# How much research is too much research?



## RedRidingHood

How much research into myths or world creation do people do? Sometimes I feel like all I do is research, but then when I go to write, I feel like I'm just writing an essay, not fiction. How do you find a balance?


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

As long as you are crafting your own mythology, or a unique version of an existing one, then I don't think any amount of research can be considered 'too much'. I've been researching for a story a while now, but I know it'll be worth it. I want my world to be consistent and realistic, and the best way to do this is to research real history and mythology. 

In short: I wouldn't worry about it, unless it's preventing you from writing at all. You can always redraft your work if you feel it lacks tone and character. Writing something 'less' academic sounding will probably just take experience.


----------



## Dreamer

I don't think that in my experience there is such a thing really as too much research. Store the information you gather away and 
let it work its way into your piece.  I have had trouble at times like you said with it sounding like an essay.  It feels like the 
research takes over and you spout out more facts than the piece you are trying to create.  It has helped me at times to just go
ahead and write as I feel and either turn the information I have put in to the story into more of a story, or to add some information
where it feels it is lacking.  That is the beauty of revision


----------



## Bass_Thunder37

Well, though I agree that there can't really be too much research if you feel it's necessary, theres one way for there to be too much research.
_"When it makes you want to stop writing._
If you get to the point where your research is getting in the way of writing, you should stop letting it get you to that point, and just write based on what you do know. So what if you mess up or change something? It makes your story yours, and because it's yours, you can make whatever you want.


----------



## Ravana

No such thing as too much research. Not possible. You may not use everything you collect–_should_ not use everything you collect, if you're doing it correctly; but it may come in useful at a later date, and could well lead you to additional material you do want to use for a current project that you wouldn't have discovered otherwise.


----------



## Leuco

I usually do research as I write, mostly as a form of troubleshooting. For example, if I'm going to include horses or castles, I want to make sure I'm using the appropriate language. If I'm going to talk about a mountain, maybe I should find a picture of one, look up what it is, learn more about it's geology and composition. Is it slate, sandstone, or granite? What's the difference? Is it volcanic rock? Does that mean I'm really looking for a volcano instead? Does it fit with my setting? I don't know, so I read a bit about it. It's the same with weapons, armor, and things like boats. I try to find a picture of what matches my imagination and then I read a bit so I can write about it more effectively. I might pull plot ideas from headlines, but that's not really research. Oh, and the thesaurus! I'm constantly looking for the best word possible. Then sometimes I need to go into a dictionary to make sure I'm using it right! 

To better answer your question, I'd say it's normal to do a lot of research. As for finding a balance, I'd recommend to just start writing and then research as you go.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I usually do research as I write, mostly as a form of troubleshooting. For example, if I'm going to include horses or castles, I want to make sure I'm using the appropriate language. If I'm going to talk about a mountain, maybe I should find a picture of one, look up what it is, learn more about it's geology and composition.



I do this too, for the type of things you mentioned. For cultural research though, I just read as much as I can and apply what I need. I guess it's a different sort of research.


----------



## ShortHair

A guideline or truism I saw somewhere in the distant past said, you will gather about ten times as much research as you need to put in the finished product. Possibly a corollary of Sturgeon's Law. So which ten percent do you actually use? That's one thing that separates published authors from the rest of us.


----------



## Sparkie

Ravana said:


> No such thing as too much research. Not possible. You may not use everything you collect—_should_ not use everything you collect, if you're doing it correctly; but it may come in useful at a later date, and could well lead you to additional material you do want to use for a current project that you wouldn't have discovered otherwise.



Good point.  I know from my own researching experience that good ideas can come from dilligent study.  Perhaps even the best ideas.


----------



## Devor

RedRidingHood said:


> How much research into myths or world creation do people do? Sometimes I feel like all I do is research, but then when I go to write, I feel like I'm just writing an essay, not fiction. How do you find a balance?



If your writing feels like an essay, I don't think the problem is in your research.  You could end up with the same problem in a purely imaginative world.

I'm going to refer you to this thread from elsewhere on these forums, and specifically to Ouroboros' remarks on page 2 about "info-littering," a phrase I rather hope to see become popular parlance.


----------



## Steerpike

Ravana is exactly right. You should not use all of the research you collected. Nor should you use all of the backstory or world-creation you've done. If you feel like you are writing an essay, you are likely putting in way too much information that is not important to the story and that the reader doesn't need (or care) to know about. Having all of this information is valuable to the writer in terms of creating a consistent, deep, and believable world, but the writer should resist the urge to tell all of it to the reader. Too many writers feel that since they spent a lot of time on these elements that it all has to be worked into the story one way or another.


----------



## writeshiek33

i bought a whole book on ancient roman army (Blackwell series) it 600 pages worth of facts by various writers since doing research for alt history scifi fantasy using Romulus the last emperor will i use everything in there maybe not but it gives me understanding of culture and roman army throughout history and it opening my mind to possibilities


----------



## mirrorrorrim

RedRidingHood said:


> How much research into myths or world creation do people do? Sometimes I feel like all I do is research, but then when I go to write, I feel like I'm just writing an essay, not fiction. How do you find a balance?



I think it's important to focus your research on what matters for your writing. For example, if you're not going to mention gods or religion in your story, I don't think there's much point in poring hours of research into it (except, of course, for your personal benefit). On the other hand, if an important part of your story is the main hero forging a sword, I think it's important to be able to write about that whole process with at least some degree of familiarity.

I think in many ways, fantasy is a sort of hyper-reality; you change or don't include some parts of the real world in order to better focus on others. Because of that, I think there's a lot you don't need to know about, because you aren't writing about it, or aren't writing about it enough for it to really matter. Because of that, though, you need to know those things you are focusing on a lot better. 

For example, I'm currently writing a chapter in my fantasy story that deals with one of the main characters visiting a psychologist. This scene is very important for justifying some important actions that my main character later takes. I tried and tried and tried, but I just couldn't get the voice of my psychologist to sound real. He came off as far too much of a caricature. To fix this, I went out and bought a book that's all about how psychologists should talk to their patients. Hopefully, by the time I finish it, I'll be able to write a convincing psychologist. I won't directly share any on my research in my written pages, but it will (again, hopefully) indirectly be strongly reflected there.


----------



## Ravana

mirrorrorrim said:


> For example, I'm currently writing a chapter in my fantasy story that deals with one of the main characters visiting a psychologist. This scene is very important for justifying some important actions that my main character later takes. I tried and tried and tried, but I just couldn't get the voice of my psychologist to sound real. He came off as far too much of a caricature. To fix this, I went out and bought a book that's all about how psychologists should talk to their patients. Hopefully, by the time I finish it, I'll be able to write a convincing psychologist. I won't directly share any on my research in my written pages, but it will (again, hopefully) indirectly be strongly reflected there.



If you want to write a convincing psychologist, you should get to know one… or several. No book, certainly no single book, is going to do it for you… especially considering the number of people in the world who have experiences with them. (And your target audience is probably going to have a higher percentage of this than the general population, considering.) That's without even beginning to take into account what kind of shrink you want the character to be, from a theory standpoint: even a look at the Wikipedia article on psychology ought to give you a good notion of what you're up against there.


----------



## Devor

mirrorrorrim said:


> I think it's important to focus your research on what matters for your writing. For example, if you're not going to mention gods or religion in your story, I don't think there's much point in poring hours of research into it (except, of course, for your personal benefit). On the other hand, if an important part of your story is the main hero forging a sword, I think it's important to be able to write about that whole process with at least some degree of familiarity.



That depends a little on where you are with your writing.  If you're in the middle of a story and you know what you need to research you're absolutely right.  The less you know about what you want to do, the more I think broader research topics are the way to go.  I'm convinced that if I wrote out everything in my head I would pick up a book on "The History of Europe" and flip through the Encyclopedia at random.

Reading broadly about a culture can also clear up a lot of weak assumptions people might find themselves making in their writings.  You might not realize most of the mistakes you're making.


----------



## mirrorrorrim

Ravana said:


> If you want to write a convincing psychologist, you should get to know one… or several. No book, certainly no single book, is going to do it for you… especially considering the number of people in the world who have experiences with them. (And your target audience is probably going to have a higher percentage of this than the general population, considering.) That's without even beginning to take into account what kind of shrink you want the character to be, from a theory standpoint: even a look at the Wikipedia article on psychology ought to give you a good notion of what you're up against there.



You're right, of course, but that's a little overwhelming, especially considering the amount of time my psychologist is actually in my story. Ideally, I'd actually go and pay for a couple of sessions with several different psychologists, but I just don't have the extra money for something like that. A ten-dollar e-book I can afford. Multiple $100+ sessions I can't. And I doubt my insurance company would accept "research" as an acceptable rationale for covering my visits. 

I do have a roommate that's studying to be a psychologist, as well as another close friend, so I am drawing a lot from both of them. It was my roommate that suggested the particular book I'm reading.

Deep down, I feel that psychologists are just people, and so are driven by the same motivations, good and bad, as all the rest of us. I've seen as much in my friends' motivations for entering into the field. I think I'm okay at writing people, and in fact I think I could write a decent psychologist _outside_ of a clinical setting. The tricky part for me is writing him inside of one. The only psychologist I ever visited was when I was only a child, and there was only a single session. Incidentally, I came out of it having quite a negative opinion of that particular psychologist. This, too, is having a strong influence on how I'm writing the psychologist in my story.

Maybe someday if I'm ever rich, though, I'll come back and write do the research you're suggesting, so I can write a _truly_ convincing psychologist. Maybe I'll even make him a main character. For now, though, I just want to get through to the end of the chapter!



Devor said:


> That depends a little on where you are with your writing.  If you're in the middle of a story and you know what you need to research you're absolutely right.  The less you know about what you want to do, the more I think broader research topics are the way to go.  I'm convinced that if I wrote out everything in my head I would pick up a book on "The History of Europe" and flip through the Encyclopedia at random.
> 
> Reading broadly about a culture can also clear up a lot of weak assumptions people might find themselves making in their writings.  You might not realize most of the mistakes you're making.



That's a great point. I've always been better at knowing what I want to write about than actually writing it, so I've never really been short on ideas. I guess I kind of tend to assume that everyone's like that! 

Thanks, Ravana and Devor, for pointing out some things I hadn't thought about.


----------



## Ravana

mirrorrorrim said:


> And I doubt my insurance company would accept "research" as an acceptable rationale for covering my visits.



I'd bet against it, yeah.



> I do have a roommate that's studying to be a psychologist



See if you can get one of your roomie's profs to lend you a little face time, maybe. Especially if you already know _what_ you want your character to say: then it just becomes a matter of delivery.

Devor: you mean you _don't_ flip through encyclopedias at random? I thought that was normal.…


----------



## SeverinR

Research, if all you do is research and never write, that is to much research.
I constantly think of my world and consider what each book might need.  When I fix on a need, I research and then write the information down as it pertains to my world.

Research is important for consistancy and knowing how things happen in the world, but if you don't begin a story, the research is meaningless.

I think the why things happen is important, finding a way to slip in the reasons allows the reader to understand.

Lord of the rings; the ring wraith can't cross water.  Why? because its in the script.  A simple escape in an unescapable unsurvivable encounter.  I know there is a reason, maybe in the book it tells why, but I have heard this as a complaint of the movie.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

So far, I do research to support the story I come up with. I occasionally will read about random things, but frankly to me the details being super-accurate is not important. I'm not an expert in post-medieval English clothing or marriage customs, and neither are most of the people in my intended audience. As long as the details are internally consistent and make sense with the world, the primary focus is and should be the story and characters.


----------



## Steerpike

On the ringwraith comment - They can cross water, and they attempt to do so. In the books, Elrond uses magic to raise the river and sweep them away. In the movie, Arwen does it. But until that happens, they are crossing the water.

@Benjamin - I think that is the best approach. Also, for some reason many fantasy writers seem to think that if their fantasy work has a medieval-equivalent level of technology, then the realities of the world have to conform to medieval Europe. But since you are writing a fantasy book in a made-up world, the realities of your world may or may not conform to what really happened in medieval Europe. Just because you use an equivalent level of technology does not mean that things like political structure, marriage customs, titles, and the like have to reflect real-world Europe of that time.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> @Benjamin - I think that is the best approach.



Let's be clear:  The best approach is whatever is right for the author and the writing.  Some people find research to be more helpful than others.  I personally find research to be more inspiring than anything.

I get the impression that people assume the point of research is to include more long boring text blocks of irrelevant detail.  I get the impression that people think that research blocks out creativity and limits your ability to imagine new settings.  That shouldn't be the case.  Research can help to inspire new ideas or reinvent old ones.

I was looking through a wikipedia article about technology in ancient Rome, and I saw that they had invented the Cameo.  I had no idea what a Cameo was, so I clicked on it.  It's an image carved into a certain kind of gemstone right where it changes color, so that the image is in one color (usually white) and the background another color.  Take that into a fantasy world, and imagine a wizard's talisman as an engraved gemstone - take it further, two separate gemstones, engraved and fused together - and you have a compelling image for Master McGuffin's Powerful Artefact of Doom.  The random piece of information _enhances_ the writing and the story and the scene rather than merely clearing up a few facts about how long their tunics are.


----------



## quenchy

As my speciality is to create a set of convinient lies, my research usually involves mining of the knowledge or the opinion of the general public regarding the given topic. Then I know the needed depth of the research I have to make when I invent something new.
The important thing is not how much time and effort you invest into gathering information, but what would you do with it afterwards. It could give you a whole lot of background full of details but it would be quite possible that you don't want to include all of this information in your story. I love to rely on the common sense of the reader (or more often - the player). Also, what's the purpose of the story that you're writing?

Yes, your character could be a psychologist, but what's the plot and the idea of the plot - and do I, as a reader, need to know what psychologists do in real life? An average reader knows that the psychologists consult and analyze people's problems and help them solve them themselves. I don't think that if your main characters is about to be shaken by the emotion of the true love for the first time in his calculated, full of analyzis, life, the reader needs a background on psychology. Nor you have to research the personalities of real-life psychologists. You're working with the chiche of the psychologist - a person everybody would imagine is quite able to hold a grasp on his own emotions.

If I'm writing about a siege in which trebuchets and catapults are used, but I want to indtroduce the new wonder weapon which is actually a gunpowder cannon (like the ones used in the siege of Constantinopol by the Ottomans), then I would just describe it as a giant structure that towers over the rest of the siege machines. It's run by an alchemist, accompanied by a flag-bearer who gives commands to the hundreds of slave laborers who pull the large iron chains used to position the construct. It is obvious that they are all deaf and this is the only way they can be given commands. The alchemist uses no beasts of burden, which would be scared away from the massive thunder that is to follow. The weapon will tear a massive gap in the wall of the fortress and will send many of the soldiers from both sides cowering on the ground or fleeing away in terror. The slaves are sent to the ground by the blast wave of the weapon firing and some will start choking and vomiting because of the foul sulhuric stench given by the firing.
I will not say anything about cannon, but I don't think that the reader needs the word mentioned, neither he needs an access to detailed information on what a cannon is. If she is interested in the superweapons in human history, then she can access this information easily on the internets.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

quenchy said:


> As my speciality is to create a set of convinient lies, my research usually involves mining of the knowledge or the opinion of the general public regarding the given topic. Then I know the needed depth of the research I have to make when I invent something new.



I like this: Your research only needs to be slightly deeper than your intended audience


----------



## Xanados

I do not believe that too much research can damage a story. I would want my story to feel as authentic as possible. I'm currently watching documentaries on the Roman Empire to sort of emulate their culture in my work.


----------



## Jabrosky

The problem I have is knowing when it's OK to stop researching and start writing my stories. I'm always eager to start typing away and research, while vital to a convincing story, delays that. I therefore understand why some novice writers are averse to research.

Another problem is knowing exactly what topics and how many of them you must research before writing. I recall a time when I wrote a worldbuilding essay on a fictional Polynesian tribe that lived in Antarctica and was attacked by the Japanese in WWII. I did quite a bit of research on Polynesian customs, societal organizations, and religions as I wrote the essay. However, once I posted it on a message board, people asked how the Japanese were able to get their ships all the way to Antarctica without needing to refuel, and honestly I had no idea modern ships even needed to be fueled with anything in the first place!


----------



## Telcontar

Jabrosky said:


> The problem I have is knowing when it's OK to stop researching and start writing my stories.



Start writing the stories first anyway. The problem you posted above - people asking about refueling - is a reason why you need beta readers. Subject your stories to people who are looking for that kind of thing. It's usually easy enough to edit in an explanation afterwards. It's fantasy, after all. 

You had the problem that you were actually writing historical fiction - stories that depend upon the actual workings of our own world. That is quite significantly different from most fantasy, where the author can write whatever-the-hell and the ONLY thing limiting the reader's suspension of disbelief is how well it is written.

In opposition to Xanados, I do think that too much research can damage a story, because it causes people to cling to closely to 'real' reality. Let your story separate itself from the real world. Blackbox the most fantastic details, and just write the thing. Let your beta readers tell you if something seems too far-fetched to buy in too.


----------



## quenchy

"If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

This is too much research - putting the pistol if it won't fire.

To me it's pretty much like that - you want to state that the character lives in the tropical climate, in a lush jungle full of dangerous beasts that prey upon the people of the land? You want to tell me that the village is set among the tree canopy with the mighty trunks of the trees preventing the dinosaurs from entering the perimeter? OK, do it, but how this knowledge will be of any use to me as a reader? Will I ever witness the rage of the T-Rex-like beasts quelled by the mighty defenses of the village? Do I need any info on the species of the tree the character has climbed upon to ambush his prey - will he eat the poisonous fruit, or use the leaves to heal his wound 4 chapters later?

Places, objects, rumors, animals and trees are all important scenery. Mention them briefly if you are sure that you can use them to create the right feeling about the setting. Elaborate in details when these details will be used later in the novel. But you will lose me if you begin telling me all the details about the flora and fauna of the world around me.

For good or for bad the modern people have given set of fake pillars of knowledge about the world which are based on the cliches. You may not want to use cliches but most probably the mind of the reader will use them just because 99% of the readers are exposed to the never-ending stream of the cliches 24/7. So, why telling me of the green leaves of the sago palms from which the water drips down to feed the giant ferns - just tell me that this is a steamy, primordial jungle. I'll grasp it. This is what I need to know about it, right? Give me the tools to imagine my own reality behind your words. Don't be control freaks.

The research should be sufficient and must not create inclination for thee to drown the reader into a sea of information.

In the case of the Japanese ships - is the fuel so important that you should mention it? Will the Maori warriors use the fuel cisterns on the ships to set them ablaze? If not, accept this lack of research as the needed little glitch. It won't create a situation where the reader will say "Wait a damn minute, this isn't realistic! I'm out, I didn't immerse enough to continue reading this piece of trash".

What you didn't mention is not an important piece of the novel plot. If I read your work and I you manage to draw my attention I'll probably say "Bah, it should be something very important beneath this Maori settlement that the Japanese will create a logistics network stretching half globe to get there". Most readers won't even think about it.

Do you Japanese sailors go to the WC? Maybe you should elaborate on the fact that they have very few toilets on the ship and have a strict schedule when to dump it - because maybe some guy with obsession about minor details will raise his voice of disappointment" HEY! Japanese soldiers are humans too!!!"

Please, people, don't tantalize yourself and the readers with the minor details. Use your resources effectively. Especially the ones that are native English speakers - I'll never have this edge of yours as my writing in English is a constant juggling between dictionaries, grammar and the work itself. Imagine if I began researching the formation of the pebbles beneath the wheels of the ox cart...


----------



## OrionDarkwood

IMHO you can never research too much or have enough information. However one has to balance this with their writing time and how much effort they want to put into it. Basically do you want your reader to say well its a elf and all elves are aloof tree huggers with pointy eyes. Or do you want to say this is a snow elf with long pointy swept back ears and white to bluish skin and hair. They where created to be arctic shock troops but where dumped on a alien world because their creators found out their creation was flawed in that they had heat strokes at temperatures as low as 40 Fraks (70 degrees)


----------



## Steerpike

quenchy said:


> "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."
> Anton Pavlovich Chekhov



I believe Chekhov was talking about plays, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense in that context. The novel, as a literary form, allows a lot more leeway for this sort of thing, and if you only ever mention descriptive details that have a substantive impact on the story, you are likely to have a flat, dead book on your hands.


----------



## quenchy

Well, even if the reader is holding a book, don't automatically assume that their attention span is great enough to go through all the lines you've inserted to be able to split the book in two or more tomes and make your publishers happy. After all, you're writing for the general audience out there, in the wilde worlde, which,for good or bad, is molded into what it is by the general media.

I want to say - I'm a research nazi. When I read a book I constantly encounter the signs of insufficient research and then I nerd-rage. For example, a soft sci-fi book where a race cannot create "thinking machinces" because of ancient agreement with another, but yet they have a vast interstellar warfleet that battles races that have computers. B*tch, please. No monkey-brain can think fast enough to counter a computer that coordinates and directs thousands of operations at the same time. And in the book there wasn't even anything that looks like a mentat. Or in the same book - the ships defend a planet by creating a ring around it. Saaay whaat? Is this a brilliant strategy for you to get wasted by the nuke missile alongside with the planet beneath?

In the former case, it makes the book a bit more interesting than the rest, so I can overlook that. In the latter, I can say that if the author has read the military doctrines of US or Russian armies, he could've extracted a plus for his book. For example - city defence - you don't let the enemy come into the city not by creating awall of defence around the city. You deploy mechanized infantry one click inside the city in improvised defence positions - barricades and buildings, in a way that you create a death-trap for any enemy unit that dares enter the city. You deploy a low-gauge artillery that can re-deploy quickly - it will create obstructive barrage of fire for enemy reinforcements to reach the trapped enemies. Unless the enemy has ordnance and air superiority, he will be forced to withdraw from storming the city unless he can also make extreme sacrifices. Marine landing zone defence - the battleships and the air forces create interlocking firing vectors at the point of entry of enemy forces that want to take point on the LZ. You don't deploy a wall of battleships and destroyers because there's always a 1-kiloton nuke on guard for a cluster of ships.

What I mean is that you can always add a quick briefing for the forces that will defend the orbit. Or you can always describe in few sentences how effectively they destroy the enemy forces because of this and that in their formation. You won't encounter this in many other sci-fi books, and it will give you an edge. It's also not too great deal of research. It would be if you scoop through all the battles fought according to this doctrine.


----------



## Devor

quenchy said:


> "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."
> Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
> 
> This is too much research - putting the pistol if it won't fire.



That really isn't a question of research.  Research is about understanding more about how things work; it would be a little naive to think it had to translate into long explanations for your reader.

Research is about whether that one sentence says "gears" or "pistons," whether that's a "surcoat" or a "tabbard" or a "jacket," whether it's reasonable to have a four-foot sword in ancient Rome; whether or not those arrows would really cut through that chainmail (err, probably not), and exactly how soon is it reasonable for a person to be up after taking a bullet in the gut?

The question of what to mention, and how, has nothing at all to do with research.  The same question could be asked of whether or not you should mention the mole on your character's nose or whether there really needs to be that story explaining why people say that funny little thing they always say.  The answer?  That's up to how you well you write and the audience you're aiming for and the needs of the story.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

To put it another way: Characters and story are harder and more important than details and research, which is why people spend so much time on the latter and so not enough on the former.


----------



## Devor

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> To put it another way: Characters and story are harder and more important, than details and research, which is why people spend so much time on the latter and so not enough on the former.



Yeah, but we could also talk about wasting time on outlines or character mapping.  It's all in how well you make use of the tools at hand.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Devor said:


> Yeah, but we could also talk about wasting time on outlines or character mapping.  It's all in how well you make use of the tools at hand.



Yeah, sorry; I didn't mean to imply that research and outlines and other such tools are a waste of time. I was just trying to say that if you're worrying that you're doing too much research, you're probably not spending enough time on character and story. In my view, if you want to be a good writer, characters and story come first, and the details of your world are a much lower priority.


----------



## Devor

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Yeah, sorry; I didn't mean to imply that research and outlines and other such tools are a waste of time. I was just trying to say that if you're worrying that you're doing too much research, you're probably not spending enough time on character and story. In my view, if you want to be a good writer, characters and story come first, and the details of your world are a much lower priority.



Fair enough.  The only point I've really tried to make, even if it's not coming across very well, is that research can be more useful for some than others, and that a standard which works for one person might not be right for another.  I personally find a story or plot idea for every four or five wiki pages I skim through, and much more frequently if I'm doing research for my Viking story.  But that's how I think.  I try and combine different elements to create something new.  But I get very little value from outlines, and almost none from character mapping.  I might have a "role" for my characters beforehand, but I really don't know who they are until I meet them on the page.  It just depends on what you're writing and how well each particular tool suits you.

I do really think that a basic level of research ought to be required for most fantasy writers, but along those lines, I'd rather see if we as a community can put together a basic research guide for fantasy writers to simplify that basic chore.  Because I definitely know that it can be a waste of time for many people.  Even I find it a waste of time if all I'm doing is looking up some fact or another.


----------



## Aurelian

If you want to make a truly great work then i do suggest that you study at the foot of a proverbial master (master being historical records) you can never have enough facts it all comes in handy eventually.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

RedRidingHood said:


> How much research into myths or world creation do people do? Sometimes I feel like all I do is research, but then when I go to write, I feel like I'm just writing an essay, not fiction. How do you find a balance?



Perhaps you are not researching too much, but rather you are writing too little? It sounds to me that the problem is that you are lacking in creativity and skill, not that you know too much about the subject. There's nothing wrong with knowing a lot about a particular thing, but knowing stuff doesn't make you a better writer. 

Me, I only research things if the story requires it, but then again I'm lazy that way. I'm probably one of the few fantasy writers who finds world-building kinda boring.


----------

