Novels with Bibliographies

I've been reading Chris Moriarty's novel, Spin Control. (You can also visit Moriarty's personal website). I'll write more about the novel when I'm done - I still have 20 pages to read. Right now, I want to talk about the bibliography at the back of the book.

I object to bibliographies in fiction. Why? Isn't it better to give the reader maximal information, sourcing your ideas, offering avenues for exploration, and so on?

No, I don't think so. I look on fiction as more art than science. I want it to look as effortless as the over-the-shoulder catch an outfielder makes of a long fly ball. See, it only looks effortless. Only the most naive spectator thinks it's easy.

If the novel extrapolates at all, if it contains any conjecture, I expect the narrative to sweep me along. I don't trust the science because I can't tell where it's flimsy. Well, except in those areas where I really am an expert, like simple computer stuff.

Moriarty isn't flimsy. But the bibliography proves that more thoroughly than the story does. That makes the novel look much more complex than it really is. Not a good artistic effect.