When I began, I thought that the way one should work was to do all the research and then write the book.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I still find the idea of a research-heavy or historical novel daunting. That's something I've had in mind for a while: like, would you research for a year and then start writing? I sit down, and I just don't know how to write it.
I enjoy research; in fact research is so engaging that it would be easy to go on for years, and never write the novel at all.
One book at a time... though I'm usually doing the research for others while I'm writing, but that sort of research is fairly desultory and I like to stick to the book being written - and writing a book concentrates the mind so the research is more productive.
When I really want to learn about something, I write a book on it. Then the real research begins, as I begin to hear people's stories, and huge amounts of information begins to comes straight to my doorstep. Then I can write an even better book the next time!
I typically spend a year thinking about a book before I begin writing it.
It's true that I have spoken about doing a book before, but then everyone you speak to is planning to write a book.
I decided to write a book primarily because people talked me into it.
I just write the sort of book that I would enjoy reading myself, a book that is both scholarly and recreates the experience of people at that time.
I grew up around books. When I first held the book and it was a substantive, tangible thing, and I thought of all the work that went into it, not just my work but everybody else's and the research and so forth, there's a sense of really have done something worthwhile.
Doing it your own way, not having to go exactly by the book to be successful.
No opposing quotes found.