My first novel is set in familiar places, which meant location research was a matter of sifting through memories or looking at pictures to remind myself. Piece of cake.
The second novel, which is still being worked on between my ears, is set in two places I’ve never been. The first is relatively nearby and I’m familiar with the general area, but the second – Tulsa, OK – is a place I’ve never visited. Why Tulsa, OK? Because one of the key early characters is a Pentecostal minister in the Oral Roberts tradition. Oral Roberts University is in Tulsa, so it made sense to place the bulk of the novel there. I also needed someplace where rodeo is common, and Tulsa fits the bill.
(Note: this is not a religious book and the minister is a horribly flawed character serving an allegorical role. It’s also not a book about rodeo. I currently know almost nothing about rodeo. But this is a story about the human condition told in an unusual way, i.e., absurdist fiction, and it seemed essential that there be rodeo and religion involved. Obvious, right?)
Which leads to my question: is it necessary to visit a location to get it right, or does getting it right matter? I’m inclined to take a trip and get to know the area, but I’m not sure doing so is essential. For example, in the first book most of the places I’d seen and could describe accurately, but a place repeatedly visited in the first act does not exist. It doesn’t exist because it can’t – I made up the location to fit the plot.
So, how important is it to visit the places you write about versus doing all location research online and through interviews?