But it’s research!
The new book, like its predecessor, is turning out to require significant research. Whereas the previous one was set in a real city, which meant we needed to get the details right, the new one registers a greater hardness on the sci-fi scale. That means more technical details to get right. So far we’ve needed in-depth information about algaculture, DNA chemistry, prison architecture, and single malt Scotch. (Not to mention a few Russian phrases.*)
This has led to a sense of bafflement at the idea of trying to accomplish anything without the Internet. But if Kent doesn’t soon get some sense of proportion about things, he might have to do just that. Jen threatens to turn off his Internet access a couple of times per week, in hopes of getting him to focus on the actual writing.
Being able to do research on any topic right from your desk saves hours that would otherwise go into trips to the library and other activities. It frees you to do spur of the moment “research” on any incidental question or topic the moment it arises, so you needn’t plan ahead what subject areas to explore.
The downside is that when research is so available it becomes a slippery slope. One quick search for the names of the four whisky producing regions of Scotland turns into a whole afternoon of reading articles, studying maps, and of course shopping for the perfect dram (something just a wee peaty). Staying productive means having the discipline to get in and out of research mode efficiently. In a collaboration, sometimes one partner needs to give the other a nudge back toward the manuscript.
How do you approach research for your fiction? How do you know when you’ve collected enough information to write your technical scenes convincingly?
*Oops! Now we’ve given away the whole plot!
You raise an interesting question here. I find myself going into the internet research vortex often as well, and for me it usually ends (somehow) in watching music videos on youtube. If I follow the research path for too long it never fails to end in at least an hour of just screwing around online. So, my method is to write around the question in the first draft. You guys have seen some of my first drafts, so you know the giant, gaping holes that can result from this method, but it keeps me writing. When the first draft is done, I go back and look for those things that seem to require more fact-based knowledge in order to provide verrisimilitude. It isn’t foolproof. I miss things. But it keeps me moving forward to that first, finished draft. Someone on my facebook feed recently quoted Ernest Hemingway… “All first drafts are sh*t.” The method(s) I use to finish a piece means I’ve had to get really comfortable with that notion.
Thanks for sharing your process. First drafts need to be granted many forms of leniency, and that’s certainly one of them. Research meant to answer a specific question doesn’t seem to lead me too far off the rails, at least not usually. What soaks up lots of time is when I’m writing from a POV who has expertise in siege engines or celestial navigation or whatever, and I want to imbue his or her voice with a sense of mastery over the subject. Ergo, I must cram so I can fake it convincingly. It’s a much more open-ended kind of research, and it’s catnip for me. As long as it’s leading to a better manuscript, I can justify a certain amount of it. The trick is not exceeding the quota!