Blog Post #3: Ray Atkins Waxes on Research

The entire “experience versus research” question is an interesting one. There are those writers and educators who will tell you that writers can only write in a believable manner about that which they know first-hand. The opposing group of writers and educators would have you believe that if you can read about it, you can write about it. Which group is right? They both are, because good writing can come from both sources, and the richest, most satisfying, best writing occurs when both methods are employed simultaneously.

In my first novel, one of the characters was faced with a health issue that necessitated heart surgery. The character was not the main character, but he was still a fairly important part of the story, so I needed to handle the surgery in some detail and not just treat it with one or two lines. I hit several sources and found out enough facts about the procedure to write a believable passage, and after this research was complete, I wrote what I believed to be an acceptable couple of pages.

A year after I had written those paragraphs, I found myself in the ironic position of having to undergo the exact same procedure. Talk about life imitating art! You will be happy to know that I survived the operation and am, in fact, still here. But the point of the story is that I also learned a great deal about the procedure through my experience of it, but it was a different type of knowledge than I had gained from the medical articles I had consulted. My research had provided me primarily with the facts of the procedure, the step-by-step, but having the actual operation provided me with images, impressions, and small details that didn’t make it into the articles I had read. And these are the nuggets that make your writing fine.

From the encyclopedia I learned that they would stop my heart to fix it, but the article didn’t mention how cold it would be when they took me to the operating room in my flimsy paper gown. From the encyclopedia I learned that they would cut open my sternum with a saw much like a Dremel, but the article neglected to tell me that my breastbone would forevermore click where it had knitted back together. From the encyclopedia I learned that they would place drainage tubes against my ribs to prevent pneumonia, but the medical writer omitted the part where—when they snatch those tubes out—it feels just like you’ve been shot.

The punch line to this anecdote is that I went back and jazzed up that scene in my book just a bit. The facts had been correct, but when I placed the additional details and impressions into the text, as well, it began to sing. So yes, I believe that a writer can research a subject or experience to the extent necessary to be able to write about it with confidence, provided that research includes—in addition to just the facts—a first-person account of the experience, or an interview with a person who has undergone the experience.