Down the Research Rabbit Hole

As a historian, I love to research, and the internet makes it oh so much easier. I'm guilty of looking for one piece of information only to find my attention snagged by something else, and sooner rather than later, I've completely forgotten my original research query.

My current novel is set in Hollywood in 1940, and I am having a blast researching it. The best part is that there are tons and tons and TONS of early L.A. photos available. This means I can research to my heart's content. This also means I can get completely lost in minute details that I don't need for my story.

When I was working on my master's degree in history, I found myself making copies of files that I didn't know if I'd need or not. But as one of my fellow historians said, "The historian who has the most stuff wins." Even if you don't end up using most of your files, you just never know when a little tidbit might come in handy.

The gorgeous actress Gene Tierney

It's the same when researching for a historical fiction novel. In fact, finding one of those little tidbits can sometimes send your novel in a direction you never considered before, or add some color to a snippet of dialogue. 

Of course, you can't research forever.  You need to put words on the page at some point, but having that historical knowledge while you write is crucial. It's one thing to use anachronistic language, but it's another altogether to put a house in a neighborhood that didn't even exist at the time you're writing your story. 

I'm trying to be extra careful with my current novel because it's a topic a lot of people know a LOT about. And historical fiction readers know their stuff. They have no hesitation in calling out an author who got something wrong! I'm hoping to avoid that at all costs.

My problem, though, is that I feel like I need to read every book on a particular topic which is, quite frankly, impossible. Sometimes I wish I had the ability to just put my hand on a book and immediately absorb (and retain) all the information. Wouldn't that be something?