How important is being factually correct in your stories?

[serria]

Do you find yourself fact and detail checking everything possible when you write? Do you think "creative interpretation" or flat out ignoring facts is always a flaw of writing?

I think every genre has its own popular muddling of facts. Crime dramas might show a crime being easily solved with minimal evidence. A sci-fi might ignore physics for the sake of flash, explosion, and convenience. A historical drama might have two characters interacting who never would have met one another... and so on.

I find that when I write, I really make an effort for accuracy, though sometimes I wonder if it isn't better to relax the rules a bit in a way that might ultimately make for a better story - at very least, faster and more interesting pacing. On one hand, muddling facts is said to be something that throws people who are "experts" in that particular area out of the story, but on the other hand, is it justifiable when most people probably won't know or care either way?

What do you think? Have you ever had to debate whether being completely factually accurate or plausible is worth it or not?

Comments

[inevitableentresol]

I really like doing research but I don't strive to be completely accurate in my fiction, especially at the expense of pacing.

I think less of a book or a movie when they get basic facts wrong - like in the Winter Soldier, when neither the writers nor the characters, supposedly top intelligence officers, seemed to know what biometric security was. That was laughable. But I also don't think much of clunky pacing.

It really depends. Like you say, if only experts are going to be annoyed, it's probably worth it. The problem is that it can be hard to gauge what facts are generally known and what aren't. What is common knowledge can change very quickly. All it takes is a leap in technology or an unexpected global news story.