It's called worldbuilding, not city building

(rant on)
I'm reading THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNDEAD by Kim Harrison, and for the most part I'm enjoying the book. However, there's a flaw that started out as a minor irritation that is now really annoying me, much like a small bit of gravel in your shoe grows into a major pain.

For those who haven't read the series, it's set in an alternate version of Cincinnati, where humans and magical creatures (vampires, witches, weres, etc.) live in an uneasy coexistence.

A fair chunk of the plot involves a rich and powerful businessman's efforts to hire an expert in ley line magic. Each person he approaches is being systematically killed, and now he's running out of potential candidates. Part of me is enjoying the mystery, but then my brain stalls as I find myself wondering "Why doesn't he pick up the phone and call someone in Chicago, Detroit or Los Angeles?"

The author has done great worldbuilding in creating the magical city of Cincinnati, but that's as far as she goes. The city is treated as if it is a fantasy kingdom, and beyond the borders there is nothing.

I'm hoping that as she keeps writing the series this will change. She's doing so much else right that I'm willing to forgive this flaw for now, but it's going to grow old if it continues through the next book.

Laurell Hamilton's Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series had a similar issue with St. Louis, where St. Louis was the center of this world and everything must have happened there first because there was no sense that anyone called their colleagues in Chicago, London, Paris, etc., to find out how they dealt with similar problems. As the series progressed she expanded beyond the confines of St. Louis to open up a richer world, and I think this made the books stronger.
(rant off)

Sloppy/inadequate research

Lesson #9 - You've got to keep the reader's trust.

Recently a woman who should have known better observed to me that it must be really easy to write fantasies because "You don't have to do any research." It was a remarkably ignorant comment coming from an industry professional, but I kept my calm as I pointed out that actually I did a great deal of research. For example, I needed to know about sword fighting techniques, how far a man on foot can travel in a day, different techniques for navigating at sea, etc. These details make up the underpinnings of my world, and contribute to the believability of my stories.

When the author gets the details wrong, it yanks a reader right out of the story. Rather than reading to find out what happens next, they're thinking "This is wrong."

You lose a bit of the reader's trust each time this happens. Get enough little things wrong (or one really big thing) and you'll lose your audience.

Even a contemporary novel requires research, unless it's a thinly veiled autobiography set in your hometown, where the protagonist works at your job and comes from the same background as you did.

Consider a thriller set in England where your British hero dials 911 to report the discovery of a body. Knowledgeable readers know that he'd actually be dialing 999 (or 112).

If you choose to set your book in Ithaca, New York, you should know something about the area. It's not enough to have visited Buffalo, New York once, and assume that all cities in Upstate New York are the same. Anyone who has been to Ithaca will spot the errors.

Some mistakes will be spotted by the majority of your readers, while others only an expert in the field will catch.

You probably know that having your Atlanta based heroine sip a Starbucks frappucino in the 1970s would be a mistake, since Starbucks wasn't ubiquitous at that time. Almost everyone will realize that medieval French peasants weren't drinking orange juice with their breakfasts, while military history buffs would know that George Washington's troops weren't carrying repeating rifles.

In some genres your readers have very specific knowledge and a tendency to rip authors who don't do their research. The Regency genre is well known for devoted fans who will point out that the heroine was wearing the wrong sleeve-length for that year, or that during this particular month Beau Brummel was at a country estate and couldn't possibly have encountered the hero. Most will forgive small mistakes, but the Regencies that included gross errors such as a silver-framed photograph or a hero who wore pajamas inspired widespread derision.

What can you do?

First, do your homework. Research is a continuing process, it takes place before writing, while you are writing, and then during the final revision phase as you do your fact-checking. If you're writing and you don't want to break the flow in order to look something up, then put a marker in the text. I'll write something like (fact check, cargo capacity?) so I know that I need to come back to that spot later, and make any changes necessary.

Second, avoid specifics. If you don't want to invest the time needed to make your book set in Ithaca feel authentic to an Ithaca resident, then name the city Delphi instead. If it's not vital to the plot whether the story takes place in 1807 or 1808, then don't mention the year.

Finally, think about the requirements of the genre you have chosen. If you truly hate research, then writing a historical novel set in the Etruscan empire probably isn't a good fit for you. You may want to choose something that requires less intensive research.

One final thought. There's a lot of common wisdom out there, under the heading of "Everyone knows." Unfortunately there are times when everyone is wrong, and it can be frustrating when you do get the details right but your readers don't believe you. An author whose story was set in the Canadian desert was given a score of 0 by a contest judge who scrawled "Everyone knows there are no deserts in Canada." The author was right, the judge was wrong. Elizabeth Bear recently commented in her livejournal that when she was workshopping her first novel HAMMERED, readers complained about her reference to an "R" hurricane in September, not willing to believe that tropical storm activity could be so intense that we would already be on our 17th named storm in September. Hurricane Rita has proven her right, but it's now 3 years later.

The only solution I can offer here is if you know you are including something that runs contrary to popular belief, then you should take the time to add an explanation. For the Canadian desert story, add a couple of sentences that remind the readers that it's not sand dunes that make a desert but rather annual rainfall, temperature and humidity. The contest judge might not have been swayed, but other readers would give you the benefit of the doubt.

In conclusion, when the details are wrong, it's like giant inkblots on your manuscript. The errors stand out and they mar the overall impression of the story. Get the details right and they blend seamlessly into the text, so there's nothing to distract from your story.