I enjoy being able to specify precisely what my characters are using within the story context, but this also has the side effect of dating the work into a period piece. For example, if I were to say that a character was driving a brand new Saturn L-Series, then the reader can easily find out that the vehicle was only made between 2000 and 2005.

In stories they mean little to me; A book I was reading recently had the antagonist driving "the run of the mill country club standard black Audi, still mantaining its fresh off the line shine." or something like that. It was enough for me to visualize the car. It may be important to you to get to the specifics of make and model, but it may not be for your reader. Unless it's determental to the story (eg. "You fool! only the De'lorean Z4-90 comes with a flux capacitor!)I don't think its important.

As far as dating your work, I myself think its a hard thing to do in any sense, with or without makes of cars, ther's plenty of other things that are going to date it. Clothing, technology, etc. Another book I was reading (I think it was a collection of of short stories by stephen king under the name bachman) had a "set in the future" vibe. the only problem was that a main conflict was that the character needed to get to a phone. The fact the character didn't have a cell, or no one around did either (no mention even of cell phones) totally dated it. Also Running Man, same book, The character has to mail in video clips of himself (just give the guy a laptop and email the darn things).

Anyways, my point may be deluded at this time, but I think dating your work by naming specific makes is your choice, and that 20 years from now it will be dated anyway, whether you meant it to be or not.

How does it relate to the character and story.

If for example the character is the type who notices such details and or it is important to the plot then it might be in order.

'Dillon turned his head when he heard that all too familiar rumble of the American muscle. Two punk kids in a Charger reved their engine beside him, but as the light turned the turbo charged Audi taught them a lesson about European technology'

whereas...

'Dillon was sweating. The Hughes 500D that had been following him all morning hovered overhead, barely visible. With two kilos of pollen in the trunk...'

...may or may not be a POV break depending on how knowledgable the drug runner is on the subject of those following him.

It is really a matter of relevance, I suppose. Play with it and go with what feels right.

In my own case, for example, when I read about a character noticing that another character is wearing an Armani suit, a Rolex watch, etc, etc, etc, it doesn't give me anything to visualize, because all I can tell is that this is a brand name and that much detail means it must be important. If I've ever seen an Armani suit or a Rolex watch, I didn't know it, so I can only guess what the writer is trying to get me to see.

I'd recommend considering what I would probably call the Babbitt rule (after Sinclair Lewis's book Babbitt for which I understand Lewis created a "biography" and background for his character that ended up being longer than the actual book): the writer should know all kinds of things about the story and the characters, but the writer should not inflict those things on the reader.

Another way of putting it is "Do not punish the reader for all the research you had to do for the story by including all of that research."

However, the question I ask is does the average reader need to visualize the prop object; animal, vegetable, or mineral; thing, character, whatever, from its name. And if so, is the naming exposition a concise description that is readily visualized. I don't think there are many brand names or naming expositions that are sufficiently universal that they would be readily visualized. Ones that are might come in a abundant variety or naming one might cause more confusion than clarity. Have some coke: 8-ounce glass bottle? liter bottle? 2-liter? fountain drink? cocaine? coal?

Like Kathleen's example, there is a good chance that I won't have a clue what you're talking about when you put that in so it may well pull me out of the story. Or my eyes will temporarily glaze over until I get past the testosterone stuff and back to the story.

Another name for it might be "term dropping," because it implies that by using such specific names and information writers may risk giving readers the impression that they are saying "I know more about this stuff than you do!"

My first sentence, ultimately, was the relevant one: Stay in PoV.

My take on your question is that every story is reflective of the time in which it was written whether the author intends for it to be or not. (OSC has an article in his collection, A Storyteller in Zion, in which he talks about that with specific regard to the Book of Mormon, but he makes points that are applicable to all writing.)

If you were setting your story in the past, and you had a vehicle described in the same kind of detail, would you consider the story to have "dated" the author?

I tend to be suspicious of brand-naming in books. It feels too much like placement, and disrupts the story flow for me. But that's just me.

As for this:

quote:

---

For example, if I were to say that a character was driving a brand new Saturn L-Series, then the reader can easily find out that the vehicle was only made between 2000 and 2005.

---

Um, maybe a quick Google search would take me there. But would I bother? Probably not.

Okay, but to answer your question: yes, I think it will date your book to a specific place and time. But all books are, to a degree--that's what setting's all about.

quote:

---

When I name a vehicle, it's immediately followed up by a description for those not "in the know".

---

There is a high chance I would stop reading at that point. You would have taken the story to a dead stop for an info-dump and shown what I would consider disrespect for me as a reader.

As has been pointed out, whether we mean them to be or not, our stories are dated by our own assumptions. There are things that date Lord of the Rings, for instance, assumptions he made that are no longer true in our society even though it was fantasy. This is simply something we have to live with as writers.

I could've run into the same problem with my "Someone is Watching" story. I could've gone into great detail about every horse in the story, but I didn't because it wasn't relative to the story. The only times I did go into a little detail was when it actually added something to the story.

Speaking of different kinds of vehicles reminded me of one of my favorite fantasy series, The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. The POV drives a Volkswagon Beetle, but there is a reason why this is his car of choice, and it adds a lot to the story. Otherwise, it would've been better to just have called it Dresden's car.

quote:

---

When I name a vehicle, it's immediately followed up by a description for those not "in the know".

---

One thing you should watch out for with this kind of thing is that if the POV character already knows this stuff, then who is the POV character telling it to in his or her thoughts?

You don't think to yourself, "I'm going to go for a drive in my DeLorean, a car with doors that open up instead of out and that look sort of like wings." So your character isn't going to think something like that either.

You might have a character notice the surprise of bystanders as the doors of his DeLorean open up like wings, and provide the same information a bit more unobtrusively, though. If the information is necessary at all.

Tell is exposition. Exposition is when a summary, explanation, or backstory is used to tell a reader what's happening in a story, or tell what a passage means. Generally, exposition is frowned upon because it doesn't allow a reader to experience the story in the presence and moment of the story. It also is frequently considered too much information because the reader is not allowed to form their own interpretation of the meaning of the expository passage. No one likes to be told what to think.

Yet, exposition is a useful device for abbreviating information necessary to a story, that's summary exposition. Explanation exposition is when circumstances are explained, like how a wheel works, or what a character is feeling, the former might be needed, the latter is the least respected use of exposition. Explanation is sometimes essential; however, it's more often frowned upon than summary.

A character's background that takes place outside of the present time of a story is backstory. Generally exposition, backstory is considered an appropriate way to summarize essential background biographical or milieu information that is relevant to the story, but exhaustive detail is frowned upon.

Show is scene, where physical description, sensory details, dialogue, gestures, actions, expressions, and other nonverbal clues, etc., even some well-chosen exposition phrases, are logically combined to convey the flavor, ambience, and dramatic action of a scene.

Literal or figurative meanings are the surface versus the subtended or hidden meanings, subtext is also figurative meaning. A literal statement might be something like, "The sky is blue." A figurative statement might be "Pill bottle cotton clouds scudded across the angry sun." Clouds obviously aren't made of cotton and the sun has no emotions.

Rhetoric as far as creative writing is concerned is the tool for conveying figurative meaning through schemes and tropes. For best results, figurative meaning should be easily deciphered into its literal meaning while being read and interpreted without throwing the reader out of the story. Symbolism and imagery, the more commonly known forms of figurative meaning in story, prosody, and poetry, are derived from both rhetorical schemes and tropes.

Most often figurative meaning comes from abstract cognitive comparisons, or tropes as they're known in the field of rhetoric. But schemes are also powerful tools for conveying figurative meaning. The above figurative statement uses both schemes and tropes for creating figurative meaning, emotive resonance and response, and precise, easily understandable literal meaning.

Pill bottle cotton clouds is a metaphor because clouds are not made of cotton and the abstract implication is illness. It's also a substitution for altocumulus clouds. The appearance and texture of pill bottle cotton is nearly universally known; the term altocumulus is not.

Scudded is a nautical term for a sailing ship running before a gale that has become commonplace in describing the swift movement of clouds. Substituting blew with scudded, a rhetorical scheme of substitution, figuratively implies an approaching storm.

An angry sun is another metaphor and substitution. Angry is substituted for red. Red sunset? Red sunrise? Unfortunately that is not as clear as it could be, yet to a continental US meteorologist it would assuredly mean sunset. What makes angry sun a potent metaphor is that red sunsets are usually pleasant experiences. "Red sky at night; sailor's delight." An angry sun implies otherwise.

Causation is the horizontal movement of plot over time of the story driven by establishing a linear train of cause and effect. A cause is a motivation or action that causes a reaction, the effect, usually emotional, that in turn causes another effect or reaction. In story, the train of causation typically rises in a stair-step or escalator shape toward climax rather than a straight or flat line. Causation is one of the three axes of plot shape that contribute to a story's emotive appeal.

Tension drives vertical movement of plot. Creating tension in story might come from suspense, sympathy with the protagonist's predicament, action, adventure, and/or desire, etc. There are seemingly an infinite number of methods to create tension in story.

Opposition drives both vertical and horizontal movement of plot. Opposition is conflict, opposing purpose with problems, progress impeded by obstacles, and so on.

When causation, tension, and opposition are resonating and pulling together in a story, the story will have a potent, emotionally appealing plot.

No harm, so no foul.

I have a BFA in creative writing, fiction concentration, although my transcripts read more like a science major's. My secondary creative writing passion focuses on publishing.

One of my earliest mentors encouraged studying in the Jeffersonian style, anything and everything. I worked as a printer at the time. The job shop master's intent was to improve my knowledge base so I could proofread copy. I've continued broad ranging studies in and out of college. I do want to get an MFA in creative writing, just got to get in somewhere I can afford to go. Circumstances permitting, I'd like to get a PhD, too.

Is it really important that you can't visualize it? I think if a writer writes of a character wearing an Armani suit or wearing a Rolex the intent was to convey something of the economic status of the character - whether or not you can vixualize it I don't think matters.

I have a character who notices eyes, always, because hers are out of the norm. The first time she meets a person she notes his/her eye color. No one else does because no one else cares.

Same thing with weapons, our dear Wolf would notice the type and probably issue year of one when it was pointed at him. I'd just say a "really big gun."

http://www.buy4lesstuxedo.com/sb10D_01442/ws20img/ws20img_5001/inventory/MAG-ROMAII2.j pg

On the other hand flannel is a long-sleeved shirt made of flannel. Cowboys, lumberjacks, down home sorts wear flannel in winter. Dungarees are what most people call denim jeans.

quote:

---

Extrinsic can you put that in words the rest of us can understand!!!!

---

You know, not everything extrinsic says needs to be translated.

Irony is extremely hard to get away with online sometimes, because the usual clues aren't available so that others know you are trying to be ironic, Cheyne.

I feel your frustration, especially since smilies don't really help all that much when it comes to irony/sarcasm.

I know something like "irony alert" beforehand might make it not even worth being ironic, but at least if people were to use something like that, others would have a better chance to "get it."

How about putting "irony alert" more than 13 lines below the end of the irony, so it only shows up after readers scroll down. That way you've got the "huh?" at first, and then you'll get the "ah!" after. <shrug>

quote:

---

Irony is extremely hard to get away with online sometimes, because the usual clues aren't available so that others know you are trying to be ironic, Cheyne.

---

There's also a proposed sarcasm mark that's not catching on, like the interrobang. ‽

I think a useful mark for writers communicating online is the pilcrow, ¶.