# Moscow, 1939 - How much research is enough?



## slythgeek (Oct 25, 2011)

I've read voraciously on the time and place, but I'm always afraid of making one little misstep that costs me a sale or my credibility as a writer.

What is enough research for a near-history novel like this, especially one that is not about the major players (Beria, Stalin, etc.)?  I'm a 25-year-old with barely a living wage, so traveling to Russia is out of the question.  Is hiring an expert the norm?  So does that mean I should wait until I've got the money to do that to write an historical novel?

It's not as if it's a war novel full of descriptions of weaponry and the like.  It's a political thriller/murder mystery/romance actually.

I'm just kind of wondering how far the typical not-yet-published writer needs to go with research.  Is reading a few books on the topic enough?


----------



## Cran (Oct 25, 2011)

slythgeek said:


> I'm just kind of wondering how far the typical not-yet-published writer needs to go with research.


As far as needed to have the information you want to refer to in your story.



slythgeek said:


> Is reading a few books on the topic enough?


Perhaps. More likely, as you write the story, you will want to check a detail or get more of a feel of the atmosphere in a particular time and place - online searches* of specific topics or questions will achieve more in less time than reading more books. 

That's not to say stop reading books on or around your subject, but stop using the need to read as a reason to not write.

*_The more you can do this, the more developed your credibility filter should become. As much of the information pertaining to people and places in Russia in 1939 will be anecdotal, it helps to keep a record of each source you decide to use.  _


----------



## slythgeek (Oct 25, 2011)

I kind of wonder whether online research is enough.  That's what I do when writing short stories and fanfic now (though I did read a book on the OSS and another on the history of V2 rockets before the fanfic project).  I just feel like, in a novel I want published, any tiny mistake will destroy my credibility.  Do you agonize if there's something you don't quite get right?

I see authors like Ken Follett thanking people for their expertise on times and places, but is that the norm, to have an expert on your payroll to read your work for errors?  Answer questions?

*and then, even Ken Follett gets run over the coals for historical inaccuracies*


----------



## Cran (Oct 25, 2011)

You are tying yourself up in knots. If historical accuracy is important to you, become a historian and write a treatise. 

There are no guarantees of absolute accuracy - even official histories are only one version or viewpoint (usually the dominant power of the day). As you deepen your research into particular events, you may (probably will) have to choose from a number of conflicting reports - followers of the view you don't use will pan your work as inaccurate. Tough; that's a writer's lot in life. 

Yes, finding and corresponding with experts (and acknowledging their assistance in the final work) is valuable and not uncommon. Finding two experts who agree on every point is a modern miracle. In the end, it still comes down to what works for your story. 

It probably won't help, but tiny mistakes turn up in every novel in spite of all attempts to eliminate them. They are usually put down to printer's error, or gremlins. 

If you are going to beat yourself up over historical errors before you've even written them, then perhaps fiction is not for you. If your credibility as a writer is going to suffer, it won't be because of an error; it will be because the story did not connect with enough readers. If you never write it, then the latter is guaranteed.


----------



## C.M. Aaron (Oct 25, 2011)

It is very easy to over-research historical fiction. If you research to the point where the experts start contradicting each other, you've gone too far. Try researching to the level of Wikipedia, which is not very deep, but according to the bylaws of Wikipedia, all material therein must be generally accepted (no controversial theories). I suspect that most people who could challenge you on your topic probably don't read fiction anyway. At any rate, get used to the idea of not pleasing everyone. It's just the nature of the fiction beast. Some readers will like what you do and some won't.   C.M.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 25, 2011)

A few years ago I heard a brief comment from an old ex-Royal Navy man, carrying shrapnel in his arm, about the circumstances leading to the incident, which happened in 1940.

Recently I decided to write a fictional short story called Friendly Fire with this shrapnel as its key feature. I went back to the old man, asked him for more and better details, and wrote my story accordingly.

Now I find, in a post by C.M.Aaron in another thread, relating to guns on ships, that it’s quite possible my informant made it all up, when he recounted to me the details of how he came to be wounded.

So my message is to treat all historical material as suspect. The best you can do is to assume most readers will be too young to know whether you got your details right or not. Those old enough to know the facts will either not care or be so confused it won’t matter.


----------



## BabaYaga (Oct 26, 2011)

Is it vital to have your story happen in Moscow? Since traveling there is out of the question (and maybe this is just the biased opinion of a confessed travel-addict) maybe set it somewhere you feel comfortable, with strong ties to the city you'd like to set it in. 

I find it's the little things that make places stand out from one another, like whether strangers smile and greet each other in public (like in Johannesburg) or not (like in Moscow) or whether they think smiling and greeting is an invitation for a much longer conversation (like Lagos). Perhaps there is a way to set the meat of your story in a city your know well, but have references to Moscow via the plot and characters, that way the anecdotal element of your sources will be perfectly suited to your needs. 

When I was writing my first full-length horror story, I was convinced I had to set it somewhere American, because that was all I had ever seen. But then I set it on the East Coast of South Africa, and I felt a lot more confident in the little details and how people actually act and speak there, which really helped me get it finished. 

I say all this having no idea what your story is about or how important the setting is so, you know, BIG pinch of salt


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 26, 2011)

It rather depends on whom you are trying to convince. An Appalachian mountain man would need very little, a Muscovite a lot more. I would suggest that you make as generalised statements as you can which would apply to any large city, but make sure that what detail you introduce is as accurate as you can make it. A ground map of the city would be useful as you could than get street names correct along with their juxtaposition and their relationship to metro stations - Use it in conjunction with a good travel guide to the city. It is a maddening thing for Londoners when, in films for instance, the hero passes Buckingham Palace twice on his way from Wembley Stadium to Regent's Park, or to an American when a Greyhound bus goes through Las Vegas on its way from Miami to Boston - With care, these things are easily avoided in books.


----------



## slythgeek (Oct 26, 2011)

Thank you all for your help.  Reading this thread has been quite insightful (and if anyone else has opinions, please feel free to add them).

Yes, it really does need to be set in Moscow or it's an entirely different story.  I originally wanted to start with "write what you know" and do a novel about summer in rural Ohio... but while I'll probably write that someday, I lost interest in the story before I'd even finished two chapters.  This is a much more compelling premise (a murder mystery without detectives, a romance between two members of the secret police), and I see myself actually finishing it.

Really, my fear comes from reading too much on TVTropes.org.  Pages like "Did Not Do Research" really bother me because I see clear instances of writers having DONE research but not enough for the nit-picky amateur historians who haunt that page.  It made me wonder what the standard is.  It seems, from what I've read here, that it's about like Wikipedia - you don't have to get every detail absolutely correct, but you should know the layout and timeline well enough that you don't present Gorkiy Park as Central Park.

I can't even begin to express my happiness that other writers aren't breaking themselves for historical accuracy. Even with fanfic projects, I've probably gone way overboard.  I called up several friends who served in the military to ask about parachuting, for example.  That and reading gun books to learn the rate of fire, how many bullets a magazine can hold, how often it jams... for a freaking fanfic.  :/


----------



## BabaYaga (Nov 10, 2011)

Doing research is like wearing a bra, even if you think you don't really need it, it's never a bad idea. 

Well done for establishing a really good habit! But no matter who much research you do, it will never be enough for some people. At least you're trying to create something new instead of punching holes in someone else's work. Wishing you luck on your story and here's hoping you get to see Moscow someday- it's really an amazing city (I'm still secretly hoping to move there myself)


----------

