How much research do you need?

[Brian G Turner]

I absolutely believe wholeheartedly and without reservation in research.

That means if you write about it, you must know about it to some degree.

Reading books on the subject - but also visiting places on the subject if possible. And learning certain skills that you are writing about.

For example, for my chronicles writing, I read ancient and mediaeval daily life, visited numerous ancient sites, watched displays of weaponry and swordplay, and also even learned horse-riding.

The details of such research should not be the focus of the writing - merely embroider it. That means when your fantasy characters enter a tavern, you don't make an effort to point our that they should be seated on benches or stools, rather than chairs (for mediaeval realism) - you simply mention it naturally that the characters seat themselves on the benches/stools of the tavern.

But my personal take is that research is necessary to bring rich detail to the character experience - and thus communicates the reality of which you are writing about to the reader experience.

So the question for discussion is: how much research is actually necessary, and how much actual detail should be necessary?

 

[polymorphikos]

The only decent-sized thing I ever wrote was set in Brazil and England at the turn of the nineteenth century. I know very little about Brazil, or the geography of any of the cities of England, but I think that I managed to make it sound realistic using the minimum of information. For example, the location of the English city is pointless, so I merely sketched it out in vagaries with only one street name and the name of one small, fictitious town. Like wise with Brazil, which I tackled with an atlas, the Funk and Wagnall 1987 encyclopedia entry on the Amazon river, and one chapter of a traveller's guide to the region.

The point of this is, if you throw in a few obscure facts and make virtually no reference to detail, and if you use commonsense to work-out what various places are like (i.e: Would Manaus have had slums? It was a distant town, so the Indians probably would have converged on it to trade and beg, like the aborigines in Melbourne, so yes, probably, it did.) then people will marvel at your knowledge of the places and peoples, when most of it is apocryphal or just plain made-up. Artistic licence and the fact that very few people liable to read your book live in Victorian Brazil (or even modern Brazil, for that matter), and even fewer are liable to be Indians in an backwater or the Rio Negro.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

I agree in part with you both. Obviously location details are only important depending on what you are writing, and depending on who the prospected reader is. For example, I know people who probably would have sat shaking their heads reading your story set in Victorian Brazil, but most the people on this site would be non the wiser. However, if you had witten your story with a higher level of research, lets say just enough to satisfy my history friends, then there is a chance that the experience of the 'normal' reader would also have been heightened.

You actually went horse riding Brian? Excellent. I went horse riding on holiday, for the first time, it was great. My back still aches though. Are you familiar with the tale of Alexander's horse, Bucephalus? This horse was crazier and it had naught to do with the sunlight.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've heard of Bucephalus - not not so much of its habits.

Yes, took up horse-riding - I wanted to get an idea of what fighting from horseback would be like. I learned to canter but ran out of money before I could learn to gallop. Got myself a nice hernia fom it, though, and was butchered by the surgeon who corrected it.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

Just more research, albeit involuntary, into archaic surgery. You are obviously a dedicated writer Brian. Bucephalus was Alexander's horse, he was absolutely crazy and apparently killed some of the people who tried to break him in. It turns out that he was afraid of the sun or some such madness.

I have decided to take up the pen again, the word 'daunting' has never been so apparent. I have some good ideas, a basic idea of the structure and style that I am going to adopt, and several characters in their early form. I hope that there is enough originallity to make the story stand out, as I am hoping to meld some current political themes into a fantasy backdrop.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Well, I tend to research the crap out of stuff before I write about it. This is mostly because I love to do research. I know, that's sick, but that's me.

When I'm reading other folks' writing, I don't mind if the details on things like geography are vague, as long as they sound like they know what they are talking about and the story is good. But - if a writer uses specific geographical details and I know the place, they better get the details right, or they will lose all credibility with me. I mean I've read books where the author used a place I know and didn't get it right - and I've had to put the book down, because all I can think is that I wonder what else he or she didn't get right. The same holds true with non-geographical details and facts, as well. So I guess the conclusion is that there are people out here like me, so it's better to do the research than to not do it - because someone will know if you get it wrong.

This thing with accuracy actually extends to things besides writing, actually. Last night, for example, I was listening to the radio and the person being interviewed referred to being in a particular location and standing in the door of the building and being able look out at the moon over the ocean. Well, I used to live about three miles from that location - used to go by there all the time - and I know that it is approximately 12 to 15 miles from the ocean. No chance of seeing it from there. Completely shot my opinion of the credibility of the speaker (which wasn't very high to begin with, to be honest).

Edit: To correct the spelling of the word "accuracy" in the first line of the final paragraph - how funny is that? Here I am going on about having a thing about accuracy, and then misspelling the word?

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Research is totally crucial if any sort of realism is your aim. If you're winging it, someone will suss you out.

I recently read a report by a person from Greece who said that she was very amused by certain geographical absurdities in the movie Troy. Robert Charles Wilson's othewrise excellent novel The Chronoliths was ruined for me because one character - a scientist, supposedly from Madras, was called Sulamith Chopra. I've never met anyone named Sulamith, and Chopra is hardly a typical Madrasi surname.

All innacuracies will ruin your illusion of reality for someone or the other. You simply can't be too careful about research.

 

[RZD]

I try to research everything I write, but I think fantasy audiences are a little more forgiving than sci-fi audiences. Do you think so?

 

[littlemissattitude]

I try to research everything I write, but I think fantasy audiences are a little more forgiving than sci-fi audiences. Do you think so?

For me, it depends on what kind of fantasy it is, among other things. I know I've read urban fantasy that takes place, at least partially, in the real world, that is very well-researched and accurate - since I used to live within a few blocks of some of the locations used in one particular story. While I was reading, I could close my eyes and see exactly where the writer (Tim Powers, in this case) was talking about. It was so accurate, in fact, that it made me homesick.

I think that in talking about more traditional fantasy, the research would mostly show in making sure that everything is consistent within the world of the story, unless there is a very good reason - one that can be logically explained - for them not being consistent. Even if the things that go on in a created world are contradictory to physics or biology or geology as we know it, the way they work in that created world have to be consistent and logical, I think. For example, you can't have half a planet geologically active and the other half geologically dead unless you can justify that in some way. I don't even know if that is a good example, but I hope you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. It's getting late, and my mind is starting to do it's late-night stall-out.