Do you prefer basing your stories in the real world, or your own world?

If I understand Megalith's post correctly and Peachalulu's you're bringing out something that is not as obvious, everyone sees a particular place in their own way. Peachalulu may notice squirrels on the street whereas I might notice Victorian architecture, those are sort of extremes. As much as people criticize Dan Brown novels, I really enjoy reading his descriptions of various places. I would never notice more than a tiny portion of a place on my own but having an author do their research and point out details adds an interesting touch to the story, makes me want to travel there. I love author Tony Hillerman's use of his setting for his stories and how it becomes a part of the story.

I don't read a lot of fantasy, but do enjoy the sci-fi and fantasy worlds created by an author in a movie, it is a little hard to get a good image in my mind reading a book of a totally made up world. So Megalith's version sounds like it would give the reader some foundation to build from.

 

Both. I rotate between writing in the fantasy genre, where I make my own world, to the thriller genre where it's based in the real world. I don't think my thriller's are limiting my creativity at all. I base it on the real world. For example: My current project is based in an Arizona border town. I may go through some times and pick up some things here or there, but the actual town in my novel will be fictitious...just like all the characters who inhabit it.

 

I'm at a point where I've spent far too much time building my own world to consider writing stories that take place outside of it. In order to write about your setting, you need to know it intensely. I could write a story about the Yorkshire countryside for the amount of time I lived there, but I'd still feel as though people would call me out on any tiny detail if I was to get something wrong. And I'm sure I'd need to return to Yorkshire in order to remind myself of what it is like.

 

I have a fictional world that connects to the real world in a parallel universe style, connected by glowing white portals that smell like what's on the other side. (Like a portal that leads to a forest smells like pine sap.)

 

The problem with creating your own world is the same problem that I've seen on low-budget films...they've dressed the set with everything that they can think to put into it, but it still looks just like a movie set for a sleazy bar, and nothing at all like a sleazy bar.

 

I like creating my own worlds, purely because i know that half the sh*t that goes on in my novels just woulnt work in the real world!

 

Well I think this is a totally unfair generalisation. Middle Earth was so beautifully constructed that it felt to me like a real place. George RR Martin's Westeros hardly feels like a set, either. Fantasy and imaginary worlds are capable of transporting you just as much as a crime novel can transport you to a the rough streets of LA or seedy underground London, which can just as easily be described poorly and feel fake. It's determined by the skill of the writer, not the nature of the story.

 

I base my stories and novels on real places, but they might not necessarily resemble those places when I'm done. I love the busyness and culture of Tokyo, and currently playing around with a Tokyo-like setting in my current WIP. I also have another WIP that's set in ancient Sparta.

@AlcoholicWolf is right: a well-constructed and unobtrusive world that feels natural is determined by the skill of the writer. I don't think the setting should overshadow the story or the action; I reckon that's when it feels more like a movie set.

 

That's the point.

I only said it was a problem, not that it was something that INVARIABLY happens in created worlds - just in badly-created worlds.

The advantage of a real-world setting is that everything that WOULD BE there IS there - you don't have to imagine it. But it's up to the skill of the writer to take those details to make it an interesting and convincing setting without spending 500 pages describing the colour of every paving slab in Brighton.

 

I'd say I prefer my own world. Real world takes a lot of research (unless you write about the place you know very well), and it's so much harder for me. I'm doing it now in my WIP and trying to find info about places I've never visited is such a pain in the ass. While walking through the imaginary world in my first book was so easy.

 

I've mostly written in my own worlds.
I've also written about a rundown future version of my own town which includes dilapidated and abandoned versions of real buildings and locations. I don't know if that counts as using real world.

 

I took your question more literally than you have said I am guessing. I focused on "real world" but you ended with "locations" which implies something very different in my mind. I would think when an author uses a fictional world they either have to base it somewhat on our own Earth environment or they are faced with having to explain many details or simply let everything go into a fantasy setting. Most of the creatures in the Hobbit could not actually exist and do the things described in our world, so it becomes pure fantasy in my opinion.

If you are simply making up a town, then to me that is using our world. If you try to use a specific city and some detail isn't quite perfect and the residents call you out on it, who cares? So what if the traffic lights are hanging on a wire or if they are mounted sideways on a corner pole? Even if that detail is significant to the story, hopefully your readers aren't just going to be the people that live there and will find fault with your description or application of their home setting. My feeling is if you use your "own" worlds you are writing fantasy, if that is your genre that's fine; unless you define it to be just like our world and follow the same physical constraints: hundred foot tall robots can't move like a cat with speed and agility as in a Transformers movie.