Research vs Creativity

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't mater as much in the first draft as in later drafts. It might help to have a basic understanding of the workings of the processes you are going to talk about just to avoid ridiculous mistakes, but I imagine the finer details can be refined in later drafts!

You might try looking around on youtube they have some really fun, not-too-boring educational videos/series that have a bit to say about sleep.

More broadly, up to you. I research as I go and revise constantly. Some read up in advance.

coincidentally enough, I'm also finishing a dreamworld book(!) atm but unlike yours (in case you're worried we're too similar ) it has no hard science. So you can definitely take an idea all the way to the end in speculative fiction without being realistic.

The beauty of a dreamworld story is that you can have exactly as much realism or surrealism as you desire. It doesn't have to make sense, although obviously it can if you wish; it's entirely up to you what works and what doesn't. Unlike "proper" secondary worlds, there is a LOT of flexibility with that specific setting.

If you haven't read it already, I recommend Only Forward by Michael Marshall Smith as a classic SF dreamworld novel. Has a mix of rules and whimsy.

I say write while the inspiration is in you! If nothing else, when you go back to doing research, you'll have a clearer idea of what you're looking for.
Just remember not to get too attached to stuff: that you will have to revise later. But, that research might add much inspirational stuff.

Also remember that research and inspiration are NOT polar opposites.

caw

My method is to rely on general knowledge while writing a draft and research once it is completed. In that way I am not stifled by accuracy and I can write freely. Research always results in rewriting passages, some more than others, but I find I can almost always maintain the original intent.

My WIP main character suffers from kidney disease, so I am writing based on vague recollection of ill relatives, second hand anecdotes and few medical terms gleaned from the internet. When I finish the draft I will conduct more extensive research and interview a kidney specialist and someone who suffers from the disease. I have actively avoided this during the initial writing stage.

blacbird said:

Also remember that research and inspiration are NOT polar opposites.

caw

Click to expand...

+1

Sometimes research provides inspiration as you learn what's possible.

That said, as the general consensus here implies, in the first draft it's not as important to be accurate as it is to tell your story - with a caveat that, if lack of knowledge is holding you up and hampering the flow of ideas, it's not forbidden to do a little quick research. As I mentioned previously, sometimes it's the research that gives you that brilliant spark to carry your story to a whole new level. As you revise for actual audiences, of course, you'll have to get more accurate, and/or at least more consistent in your worldbuilding handwaves.

I haven't read a whole lot of science-fiction books, but the ones I've read have been a mixed bag. Some seem to rely heavily on plausible science while some of them have no basis to them, but these books were really enjoyable reads so I think you could go either direction! But in terms of the writing process, it's whatever works best for you. Details usually are hashed in later drafts, so you could always implement more research. Then while in the meantime writing your initial draft, you can write the skeleton of it without the research (and that way you're writing without feeling that stifeled feeling and can get the words on the page.) It's whatever works best for you.

As long as it seems plausible within the world you create. Nothing to stop you inventing some preternatural explanation for a new technology or phenomenon which helps your story.

Maybe you are confusing Fantasy with Science Fiction. Science Fiction always has a plausible basis and might one day be possible with the right advancement in technology - even though that possibility is a long way off.

Fantasy is always impossible, and only needs to be believable within the Fantasy world of that particular story.

Gemini_11 said:

I haven't read a whole lot of science-fiction books, but the ones I've read have been a mixed bag. Some seem to rely heavily on plausible science while some of them have no basis to them, but these books were really enjoyable reads so I think you could go either direction! But in terms of the writing process, it's whatever works best for you. Details usually are hashed in later drafts, so you could always implement more research. Then while in the meantime writing your initial draft, you can write the skeleton of it without the research (and that way you're writing without feeling that stifeled feeling and can get the words on the page.) It's whatever works best for you.

Click to expand...

I'd dispute that, bufty!

You get subgenres now such as "hard fantasy" (re: The Natural History of Dragons) which rely on a degree of scientific plausibility for both plot and setting.

and my personal favorite - the sweeping genre of science fantasy, which borrows from both ;-) Or speculative fiction, which is often in the real world with unnatural elements added in.

There seem to be a bunch of meanings out there for preternatural. I've always thought of it as undiscovered science - ie a natural phenomenon for which there is no rational (yet) explanation. Science looks like magic to those who've not done the groundwork.

This is a rich vein to mine in sci-fi.

In my scifi trilogy that I've written I've tried to keep the space travel times reasonably realistic as they have no faster than light travel so it takes years to navigate our solar system. In keeping that realistic it really limited some aspects of the story, but it makes it clear that space travel is no small matter. I also have time taken when sending communications and responding to those communications. It was quite annoying to work out but it makes the story richer for it.

I'd work stuff out in an early draft. It's a pain in the arse trying to shoehorn in details that affect story later in the editing process, believe me. I had to reorganise a whole section of my novel because I realised that I'd stuffed up the travel time for one of my fleets as it moved around.

My writing and research are on separate timelines. In my early drafts, I frequently write something based on a guess, then add a footnote along the lines of "Double-check to see if this is really possible." That way, when I go back to proofread, I know exactly what I need to research. For your example, instead of reading fifteen textbooks on sleep science, you would just need to look up "whether X can happen while sleepwalking," or "what kind of brainwave patterns would be associated with Y event," or "find out how they text for Z dysfunction and insert test here." Sometimes I'll even put in an intentional placeholder with a note like "Look up a plant that can live in a Nordic climate, changes colors with the seasons, and bears edible nuts." (or whatever criteria I need for the purposes of the story) - to plug into the spot later.

It's still fun and beneficial to research more widely, because you will likely find fascinating tidbits of information that you'll want to include, but waiting to complete research should never to hamstring the writing process itself (At least... not in fiction).

I would absolutely echo Harlequin and say, write on and don't get off that creative train!! Once it's lost it's oh so hard to get back on.

Personally, I create the world / rules as and when I write, and that's fun because sometimes the characters/setting surprise me. Of course, the drawback with this is that the more I write, the more I realise that there are aspects that I want changed so I would make a note to look out for those changes when I do my first edit (if that ever happens!).

yeah, I'm definitely on the surreal end of the spectrum >.> Not full surreal, because I find that disorientating to read (eg Metronome by Oliver Langmead; surreal to the hilt!) and if you don't have any rules at all, the narrative often suffers, I think.

Like in Lovecraft's stuff. I love it, but the events are essentially random. Stuff sipmly happens. It does'nt attempt to make sense. And that's kind of cool. But it also has no tension, no pacing (not that it matters for a short story); it's all concepts, imagery, atmosphere.

Dissertation on 'Only Forward'! I love that I did enjoy that novel but because it had an overall dream-like structure it ends up feeling disjointed to me, as a narrative. The rules for what he can or cannot do are, appropriate for a dream, very variable. However, in the context of a novel, that often comes across as authorial fiat (the author saying, 'this happens BECAUSE I SAY SO') which isn't always great. And then various plot threads at various points were semi-abandoned (again, dream-realistic but slightly frustrating in book terms.) His general pacing is excellent, though. Always moving forward, like the title suggests, and of course that's appropriate for the overall theme.

I do think how you set up your rules is pretty defining for dreamworlds. What can or can't be done is what creates tension, expectation, and surprise--or not.


I went for something halfway between Gaiman's 'Neverwhere' (not a dream world but you know) and classic Lovecraft, for mine. Again, though--no science in that. All headspace and abstract ideas, because our world doesn't interact with theirs, although some dreamworlds do.

I'm guessing your real world has interactions with your dream world (hence the need to know sleep science stuff)?

It depends on scope. If you are doing one book, go for it. If you are doing a series of books, you may get into trouble without doing the research, and learning the rules of writing, beforehand. The better you plot, the fewer revisions you will, likely, have to do.

Potentially, I have a 17-book series. If the first book, I will start next month, does not do well, I will not continue with the series. If it does well, the 9 months I will put in to prepare will pay off. I have yet to write word one of book one, but I have loads of humorous lines and scenes planned, as well as serious scenes. I put a lot of work into focusing on creative flow when I write, by doing a lot of the grunt work before writing. This is not for everyone, but it is best for me. I think, to some extent, careful planning is required for a good book series.

I think, to some extent, careful planning is required for a good book series.

Click to expand...

I will always, and very happily, agree that careful planning is best for some... but I will always refute that it is *required* for quality.

Very few writers relative to the whole, get series that span double digits. Gene Wolfe is one such. The Solar Cycle spans multiple trilogies and tetralogies, coming in at around 13 books in total. His Hugo/Nebula book nominations are in the triple digits (I think I counted them once, around 160+ over his lifetime so far?) so they're certainly quality, too, by any standard of measurement. They're also renowned for their complexity and careful attention to detail.

He doesn't plan much, though: "Actually I never use an outline when I work. Even [...] where there's an elaborate structure, the outline exists only in my head and not on paper." Link goes to an interview talking about his process with writing; he starts with vague ideas and gradually joins them up.


I guess it must seem strange that I always make a point of arguing it, but I don't want people to think they must use certain methods or risk courting failure. I heard it a lot in the early days and it can be discouraging when you're new.

Whatever suits, suits.

My WIP is SciFi - so I've done a lot of research (which was easy because I'm a nerd and am interested in that stuff anyway). I've listened to lectures (online) by Stephen Hawking, speculating on space travel - FTL is not possible, but moving slowly and shifting into a parallel universe where distances are shorter is possible. Quantum entanglement is commonly used in SciFi for communication - impossible now, but if someone figures out how to reset the proton values to neutral, it will work. Anyway - that kind of stuff, plausible but currently out of reach - that's what I go for in SciFi. It's science FICTION after all.

My view of Fantasy is that pretty much anything goes there. For me, it's more interesting and readable if the fantasy does not press into the bounds of absurdity.

I tend to do research while I'm roughing out the story line.

Harlequin said:

I will always, and very happily, agree that careful planning is best for some... but I will always refute that it is *required* for quality.

Very few writers relative to the whole, get series that span double digits. Gene Wolfe is one such. The Solar Cycle spans multiple trilogies and tetralogies, coming in at around 13 books in total. His Hugo/Nebula book nominations are in the triple digits (I think I counted them once, around 160+ over his lifetime so far?) so they're certainly quality, too, by any standard of measurement. They're also renowned for their complexity and careful attention to detail.

He doesn't plan much, though: "Actually I never use an outline when I work. Even [...] where there's an elaborate structure, the outline exists only in my head and not on paper." Link goes to an interview talking about his process with writing; he starts with vague ideas and gradually joins them up.


I guess it must seem strange that I always make a point of arguing it, but I don't want people to think they must use certain methods or risk courting failure. I heard it a lot in the early days and it can be discouraging when you're new.

Whatever suits, suits.

Click to expand...

"To some extent." This extent is up to the individual. At the very least, for example, one can know (for series) what character must die before another character can be introduced. My point is, have some idea what events need to happen, in a grander timeline for series.

well okay, but that kind of contradicts the concept of 'careful planning'


that's interesting re fantasy and absurdity; I beta read part of an absurdist novel awhile back and it's debatable whether it's fantasy or not; at some point it must cross a line one way or the other. The author considered it absurdist. I would have said it's a hybrid... hrm. Maybe you didn't mean absurdist quite that literally, though.

Careful planning is subjective. I meant it as things to prevent losing reader interest, such as: story gaps; continuity problems; and other.