Larry Kahaner

Get Your Fiction-Facts Right – or Not

Get Your Fiction-Facts Right – or Not

By Larry Kahaner

A friend of mine emailed me the other day about what kind of firearm one of his characters should be firing. He asked me because I know about weapons having once authored a non-fiction book about the AK-47 rifle. He described in detail how far the gun had to shoot, the shooter’s prowess (of lack of it) whether the round it fired would kill the intended victim or simply maim him. He went on to tell me about the weather conditions under which the shooting would occur. He mentioned nothing about the ironic comment the sniper undoubtedly would say once he pulled the trigger.

Maybe this chart is enough.

He needed this gun information quickly because it was holding up his progress. His writing momentum was locked but not loaded.

“TK,” I wrote back, “and move on.”

TK comes from my newspaper background. (My friend was a newsie, too, and knows the term.) It stands in for a word or phrase when you don’t know a certain fact, like the correct spelling or occupation of a person, and you will check it later. It means ‘to come’ and how the ‘c’ became a ‘k’ is a matter of some lore and conjecture, but it doesn’t really matter. See, I’m taking my own advice and moving on, too.

My buddy also cc’ed one of our other author pals and asked him, too. He, being nicer than me, actually offered some possible weapons and why each would be the one to use.

Although I am a stickler for presenting readers with the most accurate and realistic material, we’re writing fiction. Not an army manual. Unless you’re writing a military thriller where weapons are the star of the show (think some early works by Tom Clancy), the type of firearm, bomb, mace or other killing device isn’t that important. What’s more important is the feeling and emotion that the action proffers along with its contribution to the forward movement of the story. (Caveat: If you do specify a make and model of a gun make sure you get it right. There’s an entire world of gun enthusiasts who read novels just to find these kinds of errors.)

I know that many mystery authors in particular will gasp at this pronouncement. And I don’t blame them. Sometimes the exact type of poison is crucial to the story. (Seriously, are we still writing these kind of books?) Did the cops rule out a certain gun model because it didn’t fit the perp’s MO? (Please. We’re better than that.)

I also know that mystery writers attend lectures and webinars on the proper way to handcuff a suspect so they can add this detail to their novel. I have even seen half-day seminars for authors about electrocution. (I hope it’s for authors.) I’m okay with all that – and it can make a story more realistic – but sometimes a quick read on Wikipedia or a viewing of a YouTube titled “How to use a Taser” is enough. It certainly isn’t worth holding up your writing until you get the perfect answer.

What if you don’t get it exactly right? One of the biggest bestsellers of the 20^th century, Red Dragon by Thomas Harris, got a DC subway station name wrong. The author called it Metro Central instead of Metro Center. I live there so the error stood out, but you know something? No biggie. We’ve all seen something like this or worse. It bugs us for a few minutes, and we lament how ‘they’ could’ve looked it up. If the book is engaging enough, we’re okay with looking the other way. (Pro tip: Don’t place the Kremlin in China and you’ll be fine.) Ever watch a movie that takes place in a city that you know well? How many times have you shouted at the screen ‘they could never get between those places so fast?’

And don’t get me started on the scientific mistakes in The Martian by Andy Weir. There are scores of websites devoted to events in the book that could never happen because they break the rules of physics and/or the universe… but do most people care? That’s a nope.

One last piece of advice: It’s just as easy to get something right as it is to get it wrong. It’s far easier, though, to write around a detail and get on with the story than either of these choices.

Getting back to my friend who asked the original weapon question… I think he just wanted a respite. Writing is hard work, and distractions that seem like you’re really working on your book provide excellent cover.

Are the Jack Reachers a Dying Breed?

By Larry Kahaner

Is Jack Reacher dead?

This was the last question in a recent panel discussion sponsored by Mystery Writers of America’s Mid-Atlantic Chapter and probably designed to be the most provocative. I didn’t ask moderator Ed Aymar (The Unrepentant) if he meant it figuratively or literally as fans have often wondered if Lee Child’s character is dead or alive considering the hell this guy endures on a regular basis.

The Magnificent Seven: Toxic Masculinity?

The panelists – John Copenhaver (Dodging and Burning), LynDee Walker (Front Page Fatality), Alan Orloff, (Pray for the Innocent) and Aimee Hix (Dark Streets, Cold Suburbs) – weighed in. One indicated that the old-style male protagonists – the Sam Spade and Mike Hammer types – who drank hard, didn’t take prisoners, didn’t suffer fools, led with their fists, accomplished their goals in a heavy-handed manner, that this type of hero was indeed over and done. (The term ‘toxic masculinity’ came up. Ouch!) Others said that the tough guy is still a viable character but perhaps may be changing, more introspective, more willing to admit that they’re damaged goods. And let’s face it, these characters have some heavy interpersonal baggage albeit it’s usually blamed on other people, the rigged system or whatever else you got. Some self-analysis would certainly be welcome.

My hand went up and I proffered that the tough guy protagonist is alive and thriving – and needed more than ever. Where our country is today, a hero who keeps his promises, acts in the name of justice, believes that bad actors should be punished and has what I’ll just call ‘old-fashioned values’ is a tonic. Sadly, our institutions are often led by liars,  those who’ve stepped on others to achieve their positions, people (mostly men, I admit with some sadness) who can’t distinguish between lies and facts, and downright cheaters. They move whichever way the wind blows thinking nothing of the greater good but only their own gain. I’m not just talking about politicians but business and social leaders, too.

I wince at how old-school fictional characters solve problems with violence, but they are at least consistent, honest and think beyond themselves. How many times have we heard one of these tough guys say: “The world will be a better place without…” before pulling the trigger? As readers, we want heroes with a solid moral compass even if it doesn’t point to everyone’s true north. That’s Jack Reacher to a ‘T.’

(For those of you who really want to feel like waffling, watch the Magnificent Seven – the first one, damn it, not the remake – and then let’s talk moral compass.)

In a world full of compromises – usually ones that chip away at our best intentions – guys like Reacher suggest a simple, uncomplicated and value-rich way of life. He and his brethren give us hope that such an existence can be achieved even though it isn’t an easy path.

Whew, I was glad to get that off my chest not only about literature but about social issues, which was, oh, yeah, the topic of the event titled Crime Fiction as Social Commentary. It was held at George Mason University’s Fall for the Book annual event.