Recently, John and Hank Green were on tour in the UK for the first anniversary of The Fault in Our Stars, and John made this video in which he basically broke my heart by going on my favorite walk along the Thames - the one that goes past Parliament and the London Eye and the Globe and eventually winds its way to Tower Bridge and the Tower of London - as well as mentioning getting a drink at Eat to be rebellious and calling Caffe Nero "Caffe Nerd" because the font does kinda make it look like that, and all sorts of other London-y things that made me viscerally miss that place I once called home. (Not like I don't do that enough as it is, thanks John.)
But he was also, kind of, in an uncertain way, making an argument that virtual narratives are now so real and compelling as to stand up to physical narratives. He was looking at an object in the British Museum that was actually on loan to a museum in Toronto, but the space had been filled by such a convincing 3-D photo that it took him a minute to notice it wasn't real. So, he says, does that matter? Is it important to be looking at the real thing?
I'm a history minor; I do a rather ridiculous amount of research like it's my job. So there's something to be said for that - I do not have a time machine. I cannot find out, in a personal, physical way, everything about daily life in World War II or the French Revolution or Victorian London. I just can't. I have to turn to official documents and personal narratives and paintings and photos and maps; I can piece together my own truth based on the snippets I've been given.
And I obviously did enough research to create a landscape for my characters before I went to Europe. I'd written A TERROR OF DARKNESS completely when I finally went to Paris, and I think the only thing I wanted to change after having gone was noting how damp the catacombs actually are - it looks pretty dry and dusty down there in all the pictures I'd seen.
But even though the research I'd done was enough, I wouldn't have traded that semester abroad for the world. There are some things you simply cannot learn from books - sometimes you have to buy a drink at Eat and get stuck in the snow at Piccadilly Circus and eat pub food and discover places not listed on the maps. Sometimes you have to touch the stones of Notre Dame and breathe the dank air of the catacombs and dance through the gilded halls of the Palais Garnier.
I don't think John is arguing that everyone should always stay inside 100% of the time and be glued to their computer screens. That would be silly. And I think the question he's raised is interesting: is it sufficient to look at a picture of a thing? How much is there to be said for looking at the thing itself? How important, for example, was it for me to see the actual Mona Lisa when we went to the Louvre, versus looking at a picture of the Mona Lisa in my textbooks and online?
Maybe the virtual experience is so detailed now as to be enough. But the real experience just adds something more. It allows you to create something more than what's merely "enough."
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
How to Write Historical Fiction - Tips from Anna Solomon
On Thursday, Anna Solomon, author of THE LITTLE BRIDE, came to my historical fiction class. It was a really fun experience, as it isn't all that often (if ever) that you read a book in class and then get to ask the author questions about it. She had a lot of helpful things to say on the topic of writing historical fiction, so I thought I would share some of her tips with you in case you guys ever want to delve into the world of historical fiction - or are there now!
1. Just because something is set in the past doesn't mean that the tone has to be super-formal. I thought this was a really good point to make, as a lot of people do often see history as a little bit stuffy, but in reality, even though etiquette rules were different, people were still people - not everyone is always formal all the time. Your writing will be much more enjoyable for the reader - and much more fun for you too! - if you let yourself loosen up about it a little.
2. Fiction written during the time period can be really helpful. Obviously, this is easier for some time periods than others, but it is a good way to put yourself in the mindset of people who really lived during the time period you've chosen to work with.
3. In terms of detail, consider how you might say the same thing in a modern setting and how much detail you'd need to get your point across, and use the same amount of detail for your historical work. For instance, if you're saying "he walked down the street," do you really need to tell us about every cobblestone or gaslamp? Unless your character trips over the cobblestones, probably not.
4. Social histories, contemporary newspapers, and contemporary journals are excellent ways to learn more about everyday life in your time period. Again, this is easier to find for some places and times than others, but it's still a good thing to be looking for.
Anna Solomon's visit was really exciting, and she had a lot of informative and helpful things to say. It was great meeting her, and I can't wait to apply some of her research techniques to my next project.
1. Just because something is set in the past doesn't mean that the tone has to be super-formal. I thought this was a really good point to make, as a lot of people do often see history as a little bit stuffy, but in reality, even though etiquette rules were different, people were still people - not everyone is always formal all the time. Your writing will be much more enjoyable for the reader - and much more fun for you too! - if you let yourself loosen up about it a little.
2. Fiction written during the time period can be really helpful. Obviously, this is easier for some time periods than others, but it is a good way to put yourself in the mindset of people who really lived during the time period you've chosen to work with.
3. In terms of detail, consider how you might say the same thing in a modern setting and how much detail you'd need to get your point across, and use the same amount of detail for your historical work. For instance, if you're saying "he walked down the street," do you really need to tell us about every cobblestone or gaslamp? Unless your character trips over the cobblestones, probably not.
4. Social histories, contemporary newspapers, and contemporary journals are excellent ways to learn more about everyday life in your time period. Again, this is easier to find for some places and times than others, but it's still a good thing to be looking for.
Anna Solomon's visit was really exciting, and she had a lot of informative and helpful things to say. It was great meeting her, and I can't wait to apply some of her research techniques to my next project.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Epic Rewrite Time!
Song of the Day: I Know (A Song in Ten Words)
Now that I have finished Letters to Oliver, have handed it off to my dear friend Erin and am not letting myself think about it till it's time to dive in for revisions, I have started the monster project for this summer - revamping (all right, rewriting) A Bridge to War. I wrote about 900 words just last night, and I am quite pleased with it so far. Already it feels darker and more realistic and more historically accurate and more interesting and just all around better.
I had originally planned to rewrite the things that needed rewriting and salvaging as much as I could from previous drafts, but after last night I'm not sure that's going to work. In 3 pages, which will probably amount to about half a chapter, and less than 900 words, I said what it took me 17 pages, 2 chapters and over 5,000 words to say in the draft I was previously sending out to agents. Good Lord, but this thing is overwritten. Still, I'll probably take bits and pieces from the original, because there is still a lot that I like about it.
My plans for revision are as such:
1. Bump the timeline up about twenty years, from 1771 to 1789. Nothing happens in 1771. LOTS happens in 1789, obviously. And I have plans to combine a very important part in which my characters are imprisoned, my climax, and the storming of the Bastille. Good fun. :)
2. Make absolutely certain that everything is historically accurate, from settings to dialogue. My best friend is apparently far more Google-savvy than I, for it took her approximately five minutes to find an 18th century map overlay for Google Earth France. WIN. Also, I've got Wikipedia timelines and a European History textbook stolen from my friend Erin for fact checking, and Rosalind Laker's novel To Dance with Kings for dialogue and tone. Methinks that I am set.
3. Cut extraneous everything. There's a lot of dead space wandering around in the woods. There are also ten million extraneous characters. Some of the ones getting the axe include Nayiri, who was such fun to write but rather flat and useless, to be honest, Amelie, Rose's cute little sister who really serves no purpose at all, Rose's cousins in Paris, since Rose herself now lives in Paris, some of Avar's too many cousins, and some of my made-up government officials.
I think that once I tighten up the plot and actually align it with historical events to give this wreck of a trilogy some direction after book one, all will work out well. I'll also be adding in a little bit more of the romantic element that got cut in order to size draft 1 down to a slightly more manageable draft 2. But if I can cut 4,000 words in one night, hardly without a thought, I think that can go back in.
ETA: My mom the French major has absolutely, positively vetoed my title idea. Which is fine; I was just sort of musing aloud and asking for feedback on the musing. Until I get a better idea, it's going to stay as A Bridge to War. Because that took me long enough to come up with in the first place.
DFTBA!
Now that I have finished Letters to Oliver, have handed it off to my dear friend Erin and am not letting myself think about it till it's time to dive in for revisions, I have started the monster project for this summer - revamping (all right, rewriting) A Bridge to War. I wrote about 900 words just last night, and I am quite pleased with it so far. Already it feels darker and more realistic and more historically accurate and more interesting and just all around better.
I had originally planned to rewrite the things that needed rewriting and salvaging as much as I could from previous drafts, but after last night I'm not sure that's going to work. In 3 pages, which will probably amount to about half a chapter, and less than 900 words, I said what it took me 17 pages, 2 chapters and over 5,000 words to say in the draft I was previously sending out to agents. Good Lord, but this thing is overwritten. Still, I'll probably take bits and pieces from the original, because there is still a lot that I like about it.
My plans for revision are as such:
1. Bump the timeline up about twenty years, from 1771 to 1789. Nothing happens in 1771. LOTS happens in 1789, obviously. And I have plans to combine a very important part in which my characters are imprisoned, my climax, and the storming of the Bastille. Good fun. :)
2. Make absolutely certain that everything is historically accurate, from settings to dialogue. My best friend is apparently far more Google-savvy than I, for it took her approximately five minutes to find an 18th century map overlay for Google Earth France. WIN. Also, I've got Wikipedia timelines and a European History textbook stolen from my friend Erin for fact checking, and Rosalind Laker's novel To Dance with Kings for dialogue and tone. Methinks that I am set.
3. Cut extraneous everything. There's a lot of dead space wandering around in the woods. There are also ten million extraneous characters. Some of the ones getting the axe include Nayiri, who was such fun to write but rather flat and useless, to be honest, Amelie, Rose's cute little sister who really serves no purpose at all, Rose's cousins in Paris, since Rose herself now lives in Paris, some of Avar's too many cousins, and some of my made-up government officials.
I think that once I tighten up the plot and actually align it with historical events to give this wreck of a trilogy some direction after book one, all will work out well. I'll also be adding in a little bit more of the romantic element that got cut in order to size draft 1 down to a slightly more manageable draft 2. But if I can cut 4,000 words in one night, hardly without a thought, I think that can go back in.
ETA: My mom the French major has absolutely, positively vetoed my title idea. Which is fine; I was just sort of musing aloud and asking for feedback on the musing. Until I get a better idea, it's going to stay as A Bridge to War. Because that took me long enough to come up with in the first place.
DFTBA!
Friday, March 26, 2010
A (possibly incoherent) Discussion of References
Disclaimer: For some reason utterly unknown to me, I have been unable to get adequate sleep for what feels like three weeks straight (yes, this includes spring break. No, I do not comprehend why I'm MORE tired AFTER spring break than before). So if this post makes absolutely no sense, I do apologize.
-------------------------------------
Hello, blogsphere! How goes it? Things are going well in college-land (aside from the sleep deprivation and piling on of projects thing). Letters to Oliver is going really quite well! And I've sent A Bridge to War off to another beta, because Karla is a lovely person and offered to help. If all goes well and the universe decides to work in my favor for once, I'll have that finished by the middle of April.
Anyway, whenever I put up a snippet from Letters to Oliver, I get all these lovely comments about the historical voice. And so I think I'd like to talk a little bit about my favorite references, because they're cool and if you like my ramblings, you might like these too.
First off, for some unconventional ones. I think the biggest help for the voice in Letters to Oliver is the 1995 five-hour BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. I have seen this thing so many times that I have parts of it memorized. I can't read P&P anymore without hearing Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in my head. And even though Pride and Prejudice is set about sixty or seventy years sooner than Letters to Oliver, the style of speech is still very similar and it's quite a useful model.
(The fact that my entire junior-year English class decided I was reincarnated from a Victorian lady has nothing to do with my ability to write that book. ;P)
Another one is probably one I shouldn't tell you to use, but there it is. I use Wikipedia probably more often than I should. I can't really help myself though - it's just so extremely convenient for quick information! I would advise, if you do want to use Wikipedia, to take a look at the links provided at the bottom of the page too. Those usually can't be tampered with.
Other than that, I have several book sources that I use. My favorite is one by Daniel Pool, called What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew. That book is amazing. It's very informative, and a rather engaging read too, and if you like Victorian literature, there's lots of examples from Dickens and the Brontes and Austen scattered throughout. I also got a copy of Kristine Hughes' Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England for Christmas from a friend of mine; this one is also very useful.
Researching A Bridge to War is much trickier, though. If you're researching 18th century France, it's easy to find stuff on Versailles and the French Revolution and bread riots in Paris and such. But my characters weren't involved in any of that. The story takes place almost 20 years before the French Revolution began, and the characters live in the middle of the country (or, in Avar's case, the middle of the woods, but that's not what I'm talking about). It's also a weird alternate history kind of thing, so while the facts might not all be right, I'm trying to keep the atmosphere as close to reality as I can. So after searching for forever, I found a book by Daniel Roche (an actual French guy; he teaches at the University of Paris) called A History of Everyday Things. It's dry as dust, but monumentally informative.
There is also a most excellent book called To Dance with Kings by Rosalind Laker. It's fiction, but it's set (well, part of it is, anyway) during the time period I want, and the beginning involves people who aren't part of the aristocracy, so it's a good model for prose and dialogue which I intend to make very good use of.
So if any of you are interested in writing a historical, I'd advise you to take a look at those books. And watch the BBC Pride and Prejudice - Colin Firth makes one heck of a Mr. Darcy.
-------------------------------------
Hello, blogsphere! How goes it? Things are going well in college-land (aside from the sleep deprivation and piling on of projects thing). Letters to Oliver is going really quite well! And I've sent A Bridge to War off to another beta, because Karla is a lovely person and offered to help. If all goes well and the universe decides to work in my favor for once, I'll have that finished by the middle of April.
Anyway, whenever I put up a snippet from Letters to Oliver, I get all these lovely comments about the historical voice. And so I think I'd like to talk a little bit about my favorite references, because they're cool and if you like my ramblings, you might like these too.
First off, for some unconventional ones. I think the biggest help for the voice in Letters to Oliver is the 1995 five-hour BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. I have seen this thing so many times that I have parts of it memorized. I can't read P&P anymore without hearing Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in my head. And even though Pride and Prejudice is set about sixty or seventy years sooner than Letters to Oliver, the style of speech is still very similar and it's quite a useful model.
(The fact that my entire junior-year English class decided I was reincarnated from a Victorian lady has nothing to do with my ability to write that book. ;P)
Another one is probably one I shouldn't tell you to use, but there it is. I use Wikipedia probably more often than I should. I can't really help myself though - it's just so extremely convenient for quick information! I would advise, if you do want to use Wikipedia, to take a look at the links provided at the bottom of the page too. Those usually can't be tampered with.
Other than that, I have several book sources that I use. My favorite is one by Daniel Pool, called What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew. That book is amazing. It's very informative, and a rather engaging read too, and if you like Victorian literature, there's lots of examples from Dickens and the Brontes and Austen scattered throughout. I also got a copy of Kristine Hughes' Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England for Christmas from a friend of mine; this one is also very useful.
Researching A Bridge to War is much trickier, though. If you're researching 18th century France, it's easy to find stuff on Versailles and the French Revolution and bread riots in Paris and such. But my characters weren't involved in any of that. The story takes place almost 20 years before the French Revolution began, and the characters live in the middle of the country (or, in Avar's case, the middle of the woods, but that's not what I'm talking about). It's also a weird alternate history kind of thing, so while the facts might not all be right, I'm trying to keep the atmosphere as close to reality as I can. So after searching for forever, I found a book by Daniel Roche (an actual French guy; he teaches at the University of Paris) called A History of Everyday Things. It's dry as dust, but monumentally informative.
There is also a most excellent book called To Dance with Kings by Rosalind Laker. It's fiction, but it's set (well, part of it is, anyway) during the time period I want, and the beginning involves people who aren't part of the aristocracy, so it's a good model for prose and dialogue which I intend to make very good use of.
So if any of you are interested in writing a historical, I'd advise you to take a look at those books. And watch the BBC Pride and Prejudice - Colin Firth makes one heck of a Mr. Darcy.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Get Thee to a Library!
Happy Friday, all! Now that I'm back from work, beginning to calm down from the loss of the coolest tree on the planet, taking a pause from watching my sister's dance troupe compete, and forcibly stopping my panic attack after I realized that my "magic way to rearrange my subplot and make everything perfect" is not going to work, I will talk about one of the most fantabulous things ever to exist.
Research.
Research, my friends, is good. It is fun. It is your FRIEND. It wants to make your writing better!
In all seriousness, though, research is good, and it can help anyone, writing any story. Take my work, for example.
The things(or places)my characters are involved in:
1. 18th century France
2. 19th century England
3. Several made up universes
4. Magic
5. Run around in the woods with werewolves
6. Fall in love (take that as far as you want, or not)
7. Swordfights
8. Battles (involving everything from swords, bows, and trebuchets to cannons and muskets)
9. Terrible disasters involving the potential loss of life, family, and world-as-they-know-it
10. Horseback riding, sometimes cross-country
Things from that list I have actually done:
1. Horseback riding (though never cross-country)
That's it. Just one. ONE thing, out of everything that my characters have ever done, just one shared experience. That's not a lot. Some people tend to stick to what I call the "Jane Austen method;" that is, "write what you know." Not to say anything against Jane Austen, as I love her work, but where's the fun in that? Writing is supposed to take you to places and times you'll never be, and allow you to do things you might never do or be able to do in real life. But research allows you to do it as accurately as possible.
My research has taken many forms - from several books on Victorian society/etiquette/etc., to a book by a French university professor on commodities in France from 1600-1800 to sending Patricia C. Wrede a frantic email asking about Victorian slang to the wonder that is Wikipedia to asking my mom if French people would've eaten toast for breakfast. On AW, the lovely and talented Choco has taken to rounding up all the East Coasters on the board and asking them questions about when leaves start to turn colors in fall and such. Other writers on AW have spoken about Google Earth stalking the towns they've decided to write about.
Research is so important. I have been known to stall a story for days if I cannot properly research a scene. Everything matters, especially in a historical work, but in a contemporary one as well, since continuity issues can really jar a reader out of the fluidity of your narrative. From picking the right names for your setting and time period, to making sure the characters know what fork to use if they're that type, to researching what's actually on TV; it all helps to make your story more cohesive and more enjoyable.
Okay. Time to go watch some more dance competition numbers... and worry about the girls playing lacrosse in the hallway right outside my open door.
Research.
Research, my friends, is good. It is fun. It is your FRIEND. It wants to make your writing better!
In all seriousness, though, research is good, and it can help anyone, writing any story. Take my work, for example.
The things(or places)my characters are involved in:
1. 18th century France
2. 19th century England
3. Several made up universes
4. Magic
5. Run around in the woods with werewolves
6. Fall in love (take that as far as you want, or not)
7. Swordfights
8. Battles (involving everything from swords, bows, and trebuchets to cannons and muskets)
9. Terrible disasters involving the potential loss of life, family, and world-as-they-know-it
10. Horseback riding, sometimes cross-country
Things from that list I have actually done:
1. Horseback riding (though never cross-country)
That's it. Just one. ONE thing, out of everything that my characters have ever done, just one shared experience. That's not a lot. Some people tend to stick to what I call the "Jane Austen method;" that is, "write what you know." Not to say anything against Jane Austen, as I love her work, but where's the fun in that? Writing is supposed to take you to places and times you'll never be, and allow you to do things you might never do or be able to do in real life. But research allows you to do it as accurately as possible.
My research has taken many forms - from several books on Victorian society/etiquette/etc., to a book by a French university professor on commodities in France from 1600-1800 to sending Patricia C. Wrede a frantic email asking about Victorian slang to the wonder that is Wikipedia to asking my mom if French people would've eaten toast for breakfast. On AW, the lovely and talented Choco has taken to rounding up all the East Coasters on the board and asking them questions about when leaves start to turn colors in fall and such. Other writers on AW have spoken about Google Earth stalking the towns they've decided to write about.
Research is so important. I have been known to stall a story for days if I cannot properly research a scene. Everything matters, especially in a historical work, but in a contemporary one as well, since continuity issues can really jar a reader out of the fluidity of your narrative. From picking the right names for your setting and time period, to making sure the characters know what fork to use if they're that type, to researching what's actually on TV; it all helps to make your story more cohesive and more enjoyable.
Okay. Time to go watch some more dance competition numbers... and worry about the girls playing lacrosse in the hallway right outside my open door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)