For
a year now, for family and Covid reasons, the castles of my story have been out
of reach. So have the hills and the streets where my characters walked in real
life. It’s been tough trying to write their story without the inspirational,
tactile, lived experience of place.
Research
and planning have, to a degree, filled the gap, alongside repetitive drafting of
potential opening scenes. Overall, though, the process has been frustrating.
But
as they say, nothing in writing is wasted.
At
four o’clock on Sunday morning, Valentine’s Day, my subconscious decided to prove
the point by revealing a 3D image of story: a way to perceive and to manage the
relationship between historical research, structural planning and a dual narrative.
Hurrah!
The dual narrative especially has been a major stumbling block.
For
once, it’s clear where this eureka moment came from: the week I’d spent drafting this
blog about creative research, thinking deeply but tangentially about the story.
The
subject of research always seems to be a bit of a Pandora’s Jar (to borrow a
phrase from Natalie Haynes). In historical fiction, research has a reputation as a time-suck, an
opportunity to procrastinate when you should be getting down to the serious
bum-on-seat business of storytelling.
The
trick, I decided, after researching research, is to set its creative limits.
Let
me quote something on the subject from Robert McKee’s Story. It echoes advice about the freedom on knowing your
limitations which I first heard from David Almond who got it in turn from
Flannery O’Connor. Here’s McKee:
“Limitation is
vital. The first step toward a well-told story is to create a small, knowable world ... By the time you
finish the last draft, you must possess a commanding knowledge of your setting
in such depth and detail that no one could raise a question about your
world—from the eating habits of your characters to the weather in September—that
you couldn’t answer instantly.”
You
can find more about his thoughts on this on pages 71-76 of Story (in my 1997 edition, at least).
Accepting
this passage as a starting point, the purpose of creative research is,
therefore, to build a profound knowledge of a tight, intimate story world: “a
limited world and a restricted cast offer the possibility of knowledge in depth
and breadth.” That’s McKee again.
To
win the war on cliché takes research, he says, and “the time and effort to
acquire knowledge”. So let’s call this Research of Knowledge.
Research
of Knowledge clearly applies to the ‘external’ content of a story: its historical
or contemporary socio-economic and cultural contexts. It also relates to exploration
of the themes and truths the story is aiming to convey: the psychology of its
characters, and the realism that makes a work of literature authentic and
artistically true.
For
McKee, Research of Knowledge also includes close examination of received life
experiences, the emotionally and psychologically important events that feed our
creativity; he calls that research of memory and research of imagination.
For
me, Research of Knowledge also encompasses the craft of storytelling. I’m not
sure if McKee applies it this way as I’ve not read Story in full for several years, but logically I think he must. Studying
Story, and other craft books like it,
is, after all, research.
Research
of Knowledge is distinct from the pursuit of facts, not least because facts are
increasingly problematic in an age of Trumpian alternative facts, online anti-vaxx
conspiracies and suppression of Freedom of Information requests.
Sure,
we can all accept that at sea level, water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. But
how many people died during atrocities committed by European empires? Even asking
the question is political.
As
the Irish President Michael Higgins put it this week in an article about the centenary
of the partition of Ireland, published in Britain in The Guardian:
“In my work on
commemoration, memory, forgetting and forgiving I have sought to establish a
discourse characterised by what the Irish philosopher Richard Kearney calls ‘a
hospitality of narratives’, acknowledging that different, informed perspectives
on the same events can and do exist. The acceptance of this fact can release us
from the pressure of finding, or subscribing to, a singular unifying narrative
of the past.”
In
other words, searching for a single, simplistic set of facts about us, the
human race, and the fate of our planet, risks tipping us into worlds of
conflicting, subjective realities.
A
search for facts necessarily becomes a search for truth, which is whole
different ballgame, one that seems to me to lie at the heart of many debates in
our writing community: debates about Own Voices, diversity, and the economics
of who gets to write what and how it’s published, to name but a few.
Researching
knowledge, therefore, must be sensitive and careful. It can’t just ask, what do
we know about X? It must also ask, how do we know it, and can we trust that
source?
Which
makes creative research a form of critical thinking.
Critical
thinking about sources was a cornerstone of research in my former life as a journalist
and is embedded in my present genre of historical fiction, too. A historiographer
asks: who wrote this account, with what purpose, and whose voices were silenced
in the telling? The imagination is then set to work filling knowledge gaps.
But
critical thinking seems to me to be a good starting point for any genre. And
life in general. Anyhow...
In
terms of character building, creative research into our knowledge about psychology
is a smorgasbord of ideas whatever the genre. Personally I’m addicted to articles
in the New Scientist about psychotherapy, neuroscience, the study of belief
systems, and the impacts of trauma on the mind.
In
craft terms, creative research into story structure is a sure-fire way to avoid
tired formulae and to discover workable new forms. (Hat tip to Linda Aronson again.)
Star Wars is nigh on half a century old! High time, imho, to nick the best bits
of the Hero’s Journey and move on.
I
could go on about researching voice, language, rhythm, lexicons for individual characters,
like operatic leitmotifs. But I’ll resist.
There
is, however, one area of creative research which I do think it’s worth
reflecting on. For this post, let’s call it Research of Self.
It’s
something I think a lot of us do, in writing journals or quiet corners of our
heads. It’s over and above the sort of research of memory and research of
imagination that McKee talks about.
On
the MA in writing for young people at Bath Spa we were encouraged to do it via
critical analyses of our course WIPs, a part of our creative practice I didn’t
really get it at the time, being more focussed on the product of imagination –
the story – than the process of writing it.
I
now recognise that was my loss: a lesson taught by a collection of unfinished
Books Two, still-born stories lost at different stages of gestation, now
bottled in formaldehyde and sitting on a high shelf. Why didn’t you finish us,
they seem to ask.
Research
of Self might help me to answer them.
This
form of research considers both how we write (our process) and why we write:
our motivations and intentions.
For
The Goose Road, for example, I
now know that sheer lust to be published played a big part in getting me to The
End. A supportive, enabling environment was also essential (big shout out to
friend from the MAWYP, GEA, SCBWI and BookBound as always). This environment is
something I’m trying to emulate via writing friendships, these blogs and a PhD.
The
subject of World War I was another factor that kept me going with The Goose
Road. I’d shied away from this horrific
part of human history as a young adult, at school and at university. Now I had
the maturity to face it, and – with help – the skill to recreate it for a new
generation. That made the five years from inception to publication worthwhile.
It also made shouting about it online feel okay, not arrogant or naff.
I’ve
yet to pinpoint the deep, visceral appeal of the current WIP. Its charm is long-standing
– the basic idea is perhaps ten years old – but do I have to write this story? I hope so.
Which
leads to intention, the other big topic for Research of Self.
What
is the underlying driver behind writing this
story and not another? What intuitive, subconscious influences are at work? Is
there a better story hidden under the surface of the story I think that I’m
telling?
Readers
of earlier blogs in this series about the WIP will recognise Hisham Matar’s
voice in that last paragraph.
As
mentioned here last month, research for the current WIP isn’t a discreet phase of
the process. All stages go hand in hand, feeding off each other and into each
other: planning, drafting, editing, research.
Research
in all its forms will be as broad and as deep as it needs to be, and revisited
as often as necessary. This, happily, avoids the question: at what point do you
stop researching and let the story flow? Lord knows if it will work, but it’s a
plan. And I haven’t got another one.
Please
do let me know your thoughts on research and on writing in general. They’ll be super
welcome as always. Talking about stories with other writers is the best
research of all.
Twitter:
@HouseRowena
Facebook:
Rowena House Author
Website:
rowenahouse.com