To get annoyed by a badly written novel with serious factual mistakes

[PhaedraIsMyName]

Author thinks the witness to a crime can decide who the Crown calls as expert witness.

Expert witness is a therapist who was treating the witness to the crime. Expert witness is married to a lawyer. Expert witness has been discussing the background with lawyer husband. The person accused of the crime is the crime scene witness'father. Author thinks the lawyer husband can represent the accused and this is not a conflict.

Lawyer husband is actually employed in a government legal department and author thinks lawyer husband can, whilst still employed, act as a defence lawyer.

It's tosh. Did nobody bother to edit or proof read it?

Is it just me who bothers about stuff like this?

TooSpotty, some of the books that were written in the 80s (I'm thinking in particular of The Passing Bells, though I'm not entirely sure when that first came out) was pretty good too, but authors of the recent stuff seem to have decided it's perfectly OK to sacrifice facts for the sake of story. I read one (mainstream bestseller, not a kindle freebie) recently in which the Indian heroine came to England alone and became a VAD serving in France at the age of 17. I'm no expert, but a two minute google confirmed that VADs had to be 24 for overseas service, and have parental consent to join up. It just seemed so disrespectful to have disregarded such important facts.

Penelope, I completely agree about the paint-by-numbers approach! I can't think of a single WW1 novel from recent years in which there isn't a feisty suffragette heroine chafing against the restrictions of her corsets and her privileged lifestyle. Or falling in love with someone (shocked whisper) working class...