Etc. Do you think there’s some bright line between “acceptable” fantasy and “unacceptable” fantasy? Don’t be so silly. If you’re going to make up werewolves, why the hell not make up chloroform? Why not make up pixies and magic swords and dragons in the Wild West too? Why not make up nuclear warheads dropped from zeppelins, or any damn thing at all? Fantasy is fantasizing. Complaining about respect for facts in a work of *fantasy *is ridiculous.
Gawdamighty. :rolleyes:
The complaint was about an anocrhomism, not about the author introducing other fantasy elements into the story.
I suppose you could be similarly question every single other post in the thread. They’ve accepted that these fictional people exist, so why not accept that Seattle is on the ocean or that character’s names change midway or that a gun works completely differently than that gun does in the real world. That didn’t strike me as a serious question, and the cock-eyed avatar didn’t help. It seemed like you were trying, rather pathetically, to somehow one-up and shame the person who posted it.
Wrong. Even fiction needs consistency in order to be considered decent writing. The book isn’t about werewolves in some analog of the 1890s that lacks chloroform, the book is about werewolves in the 1890s, full stop. The idea is to explore what it would be like if werewolves were in our world. Unless one of the consequences of werewolves existing is that there’s not nearly as much chloroform available, then that deviance from reality has no business being in the story. If it’s unintentional, then it’s a case of the writer not doing the research. If it’s intentional, then it’s a plot contrivance.
I take it you don’t have much respect for fantasy or other fiction in general.
Er, yeah. The use of werewolves was a deliberate decision made by the author. As they knew that they were making this change, they are in a better position to not fuck it up. Even deliberately changing something as minor as the availability of chloroform would be rather petty, and would make its use as a cheap source of angst seem rather hollow.
A story without respect for facts is not a work of fantasy, it’s gibberish.
Based upon that, you can’t see the Pacific Ocean from anywhere, as you are always looking at some bay, sea, gulf or whatever.:dubious: I suppose you can’t see the USA from Seattle either, just parts of Washington State?:rolleyes:
*And one of its most remarkable natural resources is the Puget Sound, a network of deep-water bays and inlets where the Pacific Ocean reaches inland into what were once mountain valleys. *
Now, it’s true that locals consider it the Puget Sound as what they can see, and not the Pacific Ocean, but that’s a localism.
This Scientific article includes the Sound as part of the “coastal and offshore areas of the Northeast Pacific Ocean”
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2833621
and here’s they are quoting the Washington State Department of Ecology , which defines:
OCEAN > PACIFIC OCEAN > Puget Sound
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_wa_de_marinewaterquality.html
Thus, localisms aside, Puget Sound is part of the Pacific Ocean. So is Monterey Bay for that matter.
Only in the sense that Armenia has ports on the Atlantic Ocean.
The point I was making was: If the writer placed Dartmouth itself in Vermont, that is an error – if the writer had a Vermont resident teaching at Dartmouth, with action taking place at his/her Vermont home, that might not be. Hopefully Elfkin will clarify.
To be precise, it’s a question of internal consistency. The fictional world can make different sense than our own - it can even make no sense at all - but what it has to be is consistent with itself. It might play by different rules, but simply being fantasy doesn’t mean there are no rules at all, just that the rules are different.
If the “rule” in this case is “the 1890’s, except werewolves exist”, then an inconsistent point against itself is an error. Probably not one i’d personally be bothered about, but I am bothered about the general idea that’s been brought up; it’s a pet peeve, i’m afraid. 
A worthwhile, publishable fantasy will have certain, usually conventional, differences from reality: an adept may manipulate the physical world through word or gesture learned through study or coming from wizardly ancestry; certain people may transform into wolves on the night of the full moon; flame-exhaling alate reptilians with a packrat instinct for gold and gems are found in certain areas; etc. Other assumptions may be made, and defined, by the author. But making random changes in reality as the spirit moves you is not fantasy writing – it’s anateurish or juvenile.
Pepper Mill doesn’t remember the name of the book where you could look into Scotland from Cornwall. She says it was a romance novel, and she read it in the 1980s (which is when it was published), but can’t remember anything else.
Damn, you beat me to raising that point.
A character will see things from their own point of view, experience, understanding. Too much explanatory or precise description can actually harm the storytelling experience, I think.
I really enjoy reading fiction where the background is well-researched. I like being able to soak up a lot of knowledge in the midst of reading for pleasure. So, kudos to those writers who do their best to make it accurate.
Truth be told, I let a factual error* stand in a work of fiction that will be published next year. It really wasn’t worth it to drop a whole chapter because a small percentage of people would know it was inaccurate. The werewolf author may have done the same thing. So in some cases authors may have been made aware of a factual error but let it stand.
*I wouldn’t justify this with saying that the whole story is fiction anyway, however. I would just say that I decided to let it go because it was a minor point of history that shouldn’t affect anyone’s enjoyment of the novel.
…and as a writer myself, Og bless the internet. It does make research pretty damned easy, so there isn’t much excuse for not trying to get it right.
Definitely. Don’t know what I’d do without it.
Yep. One of the most irritating things a fantasy or SF writer can do is make internal inconsistencies. It shows a complete disrespect for the reader.
In the chloroform in the old West, with werewolves added, the author could have easily avoided the whole issue if she’d made up an herbal mixture, and noted that the herbs were only available in New England, or had to be imported from Europe, or some such thing. She didn’t have to even use a real life herb, like wolfsbane, she could have easily invented an herb or mixture. A new herb or herb mixture would have been believable, in a world where werewolves exist.
OTOH, I sometimes have to remind a friend that she’s writing FICTION and only people who work at such-and-such a (not all that well) restricted place will know enough about it to argue.
ETA: FTR, I never succeed in convincing her. She likes accuracy.
I doubt that anyone who lives in or who has visited the Northwest would refer to Puget Sound as the Pacific Ocean. It’s not a localism. I’ve seen Puget Sound from every direction and many viewpoints, and I’ve seen the Pacific Ocean. There’s no way to confuse the two. Look at a map. See all the islands and peninsulas? You can see land from anywhere on the Sound.
An author who has a character looking out a Seattle window and saying she sees the Pacific Ocean is an idiot. Or her character is an idiot.
QFT. I have relatives all over that area, and nobody, but nobody calls Puget Sound “The Pacific Ocean.”
I live on an island in the middle of Puget Sound, and if I told people I was going to see the Pacific Ocean, they’d assume I was going to the other side of the Olympic Peninsula.
Puget Sound is connected to the Pacific Ocean, but it isn’t the Pacific Ocean any more than the Mississippi river is part of the Gulf of Mexico.
By that logic, the body of water you can see from downtown Baltimore is the Atlantic Ocean. :rolleyes: