That is a valid point, Shadowwalker. I hadn't really considered that -- and that was the issue I kept pointing out when talking about the book; that the author was using British English more than American English. (Although this wasn't complete - the spellings were American.) However, I think that the regional dialects and common word usages are a part of getting to know a place. If an author was very familiar with a particular city/locale, they would know what words are used. When I first lived in Boston, I had no idea what a "bubbler" a "packy" or a "grinder" were, but I did learn. When my East Coast husband went to college in the midwest and ordered a "soda" at a restaurant, instead of receiving a glass of coke, he was surprised to get an ice cream soda. And he didn't know what they were referencing when they discussed 'pop." And of course the South has a whole slew of other words and phrases that you don't see elsewhere. And of course, there are smaller issues as well. It was common knowledge in Boston that if you forgot to buy beer on Saturday, then you had to trek up to New Hampshire to get it at a store that was set up like a rest stop, with easy access on and off the highway, unless you lived in a town that had any part within 10 miles of the NH border. You never had to think about that if you lived in Chicago, although if you lived in North Carolina and had no beer on Sunday then you just had to do without, unless you went to a restaurant. So, I still maintain that the more knowledge you have a of a particular area, the better if you are setting a story there. Dialect is just one aspect that you don't really get the full flavor of if you're limited to books and the internet. You don't always know what you don't know about a place.
I would agree with that - but I don't think one should only write about places they know or have been to. Again, it's that "Write what you know" business, which makes no sense at all. I should only place my stories in small Minnesota farming communities? Research on places is just like research on drugs or methods of killing or how a sport is played or how to break a horse - you read about it, you talk to experts - you research. I don't have to kill someone to know how to do it. I don't have to walk the streets of any town to learn enough about it to place my story there. I'm not writing a travelogue - I'm writing a novel.
I totally disagree -- I assume most writers have done this ;-) But seriously -- I agree to an extent. You are right that it is *possible* to do this, and many authors do this successfully. However, if one has never visited a certain locale, that significantly increases the chances that they'll get details wrong. Although the degree varies greatly from reader to reader, when there are details that are obviously wrong, that takes the reader out of the story, which is never a good thing. Get too many details wrong and the story can become completely unbelievable and could be dismissed by a reader even though the underlying story itself is good. It also partially depends on the setting, what else is going on with the characters, how much influence the particular locale has on the plot, etc. Sometimes just knowing a little bit is enough. And of course, if one lives on a farm in rural MN, it would be easier to write about a farm in rural WY, perhaps, than to write about Manhattan. But as part of the research into what Manhattan is like, especially for someone who has never been there, should be to actually travel there if it is important that the story take place in Manhattan.
If that were the case, a great many writers would, again, only write about the area they grew up in - at least until they were rich enough to do all this traveling. That's just not realistic. And let's face it - out of all the readers of a book, how many of them are going to be familiar with a particular area of a particular city? If you make up a bar in Manhattan, are they really going to scream because there is no such bar in Manhattan? This is fiction. Don't put the Golden Gate Bridge spanning the Hudson, but don't worry if there actually isn't a street called Panama. Readers don't care. They only care about what happens on that street.
I sometimes go for different regions than my own, but I wouldn't advise a different country. All the more so if it's possible that someone from that country is likely to read your story. I would advise either being vague or unspecific as to the location, or have your protagonist be new to the area, thus excusing your mistakes with local knowledge and custom. You'll need to do research though. Google Maps can be your friends here.
Probably no one, and this is something I would expect to happen, even if the author was born, lived in and never left Manhattan. But if a story were set in Manhattan, and everybody said "y'all" and called each other "Sugar" and ate grits for breakfast, and someone woke up to a rooster's crow, it wouldn't be very believable. (Although I know someone who moved to New Orleans who rented an apartment and was dismayed to find out there were roosters next door.) I'm not at all saying that one can only write about places where one grew up. But *most* authors tend to set their stories in places that they have some familiarity with -- either they grew up there OR they lived there, even for a short time, OR have at least visited, usually multiple times. In no way am I saying that it is impossible for someone to set a story in a place they have never been. There are a great many things that are possible. What I am saying is that it is much more difficult to do so, and in doing so, the chances are greatly increased that the lack of knowledge of local details will give the setting a false feeling. And again, sometimes this is okay, depending on the story. But this leads me to an overarching question - which is why would someone feel so compelled to set a story in a place with which they are completely unfamiliar? People live in all different places and books are set in all different places. I love getting some local flavor from books, which is best served by someone familiar with the locale. If the setting is so unimportant to the story that it doesn't matter if the details are wrong, why not just set it in a place the author knows? Again, by asking this question, I am NOT saying that it should or could never be done. But if the setting is so important, you certainly would want to do whatever you could to make sure you get it right.
Well, in my case, I write stories with spies and adventurers and people on the 'edge of society' as it were - while they could operate in the Midwest, it's much more likely they're going to be elsewhere. I do extensive research, including contacting people who live in the areas I set my stories. I probably spend as much time researching as I do writing at times. Sure, there are going to be mistakes - but not huge ones, and certainly not the kind that will kill the story for a reader. If getting the locale correct is more important than what happens there, then I guess one should travel there. But I confess I've read few stories where that was the case, because again, very few readers are going to be that familiar with the area anyway. It just seems like writing for those few who are is a waste of energy - and definitely not worth the time and expense of actually traveling there.
Although it might be very interesting to read a story about a spy/adventurer assigned to a rural MN farming community. But your point is valid. There are times when a rural vs. urban setting is important. There also are certain genres that would require at least some of the action to take place in or around Washington, D.C. And of course, depending on what your ultimate goal is for your story, the level of importance placed on getting as many details as correct as possible would vary. (For example, a published novel versus a short story written purely for personal pleasure, with no intention of publication.) I am actually struggling a bit with this issue myself. I have a short story wherein due to the situation the MC needs to be in to explain the motive for what she does, she lives in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala. I have not been to Puerto Barrios. I have been to locations that are within 100 miles of it and I have been to other parts of the Caribbean that resemble it generally. I have read books about it and viewed videos on You Tube. I've visited websites and facebook pages about it. But I still have an overriding concern that I will get details wrong. I'm not paralyzed by this concern, however, because the chances are pretty low that anybody who would read the story has spent any significant time in Puerto Barrios, and most likely has never been there or might not have even heard of it. I'm also not overly concerned about this particular story and issue because it's not my main "baby." I wrote it one afternoon as part of a contest on a different site. I've been considering reworking it and maybe trying to submit it to a magazine or something, but it's really a side project. If I were ever to decide that I wanted to expand it significantly or turn it into a novel, I probably would try to travel there at some point. It would, however, be pretty likely that someone who might read a story of mine has been to Manhattan. So I would be much more concerned about the details of a story that took place there. I've been to Manhattan dozens of times (maybe more -- I've lost count), but I personally do not yet feel comfortable enough with it to set a story there. If I did feel the need to do so, I would go there with a specific idea toward observing details I could use to enhance the story. In my main story, I have a scene where the MC visits Paris. I'm trying to convince my husband that we need to visit there again, for the good of my story.
Last year, I made a trip to Japan. Not that I'm writing a story based in Japan or anything, but let's suppose that I was. Before going in person, I've done lots of research to find out what the place is like. After visiting, of course, I learned a little bit more. Still, I might have been able to get away with writing a Japan based story without having been there. However, if I chose to go into extreme details, then I no doubt would've failed. Then again, it's important to include the little quirks of a place when writing about it, so perhaps it's best to visit in person after all. Just doing a little brainstorming as I'm typing this reply.
Why not set it someplace you don't know? Seriously, why stick with what you know when there is a world of culture to explore and to learn? And if we stick to this ideal then historical fiction will never be written again, since no one has built a time machine to go back in time. I find this adage of only write what you know silly, when we can know a lot. We can study, and learn and press on, until after our research is complete, we can actually feel confident in writing what we do know.
But is it, really? If one of those little quirks affects the story (the city has a lot of dead end streets so the MC gets captured when he takes a wrong turn) then I would agree. But otherwise? Do readers care that the streets have hanging baskets of flowers, or that market day is on Friday and not Saturday? At the risk of being repetitious - we're not writing travelogues. In most cases, we don't need the level of detail that traveling to a place would give (and one is most likely only going to get a tourist's view of it anyway). Most readers don't care. They want enough detail to get the general atmosphere, or to recognize the city, but otherwise they want to know what happens there.
That's a good point. I've considered the same thing when writing the previous post. If the writer chooses to skip the country's details, dare I say that visiting the place in question is not compulsory. Indeed, every place is distinct. At the same time, most of the places we write about will have streets, cars, buildings and people.
I think this is a little bit of a it depends kind of things. However, we can sketch out what it depends on. The first question to ask is if the location is a character in your story. In some stories the flavor of the place is fairly vital, in others the location is quickly painted backdrop to answer the question of where is this happening, but it is essentially a fantasy element. Except for IP issues you could just as easily call it Metropolis, Gotham or Smallville. Another thing to watch out for is if you are using the location to stand in for description. I read a book a while ago set in Seattle the author was proud about the stuff pulled from the real city. I, not knowing the city, kept feeling that when she would tell me that something was happening at this street, square or place that I was supposed to infer what kind of neighborhood that was and how the buildings were laid out but I had no references for the places she was naming. If she had made up places, but showed me what kind of places they were, it would have been better, but I read science fiction and fantasy so I'm used to reading about made up places, which leads to the second bit. The second is the contract with the reader. If you are doing a detail heavy exploration piece, I think the readers could be forgiven for expecting some depth to the place and the place to be real. On the other hand if you have super spies and secret government cabals, I'm not sure the authenticity of your location is important. It should have depth, like your characters, but it doesn't have to hew to reality. I think we can all agree that it would always be better to visit, but there is a cost to that. Sometimes the question is write the story without having visited or don't write. I come down the writing side. Sometimes you can move the action to a place you know, but sometimes you need to go to Washington DC or Wall Street.
I think if you have a choice, it is a richer experience to write what you know and therefore educate the reader. The comparison to historical fiction doesn't work for the exact reason you stated -- we don't have time machines. However, when one writes a piece of historical fiction, the real historical events that are referenced sure as heck better be accurate and the alterations to history have to make sense and be plausible given the circumstances in which they occur. In writing a piece of historical fiction, the author should really know his or her history and should have done extensive research. Since it isn't an option to actually visit the earlier time, the writer needs to do as much research as it is possible to do (by reading books, reviewing documents, watching films, speaking with experts, etc.). In writing about a current place, the amount of research possible for a writer does include the possibility of visiting the location of the story. If you want to write about a place, cannot visit it, but have the urge to do extensive research, by all means do so. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. It's just that there is an increased chance of inaccuracy which has the potential to detract from or undermine the story.
I think we are saying the same thing, minus the visit because that's only plausible if you can afford it. However, research is of the utmost importance regardless of the setting. I don't care if you've lived in the Bronx your entire life, there are still things you can research in order to make your story more realistic.
Sometimes I'll use real estate sites to get a sense of how someone lives in a different country if I haven't really visited. just the pictures of their domiciles and furnishings can give an insider's look to how their cultures might differ.
I just received a tour guide in the mail a couple of days ago from a town on which I'm basing my fictional town. Most towns ad counties have websites and sometimes you can request free informational guides and brochures from their websites and they'll mail it out to you. Nothing beats actually going there yourself, but it's a nice thing to have on hand anyway. Also, like someone else mentioned, visit real estate websites to get an idea of typical housing structures of the area. My favorite is Trulia.
I am a UK writer, and am writing creatively at PhD level. I have been strongly advised by my university supervisor that I should always visit a predominant location at least once. For one of my novels I spent three days travelling the Highlands, because my protag spent several months there in an institute in the 1940's. It was invaluable. I don't think I would have sounded half as convincing if I hadn't made the journey. I also kept logs of weather conditions from the TV (could it really be a sunny 18 degrees in Inverness in Feb?) and trawled the 'net for news items that might be invaluable, and useable for the period. So, yes, I agree with Samo on this one. That said, if a place is going to be covered in a few lines, eg passing through somewhere in a day, I wouldn't bother. I am also in agreement with Cayo Costa; you have to read, read, read around your subject and/or genre. I don't see how you can write a book like so-and-so if you've never read them. When I read an author that I want to emulate or influence me or even because I admire their style, albeit different to mine, I read passages aloud. I look for rhythm, syntax, grammar, that I admire. I got this from hearing how Dylan Thomas used to pace and read aloud anything he was working on. It is amazing how differently it affects you, hearing it spoken out loud.
Another solution: write fantasy set in a world you've built.... Barring that, which details of a locale matter least? - the actual buildings - names of businesses (possible legal repercussions here) - town names (e.g. Stephen King who sets his stories in a fictional New England that anyone would recognize as being, in fact, very New Englandish.) Which ones matter most (not in any particular order)? - speech patterns (word order, rhythm, pronunciation, colloquialisms) - geography - climate - building materials and styles - basis of the local economy - religion (majority and minority) - politics (majority and minority) - the general "feel" of the people (outgoing, reserved, etc.) - local mannerisms (e.g. in Kerala people rock their heads from side to side to express agreement) - dress - what differentiates the classes - local festivals - predominant attitudes (towards work, money, religion, love, sex, child-raising, politics, etc. etc. etc.) No doubt there's more - feel free to add to the list! In any case, much depends on the type of fiction you're writing. For genre fiction (i.e. plot-centered), much of the above matters little insofar as all details serve mainly to advance the plot (with the occasional aside, as for example jokes or nerd-ish expositions about armaments, horses, vulcanology or whatever). If you're writing serious fiction (i.e. theme-centered), you'll know it all matters, and deeply; even though you may not reference all the important aspects of a locale (as shadow walker rightly says, we're not writing travelogues), the choices you make arise out of the necessity to clarify and fulfill the theme. Indeed, you may well end up exaggerating certain aspects of your setting in order to more fully reflect your theme - and there would be nothing wrong with that (within limits, of course), even if it means that the setting of your fiction is not in absolute accord with the actual setting out there in RL. We are, after all, writing fiction, not disquisitions...
In my opinion, this is one factor in the popularity of fantasy among new writers. No research required.
That's true... for bad fantasy. If you're inventing a world and want it to be internally consistent in terms of its linguistics, laws of physics, manners of interpersonal and intersocietal relations, etc., then you really need to do a lot of research. I think it's rather similar to the difference between abstract and traditionally representational painting. A really good abstract artist can paint a realistic picture that verges on photographic in detail. They choose not to, but the fact that they have those skills crosses over into their abstract work.
I prefer to write using a setting which I know, because that way I can convey what is most important to me, which is the local mannerisms the people have, and the mood of the place. I don't think readers care whether there's a hotel at the end of Zafar Street in Teheran called the Intercontinental (there used to be). I think what they do care about is that they get a sense of being there that is believable, within their own frame of reference -- and that is obviously a relative matter. If I'm writing for the English market, I'd damned well better catch the vibe of London if I use it as a setting. That same market won't care so much if I change the name of the Teherani hotel. And Liz's point about the mannerisms is very important, too. When I go home to Texas, people there know that I don't live there. They can hear California in my speech, just as I can hear Texas in theirs. I'm in more of a hurry; they're more relaxed. I think the most important thing is to capture the vibe, the mood of a place. If you zoom in to get details, then those details had better be, if not accurate, at least believable.
Plan your holidays and days away. Visit places where you're going to take your character, and walk the streets. Maps are good for learning the layout but useless for the feel. I was in Port Issac, Cornwall a week ago, in the pouring rain. It didn't feel like a coastal town, but a mountain. The sea was there but it didnt feel or smell or sound like a seaside place, possibly due to the weather. It's very hilly - google maps didnt tell me how hilly it was, so it's a contrasting view i have there. I think if you want to truely capture a place, you have to visit it in person. Not always practical but if i was writing a book to be published, i think i would take the time and pay the traveling charge to visit it, especially if it's important to the story. But as said before, do you NEED to specify the details of the place? It can be tricky enough writing around like and having a job etc, so i understand the inability to travel just to research, but combine it with a weekend break away? win win.
Of course it can. I've never been on the bridge of a spaceship, in a castle under siege by a dragon, in a caravan heading to a strange country. I've also never been a woman, an alien, an artificial intelligence or a telephone, toaster or any of the other things I have written about from their point of view. But, I have written about all these things like I had experiential knowledge of them.. You can pull it off, but you might not be able to fool the people that actually live there. Thankfully, I don't have to do that since I write mostly Fantasy and Science Fiction. But, for contemporary fiction authors, things are tougher. They're so tough that many country's Art's associations offer grants to authors specifically so they can research their work. You may want to check with your own country's Arts programs to see if there is a travel grant available. In the US, there are and there are also tax write-off benefits one can take advantage of. One does have to be very careful, there, though. But, let's say you can't get a grant, can't travel and don't have much source material. What then? That part is a bit more difficult. You can "fudge it" if you're not being extremely specific and your story does not intimately connect with real-world places you have never been. But, if it does, then you must do your research. There are several books on writing that involve researching. Pick one of those up and get familiar with your local library, especially the travel sections. However, it's doubtful you will fool the inhabitants of the areas you write about unless you're particularly intuitive. But, if that is not a big consideration, which it likely isn't, then that's not a problem. A portion of an old adage applies, here: "Fool most of the people, most of the time." Depending on your story, you can probably do that reasonably well. Note: If it's a "setting story" or a "tour" piece, you're out of luck and are going to have to work very hard at making it authentic.
