Notes to myself

[mrissa]

Sometimes my notes to myself are obvious. As of Wednesday morning, I had a character referred to as Boris Patronymic (it is not that kind of novel; he now has an actual patronymic) and another character of whom I said something like, "He looked down into her wide check color eyes." They were not meant to be tartan. They are now hazel.

Sometimes my notes to myself are less obvious. This morning, I read something like, "'You've seen how Inkeri gets,' said Robert. Edward nodded." Oh. He has? I guess he'd better see how Inkeri gets by that point in the book, then!

The people who talk about doing all the research before they start baffle me. This morning I verified that disposable razors were in wide enough use in the UK in 1950 that it wouldn't be anachronistic to a charcter to have had them (and run out). Maybe you can plan that kind of thing in advance. If I tried, I'd have reams of notes on what kind of toothpaste was most common among Brits that year and whether pointy or rounded collars were popular on young girls' blouses in Helsinki. Not that I don't have notes that will never get used. I know, for example, when and why Coca-Cola first got to Finland in any really popular quantities. But there's no such thing as "everything you need to know" for a book; or rather, there is, but I can't see any way you'll know what it is without writing and rewriting and rewriting the silly thing.

I'm waffling between thinking "I should get this done and out to first-readers by Easter" and thinking "I should get this done and out to first-readers when it's done and not worry about whether it's before or after Easter." Hmm.

Comments

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

I suggest going with "I should get this done and out to first-readers when it's done and not worry about whether it's before or after Easter." You give yourself more time to do the work, and do it well.

I tend to agree with you on the whole research thing. I might do just a little before I start, just to get my head in the proper space, but then I charge in and research stuff as I go, as needed. If I'm unsure about something, I write what I think is right, then highlight it in the document to fact check later.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

I would think that some people just don't do as much research as you do. Because who can know ahead of time that they're going to need to know if the popular shirt collars of the time where rounded or pointed?

I'm waffling between thinking "I should get this done and out to first-readers by Easter" and thinking "I should get this done and out to first-readers when it's done and not worry about whether it's before or after Easter." Hmm.

If this were to suddenly become a democracy, can you guess for which I would vote?

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

The sources I find online date the disposable razor (other than flint and obsidian tools used in prehistory) to the 1960s, and one credits it specifically to Paul Winchell in 1963. None of these sites impress me as being very authoritative, so I wouldn't be inclined to think they outranked whatever you found, though. Also, it gets confused because razors with separate disposable blades are sometimes called "disposable" in some articles.

[oracne.livejournal.com]

Oh, totally, on the research. One suddenly needs to know if a trans-continental phone call was possible, for example.

There is No Way I could imagine thinking of everything I'd need in advance.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Gillette claims to have distributed safety razors to American troops in WWI, so there's that. There's some disagreement about whether Mr. Gillette did or did not invent the safety razor, but he certainly founded a company that distributed them, and certainly well before 1963. So I think I'm safe on this one.

[toolittletime.livejournal.com]

As someone who actually lived in the 50's (not shaving until the late 60's though), I tend to agree that disposable razors didn't exist then. Of course I wasn't living in the UK, so maybe they were far ahead of us in disposable technology. I would've guessed that disposables became popular in the 70's rather than the 60's but have no authority for that other than a faulty memory.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

As usual, Gene Wolfe has good advice -- you research until you're ready to write the first line, and then you keep going until you need to do more research, and then do that.

Otherwise, you can easily end up like the character in Nova, who was some gazillions of words into his notes, without a word written of the book, yet.

(And, that said, it may take a ton of research to be ready to write that first line, but that's another thing.)

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Really not sure about that disposable razor in 1950s thing, given that rationing didn't end until 1953/4 and utility furniture was still being produced (to the best of my knowledge). Austerity ruled. It was still a reuse and recycle type of society, although most men did shave with safety razors with replaceable blades. (But electric razors were I think rare until the 60s.)

I was jolted out of suspension of disbelief yesterday evening when I read of someone in late C19th London going from Lambeth to Paddington to get to Kew Gardens. Yes, the Metropolitan Railway ran to Kew from Paddington, but if I were starting from Lambeth I'm pretty sure that I'd go to Waterloo for the South Western Railway service, or even pick up the train at another station somewhere in between. Rebecca West's The Fountain Overflows has a memorable account of journeying via several interchanges on south London surburban railways from Streatham to Kew, so presumably it was do-able without ever having to venture north of the river.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think this is where my bad habit of reading nonfiction comes in: it starts poking the bits in my brain that make first lines of books in the first place.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The character in question isn't in the UK, just from the UK, so rationing is not as much an issue. And I think the conflation of safety razors and disposable razors (on my part) is causing some confusion.

The happy thing about having most of a book set in the north of Finland and the rest set in Helsinki is that the number of people who can get uppity about what things are like in detail is much, much smaller.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The Libertarian, probably.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes. I have all sorts of spots that read "[check this]" from points of research to previous traits to prior references.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's more plausible. And Londoners probably have a sharp eye for the improbable details of travel - we see it so much in movies!

Safety Razors

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

I was at the D-Day Museum in New Orleans for my post-bar exam trip, and I seem to remember seeing safety razors in the GI kit and uniform display. I didn't know they were around in WW1, though, but I'm not surprised.

Mack,
adding his two cents

Re: Safety Razors

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

Or were they disposable razors? Memory plays tricks.

One of the reasons I love reading your journal, by the way, is narrative advice. I have more pages of notes on my novel than I do actual text, and I've come to see overpreparedness as a symptom of fear. That's one of the reasons I stopped working on it. I appreciate seeing authors who plow through and have the freedom to make up what they can, research what they feel they need to when they get there.

Mack

Re: Safety Razors

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Almost all disposable razors go into a safety-razor-style apparatus.

Having more pages of notes than text is not always a bad thing. It's just that at some point you have to go with the text.

Re: Safety Razors

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yes. I can tell I'm tired when my thinking gets fuzzy.

Going with the text is the next step, right along with "take depression medicine." :)

Mack

Re: Safety Razors

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

As long as this is not meant to be general advice, sure!

"take depression medicine"

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suppose it would tend to be specialized advice. :)

It's too early to tell, I suppose, though I imagine I can. A week will be a better time to judge and two weeks is supposed to be the minimum.

Mack

Re: "take depression medicine"

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

My friends who have taken antidepressants say to give it longer than a week or two to determine any change. I've also heard that the changes are easier to observe from the outside, and my experience of being on the outside and observing seems to support that.

Good luck.