Question: What kind of research do you do for your books, and how long do you spend researching before beginning a book?
I’ll start my answer by describing what I’m doing now to get ready for the fourth Emily Graham story. I first got the idea for the next story as I was finishing Disbelief, and forced myself to just let the idea sit there until that third book was finished. After releasing Disbelief, I started spending a little time each day just searching the web for anything I could find relating to the idea for book four. I usually read several different news sources from around the world, spend time looking through a range of sites like the NSA’s collection of declassified documents (https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/), the CIA’s declassified documents (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/cia-declassifies-oldest-documents-us-government-collection), the National Archives declassified documents (https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2014/nr14-09.html), various pages on the FBI site (https://www.fbi.gov/), and many others. The goal is two-fold. First, to see if I find anything relating to the specific idea I am playing with, and second, to just keep feeding pieces of “stuff” into my mind that might end up finding a place later.
These places were a big help as I prepared to write Distraction, as I found many pieces relating to hacking and radiation that hadn’t made their way into the public news. For example, I came across now declassified reports of various activities around the development of nuclear weapons, many of which mentioned the role played Mallinckrodt Industries in St. Louis. I had just seen that name in news articles I found about the situation with the Westlake landfill in St. Louis, so I decided to find out more about how those two were related (http://tinyurl.com/y3jrnm6d). It’s that kind of synergy I’m looking for more than anything else; finding things that may fit together and see how they develop. The same thing happened as I worked on Disbelief. I read several FBI reports on groups on the domestic watch list, and explored the basic issues they were promoting. Then I came across an article in a newspaper out West about a politician who had some open connections with some of the groups I had seen on that list. As I read more about the politician, I found that he had both spoken and written in support of the same issues as some of the watch list groups. What struck me was not just the connection, but the fact that the politician was open about it, and had used those connections as part of the platform that got him elected. For example, in Disbelief, some of the things coming from the radical group in the story are pretty darned close to the things coming from the real world politicians. I began to wonder if this was the approach of that one politician, could there be others. As I read more, I found there are many politicians, both local and national, who support and embrace the same issues. These people did not become the story, but the idea that such a group could actually exist did.
While the Internet can be a great research tool, as I was researching Distractionand the issue of hacking, I have had a few experiences that reminded me that the Internet is not benign. They have been reminders that there is no true anonymity online, and that everything we do and search for may be noticed by someone. That someone may be on either team. I’ve met them both. As I researched DisruptionI was fortunate to be introduced to a retired FBI agent who was very familiar with the issues I was exploring. I also found that he was at least somewhat familiar with the research I had been doing. During our first visit, I started to explain, “I’ve been doing research on boats and the risks of…” when he smiled and said, “Yes, we know.” He just left it there, and I did too.
As I just mentioned, not all of my research is online. As I worked on Disruption, I was fortunate to have access to a number of family members and friends who were, or still are, working on the river. They introduced me to company owners and others who were more than generous in sharing information and story bits. I was always very clear about what I was writing, so anything they offered was absolutely their choice. They helped make the story come alive. I also talked with several people in various roles relating to the nuclear industry and radioactive issues. Again, I was upfront about what I was doing and in most cased they were very helpful. Most of these folks were very supportive about my bringing these issues to light, and just asked that I change a few names or locations.
At some point, usually after a few months, I sit down and begin writing the story. I keep up my daily reading and exploring, and now focus time on any of the new issues that may come up, or may stumble across something new that finds it’s way into the story. I keep up the conversations with people who are related to the issues and listen for pieces that will help me make the story even more real. That is my overall goal for the Emily Graham stories. Yes, the story that takes place is a fictional story. But the world in which that story lives is very real. And the things that happen in the story are just as real. Thanks to the research and the people who talk with me, I can say that each of the things that happen in the stories are things that have either happened in the “real world”, or are things that have been demonstrated to be possible in the “real world”. The story is fiction. The threat and risks that drive the stories are very real.
As I mentioned above, I am currently doing the research for the fourth Emily Graham book and the issues driving that new story. And again, I am being reminded that truth is far stranger than fiction. But most of all, as I now add the new exploration and conversations to the list of boat and nuclear people, the hacker folks, the politicians, and threat list people, I sometimes feel like I want to just stay home, lock my doors, and hide under the bed.
