[benh]

Hey guys,

I thought I'd post this, considering the amount of times I've run into this problem. And I just ran into it again.

When describing things, like jobs, clothes, books, video games etc. Do you guys feel its good to go into detail? Because to me, my first instinct is to be exact. If my character received a book as a gift like "Moby Dick", then I want to say that. But whenever I type it it feels, forced. And not realistic. And cheesy and unprofessional.

This happens to me all the time. I try and substitute things in with generalities, like McDonalds becomes a fast food place, Lego becomes building blocks, South Park becomes cartoons etc.

What do you guys do or think about the matter? Do you notice, in fiction, people rarely use specifics like this? Besides Tarantino. And you can argue about that guys quality (I like him).

Heres what I feel the options are.

1. Ignore it. "I used to work in McDonalds. It was horrible."

2. Generalize. "I used to work in this fast-food burger joint. It was horrible."

3. Make something new up. "I used to work for JacknApe, this burger joint. It was horrible."

Besides the fact the name JacknApe is a terrible name for a burger place, I think you get the idea.

Thoughts?

[KatG]

Well, first of all, there is no good on this, there is no professional, etc. The use of names is simply a stylistic choice.

There is, however, a legal issue. Many authors have had to essentially go with Option #3 and make up a name for something that is clearly a known product because said product is trademarked and the company won't be happy if you use it in the book without permission. So Barbie becomes Babsie, even though it's quite clear that it's a Barbie. Books that are in the public domain, however, like Moby Dick, you are perfectly free to use as you like. But some authors have used product names and liberally -- Douglas Copeland for instance. And I don't know if there were legal issues involved or not. Certainly movie titles often get used in fiction. In any case, it's not something you have to worry about until later on, if you have a publisher, who will let you know if there's a problem and a change is needed..

So if your first instinct is to put it in, put it in. It's the first draft; you can put anything in. And if you then read it to revise and it doesn't sound right to you, take it out. :) There is no teacher who's going to come and tell you what to do. You're in charge.

[WyrvenGuard]

I tend to err on the side of the specific detail. Although Kat makes a good point about the trademarked stuff, but I think you get the point. I personally think if it adds to the story, then why not be as specific as you can... if it's just filler, then maybe it's not necessary.

[Seak]

Option 3 is my favorite. But that's just imo.

[tdnewton]

There's a book on writing called "How Not To Write A Novel" that has a blurb about this. While authors like Stephen King have made it a sometimes goal to give you that downhome feeling of familiarity, I don't think it's wholly necessary. Have to judge yourself whether it's integral to the story and act accordingly, and always be aware of legal issues (libel, etc).

[ChuckReina]

I find that when I am writing fiction (as opposed to scripts, which is my other writing pleasure) the level of detail depends on who is telling the story.

Now obviously it is really you telling the story, but that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about the narration.

If the story is told in first person, then I describe things as they would be described by the narrating character.

If I am using a limited 'view point' third person (i.e. a third person narration by a narrator who is 'inside' one characters head) I describe in a similar fashion to the character who's view point I am following.

If I am using a different more omnipotent third person naration, then I follow the tone of the piece. If the story is told in a milataristic tone, then I describe things that way; Mythical; Childish; etc...

But as a rule of thumb, think of how you would describe it to somone in a hurry. That works most of the time. You wouldn't get into telling someone you were watching South Park and what happend in the episode, if you were in a hurry. You might just tell them you were watching cartoons.

Hope this helps.

[BrianC]

Well, first of all, there is no good on this, there is no professional, etc. The use of names is simply a stylistic choice.

There is, however, a legal issue. Many authors have had to essentially go with Option #3 and make up a name for something that is clearly a known product because said product is trademarked and the company won't be happy if you use it in the book without permission. So Barbie becomes Babsie, even though it's quite clear that it's a Barbie. Books that are in the public domain, however, like Moby Dick, you are perfectly free to use as you like. But some authors have used product names and liberally -- Douglas Copeland for instance. And I don't know if there were legal issues involved or not. Certainly movie titles often get used in fiction. In any case, it's not something you have to worry about until later on, if you have a publisher, who will let you know if there's a problem and a change is needed..

So if your first instinct is to put it in, put it in. It's the first draft; you can put anything in. And if you then read it to revise and it doesn't sound right to you, take it out. :) There is no teacher who's going to come and tell you what to do. You're in charge.I would say that the problem there is more pragmatic than necessarily legal. Trademark protection doesn't apply to use of a product name in a work of fiction. (Though copyright protection could be an issue if you're reproducing a slogan or part of an advertisement). As a practical matter though, publishers seem to be risk averse when it comes to intellectual property. It a lot cheaper (free, in fact) to call Barbie Babsie, than it is to defend a lawsuit however meritless.

Still Kat is right, use the proper name if it works for you. If you want your character to drink a coke, call it a coke.

[tdnewton]

What's your opinion of using a name like "Conan" to describe a character in a non-fantasy novel? My viewpoint char tends to assign names to things that don't provide them and I'm wondering if this is a slap waiting to happen if I move forward with it.

[KatG]

That's not a problem at all. It's quite common, in fact.

[tdnewton]

In that case, since the legalities are basically a non-issue, do you think it might put a reader off to see a non-fantasy book refer to a fantasy book character's name like that? I mean, it stands for more of a stereotype than an actual person, but I can't exactly call him Swordy Heroguy.

Basically, does it put you off to see this kind of reference?