Transparency Item: The Perspectives section of the Graphic is comprised of articles based on opinion. This is the opinion and perspective of the writer.
Last semester, I had to enroll in an Advanced Screenwriting class for my creative writing minor. I typically take classes that involve writing prose, and I consider prose to be my strong suit, but I figured I would try something different while I had the opportunity.
As long as I was working in an unfamiliar medium, I thought I would also try writing a different story. Instead of doing something realistic or dramatic, I decided to write a children’s science fiction story.
I occasionally read science fiction and I have always enjoyed watching movies from the genre, and one of the most fun, albeit challenging, elements of it was doing the proper research. I ended up Googling how robots are made, the parts of a spaceship and tardigrades, or “water bears,” small animals that can survive in space.
Though my research was not very in-depth, it made the writing process much easier, and the professor of this class made it clear that research is often imperative to good storytelling. Research could spark inspiration and provide workable grounds for believable characters and plots.
Research is extremely helpful for many types of fiction writing, and in certain cases I would consider it necessary. It surprises me, then, that so many popular TV shows and movies are notorious for representing inaccurate science.
Media surrounding professionals in the medical, scientific or even legal fields are especially prone to this phenomenon.
Shows like “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Criminal Minds” and “Bones” are also well-known for overdramatizing various professions, often throwing in blatant inaccuracies. “Bones” follows a forensic anthropologist as she works on murder cases, and while it is not intended to be an educational show, it largely embellishes the abilities of scientists and computers.
I do think that movies and TV are sometimes benefited by a level of unrealistic drama or conflict, and fiction is by no means beholden to reality. I am not even particularly bothered when I read about the wrong science in these shows.
However, I also think that portraying a host of scientific inaccuracies is necessary to tell a compelling story, and in certain cases, it can be detrimental to the story and even disrespectful. If a piece of media has the reach to promote knowledge, and focuses specifically on experts in scientific fields, it seems wasteful not to.
Fiction can be a very helpful tool to convey useful information to audiences. If an author can communicate science in an engaging and comprehensible way, public knowledge on a variety of topics could improve at least somewhat.
Health science and psychological research are particularly salient, especially since they are often used for writing without consideration of real people. Several films and TV shows have purported inaccurate representations of mental disorders for the sake of drama, when they could have instead promoted useful information.
For example, shows like “Glee” and “Monk” portray characters with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). I think there is some nuance to the discussion, as some audience members with OCD do genuinely relate to these characters, and even as somebody with the disorder, I cannot speak for all people with it.
However, both of these shows have also been criticized for their overly simplistic depictions of OCD as a bad case of excessive hygiene and orderliness. Personally, I think “Monk” is the better depiction, as the protagonist does display symptoms of OCD besides the stereotypical cleanliness.
Especially in a time where misinformation is rampant online, I think writers could be helpful voices for combating it. Medicine, psychiatry, forensic science and the law deserve their due time and attention when they are portrayed in artistic mediums.
Of course, I do not expect writers to represent these topics perfectly every time, and sometimes it is necessary to change details for the sake of storytelling. Ultimately, however, many of the common inaccuracies are unnecessary, and if artists have the opportunity to spread knowledge and understanding, I see no reason why they should not.
___________________
Follow the Graphic on X: @PeppGraphic
Contact Alyssa Johnson via email: alyssa.johnson@pepperdine.edu
