![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Without taking classes or reading books about the subject.
As writers, we know one of our basic tenets is research, research, research. But what if you're writing about a character who's taken up a subject we've never seen before and something you know nothing about either, and instead of taking up a lot of classes and learning something you have no intention of putting to practical use, and you don't really want to do that much research?
What are thoughts about such a provocative turn in your writing?
My pointed example: Daniel likes photography, and uses a camera a lot of the time in his work as an anthro/archaeo scientist. Knowledge/use of his camera is the "tool" of the story.
But the only thing I know about photography is basic point-and-shoot digital cameras. Buttons for zoom or panorama are easy things to use in cameras these days so there's no real learning involved when it comes to photography.
So the question is, could I get away with writing a story like this without actually using descriptors and exposition. As an artist, I think I could fake a little bit, but I know nothing about lenses and filters and the types of digital shooting. It's not like film shooting, and perhaps there's no need for filters and lenses (and if you know that already, you know more than I do) in digital photo work, but I still wonder: how much research would I really need to do in order to make the story interesting without being boring?
As writers, we know one of our basic tenets is research, research, research. But what if you're writing about a character who's taken up a subject we've never seen before and something you know nothing about either, and instead of taking up a lot of classes and learning something you have no intention of putting to practical use, and you don't really want to do that much research?
What are thoughts about such a provocative turn in your writing?
My pointed example: Daniel likes photography, and uses a camera a lot of the time in his work as an anthro/archaeo scientist. Knowledge/use of his camera is the "tool" of the story.
But the only thing I know about photography is basic point-and-shoot digital cameras. Buttons for zoom or panorama are easy things to use in cameras these days so there's no real learning involved when it comes to photography.
So the question is, could I get away with writing a story like this without actually using descriptors and exposition. As an artist, I think I could fake a little bit, but I know nothing about lenses and filters and the types of digital shooting. It's not like film shooting, and perhaps there's no need for filters and lenses (and if you know that already, you know more than I do) in digital photo work, but I still wonder: how much research would I really need to do in order to make the story interesting without being boring?
no subject
Date: 2015-05-18 11:58 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2015-05-19 02:35 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2015-05-19 11:35 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2015-05-20 05:23 pm (UTC)From:But then, I have a horrible tendency to make things more difficult for myself than they need to be. :-p
no subject
Date: 2015-05-20 08:09 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2015-05-21 02:39 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2015-05-21 03:23 am (UTC)From: