Confused and Befuddled

I've been reading - for the 2nd time - one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors. (I'm doing that a lot lately - my favorite writers just don't produce books fast enough!) I read fiction, almost exclusively, but of course always seem to find a goodly bit of the real world - interesting facts about art, geography, natural science, history and the like - in the books I read. And I sometimes enjoy researching the particular bits that I've 'learned' from the story. So, while reading this book, I've also been 'Googling.'

But here I am - a bit confused. My research has led me down a muddled trail - a particular painting referenced in this book doesn't appear to exist. The artist is real, and the subject and even the title are bonifide, but the description of the painting and the year it was painted don't match the titles and years of the 'bonifides.' Very odd.

Befuddling, really.

I am left wondering if the author purposely led us astray... (casting about vaguely here... ) for reasons of copyright/crediting issues perhaps, or the suggestion that this particular painting isn't really catalogued anywhere (which might at least fit with the story.) Or, to be honest, wondering whether this guy doesn't really DO research. Maybe he is just 'winging it' on the basis of some faint, and somewhat inaccurate, memory from his college art history class. (And how do you supposed that conversation went with his editor?)

Mark often accuses me of getting my 'factual' information about the world from the fiction I read (an accusation that, admittedly, has some grounds) and then using it to form the basis of my critiques of politics, foreign and domestic policy... well, you name it, he thinks I've created a 'fluffy' opinion about it based on 'fiction.' He'd say that I tend to do this from TV shows as well, having 'learned' legal precedents from watching Boston Legal, police procedure from The Closer, and medical diagnostics from House. In my defense, I guess I'm thinking I should just be able to assume that someone else has already done the research, and that their research is valid. I'm just benefiting from it in a more enjoyable way than, say, having to read newspapers all the time. Right? (Oh, sure, that's a good assumption.)

(Mark would be the first to also say I wouldn't get 'good' information from reading newspapers either, and I'd enthusiastically agree, but that isn't really my point here.)

The point I AM trying to make here is this: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer to my blog, even after all this time. I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Anything you read here might be a load of fluff.