That’s the problem with using “living legends” (unless they’re really old), is that they’re constantly changing. Yes, they would be the icons for the next generation or two—but positive or negative? We have no way of knowing who’s going to have a melt-down or who’s going to rise from obscurity to outshine them all. That’s why using people who are already legends is safer.

I’m writing a series with pro athletes and one thing I’m specifically not doing is mentioning current players because it will date my book. I name one player in my first book, a legendary pitcher from almost a hundred years ago, for the same reason you say–in the baseball world, he’s an icon and always will be.

Actually, as I think about it, I do mention one legendary pitcher who may now be tainted by the George Mitchell report. Hm, may have to go change that line!

“Ah, McClin! Great party. No whiskey. We go home now.”

Cultural reference can be anything from activities to celebrities to the classic literature a character reads . . . they’re markers that, whether consciously or subconsciously, either ground a reader in the setting or give a tidbit of information about the character in question.

I think this comes out of relationship, i.e. out of shared experience. Sometimes I read books with references like these and they feel contrived, as you say. Other times, they fit because of the characters. When the reference is used in such a way as to help me know the characters better or as a jumping off point for a major plot point, then it works better than just throwing stuff in, as in chick-lit sometimes. In that case, it’d be better to leave the cultural references out.