Comments on: perils of the local, problems of the specific

By: Brian Keaney

Brian Keaney — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:19:12 +0000

I try to avoid all references that seem either ephemeral or inexplicable to someone without specialist knowledge. I think you can always make up a generic substitute.

By: pete29anderson

pete29anderson — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:54:48 +0000

Specific local names are good in moderation, but if overdone they risk alienating the outside reader. If they’re to be used, the writer needs to subtly add clues that explain the context to non locals. Otherwise thery’re just a cheap shortcut for implying deeper meaning – like your high school example.

By: Averil Dean

Averil Dean — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:24:14 +0000

I only care about good, rich description. The names of places and brands and whatever are irrelevant to me, and I agree they can be distracting if overused.

By: Annam

Annam — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:50:17 +0000

I think mentioning places/clothing/specifics can be important if there is context provided to give non-locals a chance at understanding the narrative. I do agree that just throwing references into a book can be distracting, unless you are aiming for a highly specific novel. In New Mexico, many novels are very localized, and I think they are targeting readers only in this state.

By: christophergronlund

christophergronlund — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:56:50 +0000

I tend to give people a sense of where something is and leave the real world behind. Sure, if something’s set in Paris and the Eiffel Tower is mentioned (with reason), it’s universal enough. But to mention a tiny bistro by name and mention streets other than the Champs Elysees reads like somebody digging through Google for information. Make me feel the place.

My last finished novel takes place in a made-up town in northern Wisconsin. People familiar with the area might enjoy trying to figure out where in northern Wisconsin it might be, but I often make up places or, at the very least, just shoot for the feel of a real place without all the named details.

As far as character descriptions…in the last novel, I don’t think there’s much of a description of the main character at all. I got a bit self indulgent with describing an old wrestler, but I’ve found that people are going to see characters a certain way regardless of my efforts. With the protagonist especially, I tend to not be very descriptive because I want the reader to create what they want the protagonist to look like in the hope that they’ll like them even more because they had say in what they look like — whether they know it or not.

Sometimes (most times, for me) too much detail takes something away from a story. Years ago, a friend wrote a great story about a widower who takes up bird watching as a way to try moving on. It takes place at Craters of the Moon National Park…no problem with that because there’s a reason for it, and it’s not all description. But…it was obvious that he researched camera gear. He didn’t just mention types of filters (polarizing, for example), he mentioned them by brand name and size. So instead of saying “He put his camera on the tripod,” it was more like, “He put the AF-S Nikkor 18-300mm lens on the body of his Nikon D4 digital single lens reflex camera and then used a quick release plate to secure the rig to his Manfrotto 229 Super Pro Head on his Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod.” One moment, a devastating passage about loss; the next, tech talk that destroyed the moment.

I may be biased about description because I’d rather focus on emotion in stories. But, at the very least, know you’re not alone…