User blog:PullingoffMasks/How to do your fucking research

''Subheading: Yes the explitive is needed. And yes, I am of the very strong opinion that EVERYTHING you write that may have some influence on someone else's life (given we all live at varying intersections of self and society self) has to have at least some research done on it.''

I will admit that I tend to be very harsh when it comes to folks showing their research within blog writing.

But it's fiiiiccccttiiooon, why do I need to research?
We live in an information age.

In under 30 seconds, you are able to pull up more information on a single topic than any generation prior to ours. You might as well use it.

I also find that well researched writing makes suspension of disbelief a damnedsite easier if the nuts and bolts are at least well anchored within reality.

Now, I realize that my opinion is not shared with other writers, but there is a very BIG difference between suspension of disbelief (an explosion in space) and tramping on disbelief (a human being able to breathe in space without assistance).

Please, keep this in mind as the article proceeds.

What needs research
Somethings, I'll admit, research really isn't needed, but others do need the research before you even think about putting cursor to blog writing.

What needs research (and some reasons why):
 * Any mental health stuff. (The post I wrote is not enough. Mental health conditions are a HUGE field of research and they are something that does need to be handled with research. You will want to research both the clinical stuff, social stuff (how society reacts to individuals with any form of mental bug bears), AND personal stuff.)
 * Narcotics and addiction related topics (Again, this ties into mental health stuff. Different drugs act differently. (which, no duh) Individual reactions to the narcotics, what the narcotics are made of, how it is 'consumed,' and the Culture surrounding the drug are all fairly 'important' to character actions...as is what happens during attempts to become unaddicted to the drug)
 * Over the counter drugs and perscription drugs (This is VERY important if you're going to drug your character after either an injury, diagnosis of mental health conditions, or a deliberate action on the part of another character. Some drugs don't act in the way that the general public thinks they do.)
 * Religion. Including your own. Especially your own. Yes, even if you're raised in the religion you're writing about. (Religion is a touchy subject. The Fear Mythos has two/three concept-beings that work heavily off of religion. It is better to do the research and avoid making stupid errors. And the reason I make the comment that you research your own religion if it's the one you're writing on? Because often times, those who practice are those who know the least about the religion.)
 * Basic medical knowledge. (This is more a pet peeve of mine, but, seriously? There are just some things a person can't just 'walk off' or 'ignore.')
 * Forensics and legal systems. (Just because you watch CSI/Bones/Silent Witness/SVU does not mean that you know how forensic scienceS and criminal law works. Do not contribute to the CSI effect, do your godsdamned fucking research)

So, if I'm to do research, where do I go?
I'm going to say the one thing that makes all of my professors cry (and nod in agreement):

WIKIPEDIA IS A VALID WAY OF STARTING RESEARCH.

Let me repeat that.

DESPITE OF WHAT EVERY SINGLE GODSDAMNED BIG ADULT WRITER TELLS YOU, WIKIPEDIA IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO START YOUR RESEARCH.

Unlike Google, which is very much 'use at your own risk' for research, a good Wikipedia page should ALWAYS have links to both true academic sources, lay person journalist sources*, and 'dummy's guide to...' on it.

Don't just rely upon the Wikipedia page, but instead, expand out from it. ALWAYS ALWAY read around a subject. Not only does it expand what you know, it will also provide you with ways to phrase things in a clear manner.

(*- Journalists are never, ever, EVER to be trusted with anything outside of history, literature, current social events, and possibly basic reviews. They have an agenda, always, even if they claim to be impartial...and you can't trust them not to fuck up something scientific and/or hype it beyond what is actually present in the academic literature.

(And never, ever use The Sun, Guardian, USA Today, Fox News, CNN, Channel 4 News, and/or News of the World as journalistic resources. They are terrible resources, and you should feel bad about using them

...Okay, perhaps my distaste of CNN and Fox News springs from living in the US during the start of "THE WAR ON TERROR," but they're ridiculously biased and SHIT at science reporting. And my distaste of The Sun is due to their overt sexism/Page Three Girls)