I like detective stories.
After crime happens, the writer would clutter readers'minds with thousands of realities and lies from all the suspects. Each combination of the clues could inspire us to make a possible inference, then we get completely lost.
But not the detective, he would prioritize only useful lines and build rational connections. By doing so, he is so close to the truth that inspiration from someone's unintentional words, something's unexpected appearance or a casual recap would reveal the murder.
Then, we put off the book and feel satisfied to remark the writer's trick.
Why I write these above? Because the past week I'm lost in the mess of my collected materials. I have no clue. So I start to watch my favorite TV series of great detectives Poirot and Marple to change the mood.
Since most of the stories are very familiar to me, I pay attention to how much is the proportion of lucky inspirations in their investigation and when do they occur.
The detective is building a network to restore the truth. Only after the-last-occurrence inspiration is found, it's a fully connected graph without missing links.
Doing research also likes finding the hidden truth of a crime, the materials as the clues, I have to connect them into a convincing story.