Octopuses and Accuracy
Terry Odell
First, for those of you who are interested in my recaps of my recent trip to Norway, the Shetland Islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Svalbard and more, I’ve been posting them on my personal blog, Terry’s Place. I’ve also been working on my gallery. Lastly, I did an interview about expedition cruising with the travel agency that arranged our trip. You can watch the replay here. The cruise part starts about 5 minutes in.
Next, the new computer setup went relatively smoothly. Wiping the old computer was more troublesome, but as of now, I consider myself back in business.
Okay, enough personal stuff. Today’s TKZ topic: Accuracy. I’m not talking about the stretches of truth we often make for the sake of the story. Readers suspend disbelief to an extent when they read fiction, but we don’t want to make glaring errors. Their willingness to suspend goes only so far.
I belong to a local book club, and most of the time the books they choose aren’t my standard reading fare, but I’m willing to read and attend meetings when I can. Yes, there is wine involved.
A recent book choice was Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt. I usually get my book club books from the library, and this one arrived too late to read in time for the meeting, so I missed the discussion. I’m not doing a book review here. It’s a popular book, and I found it engaging enough. It was written in present tense, which I don’t care for. It was on the predictable side, but the main protagonist—the human one, Tova—was interesting, and easy to care about. I was happy to keep reading to see how the author brought everything together. The non-human POV character was a Giant Pacific Octopus, Marcellus, captive in a small town aquarium. The two of them, as expected, became “friends.”
As the title indicates, Marcellus was a very intelligent octopus. A bit more intelligent than science studies would indicate, but I was willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of the story. The author took behaviors that have been observed in some octopuses and kicked them up a notch. Or three.
What I couldn’t get past, and the reason for this post today, was that Marcellus was described as having one eye. Octopuses have two eyes. And yes, I looked it up to make sure I hadn’t missed out on a piece of octopus anatomy. Now, this species is very large, and it’s possible that Tova would see only one at a time. Or maybe he’d been injured prior to his rescue. I guess the author thought a rescue octopus would be better than having the animal captured for the sake of a unique display exhibit, but that’s not the issue. Nowhere in the book was there an explanation of the single eye. So every time there was a reference to his “eye” I was yanked—forcibly—out of the story.
Stretching the behaviors I could buy, but why mess with reality? All it would have taken would have been a credible reason for only one eye. It was obvious the author had done her homework based on the behaviors she described, but it’s not like she would have missed how many eyes the creatures have. They have nine brains and three hearts, which she got right, but they have two eyes. Did he always have his head turned so only one was visible? Why make it seem that he has only one?
At the end of the book, we see a new statue outside the aquarium, and the author points out the two eyes on the statue. But nothing I saw—and nothing in any of the reviews I skimmed through—seemed to care that Marcellus wasn’t described anatomically correctly. I asked my book club members, and none of them remembered anything about the eye/eyes jumping out at them, so maybe it’s just me. One said she noticed it, but shrugged it off and kept reading. It bothered me enough to pose the question to you.
When facts are presented, and you know they’re wrong—perhaps the old safety on the Glock mistake, or smelling cordite—what’s your take? I’m not talking about a one-off mention. The mention of Marcellus staring at her with his one eye is repeated numerous times in the book.
Or, has someone here read the book and can tell me there was a mention of it, slipped in somewhere and I missed it? Maybe at the bottom of page 127 when I sneezed?
Have you ever been dinged for something a reader said was wrong when you had it right?
Have you been pulled out of a story due to inaccuracies? How glaring do they have to be before you put down the book?
*Note: The word octopus comes from the Greek, not the Latin, so the plural is octopuses, not octopi. For my science nerd friends, you can learn more about the Giant Pacific Octopus here.
Available Now
Deadly Relations.
Nothing Ever Happens in Mapleton … Until it Does
Gordon Hepler, Mapleton, Colorado’s Police Chief, is called away from a quiet Sunday with his wife to an emergency situation at the home he’s planning to sell. A man has chained himself to the front porch, threatening to set off an explosive.
Terry Odell is an award-winning author of Mystery and Romantic Suspense, although she prefers to think of them all as “Mysteries with Relationships.”
I just finished a book on the resort town of Lake Geneva. Its an older book, so a tad slow out of the starting blocks, but then it got interesting. one of the things that popped out at me in the author’s quest to present a fictional history of the town was drawing in characters who weren’t part of its history. For example, our time traveling hero asks a young Eliot Ness if he ever considered being a policeman. Eliot Ness was never in Lake Geneva. Or young Franklin Roosevelt. Nope. However, while the names jumped out at me, it wasn’t until I finished that I actually looked those men up to see if they belonged in the story. Nope. Artistic license?
That would be pushing it a little for me, Karla, although I suppose those characters might have visited??
Have you been pulled out of a story due to inaccuracies? How glaring do they have to be before you put down the book?
Pulled out? What kicked me rudely out of A Confederacy of Dunces was that the MC was totally disrespected by his creator. “How big a doofus can I make this guy look like?” seemed to be the theme. This was psychologically alarming, especially if you know the history of the book. I did not play along and finish the book. In fact, I had it back in the library in five minutes.
There’s a police defective (sic) novel, somewhat of a how-not-to procedural, wherein:
(1) The murder victim is found (partially) within the confines of a walled community or compound. The lead detective fails to arrange interviews with everyone living there until weeks later. This turns out to be crucial to the plot.
(2) Officers DuFuss and Loony, the detectives assigned to tail the main suspect stake out his house all night. The man is gone in the morning. The clever bastard had snuck out by the back door!! A veritable Houdini, he!
(3) A large secret room is belatedly discovered lurking behind a bookcase. “How did we ever miss this!?” laments Officer Bozone. rhetorically.
“You missed it because the plot wouldn’t work if you’d found it, you clown!!” I shriek.
I haven’t read that book, JG, and now I see no reason to. TSTL characters have no business playing major roles in books attempting to be serious.
Ah, one of the things about writing that keeps me up at night–stepping into a minefield because of a glaring inaccuracy. I suppose it’s inevitable that we make a mistake somewhere along the line with facts, but I want writers whose books I read to demonstrate integrity through accuracy of information and I want to show that integrity myself. That’s why I’m trying to do better at documenting what I research so I can easily refer to it again and keep my facts straight–especially if I may need to use the information again.
I’ve not read the book in question nor do I know a thing about the octopus, but if I did, that would have thrown me out of the story. Perhaps they were banking on the notion that the majority of their readers wouldn’t know or wouldn’t be curious enough to look it up.
What truly bugged me was that having the correct number of eyes wouldn’t have changed the story at all. Only my response to it.
I read a thriller put out by a big publisher that began at midnight with a SWAT team swarming a house in a tranquil neighborhood, and forcibly taking the homeowner out to a van and then to an undisclosed location, where an FBI agent informs him that there’s a dangerous prisoner who they want him to talk to. When he finally clears the cobwebs out of his mind, the homeowner is fine with that.
Slam bang Hollywood opening, right?
Let’s review: to keep things on the down low, you wake up an entire neighborhood with a SWAT raid in order to violate a man’s Fourth Amendment rights, when all you needed to do was have an agent show up in the morning and knock gently on the door and request the man’s presence.
I just couldn’t read on.
Arrrggghh, JSB.
I do run my cop scenes by a real cop, and he’s great about keeping me within the boundaries of reality.
“For the sake of the story” inaccuracies have their limits. I thing what you’ve described pushed past them.
That would bother me, too, Terry. It does seem possible that the MC could only see one eye at a time, but the author should’ve made that clear. As someone who exclusively writes eco-thrillers now, I worry about every tiny detail. Thankfully, my proofreader caught an error about square footage before my latest thriller released. My editor and I both missed it. Hence why it pays to have multiple eyes on our work before sending it into the public.
Exactly, Sue. One sentence would have fixed the book for me. I had a critique partner who pointed out that the vehicle I’d chosen to create problems for my heroine’s getaway didn’t come with a manual transmission option. Before the book was published, thank goodness.
Great subject, Terry.
First, thanks for the links to your photography. I loved the pictures, especially the turf house, maybe because I’ve been “preaching” for years that we should build earth-sheltered houses in the U.S. – the most energy efficient houses for heating and cooling. Sorry for the rant.
Inaccuracies: I almost committed a doozy in my most recent book. I had a 14th century wizard who was transporting genetic material across Eastern Europe to store in the mountains of Transylvania. My brother was beta reading the book, and pointed out that I had geography accurate for present day Europe, but not for the 14th century. Oops. Thank goodness for beta readers who can see the big picture.
Thanks so much for taking the time to look at my pictures. I’m glad you enjoyed them. The towns we visited in the Faroes had a lot of turf-roofed houses with varying degrees of greenery.
I’m not good at geography, and would probably never have thought to take the time period into consideration.
Thanks for a great article, Terry, and for correcting a mistake I’ve made many times by calling those lovely creatures “octopi.”
I can’t recall having seen an inaccuracy in a book that caused me to put it down, but I did read a historical fiction story about the European plague of 1665-1666 that was based on the experiences of a village in England. The book was well-written, but it portrayed the rector of the town in an almost perverted way. I know a little about the actual history, and the author was inaccurate in that portrayal. I finished the book but was disappointed.
Maybe you should email the author of Remarkably Bright Creatures and ask about the one eye. I’d love to know her explanation.
I learned about the plural of octopus when I was verifying they had 2 eyes, so that was new for me, too, Kay.
Sometimes bringing too much personal knowledge to a read can spoil things. I always said I was a perfect historical romance reader because I knew nothing about the period. Readers in the know would get after authors for making the tiniest of mistakes in terminology, not to mention “that didn’t happen until XX date.” Those would slide right by me. Duke, Earl, Marquis? Don’t know and don’t really care. I’m reading a mystery now set in the 1300s in Scotland, and I’m happy to follow the story without worrying about details. But I know the author did her homework.
When I put down a book, it usually leaves my mind, so I can’t recall specific examples, but definitely experienced the jolt because of inaccuracies. I think I mostly get knocked out due to behavior inaccuracy rather than factual inaccuracy. Like, when I totally don’t believe the protag would jump at the chance to work with someon who has been a douche to her. Or when the protag starts screaming about how unfair it is she can’t learn to drive NOW, when she won’t even be old enough to get her license for another six month (complaints about driving are my biggest pet peeve. I mean, seriously, so many people can’t drive and their lives don’t come to a screeching halt. And would it kill you not to complain about the jerk going five under the speed limit?)
I’m another one of the “can’t remember the book after I’ve read it” (or written it) people with very few exceptions. Unbelievable behaviors from characters are another peeve, although they don’t bother me in the same way factual inaccuracies do. Yesterday, the Hubster shouted from the living room … “He called it blood splatter!”
But he’ll keep reading.
What beautiful photos, Terry. Thanks for posting them. On Saturdays, does one spouse say to the other, “Honey, you need to mow the roof.”
Brenda’s comment mentions integrity. When I lose trust in an author b/c of errors and/or implausibilities, that prompts me to hunt for more…unless I give up on the book. These days I don’t finish a lot of books.
Thanks, Debbie. I don’t know about mowing, but they do have to water them. I have a picture somewhere of a hose going up onto the roof.
I’m still too much of a clean plate club when it comes to reading, but I’m getting better about putting less-than-rewarding experiences aside. I tell myself I can come back to it another time.
Current peeve is a Big Name Author who seems to think using the word “said” is equivalent to being bitten by a rattlesnake. I might have to go back and make a list of the tags she used instead.
Then again, her editor let her do it. Or maybe encouraged it? All I know is I was jerked from the story every time. But that’s not the same as inaccuracies, so not really a topic for today’s post.
The problem with any inaccuracy the author chooses is that the author doesn’t know which one will make the reader throw the book across the room and never buy another one. Mistakes can be made, but deliberate mistakes are a dangerous choice.
A few days ago, I read a doozie of a mistake in an historical mystery novel. King George III was on the throne and hadn’t even sung the first chorus of “You’ll be back,” (HAMILTON reference), and a character was talking about “the United States.” I didn’t delete the book, you can’t throw an ebook, but I did wince and lose a bunch of respect for the author and their editor.
Thanks for sharing, Marilyn. I always ask the question about whose fault these inaccuracies are–the author’s or the editor’s. It’s the author’s name on the book, so I lay most of them blame on them.
And in other news of the stupid, I just got a call from “Barnes & Noble” telling me my 20 year old mystery novel from a small press is going to be featured at their bookstores. I didn’t stay on the phone long enough to see how much this will cost me. Jeez, are some writers stupid enough to fall for this?
Sadly, they must be, or the scams would die. I had a “publisher” who wanted to get publishing rights for one of my books. Book 3 in a series. Ya’ Think?
And down the research rabbit hole we go. Again. How much research is too much? That’s where intellect and an inquiring mind come into play. I think it was brother Wortham talked about regionalisms and dialect in his home state and how hard it was for someone not raised in that culture to get it right.
Getting it right, of course, is the thing.
Another angle to this is how to introduce or allude to something that is not common knowledge but is critical to how the story develops, and just overtly laying it out there looks like a deus ex machina.
I have a story I’ve recently completed, sort of, and part of the story invokes an obscure military program known as Project Eldest Son, and I never name it. The closest I come to it is to say that the protagonist was a veteran who was very good at his job and was a handloader.
I reckon a person who takes an interest in such affairs might figure it out but I’ll be darned if I’m going to just slap it down on the page like a dead carp and say “There it is right there, folks!”
Thanks for your input, Robert. For me, whenever it works for a story, I prefer to rely on “based on” rather than specifics when it comes to locations. A reader came up and told me there were no towns at the elevation and general location of Mapleton, and I said, “Sure there is. It’s Mapleton.” That same reader came up and told me how much she enjoyed getting a laugh at a mention of a rock that looked like a frog along the highway. She knew exactly where the characters were driving even though I never specified the location.
If there’s that critical piece of ‘not common knowledge’ you mention, it helps to have another character who doesn’t know, show up so the protagonist can explain it. Gets the information across without getting into AYKB or talking down to readers.
Great idea! I hadn’t thought of that. As for the story, it’s never finished until it’s finished, and it’s never finished to paraphrase Prof. Moira Strassberg.
[I]t helps to have another character who doesn’t know, show up so the protagonist can explain it.
I use the MC’s cat for that.
Once I had characters who traveled in a single-engine plane…I talked about them climbing on the wing to get in the cockpit all through the book, never naming the book. Then, last chapter, I named the plane–Cessna 210. What I meant was a Beechcraft Bonanza…Yep…a man emailed me pointing out it would be practically impossible to climb up on the wing to get into the cockpit. I knew the difference, but had a mental block…
And I love your photos and watched the video. There’s actually a house near me in Mississippi with dirt on three sides.
Thanks, Patricia. I needed specific aircraft information for one book, and I did a Facebook search on pilots and found someone who was excited to help. He even called me back to tell me he’d been wrong about the first plane he’d suggested and gave me another model to use. I don’t remember the issue at this point. Something about whether or not it would require a co-pilot, I think. But how nice that a total stranger took a vested interest in accuracy.
Glad you liked the photos. Thanks.
I enjoy the occasional ‘creature-feature’ thriller. I get that they often require greater suspension of disbelief. But one book expected me to believe that hundreds of carnivorous reptiles could live and multiply in an underground labyrinth with no food source except eating one another, and continue that way for a thousand years. Our intrepid heroes get locked in the facility with a flashlight that only illuminates about 30 feet ahead. That way, the monsters can pick our heroes off without being seen on their approach. But suddenly, the flashlight can illuminate in great detail, a deadly booby trap a hundred feet ahead. Hmm, did they finally remember to change the batteries?
What they didn’t know was there was a heretofore undiscovered light source right above the booby trap.
In answer to your question about blunders, my co-author and I wrote an SF story that described how a rocket launch from Earth took hours to reach orbit, all while the astronauts were under many gees. Fortunately, we had a NASA engineer as a beta reader. He informed us that rockets reach orbit in about seven minutes, and the astronauts never pull more than two gees. With his help, we dodged a bullet.
Fact checking is essential. I recall John Sandford talking about a scene he’d written where he had his characters driving from Point A to Point B, figuring it would give them about 2 hours in the car to discuss things. He looked it up and found that drive takes about 20 minutes. Another bullet dodged. I checked things a LOT when I was writing Heather’s Chase, where they were touring the British Isles.