You have the skill of working it naturally into the narrative without info dumping. It's not a common a ability.
Someone else said that of me recently, so it must be true :-)
Probably a result of my natural talent for reducing complex instructions/explanations down to the salient points, coupled to my awareness that I do *not* in fact have enough in-depth knowledge from the research to bluff my way past anyone with any actual experience (ditto with pregnancy...), and therefore need to limit myself to dropping sufficient hints to give the impression that I know what I am talking about without going into a level of detail that might give the game away.
My experience is that most of my research tends to be done to make sure I haven't accidentally said something that *isn't* possible (i.e. trying to establish what a pocket-book actually is and what it looks like, in order to confirm the plausibility of a single line of period dialogue invented off the top of my head) rather than in order actively to convey the information in question. Which probably helps ;-)
no subject
Someone else said that of me recently, so it must be true :-)
Probably a result of my natural talent for reducing complex instructions/explanations down to the salient points, coupled to my awareness that I do *not* in fact have enough in-depth knowledge from the research to bluff my way past anyone with any actual experience (ditto with pregnancy...), and therefore need to limit myself to dropping sufficient hints to give the impression that I know what I am talking about without going into a level of detail that might give the game away.
My experience is that most of my research tends to be done to make sure I haven't accidentally said something that *isn't* possible (i.e. trying to establish what a pocket-book actually is and what it looks like, in order to confirm the plausibility of a single line of period dialogue invented off the top of my head) rather than in order actively to convey the information in question. Which probably helps ;-)