Sunday, October 14, 2007
"Place" in fiction
When reader 3 read my WIP, the first non-family member to read it, she red-circled a few parts where I actually described Detroit in more than a sentence or two. Described the politics or level of decay or why there is no shopping in the city or what the public transporation is like. There were only descriptions of a few sentences in each case, but for her it brought the story to a halt. She asked me if I couldn't get the information into a conversation or put it in in some less static way. Or get rid of it and assume if the reader wanted to know about Detroit he'd read another kind of book. I understand her point and in a short story I'd never do this, but I wonder when this sort of thinking took hold. Years ago, we were very willing to allow writers to describe the setting. Now it's all dialogue and short punchy paragraphs in between. I know your thoughts about backstory, but what about setting? Don't a few grafs here and there help you understand the setting? Isn't forcing it into a converstion just as annoying because how often do people actually talk about it in a crime fiction novel? Any examples of writer's who write about their city/town well without being didactic or boring?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Patti: Dozens of writers came to mind, but the first one I thought of was Steve Hamilton. His protag. is a retired Detroit cop/reluctant P.I. who operates out of Paradise in Michigans upper peninsula. Don't know if you've ever been there, but it's definately booney-ville: Six months out of the year it's mostly one traffic light and a helluva lot of trees--the other six months it's one traffic light and a helluva lot of snow. But Hamilton manages to give the area a breadth and depth that's metro big without potholing the story. [I.m.h.o. of course.]
John McAuley
Thanks, John. I'll check him out. I really think the whole notion of imbedding every setting detail in conversation has gone too far. I'm willing to read about a place for a few sentences without forcing it into a characte's mouth.
John Scalzi, who could probably do quite nicely writing crime fiction, is a master at this. He writes lots of backstory and description in his work, but he seems to have one basic philosophy about how to do it:
If you're going to interrupt the story, tell another story.
He introduces characters with long, humorous backstories where the punchline dumps you neatly back into the main plotline.
It's all in how you handle it. Sprinkle it in, or make up a story to get that information out. But above all, make sure you hold the reader's attention.
I love that line--if you're going to interrupt the story, tell another story. Thanks, I'll look him up too.
James Lee Burke is a master of setting. He lets you taste the food, smell the burning sugar cane fields, and walk through New Orleans without a word of conversation being spoken. You pick up on the politics and the changes of the place through Dave's memories of growing up there, how he used to live his life.
What really jars me out of a story is when the author's character is driving and we have know every detour, every highway and street name, every bit of construction and how the buildings are falling down. Just tell me he drove through downtown construction to get where he was going. Touching on politics? Only when the information is vital to the story line for me. Or it shows why life isn't the same for the character because of the political situation.
I know what you mean. It's easy to forget that because you, as the writer, are picturing the exact drive necessary to get some place, the reader doesn't need to know it. I think these considerations require the most artful writing of all.
Well, you said it was only a few sentences put together, so I think I lean on flat-out disagreeing with your friend. Here's the simple reality. If we get to the point we aren't putting any description in, everything is happening in white rooms between colorless people. In fact, everyone gets to be like a Pez dispenser, just showing up to release whatever comes next from them, be in an action or revelation via dialogue, if you follow me. What's next? Every time a character is introduced they're greated with, "Hello Mr. Short, fat and bald?" so they can be described through dialogue?
You don't need a lot, but I think you need a sense of place beyond a name, and part of that is the description and understanding the dynamics of the place. You've already got some good suggestions here for reading, so I won't add to it, but I hope you can find a way to keep it in. Remember, it's just one reader, and if only one reader out of three thinks that I'd think long and hard before making any drastic changes. Be open-minded but discerning.
And since that one reader is from Detroit the information is overly familiar to her. It might be of more interest to others. But I did excise anything longer than three sentences.
Oh, I think setting is imperative in this novel set in and around Detroit, and the Belle Isle descriptions are done beautifully, but when the narrator bursts in when (and probably where s/he does) the tone changes, and I start seeing the wizard behind the curtain in a way that takes me out of the story. So I think the material should absolutely stay in but be delivered more, well, subtly?
Ultimately, I know you're right so most of them are gone, Reader 3. Thanks again for finding the sections and alerting me.
Post a Comment