The Terrors of Timeliness

By John Gilstrap
 I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that for at least a few writers, the news of Osama bin Laden’s demise was met with less than pure elation. These writers are no less patriotic than their neighbors, nor are they sympathetic to terrorist causes.

They are authors who were 50,000 words into a novel about the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. As the mass murderer’s brains were spattering the walls in Abbottabad, the potential value of those manuscripts dropped to just about zero. Months of work (years?) shot to hell—literally. Those writers learned what I consider to be a valid—though painful—lesson:

Reality in fiction ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

It takes a lot of work and countless hours to turn out the kind of books I write. For them to succeed among my fans, the stories need to feel timely and current, and with a contract to produce a book a year, I can’t afford waste. That’s why none of my timely, current stories are ever set in real places.


My series character, Jonathan Grave, lives in the Northern Neck of Virginia (a real place), in a town called Fisherman’s Cove (not a real place). In No Mercy, a lot of the action takes place in the fictional town of Samson in the very real State of Indiana. In Hostage Zero, one of the characters is spirited off to an unnamed village in Colombia. The bad guy who does the kidnapping is able to do so because of a series of diplomatic agreements between the United States and Colombia that never happened.


They call this stuff fiction because it’s all made up. If an author expends enough intellectual energy to construct his fictional world with a few dollops of reality and a pinch of bravado, the reader will follow him wherever he wants to go. I don’t see a reason in the world why the Fisherman’s Cove or Colombian jungle of my imagination have to be any more real than JK Rowling’s Hogwarts.


Jonathan Grave and his crew use some amazing technology in their missions. Some of it is real, but a lot of it is just plain made up. One bit of made up stuff actually prompted a Navy SEAL buddy of mine to ask how I knew about such a top secret project. I told him the truth: Having hung around with a lot of spooky people in my time, I’ve learned that there’s a development project for just about anything anyone can think of. I don’t even have to understand the technology; I just have to convince my readers that my characters understand the technology. I think of it as literary sleight of hand.


There are a lot of authors out there who disagree with me on this subject. These are the types for whom research is an obsession—a calling. For some—like historical fiction writers—the research by necessity never stops, but for the average suspense writer, I think that making stuff up is a way more efficient use of time. I know crime fiction writers whose books are equal parts story and travelogue. Los Angeles and New York seem to be the most frequently-traveled.

 
Fictional characters travel real streets and eat in real places. They do a lot of stuff that I frequently skip over. Think about it: Unless the specific intersection of Hollywood and Vine plays a role in the story, it might as well be the intersection of Maple and Elm, because, as a non-resident of L.A., I’m dependent exclusively on the author’s description, which means that the realness of the description is irrelevant.


Some research is just a little bit crazy. My friend Joseph Finder posted a piece a week or so ago in which he—a self-described claustrophobe—allowed himself to be sealed into a coffin so that he could adequately describe what it’s like to be buried alive. Really. Turns out it was quite unsettling. I gotta say, as a borderline claustrophobe myself, I think I could’ve just made up the darkness, stale air and panic and saved myself some long-term counseling.



(Love ya, Joe!)


The more specific a writer gets in the depiction of real things and real places, the riskier the writing becomes. The devil is deeply embedded in the details. I read a book not too long ago that involved the fire service. During a response to a call, a character flipped the switch on his Federal Q siren and got a whooping sound out of it. The scene would have worked just fine if the author had stopped short of showing off his research. A Federal Q siren doesn’t whoop. I suppose for most of his readers it wasn’t a big deal because they wouldn’t know the difference—which invites the question (happy, Jim?), why not just leave it at siren? Or, if that extra level of verisimilitude is important to the author, he could just call it a Predator Nine siren? (There is no such thing, to my knowledge, but it sounds like it could be real, and the rank and file reader would be none the wiser.)


When your character jacks a round into his Glock and thumbs the safety off, you alienate people who know that there’s typically no need to do one of those actions, and that the other isn’t possible. It’s a mistake that pushes some of the audience out of the scene. No one would raise an eyebrow, though, if the character jacked a round into his pistol and thumbed the safety off.


So, dear Killzoners, if any of you are among the fictional bin Laden hunters, I hope you’re able to retool for the hunt of a more generic terrorist. Take heart in the knowledge that you’re treading the trail followed by downtrodden Soviet threat writers.

10 thoughts on “The Terrors of Timeliness

  1. Outstanding post, John. All too often writers don’t know, so they ask. And all too often they don’t ask the right people, fearing they’ll be labeled an oddball or sometimes even a homegrown threat. I’d far rather see a writer with a bit of knowledge lean on his imagination and less on just exactly how it is or might be. Imagination turned loose gives you a scarier story than all the research in the world.

  2. Before I reply to this specific post, I have to tell you that as I read the news Sunday night about OBL, I immediately thought about your post from a few months back when you were teasingly asked “Do you want to be an insurgent?” And of course we got a good reason Sunday night why the answer should be no. 😎

    RE: Timeliness: I don’t write contemporary, but as a historical writer who is concentrating on the Civil War years but trying to mesh what’s happening in the eastern theater with what’s happening to people in the west, I find that whole timeliness factor a real bugger.

    Especially when you have something that needs to happen in a very specific window of time in Arizona Territory but the nature of the battles back east in that specific time frame don’t cooperate.

    It’s real agony sometimes deciding where to take liberties and what just can’t be messed with, especially when talking about something like the Civil War which many study so intensely.

    As for contemporaries I don’t bother. I didn’t get a laptop till 2010 and I still don’t have an Ipod and play music from CD’s. I’m already out of date. 😎

  3. John, one of the first things I thought of after hearing of OBL’s death was, boy, I’ll be this really screwed up some writers out there. Like you said, let’s hope they can retool. My list of tips on Wednesday’s post had one that goes along with your blog today:

    9. You are not accountable for the absolute accuracy or completeness of your factual information as long as it’s plausible. Write so it sounds right.

  4. I hate to piss on a car battery and bring a halt to years of throwing books where Glocks have safeties, but there is a safety mechanism made for Glocks widely available and actually in use. I’ve seen one and now so can you. They are add ons though and fewer people know about them than you’d imagine. Obviously some authors do.

    http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html

  5. Unless you write historicals, then you have to get every detail right, because somewhere out there is the one guy who is a fanatic over 1903 Chicago-made buggy whips.

    I wrote a historical once that had the Lead take the receiver off the hook and crank the phone.

    Wouldn’t you know it? I got a letter, on paper, from the curator of the American Telephony Museum, correcting my error. The receiver stayed on the hook when you cranked the thing. I should have watched Meet Me in St. Louis more carefully.

  6. This is a pretty cool and useful bit of info/encouragement I think. Several years ago I gave myself a lifelong case of tinitis while researching what it was like to survive an artillery barrage in WW1. Some things I learned are best researched through reading other people’s accounts or just guessed at.

    My stories thus far follow a terrorist organization but rather than risk the wind suddenly changing I decided to use a fictitious organization, Son’s of the Sword, for Kharzai to infiltrate. Only once do I even mention bin Ladin, and that’s in an 80’s war in Afghanistan context. As of this week, I can actually make my terror chiefs happy because they might get to take the old man’s place.

    But, my next books are going to be historical fiction. Set in Europe and Asia during the Crusades / Mongol Empire. The details in this one have got to be explicit, because I know there are a lot of folks who follow that whole period of history. Kharzai will still be in it though, or at least his Great X 6 Grandpappy.

  7. I must say that I love when writers like Michael Connelly or KZ’s own James Scott Bell take me on a virtual tour of LA. Though I lived in the Bay Area most of my life, I’ve been to LA quite a few times and all those landmarks they include in their narratives take me back & even make me homesick. I love that! I think it makes the story feel more real & relatable.

  8. John,
    I love your observations.
    Great imaginations and plausibility constitute fiction.
    That’s our business.
    Reader doesn’t care that I’m also a medical professional, because when I get heavy-handed with that knowledge it bogs the story down.
    Now who said paralysis by analysis?
    Thank you,
    Paula Millhouse

Comments are closed.