As you all know, my three Rs are reading, (w)riting, and running. I'm taking a hiatus from running right now, in an effort to let my pubic (there it is again, Nikki!) symphysis heal. But I'm not letting up on the (w)riting and reading. If I did, I'd probably--no certainly--go insane.
And while my reading is mostly for pleasure, I glean information from everything I read, and tuck it away for possible future use. I see what works, and what doesn't, whose style I might want to emulate, and where I can go in a new, different direction. I also look for mistakes--from everything grammatical to repetitive exposition or dialogue to basic lack of research.
Sadly, I ran into a book recently that, while lauded as a wonderful tale and the first in a trilogy of YA books (now that is something that's starting to sound very repetitive), is lacking in the research department. Woefully lacking, if you don't mind my use of an adverb.
Case in point? The author's use of the Witness Protection Program. I don't know anything about such program, truthfully, so I looked up what I could online. (Wow, the internet is a wonderful thing.) Even before I researched what I could, I thought that someone placed into the program wouldn't be sent off to their new location in a flashy car, with no communication device, and no escort. Sure enough, just a few minutes of tooling around on my computer and what do I find? (See the whole article here.)
Another example? The author mentions that her mother had graduated college with a Biology degree and taught at Princeton. Really? Somehow, I doubt that could happen. Not that her mother had a Biology degree, but that she would be able to teach at a university like Princeton with only a BS degree. Our local community college requires at least a Master's degree to teach, which means that a place like Princeton University might (probably would) hold to that minimum requirement as well. And so I checked my trusty internet and thirty seconds later, I had my answer.
And then we have the little things that aren't really related to research and yet, could be considered a part of it if you're not up on your grammar. But you know me, so you know that while I really call them little mistakes, they are not. Presumably the book passed through the hands of beta-readers, an agent, an editor, and a copyeditor and yet, these little things happened. I won't bore you with the details, but please, please check your work. And then double-check it. And triple-check it. I know mistakes happen, but we can minimize those mistakes when we all do our job and do that job well.
At this point in our conversation, you might ask, What book is this? I won't reveal the title, but I have to tell you that this book is only one in a long line of books chock-full of errors. Maybe the agents and editors are so excited by the pull of the story that they ignore what's right in front of their face: quality writing. That scares me on so many levels, only one of which is the fact that I try, really try, to write a good story that is well-written. And that good, well-written story just might stay hidden on my bookshelf if this trend continues.
So please, fellow writers, make your three Rs reading, (w)writing, and research, with a slight emphasis on research at this point. You might just help all of us out.
And while my reading is mostly for pleasure, I glean information from everything I read, and tuck it away for possible future use. I see what works, and what doesn't, whose style I might want to emulate, and where I can go in a new, different direction. I also look for mistakes--from everything grammatical to repetitive exposition or dialogue to basic lack of research.
Sadly, I ran into a book recently that, while lauded as a wonderful tale and the first in a trilogy of YA books (now that is something that's starting to sound very repetitive), is lacking in the research department. Woefully lacking, if you don't mind my use of an adverb.
Case in point? The author's use of the Witness Protection Program. I don't know anything about such program, truthfully, so I looked up what I could online. (Wow, the internet is a wonderful thing.) Even before I researched what I could, I thought that someone placed into the program wouldn't be sent off to their new location in a flashy car, with no communication device, and no escort. Sure enough, just a few minutes of tooling around on my computer and what do I find? (See the whole article here.)
After the witness receives a pre-admittance briefing by Marshals Service personnel and agrees to enter the program, he and his family are immediately removed from their current location and taken to a temporary, secure holding area.Holding area? What a grand idea, one that makes a ton of sense, actually. And, they're taken to that new, secure, place by someone of authority, a police escort, if you will. Huh. Further research also implies that the witness would have access to 24-hour protection while in a high threat environment. It's not clear to me how long that 24-hour protection would be available, but if I needed to ask that question for my book, I'd go out and find the answer. I don't know, maybe actually contact an authority and ask the question? Clearly, this author did not. While I understand the need to make the plot line move forward, it is necessary that the story is plausible and plausibility means good research.
Another example? The author mentions that her mother had graduated college with a Biology degree and taught at Princeton. Really? Somehow, I doubt that could happen. Not that her mother had a Biology degree, but that she would be able to teach at a university like Princeton with only a BS degree. Our local community college requires at least a Master's degree to teach, which means that a place like Princeton University might (probably would) hold to that minimum requirement as well. And so I checked my trusty internet and thirty seconds later, I had my answer.
Essential qualifications: Advanced degree required. Preferred qualifications: Ph.D. or doctoral candidates preferred; prior teaching experience preferred.So little time to take to make your story authentic, no?
And then we have the little things that aren't really related to research and yet, could be considered a part of it if you're not up on your grammar. But you know me, so you know that while I really call them little mistakes, they are not. Presumably the book passed through the hands of beta-readers, an agent, an editor, and a copyeditor and yet, these little things happened. I won't bore you with the details, but please, please check your work. And then double-check it. And triple-check it. I know mistakes happen, but we can minimize those mistakes when we all do our job and do that job well.
At this point in our conversation, you might ask, What book is this? I won't reveal the title, but I have to tell you that this book is only one in a long line of books chock-full of errors. Maybe the agents and editors are so excited by the pull of the story that they ignore what's right in front of their face: quality writing. That scares me on so many levels, only one of which is the fact that I try, really try, to write a good story that is well-written. And that good, well-written story just might stay hidden on my bookshelf if this trend continues.
So please, fellow writers, make your three Rs reading, (w)writing, and research, with a slight emphasis on research at this point. You might just help all of us out.
Comments