Thread: Location: Story vs. Real Life

The book I'm working on is based in Arlington, Texas. The opening scene is on the UT campus there. I found a map some time ago of the campus, but it's just a simple layout of buildings, streets and parking lots. With Google Maps available now, I've gone to the campus and looked at things from street level. It's nothing like what I described in my story. So, I suppose my question is: Do I change the story to reflect the real life scenery or not worry about it?

I would just go with it the way it was unless there were major, major anachronistic things in it such as a seashore, SNOW (lol), MOUNTAINS, etc.--something that's just totally out of place or unbelievable.

But keep in mind that if the story sees publication and a lot of people read it, then you may catch flack for it not being true-to-location enough. You know how people are!

Personally, I would not write a scene in a place where I had never, ever been. I might write a scene in a part of a city I'd never been in based on Google Earth, but I would not write a scene in a city I'd never been in--but that's just me.

Ultimately if the book gets onto a publisher's desk, you'll want to think about changing the setting to make it more realistic if you don't now, but for the time being I don't think picking through the entire narrative to edit for setting would be a good use of your skill and effort. Maybe finish the entire story first so you don't lose your momentum....? then go back and put in more details about the campus.....? maybe....?

However you decide to go, good luck!

I am presuming fiction, I would therefore propose changing the name of the campus to a fictional one based on the original. Then the literature classes can observe how clever you are at blending the fictional with the real, the concrete reality with the observed ephemera.
There is a serious point here, you can do anything in fiction, you don't have to be tied to reality if you don't choose.

Maybe finish the entire story first so you don't lose your momentum....?

A good point, in an outline at least, once the order is established it is easy to adjust background.

The full first manuscript is finished. I was going back over it for general plot corrections when I found this. The scene is the only one that actually happens on campus in the entire book, so I thought some 'realism' could only help it along. Anyone who's been on the campus would read the scene and say, "I know/lived in that dorm, but there's no alley near it." Hence my question. Thinking about what everyone's mentioned here, adjusting the location of the scene - matching it to what the campus actually looks like - won't hurt the story at all. In fact, I might go through the rest of the book and compare the rest of the locations to real, parallel locations in google. Just to see how they compare.

A story moves forward mostly because of what people do. Okay, I suppose it is possible that one day someone will write some stuff about a building suffering terminal decay and how it gradually crumbles and collapses in on itself, and in the hands of a clever writer it could be page-turning.

But, I repeat, stories are mostly about people doing stuff.

Places are no more than props.

Consequently, the writer doesn’t need the detail provided by having personal knowledge of the location where the story’s set, and where lack of accuracy might be questioned by a native.


Consider the following example and then answer the question that follows. Apologies for the setting-up paragraph.

“Now, she reflected on the previous night. Within minutes of arriving, she’d attracted the attention of a tall blue-eyed Flying Officer. They’d danced every number together. Roger was previously posted to 613 Squadron, Biggin Hill, and flew a Lancaster bomber. He was finishing a week’s leave, after a tour of twenty-five night-time ops over Germany without a break. The next day he would take up a new posting with 45 Squadron at Chailey, near Brighton, and be in the air again that night. He’d asked Brenda to come down in the morning and spend the day with him.

She studied the train timetables and a dog-eared map of London. She could get to Brighton from Victoria Station, perhaps twenty minutes stroll from where she now sat in Trafalgar Square.

Brenda gathered her belongings and set off. After passing underneath Admiralty Arch, she headed along The Mall, past Horse Guards and St James’s Park. The London Plane trees cast pleasant shade for her walk. She turned into Buckingham Palace Road and shortly afterwards reached Victoria Station. Her train would depart in fifteen minutes.”


Q: Do you think it necessary for the writer to have visited London in order to write that?

#

Note for RAF purists: I know there were no bomber squadrons based at Biggin Hill. It’s just a story.

Okay, you're right. The location doesn't matter. Or, more accurately, the accuracy of a real life location being duplicated in the story doesn't matter.

<sigh>

Don't sigh, it doesn't stop you if you feel to, someone might appreciate it. But it isn't necessary and you can save yourself the work if you wish.

There's this thing authors can use called "creative liberty". It allows them to make changes to a location, either subtle or overly ambiguous, to suit the course of their fiction. If, for example, you conducted all your research on this college, and then part of your story relied on there being a boiler-room in the basement which, in real life, wasn't there, do you think it would be wrong to add it?

As OX said, it's a story. Sometimes you have to sacrifice plausibility in the interests of good storytelling.

That there might be a boiler in a particular basement is likely or credible, so you're not sacrificing plausibility by putting it there. It would work because it is plausible.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Note for RAF purists: I know there were no bomber squadrons based at Biggin Hill. It’s just a story.

It would be relatively easy to find out where the bomber squadrons were based. So unless you're just lazy, and you want your readers to know it, why not just get it right?

To be honest, I don't remember why I added the sigh to my reply post. And thank you all for the advice. It's a big help.

Originally Posted by JosephB

It would be relatively easy to find out where the bomber squadrons were based. So unless you're just lazy, and you want your readers to know it, why not just get it right?

You seem to have missed the point, getting it "right" is not an issue when writing fiction. I don't think Ox is a lazy sort of person, I can imagine several other reasons for picking it, The name is well known or the fighter squadrons tended to be based nearer London. "Right" for fiction does not necessarily equate to factually correct, that was the point I took from it.

Personally, I would go with a fictional campus name. Whether you have artistic license or not it should (in my opinion) to be at least partially accurate when mixing fictional characters with factual settings. It may not matter to me, I've never been to that Campus, but what your saying to the people who have been is. "I don't really know what I'm talking about."

Just because your writing fiction doesn't mean that you should ignore facts. You would not write a fictional story about the Normandy landing and state it happened in 1946 in Newfoundland's Bay of Fundy. Keeping your facts straight lends credibility to the fictional tale, and (again in my opinion) helps blurr the lines between the two making for a better story.

Anyhow, it's your decision. Best of luck.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

You seem to have missed the point, getting it "right" is not an issue when writing fiction. I don't think Ox is a lazy sort of person, I can imagine several other reasons for picking it, The name is well known or the fighter squadrons tended to be based nearer London. "Right" for fiction does not necessarily equate to factually correct, that was the point I took from it.

No, I didn't miss the point and it certainly can be an issue. Otherwise, people wouldn't bother with doing any research when writing fiction.

Of course "right" doesn't always equate to factually correct. But unless there's a reason to deviate from fact for the sake of the story, then you might as well be factually correct.

Keeping your facts straight lends credibility to the fictional tale, and (again in my opinion) helps blurr the lines between the two making for a better story.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by MJ Preston

Personally, I would go with a fictional campus name. Whether you have artistic license or not it should (in my opinion) to be at least partially accurate when mixing fictional characters with factual settings. It may not matter to me, I've never been to that Campus, but what your saying to the people who have been is. "I don't really know what I'm talking about."

Just because your writing fiction doesn't mean that you should ignore facts. You would not write a fictional story about the Normandy landing and state it happened in 1946 in Newfoundland's Bay of Fundy. Keeping your facts straight lends credibility to the fictional tale, and (again in my opinion) helps blurr the lines between the two making for a better story.

Anyhow, it's your decision. Best of luck.

I've considered going with an entirely different world setting... something set in some distant future that would explain where these 'powers' everyone in the book has, why some have powers and others don't, etc. Other than a few changes to the descriptions of settings and some additional background to give that feeling of where the characters are (not on earth) and why, it wouldn't take much to be honest. I'm not sure why I haven't though. At the moment, and for the next week, I have my kids (divorced for 6 years, the twins (boy/girl) turn 10 in Dec and they're with me for Thanksgiving), so I'm too distracted to put any effort into it until next week. That's not to say I couldn't plan for it.