posted
Here's my dilemma. I want to write a story (or novel) that contains a lot of international (or at least national) politics, in addition to probably a couple of revolts. I'm afraid that if I said it in a made up world (that would probably resemble industrialized Western Europe) it would lose some of it's punch, because it would be more removed from our experience. However, I don't want to set it in the modern (or historical or near-future) world, because the events that would take place are so drastic that they would significantly alter the shape of our world. I also do not want to be shackled to certain events or characters by history. The decision to set my stories in a a real or fantasy world is something I struggle with nearly every time I try to start writing, because my stories are almost always epic in nature. Perhaps this is just the sign of an young, immature writer who has been too heavily influenced by movies. Regardless, I would still like to hear some opinions and have a little discussion on the matter, besides what goes on between the little voices in my head.
posted
You could always loosely base it on real places. Do the research, familiarize yourself with customs/dress/ flora and fauna and the like, and then simply give it a made up name. Turtledove and G.G.Kay have done this on a few occasions.
[This message has been edited by Isaiah13 (edited April 16, 2005).]
posted
If I were reading it, I'd rather have it in the real world. Tom Clancy does this. So did General Sir John Hackett, _The Third World War_. Go for it.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
I agree. I'd rather have it in the real world. You can still twist and turn it how you wish. A huge number of very popular authors do this. Diana Gabaldon (I may not have spelt that right) whom my mother loves precisely because her books are fantasy but set so close to the real world that it is easy to get really involved and supend disbelief. Turth is stranger than fiction. There are more things on heaven and earth than ever dreamt of ....etc shakespeare knew.
Posts: 112 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
Seems to me that you need to take that list of 'I don't wants' and throw at least one out. Otherwise you're needlessly wasting your time with all this angst. After all, it is your story, what is preventing you from writing it the way you don't want to, getting the story down on paper, and then modifying it to meet your needs? That way, at least you'll be writing, and in the interim perhaps you'll solve your problems.
posted
My opinion is that your story's "punch" would not be lost simply because it is not set in the real world. But then I'm a huge reader of Fantasy so take that for it's worth. You can create a realistic and powerful culture and social structure in a fictional world just by basing it on real cultures.
But you can also have it work well in the real world. Unless you require the use of a large, well recognized city, you can pull a Dean Koontz and set it in a fictional town within the real world. That allows you to refer to other places or people or events without having to explain where, who, or what they are.
If your work is speculative fiction then it's alright to have the events alter the world as we know it right now. You can just leave it implied if you're hesitant to go into detail about the changes caused by your events. If you take the example of Tom Clancy's work, The Sum of All Fears has a nuclear explosion that would have drastically changed things in America following that. It was never actually addressed in the movie but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that they're not going to just go on with their lives there. There's going to be a lot of fallout (no pun intended) from an event such as that.
I think you could do it either way and have it work. You just have decide which way best serves your story. Readers are going to be split down the middle on this topic so you'll never get an answer from them. Some prefer real world stories and others prefer fictional worlds. Like Mike said, it's your story. Figure out what makes your story the best it can be and do that.
posted
The impression that I get from your post is that of the two negative alternatives: distance from real world softens effect vs. drastic changes to the world as we know it, the less negative is the second option. Stories set in the near future that are pretty drastic can be exciting and well done. If it is going to be political, don't create a whole new world unless you are going for allegory or something. Go ahead and be up front with it. Just make sure your story is strong enough to be compelling outside of the political aspect. If readers think you are just preaching instead of telling a story, you'll probably lose some of your audience.
A pretty good, very political novel set in the near future with plausible science fiction aspects is called The Truth Machine. Can't remember the author off the top of my head.
No one can argue with the success of The Left Behind series (though personally I think the writing sucked, regardless of the material) which was very strongly biased. Those books use religion more than politics, but hey.
posted
It was the apostrophe. Who knows what changes that humble punctuation mark have spawned? After all, if a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia can make a tornado appear over Kansas, perhaps that fated ink splot will wreak similar havoc with the web of writing on this site. The question remains: if MR just created a universe rift, which side are we on?
Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
Essentially, when a writer decides to write in the 'real' world, no matter how close to the reality we all know (or claim to know), he or she is creating a fantasy. It is the nature of fiction. If there are specific things about our world that you would like to write about, create you fantasy version of earth. It is no less 'real' than a Tom Clancy novel, as both worlds are facets of the author's imagination, its just that that fantasy world happens to coincide more closely to the world we live in. Sorry if this was a little hard to read, I tend to ramble.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
Think of OSC's Shadow series, all those things were happening with India and China and Brazil, and it wouldn't have been the same if they had been made up countries because as a reader I knew certain things about those countries that made sense with what was happening.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
But you also knew things that didn't make sense with what was happening, right? And most of the important information about those countries came from the books themselves, not your existing knowledge of the real world.
It's a trade-off. There are benefits and disadvantages either way. Choose whichever course suits your story as you want to tell it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
