No.8 in an occasional series on writing non fiction
You are going to carry out the sharpest, most comprehensive research you can. You are going to write to the best of your ability and follow all the stylistic rules to make the book entertaining as well as informative. So, here’s a question; have you done your subject justice?
If your book fails to properly cover its subject, or frankly is not very good, you are not doing yourself or your readers any favours. By publishing a poor book you muddy the pitch for other authors who will need to pick around what you have done before writing a better, more comprehensive work that will stand out from yours and not be damned by association. A bad book may even undermine interest in the subject you believe in passionately.
You may have received the assistance of others in researching and producing your book, so don’t disappoint them. This is particularly pertinent if people are allowing you into their lives by telling their stories or using knowledge they have shared with you. For example, if you are collecting wartime memories from residents of care homes or compiling country cooking recipes from your own village.
It is quite easy to let people down by not sharing credit where it is due, or by ignoring or misrepresenting what you have been told. I’ve received sharp letters from people who thought their contribution or views deserved more prominence in my works. By researching the subject and announcing your intention to publish you are creating expectations. It may indeed be quite difficult to secure co-operation from people suspicious of your motives or jealous of the information they hold. I came across this several times during my research into Roman pottery where amateur archaeologists holding information about key discoveries were reluctant to let it go. Most are now dead, and some took their knowledge with them to the grave.
Expectation is heightened when your subject is particularly sensitive or controversial. Say you are interviewing survivors of domestic abuse; you have a duty to your witnesses to present their experiences without flinching. In some cases, witnesses wish to remain anonymous, and you should normally protect that wish. However, it may be your undeclared intent to expose people through their own words and deeds, for example by spending a year mixing with neo-Nazis or religious cultists. If you betray a trust, for whatever reason, be prepared for the backlash.
At times you will need to filter what you are reading or what you are hearing. It is dishonest to ignore it, but that does not mean you have to include everything. When writing a family history, you may interview that uncle whose testimony is full of off-colour political views. You may decide to include what he told you about his life but filter out the politics if they do not affect the overall narrative. Other interviewees may throw out information that is shocking or potentially libellous, for example which neighbour was sleeping with who, which cousin was illegitimate or who was collaborating with the Nazis. You will need to use your judgement when deciding to include such material, aware that by cutting out too much you risk creating a bland narrative that brushes unpleasant truths under the carpet.
Associate Professor Dr Gilly Carr offers these thoughts, “At the same time you must be true to what the archives are telling you – if you do archival research for your work. Writing about wartime events will often be controversial; if you are writing about an aspect of Nazi occupation, for example, then your topic may also be highly sensitive. But you must never falsify what the archives reveal, nor put a spin on it which is not justified by your data. Your research must be meticulous and you should be able to defend what you write. There will always be those who misunderstand or distort what you say (perhaps deliberately so), or who make false claims based on dodgy research. If you are unsure how to interpret archives, seek the advice of someone who can help you. My view is that in doing this work, you are often speaking for those who can no longer speak for themselves, and that is a privilege not to be abused.”
The more controversial you intend to be, and the more sensitive your subject, the sharper you need to be on all fronts. Your research needs to be fireproof, your language carefully judged and the information you present should support your case. It is not necessary to be impartial, you are not writing for the BBC. You can argue for the reconstruction of British society on Marxist principles without taking any heed of contrary opinions, but make sure you do it well. Do not set yourself up to fail with demonstrably poor data, selective use of facts or logically flawed arguments. Too often, political rants on the internet and even those published in newspapers and books fall into logical fallacies such as relying on a ‘straw man’ argument. Conspiracy theories often fall down under such scrutiny. You can devalue your conclusions and let down people who support your beliefs by not thinking things through.
As the old saying goes, “if you are going to do it, do it well.”
Tales of Mystery and Excavation – follow my adventures, hear about new books and subscriber-only goodies. Sign up to my newsletter by using the form below.
Leave a Reply