[ SECRET POST #2687 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2687 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Breadth vs. depth in writing research

[(Anonymous)]

OP

Thanks for your response!

I definitely feel the same way on not adding on what amounts to "Hey, I did research! APPRECIATE IT". I think one of my sticking points where I can fall down the research hole is in trying to make sure that when different characters discuss something they should have solid grounding in or a strong stance on (especially when I don't), they do so in... well, character.

For instance, one very image-conscious character finds himself wanting to get back into his previous, high-profile career, so the topic of his former work sneaks into his conversations when he gets the reins. And he's a talker, and a bit of a bullshitter. When he mentions his old job to acquaintances, it should be different from when he expounds on it to impress a potential networking contact, or uses it for leverage in a debate with his current coworkers in a related field. He's meant to be comfortable with adjusting vocabulary and what parts he plays up on the fly, but he sometimes misreads his audience or over-extends himself.

So I don't want to unintentionally have him impress a contact with the equivalent of "I am highly proficient in Microsoft Word", but I do want the practical knowledge and experience limits that he ends up having be believable despite being relatively intelligent and ambitious, along with the choices he makes when he starts bullshitting to cover when he's hit those limits in a conversation(oh, hey, bullshitting to cover limited knowledge, whaddaya know :p).