Location, Location, Location.

[PlugInMatty]

So I caught up with a friend on the weekend, and we started talking about the story I'm currently working on (link here). We talked about all the usual stuff (characters, plot, length, etc.), and the discussion finally got around to where it was set, and the idea of settings in general.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, a story can be set across multiple localities (such as a Hardy Boys novel), or it can be set in a different timeline (such as Nineteen Eighty-Four). Hell, it can even be set in an 'imaginary' world (such as Lord of the Rings). Each setting is as legitimate as the other, but the whole thing got me thinking...

 

When writing fiction, should a writer stick exclusively to locations they know?

 

I suppose the whole thing is redundant for 'imaginary' locations, as the author is writing about locations that nobody knows. But if a writer is setting a story in a modern timeframe, in a location that exists on the world map, do they have a responsibility to portray it as realistically as possible? And if they do, must they have prior experience with that location in order to achieve an accurate portrayal? And, perhaps most importantly, how do they translate it onto paper?

 

Personally, I think it's an incredibly difficult balance to strike, so I've avoided it altogether in my writing. Jet-setting won't be a feature in my plot, and I doubt my characters will be leaving their primary location (the city I live in). However, for some writers, there is a necessity to change locations in order to advance the plot. And if your information on that location is too scarce, you're jeopardizing the suspension of disbelief that's vitally important to a reader's enjoyment of your story.

 

So how does the writer make this transition as smoothly as possible?

 

The most obvious solution to this problem would be researching your locations. Lots and lots of research. But how much of that research actually needs to be incorporated into the story? For example, I could research the entire history of Paris before sending my characters on a holiday there, but if I overload the reader with information, it detracts from the plot.

 

So when describing a new location, how much information is too much?

 

Avoid cliched information, as well. Some authors fall into the horrible trap of climbing the Eiffel Tower, or marveling at the pyramids. Boring, cliched, horrible, boring. If the reader is living vicariously through the characters, I suppose they'd love it. But for other readers, it drags your story down.

 

Anyway, now that I've told you all of that...

 

How do you control the quantity and quality of information when you're describing and changing locations?

 

It's a difficult balance to strike, so how do you manage it?

[Cynical Romantic]

A few common traps to avoid:

 

1) Allowing the "write what you know" adage to imprison you. Seriously, it can be the best possible piece of advice for a writer just starting out, but on the whole, I think it's the worst advice a writer can internalize because it limits you. It forces you to believe that you can only tell stories that you know, and it discounts the very valuable role of research just at the point when you should be learning it.

 

2) Succumbing to the temptation to play "tour guide", or "show-and-tell". Yes, we get that it's your hometown and you're proud of it and you want to show it off. But if you spend half your story referring to specific places and locales just because you want your readers to know just how awesome your hometown is, then your writing is just going to come across as amateurish. A particularly common trap is using the "outsider" character as a plot device to sneak in all this stuff about your location. It's better if you just assume that your characters take their surroundings for granted, and only make reference to them where it's relevant to the plot.

 

3) Letting your research show. Research should allow you to give a "feeling" of a place, to make it come alive as if it were real. It shouldn't be an excuse to write pages and pages of useless detail. By all means, do your in-depth research. But then, close your eyes and imagine yourself in the place and ask the right questions. It's less about the history and geography and layout of a place, and more about how it sounds and looks and smells. What does the air feel like after it rained? What's the difference between a place that is fast-paced and a place that is slow and steady? What does the desert glare feel like in your eyes? What are your characters feeling?

 

4) Neglecting the small details. Writing a place is like writing a character's accent; you don't want to write it out longhand, but instead, you want to inject small details to give a "hint" or a "flavour". The little things really do count. Paris, for instance, may not be so much about the Louvre or the Eiffel Tower as it is about the metro worker who makes a snide remark, or the character's coworker who wears just a little bit too much perfume. Small details, mentioned in passing, can remind a reader of where you are located without taking over the story.

[Rigel]

I write as someone with an acutely developed sense of geography. More than almost anyone else I know, geographical errors will stand out and help to ruin a story for me. (I can overlook them if the plot or characterization is good, but it's still points against my considering the writing perfect.) I don't require you to fill me in on details, but I do wish that whatever details you choose to point out are correct.

 

As an example, if your characters visit Washington, DC, you don't need to take them to the Washington Monument AND the White House AND the Capitol just to prove that they visited the city. But please don't commit geographical errors that people familiar with the city will notice. There was a movie some years ago called No Way Out which featured a chase scene through Washington DC so riddled with mistakes that the audience I saw it with (in Washington, DC) took the chase scene as comedy rather than a tense moment. The characters jumped off of the Whitehurst Freeway (not possible, as it's a viaduct 30+ feet above street level), ran into the Georgetown Metro Station (which doesn't exist, which is a bit of a sore point for anybody who knows local 1970s history), and took a Toronto subway car (very unMetro-like) before emerging at the Old Post Office Pavilion. Instead of worrying about whether the hero would escape from the villain's clutches, we were all in stitches of uproarious laughter.

 

If your errors are about a place nobody knows--perhaps a small town in Kansas, no one will catch you and your readership will be perfectly happy. If you make errors describing a well-known place (New York City, or Paris, or Washington, DC, or Grand Canyon National Park), more people will catch your errors and a larger portion of your readership will spend their brain-time arguing with your description rather than following your tale.

 

My own personal sensitivities, by the way, extend to a great deal of the United States, since I've travelled all over and am a mapfreak and geo-buff.

 

My advice is that you don't need to show off a lot of gratuitous local details, but the more you research, the more you can avoid mistakes that will sidetrack readers who know whereof you speak.

 

--Rigel

[Graeme]

I think the main reason for people to set stories in locations they know is to avoid the mistake that Rigel mentioned -- describing something when there are people who know that place better and can spot the mistakes you've made. If you look at it from that point of view, Tolkein set Lord of The Rings in a place that he knew better than everyone else

 

There are three ways to address this potential mistake.

 

1. Research. I used this one for my novel Falls Creek Lessons. I had been to Falls Creek a few times, but it was a long time ago. I did some research and found that a number of things had changed since I was there... so to avoid making a complete fool of myself, I deliberately set the story at a time before those changes took place. For my novel, Heart of The Tree, I managed to track down a map of Dubbo, and an old campus map for the Charles Sturt University. I checked the descriptions for student accommodation and then used my imagination. I'm pretty sure I have a lot of the fine detail wrong, but only someone who had stayed at the university would know that, and so far none have contacted me to complain For everyone else, it was just local flavour -- even though I've never been to the university, and the only part of Dubbo I can remember is the airport....

 

2. Mix fictitious with real-life. Again, I did this in Falls Creek Lessons. Many of the places described, such as The Man, The Frying Pan, Cloud Nine, etc, exist, but I kept the lodge that they stayed at fictional. Similarly, with Heart of The Tree, real places, like Sydney and Dubbo, are mixed with the completely fictional town of Moreton. I have a mental picture of where the town is located, but since I've never visited the area, I don't know if it's a swamp, impassable mountains or open farmland. Google Earth would help me, if I wanted, but I didn't bother going to that degree. Some authors I know do, however, to try to make sure the terrain matches their descriptions.

 

3. Ignore the problem. This is fiction. As long as you're not too precise, people will forgive a lot. Of course, if you have people taking an hour to drive from Washington DC to Los Angeles, it had better be Science Fiction....

[Kia Zi Shiru]

maybe I'm a bit naughty, but the places I place my stories are usually not named.... i do know how far things are from eachother (like school and the lover and stuff) or how far they travel by train to get somewhere else, but think about it. How many times do you say "I'm going to see (insert name) and they live in (insert town)" when the people they say it to already know where the person lives. So I kinda kicked that in the but and don't let them travel to places they don't know

 

Apart from that, I use the towns I lived in and have been to to get idea's from how places might look and keep maps in my mind.

[BeaStKid]

Mine are mostly fictional, so I can take liberties with that. Where they aren't fictional, I stick to places I know...or have been to....but in the storyline, that doesn't matter (for those stories of mine that have real-life places)

 

BeaStKid

[Krista]

My first story was based in some made-up town in California.. "Are You Christian" - based in some made-up town in North Carolina... lol... you can use subtle generalities to your advantage. Most towns in California will be more populated than the ones in North Carolina, the neighborhood would probably be a lot more diverse in Cali than NC as well, so you don't really have to know or have been to the places your stories take place. A little bit of research will be all it takes really, and if you're wanting to do a story based in Paris, France and make the location important then you'd need to be more precise.

[Former Member]

Most of what I write now (which will never ever see the light of day) is set in and around Central Russia, no-where too significant yet more than accurate enough to satisfy a local (i.e. me)

 

Note to self: Read Heart of the Tree so I can complain about your inaccuracies

[W_L]

I find the two best settings are either in the past or in the future. In a story set in the past, your historical research is reliable if you do enough of it and seek out multiple sources. In a story set in the future, you can hypothesize ideas about future social, technological, and even geographic developments based on what we know and possibly could learn.

 

For a story set in the present, it will be based on the writer. Research is key, but your story should be something you like exploring in different landscapes and settings.

 

Sometimes, I borrow perspectives from several different regional writers to get an understanding of the area I am writing. It makes a lot of sense if you have not visited Flagstaff, Arizona or San Juan, if you can understand the people, places, and perspectives from other authors.

[Phantom]

Well, I try to stick with areas that I know, yet leave enough to the imagination that it's not specific. For example, a lot of my stories (even though I only published a few) usually take place around New York City (one of my favorite places to visit) or along the Jersey Shore (cus I live around here) and sometimes on military bases (I've lived on four different ones while visiting a lot more).

 

So yea... I try to use locations that I do know, or if I research them I use google earth. However I do caution people against providing to much detail. A few years back I published a story on nifty that used a lot of real actual locations, mainly in the town I lived in. One day I got an email from someone who knew the area I was writing about and it scared me because he started writing me emails on how he wanted to meet me in the diner I wrote about or how he wanted to meet me at my HS. Since then, I changed my online emails, deleted my stuff from nifty (though that was a PITA and I will never publish to them again... but thats a different story) and stopped posting for a few years.

 

Eric

[Duncan Ryder]

There is a theory that the more precise and intimate the location, the more universal the story. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it's true. Every place has its intimate detail. When you know a place well, you can capture that intimate detail and give a reality to your story that people everywhere relate to...I think because it just rings true.

 

Canadian short story writer Alice Munroe just won the Man Booker International Prize, arguably the most important literary prize for writing in English. I was just reading an article about the presentation this morning (today's Globe, for any Canadians reading this) and that was one of the points made about her writing. The universality of it precisely because it is so carefully set. (I mean...the stories are set in small towns in Ontario, Canada...but the people, the people are universal.)

 

The point is that you don't have to avoid setting a story in a particular place that may not seem exciting to you just because you know it so well. The drama of the story comes from the people anyway. And the thing about setting it in a place you know is that you have an intimacy with location that gives you power that you just don't have with a researched location.

 

You don't have to give a lot of detail either. I get quite a few emails from all over the world from people who say they like "learning about Canada" in my stories... (I've even had emails asking for more description, oddly... I thought people skipped those bits, lol). It always surprises me because I don't think there is that much detail (beyond fog and snow...) but apparently boring old Canada is interesting to people in places like India that are so exotic to me...

[Nephylim]

I think I take the cop out way too... I tend not to be too specific about where the story is set. For example in To Have and to Hold it is (mosly) set in a seaside town. I describe certain things... like an alley between a club and an amusement arcade, an old abandoned hotel near an industrial park.... a piece of land jutting out into the sea.... a church... and Asda store.... They could be anywhere and everywhere. I keep the descriptions general... sights sounds and places you can find in or near almost any seaside town... people will recognise bits and pieces of places they are familiar with and add in the detail themselves.