research

As my blog readers know from previous posts, I believe in deep research for fiction, particularly historical fiction, which naturally calls for research. I’m not satisfied when others in the writing business suggest that I can get what I need on Google, Google images, Wikipedia, etc. Of course I use these tools, sometimes to get started, but more often for “place holders” to note where I need to dive into resources that will give me either answers or show me that what I propose to include in my fiction “could” have happened and is viable to include. It is fiction after all.

On Medium today, Jeff Ryan published an article on Medium: Honoring the Critical Link between Research and Creativity. https://medium.com/@19RoadsLessTraveled/honoring-the-critical-link-between-research-and-creativity-5c2dc38fe9c4

Ryan speaks about standard factual research (records, documents, etc.) which he uses extensively, but he also talks about “contextual” research, i.e., researching beyond needed facts to understand what else was going on in the worlds the characters inhabited. I’ve always thought of my research as all of a piece, but I find his separation of factual and contextual research very helpful. He also shows how the discovery of a very small detail can change the direction of a novel.

From now on, I plan to tag my “place holders” with F or C or FC to indicate the type(s) of research I need in a particular section. This will help me to decide where I need to introduce some element from world events occurring at the time my characters live, where I need backstory, where I need speculation, and so on.

Ryan says that adding contextual research to his process enables him to create more multi-dimensional characters and provide his book with urgency.

I also recommend Paddy Sutton’s Research and Creativity Go Hand in Hand. https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/research-and-creativity-go-hand-in-hand/id/5028992 Written in 2017, Sutton, a creative director at Argo, talks about researching for ads. He believes creativity is about questioning and challenging. “As the legendary Robin Wight of WCRS advised, ‘interrogate the product until it confesses to its strength’. That’s research.” He describes research as analytical, creativity as intuitive and gives examples of how the two work together.

Perhaps that’s why I like writing. It uses my whole brain—left and right. What could be better?

I highly recommend you check out the above links. They’re quick reads and impactful.

Image credit: https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/research-and-creativity-go-hand-in-hand/id/5028992

On two recent occasions, I heard different authors talk about the amount of research needed for a novel. Both of them argued in favor of doing enough research to ensure that what they wrote would be possible, but no more. Their perspective was that they were writing fiction, not history.

Other authors believe that you must “know” your background material so thoroughly that what you write is fully founded. This requires extensive reading, both general and specific, and absorbing as much as you can, whether or not you include all the information in your novel. This gives authenticity to your work.

As I write my historical novel, I have come to the latter belief. For my current novel, I began by reading extensively about the areas where my novel is set. Since then, I have discovered the need to read extensively in areas I could never have imagined, from mores to explosives.

As I think back on novels I’ve read over the years, particularly historical novels, the examples that stand out in my mind are the ones where I know the author is fully conversant with his/her/eir subject matter, and those examples come from all types of genres.

Consider The Spanish Bride by Georgette Heyer, a romance novel based on the true story of Harry Smith and Juana Maria de los Dolores de Leon Smith. Heyer knew the period and the story completely. Or the bestseller, The Ugly American, by Eugene Burdick and William J. Lederer, which sent the main character, Homer Atkins, to Southeast Asia to advise the fictional country of Sarkhan. Atkins challenges what he finds and exposes U. S. foreign policy as dangerous, on the wrong track, and losing.

In a recent issue of The New Yorker (May 27, 2019), Mark Singer profiled the television writer, David Milch. While the article’s purpose is to address Milch’s dementia and Milch’s thoughts about his dementia, the article naturally discusses his writings, one of which was Deadwood, considered one of Milch’s best works. To quote Singer: “He [Milch] began writing the pilot episode only after having spent two years digesting biographies and historical accounts of mining, the Indian wars, territorial politics, whorehouse and gambling protocols, rudimentary systems of justice, and criminality mundane and monstrous.” Milch is clearly not a proponent of “just enough.” Authenticity is part of the show’s success.

Consequently, I respectfully disagree with the concept of “just enough,” even if it has worked for some authors. Thorough research and the success of the well-researched and well-understood works I’ve specifically mentioned come from the in-depth, no-short-cut approach of the authors. No matter how time-consuming, the investment is worth the effort. The author can be confident in the details of his/her/eir work and allow the “fiction” to shine through.