It’s always amused me when I read a book review that states, “The author obviously didn’t research the material”, particularly when it pertains to fiction.
I suppose it’s because I’m new to the writing world and it hasn’t been explained to me yet. I can understand the comment if ones referring to non-fiction. It’s good to know what particles make up an atom if you’re going to write about it, but other than knowing the number of 9mm shells held in the clip of semi-automatic Glock, how much research really needs to be done for fiction?
By definition of fiction, the story’s made up. It’s an embellishment or exaggeration of what could or couldn’t be real. Other than some technical aspects, how much research is truly needed if the story is written well and still convincing? My favorite novels are ones that make me look things up to find out if what’s written is real.
The other day I got a compliment from a reader who actually tracked me down to find out how much of my book ‘A Nation of Expendables’ was fact and how much was fiction. The reader said it was a fantastic read. He also said it scared the heck out of him since the book’s about the risks of identity theft due to unsecured personal information and the extermination those deemed non-productive members of society.
So, I guess you could say my mission was accomplished!
