I'm trying to decide on whether to use actual cities or fictitious, possibly nameless, cities in a project I'm working on. In a modern day setting, do you think it is advantageous either way? Any pros and cons appreciated.
I actually can't think of any real cons for this. It allows you complete and absolute control over the city. You wouldn't have to worry about someone point out how the address you gave would be in the middle of some river in the real world. Really petty I know but basicly its your city to shape however you want. It also opens up so much more. Maybe a battle in the Civil war took place and its honored within the city. It just provides far more opprotunity to use a fictional city then if you pick an already existing one. Also never naming the city/town the story takes place isn't an uncommon practice either. But you should ultimately do what fits best for your story.
Using your own cities, or at least cities you haven't named, allows you to insert interesting or creative locations that could advance the plot. If you need a bridge or a tunnel at a certain place, boom! There it is. With a real city, you have to conform the plot around actual landmarks and locations. A fictional city expands the possibilities to a limitless amount.
Using a fictional city can also make it more universal - the story could take place in any similar city.
Fictional city would make things a lot easier, but you'll need to tread a fine line between telling people too much detail about the place, or risking glossing over key elements. Do youl want to build a city from the ground up or is it ok that people just understand it's "New York-ish"? Other thing to think of is if your book covers events outside the city you'll need to think exactly where it is on the map. Is it between or instead of real cities?
can work either way... just be sure that if you use a real city you know it well enough to not annoy those who do with details that make no sense...
