JasonVaughn's post on swords got me thinking about the amount of research writers undertake. So I thought I'd ask here.
Personally, I haven't really got to the stage of 'heavy' research as I'm only working on a first draft; writing the story is taking plenty of time at the moment.
Also, how much difference do you think research makes? I understand this is a very open-ended question, and also quite ambiguous. Obviously a book about World War II would require a lot of research for factual correctness, but when writing a fight scene recently it never really crossed my mind to research weaponry.
posted
Research can make a HUGE difference, especially if the story is set in a time period that enthusiasts obsess over, like WWII. At some point, someone is going to know if you didn't do your research, and it could result in embarrassment, rewrites or rejections if you don't. You don't have to be an expert, but you should know the limits of your knowledge base.
Proper technical details can add a level of grittiness and realism, too.
If you've got your Japanese soldier using a "knee mortar" by actually resting it on his thigh, anyone who has seen that episode of "Mail Call" on the History Channel is going to have their willing suspension of disbelief destroyed. On the other hand if a GI picks up the "knee mortar" and tries to fire it that way and breaks his leg in the process, you'll get an appreciative nod from your more knowledgeable readers.
posted
Alot of the information I find while researching I don't ever use, but I do feel it gives me a better idea of the subject matter I'm writing about and this adds realism and grit to the story.
I also find that while researching I often learn something which gives me new ideas for my story. It might be something small but sometimes it can change major plots.
posted
I've plowed fifty-plus-thousand words into a novel allegedly set in 1947---and, except for the absence of certain recent technology like computers and cell phones, as of yet there's no real internal evidence it's actually set in 1947. (Television has been rumored.) Plus there's a certain amount of advanced alien technology floating around.
I know I need to do a lot of research, but I'm plowing forward anyway.
posted
Historical accuracy is important in any historical period work.
You can get away with Genre-facts(things that are accepted as true but aren't necesarily - Like 17th century pirates using swords that more closly resemble late 19th century cavalry sabres) but will earn accolades for historical-facts. At the same time, teaching your readers historical details can weigh heavy against the pleasure of reading fiction.
For pure fantasy the only rule is to be consistant within your world. The same is true of science fiction. If there is something that is different than real history - Like people carry rapiers in the same world that people wear full steel armor, you're going to have to explain it. If your fantasy world is say, 21st century america in a world that never had gunpowder, be careful never to say that they never had gunpowder, but be sure to show the absence of the technology by the presence of the differences.
And be consistant. If you've read contrasting historical depictions of life in a given era, don't bounce back and forth. Pick one way things are and keep it that way.
posted
Generally, as a writer you want to do your writing after doing almost all the research you need for that story. The story should come from the background material, not the other way around. When it becomes apparent that a author has chosen to write a story set in a milieu unfamiliar to the author, the story feels contrived and the reader is invited to question the motives of the author, which is anathema to suspension of disbelief.
Throwing out a counter-example, I recently read a quite interesting "fictional" account of an author's experience as an intelligence asset working undercover in Russia during a turbulent period. I put "fictional" in quotes because I never had any reason to doubt that the author was basing the book entirely on his own real experiences, just with some changes in names of real individuals and locations to allow him to write it without violating certain laws to which he was subject. If it was substantially fictional, if I find out that the events he wrote about either didn't happen to him, I will be enormously impressed with his attention to all kinds of little details that were absolutely right. If I find out that the entire story is made up out of whole cloth, then I'll be even more impressed. As it is, though, I've got him firmly placed in my "not so much a writer as someone with an extremely interesting story to tell" catagory. The book is brimming with those little details that separate even the cleverest invention from reportage. I'm confident that a human being could not have written it if it were wholey fictional.
Now, you don't generally need to convince your audience that something really happened or even was really likely to have happened. You just need to convince them that your story comes out of your interest in the characters and their setting rather than being contrived there for some ulterior motive. That means crafting the story after you've immersed yourself in the available material. We can't actually tell whether you immersed yourself in the material out of genuine interest in it or just so that you could write your story in that setting, but we can definitely guess pretty well whether you researched the setting before or after writing the story.
Do research before you write, or don't do it at all.
posted
I have trouble reading scifi that relies on genetic concepts (I am getting a phd in genetics so I am pretty up to date). However, if I look at the date published and it is before certain technologies or events, I will forgive the errors. I also am fine with leaving things vague. So, I can read Red Mars and be ok with some of the stuff they get wrong because based on what was known on the publication date, the author clearly tried. On the other hand, I cannot read OSC Bean stories because of errors that in my mind, a small bit of research at the time of publication would have revealed.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Card barely touches genetics with his Bean story. He refers to altering a single gene, and doesn't discuss the alteration technology beyond saying that it's somewhat hit or miss. The main conversation in which Bean's alteration is discussed is with a man who's been rendered incapable of discussing the subject directly as a security measure. What exactly did he specify precisely enough to count as an error?
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In I think the second Bean book, he talks about testing embryos for the mutation preimplantation and that they did not have a test for that. Since the changes supposedly made were minor, the test would be trivial in comparison to making the changes.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
To make the changes, you only have to send genetic information in. To verify whether a change was made, you have to send information in, have it compared to something in the nucleus (or being currently expressed) and then get the information back out, all without harming the developing embryo.
Making a small change to a new blastocyst using a tailored enzyme or hybrid RNA delivered by retroviral protein sheath is actually quite easy as long as you manage to catch the window of opportunity, though it isn't certain that the desired change will actually take place. Finding a general method to detect whether a given mutation has been passed along to a given embryo is very difficult if you aren't willing to destroy the embryo in the process of testing it. Or are you claiming to be privy to such a method?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
