Cozy Mysteries discussion

Cosy mysteries are by their nature escapist fiction. Nobody wants detailed, accurate descriptions of dead bodies. But what about elsewhere in a book?

If the central character has a particular job, or lives in a particular (real) town, does it put you off if the author gets things about it wrong?

What about the mystery itself? Does it have to be plausible, or at least possible?

Are people able and willing to suspend disbelief, or do you just stop reading if there are too many mistakes?

I'm irritated if an author gets things like titles wrong, especially if it continues to be wrong over several books in a series, but probably won't stop reading.

But I get really cross if the whole premise of the plot is impossible. One book I read didn't just get the English legal system wrong, it seemed to entirely ignore the fact that we actually have a legal system, within which the story couldn't have happened.

Now that all writers have the internet at their fingertips, I think errors are even less forgiveable. But I'm willing to admit I'm probably on the pernickety side where accuracy is concerned.

What do others think?

I think accuracy is important, particularly within the arena of the novel. For example, the coffeehouse mysteries have a lot of coffee lore in them, details about brewing and roasting that I find interesting and expect to be factual. Same with books set in a cooking arena, or sewing, or quilting, cheese shop, donut house, rare books, or whatever. If the story is set in a real place, I want the details to be accurate. If an author doesn't want to do the research or is unfamiliar with a real setting, then make it a fictional one.

Too many mistakes will make me stop reading, and I won't pick up anything more by that author. I keep a list so I can keep track of good authors and ones I really do want to waste time on. There are far too many books to read to waste time on an author that doesn't care enough to get the facts straight.

Yes, the mystery does need to be plausible, unless we are in the paranormal arena.

You have to get it right. As an author, I write only what I know. That requires road trips and personal research if I don't already know about a location, job, agency, or whatever a detail is that grounds a story in reality.

I remember a great recent movie in which a character was breaking ground with a horse-drawn plow. I've seen the real thing, and it was obvious to me that the director of the movie had no idea as to what plowing looked like.
That took me out of the moment and ruined the illusion that what I was seeing was real.
A repeated mistake in American literature and movies is the inaccurate portrayal of "treason." (It consists only of giving aid and comfort to the enemy in actual wartime.)

Authors of mysteries should remember that their readers are smart and they figure things out. If the author visits a fictitious restaurant (in a story), she or he can simply make up the details of the place. But if the restaurant is a real place, it must be portrayed accurately.
If authors want just to make everything up, then they should write fantasy, not mystery. (That's not to knock fantasy. It's a wonderful genre.)

Also, I think authors of mysteries might want a personal reference shelf. Mine includes The FBI Crime Classification Manual, DSM-IV (I haven't updated), A Primer of Drug Action, and Bulfinch's Mythology, among other books.

The above is IMHO. I make no claim to authority on the matter and readily confess to having OCD.

I expect accuracy as well, including the characters. I know cozies are fantasies, but in some the characters behave in such an unrealistic manner, especially for those in professional occupations, that I can't buy it. I also have difficulty with the police arresting the wrong person immediately on thin or no evidence. Yes, that gets our amateur sleuth involved, but it makes the police look stupid. Police wait until they have a pretty solid case or they'll get flack for an unlawful arrest.

I see it all the time on TV in courtroom scenes and so I ignore also the mistakes in books.

I am more angry when it comes to homophones or mistakes in names or eating a different food at the same meal! (Example, a horse's name changed from Devil to Demon, ham changes to bacon, a spaghetti-strapped dress changes to strapless.) These are the more simple errors.

MadameZelda, I know what you mean about simple errors. Continuity can be tricky. In one of my books, the hero left home in his car in one chapter and returned on his motorcycle! Fortunately I fixed it before the final draft.

Sally and MadameZelda, I concur.

As a reader, I hate finding holes in the plot and inconsistencies. As an author, I hate that even more. I have found that constructing a database of scenes is helpful in keeping who knew (or did) what and when they knew (or did) it. As for the inconsistencies, that's what we need beta readers and editors for. Readers deserve a clean book without the distractions you mention.

I'm big on accuracy, both in settings and believability. I've read books with key points that just don't make sense (and wouldn't occur in real life) and it throws off the entire plot - especially IF the plot is based on those points. I can't count the times I've said aloud 'Really?' (My husband just rolls his eyes at me).

FYI you can get the DSM, ICD-9/10 info online now, no need to buy a new book ;)

For me it definitely has to be believable which means fairly accurate unless it's total sci-fi and the story is supposed to be stretching the lines between reality and fantasy. If the author gets things way wrong it would definitely stop me from reading, but a few mistakes here and there I can forgive. It really just depends on how great the story and writing is, is it enough to suck me in so completely that I don't even notice the little flaws?

I agree with the each of the comments. When I read fiction, I hope to learn something I otherwise wouldn't experience--how to train drug-sniffing dogs, how to clean after an unattended death, if a small-plane pilot can nap during a long flight, what sleep-away camp sounds like. I expect what I read to be accurate and appropriate to the era. When I read fantasy or paranormal books I expect continuity and logical consistency. I don't want mind control or lightning bolts to remove all the tension or drama or creative problem solving. But if the character doesn't use a skill they've used in the 16 previous books, I want an explanation.
I love details that paint pictures in my mind- the cozy B&B bedroom or the hot, dusty, musky wind on the ranch. However, there's a fine line between creating atmosphere and getting paid by the adjective. I read a cozy about a murder investigation at a tropical resort that described every person's outfit, every piece of furniture in every room, and every item on the buffet table. That was the day I discovered my personal line between perfect and overdone.
I love baking hints, but I'm agitated when my Kindle reads all the recipes placed between chapters rather than at the end of the book. I'm frustrated by authors who provide so much detail about crafting or cooking or a small business that the character and plot development suffers; just because the author did her research doesn't mean she has to include all of it in book 1.
When I read a mystery, I want to feel the vintage velvet gown, crave buttercream frosting, or shiver beside the Amish teen as he milks the cow. Then I want to share an obscure fact I learned with coworkers at lunch: "I just read about how they made ladies hats in the 1842. Did you know..."

in some the characters behave in such an unrealistic manner, especially for those in professional occupations, that I can't buy it
Yes, when characters in positions of responsibility behave like ditsy teenagers with no common sense it's unrealistic. Or when they forget their professional ethics. I lose respect for them then, and don't want to read about them.

Or they don't use the professional skills they're supposed to have. Or even, as in a book I read recently, don't think of doing something as simple as look something up on the internet!

a horse's name changed from Devil to Demon, ham changes to bacon, a spaghetti-strapped dress changes to strapless,
There's no excuse for that sort of sloppy editing. The occasional error might slip past, but too many of them make it look as if the author just can't be bothered.

I agree one doesn't want an author to spew all the research out at once. But it needs to be done, so the book can be convincing. Otherwise you end up with books like one I looked at recently. It was set in Regency London and had a character living in a street which didn't exist in the Regency period. What was actually there was one of London's most notorious slum areas!

Plus, you never know when a particular piece of information you've researched will give you an idea for a terrific plot twist.

I like accuracy in a book as well. I know a lot of books have imaginary towns, which I approve of. If it's a real town or city or place it's too easy to make mistakes, even if, for instance, a street is changed to one-way after the book is written. But the place can still SOUND real even if it isn't. (I guess I should say, READ well.) And similarly, history can be fudged, if for instance, a writer mentions someone well known in historical fiction. But if that history is intended to be true in the telling, it should be true. (Does that make sense?)

As Norma says, history can be 'fudged' with fake events, but if you're using a real historical person, that person must be stay to their character unless something drastic happens that changes their personality, such as a blow to the head. For example, many modern day movie and rock stars have had so much written about them, readers will know how that person is suppose to act and talk.

Accuracy is important, but when we're talking about places, we have to remember that the only people it matters to are the people who know the place - who can be infuriated by an inaccurate portrayal - but no one else cares. J.K. Rowling got the place where I come from completely wrong, even though she'd obviously visited it - she thought a channel dividing the mainland from an island was an estuary, and she gave us an accent that definitely wasn't ours. But few of her readers would have realised this or cared.
What I hate are novels with historical settings which the author has researched, but doesn't really understand the mindset or social structure of the time, so the people are just modern people in fancy dress.

J.K. Rowling got the place where I come from completely wrong
She got a journey from north London to a southern suburb completely wrong too, in one of the Cormoran Strike books. That sort of thing is annoying because it's so easy to research, these days.

What I hate are novels with historical settings which the author has researched, but doesn't really understand the mindset or social structure of the time, so the people are just modern people in fancy dress.
Or they haven't done enough research, or the right research. So you have the heroine showing how caring and compassionate she is by taking an interest in the poor, but the author clearly hasn't researched the system of poor relief that existed at the time - or doesn't even appear to be aware that there was a system. (Seen a few of those.) Something may not be widely known and many readers might not notice that it's wrong, but if it's going to be a plot point, the author should research it and get it right.

if you're using a real historical person, that person must be stay to their character
Georgette Heyer did it well, in An Infamous Army; when she wanted the Duke of Wellington to speak, she used his own words from his despatches and correspondence.

I'm rather a stickler for accuracy. Many self-published ebooks have errors in them, as spell check doesn't catch grammer errors, or spelling errors. Not the wrong usage of a word. If a book is going to be specificially about a certain hobby, that the book is centered around, I expect them to have researched it and portray it accurately. However, I don't know enough about big cities living in the country, to know if they get the name of a street wrong in a certain city. Not unless its so obvious like Broadway in New York City is misspelled or something.

I don't know enough about big cities living in the country, to know if they get the name of a street wrong in a certain city.

I think this is one of the reasons why authors should take care to be accurate. Some readers might get their only information about a foreign city, or a historical period, from a novel.

Many self-published ebooks have errors in them.

Yes, and unfortunately it's then assumed that all self published books are poor quality, when some of us do take trouble.

I've seen some self published novels which could be very good, if they were better edited. Research, characters etc. good, just the writing that's poor.

But then traditionally published books aren't always error-free either.

So I didn't think I was that picky about accuracy, and then I read a book that set me off.

It was part of a series I love, and I even love the plot of the book... But the pointed errors just grated my teeth. It didn't help that one was mathematical and one was historical, and I just happen to be a mathematician and a historian. It was more offensive because it wasn't a self-published work. It a respected author. So the editor should have caught them. Also, one is fairly important to the plot, so it was repeated often.

So I've learned, I need a fairly high degree of accuracy.

If it was important to the plot, the author should have taken particular care. It's easier to overlook an error when it's only incidental to the main storyline.

I'm not a mathematician, and I would never attempt a plot using maths, or anything else I don't have first hand knowledge of.

On a different note, I recently re-read a book by a very well known and successful author. The dialogue was punctuated wrongly throughout. The closing comma was outside the quotation marks instead of inside every single time. I can't imagine how that got through all the editing and proofreading. It really set my teeth on edge.

Oh Victoria, that would have nearly killed me I think! My inner OCD grammar nerd would not have been happy.

I think editors correct much of this. So many self published don't have this option, though I read a book with an editor that let this through--"it's a waltz--just count 1234." Oh, my.

I think if you're expecting accuracy, you're in the wrong genre.

I expect that an author can at least check major facts in the setting or plot with Google. I don't expect in depth research. A couple of hours on the computer can eliminate the most glaring errors. I've stopped reading historicals (both fiction and romance) unless I'm pretty sure the author isn't using the time period as wallpaper.

I gave up a series I was enjoying quite a bit because the author had several feet of snow, snowshoeing and ice fishing in southern Indiana- an area where winter average temperatures are above freezing. One of the three would have been forgivable, but the 3 combined transported the story to a different part of the world and it destroyed the charm for me. That having been said, small errors will be overlooked by most people (or escape them completely).

I do get angry with glaring errors but find more misspellings and misuse of words and phrases to just stand out. I find as I am reading saying to myself "does no one proofread these books?" I say this alot.

My pet peeve is when a character's appearance changes dramatically within a short period of time and for no obvious reason. The worst example I can think of is a novel set in 17th century France where a cardinal's eyes change colour twice within one chapter. To make matters worse, he was a major character in the book!

I couldn't believe the editor or proof reader didn't pick this up, even if the author didn't see it.

This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."(https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ma...)

I guess the writer in me is a student of Twain, although the reader in me is less tolerant. I quit reading one book when a character, trying to survive on the run in the tropics, pulled a chocolate bar out of a back pocket and ate it. Wouldn't it have been mush?!?

And yet, as Twain says, sometimes it's just too tempting for a writer to leave things as they are in real life. In one of my novels, I needed a particular scene to take place a certain way in a highway rest area. I know that rest area along Interstate 8 about 15 miles inside California from the Arizona border just has pit toilets, but I needed a regular restroom to make the scene work.

I wrestled over that for months as I worked on the rest of the book. Even as I went ahead with the book's publication I fretted about making the change. Anyone who stopped at that rest area would know I'd changed it to fit the book (and it's possible they might because many of my readers travel that stretch of highway).

If it had affected something critical, I might have made a different call on the scene's setting... but it seemed like a permissible cheat.

Was I wrong, do you think?

Juanita wrote: "I do get angry with glaring errors but find more misspellings and misuse of words and phrases to just stand out. I find as I am reading saying to myself "does no one proofread these books?" I say this a lot."

My mom had an interesting one in one of her Kindle books (from a big name author from a major publisher):

"Someone, or sever also me ones..."

We finally figured out it was:

(view spoiler)["Someone, or several someones..."

The Kindle book must have been created by scanning a manuscript and using OCR software on it. They probably ran it through a spell checker, but never actually proofread it. Since the phrase is spelled correctly, no one ever noticed. :( (hide spoiler)]

My favorite was a book that had Navy Seals "repelling" out of a helicopter. More than once. I'm sure the vision I had in my head, of Navy Seals being forcefully thrown out of the helicopter, is not quite what the author was trying to describe. :)

And sometimes in zombie novels there will be a "hoard" of zombies. On The Walking Dead, some groups did collect them, so it can be correct in that context.

I think that's a permissible cheat because it's a minor change, which most readers probably won't even notice, and it is essential to the scene. It's not like you painted the Statue of Liberty in glitter!