Robert Jones

Lord Byron wrote: But I hate things all fiction…there should always be some foundation of fact for the most airy fabric – and pure invention is but the talent of a liar.

Most persons would agree that adding facts to a fictional novel, especially one that includes technical matters, can improve it on several levels. Obviously, facts can make stories more realistic. To readers who enjoy learning things, facts are manna. Readers who especially cherish them are those who can directly relate to factual descriptions and comments written about such things as places, activities, items and persons with which and with whom they themselves are familiar. For all readers, facts help paint a more complete image of the sphere within which a story takes place. If they do nothing else, they can make a story more interesting.

Some subjects promote greater expectations of accuracy than others. For example, most readers of Tom Clancy’s book, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, would expect quite a few accurate details about nuclear submarine technology and operations, which Mr. Clancy delivers. If he did not, his readers would surely be disappointed.

Readers learn much from literature. It provides answers to many questions most readers might not even think to wonder about until it is brought to their attention by a story. Once questions are raised, though, many readers want answers to them. But how many stories have we read that involve, for example, smuggling? And how many authors have explained just why widgets are worth more in one location than in another and just why governments discourage free transfers between them? The existence of these two facts is the reason smuggling exists in the first place.

One of the appeals of the James Bond series of novels was that the author, Ian Fleming, would have James, early on, show off his encyclopedic knowledge by explaining such things to another character and, of course, simultaneously, to readers. The latter receive a double reward: that of having been entertained by an engrossing story and also that of having been educated. And, for those readers who need it, the educational aspect helps justify the time invested in reading the book.

One thing that writers might consider a disadvantage to adding facts, but that can often be just the opposite, is the frequently attending need for research. This activity is one where writers, as well as readers, can share rewards. Researching almost any subject opens a treasure chest of information that can lead to new ideas that can be applied to present or future stories.

The importance of using factual information can be somewhat metered by readers’ comments about its presence and absence in novels they have read. Some readers who blogged their opinions didn’t much mind inaccuracies. Many certainly did. About the ones who did, the following paraphrased remarks are telling, especially about how seemingly small inaccuracies can trigger surprisingly intense reactions by readers.

* I insist that every detail be accurate.

* If you claim something is real, it had better be accurate.

* Being incorrectly stereotyped bothers me. The Canadian-English “eh” has a specific placement in sentences, and that placement is not at the end of every single one. Having recently just begun reading a book and finding an “eh” in the wrong place, I was so annoyed that I put the book down. That might have been an overreaction, but I’m sensitive.

* Readers knew the character was from the South because the author had him use “y’all” whenever he spoke. I haven’t read that author since.

* When writing about a place I’m familiar with, I introduce much more local color. Having an accurate picture of such a place makes it fun to write about.

* If a character is supposed to be an expert on some subject, a writer had better ensure that everything the expert says is accurate.

* When reading about a real location, I automatically assume that all the details are accurate.

* One story took place in a location that had special meaning to me. The many wrong location details made it difficult and frustrating book to read.

* If writers create a fictional town, they can do whatever they want to with it. If it’s a town that really exists, then most of the details should be accurate.

* If writers create a fictional location, then everything should be fictional.

* Introducing fictional places in a real city is acceptable if done to protect a reputation or to avoid a lawsuit.

* It bothers me more when TV shows use jargon that is inappropriate for the location of a scene.

* I never found the Georgetown Metro stop that was mentioned in a book as being in Washington DC. Finding it would have spared my feet a long walk from Foggy Bottom.

* If a character drives to an incorrectly located street once, that’s no big deal. If the street is referred to repeatedly, however, it should be located accurately

* Bending the truth is fine, but impossibilities bug me.

* Even though I love books with local settings and like the author, when she had a main character drive down one street to another when the two do not, in reality, cross, I stopped reading the book.

* I read that one of the first authors to include detailed descriptions of actual places in a fictional novel was Bram Stoker when he wrote DRACULA. Doing so was tremendously effective in providing his vampire persona with a cloak of legitimacy.

* In some major languages, the spelling of such words as articles and adjectives are gender specific. Using a masculine-spelled adjective to describe a feminine character can be jarring, especially during a love scene.

* I put up with a heroine acting out of character for her historic period and perceived upbringing; but, when the author blatantly introduced chocolate, I refused to read another word. Improbable heroines are bad enough, but tampering with chocolate is unforgivable.

EXTRA FACTS

Experiments have shown that some persons tend to accept as facts information presented to them in books and movies. Surprisingly, after having read a few short stories, and after a relatively short delay, they would use information included in the stories to answer questions in subsequent general knowledge tests. Even more surprisingly, in time, the information had apparently settled in so that many believed they had known the information before the experiment had even taken place.

In a previous piece, I questioned the advisability of handling crime- scene objects, as they do regularly on television, while wearing gloves. It seemed to me and several commenters that this would damage if not destroy any fingerprints that might be present. Subsequent research supports this assumption. Experts state that touching objects such as a gun, knife, bottle, credit card, etc. where fingerprint impressions might reside can indeed destroy prints. Objects, such as paper, that absorb the residue of fingerprints can be handled with gloves or a handkerchief provided they are not contaminated with anything, for example, oil, that could also be absorbed by the object.

How many times have we watched television investigators drop nonporous objects into plastic bags? Don’t do that either, say the experts. Fingerprints reside on the surfaces of nonporous materials such as metal, glass and plastic and are fragile. How many times have we watched the investigators dust hard, nonporous surfaces with fingerprint powder? The slightest contact by a bag or almost anything else – including a fingerprint powder application brush – can destroy prints. The experts recommend placing bottles, for example, in boxes so that they extend from one corner to a diagonally opposite corner, where they will be secure and prints are not likely to be touched. Ideally, they recommend that objects be treated with cyanoacrylate fumes before being transported.

Fingerprint residues reacts with cyanoacrylate fumes and atmospheric water vapor to create a white powder known as polycyanoacrylate. The powder traces the configuration of fingerprint ridges and makes hard, white, visible impressions that can be photographed, processed and recorded. Prints can be further enhanced by applying a luminescent or nonluminescent stain.

Those who have watched evidence suspected of bearing a fingerprint being fumed on television in a state-of-the-art CSI laboratory fuming chamber might wonder just how someone examining a crime scene could possibly do that at the scene to preserve prints. A recent CSI segment showed an investigator setting up a collapsible, rectangular tent over a woman’s body to expose fingerprints lrft on her skin. (Fingerprints, usually contaminated prints involving body fluids, lipstick, etc.,transferred to a surface by fingers, can be retrieved from a body’s surface. Today, fingerprints can be harvested even from such items as cigarettes, fruit, stones, bed sheets and many more materials – any surface that is about as smooth as the ridged surface of your fingers.) In the absence of such specialized equipment, fuming can still be done without too much trouble.

If you were a character in one of your stories, investigating a crime scene located far from a lab, you would need a cardboard box, or a similar enclosure, to serve as a fuming chamber and a small supply of cyanoacrylate to provide fumes. Cyanoacrylate can be found in many stores, sold under the trade names of Superglue and Krazy Glue. A simple cup of hot water, or a handy cup of hot coffee, could serve to provide water vapor. Some aluminum foil could be used to support a half-inch-diameter pool of the glue, and a piece of string could serve to suspend a suspected object, say, a pistol, in the box.

It would be preferable to have a warming device, such as a 65-watt light bulb or an electric coffee-warming coil (never a hotplate), to speed evaporation of the glue. To provide a monitoring device, rub a finger along a side of your nose to pick up some oil, and roll the finger on a piece of the aluminum foil to create a test fingerprint.

Bend another piece of foil to form a pan-shaped platform just above the light bulb or heating coil and squeeze the measure of glue onto it. Make certain neither the bulb nor the coil is touching the cardboard, close the box and switch on the light or coil. After ten minutes, check the test fingerprint. If it has not developed, continue fuming.

Two important things to keep in mind are:

(1) Fume only in a well ventilated area, and

(2) If you use a cup of coffee to humidify the fuming chamber, DO NOT drink it afterward. The prefix, cyan, in cyanoacrylate is the same prefix that appears in cyanide.

Another thing that puzzles many CSI viewers is why investigators run around in dark rooms with flashlights when they could easily turn on lights. Light from a single source, shown at an angle, often exposes fingerprints that aren’t readily visible under general lighting. Such a technique is also handy for finding footprints on dusty floors. Using laser lights that emit light of only certain wavelengths make some prints glow. Luminol is a chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence when it is mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. It is sometimes sprayed onto areas where the presence of blood is suspected. Even if the area has been cleaned, blood traces will often be revealed by a striking blue glow. It’s the iron in blood that catalyzes a chemical reaction that results in the glow. The glow is observable in a fairly dark room. It lasts about 30 seconds and can be photographed with a camera capable of timed exposures.

What is not usually mentioned in television shows is the fact that luminol also fluoresces in the presence of copper and its alloys, Even horseradish, feces and certain bleaches will cause a glow. In fact, bleach presents a big problem. It can make an entire, bleach-cleaned room glow, thus obscuring any trace of blood. Fortunately, DNA can still be extracted from samples after they have been treated with luminol.

Of interest but of only passing relevance to the subject matter of this essay is the fact that, in addition to humans and other primates, koalas have fingerprints. In fact, their fingerprints are reportedly difficult to distinguish from those of humans. Also of interest is the fact that koalas have front paws with five digits, two of which are opposable, like thumbs, to the remaining three. All three remaining digits have claws. The rear paws also have five digits. One is broad and opposable, like a thumb, to the others, but it is clawless. The next two digits are fused together and have two claws. The remaining digits each have one claw.

Happy holidays to everyone.

RCJ

I read on the first that October is typically a month for short fiction. Well, I’m not an author, so I figured I’d pass on that tradition.

Then I saw how many other people were passing on that tradition as well, and changed my mind.

STILLED VOICE BEL CANTO

I regret to write that as of this issue, we will no longer be featuring original poetry.

For the readers who have paid for subscriptions based solely on our magazine’s reputation as a publisher of new material, I wish to say that I share your disappointment, and I deeply apologize for the format change.

Those who remember last month’s editorial may remember that I promised to give the reasons for any future alterations of format. That was written in anticipation of this column.

It has become an accepted policy to cite polite fictions… pardon the irony… for such changes. As we have never followed the pack, however, I am going to provide a quick summation of the reason for the change.

1) Harper v. Hill. While this case was celebrated in the media at the time, it has since become the obvious tipping point. Miles Harper was reading a book by Joe Hill while in the bathtub. His wife surprised him by opening the door unannounced, and he banged his head against the tile and subsequently drowned. Harper’s son sued, claiming that the novel had gotten the normally languid husband into the state of excitement which caused his rapid movement and death. It was revealed that Miles Harper, while a prodigious reader of more than six books per year, had never read horror or suspense fiction before, and had been encouraged to do so by the ad campaign. Despite the wealth/poverty and racial issues brought forth during argument, the lack of familiarity with the format proved to be the linchpin of the case. Cutting through the legalese, Hill was found partially complicit in Harper’s death.

2) National Athiest Action League v. Lewis. An attempted class action suit against the estate of C.S. Lewis, claiming damages from the theological messages within Lewis’ fiction. This established the precedent that lawsuits could not be brought against authors or their estates for work published prior to Harper v. Hill if physical injury could not be demonstrated. The wording of the decision, however, led to a flurry of similar, more successful lawsuits against subtext and meaning in popular fiction.

3) Consolidated Avionics and Robotics v. Silverberg. This lawsuit nearly bankrupted Robert Silverberg, one of science fiction’s most successful authors, when C.A.R. successfully argued that the capabilities of a vehicle in one of Silverberg’s recent stories created undue pressure upon the industry to meet those capabilities in reality. Using precedent of Harper V. Hill, Thomas v. Palahniuk, and others, the ruling stood a challenge at the Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, these and associated rulings have diminished submissions of new fiction to nearly zero. We have been successfully (or so we hope) researching and reprinting some of the best fiction of the previous century, and we have been printing new poetry and nonfiction.

Last month, a decision was rendered in Dobson v. Jacob in which Charlee Jacob was found liable for use of “objectionable imagery” in a two-word segment of one of her poems, and fined $25,000. In light of this, we have decided to shield our poets from potential damages, and have instead used some public domain work from a long-deceased poet named Clark Ashton Smith to fill out our pages.

As always, we hope you, the reader, continue to enjoy the magazine at it evolves and grows.

Yours,
THE EDITOR