Thread: To what extent can you put real life places or people into your story?

Especially when you're writing fictions. Some people might think that it's easier to write fictions because that way you can bend and alter reality as you want it to be. But I know there are limits. For example, when you're writing a story about the assassination of a president, you can't be writing the assassination of a particular existing president, can you? Especially when everyone knows that it doesn't happen—unless you're aiming to write a parody, of course. If you're not, you have to create a fictional president along with fictional staffs, and of course, fictional characters who interact with the president. But often you have to mention, describe, or refer to something that everyone can relate to, like an existing place or city or person, to help with the description of settings or people or even to act as an integral part of the entire story. My question is, to what extent? Is there any rules and regulations on this?

The only rule I would say should be adhered to, is if you're using real life places make sure you get them right. The correct geography, topography, climate, places of historical interest, prominent buildings and roads etc. To fail to do so might mean you lose the trust of your readers.

Personally, I haven't written anything set in well known places. My stories centre more on people, though the settings I use are real places instead of fictional ones, and I find this means the truth of them makes them more believable, and I think this comes from the small details that one wouldn't make up.

From what you tell us of your story, I think you are on the right track making up your president and his associates rather than using real ones. There are certain distinctive personality traits to presidents and presidential staffers, so do not be afraid to draw inspiration from real people. Maybe you can mix and match characteristics from different people and make composite personalities. If you do end up creating characters that very closely resemble real people, you do have some legal protection. Celebrities and politicians have considerably fewer privacy rights than the rest of us. Celebrities and politicians are legally known as public persons, and they have little right to sue you for what you say about them. This is how the tabloids get away with some of the stories they tell about celebrities. You can also protect yourself by clearly stating that your book is a work of fiction, even if it is 99% true. Changing names to protect the innocent (or not so innocent) is another way to limit your liability. If you go the traditionally published route, your publisher will give you more legal advice than you care for.

I agree with Bilston, get your geography right. The best fiction, like the best lies, are as close to the truth as possible.

I think I start to get the idea about this equilibrium of research and creativity, especially when it comes to people. But what about this: let's assume I want to create a fictional place that overlaps an existing place. I already made up an alternate history of this fictional place and how it alters the existing place since the beginning up to the point that becomes the time setting of my story. Is it better for me to include this alternate history into the story (which calls for tens of thousands extra words) or to obscure some of its possible links to the real place?

For example, I want to write a story that draws heavily from the culture and lifestyle of America in the nineties, located at a suburban neighborhood of a densely populated East Coast city, preferably up north. Most people would think of New York City, but I want it to be a fictional city that is affected by the culture of American 90s in its own way. The main characters are influenced by life in this fictional city, its complexity, and how societies within the city interact with each other and work on their interests to the extent that affects their decisions. If I put a description of this city within the story and want the readers to know that it's located somewhere in the East Coast, should I just leave at this (obscuring the links to a particular place) or tell them a specific location (with an additional option to include/exclude the explanation on how the city exists in that location)?

I think readers will more readily identify with New York City, or Washington, or Philadelphia, than a made-up place based on a real place. I understand this slightly contradicts part of my earlier post, though the places I set my stories in tend to remain anonymous by name, and I'll use real street names or buildings to furnish them. But for big cities or towns, I'd stick with what people know as it helps suspend the disbelief. It's just my preference, though, and in no way should you think I'm saying this is right, and that​ is wrong.

My question is, to what extent? Is there any rules and regulations on this?

Fiction is made up stuff, you can do what you want, if you start to incorporate real people I suppose you might face the rules and regs, concerning slander etc. but apart from that it really is up to you. I am reminded of the interview I heard with the guy who wrote 'Van Helsig' (I think that's right, vampire slayer stuff). He said he got a lot of mail from vampire buffs telling him how you could and couldn't kill vampires, one of the things they went on about was silver bullets. As it happened he knew the person who started that, they had had a conversation and he told him he came up with the idea after watching the "Lone Ranger".

Fiction is the business of telling lies, and most of your audience will be willing to suspend their disbelief for the most outrageous stuff so long as you make it sound good, really the only rule is "Does it work?"

PS.My question is, to what extent? Are there any rules and regulations on this? It's the attention to this sort of detail that means people read straight through without question.

Originally Posted by Bilston Blue

I think readers will more readily identify with New York City, or Washington, or Philadelphia, than a made-up place based on a real place. I understand this slightly contradicts part of my earlier post, though the places I set my stories in tend to remain anonymous by name, and I'll use real street names or buildings to furnish them. But for big cities or towns, I'd stick with what people know as it helps suspend the disbelief. It's just my preference, though, and in no way should you think I'm saying this is right, and that​ is wrong.

I agree with this, but as with anything, it really depends on the writer. I think that Steve Berry does well with his made up president, Danny Daniels, in real life cities. In other cases, I think it's just fine to write the way Bilston suggests. Not to give the city itself a name, but describe things in general so that the reader knows it's in the area of the country you want it to be.

So, as long as I can suspend the readers' disbelief, convince them that my writing is theoretically possible and avoid things that may lead to defamation, I can write anything. Put anonymity when necessary, like "the city" or "a lake 30 miles north of the city". Describe things in general so that the readers know what I want them to know about the place I'm talking about. Got that.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

PS.My question is, to what extent? Are there any rules and regulations on this? It's the attention to this sort of detail that means people read straight through without question.

Holy, Olly. I think I should get myself an editor. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've done a fair share of editing.

Originally Posted by Offeiriad

I've done a fair share of editing.

Judging on my quality of writing, how many corrections will you make out of 100,000 words?

I've not read any of your writing, unless you've shared something I was unaware of to date.

Well, I've posted something under Poetry. I don't usually write poems anyway, I'm more inclined to writing stories, but most of them are so bad I can't let anyone see them. None of them are finished unless I was able to finish them in under 5,000 words. I was just thinking, maybe you can judge my quality of writing by merely seeing my posts in the forum.