lessons learned from CGAG

Just passing this along, in the hopes it might be useful to someone else as well.


One of the group members is working on a project that takes place in previous decades (specifically, in London during the Blitz). Several times, references made in the project were questioned, because they didn't seem to fit with the time period.

In each case, the reference was both true and factual (example: they had dry cleaners back then).

Discussion followed, with majority opinon holding as follows:

A fact may be true and correct, and be wrong.

"Wrong" because a fact which is true and yet not obvious to the average reader can have the same result as an anachronism -- the reader stops, and is thrown out of the period/story.

Does this mean that you shouldn't use period details? Of course not. World-building is all about using the details.

However, if you're going to mention something that is not common knowledge, then use it fully in support of the world-building. example: instead of referencing the need for a dry-cleaner, show the character actually going to the dry-cleaner's, so the reader can see the differences between then and now (machinery, time it took, expectations, etc). In that way, you support your world, rather than undermining it.

And if a trip to the dry-cleaners has no place in your book? Then do you really need the reference in the first place?

ever notice our presidents seem to do more good AFTER their stint is done?

Clinton’s Foundation Brokers AIDS Deal
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS
Published: November 30, 2006

MUMBAI, Nov. 30 — The cost of treating children infected with H.I.V. and AIDS is poised to plummet next year, under a deal announced today between two Indian drugmakers and former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cipla and Ranbaxy Laboratories agreed to make 19 different anti-retroviral drugs designed for children available at an average price of 16 cents a day, or $60 a year, which is about 45 percent lower than the lowest current price, the Clinton Foundation said in a statement.

Because not everyone has access to the current lowest price, the plan will actually translate into a four- to six-fold cost reduction for many children, said Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for H.I.V. and AIDS in Africa.

The prices will be available to 62 developing countries and will lead to the treatment of an additional 100,000 people in 2007, the statement said.

read more here via the New York Times



(they were racing the clock, according to the article, because laws are about to change in India that would have made this deal impossible in a few years. While I'm all for patent protection, and all for pharmecutical copies recouping the not-inconsiderable costs of research and development.... I'm still cheering this like crazy.)