Parts of the novel I am currently writing are set in London in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and I am extremely daunted by the task of researching this period. I'm also unclear how I would then use the research without it becoming an 'information dump', merely to show that I've done my research!

I'd be interested to hear how people go about researching their novels (when the world of the novel isn't one that they know from personal experience) and also how the research then informs their writing. Finally, I'm thinking of visiting the British Library to do some research and wondered if previous BL-users might share their experience.

Any advice/pointers/words of caution gratefully received!

James

James,

Most of my information/research is done on the internet.

I've an idea, why don't you see if the library have any old newspapers/magazines from the 50s and 60s so you can get a real flavour of what life was like in those days.

I have a book about the 50s and 60s, with the music, fashion, food, and pastimes of people from London in those days, if you want any info of that sort, let me know. I also have a book of news items from 1963 (my birth year) so again could help with that.

So I think the library/internet is a good place to start.

Good luck

Kat

Hi James. Research has been something I've been thinking about recently. I'm lazy when it comes to these things and I've recently been wondering whether it is possible to do minimal research and allow the imagination to take control - the problem arises when you need hard factual information about places. I've used the British Library to research an idea I had about a novel, the research was actually fascinating but when it came to translating it all into a novel, it didn't really work. It's an excellent place to get ideas though and you will have access to some incredible material. For example, I read first hand accounts of administrators in the British Raj describing flesh-hooking village practices in rural India in the 1860s, letters describing deaths of family members during the mutiny, the composition of flowers in a botanical garden in Calcutta frequented by Lord Canning. It is a daunting process but the staff are extremely helpful - it's best to start on a few general textbooks to get an overview before tracking down the multitude of footnote references. Sometimes it gets overwhelming when you have a limited time and so many books to read. It can take years!!

<Added>

start with

I've often thought that novels requiring a degree of knowledge that you don't personally already have - or at least do not have at least an understanding of - are difficult and potentially dangerous. We have all heard the adage 'write about what you know' and while I think this is most often used as advice for getting the stream and the ideas going, I believe it also has merit in terms of actually writing accurate 'factual' information.

How important it is, and how feasible it is to really know a subject before writing about it is of course entirely dependent upon the context of the usage and the subject itself. For example, very few writers are going to have a good working knowledge of quantum physics (although ironically this is a favourite subject of mine) so writing a novel with the main character working in such a discipline would be tricky. However, if the character is incidental and he is only required to tell some (say, at a party) what he's currently working on then 5 minutes on the Net will find you some appropriate research topics to feed as a line.

Some writers do spend a very long time and take great care to research their subjects but in my opinion this also reflects an interest in or knowledge of that topic in the first place. I can't really imagine myself wanting to write a book that's heavy in detail about tropical fish because my main character is a professional breeder. Even if the plot demanded it, I'd probably shy away from the research necessary to pull it off as it would never interest me and while I can get the facts from the Net or a friend who keeps fish, I'll probably end up missing the point or conveying that passion fuelling the character.

James, you say that you're extremely daunted by the prospect of researching this period and I'm afraid that says to me that you're probably not terribly interested in it and currently know little about it. In your shoes I'd be thinking about the structure of the novel and, dare I say it, wondering whether it's a good idea to even attempt it. Historical 'data', perhaps more than anything else is very tricky to portray when dealing with characters. If you want a good example, ask a random selection of people what their views are of Margaret Thatcher and that period of government. You'll find deeply opposing views and where the views of your character lie regarding similar time specific events will colour how he/she sees the world around them. You cannot, in my opinion, simply look at the news headlines of a period then write a character that works in a certain industry and goes down the pub (paying a relevant number of pennies for his pint) to discuss that headline. You'll need to establish a mindset, a profile, a way of living that will be very difficult if you haven't been there and done that.

It's not impossible of course, there are some very very fine works of historical fiction but it's a particular skill and requires a particular interest and can't I don't think, be accomplished starting from the standpoint of 'extremely daunted'.

Jon

Yes, those big picture books on the different decades are brilliant - any central library will have a collection of them. The Daily Mail Book of the 1960s is the kind of thing you're looking for. For the news, the big Dorling Kindersley Chronicle of the 20th Century - the news, set out newspaper style, for every month - is invaluable, and most libraries have it. I find a big central library that also serves a big college is a good bet - they have books on fashion and food, sport, policing, schools, communications, advertising, architecture and interior decoration and endless, endless, endless books on transport. Most librarians - unless very tired and about to be made redundant - are thrilled to use their training to help. And they can point you towards the special collections that are held at particular branches, or the archive for old magazines. Specialist libraries respond to email - I had a great correspondence with the National Railway Museum in York, and then you can order the book locally through inter library - loan. If you're writing about somewhere away from your home town it's really worth going to the library there. There'll be books on the history of the local towns, and amateur local historians - may their shadows never grow less - will have produced papers on everything you can think of. A good deal of this is on the net somewhere, but by no means all. And the travel's tax deductible, don't forget.

The internet is great (specially if you set Google to open a new window when you click on a link, so you can always get back to your original search). It's amazing how much trouble people will go to to back their enthusiams. I always forget to search Images, but for what the train she gets onto in chapter five would look like, say, it's much better than a website - you need to know how scratchy the upholstery would be when she falls asleep with her cheek against it. I now know all about refuse trucks in the south of England circa 1949, thanks to Google, and the history of pewter-spinning.

As for how to smuggle the research in, I think the key is only using as much as the characters would in the situation. They don't know it's history, after all. The difference in their physical experience is a good one. 'The bus was open-topped' is info-dump, but 'he had to sit on the upper deck, and the rain was so heavy that soon his cap was soaked through,' is great, specially if the fact that he's wet then turns into a plot point. The prejudices of the time are good for making readers sit up and take notice, since though you don't want your research to show, you are after all writing about a different time that must feel different: the acceptable mild anti-semitism of the 20s and 30s among otherwise kind and civilised people; casual sexism and racism ditto; the absolute acceptance of the existence of a class system (to be shored up, or fought, according to taste and politics).

Vocabulary helps: words that wouldn't be used now but readers would know, or guess the meaning of, are very useful. Reading fiction and plays and letters-and-diaries of the period can be a real help for the rhythm and shape of sentences as well as vocab, specially the run-of-the-mill library fiction stuff, if you can still get hold of it, for turns of phrase, and informal language: 'frock' or 'dress', 'sweater' or 'jersey', 'motor car' or 'motorcar' or 'car' or 'motor', 'phone' or 'telephone', 'ring up' or 'ring' (not 'call', wholly American. In fact Americanisms that are now Englishisms are a dead giveaway of a writer who's not done enough research into the language).

I am completely useless and wimpy about this one, but I know writers who get hold of their local derby and joan club or whatever and get wonderful material from them, all delivered, of course, in the authentic voice of the place and period.

You won't use a hundredth of what you find, but you don't know which hundredth you will use, so you have to have it all. Plus you'll keep coming across things you weren't looking for and are absolutely brilliant. I make notes for the latter, and for some of what I was looking for, but often rely on my memory to sieve out what's good and leave the chaff behind. This can help also you to avoid info-dumping onto the page, which is what tends to happen if you have your novel in one hand and a textbook in the other. It can also lead to a sneaking, permanent fear that you've forgotten something that would have been perfect. But you have to stop somewhere.

I have to say that I've got this far without joining the British Library, though now I want to get at the Nat. Sound Archive I'm going to have to. The BL website is large but reasonably helpful. But if you find a book you're going to refer to twice a week for the year or two the novel's going to take you, it's worth thinking about buying it - tax deductible, again, and you'll save a fortune in library fines. Abebooks is great for getting hold of secondhand copies, and if you're not sure if it's what you want from the online listing, again, dealers respond to emails.

Emma


<Added>

I spent years wimping out of writing historical fiction - though it's always been the bulk of my serious reading - because I was daunted. More fool me.

Write about what you know is only a good maxim if you define 'what you know' broadly enough. I would like to change it now and forever to write about what you can make seem real. Bodies are bodies and people people throughout history, and I know about both of those. Research should be about feeding the physical reality of the historical setting, or the actual moment-by-moment experience of the characters. Getting into the mindset isn't easy, but it's the most fascinating challenge of all, and I think Fredogonde's right, the literature of the time is the first place to look.

And I have a great book on the history of underwear, if anyone needs to get those 1647 corsets just right...

I don't know if it's just me, but I've never found books full of dates and facts and statistics and trivia terribly useful when writing fiction. That is to say, that's the sort of information I tend to read beforehand, and for its own sake -- but when I'm doing research for fiction, I look into things that bring to life lives as they were then lived, such as biographies, letters, memoirs, diaries. And I especially like to read (more or less realistic) fiction of the time period, with a contemporary setting. Seeing how people saw their age and what they did and did not take for granted is tremendously helpful to me as a writer, for some reason.

That said, my novels/stories are usually set in places and time periods I already know something about; I usually decide to write about such-and-such a setting after I've familiarised myself with the history. But I definitely understand that the challenge of it must be thrilling.

<Added>

Seeing how people saw their age and what they did and did not take for granted is tremendously helpful to me as a writer, for some reason.

To elaborate on this a bit: when I know what people of this or that era took for granted, I tend to take it for granted, too. For this reason, there's very little period detail in my stories. I never explain anything that is obvious from a 'period point of view', unless the detail stands out for a particular reason.

I've never thought of this as a problem, but I'm starting to wonder if this makes for dull reading. I suppose one of the fundamental pleasures of reading good historical fiction is to see impeccable research in action and have the author bring all these fascinating details to your attention, without being condescending about it or constantly smacking your head with them. Is there any use at all for a writer who seems to think she's channelling Austen and the Brontės??

<Added>

That should have read 'Austen or the Brontės', of course...

And I have a great book on the history of underwear, if anyone needs to get those 1647 corsets just right...

Ooh, what's the title, what's the title??

Elizabeth Ewing, Dress and Undress: A History of Women's Underwear. My copy's pub. Bibliophile 1981, but the original was Batsford, 1978. No ISBN that I can see. I found it in my local branch of Southwark Library, bless them, and then bought my own copy via Abebooks - cost about a tenner inc. postage, I think.

I don't think you should put in a single ivory buttonhook that you don't want to, Fredegonde. It is worth remembering that plenty of people read hist. fic. as an enjoyable way of downing the history that school managed to put them off. After all, if we're not planning to explore the reality of past times, then why are we writing hist fic anyway? But I don't think it's helpful to the writer, and it's certainly not our job to make up for their educational deficiencies. We're about making a world - any world - real, and a story compelling, and whatever it takes, and whatever it doesn't need, is right for it.

I certainly don't think you have to put in 'period detail', in fact I think you shouldn't, if it's only there because someone said they enjoyed it. My criterion is, 'would I put the equivalent in, here, for this character, if I was writing something contemporary?' I put the 1920-21 coal strike into 'Russian Tea' but only because the idea of worker unrest, and of everything being dimly lit, combined perfectly for the atmosphere I was after, of my two refugees from the Russian revolution finding themselves washed up in London.

Emma

Thanks everyone for your really helpful comments.

Shellgrip, to clarify, I am extremely daunted at the prospect of setting part of my novel in the past (albeit the recent past) but it isn't due to a lack of interest in the subject. In fact the idea for the novel came to me while idly browsing in the history section of my local library! The thing that daunts me is making the world of the novel seem authentic, without me shoehorning my research into it. And I don't think being daunted by something should necessarily stop you from doing it...I don't think I would have embarked on writing a novel in the first place otherwise!

Emma, thanks for your detailed response. I think the 'write what you know' maxim is one that a writer can adhere to a bit too slavishly - 'write about what you can make seem real' has much more room for manoeuvre! Will also bear in mind your advice should underwear become an important feature of the novel!

Thanks everyone,

James

I think being daunted by something is almost certainly a sign that you ought to be writing it. The fact that you've been eyeing that period/experience/gender for long enough to understand the implications shows that your subconcious is going on insisting that you should have a go.

It helps if you have a nerdy streak in your nature that you're prepared to encourage. Anyone except me know which English and Welsh counties provided most of the archers at Agincourt? Didn't think so...

Emma

Hi Cymro,

I think you should write about whatever captures your imagination. If it's important enough to you, I'm sure you will put in the spade work to make it seem real to the reader; to paraphrase Emma. I think some modern novelists put too much emphasis on research. They seem to be terrified of gaffing by mentioning an extinct subspecies of Amazonian monkey, when their real story is about a biologist who goes missing up the Orinoco. In the process, they risk disappearing up their own Orinocos.

PS The results look good, so far

smudger


<Added>

I used to do 'research' on womens' underwear by reading the back pages of the Littlewoods Catalogue when I was a nipper...

I think some modern novelists put too much emphasis on research. They seem to be terrified of gaffing by mentioning an extinct subspecies of Amazonian monkey, when their real story is about a biologist who goes missing up the Orinoco.

This is so true. Ackroyd and Heyer are both examples of writers where deep research takes its place effortlessly among the real business of character and plot. If you write it well enough, your readers won't even notice the research until after they've closed the book. Then they're impressed and interested. At the time they were just dying to know whether the baddie was going to be able to ride fast enough to catch the stagecoach; they won't wonder how many days you spent in the London Carriage Office archives working it out. That's why I won't put bibliographies in my novels - where I got what from isn't the point.

Having said that, it really, really does jar when you meet something in a historical novel that you know is just plain wrong. There'll always be something the writer gets wrong to keep the specialists grumbling happily, but if the facts or the mindset are wrong often enough, then as a reader you lose faith and then interest.

Emma

I suppose there is a fine balance between obsessive research and sloppy detail. I agree that too many cases of the latter can undermine confidence in the writer, especially when it comes to historical novels.

smudger

I stand by the maxim 'write about what you know' because in the pursuit of this research you're heading for that situation. 'Write about what you can make seem real' is a fine alternative (if slightly more difficult to remember ) but if doing this requires research and development, surely that means that in the end you're actually writing about something you now know?

My original post ended up sounding like I was having a go at James and research in general which wasn't really my intention (it certainly wasn't my intention to poke James in the ribs).

Jon

Jon,

I guess people take 'Write about what you know' to mean only write about what is in your immediate experience, so that's a very good point!

James