Eric,

Carol's difficulty is with her opposition (authors) not her interest. She is between a rock and a hard place. She is not a historian but loves to write about things from the past (and does a great deal of research!). Top notch historians are either academics or have means that allow them to hire researchers to help them collect vast amounts of information, which can be sifted, sorted, collated and organised into texts that display a high level of expertise. This makes it very difficult for an enthusiast to compete. When you write books that are too highbrow for popular consumption and not rigorous enough for those seeking scholarship in writing, then it is difficult to place your work with a commercial publisher.

Research is a monumental waste of time and money.

If a gun is used I do not specify the kind. A gun works for me.
I prefer to focus on the carnage blood, guts and brains.

I don't let my story get bogged down in unneccesary details.
I just let it roll out--it rolls faster this way and the money rolls in faster also.

Ann, maybe it's time for a vacation trip to that pub.

NYT, even if you don't care about the make and model of the gun, it's rather difficult to talk about the results being shot with it if the situation comes across as not being credible due to technical errors. One doesn't have to say it was a .22 or a .50 caliber, but if the novel is a crime novel, such details would certainly be in the police report and/or would be seen as clues to finding a killer. Since the kind of wounds that would be caused by a .22 are vastly different than those caused by a .50, one wouldn't want to describe them in such a way that was physically impossible to occur.

Don, one of my pet peeves is reading books where the facts don't fit the time period or the reality of the equipment, buildings, or places. As a worker at a railway museum some years ago, I was constantly reading novels about trains with inaccurate stuff in them. Some of the inaccuracies were so hideous that--unless the author was writing a fantasy or something in another universe where the laws of physics are different--the events in the novel were actually impossible. One favorite for made-for-TV movie producers is the passenger train that's involved in a terrorist attack or a collision, after which the cars split into sections and go racing down hills toward ammo dumps and other bad ends while the main characters try to figure out what to do. Anyone who does more than a few minutes of research will see that train car brakes automatically apply the instant the cars are separated from each other and/or the engine. End of movie plot!

One can write with little or no research if one writes about what they really know--say, a police officer writing about modern day crimes. Heck, it's his/her job, so s/he can fictionalize it without having to look a lot of stuff up.

Malcolm

Good comments by all.

Don, the thing that made your book "Bearkiller" especially interesting was the authenticity you provided about Indian culture. I mentioned that in recommending your book to a friend.

When I read an early draft of Carol's story about the Cuban Missle Crisis, I was impressed with the accuracy and detail, however I felt that too many quotes was a distraction. It also came across in places as reporting (telling). But the material was and is great. She has done much work since and therefore my remarks may no longer be relevant.

I just read a book by Sam Bourne and wrote a review. He's written a number of best selling books. Some I've rated 5 Stars, but the review I gave this past week was a 3 Star. Too much irrelevant detail in places and I also felt he had a political agenda with this book.

The word "review" more often means "reader's impression" of a book. Malcolm writes a good review whereas I give my impression of what I read. On Amazon, there is no such distinction.