When Writers Write Dumb Things, Part the Many

Posted by Scalzi 10 months ago | Permalink | Comments (4)

All right, this is likely to be the dumbest article about writing I’ve read in a while: An author complaining that the Internet makes researching too easy:

Recently I have been attempting to write a novel that I have decided should take place in a small village in Romania; nowhere else will do. Yet, I’ve never been to Romania. I also have no disposable income to pay for a trip there, nor a benevolent publisher who might cover the cost of the trip under the guise of “research”.

In days gone by, this would have caused a problem. To accurately portray a country as unfamiliar as Romania is to me, I would have had to spend weeks, months even years in libraries digging out facts about population, geography, cultural preferences, history and so forth in order to create a believable backdrop against which to set the story. I might have spoken to people from that country, or those who had visited it; maybe sampled indigenous foods, listened to music – anything to get a better feel for the place.

That process is changing. Nowadays, thanks to the internet and its many search engines writers can conduct their research at a much-accelerated pace. Chief among the millions of web resources is its most frequently-visited encyclopedia, Wikipedia…

Okay, let’s stop right there. First, any writer who uses Wikipedia as a primary resource, as this fellow claims to, is a credulous moron. Wikipedia has many delightful uses, to be sure, and much of their information is fine, but its very “anyone can change anything” nature makes it a bad primary source for anything, not the least an entire country.

Second, the problem is not that the Internet makes it too easy to research. The problem is that the Internet enables this fellow to craft an excuse for his own lazy research. In effect, what he’s saying is “if there’s some information out there which I find minimally sufficient for my needs that I can find in less than a minute, I don’t feel the urge to put in the extra time to make my work any more credible.” Additionally, he’s saying “If I make make it look like the Internet is the problem, people may not notice I’m extraordinarily lazy sod.”

Well, nice, try, fella. didn’t work. The problem is not with the Internet, it’s with you.

Comments

  1. Kevin Lawver's Buddy IconKevin Lawver

    Posted 10 months ago

    I thought the first rule of writing was to “write what you know”. You break the first rule, all the others sort of crumble, don’t they?

  2. Scalzi's Buddy IconScalzi

    Posted 10 months ago

    Well, in this case the writer is writing what he knows; unfortunately what he knows is what he learned in Wikipedia. Which is a rather alarming state of affairs.

  3. User 2918's Buddy IconUser 2918

    Posted 10 months ago

    So do you not understand that the author is saying that primarily using Web resources is inadvisable and citing Wikipedia, or are you pretending not to understand so that you can be appalled at him?

    I think it’s pretty clear that he isn’t knocking your precious internet, he’s pointing out a trend toward misuse. He’s saying that it is only natural for people to do only as much work as they have to and worries that if too many people slack on their research, then it will become more acceptable. It’s not far off from wondering if the kind of prose used to chat on “wit u on ur net” will help to degrade good grammar and spelling.

    I’m not sure why you react so defensively.

  4. Fussmonkey's Buddy IconFussmonkey

    Posted 10 months ago

    I don’t really get the point of the article. At first, it sounds like he’s knocking those who would use Wikipedia to research everything, but then he says it’s his primary source. Then he says that ”...the internet and sites such as Wikipedia are in fact making writers lazy,” which is just, as John points out, dumb.

    The internet doesn’t make writers lazy; writers make writers lazy. It’s like saying my couch makes me fat.