Why do British authors keep making this very obvious mistake?

[YaWeeFurryBastard]

Yet again I’m reading an otherwise good book which refers to a character being unable to put up the money to make bail. This is set in England, bail in England does not require a surety payment except in very limited circumstances. Why do authors or editors not check this to make sure it’s factually accurate?!

See also characters being bailed after they’ve been charged with murder, something which is particularly unheard of in England. Magistrates don’t have the power to grant bail for murder charges.

Surely at some point pre publishing, someone with a basic knowledge of the English legal system reads the book, or do they just not care?

I’m probably very over invested but it’s bloody annoying and almost undermines an otherwise believable story.

I was SO disappointed in the new Poirots. I am a big Agatha Christie fan and was excited at the idea that someone had been commissioned to write new stuff, but it was dreary and second rate. I read the first one, got part way through the second and then didn't bother any more.

I don't think I got through more than two. I found I was disliking all the characters, and wasn't interested in what happened to them. The books dragged a bit, too, as I recall. Agatha Christie's books were fairly short.

But I think continuations rarely live up to the originals.

Have to agree. It's funny, people can be dismissive of Christie, saying she's "just a storyteller" or pigeonholing her within her genre. But whenever others try to imitate what she did, they never get anywhere near! She was much more skilled than most people give her credit for. Most of her books combine elements of several genres - mystery, thriller, romance, family drama, humour - and she wraps it all up within a complicated but satisfying plot, which is hard enough in itself. And she makes it look easy!

And she knew her stuff - poisons, from when she worked as a dispenser, all the locations, from her own travels. And she was a successful playwright, which I think might be why her books translate to tv so well - she used the techniques of a dramatist in structuring the books.

Totally agree re Christie. A genius of the genre.

I hate to be a bore, but not one of these words: 'I was sat' are dialect words.

It may have become sloppy usage in certain parts, but it is not dialect. Dialect is a rich, wonderful, and sadly dying thing.

I have noticed American writers do not make this mistake.

' I was sitting' implies continuous action in the past tense. ' I sat 'is a finite action in the past.

'I was sat' combines the two, and is wince-inducingly incorrect .

I have noticed American writers do not make this mistake.

That's because Americans do not make this mistake. It seems to be primarily a feature of British English. It is certainly a prominent usage of posters on MN.

Maybe the character had recently been in Scotland where there are £100 notes.

Editd typo

Good luck getting one! You'd probably have to order it from a bank. They stopped being legal tender in Northern Ireland a few years ago.

I am rewatching the show The Americans about two soviet spies living undercover in the US. It is a period piece set in the 80’s in both US and Soviet Russia. In order to recreate both locales the writers had to include lots of hidden bits of material culture that really matter but which a modern audience has forgotten or never knew existed. In a scene in Moscow a character parks her car snd removes the windshield wipers snd the mirror for safekeeping.In scenes in the US advertisements, contemporary films, smoking, and limited technology all set the scene.

Writers who set their works in another country or region all have to be attentive to this kind of world building. Bit they often are more interested in plot or genre than setting. This is just a problem generally not specifically a problem of American writers or publishers.