Thread: Setting

Is the location of a scene really all that important for the success or otherwise of a story? Or is it ultimately only the writer’s skill with words that matters?

As just one example, imagine that a writer wished to have the two MCs relaxing on a beach in the final scene, enjoying the proceeds of some scam in Prague or Vienna or Warsaw in which they'd been involved.

All other things being equal, would this "relaxing on a beach" work as well on some pebbly piece of seaside on the west coast of England as on the golden sands of Copacobana in Rio?

Possibly some of you will think of other examples besides final scenes or that don't involve beaches. The question remains the same.

Great question, Ox.

For me the location is really important, though I think it can be described with minimalism and still be very effective. I think places and buildings have character and history, and even the way they look can add feeling to a story. One of my current stories is set in an unnamed English resort town, and its character is almost as important as the characters themselves, and I have used a particular building to try and help represent the tone of the story.

With regard to the point you make comparing a pebbly west coast of England beach to the Copacobana, I'd find it hard to make the Rio scene work as well as the Weston Supermare scene. I'd find it infinitely easier to do the English scene due to experience, but I also think there is a complete uniqueness to English resorts. They have a split personality. Go to Borth in mid-November and you'll see what I mean, they're like forgotten places that are left to die through the winter and become resurrected again at Easter. I don't know if the exotic beaches around the world can claim to have such personality, though they're obviously so naturally beautiful.

If you want a stony beach in England, then Brighton is the place to hit. West coast places, from Weston up to Blackpool, tend to be sandier, though I stand to be corrected.

Scott

Your opening paragraph presents a kind of false dichotomy. I doubt it's so simple as either those things.

I think laying out the setting is important insofar as the reader can visualize what's happening. A few choice adjectives that paint the scene are better than rambling on and on. I get bored real fast when there's three paragraphs on the precise, exact way a place looks. Sometimes I get the impression a writer is trying to show off how thoroughly they've imagined a scene, rather than caring about how much the reader actually wants to know.

If a location is really exotic, like some kind of fantasy temple with huge pillars and floating rocks everywhere, then going into more detail can be merited. Only because it's impossible to effectively paint that scene in few words.

Originally Posted by Bilston Blue

If you want a stony beach in England, then Brighton is the place to hit.

Scott

Thanks, Scott.

I should have made a closer study of Brighton beach the last time I dropped in, in one of my earlier stories, set in WW2. That time, I concentrated only on the pier.

I know, I know, there were two back then.

I'd think the location of the beach would have to depend completely on the details of the story. Why would they be in England vs Rio? What is for them in either place? Are they on the run from the law? Is England their home while Rio would be some exotic place they could be hiding out? It really doesn't matter unless it matters to the story. If all other things were equal, as you said, I can see the scene working either way, although personally I find Rio to be the more romantic location.