# Adding a little realism in a work of fiction?



## Beammeupscotty (Feb 6, 2013)

Hi everyone. This is a question about the use of real names as in people/places/bodies in a work of fiction.  

Example 1. The hero/heroin of a fictitious novel say's in conversation...‘During my first year at Oxford I shared a real shoe box of a room with another fresher, a  guy by the name of ??????.  

Example 2. ‘Problem Brad?’ asked professor Pettucci. The Medieval Literature Goddess who’s twin, Sophia Loren, she looked so much like.

In he first example, a world renowned University is mentioned. In the second example, a beautiful and world famous actress is mentioned.

I have read that: 'With fictitious novels, it is better to make up ones own names for people and places.' But is this set in stone? Can we not use those people and or places that we admire to add a little realism or as anchor to aid description or pictorial identification. 

Do we seek permission from say a University and or person (if living of course) before we include them?

What are the guidelines?

All the best.

Scott.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 6, 2013)

My understanding is that public places and figures are fine to use, as long as you don't, for example, make Ms Loren into a serial killer. Many public places (particularly universities) have been used as settings in fiction.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 6, 2013)

Using real names cripples your work.  People reading about a character named Sophia Loren aren't going to think about the character; they'll be picturing the actress.  Why would you want that?

Besides that, there's the potential for libel and defamation lawsuits, and so on.  It's just not worth it.


----------



## moderan (Feb 6, 2013)

Verisimilitude is the word. Pass it on.


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 6, 2013)

It also depends on the setting, if the story takes place in our world (so to speak) but with such or such added then it would be hard not to use actual locations (just be sure to do some research!) but it may be best not to make a real person the main character (unless of course you are writing a biography)


----------



## Whisper (Feb 6, 2013)

I think it's been ruled that you can use public people and places as long as they are used as extras and not Main Characters.

For example, you're MC could be watching CNN and use some of the people on CNN to add realism.

You could use Oxford as a background or maybe a character visits Oxford or some other known high profile place.

However, what you can't do is use a professor from Oxford as an extra as he is not considered a public figure. You also couldn't use a buisness in you're neighborhood as that is not a high profile public place.


The best rule of thumb is that if they are/were a part of Amerian Culture fair use comes into play.


----------



## Nickleby (Feb 6, 2013)

Real places: okay.

Real people: you run the risk of your reader not being familiar with the person you choose. If I've never heard of Sophia Loren, comparing your character to her doesn't help me form a picture of her.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 6, 2013)

moderan said:


> Verisimilitude is the word. Pass it on.



I agree. 

Otherwise -- as with most things related to writing -- it depends on context. I wrote a story about an old lounge singer who was facing retirement -- an important part of the story had to do with his contemporaries from the days when he was on the brink of success. I mentioned Sinatra and Dean Martin etc -- but it was clear from the context that they were famous singers who'd made it big. For the people who would know who they were -- so much the better -- but the story didn't depend on it. If your character had an affinity for Sophia Loren, a line or two could provide enough context for people who aren't familiar with her -- and for everyone else it would mean just that much more.


----------



## moderan (Feb 6, 2013)

Yep, context. Establishing that is half the battle. Invoke enough tropes in the reader's mind and that's good bait for your hook. You can clearly visualize a William Gibson setting because of the brand-names. He establishes upscale (Gucci, et al) and downscale (WalMart), and creates unusual juxtapositions for subtext. Very effective technique, and an easy example.
Inserts to evoke images or emotion, a verbal shorthand, used in place of infodump.
Old-time sci-fi writers established that Gernsbackian continuum eons ago, with rayguns and spaceships and BEMs establishing context, and he's mined it and refined the ore.
Consistency is also to be desired...one of those old-time stories, Asimov's otherwise excellent Nightfall, is fatally marred by the inclusion of a busy newspaper office on a planet not our own. That's a little too much coincidence for me, though I'm sure he included it just to give his tale verisimilitude.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 6, 2013)

The other thing is -- how big of a "risk" is it? I'm sure I've come across names of people or places I didn't know when I was reading. Pretty sure I've looked up a few things  -- other times I've decided it didn't matter. How much do you want to pander to people anyway -- and maybe miss the opportunity to write something that some portion of your audience will really appreciate -- even if some people don't get it?


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 11, 2013)

I would say your example one is fine, except saying "shoe box of a room" - do you know if the rooms at oxford are like shoe boxes?  Or you would probably need to specify that your characters were not staying in accommodation provided by the college.

Example 2 is bad.  It sounds like you are using Sophia Loren to describe what the professor looks like.  Does Sophia Loren have a twin?  And is she a Professor?

I would never use a celebrity figure to describe what a character looks like.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 11, 2013)

Realism can help people relate in a...wait for it...real world from of mind.  With that said you are going to struggle to find someone that EVERYONE that could possibly read your book could relate to.  If you decide to do this, your best bet is to use someone in history.  For example if you want to describe how beautiful a woman is, use Cleopatra or maybe Helen of Troy.  Using someone like Eva Longoria might work for some people, but not as many as the others would provide.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 11, 2013)

Wouldn't it be easier to just use Sophia Loren as a model to describe a character of your own creation?  You could avoid all the legal crap.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 12, 2013)

> The hero/heroin of a fictitious novel say's in conversation...‘During my first year at Oxford I shared a real shoe box of a room with another fresher, a guy by the name of ??????.



On the subject of realism, I'm not sure if talking drugs is an incredibly real concept.

(heroin_e_)



> Wouldn't it be easier to just use Sophia Loren as a model to describe a character of your own creation? You could avoid all the legal crap.



There's a character in John Dies At The End who is referred to as Morgan Freeman because he looks just like him, appartantly.

In the end, whether you are using a real name/place or not, creativity should reign. At least until the editor comes in and starts using the annihilating wrath of the editor.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 12, 2013)

Cadence said:


> There's a character in John Dies At The End who is referred to as Morgan Freeman because he looks just like him, appartantly.



Which to me is laziness on the level of fanfiction.  Make your own darn characters.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 12, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Which to me is laziness on the level of fanfiction.  Make your own darn characters.



Everyone has their doppelganger.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 12, 2013)

> Which to me is laziness on the level of fanfiction. Make your own darn characters.



The character was the author's own. They only had a name that makes them related to a famous movie star, to make the character more memorable and, for me at least, humorous.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 12, 2013)

Much of my current WIP is set in, or near, real towns.  I use real street names, and in many cases real business names.  Other locations are purely fictional.  I have a fictional apartment complex located right next to a real shopping center.  It worked for me to do that.  I could focus on the fictional elements that were critical to my story (A murder which happens in the apartment complex) while letting the real locations fill in the background without much effort.

One of my secondary characters is described as looking like the actor, William H. Macy.  I'm not worried that people won't relate to that.  If a reader doesn't know who that is they will think I'm referring to a fictional actor in the world of my book.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Which to me is laziness on the level of fanfiction.  Make your own darn characters.



Wow. So all fanfic is lazy because they don't develop their own characters? Way to go out on a limb. I love it when people make pronouncements like that. Awesome. I suppose you don't like games that take characters from real life, books, movies, or tv, because that's the same thing, right?
Gotta tell ya, I've seen fanfic that dwarfs the stuff on the NY Times list for creativity and originality. Not that it's a great accomplishment to do so, considering the content of the list and the content of most folks' heads, but really-that's an absurd overgeneralization.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> Wow. So all fanfic is lazy because they don't develop their own characters? Way to go out on a limb. I love it when people make pronouncements like that. Awesome. I suppose you don't like games that take characters from real life, books, movies, or tv, because that's the same thing, right?
> Gotta tell ya, I've seen fanfic that dwarfs the stuff on the NY Times list for creativity and originality. Not that it's a great accomplishment to do so, considering the content of the list and the content of most folks' heads, but really-that's an absurd overgeneralization.



I think it is a bit of laziness on the part of the writer to simply say the character looks like Sophia Loren without actually offering the description.  It's like saying "You know this person, so I won't go into the work of describing them."  But isn't that part of the 'work' of writing?

Fanfiction tends to pivot off of existing characters that have descriptions already.  There's a reason why the original author is held in higher esteem than his fanfic writers.  They're using the original author's hard work and creativity to create a story of their own.  The hard part of character creation is bringing the character to life.  If that's gone, then it's a whole lot easier as you can focus solely on the story.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 12, 2013)

Cadence said:


> There's a character in John Dies At The End who is referred to as Morgan Freeman because he looks just like him, appartantly...



Sounds like the author was making a joke of sorts.  That makes sense.  The problem is, as others have said, if the reader doesn't know the reference it falls flat.  If the author first described the character, then made the Morgan Freeman reference, it'll go down easier imo for anyone and everyone.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> I think it is a bit of laziness on the part of the writer to simply say the character looks like Sophia Loren without actually offering the description.  It's like saying "You know this person, so I won't go into the work of describing them."  But isn't that part of the 'work' of writing?
> 
> Fanfiction tends to pivot off of existing characters that have descriptions already.  There's a reason why the original author is held in higher esteem than his fanfic writers.  They're using the original author's hard work and creativity to create a story of their own.  The hard part of character creation is bringing the character to life.  If that's gone, then it's a whole lot easier as you can focus solely on the story.



Doubtless. What I'm saying, though, is that _some fanfic_ is extremely creative and inventive, and it is unfair to paint everyone with the same brush. There is also "fanfic" written by professionals. Your tarbrush would also apply then to "shared-universe" stories, comics, things of that nature, in which the goal of the writer is not necessarily character creation, but riffing on an established character.
Is a classical musician any less creative or competent because they play the works of dead men? Of course not.
So, calling fanfic "lazy" simply because of that aspect, is, by extension (and for example), calling every director of a film featuring pre-created characters "lazy". I don't buy that for a second. It's _lazy thinking_.
The standard of fanfic as far as the skill level of the average writer is very low...I'd be a fool not to grant that--and that's the reason why fanfic is held in lesser esteem. Not because they don't create their own characters or environments. Those are just a template to work from.




Tettsuo said:


> Sounds like the author was making a joke of sorts.  That makes sense.  The problem is, as others have said, if the reader doesn't know the reference it falls flat.  If the author first described the character, then made the Morgan Freeman reference, it'll go down easier imo for anyone and everyone.


David Wong, the author of that book, runs the website *Cracked*. The novel is crammed with in-jokes and Dennis Millerian subreferences.


----------



## namesake (Feb 12, 2013)

Realism is supposedly a common mistake according a source I have of a list the editors made from a reference book who were at the time editors of Asimov. There are lots of new writer mistakes. I have books of them as people call them useless books. I agree though realism is needed in every fiction. Maybe one way to do so is building strongly on how how the character fits in the plot. Also common sense and what people say, your beta readers, and anyone who reads it. I may sound quick as if I can apply this sound advice but this topic is too important to ignore in lots of genres just for someone such as myself. I consider it as a writing style mistake. So I guess there are two arguments. No I won't call it a beginner's mistake, especially after much frustration trying to get something on the page.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

Wow namesake...that really didn't come across. Realism is a neophyte mistake? How so? Were the editors of the book editors of Isaac Asimov's work, or editors of the magazine bearing his name, like Gardner Dozois or George Scithers?
I'd definitely agree that there are lots of new writer mistakes. Old writer mistakes too.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> Doubtless. What I'm saying, though, is that _some fanfic_ is extremely creative and inventive, and it is unfair to paint everyone with the same brush. There is also "fanfic" written by professionals. Your tarbrush would also apply then to "shared-universe" stories, comics, things of that nature, in which the goal of the writer is not necessarily character creation, but riffing on an established character.
> Is a classical musician any less creative or competent because they play the works of dead men? Of course not.
> So, calling fanfic "lazy" simply because of that aspect, is, by extension (and for example), calling every director of a film featuring pre-created characters "lazy". I don't buy that for a second. It's _lazy thinking_.
> The standard of fanfic as far as the skill level of the average writer is very low...I'd be a fool not to grant that--and that's the reason why fanfic is held in lesser esteem. Not because they don't create their own characters or environments. Those are just a template to work from.


Are you aware that I was not saying fanfic creators were lazy?  Cause I wasn't saying that.  At all.

My point is creating characters is hard.  Coming up with a consistence and coherent character design is also hard.  Taking a shortcut by saying "You know that bad guy on TV with the mustache?  My character is just like that," is a copout.


----------



## namesake (Feb 12, 2013)

It's more something that it is diffcult to detect if a story has realism such as when science fiction needs it. Not that I'd call someone new. Some people think their work may be realistic, while a editor might comment on the motivation or the ending of a piece or a reader as a mistake of realism. Giving coherency to a book or short story might be hard if it isn't structured to be read or flow logically. I'll refrain from using that word. The editors sometimes write in a tone that seems to indicate that term (Grant C.L. writing science fiction by SFWA;we've rejected many manuscripts)since the reason to believe for rejections and calls them unprofessional sometimes in the books belonging to that name. There are good manuscripts I understand that don't get accepted, however realism I won't point as a big factor as there are tastes that factor in. So Moderan, no of course not I wont say it is a beginning learner's mistake but early learners hopefully agreeable.

Anyways Asimov is a tough market, but most mistakes of people who write for nostalgia or without regard to the realism or people who began the hobby like me seem to struggle in many areas not having been young enough or knowledgeable as we are just empty vessels. I won't call realism as being a special thing missing in stories. It's more something that people need to put in everything they try writing since as in it can make for a special case of a good story since it helps people understand. Not because of abstractedness but because we made the story work by answering the audiences' questions (in my case as I am ambitious in plotting and can point to it being mentioned in some books that claim to be humble).

Realism might not be the best ingredient to success. Even though some authors tend to use some unique ideas based on science and facts I think. I appreciate the thought since it does make sense to me no one is a new writer(we begin on a blank piece of paper and from zero knowledge as kids), since it is a difficult task to write a novel for most people since it takes a lot of time and it's hard to find what makes a story stand out. People just say it is talent needed for such a task. Or that people have craft but can never have talent. I want to say passion is talent, but no one will ever know. The debate continues a lot of the time with those last expressions of rhetoric (arguments) in mfas, though to be honest I would not waste my time there unless I wanted to be influenced by writers(my interpretation of what a mfa and a person learning writing should aim for, and this response is to give a fuller picture).

So I guess in conclusion I have two views on realism in stories and many views of what makes a writer sucessful. Best of luck everyone, I am not one to talk of success.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> Are you aware that I was not saying fanfic creators were lazy?  Cause I wasn't saying that.  At all.
> 
> My point is creating characters is hard.  Coming up with a consistence and coherent character design is also hard.  Taking a shortcut by saying "You know that bad guy on TV with the mustache?  My character is just like that," is a copout.


Yeah. Go back to post #19. It was responding to this:


Gamer_2k4 said:


> Which to me is laziness on the level of fanfiction.  Make your own darn characters.


You chose to respond, usurping the role of the person who posted that original statement, and also being fairly patronizing about the whole business into the bargain. You said that a writer who chooses to just reference a famous person rather than offering a description is lazy, cuz it's so hard to create characters. That's very general, and doesn't cover all situations.
Here's an example...there's an Al Stewart song, the Year of the Cat. In it, he references Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre as part of a narrative about watching movies on a rainy day. Very effective. Much more so than if he had taken the time to describe Bogie's lisp, or the peculiar way he manipulated his cigarettes, or Petter Lorre's wide-eyed innocence.
You're just offering generalities. I'm trying to help people with less experience understand that there are no absolutes when it comes to writing.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

namesake said:


> It's more something that it is diffcult to detect if a story has realism such as when something like the genre such as science fiction needs. Some people think their work may be realistic, while a editor might comment on the motivation or the ending of a piece or a reader. Giving coherency to a book or short story might be hard if it isn't structured to be read easily. I'll refrain from using that word. The editors sometimes write in a tone that seems to indicate that this is the reason to believe for rejections and calls them unprofessional sometimes in the books belonging to that name. There are good manuscripts I understand that don't get accepted, however realism I won't point as a big factor. So Moderan, no of course not.
> 
> Anyways yes Asimov is a tough market, but most mistakes of people who write for nostalgia or without regard to the realism or people who began the hobby like me seem to struggle in many areas not having been young enough or knowledgeable. I won't call realism as being a special thing missing in stories. It's more something that people need to put in everything they try writing since as in it can make for a special case of a good story.
> 
> Realism might not be the best ingredient to success. Even though some authors tend to capitlize on some unique ideas based on science and facts I think. I appreciate the thought since it does make sense to me no one is a new writer(we begin on a blank piece of paper and from zero knoledge as kids), since it is a difficult task to write a novel for most people since it takes a lot of time and it's hard to find what makes a story stand out. People just say it is talent you need. Or that people have craft but can never have talent. I want to say passion is talent, but no one will ever know. The debate continues a lot of the time with those last expressions of rhetoric (arguments).


I wish we spoke the same language. I don't really understand what you're getting at here.


----------



## namesake (Feb 12, 2013)

Sorry Moderan, I couldnt edit the post on time. If you want go back to the original post.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 12, 2013)

Yes Fanfiction is very lazy, at least they can change the names to protect the innocent that has yet been proven guilty in a court of law.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> You chose to respond, usurping the role of the person who posted that original statement



Huzzah, I'm off the hook! =P

But despite the "usurpation," I did mean what I said.  Perhaps there are some great writers who write fanfiction.  Okay.  That doesn't change the fact that true writing involves plotting, worldbuilding, storytelling, AND character design, and I have a hard time accepting someone as a writer worthy of my respect who chooses to steal (excuse me, "borrow," "build on") one or more of those elements.


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

I humbly submit to you the work of Philip Jose Farmer, for starters.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 12, 2013)

_True_ writing? What the hell is that?


----------



## moderan (Feb 12, 2013)

Print journalism, as practiced by H.L. Mencken.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 13, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> _True_ writing? What the hell is that?



I define it as someone who has all the skills needed to produce a particular written work.  For fiction, I think one needs the four abilities I listed in my post.  You can have excellent prose or be a phenomenal worldbuilder, but either of those alone don't make you a good writer.  Perhaps you can tell a scene so well you'd capture the attention of even the harshest critic.  Is that any good without the ability to weave a complete, overarching plot? Maybe your storytelling is the stuff of legends.  Who cares about that if the characters are flat as the paper they're written on?

There are plenty of types of writing that don't require all of those things, of course.  A screenwriter doesn't need decent storytelling (that is, prose).  A short story author doesn't have much use for worldbuilding.  A poet often won't require plotting.  And finally, a fanfiction author can do without character design.  While I admit that all four of those require particular talents (a good poet is certainly noticeable, for example, and short stories can be remarkably poignant), I don't think the complete, well-rounded ability of a writer can be measured by anything shorter than a novel.  That's where the so-called "true writing" comes in.


----------



## moderan (Feb 13, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I define it as someone who has all the skills needed to produce a particular written work.  For fiction, I think one needs the four abilities I listed in my post.  You can have excellent prose or be a phenomenal worldbuilder, but either of those alone don't make you a good writer.  Perhaps you can tell a scene so well you'd capture the attention of even the harshest critic.  Is that any good without the ability to weave a complete, overarching plot? Maybe your storytelling is the stuff of legends.  Who cares about that if the characters are flat as the paper they're written on?
> 
> There are plenty of types of writing that don't require all of those things, of course.  A screenwriter doesn't need decent storytelling (that is, prose).  A short story author doesn't have much use for worldbuilding.  A poet often won't require plotting.  And finally, a fanfiction author can do without character design.  While I admit that all four of those require particular talents (a good poet is certainly noticeable, for example, and short stories can be remarkably poignant), I don't think the complete, well-rounded ability of a writer can be measured by anything shorter than a novel.  That's where the so-called "true writing" comes in.


Respectfully, that's a tottering house of cards, held together by snot. It's a way for you as a novelist to look down your nose at people who perform other written creative acts. There are people whose work is very successful that thumb their noses at your ideas and write on happily.
Let's look at A) _A screenwriter doesn't need decent storytelling skills_. Wait, what? Why not? Aren't they telling a story? If not, then whatinhole are they doing? Criminy. A speechwriter needs to be able to tell a story, and succinctly. A screenwriter moreso. (that is, prose)-what's that mean? That they don't use words? That they don't need to choose good ones? Really?
B) _A short story author doesn't have much use for worldbuilding_. All storytelling is worldbuilding. You build a small world, people it, and tell about it. That's the act, in a nutshell. Are you talking about classical-style science fiction worlding, like Hal Clement did? Plenty of short story writers do it, create overarching themes and environments to tell their tales in. It's a staple of fantasy and science fiction, and is also prevalent in mystery/suspense tales. A good example would be Chandler's LA. Or Dunsany's Pegana, Smith's Zothique...Smith's Instrumentality, Bryant's Cinnabar, moderan's Crazytown. I could go on and on here.
C) A poet often won't require plotting. Well, okay. Not _often_. But prose writers would be better served to pay attention to rhythm, meter, cadence. And the bardic poets and lyricists certainly require plotting skills. They tell stories.
D) _A fan fiction author can do without character design_. Not really, and for reasons covered earlier. Fanfic doesn't always have to do with character. Sometimes it is environment, setting, sometimes it is combination. To say this is to be ignorant of the fact that good fanfic is good writing, period, and partakes of all of the above. Yeah, Kirk kisses Spock stories don't demand much in the way of characterization, and this is the idea you're pushing-that it's all like that. But it isn't.
Strictly speaking, as covered previously, shared-universe stories are fanfic. So you're saying that anyone who writes in the Marvel Universe or pens Cthulhu Mythos stories or novelizes Star Trek scripts doesn't have to have storytelling skills, or the ability to establish character, since the characters are already defined clearly.
Hogwash. They're given parameters to work with.
While I fight the fanfic label the way Ellison fought the sci-fi label, in favor of the forty or so Mythos stories I've written and had published, the fact remains that it is an ill-informed and prejudiced public that makes such stories seem a cultural backwater, a ghetto repository of substandard ideation.
Philip Jose Farmer wrote famously that all fictional universes intersect at some point, and proceeded to work along those lines. Of course, he had to be careful to remain within the public domain. But he had a whale of a time crafting the adventures of Greatheart Silver and the crew, and I notice that the scribes of Dr. Who vigorously apply characters and tropes from other universes in their tales. Those are just a couple of examples of why this is an extremely wonky and unstable house of cards, this theory of yours.


----------

