And also I keep being expected to be social, which apparently means playing cards, not watching movies like I always thought. HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND? *weeping*
Ah-hem. Anyhow, there was actually
a coherent thought a thought which appeared coherent at two am this morning- motivating this post. Here goes!
Is it better, when writing, to have a firm sense of place in the story, or to be general, so a reader can place the story in their own location? I mean, obviously this only applies to a certain extent to High Fantasy, or Hard SF, (or any kind of SF,) but what about the almost-in-this-world genres of Urban Fantasy, Portal Fantasy, or even steampunk?
Is it better to be universal, or should one root the story in a location? The upside of rooting would be- as far as I can puzzle it- that the details of weather, vegetation, food and language make the story seem real-er, and exotic for the reader who doesn't live in the same area. I haven't actually read them, but I understand both Beautiful Creatures and The Demon's Lexicon are good examples of rooting a tale. And you know, the authors seem to be doing pretty well, and the books are pretty well respected. The upside of keeping things vague would be that nothing jars the reader, and if things are vague enough most everyone in the Western World can identify with the surroundings of the story, thereby putting themselves in the place of the characters. A notable example of this would be Twilight. Which sold a few copies, you know.
Or does it depend entirely on each individual story, how much you detail the surroundings? TALK TO ME, people. *smiles*