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.

Please can we add people shouting 'Objection!' in British courts?

I agree. I remember a British author having an American in the US say "you are meant to be" when an American would say "you are supposed to be."

as a former book editor, I can see their point. If TV series and novels stuck to closely to life, they'd be just as dull and drawn-out as the real thing. Who wants to watch all the paperwork, delays and bureaucracy that an actual trial or detective investigation or medical procedure involves? You've got to cut to the good stuff!

Yes, I once went to a (very entertaining) talk by a retired senior police officer about police procedure for crime writers. He said pretty much all that. In RL, DNA and other results don't come back within hours or days. The investigation isn't carried out by one officer and a sidekick. Police stations don't have interview rooms with one-way mirrors so other people can watch the interview. But he acknowledged that for fictional purposes, you can't be 100% realistic.

He did attach more importance to PACE and being accurate about things like how long police can hold someone for once they've been arrested.

Well we do? I grew up on all things british and read all through everything from Swallows and Amazons to all of Christie, Josephine Tey, Dorothy Sayers etc..

Of course the pleasure was in the novelty of the language and the setting. I dreamed of tinned food, rugs, jumpers, torches, etc…

But the US is a much larger market (presumably) than the UK at this point and publishers are no doubt simply trying to expand the market by offering the least barrier to uptake by new readers and the most consistency across markets.

Its a shame, of course, but there is no reason to moan about it as though its unfair or somehow an American audience us getting something by the loss of vernacular. We aren’t getting anything.

@Sethera I think flashlight may be used by older writers, my late Aunt, Shropshire born and bred, always referred to a flashlight rather than a torch.

I read that for the same reason, would have enjoyed it had it not had these really annoying parts (does your book group meet in a vegan cafe?)

All these posts and nobody has mentioned licence plates....

See also American writers who write bridal scenes for book or screen with bridesmaids preceding bride up the aisle whereas in U.K. it's usually bride and father first. Also unusual here ( unheard of historically) for mother also to walk bride down aisle.

And 'bar keep' in novels set in UK. Aargh.

This is so annoying. Hedging bets hoping for US interest I’d think. Watched a detective thing last night set in UK talking about ‘eggplant’ and lots of other Americanisms. I don’t enjoy these.

The one that really bugs me is CID officers being referred to as “Detective Bloggs”. They’re never called that, they’re called “DI Bloggs” or “Inspector Bloggs”, DCs are only ever DC, not Detective, and PCs are PC or Constable, not Officer. But it’s getting more and more frequent.

What is the book please? As a Bracknell resident I'm prepared to suspend my disbelief 😀

Absolutely. Same with little things, like “he/she/I was sat”

It’s so interesting!

Yes! Also an American writing ‘would you like to have me do this…’ or ‘I visited with her’ or ‘ I wrote him’ where British people would say ‘would you like me to do this’, ‘I visited her’ or ‘I wrote to him.’

And the books I talked about earlier talked about characters going to ‘High Street’, not ‘the High Street.’

Uh: its perfectly normal American English to say “I visited her” “I wrote to him” and “would you like me to do this?”

There are some things we don’t say “was stood” for example. We say “I was standing…” but the examples you give are not particularly un American .

What a bunch of boring stick-in-the-mud British is Best group of bores you are. Heaven forbid an Americanism should intrude into your perfect little lives 😖

You seem to think you are "superior" in some way - you really aren't.

Eh?

no one’s said British is best or superior.

just that a book set in England with British characters wouldn’t use American phrases.

it would be the same if a book set in the US had an American character who used obviously British colloquialisms. You wouldn’t have a US police officer referring to PACE or the custody clock, or have an American lawyer straightening his wig and robes before court.

it’s jarring and makes the book unauthentic and less believable. If you’re writing a book get your story straight first.

There are some things we don’t say “was stood” for example. We say “I was standing…” but the examples you give are not particularly un American
Nobody who can actually speak properly would say "I was stood". That's not a UK thing, it's just a wrong thing.

Even the very British Harry Potter books reference a “sweater” which Hermione was wearing at Malfoy Manor.

Someone objected to “sneakers” earlier. Roald Dahl’s Danny the Champion of the World mentions sneakers; admittedly it was written in the 1970s, when wearing “trainers” (especially when not playing sport) wasn’t yet a thing. They would probably have been called “training shoes” at the time.

On the subject of footwear: not an Americanism, but has anyone noticed how often the Harry Potter books mention Harry’s “trainers”, instead of “shoes”? Is it to emphasise the way wizards dress casually when they’re not being wizards?

That's not a UK thing, it's just a wrong thing.

It's a UK thing that is wrong.

I’m also a local and have never heard Bracknell being described as anything other than a dump or at best “cheaper than Wokingham”.

The book is called My not so perfect life. Any references to Bracknell are not until it’s nearing the end.

Someone objected to “sneakers” earlier. Roald Dahl’s Danny the Champion of the World mentions sneakers; admittedly it was written in the 1970s, when wearing “trainers” (especially when not playing sport) wasn’t yet a thing.

I’m not sure sneakers were the same thing as trainers? I’m sure we used to call lace-up plimsolls “sneakers” in the mid 80s.

These solicitors talk about the police pressing charges and also the victim: Can the police press charges without the victim's consent? - JD Spicer Zeb Solicitors

Not sure why my response has been hidden - I was just trying to describe the type of shoe we referred to as “sneakers” in the 1980s, in response to @scalt’s post!

There's a persistent troll who writes about those kind of shoes. If you mention them by name your comment gets hidden until someone can look at and confirm you're not the weirdo.