"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
-- Albert Einstein
-- Albert Einstein
When the idea for a story set in Occupied Paris first hit me four years ago, I didn't think about research. I only thought about how much fun it would be to write a young adult novel set in that particular place and time.
Before I started writing the first draft, I spent three years reading everything I could get my hands on that had to do with life in Paris during the war. I kept a notebook and jotted down interesting bits and significant dates and other random stuff. While writing the first draft, I did not refer to my research notes. Instead, I worked on crafting the story without worrying too much about the details. But I did make about 100 notes on the draft: RESEARCH THIS!
As a huge fan of historical fiction, it's important to me that an author has done the research. But sometimes an author will include a note to readers in the back of the book that explains where the author has "deviated" for the sake of the story. That doesn't bother me.
Now that I'm revising the novel, I find that I can search for an answer to one of those questions for hours and still come up empty. At that point, I have to change direction and come at it from a different angle. Though I love doing research, sometimes I wonder, how much is enough? When writing historical fiction, must I stick 100% to historical accuracy and check every minute detail?
What are your thoughts on the matter?
I could research for months, but still not have everything as accurate as possible. I don't think it's going to make or break a book if you leave out some historical facts.
ReplyDeleteThis is so exciting! I can finally reply to individual comments! Thanks, Blogger. And Thanks Miranda, for weighing in on the matter. I've appreciated your consistent comments.
DeleteOh, I have fallen down the rabbit hole more than a few times! My approach has been very much like yours. But I find when I'm drafting or going back to get details right, I can lose myself in the research. One question leads to another and another and another... Yesterday it was firefighting methods in the mid 1800s. I might not even include any of it, but I had to have a sense of things nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteHave fun and wave to the March Hare and the Mad Hatter (and me!) the next time you fall down that hole...
My latest rabbit hole was the uniform and nature of a militant WWII French youth group.
DeleteOne guideline I was always given (back when I was a journalist) was this: When you've reached the point where you keep finding the same information-- the same books, the same references, the same citations, etc., that usually means you've done all you can. It means there is nothing else to find -- not necessarily that there's nothing else out there, just that you've done all you can do to find the accessible information. For someone writing a nonfiction book, it was an indicator that there was a gap in the historical record and kind of exciting. Here was an chance to add to the knowledge base. For the sake of fiction, you could view that gap as a place to add your story. You have the freedom of knowing that emotions are always historically accurate.
ReplyDeleteThanks, KLM. Sometimes I just have to give up and move on. Sigh.
DeleteActually, research is my most beloved part of writing. If I could make money doing so, I'd be the richest woman alive. lol! At least that's what my critique partner told me recently!
ReplyDeleteMy YA historical adventure, took me places I never dreamed of visiting just through research. I spent four hours in a museum while working one day...ah, it was hours of bliss!
I love the research, but not when I can't find the answers I'm looking for. I'm quite tenacious and have a hard time knowing when to say enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteI tend to get lost in research; I'm always afraid of getting some detail wrong that, later on, a reader will catch and cry "Fraud!" over. I started writing one historical fiction project, but after a short time I got burned out trying to chase down information.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That's the big fear.
DeleteI'm annoyingly puristic in that I think authors shouldn't deliberately distort facts for the convenience of fiction. But I also think that it's impossible to know every fact. And I think that when history leaves a gap of the unknown, it's okay for the author to speculate and fill in with fiction, as long as that speculation is plausible and not contradicted by known facts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, new facts and new interpretations constantly come to light. For years, people debated over the name of Meriwether Lewis's dog (who came along on the Lewis & Clark expedition). People couldn't read Lewis's writing and thought the dog was probably "Scannon," though it looked more like "Scamon," but "Scamon" didn't seem like much of a name. For years, people agreed to call the dog "Scannon," and that's what he was called in some historical fiction about the expedition. And then a scholar demonstrated very convincingly why the name of this Newfoundland was almost certainly "Seaman," and Lewis & Clark scholars now accept that name--which made me feel bad for the writers who had written books using "Scannon." But it just shows we can never be perfect.
(From Erica Jong's PARACHUTES & KISSES: "The best subjects for historical novels are those characters about whom just a little is known, but much remains to be invented, for then the imagination flies free.")
Thanks for this, Jennifer. I don't think it's "annoyingly puristic". Thanks for the excellent example.
DeleteI'd prefer if authors get things "right," or, as you noted, try an angle that skirts the issue. But that's why I don't write historicals and why I'm putting my one idea for one on the backburner until it screams at me.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you have a great process, though, one I just might steal :) It's pantser enough to be appealing.
But yeah, I want details and accuracy from historical fiction....
That last sentence of yours is the sort of thing that makes me queasy. Some details are SO HARD to chase down.
Delete