Research: Before or After?

Some best-selling writers prefer to get the story down, with blanks left for things to research: the history of a part of town...types of trees and flowers,,,architectural styles of homes...etc. In an interview, a while back, Stephen King claimed that he filled in the blanks after completing the story. And in his Top 20 Rules for Writers he advises: 'If you do need to do research because parts of your story deal with things about which you know little or nothing, remember (the) word back. That's where research belongs: as far in the background and the back story as you can get it.'

It's hard to argue with success. But, even so, other sorts of writers--especially historical novelists--may need to do the research first...and do a lot more of it. For them, the details are more than seasoning to sprinkle through the story...but close to the soul of the feast. Margaret Mitchell took time to learn when the bustle replaced the wide hoop skirt--in 1868. By her own account, she read the files of old newspapers from 1860 to 1878, plus hundreds of old magazines, diaries and letters, while consulting hundreds of books. Interestingly, she claims to have taken very few notes. She retained what she needed in a mind like a steel trap, allowing the facts to suffuse her with a rich feeling for the era.

We'd have had a far different book if she'd dreamily made it all up at her desk, then took time to fill in the blanks.




Does attention to detail like that matter in a mystery or popular novel?

Stephen Saylor's Roma Sub Roma mysteries, set in the time of Sulla, Cicero, Caesar and Cleopatra, feature a detective named Gordianus the Finder. The books are far less densely detailed than the Roman epics of Colleen McCullough, yet readers around the world revere them--not just for the mysteries and the breakneck packing...but for their sense of time and place, conveyed in the just-perfect details.

http://tinyurl.com/mhw2sgh

Inspired by Saylor's method...




Four months ago, when I moved to Seattle, I'd already decided to set most of the next Boss MacTavin mystery here. And in the past four months I've acquired a working sense of Seattle--specifically, the rougher parts that I wanted to make my real focus. So I might have just jumped in and started to write...But I did what I always do, beginning with a journal I proceeded to fill up with questions and notes.

I may end up using 10% of my research. Even so, I won't regard the 90% as a waste. I want the confidence level that comes with knowing 100%. I want the sense of power that comes with carefully selecting. So, here I am spending a couple of months researching things that cross my mind as the book in my head gathers more depth and shape. And every now and then some cool thing I learn will offer the plot line a dazzling new spin.

Back to school now to learn more about:
1) Alternative weapons.
2) Retail theft: by both shoplifters and staff.
3) 3rd and Pike, 'The Scourge of Seattle'.
4) Pioneer Squars
5) Tent cities for the homeless.
6) The ritzier parts of Seattle.
7) Drug use and alcoholism.
8) Racial make-up of Seattle.
9) Income diversity.


Viva, La Digging!

Prose and Cons: Literary Factories 1

There's a world of difference between a prolific writer and a literary factory. In fact, there's another world of difference between a literary factory and a literary factory superintendent. The distinctions lie at the heart of this new series, Prose and Cons, whose main theme is writing from a reader's point of view. So, to keep the debut short, let's start with the distinctions--and a thought about the different demands of the three classes of readers.

1) The prolific writer. Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Sue Grafton readily come to mind as present-day examples. Any writer capable of turning out a book each year, or every other year, should have their name on this list. King proved prolific enough, years ago, to have had to resort to a pen name for his surplus novels. But the key points distinguishing prolific writers from factories is: their concern with quality and their abiding conviction that they are serious writers. Readers still expect quality from these writers and are capable of criticizing work not perceived as first-rate.
2) The literary factory. Quantity for this group overshadows quality. The legendary Frederick Faust could be their patron saint. Faust, who wrote as Max Brand and at least eight other names, turned out more than 500 novels and as many shorter stories. Total lifetime output: 25-30 million words. Speed: 12,000 words in a weekend. You'll have names of your own that belong on this list: Edgar Wallace, Isaac Asimov, Erle Stanley Gardner, ebook writer Russell Blake (25 books in 2 years). Some wrote for money, some wrote for fame...and some wrote, I believe, because they could not stop. The process of production, not the quality of the end product, drove them to put out again and again. Variety is welcome by readers as long as it's seen to run true to the brand.
3) The literary factory superintendent. Alexander Dumas caused a fury when his habit of 'farming out' parts of his books became public knowledge. No one minded his having a staff of researchers and assistants. But readers felt duped by his practice of having others write the parts that bored him or were beyond his ken. The Dumas brand, however, proved far stronger than the scandal. And I wonder how many readers today would be alarmed to know the practice still runs strong today. Publishers and agents are silent on the subject while they agree it does exist--and that readers would be shocked if they knew how prevalent it is. James Patterson deserves a good deal of credit for tearing down the Chinese Wall...and listing the names of his 'partners'--aka, employees. Readers of this last group's books want repetitive experience. They don't want a new book from James Patterson in the sense of something different. They want the same book as the last one they read, but with a different cover. Above all, they want the addictive formula: the third person opening that segues to the first person...short chapters...snappy sentences...by-the-numbers characters...etc.

In Part 2 we'll have a look at the likely differences between a novel written in a year and one written in a month.