- This topic has 34 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated May 20, 2013 at 12:22 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Like almost everything in my writing, I know ‘how much’ by feel. When I feel ready to write, I usually am. But how much research varies wildly book to book.
–June
I research as I’m outlining. I open Word files and Bookmarks folders and pour links into them like they’re going out of fashion, then go back once the story shape is firm and select articles or sites with the specific information I need. My keyword throughout the process is efficiency, because I know if I don’t keep a tight rein on my curiosity I can spend hours of writing time just reading.
zette wrote:(I’ll accept anything by historian Michael Grant over Wiki).What frightens me is that, somewhere out there on the internet, there is someone who would disagree with this statement…
On the other hand, Wikipedia does have one important use: it is quick to search, and although you can’t rely on what you find there, you can check the links at the bottom in case they offer a more reliable source. (They don’t always, but if you’re in a hurry, it is certainly worth checking.) Also, if you know nothing about the subject, Wikipedia will give you a fast overview (again, including links) which can give you some idea what sources to look at or what search terms to use. Oh, and if you can’t quite remember something, Wikipedia offers a fast way to look it up, if you already know enough to tell if what you’re reading is accurate or not. And, of course, in part it also depends on knowing what information is controversial and what is more cut and dried. (The more controversial the information, the more careful you have to be.)
I think of it more like an index. If you need real information, you’ve got to go deeper, but it can help point you in other directions. Ignoring the possible uses of Wikipedia isn’t as disastrous as assuming it is always right (although it is, overall, about as reliable as a published encyclopedia – which says more about how unreliable an encyclopedia is than it does about Wikipedia), but I think it is a mistake not to use the speed advantage it can give you.
The other lesson Wikipedia – and encyclopedias – can teach you is this: the more specific the source, the more likely it is to be accurate. I do generally trust Michael Grant, but if I found some obscure source which focused on some odd topic – say, the design and manufacture of Roman cloak pins (no, I don’t know of such a source
) I would tend to trust that source for those particular details, even over Michael Grant (assuming the source otherwise seemed reliable).David Bridger wrote:I research as I’m outlining. I open Word files and Bookmarks folders and pour links into them like they’re going out of fashion, then go back once the story shape is firm and select articles or sites with the specific information I need. My keyword throughout the process is efficiency, because I know if I don’t keep a tight rein on my curiosity I can spend hours of writing time just reading.I can’t help pointing out one bad practice in this process. While most of what you say, I’d agree with, or at the very least say seems to be a process that works for you, I do not recommend anyone rely solely upon bare links. Links change too often, sites go down, and then all that research is wasted… At the very least (and this is not even good practice) you want a tool that will capture extensive information about those links (Linkman, for example, saves more data than your Bookmarks will – and far more than you’re going to grab manually in Word or any other program) so, if the link fails, I at least have some hope of recovering the information. Yes, there are also techniques for recovering information even if all you have is the bare link and it is utterly dead – but those take more work and time, so you’re better off never needing to resort to them. (Sometimes, you’ll have to anyway, if the link has not just changed, and there are no other sources for that information available, but it really is worth avoiding digging through multiple versions of the old site in the Internet Archive if you can help it. Especially since, sometimes, the results even then are far from ideal.)
However, really good practice is to use something which will either cache the page you want to take note of, or even let you annotate it (Diigo will do both – and since I haven’t worked for them for over four and a half years now, and have no interest in the company at all, I think I can recommend them without any bias – and there are other similar services out there) or else the sort of tool an academic will use to create a permanent (really, semi-permanent, since any site can suddenly shut down) citation. WebCite is a good example. Yes, there are alternatives to both WebCite and Diigo – I tend to recommend what I use, because I know those tools. If you see something about them you don’t like, though, you aren’t without choices.
In my fan club days for an actor, we ran across a person who refused to accept a list of the actors credits from us. We had gotten them vetted by the man himself, but apparently anonymous internet sources were far more credible to this fan … :blink:
Wandering Author wrote:I can’t help pointing out one bad practice in this process. While most of what you say, I’d agree with, or at the very least say seems to be a process that works for you, I do not recommend anyone rely solely upon bare links. Links change too often, sites go down, and then all that research is wasted…Thanks, but that isn’t a factor for me because my entire process takes place in a day. Two, tops. I splash links into a folder while doing a fast outline because I don’t want to lose the thread, and once I know the exact information I need I go find it there and then.
I’ll use Wiki for some basic things and it can be great for finding terms related to something. It’s often very good for that part. But if I want anything in depth, I try for at least a couple other sources. Books aren’t always perfect, of course. However, even Wiki’s oddness can sometimes be used for a fiction writer. Unless you are writing nonfiction or extremely correct historical fiction (as opposed to alternate history or historical fantasy, where you might purposely play with the facts), then it can be a help and even nudge a person into interesting story ideas.
But I love research and pulling out a half dozen books and piling them on my desk is a lot of fun. LOL
zette wrote:But I love research and pulling out a half dozen books and piling them on my desk is a lot of fun. LOLI agree. What I really don’t understand are those people who avoid researching in books because they don’t like to “have” to do so much reading. How can you be a writer and not like reading? :blink: It seems a bit like an anorexic chef.
Linda Adams wrote:Just a caution: this isn’t a bad course, for basic research. If you get serious about a project, of whatever sort, and want to get really serious – this is what I’d call “research lite”. (As far as that goes, professional genealogists use stricter standards than academics – I can still remember the time I was in the Massachusetts Vital Records, and overheard a conversation between two college students being paid to conduct research for a “serious” study. I nearly choked to death listening to what they were saying, because at least for that type of research, they were so far in over their heads there is no chance that study produced anything but garbage. They were supposed to be “following up” on people, many of whom had common names, and their conversation made it painfully obvious they had no concept of how to make sure they weren’t confusing individuals with similar names. After that experience, I’ve always wondered about the reliability of such studies in general, since it was so much sloppier than even a casual study should have been. And although there are a few of us who are also licensed private investigators, because that can come in useful, most PIs don’t know how to do the kind of research we do, either. I actually “solved” a murder once, although since it happened in 1919, and I was working in 2003, there was no way to verify what I pieced together. But there’s no doubt it was murder, despite the effort to cover it up. In fact, I also discovered there were other murders, also sloppily covered up, in that time and place. Lawrence, Mass, and the labour unrest there in 1919, if you’re curious. Historians knew this type of thing had taken place – but I got to that point by figuring out what happened independently, first – including the motive – then verifying that with a local historian.) Most of you, for most projects, won’t want or need to know much more – but please don’t assume this course will tell you everything you might ever want to know. To get to the really good stuff (and I also “discovered” records archives staff said they didn’t have… more than once… I remember the odd look I got when I suggested the Mass Archives ought to have weather records, but I tracked them down in their own finding aids, although they covered the wrong time period, so I had to go to another source), you need to know a lot more than this course will tell you. Including the fact that library and archives staff, although most of them honestly try to be helpful, do not know everything about their own holdings.
I had to start with basic, because I really didn’t know anything, and the information that was available was frustrating. I kept seeing a single chapter on the research itself, and then an entire book on how to write the thesis paper. I’m going “but I’m writing a novel!” I personally would love to see a class on research specifically customized toward writers, but on the assumption that the writer is NOT doing a historical novel.
The area I had the most trouble with figuring out where to look, and keeping the notes organized. I ended up evolved the notes in a visual note system. I might get something basic like “Common Reef Fish of Hawaii” out of a tour book, then go to the web and find a college or museum site. I screen shot a photo to help me picture the fish, paste it into PowerPoint, and then add a few notes from the site like where the fish is found, what it eats — something that I might be able to use in the story. Paste the title of the site and the link into the slide, and I’m done. It’s not strictly the “method,” but it actually helps me retain the information better than the standard note taking.
I think I need to do a course like this, although maybe not this one… Not today.
“Alvin College,” is that as in “Alvin, Texas”?
Linda Adams wrote:I had to start with basic, because I really didn’t know anything, and the information that was available was frustrating. I kept seeing a single chapter on the research itself, and then an entire book on how to write the thesis paper. I’m going “but I’m writing a novel!” I personally would love to see a class on research specifically customized toward writers, but on the assumption that the writer is NOT doing a historical novel.The area I had the most trouble with figuring out where to look, and keeping the notes organized. I ended up evolved the notes in a visual note system. I might get something basic like “Common Reef Fish of Hawaii” out of a tour book, then go to the web and find a college or museum site. I screen shot a photo to help me picture the fish, paste it into PowerPoint, and then add a few notes from the site like where the fish is found, what it eats — something that I might be able to use in the story. Paste the title of the site and the link into the slide, and I’m done. It’s not strictly the “method,” but it actually helps me retain the information better than the standard note taking.
You raise a few interesting points here. To take your last comment first – the whole point of any research is to accomplish your purpose. Although some methods have been developed for a reason, the goal is more important than the method. If you’re better able to retain the information, then, for you, that is the method to follow. (Like writing, it is good to at least know what the “rules” are and why they exist before you break them – but the rules are less important then the result. To drag in another conversation – David Bridger follows a method which works for him, and – considering the speed at which he works – carries little risk. In his case, since it works for him, there’s no reason not to follow his method. But it is important to at least know the potential risks if you keep those links around for weeks or months. And, for those who do, a slightly different method would be better.)
As for a course designed for writers who are not historical novelists – although I agree there should be a special course designed for writers, I think it would be a mistake to divide writers into historical novelists and all other writers, because all writers are more similar to my experience as a professional genealogist than they are to any other research specialty. Those who write historical novels often need to know information even most historians would never consider, except perhaps for a few in a very narrow specialty. And they still need to know how things they aren’t familiar with work, in ways no historian ever even thinks of wondering. And history impacts the present, so even those writing in the present may find themselves needing to dig into the past. All writers need to know a scattering of odd details. For one book, you might find yourself researching train or bus timetables – either in the past, or in the present (or even trying to reconstruct plausible future ones), for a particular location. For another, you might be chasing something entirely different. There is no one set of records, no single process, no library, which can answer every question. Instead, the writer needs to know how to chase down, not just common information, but the details of topics so obscure, even hardened reference librarians will give you an odd look when you ask your question. Then, if you tend to focus on books set in the past, or books that require you to know a lot about physics, or books that delve into the minutest details of horse or auto racing, or whatever, you will also need to learn, much more in depth, how to research the specifics of those areas you spend a lot of time focusing on. The main reason I consider courses which teach you how to be a good academic researcher so “lightweight” is because they are so narrow minded. They assume all your answers can be found in the university library, or online. They assume a single method, a single set of “records” (using the term loosely here) will reveal everything you need to know. Sometimes it will, if you’re very lucky. Sometimes it won’t. And academic research tends to devalue personal experience, where, as a writer, I find the experience of walking through a preserved World War Two submarine as important a part of the research process as reading about them and looking at photos. The photos may give you a better idea of what the working sub looked like, the books may mention how crowded those little tin cans were – but only going on board one will let you feel just how little room there was in there. I do know you can’t experience everything, either because of logistics, cost, or simply because some experiences are no longer possible. But there are dimensions to research beyond the library. (And this does not just apply to writers: visiting a graveyard can offer insights you will never come across by reading a list of the burials there.)
Some of you who are reading my comments may be groaning, because you just want to get down to the writing. That’s your decision – although whatever you decide will affect the result that goes down on the page. I can’t help that.
The point is not that I’m saying every writer ought to do all possible research; I’m simply saying every writer ought to know what they can do if they choose to, and how to do it. The problem is, that kind of research can’t be learned in a simple course; at best, you could give a sort of overview. Again, this is like genealogy: once you know the basics, you have to learn details about the various groups you’re working with, the various classes of records – and you’ll still come upon situations where you’re forced to learn “on the fly” because you’re faced with such an unusual problem. What you can learn is how to think about research, how to run down the answers even when no one else knows them (assuming you want or need that answer that badly). Although some writers would “only” benefit from the research aspects of such learning, there are many others who might actually gain story ideas or insights into their characters that way. But I fear too few writers really see the need for such a course, and the effort to develop one would be immense. I suspect if it were ever done, it would have to begin in fragments, or as a “beta” version, because there’s so much to think of and cover. Which, of course, is why such a thing does not exist. (ETA: To clarify, what I’m trying to say here is that writers who want to take research seriously really need to consider learning how to research an ongoing process. There is no one, short course which will tell you all you need to know. There is no way to create such a course. Each writer would need mini-courses tailored to their areas of specialty.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.