um.. i don't know about that.. i think just the act of regular reading is enough..

I read 3-4 books a week, and there are no subjects I won't touch on (except for Mills and Boon type drivel.... draw the line at that) so I can't say one particular genre is more stimulating.

I tend to think that well-researched fiction is probably more informative than some kinds of lighter fiction. For example, I suspect that Anne Rice's description of New Orleans is accurate in her novels.

On the other hand I suppose good fiction can stimulate the imagination.

if its not well researched it would be boring and i'd lose interest and not finish it... so generally i agree well researched is better... but a childs book can be well researched...

<strong>stav wrote:</strong>
It's an odd segue I guess, but that reminds me of a book report I did in high school called Hollywood's Canada that detailed how inaccurately the film industry portrayed the country.

Not to say that authors of children's books are more on the ball than Hollywood producers and writers...

Hollywood doesn't deal in facts Taggart.. you should know that by now.

<strong>stav wrote:</strong>
Yes, they mess with significant historical stories like those of WW II and also others. For example, I watched The Strangers that was supposed to be based on a true story, then went online trying to find facts but just found several discussions suggesting it really wasn't.