My habit is to do just enough research to start writing and then sail in, while simultaneously doing more research as I go along. I'm too impatient to get started. It does, however, make for more rewrites as I discover that assumptions I've made are wrong. I had to change Sebastian's regiment and backstory when I discovered that none of the cavalry regiments who were at Corunna went back to the Peninsula anytime soon. And after I was so proud of my research on how a certain number of enlisted men's wives per regiment were selected by lot to accompany the regiment to war, I was brought up short and had to discard a minor secondary character I was rather fond of upon discovering that General Craufurd wouldn't let any wives accompany the Light Brigade (95th & two other infantry regiments, either the 42nd & 53rd or the 43rd and 52nd, and if I can ever remember which without looking at one of my sources, I'll be amazed).
The thing is, I keep stumbling upon this stuff by accident. I hope I don't make any horrid glaring errors just from not managing to stumble upon something critical until an outraged reader brings it to my attention.
Susan, if you do, you can correct for future printings. No real big; it happens all the time.
I can't sail right into the book this time; the prologue is too specific in its requirements. And I'm organic enough as a writer that I simply can't and won't do something like "On the fourteenth of September, (insert ranks here) Jameson and Willits drove their (insert proper name of equipment lorry here) down (insert name of street name here)."
Susan, insent.
I love research. I've been doing research on Gilded Age Manhattan and the phenomenon of penniless British nobility marrying American heiresses near the turn of the century for years, and the book I have in mind is one I probably won't write for years, if ever. But then, the reason I had the idea for the story in the first place is because that era fascinates me, so it's more of an excuse to do the research, if that makes any sense.
I'm working on a section of three-volume, Victorian novels. Why three volumes? Every work by this particular author is three volumes long, and I know it was pretty much de rigeur that novels would be in three volumes.
Gilded Age Manhattan
Edith Wharton. Age of Innocence, the Buccaneers. Nice writer lady whom I love adore with a stone passion.
Nice writer lady whom I love adore with a stone passion.
Oh, me too. I'm not so much with the Ethan Frome love, but Age of Innocence, The House of Mirth... Blissful sigh.
I get very excited about my research--it's so much fun, and every once in awhile you stumble upon some delicious bit of history that'll make your story that much stronger. F'r'instance, I recently stumbled upon the concept of a "gentleman volunteer" in the British military of my era--i.e. a man with the social standing to be an officer who lacked the means to purchase a commission. Such a man could show up with a letter of reference or two and fight with the men for a common soldier's pay but dine with the officers. If he proved promising, he could earn a commission the next time a vacancy came up.
Originally I was going to have a lieutenant be something of an enemy to Jack and Anna, who tries to blackmail Anna by threatening Jack's life. But I've now made him a gentleman volunteer, because that just makes the power and rank dynamics so much more convoluted and fun. Though I need to do more research. Must see if I can track down the author of the book wherein I discovered this gem and see if he knows any details that didn't make the book.....
Ugh, Ethan Frome. I think she had a virus of some sort while she was writing that one. Only one of hers I don't love.
I've been doing research on Gilded Age Manhattan and the phenomenon of penniless British nobility marrying American heiresses near the turn of the century for years, and the book I have in mind is one I probably won't write for years, if ever.
I assume you've read
To Marry An English Lord,
right? What else do you recommend?
