How do you make your writing more credible?

Credibility can be defined in a number of ways when we speak of narrative fiction. The definition relative to this post is the extent to which your fiction could potentially become fact, or to put it another way, whether your reader can read your writing and believe that could actually happen.

If you only ever write from experience, and write what you already as a result of that experience, the scope of your writing will be very narrow. In time the same story-lines will manifest and the same basic plot will unfold with minor variations. At some point it becomes a necessity to expand your horizons and venture into topics that you have never directly experienced for yourself. When this happens the credibility of your writing will depend almost entirely upon the extent to which you were able to expose yourself to those experiences.

There's an author called Dan Brown who wrote quite a few novels but the one he is perhaps most known for is 'The Da Vinci Code' a novel that centres around the Holy Grail and the myriad of theories that surround it. Brown also wrote another book called 'Digital Fortress' a novel that centres around encryption and cryptography in the broader sense. Both novels have many shared themes such as, symbolism, analysis, and critical thinking, all of which are incorporated in an attempt to meld these with a thriller as the prevailing narrative. Both books are entertaining, however your enjoyment of each is likely to be limited by your knowledge of the subject matter.

I first learned how to program a computer in BASIC when I was 6 years old back in the 90s. Now almost 3 decades later, my formal education in computer science has been greatly expanded since and I have even written textbooks about programming and my dissertation for my degree centred around the creation of an encryption standard - this isn't an attempt to "flex" here I am just making it clear that I have a proven background in this field. Whilst I enjoyed 'The Da Vinci Code' when it came to 'Digital Fortress' I did not. I believe having an understanding of the subject matter made it very difficult for me to suspend my disbelief, so much to the point that it took me several months of picking the book up and leaving the book again before I actually managed to finish it. The only reason I finished it in the end was for the sake of completion and so that I could justify my criticism of the book itself.

When it comes to criticising the writing however, the problem I ran into is that it is actually well written and if you didn't know much about cryptography and computing in general or at least only had a passing interest or basic understanding of both, you would probably enjoy it. It was then that I realised this was likely the same mindset that people held when it came to 'The Da Vinci Code' - I knew very little about the Holy Grail and the many theories that surrounded it, in particular the one that becomes the focal point of the novel. This lack of education or lack of understanding or both as the case may be, was ultimately what allowed me to enjoy the book whilst others were quite vocal in their criticism of it.

Skip forward a few years and during one of my deep dives into a new topic of interest, purely for recreation, this time Psychology, led me to understand there is actually a name for the phenomenon that is demonstrated by myself as a reader in the first instance when it came to 'The Da Vinci Code' and also why my criticism of 'Digital Fortress' was so ardent. In Psychological terms it is referred to as the 'Dunning–Kruger effect' which in its simplest explanation is the observation that people who know a little about a subject matter often assume in error that they know everything about it, whilst those who have studied it at length often set the bar so high to regard themselves as experts that very few claim that title for themselves. This results in an odd situation where as a writer, you only require a limited understanding of any subject matter in order to convince most people that you are an expert in it, only a minority will actually have the credentials to challenge that authority, and an even smaller proportion thereof will actually follow through with that criticism.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is applied to Dan Brown in both instances, his understanding of the subject matter in both books is sufficient to convince most readers that he is an expert. It also applies to the reader, in that their understanding of the subject matter will be limited objectively but they will believe that their understanding is sufficient to judge whether the content is credible or not. The end result is that the confidence of the writer conveyed in their writing is all it takes to convince the reader whether the story is credible, and this is evident by those who regard 'The Da Vinci Code' as truth.

When it comes to 'Digital Fortress' although the basic understanding of some key concepts is there, a few mistakes are made in semantics which make the entire story unrealistic. You need to have an understanding of the subject matter in order to be able to spot this, the average reader won't be so versed. As far as narrative fiction is concerned, the implications of the success or failure to convince the reader of your acumen is largely inconsequential in terms of a broader impact on the reader's life and by extension on society itself - the plot of neither book resulted in societal change, even with 'The Da Vinci Code' the plot itself has no real world implications and the theories presented surrounding the nature of the Grail are reflective of what was already a prevalent belief, it wasn't novel in that regard.

However when you venture into topics that are presented as credible and realistic, then there is a duty to get it right otherwise you risk spreading disinformation unintentionally. Both books venture into areas that do have real world implications if anyone was to actually take them seriously. For every Science Fiction TV show and Movie that exists there are fans who believe the stories that are depicted are actually based in truth - maybe not word for word but in theory at least. This genre in particular is susceptible to this behaviour because it is designed to be for the most part scientifically possible, even if entirely fictitious. The blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy can make it easier to captivate your audience and draw them in to the narrative you create, but without providing a check and balance to the new reality that you create, you risk turning delusion into dedication, that is to say an unwavering devotion and belief in the fantasy. This was one of the issues I confronted when I wrote '256' as a piece of fiction that blurs the lines between reality and fantasy I needed to find a way to remind the reader what they were following was not meant to be realistic, ultimately the easiest way to do this was through impossible geometry, although that did prove difficult to convey within the narrative as it is visual by nature. It is important to remind the reader when things are not meant to be realistic as the desire to pursue these narratives can be amplified is the fantasy depicted is more desirable than the present state of reality which in most cases it is, save for dystopian fiction.

It is December and Christmas is fast approaching; this time of year is perhaps one of the best examples of this blurred reality. When you take the idea of Santa Claus as a narrative, ultimately it exists as a way to teach children about karma, be good and good things will come to you. When the devotion to that narrative becomes too engrained however, the followers risk reaching a point where a lack of reward is met with a reversal of the contract, in other words if you give me coal I will fuck shit up. Santa is the first instance perhaps that most children in a Western context at least are introduced to the concept of karma. The concept extends beyond childhood though into every area of our lives. The prevailing narrative is part of our society, that if you do good things, then good things will come to you. The world doesn't actually work like this though; you would hope that realisation would be made, but precedent stands as evidence that many people never made that realisation and feel shafted by society when their actions do not get rewarded and seemingly those who outright reject any notion of karma seem to succeed.

As a writer, when you set out to explore a topic you have no background in, or no prior experience of, then you need to repeat in your mind that your objective is not to become an expert in that field. When you explore, your objective should be to achieve an understanding sufficient to make your writing credible to those who have at most the same understanding as you. In the process you must accept when someone who knows more about that subject matter criticises your work that you must make a choice, either to change your narrative to be one that is intended to be realistic which necessitates corrections in line with criticism, or to accept that your narrative is not intended to be representative, at which point a conscious effort to reinforce the reader's understanding that it is a fantasy world is necessary.

When it comes to Santa Claus this reinforcement of reality eventually comes when that contract is broken by the parents. When it comes to karma in the broader sense that reinforcement of reality comes with the assertion that "a good deed is its own reward" in other words teaching people not to expect a reward. All of this is predicated on the idea that you do not want to intentionally mislead your readers. There are of course times when you might want to achieve that goal, either for virtuous or for malicious intent. After all, if a good deed is its own reward, is a bad deed then its own punishment?

Whether virtuous or malicious, in both cases the ultimate goal is usually an alteration of the behaviour or thought pattern of the reader which extends beyond your narrative into their actual lives and by extension into society itself. There is a question of ego to be considered when weighing this motivation but for now assuming you understand what you are doing, then reversing the process becomes as simple as reversing the checks and balance approach outlined above. To put it simply, if the way to convince the reader a fantasy is not real is to remind them of reality, then the way to convince them your fantasy is actually reality is to integrate your fantasy into reality as much as you can, reducing friction wherever possible. To convince a reader that a fictional narrative is actually true all you need to do then is to keep the elements of falsehood limited and incorporate as much truth as you can in order to make it more conducive with reality.