Living the Research

[Heliotrope]

Yep, I'm in southern BC...

This is my hometown

Makes me so happy. I literally can just walk out my back door onto a trail.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I write a mean hangover.

 

[Chessie]

The road to my house: Bear Valley.

 

[Heliotrope]

Gorgeous! Alaska is amazing.

 

[Malik]

Those mountains make me melt...

The second pic is where I asked my wife to marry me.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Please don't feel like I'm saying that going out and experiencing your research isn't an awesome thing. Because it is. And it'll give your writing a depth you can't fake or fabricate.

But.

If you don't, or can't, do these things...it doesn't mean your story as a whole is of a lower caliber. Your research may not be as precise, but...you can still write a good story. There's more that goes into a good story, and readers want different things.

Get out there! Do stuff! Try things! Your story will be deeper for it. YOU will be deeper for it. Just don't let the lack of experience keep you from writing, or make you feel like your writing is garbage. (This is me very often.) And don't research-research-research at the expense of refining your writing itself because it's the writing that's going to hold up your story.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Big sigh.



No. But let's be honest, you are less qualified than someone who has.



I don't think you can BS everything. I think you can shrink the lack of experience gap by very good research or having an open mind, or good observation skills but I don't think you can BS everything. IF that was the real consensus I am disappointed in the group that reached it.



While you cannot experience riding a dragon you can research what it might be like to ride a dragon and reason out, or even calculate that it would be like riding a dragon. For instance, if it matters, you can figure out the speed of your dragon and find out what it is like for a human to fly through the air at that speed in say an ultra light aircraft etc. But no one is suggesting that you can experience what it is like riding a dragon. That is why they call it speculative fiction.



These are kind of absurd examples are they not? I was going to assume you were joking but then I read the next post. There are lots of ways to learn about what it like to be an amputee etc, but no one is suggesting you try it out.



Since you want to try and take a legalist approach to this issue let's see if I can put something in quotes that might work for you:

"Experiencing what you are writing about can make you better at writing about it."

I think the underlying purpose of the discussion is to encourage people to experience things they are writing about to make them better writers. It is also to get people to think about how important writing is to them, and what level of commitment they have to it. Now you may have 700 reasons you can't experience something in your writing, but I don't think we should discourage others from doing it, nor is a post encouraging people to do such research really a call to post excuses why you can't.

It is difficult to admit that someone is in a better position to do something we care passionately about, but unrealistic not to do so.

Off topic rant: making excuses or pondering what you cannot do is not going to make you a better writer or a better person. Let me make an analogy. At my advanced age I still play soccer. There are guys who are faster than me on the pitch. In fact most guys on the pitch are faster than me. Now I can make excuses about age, how many hours I have to work, my bad ankles, etc but they would still blow by me on the way to the goal. Instead of making excuses I should do one of three things: 1) work on getting faster, 2) work on doing things as an individual player to reduce the impact of their speed advantage or 3) work on doing things as a team that help compensate for my lack of speed. So lots of variables to work with if you are committed and bring the right mind set. You might consider trying that approach to understanding your characters experiences.

Side note on amputation: there are lots of ways to learn about what it is like to suffer an amputation without doing it. Some more academic or clinical, some more personal. As a lawyer I have represented many people who have suffered catastrophic injuries and have learned a huge amount both academically and personally what it is like to suffer an amputation, spinal cord injury or a brain injury. But despite having spent years studying this conditions and hundreds perhaps thousands of hours talking with people who have sustained them I retain the humility to admit that I would not understand the experience. Does that mean I would not write about amputations? No. It means I would write about them with respect and cautiously knowing the limitations of my abilities. No you cannot BS everything.

Not absurd examples. They're things that happen in the story. I was being a bit facetious, but the point was you can't experience everything your characters do.

And, I know it sounds like excuses, but...It honestly is a bit depressing and frustrating, when writers around you are out doing things and having experiences you can't, and talking about how it improves their writing, and how everyone should try it...and yes, it's true, but some of us are rather handicapped in that regard. We do what we can to make our stories the best we can, but sometimes it's apparently not enough.

It can feel condescending sometimes. Others are "more committed", they take it "more seriously." It's not that I'm not committed. It's just that I have the rest of my life too. And I can't devote the utmost amount of attention, research and energy to every detail. And it's fine, maybe it's not as important to me as it is to others.

With the amputation, the best I can do is talk to people who have been through it. I definitely plan to if I can.

 

[Russ]

Yep, I'm in southern BC...

This is my hometown

Makes me so happy. I literally can just walk out my back door onto a trail.

Is there still a CFB there? That is where I did my basic training.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yes! Used to be. I think it's gone now. The campus is being used for the University of the Fraser Valley.

 

[Russ]

Yes! Used to be. I think it's gone now. The campus is being used for the University of the Fraser Valley.

I just looked it up. It appears these closed it and moved the OCS program to Gagetown. Bad decision.

 

[La Volpe]

Some thoughts on this:
Firstly, where do people get the time? And the money? I work a full-time job. And I don't have any money. Am I sleeping too long or something?

Then, this whole living your research seems like an easy path into worldbuilder's disease. I mean, it's really cool, and probably useful. But it'll be pretty easy to turn it into a research all day every day, and end up writing for ten minutes every two weeks. Or maybe that's just me with bad time management.

But the bottom line for me is this: I could spend weeks doing minute detail research, or I could use that time to write. I choose the writing.
To this end, I work on the idea that you need about 10% of the work to get 90% of the research. And to fill up that last 10% is going to be a hell of a lot of work (that takes a hell of a lot of time).

Malik or someone mentioned that you can only learn about the ringing in your ears of getting hit on the helmet by actually getting hit on a helmet, etc. But the fact of the matter is that most of your readers won't know what getting hit on a helmet feels like, right? So will those details really make it feel more authentic? More authentic than other, educated-guessing details?

As an example, after I got into combat sport (MMA), I started to realise that I'm a lot better at knowing how fighting works. So I thought my fight scenes would be better. But the best way to describe fight scenes is not to focus on the blow by blow, as I understand it. So in the end, my experience with fighting only lent perhaps a marginal benefit.

So what I'm getting at, I guess, is this: the goal of a story is to entertain the reader (or maybe that's just my goal?). So I do some fairly extensive research (all without jumping out of planes) and I get by. Maybe I won't be winning any realism awards, but if readers enjoyed the story, does it really matter?

I started Krav Maga and kickboxing a couple weeks ago, if that counts for anything, lol. Managed to get very (very) sore and take the skin off my knuckles punching without gloves...That's about the extent of it. Where do you learn to throw knives...?

Ow. The same thing happened to me the first time I did bag work without gloves. And those things take forever to heal.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Ow. The same thing happened to me the first time I did bag work without gloves. And those things take forever to heal.

Yeah, it just splits open again every time you make a fist...

 

[FifthView]

Malik or someone mentioned that you can only learn about the ringing in your ears of getting hit on the helmet by actually getting hit on a helmet, etc. But the fact of the matter is that most of your readers won't know what getting hit on a helmet feels like, right? So will those details really make it feel more authentic? More authentic than other, educated-guessing details?

Fairly important point, I think.

A lot of what is written is shorthand anyway. Add to that the fact that the purpose of writing these things is to insert an image, feel, etc., into a reader's head—or, to suggest only the key features of an experience—and experiential research becomes less and less important. Third, we are tying that experience into a more or less fantasy world and story; so what we choose to highlight when setting tone and narrative will be an incomplete picture, relevant to this story, and will set itself apart from any sort of generic experience and even maybe from actual experiences in the real world.

That last point might be difficult for me to explain. Let's say you've climbed to the summit of Mount Everest. Now imagine that scene in Fellowship of the Ring, in which the party is being attacked by a distant wizard who sends lightning to cause an avalanche. Or you're a hobbit traveling in a party of dwarves and while trying to cross a mountain range you are caught in a battle between stone giants the size of mountains. These experiences are not like anything you experienced while climbing Mt. Everest. Or imagine having experience living on a large farm in our own world; now, add bandits who roam the countryside or the local lord's armed men who occasionally stop and demand room and board and maybe access to your daughters. I think when we add these other fantastic features (prevalent religion, political structures, economic factors, creatures and beasts, and so forth), and have placed the experience in the middle of a fantastic plot, the experience is significantly altered from real life experiences.

When you also consider the likelihood that your readers have never climbed to the summit of Mt. Everest or lived on a large farm...well, the task of making the experience seem real to your readers is much easier.

I do think that experiential research can help to ground us in the basics, probably freeing up our minds to imagine the other things. I mean, if I have to stop and think about what tools, furniture, utensils, and so forth might be used on a farm, what the daily routine and work might be, the kinds of food that might be eaten, I'm going to be slowed down when writing the couple of chapters that take place on that farm. But a lot of that could be learned more quickly by reading than by choosing to live on a farm for a year or two!

 

[Russ]

Firstly, where do people get the time? And the money? I work a full-time job. And I don't have any money. Am I sleeping too long or something?

Why someone working a full time job doesn't have any money or time is a question beyond the scope of this board.

Then, this whole living your research seems like an easy path into worldbuilder's disease. I mean, it's really cool, and probably useful. But it'll be pretty easy to turn it into a research all day every day, and end up writing for ten minutes every two weeks. Or maybe that's just me with bad time management.

Sure any tool can be abused or mis-used. I could be building a table and just keep hammering after the nail is far enough in. But that isn't an argument for not using hammers. The greatest time suck of all is probably your most used research tool, the internet. Surely we are not suggesting it is dangerous for writers to use the internet? I think when we encourage people to do experiential research we do so hoping they have enough common sense not to abuse it foolishly. I like to think the people I am having conversations with are smarter than that.

But the bottom line for me is this: I could spend weeks doing minute detail research, or I could use that time to write. I choose the writing.

Resource allocation is very important. No one is suggesting that you have to do experiential research to write. Just that it might add value. It is up to you if it is worth the cost in your case.

Malik or someone mentioned that you can only learn about the ringing in your ears of getting hit on the helmet by actually getting hit on a helmet, etc. But the fact of the matter is that most of your readers won't know what getting hit on a helmet feels like, right? So will those details really make it feel more authentic? More authentic than other, educated-guessing details?

I give my readers and potential readers more credit than that. I think they can tell more authentic writing from non-authentic writing even if they have not done the activity in question. Have you ever seen a good speaker talking about a subject and thought to yourself "that guy knows his stuff"? Readers are the same way with writers. And with broader audiences and the internet I think the reading public is more aware and critical than ever.

So what I'm getting at, I guess, is this: the goal of a story is to entertain the reader (or maybe that's just my goal?). So I do some fairly extensive research (all without jumping out of planes) and I get by. Maybe I won't be winning any realism awards, but if readers enjoyed the story, does it really matter?

I am pretty sure everyone can agree that entertaining readers is one of the goals of most fiction writers. But that can be done in many ways. It can be done with strong prose. It can be done with great plotting and characterization. IT can be done by making a reader feel like they are really there and giving them an authentic experience. Experiential research is just one of a multitude of ways to make your writing better. No one is suggesting it is the only thing you should do, or you should do it for every instance.

Rather than ask simply does my story entertain the reader, why not ask "how can I entertain the reader more"? Personally I am not a big fan of "getting by". If your fiction is meeting all your goals you probably don't need to add any more tools or try new things. If its not than they are worth considering.

 

[Russ]

I do think that experiential research can help to ground us in the basics, probably freeing up our minds to imagine the other things. I mean, if I have to stop and think about what tools, furniture, utensils, and so forth might be used on a farm, what the daily routine and work might be, the kinds of food that might be eaten, I'm going to be slowed down when writing the couple of chapters that take place on that farm. But a lot of that could be learned more quickly by reading than by choosing to live on a farm for a year or two!

This is the reverse of what I would recommend experiential research for. Daily routine etc is easier and faster to look up, or perhaps not even reference in your story. I don't think fiction readers read fiction to vicariously experience the correct use of a trowel or are dying to see how the use of the three field system over the two field system drives the plot. They look for things more exciting or thrilling, and that is what they are concerned with. You also have to make a resource allocation decision, is the routine of the farm important enough to the story to invest a couple of years in? Probably not. But if that is what is going to drive your series...go for it!

 

[Malik]

Let's say you've climbed to the summit of Mount Everest. Now imagine that scene in Fellowship of the Ring, in which the party is being attacked by a distant wizard who sends lightning to cause an avalanche. Or you're a hobbit traveling in a party of dwarves and while trying to cross a mountain range you are caught in a battle between stone giants the size of mountains. These experiences are not like anything you experienced while climbing Mt. Everest.!

No. But this comes back to getting the mundane details correct so that you can introduce the fantasy / magical aspects.

I don't know what it's like to fly a pegasus. More's the pity. But I've ridden a horse and done some hideously irresponsible ramps on a mountain bike. I've also been on nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flights in full battle rattle and I know what bodyarmor and bandoliered equipment does in moments of fluctuating G's. From these experiences, I can extrapolate the rest. If I get the motions of the gear around the rider's waist, the tingle in the gut during the shifting G's, the slam of the pegasus changing direction at the bottom of a dive, and the feel of the armor during climbs and dives correct -- sensations that many readers will be familiar with in some sense, even if they haven't had the same experiences as me verbatim -- then the flying horse is much easier to believe. The little details sell it.

Similarly, with the helmet / SCA thing. It gives me another angle to tell the story from. Instead of adding yet another visual to a fight sequence: "The knight hit Sir Dorkus on the helmet with the haft of the spear," or, from Sir Dorkus's POV: "Sir Dorkus saw the knight swing his spear, the haft hitting him on the helmet," I can talk about the sound inside Sir Dorkus's helmet instead, or that he finds himself on one knee with his ears ringing wondering what the hell happened. Because the blow that really rings your bell isn't the one you see coming; it's the one you don't see at all. And a reader who has even casual full-contact martial arts experience would know that and be familiar with the concept of someone sneaking a punch in on you. And the reader who doesn't have that experience knows it, now. The knowledge of the deeper details both adds narrative credibility and gives the author creative options.

 

[La Volpe]

Sure any tool can be abused or mis-used. I could be building a table and just keep hammering after the nail is far enough in. But that isn't an argument for not using hammers. The greatest time suck of all is probably your most used research tool, the internet. Surely we are not suggesting it is dangerous for writers to use the internet? I think when we encourage people to do experiential research we do so hoping they have enough common sense not to abuse it foolishly. I like to think the people I am having conversations with are smarter than that.

The internet is a time-suck if you're not careful - yes. But there is an enormous difference in the time it takes to look something up and the time it takes to find some guy to hit you in the (helmeted) head with a shovel on a regular basis. Plus, the moment you involve other people (and fun and interesting activities) the draw to go back becomes bigger. So I'd say that going out and doing things manually will have a significantly larger chance to take big chunks from your writing time.

I give my readers and potential readers more credit than that. I think they can tell more authentic writing from non-authentic writing even if they have not done the activity in question. Have you ever seen a good speaker talking about a subject and thought to yourself "that guy knows his stuff"? Readers are the same way with writers. And with broader audiences and the internet I think the reading public is more aware and critical than ever.

How would they know, exactly? Usually the "that guy knows his stuff" moment is because of confidence. That's why people fall for con men, no? All you have to do is pop in one or two details that the reader recognises, be confident in describing (i.e. don't avoid giving detail etc.), and he'll just assume that you "know your stuff".

Just inserting a few small details can make it seem as if you know everything about the subject. And those details can be easily gotten without actually doing the activity in question.

I am pretty sure everyone can agree that entertaining readers is one of the goals of most fiction writers. But that can be done in many ways. It can be done with strong prose. It can be done with great plotting and characterization. IT can be done by making a reader feel like they are really there and giving them an authentic experience. Experiential research is just one of a multitude of ways to make your writing better. No one is suggesting it is the only thing you should do, or you should do it for every instance.

Rather than ask simply does my story entertain the reader, why not ask "how can I entertain the reader more"? Personally I am not a big fan of "getting by". If your fiction is meeting all your goals you probably don't need to add any more tools or try new things. If its not than they are worth considering.

Well, the thing is, like someone mentioned way earlier in this thread, there's only so much detail you can add before you're detracting from the story. I've found that it's a sliding scale with a sweet spot.

No. But this comes back to getting the mundane details correct so that you can introduce the fantasy / magical aspects.

I don't know what it's like to fly a pegasus. More's the pity. But I've ridden a horse and done some hideously irresponsible ramps on a mountain bike. I've also been on nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flights in full battle rattle and I know what bodyarmor and bandoliered equipment does in moments of fluctuating G's. From these experiences, I can extrapolate the rest. If I get the motions of the gear around the rider's waist, the tingle in the gut during the shifting G's, the slam of the pegasus changing direction at the bottom of a dive, and the feel of the armor during climbs and dives correct -- sensations that many readers will be familiar with in some sense, even if they haven't had the same experiences as me verbatim -- then the flying horse is much easier to believe. The little details sell it.

Similarly, with the helmet / SCA thing. It gives me another angle to tell the story from. Instead of adding yet another visual to a fight sequence: "The knight hit Sir Dorkus on the helmet with the haft of the spear," or, from Sir Dorkus's POV: "Sir Dorkus saw the knight swing his spear, the haft hitting him on the helmet," I can talk about the sound inside Sir Dorkus's helmet instead, or that he finds himself on one knee with his ears ringing wondering what the hell happened. Because the blow that really rings your bell isn't the one you see coming; it's the one you don't see at all. And a reader who has even casual full-contact martial arts experience would know that and be familiar with the concept of someone sneaking a punch in on you. And the reader who doesn't have that experience knows it, now. The knowledge of the deeper details both adds narrative credibility and gives the author creative options.

It's the small details that make the experience seem real, right? Well, isn't it possible to just get these details from research that doesn't involve actually doing the activity in question?

For example, you just gave some details which can now be easily transplanted into a book with a pegasus (or a dragon) or a guy getting hit on the helmet.

 

[ThinkerX]

I grew up in the 60's and 70's on an Alaskan homestead almost at the very end of the road grid, past our place the roads turned first to gravel and then to meandering dirt tracks that went nowhere. About two dozen other homesteads within a couple of miles. You can count the ones that made it on the fingers of one hand - ours was one.

Dad was an inveterate tinkerer, constantly digging up second or third hand motorcycles, snow machines, ATV's (he built a couple of those from the frame up) and other vehicles. Homestead fronted a fair sized lake, boats, canoes, and other water craft.

I rode bicycles and dirt bikes in the summer down overgrown roads, raced other kids, and practiced jumping, wheelies, and other sorts of insanity. (Drove the bicycles off the dock and into the lake a few times.) Probably a bloody wonder I survived some of that.

Also paddled, rowed, motored, and sailed small boats from one end of that lake to the other. I was a pretty fair swimmer as well; a couple times I swam clear across it and back, maybe a mile. Did a bit of waterskiing - my younger brother could do the one ski thing, but I lacked the dexterity.

Winter, snow machines on trails that featured frozen lakes and swamps, and skiing. Tried a bit of downhill skiing (on cross-country ski's) on brush covered hills, plowed into more than a few shrubs.

Scoped out a lot of abandoned homesteaders cabins.

We kept a large garden, grew potatoes by the bushel and more greens than I care to think about. (Then and now, I regard weeding as torture). Raised chickens and turkeys on and off (and concluded that turkeys were basically too dumb to live).

Grew up building stuff - part of the house, a garage, sheds. (Not to mention a fair number of tree forts with liberated lumber.) Later, rebuilt mobile homes and gleaned enough experience to do most of the work building the house I live in.

Few fights with other kids. Not my thing, wasn't very good at it. Learned real fast though that serious fights tend to be real short.

Dad was one of the founders of the local volunteer fire department. I got dragged along on a few runs, saw some people in bad shape.

I managed to avoid scrapes with the law, but some of the people I associated with, well 'criminal idiots' is a fair description. Prison was almost a second home to some of them, and they weren't shy about recounting their experiences. My youngest brother was offered the classic 'join the military or go to prison' deal, mostly through a spectacularly bad driving record.

Then I grew up, went to college for a while, worked at this or that job, and I was left with memories. I try some of the things I did in my youth, and I'd probably be either dead or crippled.

But I use those memories in my writing. They are a basis for extrapolation.

 

[Russ]

The internet is a time-suck if you're not careful - yes. But there is an enormous difference in the time it takes to look something up and the time it takes to find some guy to hit you in the (helmeted) head with a shovel on a regular basis. Plus, the moment you involve other people (and fun and interesting activities) the draw to go back becomes bigger. So I'd say that going out and doing things manually will have a significantly larger chance to take big chunks from your writing time.

Easily available statistics about hobbies and internet usage prove this to be factually wrong. People spend waaaaaaay more time puttering around the internet than they do in spending the time and effort it takes to do experiential research. If you choose to develop it into a hobby than it becomes your choice to spend time on that instead of writing. Once again I think better of the people I talk with than to assume I need to protect them from their own weaknesses.

How would they know, exactly? Usually the "that guy knows his stuff" moment is because of confidence. That's why people fall for con men, no? All you have to do is pop in one or two details that the reader recognises, be confident in describing (i.e. don't avoid giving detail etc.), and he'll just assume that you "know your stuff".

Just inserting a few small details can make it seem as if you know everything about the subject. And those details can be easily gotten without actually doing the activity in question.

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

Seriously I think better of my readers than that. It amazes me that people will go through such mental gymnastics to avoid a fairly obvious conclusion, that someone who has done something has a better knowledge of that experience than someone who has just read about it. Do you want a dentist who has never pulled a tooth to do yours?

Take DOA for instance. Let's say we both wanted to write a story in which the experience of home schooling was an important element. I went to public schools my whole life and don't have any friends who were home schooled. Do you think that by spending even many hours on the internet researching that I would be able to write about that experience better than someone who has lived it? That position seems ludicrous to me.

Well, the thing is, like someone mentioned way earlier in this thread, there's only so much detail you can add before you're detracting from the story. I've found that it's a sliding scale with a sweet spot.

Which is both true and has nothing to do with the topic. "Try experiencing something to understand it better" does not equate to "Put too many details into your work."

It's the small details that make the experience seem real, right? Well, isn't it possible to just get these details from research that doesn't involve actually doing the activity in question?

It is possible to get those details from research. Once again, no one is saying experiencial research is necessary for good writing. All that is being suggested is that it is something you can do that can make your writing better.

Think of it like a really good editor. You may or may not have the resources to invest in a really good editor before you take the next step with your work. But that editor is a resource you can make your writing better. No one is saying don't write because you can't afford a good editor, we are just saying it might be something that can make your work better.

 

[FifthView]

No. But this comes back to getting the mundane details correct so that you can introduce the fantasy / magical aspects.

I don't know what it's like to fly a pegasus. More's the pity. But I've ridden a horse and done some hideously irresponsible ramps on a mountain bike. I've also been on nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flights in full battle rattle and I know what bodyarmor and bandoliered equipment does in moments of fluctuating G's. From these experiences, I can extrapolate the rest. If I get the motions of the gear around the rider's waist, the tingle in the gut during the shifting G's, the slam of the pegasus changing direction at the bottom of a dive, and the feel of the armor during climbs and dives correct -- sensations that many readers will be familiar with in some sense, even if they haven't had the same experiences as me verbatim -- then the flying horse is much easier to believe. The little details sell it.

Similarly, with the helmet / SCA thing. It gives me another angle to tell the story from. Instead of adding yet another visual to a fight sequence: "The knight hit Sir Dorkus on the helmet with the haft of the spear," or, from Sir Dorkus's POV: "Sir Dorkus saw the knight swing his spear, the haft hitting him on the helmet," I can talk about the sound inside Sir Dorkus's helmet instead, or that he finds himself on one knee with his ears ringing wondering what the hell happened. Because the blow that really rings your bell isn't the one you see coming; it's the one you don't see at all. And a reader who has even casual full-contact martial arts experience would know that and be familiar with the concept of someone sneaking a punch in on you. And the reader who doesn't have that experience knows it, now. The knowledge of the deeper details both adds narrative credibility and gives the author creative options.

When I think of "experiential research," I think of it in two ways.

I'd mentioned recently (in another thread) that being aware of our surroundings is a kind of research even if we aren't aware that we are doing research at the time. It was in the thread that DotA started about being young and relatively inexperienced. All of life is a research project even if we're so busy living we don't always realize that we are doing research. So drawing from memories and experiences we have already gained outside our writing experience: obviously, more material than waking up as a brain in a vat and needing to seek out knowledge from some repository of written or audio/visual evidence.

The other way of thinking about experiential research: consciously seeking out, and engaging in, an activity in order to do research; in this case, for a novel.

We can argue that having your helmet hit or a similar experience from life will give a foundation for the basics which never having a similar experience does not provide. I'd agree, and this is the sort of thing I had in mind when using the example of living on a farm. Personally, I'm a little jealous of people who have had as a hobby or profession horseback riding or care of horses. They have a leg up on me. (I was almost killed as a child by a horse; but that was a chance encounter and is the limit of my personal experience with horses beyond seeing them at a distance.)

But consciously seeking out an experience is a different matter. Quite possibly, someone who desires to have a career writing fantasy fiction should seek out experience with horses or swordplay. It would be an investment on a lifetime of writing fantasy fiction set in a medieval setting. But I doubt that putting on a medieval type of helmet and letting a friend strike you over the head would be necessary for most novels if not all novels one might write. Russ pretty much addressed this distinction when he wrote:

You also have to make a resource allocation decision, is the routine of the farm important enough to the story to invest a couple of years in? Probably not. But if that is what is going to drive your series...go for it!

I don't think anyone is suggesting being a brain in a vat. Or, ignoring the usefulness of real-life experiences. The question seems to be over allocation of time and the usefulness of seeking out new life experiences when writing versus research by other methods.

Additionally, if we are taking a range of similar life experiences as a basis for experience of whatever we are describing in our writing—extrapolation—then I wonder whether and to what degree many of our individual life experiences already provide much of that. Can one extrapolate from carrying armfuls of groceries into the house, wearing heaving clothing like coats in winter, while children are nagging/fighting, to what it's like to struggle up a hill in full battle gear and supplies while being chased by an armed opponent? Maybe. At least, maybe well enough to make that description recognizable for so many other people who have never worn full combat gear in a combat situation. I'd not denigrate the massive number of life experiences anyone 20+ years old has already experienced.