Recently, my good friend and fellow writer, Stewart Goodings—check out his great novel— who divides his time between Comox and Denman Island in BC, emailed me with a suggestion:
I also did a lot of online research for the setting of my book, "The Legacy", which is set in Rio de Janeiro. When I was talking to a member of a book club one time, she said she had stayed in the same hotel that I had described in my book and told me that she could tell that I'd never actually been there. When I asked her how, she said it was because I hadn't included what it smelled like, which caught me by surprise. Apparently, Rio has a distinctive salt water smell to it. Online research can only take you so far.
In One Brother Shy, there is a passage about the narrator's mother's burial at Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa, then they try to tail someone through the the next door neighbourhood of Manor Park. As someone who grew up in Manor Park and went to Manor Park PS, your descriptions were vivid and real to me. I was surprised when I asked you about this passage and learned it was all deep research, not direct experience. Impressive!
Thanks Melanie. I lived in Ottawa for a couple years back in the '80s, but I'd been back in Toronto for nearly 30 years when I wrote One Brother Shy, so the passage you refer to was aided by google earth, and google maps. I'm glad it was persuasive!
SF/Fantasy writers, in contrast to "literary" ones, tend to make their settings up out of whole cloth, albeit with influence from the "real" world. I have written novellas set in my hometown of Winnipeg using actual names and locations, but have also use it as an influence on some futurized urban settings, along with other real-world cities I have visited.
I get what you are saying. Hold back on the knowledge and relinquish the detail that is guides the reader with the insight they would not have found ‘online’.
Great topic! IMHO "Write what you know" remains true even when only using the mouse finger. One can learn a lot online and through books and other people's accounts. What we learn by that method becomes what we know. Maybe not as well as others' knowledge, but well enough to tell a story.
I would suggest, however, that writing what one knows is more important when it comes to emotions, reactions and other human bits. Just about everyone KNOWS what it's like to be hurt, frightened, curious, relieved, in love, rejected, sad, and so on into blah-blah infinity.
Case in point - when I wrote The Great Maritime Detective (Nimbus 2009, non-fiction), I didn't visit all the places that the characters did until the book was almost finished. Instead I pored over maps, photos, etc. I knew what it was like to fall through the ice right here in Nova Scotia, or be badly fly-bitten, inhale air so cold it froze your nostrils, have waves higher than a ship pile up on either side, etc. So, I could describe it.
To E.A. Briginshaw, in the comment here regarding smells - I was told by a friend that Africa, at least the part where she visited, had a distinct smell. I tucked that info into my mind for future reference. Breathing the smell of saltwater and fresh fish always brings me back to my northern Quebec childhood. Sounds are another trigger: my father, a World War 2 vet, dived under the couch in the 1970s when the old air raid siren blew at 9 pm to tell kids it was time to go home. And look what old music does to us.
Funnily enough, I've been to both Moscow and Yaroslavl (I seem to remember a second word as part of that one, or maybe there are several) back in the mid-nineties. I'm not a fact checker, but One Brother Shy captured fully my (somewhat vague) memories of what it was like, including the more atmospheric dimension that requires careful selection of details you mention. Some fiction seems to deliberately avoid any details of place, and still works (and seems plausible). E.g. 2023 Giller winner Sarah Bernstein's Study for Obedience. So now I'm wondering about how these approaches differ in the experience of the reader. Thanks for provoking this question along with the practical tips you provide.
I also did a lot of online research for the setting of my book, "The Legacy", which is set in Rio de Janeiro. When I was talking to a member of a book club one time, she said she had stayed in the same hotel that I had described in my book and told me that she could tell that I'd never actually been there. When I asked her how, she said it was because I hadn't included what it smelled like, which caught me by surprise. Apparently, Rio has a distinctive salt water smell to it. Online research can only take you so far.
It’s definitely not as rich and complete as being there.
In One Brother Shy, there is a passage about the narrator's mother's burial at Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa, then they try to tail someone through the the next door neighbourhood of Manor Park. As someone who grew up in Manor Park and went to Manor Park PS, your descriptions were vivid and real to me. I was surprised when I asked you about this passage and learned it was all deep research, not direct experience. Impressive!
Thanks Melanie. I lived in Ottawa for a couple years back in the '80s, but I'd been back in Toronto for nearly 30 years when I wrote One Brother Shy, so the passage you refer to was aided by google earth, and google maps. I'm glad it was persuasive!
SF/Fantasy writers, in contrast to "literary" ones, tend to make their settings up out of whole cloth, albeit with influence from the "real" world. I have written novellas set in my hometown of Winnipeg using actual names and locations, but have also use it as an influence on some futurized urban settings, along with other real-world cities I have visited.
I get what you are saying. Hold back on the knowledge and relinquish the detail that is guides the reader with the insight they would not have found ‘online’.
Great topic! IMHO "Write what you know" remains true even when only using the mouse finger. One can learn a lot online and through books and other people's accounts. What we learn by that method becomes what we know. Maybe not as well as others' knowledge, but well enough to tell a story.
I would suggest, however, that writing what one knows is more important when it comes to emotions, reactions and other human bits. Just about everyone KNOWS what it's like to be hurt, frightened, curious, relieved, in love, rejected, sad, and so on into blah-blah infinity.
Case in point - when I wrote The Great Maritime Detective (Nimbus 2009, non-fiction), I didn't visit all the places that the characters did until the book was almost finished. Instead I pored over maps, photos, etc. I knew what it was like to fall through the ice right here in Nova Scotia, or be badly fly-bitten, inhale air so cold it froze your nostrils, have waves higher than a ship pile up on either side, etc. So, I could describe it.
To E.A. Briginshaw, in the comment here regarding smells - I was told by a friend that Africa, at least the part where she visited, had a distinct smell. I tucked that info into my mind for future reference. Breathing the smell of saltwater and fresh fish always brings me back to my northern Quebec childhood. Sounds are another trigger: my father, a World War 2 vet, dived under the couch in the 1970s when the old air raid siren blew at 9 pm to tell kids it was time to go home. And look what old music does to us.
Funnily enough, I've been to both Moscow and Yaroslavl (I seem to remember a second word as part of that one, or maybe there are several) back in the mid-nineties. I'm not a fact checker, but One Brother Shy captured fully my (somewhat vague) memories of what it was like, including the more atmospheric dimension that requires careful selection of details you mention. Some fiction seems to deliberately avoid any details of place, and still works (and seems plausible). E.g. 2023 Giller winner Sarah Bernstein's Study for Obedience. So now I'm wondering about how these approaches differ in the experience of the reader. Thanks for provoking this question along with the practical tips you provide.