As writers, we are told that we must get our facts right or readers will be quick off the mark to correct us, and nowhere is this idea stronger than in crime writing. Writing Magazine has a regular column called 'Excuse me officer [sic]' through which people can ask a real-life copper questions relating to police procedure. But how much do average readers know? How many inaccuracies would they spot?
My police training (ahem) has been done entirely through TV. I'm pretty sure that if it came to it I could wield an ALS to find fluid-based evidence and decipher a splatter pattern; but after only few hours on my FutureLearn course, I can already see that much of what I thought I knew is wrong. I thought that if the forensic evidence was there, then we had 'im bang to rights, gov'nor, but no: the course material quotes an analysis of cases, such that where wrongful convictions were subsequently proven 23% of them had relied on forensic science. 'It is common for crime dramas to portray forensic science as being completely accurate and reliable, but often the techniques they show owe more to science fiction than they do science fact.' Amazing!
Which leads me to wonder whether writers need to be quite so pernickety in their research. If we're already being led up the garden path, does it really matter if we get the caution wording slightly wrong, or detain someone for questioning in a manner not compliant with PACE? In fiction, isn't the story the most important element?
I think the same question could be asked about a lot of areas we write about, Julia. In my opinion, the story is what counts.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right - as long as we don't see Poirot whip out his mobile phone.
DeleteThat's one course I'd quite like to do, Julia, although I'm writing a crime novel in Victorian times (when I get on with it) to avoid a lot of modern day problems! One of my writer friends who writes 'cosy crime' is always saying that people are more concerned with a good story.
ReplyDeleteThe course is fascinating, Rosemary, and not too big a time commitment.
DeleteLike : "Don't try these experiments in your local pathology labs!" (smile)
ReplyDeleteI need a similar course for military protocol and processes at the officer+ levels. I write thrillers that include high-ranking military officers and the pull they have on public and private services. But... something tells me this will never be public, and if public, never be truly accurate. :-1 I try not to dwell too much of the story on those details, and mention them in a more "it get's done behind the scenes" type if way, which is probably best. Better less detail than wrong detail, and more story.
ReplyDeleteTanya, this sounds very specific knowledge. I agree: keep it simple. Unless you're writing for a military audience, the chances are that the readers won't pick up on any minor fabrications.
Delete