Authoring
literature rooted in prehistory, even factual based fiction, raises the obvious
dilemma for a writer. Recent
paleontological discoveries, partnered by the
advancement of new theories in behaviourism, paleoecology, physiology etc., can
soon render the most up-to date research invalid, even obsolete.
When researching
The Chosen One, I meticulously
strived to maintain accurate representations of the dinosaurs depicted. In the
intervening years since that novel was first published, non-avian feathered
dinosaurs have become the accepted norm within the scientific community. Unsurprising, considering the widely held
belief that birds evolved from saurian ancestors. The fossil evidence, particularly from China,
is compelling.
So that raises
the question, should works of dinosaur fiction be regularly updated to
incorporate the latest findings?
In an ideal
world, yes. In the cost conscious reality we live in, no. The expenditure in
time alone required to rewrite a novel to avoid anachronisms is off-putting. True, Ogg and his nocturnal kin, Nightclaw,
should be feathered to conform to the modern school of thought. But does their
“nakedness” diminish the story? In my humble opinion, it does not. I freely admit in taking immense pride in my
attention to detail in my novels and that The
Chosen One characters were based on current paleobiology at the time of
writing. But to edit the book every time new fossil evidence comes to light is
impractical.
Take the
Jurassic Park series of films. Discoveries that dromaeosaurs were fully
feathered, made after the first film’s release, rendered the error of
featherless Velociraptors an understandable oversight. However, that omission
continued in the subsequent films, flaunting growing scientific opinion. (The
one concession was the crest of ludicrously small quills adorning the heads of
the male raptors in Jurassic Park III.) Even the latest instalment, Jurassic World, perpetuates the ongoing
inaccuracy of raptors bereft of feathers. And Hollywood’s excuse? Aside from the plausible
reasoning that the fictional dinosaurs are cloned representations of the originals
and therefore not strict biological reproductions, the movie makers (rightly or
wrongly) argue that the public’s perception is of scaly raptors, an image
fostered by the original Jurassic Park.
Much like Jaws portrayed great white
sharks as mindless eating machines, when in actuality the animal is a complex
apex predator which does not habitually prey on human beings.
I know what you
are thinking. It is far easier to rewrite a book than reshoot a movie. But
would you have asked the late, talented Peter Benchley to edit his landmark
novel in order to produce a more scientifically accurate, yet perhaps an
unappealingly sanitised version of a classic read?
I didn’t think
so.
