Challenge: Describe Some Action, Part Three

Last week, I wrote a post about keeping your descriptions from sounding like a laundry list. Today I want to get into the details of describing setting.

Basically, I think setting should be treated as a character. Why? Because every setting is quirky, just like people. Every setting is also unique, just like people.

For example, I live in Chicago so my neighborhood is loud. There are always cars driving down the streets (bicyclists often swearing at them), horns honking, sirens blaring, the “L” train clattering by, etc. If I stick with this kind of description, it kind of seems like your typical rat race where everyone’s in a rush to get where they’re going and no one speaks to anyone at all. But that’s not the case.

My neighborhood almost feels like a small town, without the small town politics. Everyone walks everywhere because driving is such a pain, so we all go to the same places—as a result, we get to know each other. I look forward to going to certain businesses because I love the owners who run them. So, it kind of feels like a small town because I see people I know all the time. And yet it’s still different. The small town gossip doesn’t exist. No one cares if so-and-so got a new car that they probably can’t afford. Or if person A is making eyes at person B. There are enough other things going on that no one cares about these things.

My neighborhood has other quirks, too, specifically with transportation. I can’t count how many nice and helpful people I’ve met on the streets of Chicago. Honestly, this city is full of them—until they get behind the wheel of a car, or climb onto a bicycle. And then some of them turn into self-righteous, homicidal maniacs. Before anyone gets offended and yells at me, let me clarify that there are some very nice drivers on the street, and extremely polite bicyclists. But then there’s the handful that aren’t, and these people are certifiably insane.

Some drivers have a nasty habit of camping out in the right-hand turn lane at a red light, but then, when the light turns green, they slam the gas pedal and swerve left. Basically, they don't want to actually wait their turn to get through the stoplight, so they use this trick and often almost hit the person they're trying to cut off (or actually hit them, which happened to me once...grrr). 

Then, there are some bicyclists who do things like blow through a red light (or stop sign) without looking, or even slowing down, and then cuss out the driver who almost hits them. Again, this isn’t everyone, but these people are out there. You know who you are. :) But once they get out of the car, or off the bicycle, they turn into normal people again. It’s bizarre.

Anyway, I could keep going, but I think you get the idea. If I go to the other end of Chicago, I’d find different quirks. If I go to a suburb, I’d find something else entirely because, guess what? Each setting is unique with its own quirks.

If your character’s home town only has one grocery store, what does it look like? Who works there? What items does it stock? Who runs it? What’s next to it? Who hangs out there, or doesn’t hang out there? How do people get there? These are the kinds of details that need to go into the setting of your story, and that’s what will bring it to life.

Challenge:

Choose a setting that you know well and describe it. Keep in mind that, for this exercise to work, you need to choose a setting that’s big enough to use in a story. In other words, your house isn’t going to cut it. :) Instead, choose a town, a specific neighborhood, a particular region in a country, etc. What quirks does this place have? What kinds of things happen here? What makes this place unique?

Feel free to share your work here in the comments, or keep it to yourself. Your choice.

Realistic vs. Believable Fiction

In the last few weeks, there has been some interesting discussion on author Nancy Kress’s blog and The League of Extraordinary Writers regarding the believability of the Hunger Games books.

That got me thinking about the whole concept of realistic vs. believable. Which is more important? Can you have one without the other? Or must they have equal weight? Let’s look at the definitions:

re•al•is•tic 
1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical: a realistic estimate of costs; a realistic planner.
2. pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are: a realistic novel.
3. resembling or simulating real life

be•lieve 
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person)
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation
5. to suppose or assume; understand

So, basically, one can see if something is realistic either by the way something is shown, or by relating to it with personal experience. In either case, it’s a tangible or specific kind of thing. If one finds something believable, then one may not know whether it’s real, but it’s been presented in a way that looks/sounds/seems plausible.

In Ms. Kress’s case, she found the premise behind the Hunger Games unrealistic, but many people still found it believable. So does that mean believability is more important than realistic? Maybe. It all comes down to how it’s done.

Many science fiction or fantasy novels are based on ideas that aren’t realistic: spaceships, cryogenic freezing, magic wands, dragons, etc. However, the best of these stories are solidly constructed such that the unrealistic becomes believable. Achieving this goal can be done by creating a rich and thorough setting with established rules.

Take Candor, for example. In the real world, it’s not possible to brainwash someone through subliminal messages (not to this extent, anyway), but the story is so solidly constructed that the reader can believe it’s possible in this instance. Same with Harry Potter. Rowling built her world with so many intricacies and details that the reader can totally believe there’s a whole world of magic hidden from normal humans.

But what about people? What does it mean for characters to be believable and realistic? Here, I think the need changes drastically. I think characters need to be equally realistic and believable. Actually, with characters, I think the terms realistic and believable are synonymous. For example, it’s neither realistic nor believable that a parent would briefly pop in on a beloved child in the hospital, even if that child was a teenager or a legal adult. Not without a good reason, anyway. A really good reason. No. That parent would be at his child’s side for the duration, providing all the love and support he could.

This also applies to groups of people. Here, however, there is a need for caution. It’s easy to lump a group of people together and think of them as one, and then assign them a certain behavior. Some examples:
Career women don’t spend enough time with their families.
Old people can’t keep up with the times.
An oppressed populace doesn’t have the will to rebel.
It’s more accurate to say that some career women don’t spend enough time with their families. Or that most old people can’t keep up with the times. Or that most oppressed people don’t have the will to rebel against their oppressors. But it’s neither realistic nor believable to make a statement like this about all of them.

A crowd /populace/category/etc. of people is really a group of individuals. And individuals react differently to different things. This needs to be taken into account as a group evolves over time. Change doesn’t happen easily within a group, but it does happen. And it almost always starts with an individual.

This post is now entirely too long, so I’ll stop. But I’d love to know what you think. Do you think believability is more important that realistic? Do you think it extends beyond what I’ve talked about here? Do you think I’m wrong? Please, do tell!

Creating Believable Worlds

What does good fiction do? It transports the reader out of his world and into someone else’s. Sometimes that world is fantasy, sometimes it’s not. In either case, that world has to be believable or else the reader will roll his eyes, snap the book shut, and move on to something else.

So, how do we create strong, tangible, and believable worlds that will make the reader forget where he is?

Short answer: Research.

Long answer: throughout the years, I’ve heard varying opinions about writers doing research for their novels. Some have said this: “Of course a novelist should do research. Otherwise how can she know what she’s writing about?” Let’s call these people Team Yay. Often, people in Team Yay spend a good amount of time looking up the things they aren’t sure about or just plain don’t know. Some spend more time doing this than others, but when they’re done they are armed with a good amount of info to add to their stories.

Others have said this: “Why should you do research? It’s fiction! A novelist just makes it up as she goes.” Let’s call these people Team Boo. Often, people in Team Boo don’t want to get mired down in a bunch of potentially useless facts. As in, they wonder what’s the point of knowing a detail that never gets used in the story—if they happen to come across something they need to know, then they’ll will look it up. They are more interested in getting the story written rather than spending too much time gathering stuff they won’t need.

Which team are you in, Yay or Boo? Why? I think neither team is wrong as long as the information you include in your story is accurate. Sometimes a writer knows so much about the story that research isn’t necessary. But that writer still needs to pay attention to the details, and if she comes across something she doesn’t know, I think it’s imperative to research thoroughly. A cursory glance at info can result in a misunderstanding, which can lead to incorrect information.

I think anyone who regularly reads this blog knows I’m in Team Yay. Why? Because I need to have all my information up front before I write a single word. I also think anyone who regularly reads this blog knows that I do *way* more research than necessary. I do this because I never know what I’m going to need, and I like to have a lot to choose from. I’ve also discovered that sometimes research can change my story’s direction. I may think it needs to go in a particular direction, but then discover something that makes that impossible. So, yeah, I’m all about the overabundance of research. :)

But what if you’re writing fantasy or science fiction? Those worlds are mostly made up by the author, and the rules and facts in real-world fiction may not apply. So, how do you create a solidly believable world in those genres?

Well, you still need to do research. There are some rules that apply to the universe that you just can’t get around, like gravity. Or the effects of massive heat or massive cold, the weight of snow and ice, which kinds of stones can create a spark, etc. You won’t need to do as much research with these genres, but you’ll likely need to do some. If you want these details to be different from what we know on Earth, then you’ll need to have a reason for it. For example, if everyone walks on the ceiling instead of the floor, then we need to know why. Saying ‘because I said so’ isn’t going to cut it for the reader (that only works for moms).

For the rest of your world, you need to sit down and define it. How does it work? What are its elements, weather patterns, levels of technology, etc? What holds it together and what can pull it apart? You need to sit down and create the rules that your world abides by, and then hold consistently to them as you write. Depending on where your story takes place, this may take as much time (possibly more) as it takes to research real-world fiction. But if you do this in earnest, you’ll end up with a rich and tangible place to transport your reader.