Does it bug you when writers get facts wrong in stories?
We expect people to get it right these days, but do we make allowances for the pre-internet days?
Cheers
QQ.
It bothers me greatly, and interferes with my enjoying reading a story by taking me out of the flow of the story (and "living inside it"), instantly stopping my reading to concentrate on being alarmed that the author could actually be ignorant of something that most reasonably educated people know, or that the author would be so careless or uninterested in providing as much realism possible or necessary to give the reader the feeling that he or she is really at that location, or that the character is really capable of such action because of X situation you've "proven" allows that, etc.
I don't give a pass to pre-Internet authors, because more of my story writing/storyboarding career was during the pre-1993 period, before most information one might desire was available at one's finger tip button click. There were public and university libraries, and reference books, magazines, and journals people could buy at book stores, and most professional artists and writers had files full of reference materials they knew they would need for their favourite niche of their particular writing genre (such as authors like Carl Barks had and used).
I agree that a key consideration on the issue of how much effort should be put into providing the feeling of realism in a desired semi-realistic-style (any non-nonfiction, fiction story that is not intended to be a fantasy) should be whether or not the author wants his or her story to occur in a Universe that is the same as OUR worldly existence is, or if the author wants the reader to be transported into another, very different, WORLD OF FANTASY, as in a Science Fiction or Funny Animal story. IF the author has placed real, currently existing countries, cities, or other geographic locations, and/or non-fictional geographic, characters or character-related features and details, and the laws of nature and physics are the same as in our World/Universe, I would expect the author to research those details in the areas related to story elements that will be related to what he or she will portray in the story, so that the reader will have the sensation that he or she is "living in the story", and will NOT be jarred out of that experience by coming across something that "looks wrong", based on the fact that the detail in the story is something he or she KNOWS is true in our World, but NOT in the story.
In that regard, If you set a story in THIS World's present or past, don't have details in it that would be clearly recognisable as inaccurate and wrong, by even 10% of potential readers, because that will stop their reading, and wrench them out of the flow of the story, and give them a different (unfavourable) opinion about the story, and you as the author. If you set your story in real, currently existing places in current times or past eras, have the details be accurate, or, at least, not obviously inaccurate according to the details you've used.
I've read several hundreds of stories that have had such eye-catching, obviously inaccurate, or obviously false details, yank me out of my enjoying being "lost" inside a story, or almost instantly stopped me reading even near the beginning of a book or short story, or comic book story, deciding not to bother to go on reading it or start reading it.
Even though he wrote and drew Funny Animal stories, Carl Barks researched heavily enough to make his comic book Duckburg/Calisota/Anthropomorphic beings populated alternative World/Universe consistent in a semi-realistic relationship to our Universe. I pattern my own storywriting/drawing methods on what he did, and I hold authors whose stories I will want to read, to a similar standard. Write what you know about, and IF you don't know about something you intend to use, research it enough to portray it in a way that is NOT clearly inaccurate to almost all non-experts on that subject.
I've read so very many comic book stories whose authors clearly did not know much about the subject they were portraying and also clearly did not do enough (or any) research on it, but, rather, based what they wrote and drew was based on their perception of their own nation's popular cliches about them. That is why I cringe when reading most US and British comic books in The US Old West (Western/Cowboy) genre, and many in the Historical genre, filled with inaccuracies based on what was shown in films and books based on stereotypes, rather than research or personal experience. In the case of using Native North American tribes, the inaccuracies are rampant. If you are going to use the real name of real tribes, don't set them in a setting thousands of miles from where they actually lived. Don't show them wearing clothing they did not ever use, but was actually used by other tribes who lived thousands of miles from where you depicted them dwelling. The same is true for comic books that portray the days of The Roman Empire, and other ancient times. And the so-called Science Fiction stories that portray laws of physics that are so different from those of our real Universe that they seem totally impossible, and completely without any explanation given, are tough to stomach. They are complete Fantasy, but that different Universe is just supposed to be accepted as is, without any preface or explanation in a development of the setting. There are ways to remedy that, which I would like to be used. Maybe the pay to comic book authors didn't allow such research to be done; but that doesn't excuse its absence for me, based on my taste.