What Jane Austen Saw

Research ain't everything.  It certainly helps, and I've read books with outstanding research, so-so research, and no research.  While researching an article I'm writing, just today I came across "The Boston Tea Party was a defining moment in America's Civil War".  Now, maybe it's just me, but I thought the Tea Party (NOT the current one) and the Civil War were in different centuries.  That right there is what you call a "Research Fail".

We've all heard "write what you know".  But how is that possible if you're writing a historical novel, or a futuristic?  How about a novel that involves some scuba diving if you're deathly afraid of the water? 

Jane Austen, however, did write what she knew, and we're certainly the richer for it.  She was a keen observer of the world around her, and could hone her words to a razor's edge--the better to cut you with, if you were her quarry. 

So this week I pose some questions:

• Do you "research" or "observe"?
• Do you get what you need before, during or after the story is written? 
• With the focus in most women's fiction being on the characters, rather than the explosions, murders or other selected mayhem of general fiction, is perfect research a necessity?
• And what do agents and editors think about this?  Will they take on a manuscript with great characters, but holes in the research? 

Let's talk