# What is your opinion on fictional settings in stories?



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 19, 2015)

I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of using a fictional setting in a novel. I would particularly appreciate getting your feedback from both a reader's and a writer's standpoint.
_Please note: my story is a crime caper that takes place in small town USA but part of it is set in the Seattle area._


----------



## Ariel (Nov 19, 2015)

Pros: you don't have to research it to ensure accuracy.

Cons: you have to ensure consistancy.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 19, 2015)

I personally write in nothing but fictional locations. Why the bollocks would I want to write about this world? I live here. Seen it. Done it. Moving onto outer space.

#Bishoped


----------



## Red Sonja (Nov 19, 2015)

_'Salem's Lot_ (Stephen King)


----------



## Stormcat (Nov 19, 2015)

My work is currently set in a fictional world. I can make it as big or small as I want it to be, but it sure is a lot of work to make sure everything is consistent!

But if I were to set it in a real place, I'd have to do boatloads of research.


----------



## Riptide (Nov 19, 2015)

Fictional settings are yours to d as you please with. You want a lake, well gosh dang-it, you add a lake! Just make sure if it ever comes around again, you mention that lake, near those same jobs, with those some location indicators.

Normal places connect to your readers if they've been there. If not, well... it might be nice all the same. I personally don't like when an author gives us line by line directions of a city or town because it does actually exist. I'm not good at picturing that kinda stuff so I get lost no matter what they say. I take where they are at face value, no matter if last time it took them thirty minutes in light traffic and they took Lenning down to I-45 to exit at 17d and rode it towards Pebble lane, not Lenning off DI for a straight shot towards Pebble in approximately a 12 minute drive. I don't care.

Adding a real city makes it more relatable and an actual spot on the globe, but unless it's well known with eye-popping tourist attractions, no one's going to know if Hunky, Kansas actually exists or not.


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 19, 2015)

Riptide said:


> Fictional settings are yours to d as you please with. You want a lake, well gosh dang-it, you add a lake! Just make sure if it ever comes around again, you mention that lake, near those same jobs, with those some location indicators.
> 
> Normal places connect to your readers if they've been there. If not, well... it might be nice all the same. I personally don't like when an author gives us line by line directions of a city or town because it does actually exist. I'm not good at picturing that kinda stuff so I get lost no matter what they say. I take where they are at face value, no matter if last time it took them thirty minutes in light traffic and they took Lenning down to I-45 to exit at 17d and rode it towards Pebble lane, not Lenning off DI for a straight shot towards Pebble in approximately a 12 minute drive. I don't care.
> 
> Adding a real city makes it more relatable and an actual spot on the globe, but unless it's well known with eye-popping tourist attractions, no one's going to know if Hunky, Kansas actually exists or not.




Thanks for your feedback. I've been struggling with the decision on whether or not to keep the fictional setting I originally thought up or to use an existing place. Part of this is because since creating the fictional setting, the specific area it was based on has become world famous, thanks to the vampire books/movies. Since my novel is most likely to be geared toward young adults I worried they might have certain expectations. I'm now thinking of using a known place as a reference point, maybe mentioning it as being near to my fictional town but nothing more. The atmosphere is all I'm concerned with properly portraying and I think I might be able to succeed in establishing a foundation simply by referencing the real area in question.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 19, 2015)

All settings in fiction are fictional. 

It doesn't matter if you're basing your story in a real place, city, world - your story is only going to be a reflection of where you situate it. Hardy's Wessex is not the Wessex we know. Spiderman's America is not our America. The aesthetics may look the same, but the characterization of it in a narrative will be a warped version of the author's characterization of it in their perception of that real setting's reality, and their characterization of it will both relate to and be different from ours. Likewise, a fantastical setting will also draw from the author's characterization of real settings they know and relate to and be different from real settings we know.

The same is true for fictional vs real people. We are all always drawing from and referencing reality whether we're calling something real or not. And when we put a stamp of 'reality' on our work, we are always drawing attention to the faults in the mirror we hold, as it is doubtless defective.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 19, 2015)

I base my settings on real places but make changes to history and names so that there is no obvious match. That saves me the trouble of working out directions and distances and all those other consistency issues. In fact for anyone who happens to know Kent a game to play is to work out where the real locations are.

Here's an example of my devious design. My main character works for a Mr. Arnold in his garage on the banks of the river Medway where high performance cars are serviced. The real Mr. Arnold did own a motor works on the banks of the river Medway, but that was in 1896. Walter Arnold was in fact the first person in the world to be fined for speeding. He was seen hurtling along at four times the speed limit, that was eight miles an hour when the limit was two, and without a man with a red flag in front of his car. My story is set in modern times but the name, location and mention of high performance cars are all clues to the basis for the setting, although Mr. Arnold was only a speed freak by the standards of his own time, a joke on my part. Very few people would know now exactly where that motor works was but I know exactly and can visualise the route taken to and from it along real roads in my mind. 

Using Kent as a setting made my task easier as I live here but it gets difficult when one doesn't know a real location well. There is also a brief mention of a town in the USA called Red Spring (not Red Springs, note) and that is I hope entirely fictional. In the story there are vague clues that it was possibly located somewhere around Oklahoma in the nineteenth century but there are no precise details like the locations in Kent in the UK.

I work on the principle that the closer one gets to the action in the story the more fictional the setting becomes, so general references to London, Maidstone, Sevenoaks and Manhattan are fine as they don't figure significantly while almost the entire story takes place just outside Hamwell in Kent, which doesn't exist. It is possible to work out which real village it is based on from the description though.

I agree that it can be distracting when a writer spends too much time describing real routes travelled in terms of specific "interstates" or "autobahns" say. (Obviously I can cope with mention of motorways in the UK.) Nevertheless a little real information does help a reader with local knowledge get their bearings without being too distracting to others. I consider it adequate to mention that someone travelling to my setting from London would take the A2 and then turn south, especially as it is relevant that the passenger in a car in the story thinks that they will be heading due north, but I wouldn't offer any more detail than that. It would just bore the reader to give them any more than a general location within reality even thought the real one does exist.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 19, 2015)

Given the popularity of Harry Potter, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, not to mention the works of J R R Tolkien, I find this a strange question...


----------



## kingofeli (Nov 19, 2015)

I actually prefer to create fictional towns/settings rather than real ones simply because it's easier. I don't have to do as much research. I do, however, have to do more work. I have to plot out the city/town setting all by myself, and the culture of the locals, etc. It gets easier the more you do it, and it's actually really fun.


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 19, 2015)

Bloggsworth said:


> Given the popularity of Harry Potter, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, not to mention the works of J R R Tolkien, I find this a strange question...



Hmm. Should I have mentioned my story isn't a fantasy? The setting is meant to be a recognizable place.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 19, 2015)

PaperbackWriter said:


> Hmm. Should I have mentioned my story isn't a fantasy? The setting is meant to be a recognizable place.



If it's a fictional place it is a fantasy. The point is the same whether it is Never-Never Land or Little Puddlington on the Marsh.


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 19, 2015)

JustRob said:


> I work on the principle that the closer one gets to the action in the story the more fictional the setting becomes, so general references to London, Maidstone, Sevenoaks and Manhattan are fine as they don't figure significantly while almost the entire story takes place just outside Hamwell in Kent, which doesn't exist. It is possible to work out which real village it is based on from the description though.
> 
> I agree that it can be distracting when a writer spends too much time describing real routes travelled in terms of specific "interstates" or "autobahns" say. (Obviously I can cope with mention of motorways in the UK.) Nevertheless a little real information does help a reader with local knowledge get their bearings without being too distracting to others. I consider it adequate to mention that someone travelling to my setting from London would take the A2 and then turn south, especially as it is relevant that the passenger in a car in the story thinks that they will be heading due north, but I wouldn't offer any more detail than that. It would just bore the reader to give them any more than a general location within reality even thought the real one does exist.



Very good point. I'm beginning to think my fictional setting will be situated roughly between two known points with plenty of miles in between. Out there in the real world the landscape is mostly covered with trees and rolling hills and very tiny towns in between. I will place my town right there in the middle somewhere. 

I'm not sure why so many people are mentioning driving directions though. I suppose I should have been more specific in my original post. My reasoning for questioning the use of an existing place is because I was worried about screwing up the physical visual details. I'm not one to list the exact measurements of people or distance between parts of town unless it's integral to the plot (like a woman being all-too aware of her hip size or proving guilt when demonstrating how long it takes to travel somewhere etc)


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 19, 2015)

I can understand where you're coming from. The setting of my story is small town USA and the characters are like you or me, meaning human, born in modern earth times. There is no magic or ancient folklore in the story. It's a straight crime caper.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 19, 2015)

Bloggsworth said:


> If it's a fictional place it is a fantasy. The point is the same whether it is Never-Never Land or Little Puddlington on the Marsh.



My mystery novels are meant to be realistic fiction, but the city they're in is fictional. It's derived from tropes that exist in works that use LA or NYC as their setting, but I avoided either city. There's no myth, magic, science fiction, or anything but good ole 1948 US. But the city is still fictional.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 19, 2015)

Bishop said:


> My mystery novels are meant to be realistic fiction, but the city they're in is fictional. It's derived from tropes that exist in works that use LA or NYC as their setting, but I avoided either city. There's no myth, magic, science fiction, or anything but good ole 1948 US. But the city is still fictional.



You misunderstand - If the scenario is well constructed the reader will be drawn in and be unconcerned by the fiction, in fact will probably not notice after a few pages. If you read the Hobbit, or similar, were you constantly aware that it was an unreal world or so absorbed that the unreality was dismissed from your consciousness?


----------



## alanmt (Nov 19, 2015)

Bishop said:


> My mystery novels are meant to be realistic fiction, but the city they're in is fictional. It's derived from tropes that exist in works that use LA or NYC as their setting, but I avoided either city.



Tad Williams does this in Dirty Streets of Heaven, creating a fictional city of San Judas on the San Francisco Bay shore. It works well, a more sophisticated version of the fictional "Bayport" of the Hardy Boys novels, as long as it doesn't distract the reader.


----------



## Minu (Nov 19, 2015)

PaperbackWriter said:


> I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of using a fictional setting in a novel. I would particularly appreciate getting your feedback from both a reader's and a writer's standpoint.



In your world is NYC turned upside down and people wear diving suits as they swim to work through the Hudson River? That the Leaning Tower is actually covered in real cheese and erupts like some whacky science fair project every fortnight, covering the city of Pisa in goo? That the sun & moon throw on tux jackets and fur-lined hats and "swing their partners round & round" in a square dance before changing positions? 

90% of novels _*are*_ set in fictional locations. They're not obvious to the outsider [or reader] whom has never stepped foot in the city of the story in their lives, and never will, but I've read a number of stories set in cities where I've lived and/or visited and oftentimes sat scratching my head wondering how on earth the apothecary on X street, and which has been there for a 100 odd years, was Joe's Dinner in some novel set in the modern era. That's the nice thing about writing, you get to have fun. Google a city, look at the images, make your world. That is how 90% of authors do it. Do you think an American author, for example, takes a ten-year-old job leave to move to Delhi so that they can write a factually correct city?


----------



## Bishop (Nov 20, 2015)

Bloggsworth said:


> You misunderstand - If the scenario is well constructed the reader will be drawn in and be unconcerned by the fiction, in fact will probably not notice after a few pages. If you read the Hobbit, or similar, were you constantly aware that it was an unreal world or so absorbed that the unreality was dismissed from your consciousness?



With Tolkein, no. The man's done great things, but I don't mesh with his writing. But with Harry Harrison and Robert Jordan? Reality just melts away. It's almost like the opening to Star Wars... there are moments of total absorption that make me think this really did happen a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And I just pray that someday my sci-fi draws someone in that well. To the point where seasons could pass by outside and they wouldn't care, they'd be living aboard the ships and space stations with my characters, breathing in their world.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 20, 2015)

Real settings don't do anything for me to be honest. If you want to set your story in a real place that's cool, but if you describe that place in detail because you've been there/lived there/done your research you can't believe how fast I start to skip over those bits. And I've read a book set in my city, with streets that I recognised, and to be honest all I could think is "Why does it matter that they're on Queen St? Surely just saying that they're in the city centre would be good enough."

Fictional settings just tend to work better for me. If you never name the town the story is set in that's fine, as long as there's no immediately obvious internal inconsistencies then I'm not bothered.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 20, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> Real settings don't do anything for me to be honest. If you want to set your story in a real place that's cool, but if you describe that place in detail because you've been there/lived there/done your research you can't believe how fast I start to skip over those bits.



That's just the point that I was making. It is useful to have a real setting as a template on which to base the story but one shouldn't write about that more than is absolutely necessary. The real detailed template is simply for one's own mental use and what the reader sees is something similar but not necessarily identifiable as identical. For example, I may be thinking about a car driving from London to Sevenoaks but the reader won't know that. They will see a perfectly plausible journey to somewhere in Kent, all that the story tells them, only what is sufficient for the purpose. The adversary in my story is time, so I try to get timings right and need a real image in my mind to achieve that.

It isn't just a question of whether to use a fictional setting or a real one, but one of what the writer uses as source material against what the reader is told. All our fiction has some basis in reality but a story doesn't necessarily benefit from telling the reader that. Tolkien tired of people's assertions that his stories were really a reflection of middle England and its history. He took the view that every story can be seen as an analogy of something else but that doesn't mean anything. Coincidences often do happen. Either that or I really am a time traveller. 

Well actually ...


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 20, 2015)

I have set some stuff in the area were I live, and changed the name. No research required. lazy bum writer eh?


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 20, 2015)

You know, Twilight (the movie, haven't read any of the book) doesn't have anything of Forks, Wa. in it at all. I've been there, my dad lives there. It's a little Podunk town with too little work and too much Meth, and lots of loggers. If you were to watch the movie and go there you would find nothing in the town to be familiar. It was filmed in Port Angeles, about a 45 minute drive away from Forks. But it worked. It's a fictional Forks within a fictional story and it worked. 

Personally I don't mind fictional places in stories. In fact I have come to expect it. Most stories I read that take place in LA for example only mention a few places that stand out. Santa Monica pier, for example. Everything else is generally made up and could be Anytown USA. The author gives just enough info for you to get the idea that it takes place in Los Angeles and only hits on major landmarks when it's needed for the story, but little else.


----------



## Minu (Nov 20, 2015)

PhunkyMunky said:


> You know, Twilight (the movie, haven't read any of the book) doesn't have anything of Forks, Wa. in it at all. I've been there, my dad lives there. It's a little Podunk town with too little work and too much Meth, and lots of loggers. If you were to watch the movie and go there you would find nothing in the town to be familiar. It was filmed in Port Angeles, about a 45 minute drive away from Forks. But it worked. It's a fictional Forks within a fictional story and it worked.



Phunky - that is exactly what I said earlier. What most people don't get is 90% of real cities, real towns, etc. mentioned in books, movies, etc. *aren't *real. There's similarities - they are never 100% accurate. And so they are "fictional". Like yourself I've been to cities / towns in books and oftentimes had a good chuckle because the utter 180 of what reality is to what fiction was. 

Authors / movie directors take advantage of the blatant fact aside from locals - and visitors whom have passed through - not everyone reading / watching is going to know a city / town like the back of their hand. Even places supposed filmed in major cities are filmed elsewhere - there's a film, I'll see if I can find it, which is supposedly set in Detroit. The apartment block they're filming around is in the Bronx.


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 20, 2015)

Minu said:


> ...What most people don't get is 90% of real cities, real towns, etc. mentioned in books, movies, etc. *aren't *real. ...



That's why the smart ones ask questions...so they can 'get it'.  :friendly_wink:


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 20, 2015)

Minu said:


> Phunky - that is exactly what I said earlier. What most people don't get is 90% of real cities, real towns, etc. mentioned in books, movies, etc. *aren't *real. There's similarities - they are never 100% accurate. And so they are "fictional". Like yourself I've been to cities / towns in books and oftentimes had a good chuckle because the utter 180 of what reality is to what fiction was.
> 
> Authors / movie directors take advantage of the blatant fact aside from locals - and visitors whom have passed through - not everyone reading / watching is going to know a city / town like the back of their hand. Even places supposed filmed in major cities are filmed elsewhere - there's a film, I'll see if I can find it, which is supposedly set in Detroit. The apartment block they're filming around is in the Bronx.



Grey's Anatomy takes place in Seattle. Other than the occasional Space Needle shot, you'd not recognize anything. Frazier is even worse. The hospital that Grey's Anatomy takes place in doesn't exist and Frazier's Seattle is only mentioned, there are no "Seattle Scenes" in it, not that I've ever seen anyway. But for those watching the shows, it doesn't matter. It's merely a place setting and it's irrelevant how accurate it is. 

So Paperback... I'd say if it's a fictional place within a fictional story, have at it. Even if it's a real place in a fictional setting, just make sure to add in a notable landmark or something else someone would see as a real thing and go with that. Everything else can be as made up as you want it to be. Unless you're getting into little details about the place, it won't take much research at all, although it would be nice to throw in a few smaller, lesser known things about your fictionally real town, like if they had a Farmer's Market at City Hall every Tuesday during the summer (Darby, Montana). Just enough so the reader feels as if they are there but not too much... But that's my thought anyway.


----------



## Minu (Nov 20, 2015)

PaperbackWriter said:


> That's why the smart ones ask questions...so they can 'get it'.  :friendly_wink:



Unless you live there, you don't get it. You can't get it. You don't know what is real and what is fictional in a book or movie. You can merely go off what you read / see in the book/movie - and what you know via google. That's the fun of writing. For example, unless everyone and their mother has suddenly moved to Sevierville, Tennessee the average reader isn't going to know that an author's reference for Sevierville is actually Clarksville. 


I was there when Hollywood filmed Beethoven's Christmas Adventure. As all the other films have been set in the USA that unnamed town is naturally assumed to be some Podunk little town in the US somewhere. If you don't check or wait for the credits you'd never know it's actually Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada - they filmed part of it down my street.


----------



## PaperbackWriter (Nov 20, 2015)

I was referring to getting that 90% of real cities and towns in movies and books aren't real. I guess I just assumed you haven't lived in 90% of towns and cities so I thought it was a piece of information that you obtained some other way.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 20, 2015)

PaperbackWriter said:


> I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of using a fictional setting in a novel. I would particularly appreciate getting your feedback from both a reader's and a writer's standpoint.
> _Please note: my story is a crime caper that takes place in small town USA but part of it is set in the Seattle area._



I've done both. It's fun to use a real location. Usually the research isn't that hard. When it's hard (trying to learn the problems of Mexico), it's usually worthwhile. To me, it makes something come alive.

It's also nice to have a fictional city where I can make up rules and setting and not have to worry about whether they are accurate. Like everyone said.

I think if you try to write about a real location, you won't go back. But it's easy to bail and make it fiction if that's not working.

As I reader, I love Evanovich's use of Trenton in the Stephanie Plum Series. When an author spends time in a country and can give me intimate details that have nothing to do with the story? I would rather not read that.


----------



## Minu (Nov 21, 2015)

PaperbackWriter said:


> I was referring to getting that 90% of real cities and towns in movies and books aren't real. I guess I just assumed you haven't lived in 90% of towns and cities so I thought it was a piece of information that you obtained some other way.



It's a logical statement. 

Because unless the author is from that town or city, lives at the time of writing in that town or city, or knows someone at the time who lives in that city or town during the writing - they write make believe cities. They are never 100% accurate. I said it a few times, I've been in cities that have been in books [I've lived in 10 European countries, 2 Asian countries, 8 American states, and 7 Canadian provinces] and _*very little*_ is correct between the book [fiction] and what is there [reality]. 

 An author living in NYC, who has only lived in the States, knows no more about the city of Fenghuang than everyone else. Because the *only* knowledge they have of Fenghuang is what is said on google and google is _*never*_ 100% accurate.


----------



## Sam (Nov 21, 2015)

Ninety-five per cent of my locations are real. 

Just because a place is real and looks a certain way, it doesn't mean you cannot take artistic licence now and again.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 21, 2015)

> An author living in NYC, who has only lived in the States, knows no more about the city of Fenghuang than everyone else. Because the *only knowledge they have of Fenghuang is what is said on google and google is never 100% accurate.*



1) Reliable travel-writing
2) Photography (inc satellites)
3) UNESCO, which has a job of being 100% accurate
4) Following news regarding the area

If you think 'Google' is a body of research, you shouldn't be researching your novel, or probably writing one in the first place. When you want to find out something about something, go to specific primary and secondary sources and test their validity. Google doesn't tell you anything aside from where to go - it's then your job to work out if where you're going has useful information.

And your 'logical statement' is about as logical as saying '76.5% of statistics are made up on the spot'.


----------



## Blade (Nov 21, 2015)

Cadence said:
			
		

> When you want to find out something about something, go to specific primary and secondary sources and test their validity. Google doesn't tell you anything aside from where to go - it's then your job to work out if where you're going has useful information.



In defense of Google it does not tell you where to go but simply suggests viable potential sources based on whatever you have provided for input.

Ultimately you have to do your homework here. Once you have established a good source on a particular subject you can just bypass Google altogether. This is a kind of 'let the consumer decide ' situation. Good information sites wiil endure on the basis of their credibility. :encouragement:


----------



## Goob (Nov 21, 2015)

I don't think it's necessary for a story to be set in a real city. Most readers don't need to find a location on a map in order to enjoy what they're reading. Also, it helps unleash your creativity. Instead of worrying about whether or not your description accurately portrays a particular city, you can just write what feels right.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 21, 2015)

Is that fictional or fantasy?
Obviously the fantasy genre speaks for itself.
I really like writing about real places.  I base my fiction on my current hometown, Monterrey, Mexico.
I actually never dared to write since I am from Ottawa, Canada.  I felt that good fiction needs to be written with an interesting locale.
A story about Ottawa?
At 7 pm. they rolled up the sidewalks and everyone went home to bed.
The end.  
So I am neither pro or con on the topic.  I do like the Stephen King or Garcia Marquez approach.  Invent your own little town.  
But one way or another, setting is like another character in your story.

David Gordon Burke


----------

