Research in Writing

[Acktion]

Maybe I've got a strange mind, but I find I identify with Kipling's mongoose and his desire to run and find out. Over the years, if I've run across a new idea that puzzled me, I've conducted experiments when possible or consulted experts with the necessary equipment if I didn't have it.

Over the years, I've gathered just about enough information on most subjects to get me into trouble and not enough to get me back out. And I still try to learn ten new things each day. (Which considering I've developed some memory issues is much easier since I can recover the same ground and it's new. Hi, have we met?)

However, I got to looking at a story I'm working and got to thinking. How much is too much?

Sure, I as the writer need to know it. And, if it fits the character, it might be worth mentioning it in the story itself. And some mention may be necessary to lend a shade of realism to an otherwise unbelievable tale. But, at what point does the reader start to feel like they are attending a lecture by a really boring speaker?

As an example from an as yet unsubmitted VDay story;

"Oh, and Chocolate has phenyl-ethylamine, tryptophan, AND anandamide in it as well as two, not one but TWO, n-acylethanolamines. I guess just slipping her a "mickey finn" was too obvious. But, sure. Nothing says I love you like slipping her some drugs so you can have your way with her."

The first person narrator is a scientist type who is debunking Valentine's Day in the passage it was taken from. The surrounding passages are full of equally "dense" tongue in cheek scientific references while attempting to stay away from more obscure studies that one would have to be a long time subscriber to a specific journal to find (or seduce a librarian who has access).

In another example that would take far far too long to quote, I've tried to tackle the problem of making a single male with multiple females believable. (Seven in the event.) In doing so, I had to tickle Piaget's research on personality development, scientific research on the neuro-chemical responses of sexuality, and the American Medical Association's findings on addiction.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, this story will probably never see the light of day since much of it hinges on developments prior to the age of consent although there are no consensual sexual acts between two people depicted until after that age.

But, it still lends itself to the question. If readers are looking for a reason to suspend skepticism and you can offer them those reasons, just how flat should a writer attempt to smash those preexisting beliefs?

 

[lovecraft68]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I mean it as sincere advice.

Man, stop thinking.

Creativity is spontaneous. Yes you should have some facts and try for some realism, but you really get the Mellon in an uproar(as my youngest used to say to her sister all the time)

In the time your head spins through this a lot of people here could have written 2k of a story.

Slow the brain, take a deep breath, let it all go....

Then write.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I usta know a gal who went to work for the prison system and was fucking all the inmates till the homos squealed on her.

It has potential as a story.

 

[A_Little_Show]

[deleted]

 

[tangentjoker]

I think if information is delivered the way people actually speak, you can give expositional dialogue and still engage your audience. A character would have some motivation to be understood and to be believed. However, a reader may not be prepared to sort through dense multi-syllabic jargon used to justify something that could be explained in a simpler manner.

You could probably say there are pleasure inducing chemicals in chocolate without listing them and still have people agree it is a drug.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A weed is an unpopular vegetable.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Because I have a life in the commercial world... Somewhere... I am running various research projects pretty much all the time and most of the best of it always finds a way into some story here or there.

I cut my first draft text to absolute ribbons though!

What ends up in the stories are one-liners or even single words, behind which might easily stand a hundred and fifty pages of academically-reviewed research studies and fully-referenced material.

"Anandamide...?" You know about anandamide. Cool. Anandamide is a big deal for some industrial chemists.

I agree with the other two guys that the 'story' comes first last and always, but I guess I fall into the camp where research or specialised experience, or experience is constantly trying to push its way into the narrative. Not only that, for me, most of the time, without that single unusual or rare factoid, I probably wouldn't have a story in the first place.

I admire those writers like JBJ and LVC68 who are able to, seemingly at will, generate magnetic storyline material and plots AROUND which they might then able to 'add flesh' as it were.

Personally I can't do that at all.

For me the story IS the research, but then, I cut the dry stuff out absolutely as much as possible after the first draft. I'm a reader too of course (same as everyone else I suppose), I like to read stories and so I try to make things 'accessible...' They aren't always.

Until the poor dude died, I was friends with a REALLY well-known, in professional circles, European psychologist who must remain nameless and I have to admit I got stories about general unnamed characters from him and his wife who is a psychologist too and an artist. So, I suppose 'research' for me includes specific research about people and psychological profiles although it's mostly informed, or was, by verbal discussions late into the night with those two people.

I understand what you are saying. If your way to approach the writing is through the research so be it - approach it that way; just don't leave it that way.

Is the research potentially important and relevant? It might be. It can be. Not for everyone who writes, that's for sure, and not as what people are going to be attracted to the flow of the story for you wouldn't think. But... I wouldn't just run away from it either.

"Cut the overthinking off and just plain write the story..." Easier said than done for some of us. My god. D'you wanna know about anandamide, I'll tell you about anandamide! ...Except of course most people DON'T want to know about it.

Even though if you have an edp fragance with even a small amount of anandamide in it and you have a fading Gerbera plant nearby, in a small closed room you can knock a person out and not even forsensic scientists would know what really happened. Well, that's if you killed them while they were dozing!

...Now in some Michelin 3-star restaurants, who are into all of this 'molecular cooking,' they spray things like Florabotanica or Joy de Jean Patou under the plates of the hot dishes, and they have little flower bunches on the tables. And then things happen under the tables, while all the protocol with the soup spoon and the butterknife and the water glass and the wine glass is supposed to be happening on top of the table.

Seen it. Done it. De Niro knows. His wife dropped her diamond ring into the sawdust at the Steakhouse at Nelson Mandela Square - and a blonde, a brunette with a fabulous ass (daughter of a hugely famous architect), and a redhead went crawling on their hands and knees, searching, searching. The blonde found it.

And then RDN pretended to throw it back down there.

I seem to recall this Hong Kong Chinese waiter (or waitress) selling about three grands worth of Napoleon afterwards. What a fucking riot. Seriously. Girls on the floor. Rolling around. Legs in the air. And I mean really good-looking girls. From good families.

All to do with the Gerberas and the anandamide.

And the Steakhouse proprietors know.

I learned about anandamide from a chocolatier in Liechtenstein.

Stories? No stories for me without the researched backstories.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Because I have a life in the commercial world... Somewhere... I am running various research projects pretty much all the time and most of the best of it always finds a way into some story here or there.

I cut my first draft text to absolute ribbons though!

What ends up in the stories are one-liners or even single words, behind which might easily stand a hundred and fifty pages of academically-reviewed research studies and fully-referenced material.

"Anandamide...?" You know about anandamide. Cool. Anandamide is a big deal for some industrial chemists.

I agree with the other two guys that the 'story' comes first last and always, but I guess I fall into the camp where research or specialised experience, or experience is constantly trying to push its way into the narrative. Not only that, for me, most of the time, without that single unusual or rare factoid, I probably wouldn't have a story in the first place.

I admire those writers like JBJ and LVC68 who are able to, seemingly at will, generate magnetic storyline material and plots AROUND which they might then able to 'add flesh' as it were.

Personally I can't do that at all.

For me the story IS the research, but then, I cut the dry stuff out absolutely as much as possible after the first draft. I'm a reader too of course (same as everyone else I suppose), I like to read stories and so I try to make things 'accessible...' They aren't always.

Until the poor dude died, I was friends with a REALLY well-known, in professional circles, European psychologist who must remain nameless and I have to admit I got stories about general unnamed characters from him and his wife who is a psychologist too and an artist. So, I suppose 'research' for me includes specific research about people and psychological profiles although it's mostly informed, or was, by verbal discussions late into the night with those two people.

I understand what you are saying. If your way to approach the writing is through the research so be it - approach it that way; just don't leave it that way.

Is the research potentially important and relevant? It might be. It can be. Not for everyone who writes, that's for sure, and not as what people are going to be attracted to the flow of the story for you wouldn't think. But... I wouldn't just run away from it either.

"Cut the overthinking off and just plain write the story..." Easier said than done for some of us. My god. D'you wanna know about anandamide, I'll tell you about anandamide! ...Except of course most people DON'T want to know about it.

Even though if you have an edp fragance with even a small amount of anandamide in it and you have a fading Gerbera plant nearby, in a small closed room you can knock a person out and not even forsensic scientists would know what really happened. Well, that's if you killed them while they were dozing!

...Now in some Michelin 3-star restaurants, who are into all of this 'molecular cooking,' they spray things like Florabotanica or Joy de Jean Patou under the plates of the hot dishes, and they have little flower bunches on the tables. And then things happen under the tables, while all the protocol with the soup spoon and the butterknife and the water glass and the wine glass is supposed to be happening on top of the table.

Seen it. Done it. De Niro knows. His wife dropped her diamond ring into the sawdust at the Steakhouse at Nelson Mandela Square - and a blonde, a brunette with a fabulous ass (daughter of a hugely famous architect), and a redhead went crawling on their hands and knees, searching, searching. The blonde found it.

And then RDN pretended to throw it back down there.

I seem to recall this Hong Kong Chinese waiter (or waitress) selling about three grands worth of Napoleon afterwards. What a fucking riot. Seriously. Girls on the floor. Rolling around. Legs in the air. And I mean really good-looking girls. From good families.

All to do with the Gerberas and the anandamide.

And the Steakhouse proprietors know.

I learned about anandamide from a chocolatier in Liechtenstein.

Stories? No stories for me without the researched backstories.

Lemme share a secret with you. I spent one career making sense outta trash bags of crap esteemed professionals brought me. Quite often everyone hated me after the story was assembled, but I know how to do it. Book keepers know my pain when people bring them bags of receipts.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

In my profession I deal with technical and highly specialized concepts, and I'm required to communicate information to my peers in a particular way while using a particular vocabulary. But then I also have to communicate these same concepts to laypersons in a language that the average person who is not in my field can understand. This happens with both verbal and written communication. On a daily basis I find myself communicating on at least two different levels for two different types of audience.

I look at writing the same way. If my story requires knowledge that I don't possess, I research the subject until I understand it. But all of that research doesn't end up in the story. I give the reader just enough information to grasp the concept I am trying to convey without getting in the way of the story.

For example, in a recent story I had an issue involving law enforcement jurisdiction in coastal waters. I researched the issue and found that there is a federal statute which mandates federal jurisdiction, except for five states which have concurrent jurisdiction. It further specifies the distances from shore and types of activities over which the various agencies have priority. I spent half a day looking into all the various scenarios that could arise, but in the end, all that made it into my story were three sentences:

"Shouldn't the feds handle this?"

"It's in coastal waters. We have concurrent jurisdiction."

That brief exchange told the reader all that was needed, without getting into a long sidetrack involving information irrelevant to the story.

If a long explanation is consistent with your character's established personality, then by all means go for it. But keep in mind that too much uninteresting information will put readers to sleep.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In my profession I deal with technical and highly specialized concepts, and I'm required to communicate information to my peers in a particular way while using a particular vocabulary. But then I also have to communicate these same concepts to laypersons in a language that the average person who is not in my field can understand. This happens with both verbal and written communication. On a daily basis I find myself communicating on at least two different levels for two different types of audience.

I look at writing the same way. If my story requires knowledge that I don't possess, I research the subject until I understand it. But all of that research doesn't end up in the story. I give the reader just enough information to grasp the concept I am trying to convey without getting in the way of the story.

For example, in a recent story I had an issue involving law enforcement jurisdiction in coastal waters. I researched the issue and found that there is a federal statute which mandates federal jurisdiction, except for five states which have concurrent jurisdiction. It further specifies the distances from shore and types of activities over which the various agencies have priority. I spent half a day looking into all the various scenarios that could arise, but in the end, all that made it into my story were three sentences:

"Shouldn't the feds handle this?"

"It's in coastal waters. We have concurrent jurisdiction."

That brief exchange told the reader all that was needed, without getting into a long sidetrack involving information irrelevant to the story.

If a long explanation is consistent with your character's established personality, then by all means go for it. But keep in mind that too much uninteresting information will put readers to sleep.

I do lotsa research, and little of it makes it into the story BUT it somehow does flavor the story. Its like the dog that doesn't bark when it should. Dashiell Hammett used it a lot with the Continental OP. I think of them as subliminal cues.

 

[RoyceConnors]

Research is essential to create the realism needed in a story, but something like a period piece needs an extensive amount of research to remain correct in everything. In my novel Blood of the Clans, no less than 10k hours went in to researching every last detail of life in 16th cent. Scottish Highlands.

Topography, lifestyle, clothing, weapons, food, castles, etc. had to be documented and verified by a few sources to be taken as correct. It's as much a history story, as it is a romance/drama/action/adventure story.

I wouldn't suggest doing anywhere near that amount of research for a story, unless you were attempting something along those lines. Most stories don't require the writer to delve into much detail, as readers create their own story from what you write.

Keep it simple, tell it well and you'll do okay in writing down your ideas into a story.

 

[A_Little_Show]

[deleted]

 

[sr71plt]

In half that many hours or less, you could have earned a Phd in History with specialization in 16th century Scottish Highlands. Maybe you did? 10K hours is five years of working full time five days a week for 50 weeks a year. If you don't already have the doctorate degree in History, I recommend that you look into it.

I wonder if there was any effort to cost that out (expense/effort against the various forms of payoff)--or if it's just a gross exaggeration for effect on an Internet discussion board. It sort of makes me sad either way.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the key discussion points are how much research do you do and how much do you include. I think you should do enough, at least, to be able to put the reader into the atmospherics of the scene and to avoid including anachronisms you don't intend to be there--and not so much that your pride in having done research overshadows the storyline or bogs down the flow of the story or introduces material that doesn't directly serve the storyline and/or characterizations. In most cases, in a period piece, I think you will have done at least a bit more research than you include in the story. 10k hours? Not unless you're going for big bucks and/or a Pulitzer, I don't think.

 

[RoyceConnors]

I think the key discussion points are how much research do you do and how much do you include. I think you should do enough, at least, to be able to put the reader into the atmospherics of the scene and to avoid including anachronisms you don't intend to be there--and not so much that your pride in having done research overshadows the storyline or bogs down the flow of the story or introduces material that doesn't directly serve the storyline and/or characterizations. In most cases, in a period piece, I think you will have done at least a bit more research than you include in the story. 10k hours? Not unless you're going for big bucks and/or a Pulitzer, I don't think.

I guess that's why you don't have a steady line of red H's on your page like I do. The comments I receive reflect the effort I put into research and for your ignorant information. I started my research as one into my own clan history which led me to start writing my story. Attention to detail is what makes or breaks a good period piece and any reader will tell you that.

I have spent 10k hrs in research, as well as doing GoogleEarth imaging for topography. I've gone to great lengths to put together a story that entertains a large audience of readers and have won their support and following as a result. Any writer who's looking to do something great at least once in their life knows they have to give it their all and do what a great writer does.

I know I am working on greatness and everything I've written is proving that. Your attempts to debase me and my efforts once again shows you are threatened by me and feel the need to feel superior, which you aren't and never will be.

Spout off all the rhetoric and slander you want. One read of my story and you can see my 10k is paying off. Maybe I'll see if the studio wants to use Blood of the Clans for a series, like Redwood Nine.

 

[sr71plt]

You debase yourself with your own posts, Lance. It's no secret how easily red Hs are to obtain or erase around here. If you want to live in the "glory" of having them--and spend 10K on researching a story series to have them (which I really think is just a hot air claim), that doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[lovecraft68]

Research is a fine line. Its good to have a feel for what you're writing about, but half the time people say you don't know what you're talking about anyway.

And to those people I say....

Whatever, believe me or don't.

 

[RoyceConnors]

You debase yourself with your own posts, Lance. It's no secret how easily red Hs are to obtain or erase around here. If you want to live in the "glory" of having them--and spend 10K on researching a story series to have them (which I really think is just a hot air claim), that doesn't bother me a bit.

I live in the glory of proving to myself I can write. I can write a story that many find interesting and very well thought out. It only takes a look at the comments and faves it's received and you can be rest assured they weren't from anon readers. Can you consistently write at a 4.5 level or better in every story you do? your list says no.

I spent 6k hrs. researching my family history and my clans history. I spent 4k researching the background of all the other clans and the period itself. You obviously spend as much time researching anything as you do paying attention to anything. You write and post from an ignorance unsurpassed by anyone I've ever seen.

And for all your boasting of me being Lance, try again. I can introduce you to quite a number of people here who will tell you otherwise.

Please continue to tell everyone how I have nothing of value to contribute to this site, or this forum.

 

[SamScribble]

As someone - was it Margaret Attwood, Margaret Drabble, AS Byatt? - said: there is real reality and there is a fictional reality. Part of the writer's job is to make the reader believe the fictional reality as much - or even more than - the real reality.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikq0P7U0x4Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsWIf2OSYQ

I'm writing a story about a hurricane that hit Florida in 1843, and tsunamis are great models of tidal surge minus the torrential rain that hides the action.

 

[oggbashan]

Georgette Heyer's research for her historical romances was meticulous. She wanted to suppress some of her earliest novels because she found that the history in them wasn't as accurate as she wanted.

Her book about the Battle of Waterloo - An Infamous Army - was recommended background reading for junior officers studying at Sandhurst because every incident of the battle was accurate.

She knew exactly what slang was used, and by whom, in her Georgian periods. If she used a slang word, it meant what she said it meant, and was in use at that time.

She explained it in dialogue between her characters, so the reader also knew what the slang meant and when it would be appropriate.

But she used her research to flavour her stories, not to overwhelm them.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

JBJ - funny how after YEARS of audit-trail stuff you end up being able to cut to the chase like second nature. Audit experience or quality control and similar are tremendous teachers. I kinda figured you must have had maybe HEAPS of experience under your belt. Making it look easy usually involves years and years of hard grind somewhere...

LVC68 - 'they say you don't know what you're talking about anyway.' Yep. Had that experience once or twice.

All in all it sounds like most here DO carry out research or gain experience somewhere; and it's a matter of self-respect even though you know that sometimes you are going to be gainsaid by those with nowhere near as much knowledge.

One thing I've noticed about keeping it succinct - readers seem to 'get' the most complex stuff, even though you just make simplified assertions about the complicated things for the sake of the readability of the story, as long as YOU'VE done the research properly and believe whatever it is that you are saying yourself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JBJ - funny how after YEARS of audit-trail stuff you end up being able to cut to the chase like second nature. Audit experience or quality control and similar are tremendous teachers. I kinda figured you must have had maybe HEAPS of experience under your belt. Making it look easy usually involves years and years of hard grind somewhere...

LVC68 - 'they say you don't know what you're talking about anyway.' Yep. Had that experience once or twice.

All in all it sounds like most here DO carry out research or gain experience somewhere; and it's a matter of self-respect even though you know that sometimes you are going to be gainsaid by those with nowhere near as much knowledge.

One thing I've noticed about keeping it succinct - readers seem to 'get' the most complex stuff, even though you just make simplified assertions about the complicated things for the sake of the readability of the story, as long as YOU'VE done the research properly and believe whatever it is that you are saying yourself.

Recall how Richard Feynman swizzled the shuttle o-ring in the ice-water, snapped the o-ring in half with his fingers, and destroyed the governments theory for the Challenger disaster (cold wasn't relevant in the disaster they said)? Everyone got Feynman's lesson in about a New York Minute.

Of course, there are times when its really stupid to act too bright. Many years ago I brought a girl home 5 minutes past her curfew, and her daddy got all excited about my transgression. But I had a young man's genius, and challenged the old man's distress with a brilliant observation: WHY WOULD I WANNA TRY AND FUCK HER IN 5 MINUTES WHEN I HAD 5 HOURS TO DO IT? MAN YOURE REALLY DUM. No! I was the dunce reminding him of what he knew. Never saw her again. A doper sleaze ball knocked her up a few months later.

 

[StrangeLife]

WHY WOULD I WANNA TRY AND FUCK HER IN 5 MINUTES WHEN I HAD 5 HOURS TO DO IT? MAN YOURE REALLY DUM.

Good one... and lucky for you he wasn't armed at the time...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Recall how Richard Feynman swizzled the shuttle o-ring in the ice-water, snapped the o-ring in half with his fingers, and destroyed the governments theory for the Challenger disaster (cold wasn't relevant in the disaster they said)?

Not quite what happened, as best I can recall. What he demonstrated was that if he bent an o-ring out of shape and chilled it, it wasn't resilient enough to spring back quickly. Not quite as spectacular as breaking it, but enough for it to fail in its function. Still a good demonstration, though.

One of the interesting parts of that investigation was that at the time he thought he'd figured this out all on his own; afterwards he realised that some NASA staff had left him a trail of breadcrumbs because they didn't feel safe speaking out.