Mistakes in fiction that bug you

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

I guess I was really thinking of libel/slander. E,g. Mr A and Mr B are competing for promotion. Mr A either publicly alleges or spreads a rumour that Mr B is a thief. Mr B did steal a chocolate bar 40 years before. I would say that the import of the word 'thief' is misleading (as long as Mr B hasn't stolen anything since).

Maybe the difference between spoken and written defamation, in the days before such things as recorded TV shows at least, was that once something is in print, it's pretty hard to remove it. Thus the hurt or injury suffered by the defamed party may re-occur indefinitely. Words on the other hand may float away on the breeze.

[Mayerling]

Jeff, I've a feeling that the line between slander and libel relates to permanence : books and newspapers are considered more permanent than speech. But I vaguely remember lawyers arguing over the case of a man who taught his parrot to repeat "Mr X is a crook." Was this quasi-permanence?

I'm interested in what one can say about a person's past. For instance, if Mr A murders someone at age 21, then it would seem OK to call him a murderer 40 years later. But what if Mr A stole a bar of chocolate at age 21? Calling him a thief 40 years later seems to imply that he's been stealing recently or is likely to do so.

Hi Robert,

Permanence may result as an aftereffect but I can't see it as totally involved as one of the elements. It is the hurt the words cause, and the effect of them on the victim of those words. As for the parrot case, I could not say. Maybe it was really for the birds?

If the individual only stole a chocolate bar at age 21, I doubt it would merit being raised by the prosecution in it's case. If, however, the defendant had a history of having an insane desire to eat chocolate, and the murder victim was killed trying to protect his newspaper candy stall, it might have some relevance there.* If however, the victim was killed by somebody stealing his Vermeer or Van Gogh from his home, I don't think bringing up defendant's sweet tooth crime of four decades earlier makes sense.

*Likewise if there was a partial hand print covered in chocolate syrup.

Jeff

[GUT]

How about "shooters" who hold a telescopic sight right up against their eye like they were looking through a spyglass. Pull the trigger and you get a huge black eye, if not a fractured orbit, from the recoil.

Forgot that one.

[GUT]

Technical issues I hate are things like lens flare and strobe effect "counter" rotating wagon wheels because they jolt me back into the realism that I'm watching a movie. There are ways around these things and, in this digital age, ways to clean them out of the shot in post production but for some reason they are just left in.

Yes to flare
Yes to strobe
Yes to wheels

[sdreid]

Technical issues I hate are things like lens flare and strobe effect "counter" rotating wagon wheels because they jolt me back into the realism that I'm watching a movie. There are ways around these things and, in this digital age, ways to clean them out of the shot in post production but for some reason they are just left in.

[sdreid]

Idiots holding pistols in such a manner that when the slide flew back it would rip their thumb open, or even off (I carry the scars of this mistake).

How about "shooters" who hold a telescopic sight right up against their eye like they were looking through a spyglass. Pull the trigger and you get a huge black eye, if not a fractured orbit, from the recoil.

[GUT]

A few that get me:

Cameras and printers that make the wrong sound, a rangefinder camera making an SLR sound nothing worse.

UK Court scenes with Barristers flouncing around with no Bar Jacket.

Idiots holding pistols in such a manner that when the slide flew back it would rip their thumb open, or even off (I carry the scars of this mistake).

Punching someone in the head, a pretty fast track to a broken hand.

[GUT]

Maybe it isn't a mistake but is it really possible to throw a knife hard enough to stike someone in the back which then causes them to immediately drop dead? I have seen that in movies many times and it doesn't seem possible to me. First it would have to fortuitously miss all the bones then penetrate deep enough and in exactly the right spot to hit and then puncture the heart. That would have to at least a 3" penetration from the back.

t is certainly possible to kill with a "nife" (this s a JtR ste) thrown from behind, but I doubt that the victim would drop on the spot.

[packers stem]

Not so much a mistake in fiction but in a movie...
I can't be the only one who hates seeing the 'single yellow line' in "murder by decree".... Really bugs me

[Robert]

Jeff, I've a feeling that the line between slander and libel relates to permanence : books and newspapers are considered more permanent than speech. But I vaguely remember lawyers arguing over the case of a man who taught his parrot to repeat "Mr X is a crook." Was this quasi-permanence?

I'm interested in what one can say about a person's past. For instance, if Mr A murders someone at age 21, then it would seem OK to call him a murderer 40 years later. But what if Mr A stole a bar of chocolate at age 21? Calling him a thief 40 years later seems to imply that he's been stealing recently or is likely to do so.

[Mayerling]

Another point of confusion (not as bad as the robbery/burglary one) is "slander"/"libel". Occasionally these two are interchanged on programs. For our own edification, "slander" refers to a SPOKEN statement that defames some party, while "libel" refers to a WRITTEN statement that defames some party. A newspaper can be sued by a person for publishing negative comments (possibly erroneous ones) in a libel suit. If the defamation victim traces the comments to some loudmouth neighbor or fellow employee, the latter can be sued in a slander suit. This gets more complicated when trying to prove either case. A public figure (in the U.S. anyway) can't sue for libel at the drop of a hat, because the actions he or she does (especially if they are actions that effect the public) are fair game in a democracy where the public has to have the right to hear the criticism and make it's own mind. This was the crux of the U.S. Supreme Court case involving General William Westmoreland against the New York Times in the 1970s. Also, in both libel or slander, if the individual or published source can show the truth of the statement, the case collapses. However if the victim of the remarks or publication can prove that malice against him or her was at the cause of the release of this statement, then the victim's case can still triumph.

Law and Order has done one thing well I've noticed. Over the years it cites cases that are on parts of the arcane criminal laws of our country and my state of New York (where the shows are set). A good example is repeated reference to the problem of "Molyneux". This particular 1901 decision has never been really altered in New York State, and is also followed or cited in other states. It was caused by an 1898 series of poisonings that got traced to one Roland P. Molyneux. The first caused the death of a rival for Molyneux's fiancé's affections. BUT AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE RIVAL IT WAS CONSIDERED NATURAL CAUSES THAT KILLED HIM. The second death, that of one Katherine Adams (the aunt of a man who had angered Molyneux) was the one he was charged with because due to the circumstances Miss Adams' death had to be seen only as a poisoning. In his first trial in 1899 Molyneux was convicted because details surrounding the first death were admitted that closely resembled the second death of Miss Adams. Sentenced to death, Molyneux was in the Sing Sing death house for a year while his lawyers fought for an appeal. They won the appeal. It turns out that to demonstrate method in repeated murders, one has a set of seven points to meet, and one of them is that the deaths are considered murders. Molyneux's second trial just was based on his responsibility for the death of Miss Adams, and he won acquittal. We may in hindsight think he was guilty of both (he probably was) but the rationale of the Appeals Court was so on target that the rule remains good law.

Jeff

[sdreid]

Maybe it isn't a mistake but is it really possible to throw a knife hard enough to stike someone in the back which then causes them to immediately drop dead? I have seen that in movies many times and it doesn't seem possible to me. First it would have to fortuitously miss all the bones then penetrate deep enough and in exactly the right spot to hit and then puncture the heart. That would have to at least a 3" penetration from the back.

[RivkahChaya]

a switchblade, by the way

Which are and were illegal, so Fonda's character committed a crime just by buying one.

[RivkahChaya]

We were recently watching a TV-movie about a series of burglaries in a well-to-do neighborhood, and a cop who went undercover as a male nanny in one family. Trouble was, everyone (even the police) kept calling the crimes "robberies".
It drove my companion nuts, as she has worked for over thirty years as a police records technician, and knows a burglar breaks in when you're out, a robber confronts you personally, or while you're home.
Funny how the little details can make or break a story, isn't it?

And most people IRL use the words interchangeably-- BUT THE POLICE WOULD GET IT RIGHT. Actually, the police would probably call it by whatever its number in the crime code book is. I bet burglary with break-in is probably different from a walk-in burglary (where people left their house unlocked), and the police would use the code numbers to make a distinction. But I'd settle for them just saying "burglary" on TV. That one bugs me too.

Actually, there's a Mary Tyler Moore Show episode where she is burglarized, and when she calls the police to report a "robbery," they arrive with guns at the ready, and then proceed to lecture her on the difference between a robbery and a burglary, and what she had was a burglary. It's pretty funny.

Something that drives me crazy, also on Law & Order, is that characters are constantly misusing the phrase "begs the question" to mean "suggests the question be asked." I know people do this all the time in real life, but I don't think lawyers, who have to study formal logic, would do this, and I think people who deal with lawyers a lot would get corrected a lot.

[Pcdunn]

We were recently watching a TV-movie about a series of burglaries in a well-to-do neighborhood, and a cop who went undercover as a male nanny in one family. Trouble was, everyone (even the police) kept calling the crimes "robberies".
It drove my companion nuts, as she has worked for over thirty years as a police records technician, and knows a burglar breaks in when you're out, a robber confronts you personally, or while you're home.
Funny how the little details can make or break a story, isn't it?