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!