# Facts in the Age of Google



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

Once upon a time, I suppose it must have made sense for an author to port the bulk of his research on a given topic into the novel as he wrote. How else will the reader understand what is going on, after all? "If I don't waste half of this chapter on the biology of the sperm whale, my audience will be up a certain creek without a certain implement when..." At least, that must have been Verne's train of thought when he was writing 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. (Edit: this is tongue in cheek; that kind of crap is why I never finished the book and I thought it was ridiculous.)

But in the modern era, when every reader has internet access (sometimes on the same device they're using to read your book!), is there any value in that kind of nonsense?

One of my readers, upon finishing a passage from my latest in which a character noted that it was standard procedure to keep the first chamber of a revolver empty, wrote to ask me *why* that was standard procedure. My response was, "Google it." There were something like 8.4 million results for the query I tried out myself, and at least everything on the first page gave the correct answer.

When you include a factual detail, do you explain it?


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Yes, because I like my work to be self-contained. A lot of my effects depend on concatenation of facts, so that's important. That doesn't mean that they're explained at length or expounded upon-it may be a contextual explanation. But there's a reason for each factoid to be there. And a lot of the things I like to salt my pieces with aren't available to a _cursory_ googling.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2013)

An author who dumps facts into a novel to "explain" facets of the story isn't going to be writing a very good book.  Learning about a place, or a culture, or a technology by reading it in a novel is part of the fun of reading,_ if it is done well_.  That in-depth knowledge imparted by a good novel--as part of the story--creates verisimilitude, creates the world of the narrative.  If I have to stop reading the story to Google a fact then the author has failed miserably.  I'll probably just keep surfing and put the book away.

If the story stimulates the reader to go learn _more_ about a fact, or topic, then that's a good thing.  But, like moderan, said, there needs to be enough explanation, or context, to keep the reader engaged.  Think _Moby Dick_ and whaling.


----------



## Whisper (Mar 22, 2013)

A reader should never have to put down a novel to do research on something you’ve written about.

If they do research on something you’ve written about that peaks their interest, that’s a different story.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

Moby Dick is probably a bad example for me; that's another book I never finished because it was just. Way. Too. Boring. Maybe one of you can give a concrete example of the kinds of factual details you're referring to? Are these details related to the plot in some way? Do they impinge upon the story directly?

Would your response be different for details that are/do not?


----------



## Whisper (Mar 22, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> One of my readers, upon finishing a passage from my latest in which a character noted that it was standard procedure to keep the first chamber of a revolver empty, wrote to ask me *why* that was standard procedure. My response was, "Google it." There were something like 8.4 million results for the query I tried out myself, and at least everything on the first page gave the correct answer.



Here’s my thinking on this. If it is standard procedure for this person or organization to keep the first chamber of a revolver empty, they why mention it at all. If it’s standard procedure, then it’s a given. 

However, if it was important enough for you to _actually mention it __in_ your story, you probably should have included 1 or 2 sentences somewhere as to why it was important.

The problem with writing about subjects we know well is we tend to forget that not everyone knows all there is to know about the subject you’re writing about.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2013)

Dan Brown (the _DaVinci Code_, _Angels and Demons_) has made a career of filling his books with arcane facts which a reader could Google, or research on their own, but which he weaves into a story so well that the facts become intrinsic to the plot.  Michael Crichton did pretty well with _Jurrasic Park_, _The Andromeda Strain_, and his other books too.

In my book, _The Legacy of Aaron Geist_ there is some technical detail about cave formation, and about spelunking.  50% of the book is set in a cave, so the details are needed to establish that setting and give the book a sense of reality.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

In response to Whisper (because I am terrible at using the quote feature):

Well, if you're looking for my take on that particular detail, the first thing to understand is that the point is *not* to convey information to the reader: the point is to convey the *existence* of information to the reader. To me, the point of a detail like that is to create some authority for the text and for the characters by having it (or them) know something the reader does not (or something that the reader may be able to verify from his or her own experience).

It's like that parable. If the boss can trust you with five bucks, he can trust you with five hundred--and if the reader can believe you in the little things, they can believe you with the big ones.

I think Moderan and Terry D may have had in mind other kinds of details, though. They might have been talking about information the reader is intended to use in some sense. Hence my followup question above.


----------



## J Anfinson (Mar 22, 2013)

Is your novel set way back in the past? Revolver manufacterers have been designing them for many years now (Since the 80's I think?) with a safety system that blocks the firing pin from contacting the primer unless the trigger is pulled.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> In response to Whisper (because I am terrible at using the quote feature):
> 
> Well, if you're looking for my take on that particular detail, the first thing to understand is that the point is *not* to convey information to the reader: the point is to convey the *existence* of information to the reader. To me, the point of a detail like that is to create some authority for the text and for the characters by having it (or them) know something the reader does not (or something that the reader may be able to verify from his or her own experience).
> 
> ...


No. For me, often, the point is to convey information to the reader. Almost always. Most of the time I have to convey it to the characters also. I write mainly science fiction and horror or a mix of the two, and there is very little that the reader could guess at and get anywhere near correct.
What you're talking about is simple verisimilitude. That is chocolate for me. I MUST have it. But beyond that, I engage in scientific extrapolation in nearly every piece. The lines of my extrapolations usually run along the lines of how people could abuse whatever thingamabob or principle I've dreamt up to have them play with, be bedeviled by, fall in love with, whatever.
In order for the reader to have some sense of what the "thing" is, what it does, some facts need to be conveyed. Then they can see the device in action and have the eureka moment. For a short story, there's probably just one aha! 
In any event, each time you write, you build a little world. The reader knows nothing of that world except for the details they are allowed.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

For J Anfinson:

Of course you are correct that there *are* weapons with such a safety feature, but that isn't really relevant.


----------



## Nickleby (Mar 22, 2013)

My own feeling is that, if a fact is important to some plot point in the story, then by Chekhov's Law it must be included. For example, your hero plans to survive a faceoff with the villain by using dynamite and keeping himself on the upward side of the explosion. Unless the reader already knows that dynamite expends most of its force downward, you risk violating the suspension of disbelief, so you have to mention that fact somewhere.

Other facts, i.e. not relevant to the story, you can safely leave in your research folder. It's not fair to the reader, who only expects entertainment, to add studying to the whole business.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

I thought the very definition of science fiction was "fiction in which science is central to the plot."

Now, I gave the example from Verne because I was talking about the other sort of detail. "Simple verisimilitude." Verne obviously felt a compulsion to take his verisimilitude way overboard, which is why I tore out my eyes and spent twelve years learning to see again instead of finishing his novel.


----------



## philistine (Mar 22, 2013)

The only example I can think of concerning 'information plugging' was in Melville's _Moby Dick_. There's a certain chapter where the information is so dry and heaped on that it's almost comical. 

I failed to notice this problem in any of Verne's novels; it was perfectly inserted if you ask me.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

Of course it's a very subjective thing. I might even respond differently if I read it again today. Moby Dick is definitely a comical example of how not to do it.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Whisper said:


> Here’s my thinking on this. If it is standard procedure for this person or organization to keep the first chamber of a revolver empty, they why mention it at all. If it’s standard procedure, then it’s a given.
> 
> However, if it was important enough for you to _actually mention it __in_ your story, you probably should have included 1 or 2 sentences somewhere as to why it was important.
> 
> The problem with writing about subjects we know well is we tend to forget that not everyone knows all there is to know about the subject you’re writing about.



Things like that aren't always standard procedure.  Today most police departments require their officers to top off their clips.  This makes it easier to track if any bullets are missing and to make sure that obviously the officer has more bullets ready to fire.  However some officers don't follow the rule and top off their clips because they say it puts too much tension on the spring that can make it wear out faster and cause possible misfires way too soon.

I think there are some details that do need to be told.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 22, 2013)

I see a common theme of dismissing classic novels as boring, for purely superficial reasons.
When I was younger I read "The Picture of Dorian Grey" and thought it was interesting and well-written, though I felt that any realistic implications (or psychological consequences) involving the central premise weren't explored in enough depth. My expectations about the novel didn't reflect what the novel actually delivered.

Two days later I tried Moby Dick and made it a page-and-a-half through. It wasn't that it was boring - if you're bored after only a page-and-a-half, you should probably get some medication for that - instead, my trepidation stemmed from the Melville's unwavering density. Just making sense of the first few pages was a herculean effort. I knew I wouldn't be able to stand seven hundred more.

What this anecdote means is that _accessibility_ is important.

Readers stick with authors when they believe they are (if you'll excuse the idiom) on the same page. Putting a detail of gun-chambers into the book and then expecting the reader to google it on their own betrays a higher regard for the author than the reader - it's effectively saying that this is the author's book, and the reader must earn the priviledge to read and understand it, rather than the author earning the priviledge to have his or her words read and enjoyed. After all, it's a buyer's market.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 22, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> For J Anfinson:
> 
> Of course you are correct that there *are* weapons with such a safety feature, but that isn't really relevant.


by are you mean pretty much all modern ones, right?

thing is its highly relevant, unless this is old times then it flags you as someone who has no experience or do any research. try using Google. 

their is an even older system then the transpher bar where the revolver is partial cocked that keeps the hammer away form the primer.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Things like that aren't always standard procedure.  Today most police departments require their officers to top off their *clips*.


Your joking right?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

DPVP said:


> Your joking right?



Dude, how many are those are clips for a police officer service weapon?  How many of those clips would fit a Glock?

The point you are trying to make is confused by your picture, but I can post a picture that says a magazine is also called a clip.  So it's up for debate.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> I see a common theme of dismissing classic novels as boring, for purely superficial reasons.
> When I was younger I read "The Picture of Dorian Grey" and thought it was interesting and well-written, though I felt that any realistic implications (or psychological consequences) involving the central premise weren't explored in enough depth. My expectations about the novel didn't reflect what the novel actually delivered.
> 
> Two days later I tried Moby Dick and made it a page-and-a-half through. It wasn't that it was boring - if you're bored after only a page-and-a-half, you should probably get some medication for that - instead, my trepidation stemmed from the Melville's unwavering density. Just making sense of the first few pages was a herculean effort. I knew I wouldn't be able to stand seven hundred more.
> ...


Quite true. I like dense prose though. But then I like a lot of the classics.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Dude, how many are those are clips for a police officer service weapon? *maybe one*  How many of those clips would fit a Glock? *none*


none of the clips in that picture would fit in a Glock, as Glocks are fed by magazines. in fact non of those magazines shown fit into a glock either. as for the two clips shown the one on the left would fit into a SKS witch is still used by police in PRC, i believe. i also imagian some other non western police forces still utilize them.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

Clip and magazine aren't the least bit interchangeable for anyone wanting precise terms because some weapons use *both.*

And, no, the safety features of a given weapon system are not relevant to a person not employing that weapon system. 

Did you know you can purchase a brand new, 100% faithful reproduction of an 1873 Colt? They don't have a firing pin block. 

Not that such a question is relevant in the context in question. 

Dense. Boring. Tomato. Etc. The book is either enjoyable or it isn't, and there is nothing superficial about such a judgment.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 22, 2013)

For Staff: 

There is no expectation that the reader needs to do any googling to understand anything. The plain fact is that the *reason* for the fact is irrelevant; the reader does not need to know. Seems a bit of an overreaction.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 22, 2013)

Re: moderan. I like dense prose too. If I didn't like dense prose I wouldn't be so into Lovecraft. Ol' Howard-Phillips, however, uses the prose as an ends to a mean, using it to build up a consistent atmosphere that carries with it the major themes of his work. Melville's prose just seems masturbatory at best.

Apparently there's a sentence about sharks in Chapter 64 that scores negative one hundred forty seven in terms of reading ease, according to Wikipedia. Of course that's not the most accurate or reliable test, but the point is that Herman Melville is very dense, to (as mentioned before) an almost comical degree.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 22, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> Clip and magazine aren't the least bit interchangeable for anyone wanting precise terms because some weapons use *both.*
> 
> And, no, the safety features of a given weapon system are not relevant to a person not employing that weapon system.
> 
> ...


thats nice, but notice it is a faithful reproduction of a Colt Single action army. technology moves on, we use much better stuff and with modern guns ( once again note modern) the manual of arms no longer has you leaving an empty below the hammer. i have never seen someone carry a revolver without a transpher bar out side of cowboy action shoots and reenactments. i have one old one that does not ( but is still safe with a round under the hammer because of the partial cocking) 
 so what is suppose to be the time period of this story?


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 23, 2013)

Hahaha. OK, still off topic, but time period is irrelevant. Like I said, what matters is the design of the weapon. Nothing else. 

My story in particular is set in like 500,000 AD.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 23, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> ...When you include a factual detail, do you explain it?



Uh..

So, you're saying that the in the Addendum for your book is one page with "http://www.google.com?"

You know what? People LOVE learning new stuff, especially if they're being entertained while doing it. Why do you think people love to read about characters with interesting jobs? What's so "interesting" about that job if you take all the "interesting" out of it by refusing to inform the reader about esoteric facts? If you do that, you may have just as well not included an interesting job for your character as part of your hook.

If any reader has to google in order to find out what the writer is talking about, they're either reading an advanced textbook, a book written for only initiated readers or the writer is a bad writer. Sure, you don't have to explain everything in detail. But, you should be sure that the reader understands the little details you're using to gain their interest. If you don't, then you've failed - Either you've included spurious information that only serves to agitate your reader or you've failed at enticing them.

But, you don't have to just go into exposition. That's boring in many styles of writing, though not all. Instead, you should take the opportunity to offer enough information to the reader to make things interesting, maybe even giving them an "Ah HA! moment. You know an "Ah Ha" moment is? (Sorta like a Eureka... But, I'll demonstrate: )

_"Jimmy loaded his .38, spun the cylinder and then removed the cartridge under the hammer and put it in his pocket.

"Why did you do that?" asked Larry.

"Do what?"

"Why did you take out the bullet under the cylinder?" asked Larry "You might need that one!"

Jimmy sighed and shook his head in disgust. "Come one, we're going to be late. They'll be here any minute."

<Time passes>

....The warehouse was a war zone. Machine gun fire stitched itself through the cheap corrugated tin paneling. Larry dove for cover and reached into his pocket to draw his gun. The crate behind which Larry took refuge started to spit toothpicks as the mob thugs pinned him down. He grabbed his gun, but it caught in his pocket. BANG! The gun went off and a smoking hole was born in Larry's coat pocket and the tinkling of loose change could be heard over the din.

<AHA MOMENT for the astute reader. It's a kind of "reward."  >

"That's why I take out the round that's under the hammer!" yelled Jimmy, from the safety of the steel-cased coke machine. "Idiot!"_

See? You don't have to fill every page with fact-filled stuff about esoteric junk. But, you do need to be sure that you're entertaining the reader while presenting it. You don't have to do it Melville-Style, though.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 23, 2013)

For Morkonan:

Yeah, see, in the short term, I prefer to just skip that kind of thing for sure--and then there is always the opportunity to bring it back later on. In this case, of course, no one involved in the conversation is apt to ask a question that both of them are likely to consider pretty daft, which means that the burden of exposition falls on (entertainingly) the exposition itself, which is no fun. Rather than expend an extra sentence on explaining the practice, I just skipped it.

Seems like most others here would have either explained it or just left it out entirely, so I may well be in the minority on that.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 23, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> For Morkonan:
> 
> Yeah, see, in the short term, I prefer to just skip that kind of thing for sure--and then there is always the opportunity to bring it back later on. In this case, of course, no one involved in the conversation is apt to ask a question that both of them are likely to consider pretty daft, which means that the burden of exposition falls on (entertainingly) the exposition itself, which is no fun. Rather than expend an extra sentence on explaining the practice, I just skipped it.
> 
> Seems like most others here would have either explained it or just left it out entirely, so I may well be in the minority on that.



Look at it this way:

Why did you mention it in the first place?

If you're talking about two seasoned professionals loading their weapons, would they have even bothered to notice that? They're doing it by muscle memory... They could probably do it in their sleep. So, why mention it? Did you mention it because it was "cool?"  If so, then you've got to make sure the reader thinks it's cool. Otherwise, all you've done is told a portion of your audience that they do not have access to privileged information, therefore you weren't writing for them at that moment and they should just keeping randomly turning pages until they find something they can understand... 

One reason writers include "stupid sidekicks" and other "unitiated neophytes" with the hero is for the purposes of explaining all this wonderful "cool" stuff to the reader. The sidekick can ask the questions that the reader can't and can give you the opportunity to bring some more depth to your setting, character, etc.. 

But, even an added word or three would take a simple action and turn it into a valuable nugget of entertaining information for the reader. Why miss out on that opportunity? There's no reason to explain how bullets are made or the chemical reaction that produces the gases that propel a bullet down a barrel. That would be too much and probably best saved for a badly written CSI episode.  But, the "bullet under the hammer thing" is easy enough and valuable enough, for entertainment value, to do on the fly.

"Jimmy loaded his .38, making sure an empty cylinder was beneath the hammer, just in case. Sometimes, the Police Academy actually taught something worthwhile. _This is no time to be worried about a misfire, no matter how much I might want that extra round_, he thought."

There, no problem. It's not involved, doesn't need a foil and there's no busy monologue to worry about. With something like that, you've entertained your reader, possibly given them new information or, better yet, the reader will nod with understanding, pleased to have deciphered Jimmy's actions before being informed of the reason behind them by his internal monologue. In fact, if the reader already knows this, they'll be drawn in a bit closer to Jimmy - They'll have had the experience of shared knowledge. Win/Win

I agree, long exposition or monologue and stupid blatant questions from sidekicks are undesirable. But, that doesn't mean you can't handle some of the same problems by using other methods. Ya just gotta be sneaky about it, in my opinion. (Kind of like parents trying to teach their kids without the kids being wise to the idea that they're being _taught_ something... You still reap the benefits, just don't aggravate the reader as much.)


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 23, 2013)

Think we covered the reason earlier.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 23, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> Hahaha. OK, still off topic, but time period is irrelevant. Like I said, what matters is the design of the weapon. Nothing else.
> 
> My story in particular is set in like 500,000 AD.


we must have really screwed the poodle if we are using technology like that. or is it a case of breaking out the museum pieces?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 23, 2013)

DPVP said:


> nice you found a gun explanation for dummies picture, the fact is their is no debate about what is what:disgust:
> congrats you have certified yourself as an idiot on this issue but don't worry i am hear with a great video from Hickok45 to help you out.



I just showed you a picture that proved that I am not the only one that sometimes calls a magazine a clip.  I didn't make that picture.  I never professed to be an expert about guns, but I am definitely not an idiot.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 23, 2013)

Gentlemen. Be nice. 

And of course the idea is that we screwed up. Although I will point out that *most* people tell me that we'll all be dead long before then...


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Re: moderan. I like dense prose too. If I didn't like dense prose I wouldn't be so into Lovecraft. Ol' Howard-Phillips, however, uses the prose as an ends to a mean, using it to build up a consistent atmosphere that carries with it the major themes of his work. Melville's prose just seems masturbatory at best.
> 
> Apparently there's a sentence about sharks in Chapter 64 that scores negative one hundred forty seven in terms of reading ease, according to Wikipedia. Of course that's not the most accurate or reliable test, but the point is that Herman Melville is very dense, to (as mentioned before) an almost comical degree.


I wonder if it seemed quite so comical in Melville's day. I've never had any trouble reading that book.
And this link says "Gatsby" is harder. I think it's a crock as it says "Finnegan" is readable for a sixth-grader, which I was when I first started trying to read it. But there ya go. Facts and opinions hold masquerades sometimes and get hard to pick between.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 23, 2013)

Personally I think what is difficult and not difficult at a young age has to do with a school's curriculum.  I remember as a kid reading "Metamorphoses," "Johnny Tremain," and "Fudge."


----------



## DPVP (Mar 23, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I just showed you a picture that proved that I am not the only one that sometimes calls a magazine a clip.  I didn't make that picture.  I never professed to be an expert about guns, but I am definitely not an idiot.


ok


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 23, 2013)

DPVP said:


> ok



Yet you skirted the real intent of the post, that not all people who use semi-automatic pistols top off their _magazine_ to avoid future misfirings.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 23, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Yet you skirted the real intent of the post, that not all people who use semi-automatic pistols top off their _magazine_ to avoid future misfirings.


because its also inaccurate. 
most people don't top of their magazines as that requires haveing a loaded round in the chamber then inserting a fully loaded magazine. some people hold the slide back and drop one in ( my method when i do) or to load it then remove the magazine and put another in the magazine that is then . this method puts no more tension on the springs then if they had their normal 15, 10, 8, 7 round just sitting in their magazine. this method does not incress the chance of a missfire, it might incres negligent discharges with the second method because its more handling time and less in the holster time.


----------



## squidtender (Mar 23, 2013)

*​get this thread back to the subject of writing, or i shut it down. Also, if i see any flaming, you'll receive an infraction.


*


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 23, 2013)

For squidtender:

Thanks.


----------



## spartan928 (Mar 23, 2013)

To the op... Exposition should be invisible to the reader.  There is a great deal right in leaving the reader wanting more. If it is not drawing the reader in and propelling the story forward cut it out.


----------

