has happened to me as a reader more than once).  Inevitably, errors crept in.  So Ken was really very helpful.

In these days when so many books are published as e-books, the author might choose to make fixes in the e-book.  The same can be said for books published as print-on-demand.  Correcting these entails more, but the author may think it worth doing.  However, if the book is already out in its final form, then I’d consider how serious the problem is before commenting.  How productive would the “correction” be?

This brings me to the second part of CBI’s question: “a prickling inconsistency or physics problem.”

Certainly, “prickling inconsistency” should be drawn to the writer’s attention, especially if the work is in draft.  Often writers change things when writing and may think they have caught all the places they needed to make the change.  However, they may miss one or two.  I certainly caught a few such when I was doing my reading from Huntress  at Bubonicon!

The latter part of the question –  “physics problem” – sounds as if it was a reaction to a particular piece.  Well, writers do their research as best as they can, but it’s axiomatic that there is always one reader who knows more…

Or do they?  Let’s take physics.  One of the writers at Bubonicon, Ian Tregillis, is a Los Alamos physicist.   I’m not saying this is who CBI meant but, in Ian’s case,  I’d be really careful correcting his physics.  In fact, I might ask him, “I thought x, y, z was the case, but you said p, d, q.  I’m interested in physics.  Is there something I should catch up on?”

On the other hand, Ian writes alternate history.  Maybe he made the change to underline a specific point.  The risk that a deliberate change will be taken for error is always a risk when writing alternate history.  Steve (S.M.) Stirling was very proud of a subtle reference he made in his novel Conquistador to a descendant of Pocahontas with the surname “Rolfe.”  However, Pocahontas and her husband John Rolfe had no male children.  The name died out with them  Did Stirling’s readers realize he was being clever or did they think he didn’t know his history?

Max Mallowan, husband to Agatha Christie, emphasized in his autobiography that, although Agatha wrote copiously, she researched carefully.  He related how a lawyer started to lecture Agatha on how she’d gotten a key element of inheritance law wrong in one book.  Turns out the lawyer was wrong.  The law had changed.  Agatha had been aware of it and built her book around that change.

Agatha Christie had also worked as a dispenser (basically a pharmacist) during the First World War.  Therefore, she knew the properties of drugs very well.  I’ve heard many people dismiss her use of drugs and drug interaction as facile or incorrect because they assume that she couldn’t have known about a topic when, in fact, she was an expert.

So, if you find a point of error, do consider that the writer might have done it deliberately or actually know the subject very well…  On the other hand, writers do make mistakes and, if they can profit from comments, they’re usually grateful to get them.  In fact, the desire for comments is why many writers belong to writer’s groups or attend workshops.

I hope that helps address what is actually a complex issue.  I’d be interested in what the rest of you think – not just the writers who have been put on the spot, but the readers who have found themselves frustrated by a perceived error.

Advertisement