Is it feasible for one to write a piece with non-specific locations for instance or other minor non-specific points, and then submit it for publication with the caveat that the generalities can be decided on by the editor/publisher/other relevant third party...? Cheers, Bri.
No? If you're able to write a complete novel without making any specific references to particular places, then the story should be able to stand without them. If such a thing is possible, then the location clearly doesn't matter, so it wouldn't need to be "decided on" at all. If the location does matter, then it makes no sense that you would change it randomly like that. Either way, I doubt any publisher would approve of the idea--what would it add to the story that makes it worth the extra effort?
Why? If it works as a generic location -- and lots of stories do -- then it works. If it doesn't, nobody else is going to do the work of making it work. Of course, if you are lucky enough to have your story filmed by Hollywood then the chances are that they will change the setting to a US city wherever you set it originally, but that's their job, not yours.
No. Publishers will not accept an incomplete piece of writing. "Some assembly required" won't even be considered.
if i read you right, you're not saying the ms would be incomplete, but only that no specific country/state/city/town/whatever will be mentioned in it... if that's the case, then just make sure it works well that way and do NOT include any 'caveat' in re the editor/publisher/whatever making any changes... they're not there to co-write your material, only to publish marketable 'ok as is' works...
@brihoppy Just out of curiousity, what is the thought behind doing this? There must be a reason you're wondering if this would be an interesting or useful way to handle a manuscript. So. . .why?
Rainy, There was some thought behind it initially...I was just testing the water; turns out to be deep, dark and shark infested (though well intentioned sharks I'm sure!) apparently...!!! One of the pieces I'm writing currently I'd originally set in the UK, but I considered relocating it to North America for the sheer size and diversity of the continent...I wanted to have my characters at one point split up as part of the storyline; they suddenly find themselves cast apart. As the UK is not very large by comparison, I thought it would be a good touch to have them transported to the Pacifice Northwest, Canadian Rockies, Alaska, the Nevada desert, etc, etc; all smack-bang in the middle of nowhere, reeeeeeally remote, yet still on the same continent. What I intended to do was to present both options really, IF it ever came to the point where I would look to publish, and let the knowledgable third party decide. After thinking about it and applying my 'new' philosophy for writing, I kind of decided it didn't matter, but I was still just checking it out for feasibility. Hope that clears things up a bit. Bri.
Ah, ok. Thanks I really was just curious at that point. I do think it's a bad idea for many reasons. Most have already been discussed, but also because you, the writer, should be *there* with the chars. Sure desert is desert--or is it? It's not a silly concept, just not very practical or useful. It was fun to think about though! (I ran with the thought, in my head: what about "pick a war, any war!" lol) Best luck, //R
How many characters? Put a character on Dartmoor, on in the Yorkshire Peak District and one in the Highlands of Scotland then they can be in pretty desolate places a long way apart. Not on a continental scale, but daunting if you're walking!
Bri Just have the courage of your convictions and give the story a geographical place. If you get lucky and the movie industry come knocking, they'll soon relocate it for you. Besides, there are bound to be cultural references in the scene-setting or in the dialogue that only properly lend themselves to one location. If you deliberately set out to avoid those too, then I think you'd probably leave too many holes in the story.
I don't think a story needs to have a specific location in order to work, although there are only so many times you can refer to "The village" or "The town" before you find that you have to name it specifically. If you're really trying to say something with the location though then I would definitely pick somewhere and stick with it. A publisher will be able to see your reasons for picking that particular location. I certianly wouldn't advise an "insert location here" approach to submitting your work though.
I agree. As examples, Cormac MacCarthy's incredible novel "The Road" had, as main characters, "the man" and "the boy" and was largely set "along the road," which was unnamed. The play "Waiting for Godot" was set in a vague location on a country road near a tree. If leaving the location vague serves a purpose in your story, as in these examples, by all means, do so. But if you just can't decide or want to leave something up to the publisher, you'll have little chance getting published. Charlie
A story doesn't always need a specific location. See The Road by McCarthy.. you know it's in America, but that's about it. Also Blindness by Saramago, a city somewhere on the face of this earth. No names, whatsoever. But if locations are important, do what feels right.
