Does it bug you when a writer makes a dumb car reference?

Cars.

Firearms.

Aircraft.

Military.

All widely misunderstood and badly portrayed in fiction. Technical inaccuracy detracts from the story. Part of why I don’t spend much time reading current fiction any more. Most of it is drivel.
 
Started a book, in about 10% and the protagonist is driving a 1961 Mustang. Done.

I have seen other examples where a car is described, but the story is in Australia, so I do my research and confirm the car is accurate. Continue reading...
 
The last model year for the Ford Pinto and Mercury Bobcat was 1980. The 1981 Escort and Lynx were their replacements. Getting that wrong in a novel is a big deal. As another poster said, that kind of howler makes me not want to read any fiction.

Similar howlers happen in movies and TV shows too.
 
Number_35 said:
Can you imagine that some people, even my beloved wife, sometimes think I'm too hung up on inconsequential details? 😁
Click to expand...
But it's the attention to DETAILS that makes the story believable.
When you record the details accurately, it helps the reader become more involved in the story.

If someone were to write a novel about someone driving a 1999 Volvo 240 wagon, that too would certainly get under my skin.
So much, that I'd have a hard time enjoying anything in the story after that grossly inaccurate submission.
 
Hunter's 2008 book, Night of Thunder, has Swagger riding his daughter's "powerful Kawasaki 350 dirt bike" where, in the real world, you'd have to go back to 1976 to find the last off-road capable Kawasaki 350, the almighty F9 Bighorn. Although I loved the bike (I had several), it was not very powerful and not very capable. Add in that, by 2008, the Bighorn would be a rare "classic".

Hunter knows guns, but he needs a proofreader for references to cars and motorcycles.
 
One of my favourite things to see is out of date cars in movies - the movie is set in the 1970’s, they make that clear, and an obviously 1990’s car appears in a scene, or many.
 
Number_35 said:
Second instance - the great Garrison Keillor, of Lake Wobegon fame. C'mon, if Clarence Bunsen were selling a "1986 Pinto, puke green, straight stick, no air", it would be snapped up in a second, because it would be rare indeed. Like the Bobcat, I think the Pinto had been discontinued in the late '70s.
Click to expand...
I can't stand Garrison Keillor to be honest. My parents listened to a ton of Prairie Home Companion, and stuff like this and the nose whistling just killed it for me.

I get that a lot of people don't know one car from another, I think it's funny when people suggest my 1994 Explorer is an 80s Bronco, but if you're publishing a story and want to include an automotive detail, at least spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
 
Boomer said:
I am the same way with details on guns in books and films. My favorite "yuch" is in Open Range where one of the two good guys fires at least nine consecutive shots from a six shot revolver. I doubt he was using a LeMat revolver.
Click to expand...
Doesn't bug me as much as dumb gun references as Boomer says, like a safety on a Glock or changing clips on an AR.
Interestingly, Mr Hunter does an exceptional job on firearms, particularly sniper rifles. He is very knowledgeable, and writes about them very well.
Astro14 said:
Cars.

Firearms.

Aircraft.

Military.

All widely misunderstood and badly portrayed in fiction. Technical inaccuracy detracts from the story. Part of why I don’t spend much time reading current fiction any more. Most of it is drivel.
Click to expand...
Astro14, I'd be interested in your opinion on the following authors, all of whom I've enjoyed a lot:

Aircraft - I thought Stephen Coonts's books about carrier aviation were a good read. Flight of the Intruder is his best-known. He flew Intruders in Vietnam.

Martin Caidin wrote a lot of books about aerospace, both historical accounts and fiction. He was an extremely accomplished pilot, so knew his subject matter.

Military - I thought W.E.B. Griffin's Brotherhood Of War series was outstanding.
 
Michael_F said:
Hunter's 2008 book, Night of Thunder, has Swagger riding his daughter's "powerful Kawasaki 350 dirt bike" where, in the real world, you'd have to go back to 1976 to find the last off-road capable Kawasaki 350, the almighty F9 Bighorn. Although I loved the bike (I had several), it was not very powerful and not very capable. Add in that, by 2008, the Bighorn would be a rare "classic".

Hunter knows guns, but he needs a proofreader for references to cars and motorcycles.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about bikes, so didn't catch that, but did think the part in the early going where Sinner Man is stealing Ford diesel trucks and experimenting on boosting the power (and blowing up a bunch of them in the process) was pretty good. That was another good one from Hunter; it was refreshing to have mundane villains who merely wanted to steal a day's haul from a NASCAR event, rather than devising a horrible insidious plot to enslave and/or destroy the free world.
 
01rangerxl said:
I can't stand Garrison Keillor to be honest. My parents listened to a ton of Prairie Home Companion, and stuff like this and the nose whistling just killed it for me.

I get that a lot of people don't know one car from another, I think it's funny when people suggest my 1994 Explorer is an 80s Bronco, but if you're publishing a story and want to include an automotive detail, at least spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
For me, his stuff is hit-and-miss. He has trouble putting together a cohesive novel, but his little anecdotes are often excellent. His short stories, IF they involve Lake Wobegon, are really enjoyable.

We have a few CDs and some old cassettes, but overall I haven't heard him live very much.

Agreed, it's not that hard to do some basic research!
 
I have pointed out several errors in the NCRS book for C4 Corvettes - drove me nuts. The corrections are supposed to be in the next edition - whenever that might be. That, to me, was worth getting upset over but in a Novel written usually by non car enthusiasts doesn't bother me much but I do laugh it off.
 
Oillover said:
When you record the details accurately, it helps the reader become more involved in the story.
Click to expand...
I also find it makes a huge difference and impresses the reader. Even though it is fiction :-)

There was a German/US movie which spanned 40(?) years, showing plenty of cars.
All correct and even the number plates including the old and new font, city codes, roadworthy sticker (2-years valid, changing color) and previous emission stickers (1-year valid, changing color).

Much more accurate than some News channels ;-)

Errors in technical books, including about specific cars, are just wrong. Pun intended
 
MSM/pop press/many many writers of all stripes THINK they are good writers, but unless they REALLY learn the subject matter, no matter the subject, they are poor writers.

#1 Rule: Writers are lazy. Most will take the short cut.
#2 Rule: Writers are mostly unoriginal. See rule #1. They will copy the sheet out of the previous writer given the chance.
#3 Rule: Writers are parrots of something driving them: employer, state, ad money, learned bias, history, other biases

I know not ALL writers are like this, but it seems more and more to be the case.
 
Too dumb to know, too lazy to care. Uninterested in putting forth the effort to get it right. Good enough... move on.
Much like today's media outlets.
 
I remember watching a movie set during WWII and the cars were 1950 Fords with military paint jobs.
The worst in Movies is screeching tires on dirt roads.
 
measureman said:
I remember watching a movie set during WWII and the cars were 1950 Fords with military paint jobs.
Click to expand...
Or when the actors suddenly switch vehicles and we're not supposed to notice. I see that a lot on TV..... Probably because they have a smaller budget. Actor is driving a nice vintage car but later when the bad guys fire a rocket launcher at him the car has changed to a different or cheaper model. Who knows, it might just be a rolling shell....
 
Pablo said:
MSM/pop press/many many writers of all stripes THINK they are good writers, but unless they REALLY learn the subject matter, no matter the subject, they are poor writers.

#1 Rule: Writers are lazy. Most will take the short cut.
#2 Rule: Writers are mostly unoriginal. See rule #1. They will copy the sheet out of the previous writer given the chance.
#3 Rule: Writers are parrots of something driving them: employer, state, ad money, learned bias, history, other biases

I know not ALL writers are like this, but it seems more and more to be the case.
Click to expand...
I see this (i.e. lazy errors) regularly in our daily broadsheet newspaper.

Two or three years ago, there was some theatrical production which had a mock-up of a Brit WWII single-engined fighter in the background. Can't remember for sure, but it was likely a Hurricane or a Spitfire.

Anyway, the entertainment writer described the aircraft as a "fighter jet". 😡

I wrote to enlighten him (not getting into the nuances of turboprops), and to his credit he wrote a gracious note back, thanking me. He'd had no idea that a piston-engined propellor-driven aircraft was not a "jet".

I get that a young fine-arts-oriented person might not know this, but are there no editors any more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom