Though both series are in a fantastical world, I prefer The Dark Tower to Lord of The Rings. LOTR is just too foreign and out-of world for my liking. Stephen's characters can fit right into any world....that is what is special of his writing.
Do you feel a realistic setting is very important for horror/fantastic stories?
- Thread starter Gerald
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Be good or I will send over Trudeau to elbow you. lol
To expand on my previous post, to give a sense how American culture influences the rest of the world: I think in a lot of countries, but certainly in the Netherlands the words 'cool' and 'sh*t!' are commonly used. Mainly those two ('Yo!' as a greeting is also sometimes used, but not as common).
It's funny because one is a word for approval, admiration even: 'Cool!' And the other, 'Sh*t!' a word for disapproval.
I don't know why just those two words, but I suppose those are two of the most common words in the US anyway. Of course other words we use are English too, like 'weekend', but we have our own word for that ('weekeinde') too.
The common use of 'cool!' and 'sh*t!' started more recent though, I think it probably started in the '80s or '90s.
Actually 'F*ck!' is used too, but not as common as the other two.
It's funny because one is a word for approval, admiration even: 'Cool!' And the other, 'Sh*t!' a word for disapproval.
I don't know why just those two words, but I suppose those are two of the most common words in the US anyway. Of course other words we use are English too, like 'weekend', but we have our own word for that ('weekeinde') too.
The common use of 'cool!' and 'sh*t!' started more recent though, I think it probably started in the '80s or '90s.
Actually 'F*ck!' is used too, but not as common as the other two.
A realistic setting is more helpful. Probably familiar setting is a better phrase. When you Feel at home with your characters, including their settings, then the horror has a bigger contrast effect than in a fantasy setting. A fantasy setting is great for a story but for a horror story not so great. With horror you want to scare the reader. If he has problems relating to the settings because they are too fantastic he is gonna get harder to scare because your characters will not seem real to him. And then it is not so scary if anything happens to them. But for a story fantasy settings is great. Then you just concentrate on the story, the characters and the action and you are home. That the settings was a bit blurry did not matter much because it was a good story. As long as you are a good storyteller you can, or at least could, get away with that. It is fantasy for a reason.
Does On Writing go into setting and the way he blends the real world with his fictional one?
I actually ordered On Writing once and it arrived damaged, so I sent it back. Forgot to order it anew, but then I got a little tired of all these tips about writing. If you're gonna follow all those tips on writing, it totally stifles you. I think I still read it some time for the autobiographical part of it.
I actually ordered On Writing once and it arrived damaged, so I sent it back. Forgot to order it anew, but then I got a little tired of all these tips about writing. If you're gonna follow all those tips on writing, it totally stifles you. I think I still read it some time for the autobiographical part of it.
For me personally it doesn't matter if the setting is based in real life or not. What matters is the story and whether there's a connection with at least one of the characters. The way I see it, with a familiar setting the reader can connect with the story quicker, as opposed to reading about a made up place - in which case the reader may have to stick with the story for a while before feeling comfortable. Even then, a good story-teller will have the ability to make you forget about the setting and just turn the page to see what happens next. I love both horror and fantasy books and read plenty of them - usually it's not the setting that makes me like/dislike a story.
Gerald - I don't necessarily think you should follow any writing tips if you don't agree with them but it's interesting to read them and see what works for different writers. Maybe you can take something good out of them, who knows....
Gerald - I don't necessarily think you should follow any writing tips if you don't agree with them but it's interesting to read them and see what works for different writers. Maybe you can take something good out of them, who knows....
Some are very useful. You just don't want to sit down with the feeling of 'the story MUST have this or SHOULD do that'. A lot of these tips are really like rules.
But maybe On Writing isn't like that. You just don't want to write something where people go 'Oh, he/she clearly read On Writing'.
One of the things I admire about King is how he makes his stories and the settings feel so real. That would be the most useful tip a book like that could give to me. But I wonder if he goes into that aspect.
Haha, well, I don't think anybody is going to sit with On Writing and any other book propped open and see if the said book was written following King's rules/tips or whatever you want to call them. Or do they?
I agree, King's stories have that quality of appearing so well anchored in reality it makes you wonder...but that's why he is truly the king when it comes to story-telling.
I read On Writing years ago - twice - but can't remember much apart from the autobiographical part. I should read it again. Hold on, I do remember what he said about adverbs
Well, it IS a wellknown book. Not that they're actually gonna compare, but things might stick out as noticeable.
My fear is that if you're gonna follow writing tips too closely, you get a sort of formulaic book or story. That it loses all spontaneity.
But some tips, like the one you mention here, are very true.
You follow the advice that fits your style. I mean, an adverb here and there hasn't killed anyone. Death by adverb, imagine that.
It helps to have a basic familiarity with the setting, if you want your story to ring true. Research works for that, if you can't visit personally, and I've had great luck with getting insight from natives. For example, I have a story set in Santa Cruz, CA. I've been there and loved the area, but it had been a couple of decades between my last visit and my story. I had a friend who had just recently moved from the area tell me a little bit about the current scene (places only a local would appreciate), and one reminiscence about a surfing day was so compelling that I used large parts of it (with her permission, of course) in my narrative. Those bits helped the story ring so true to one local reader that she SWORE she once lived in a house in the story (not possible--that part was made up out of whole cloth).
You used Westeros as an example: I believe that works because the story is so firmly set in the geography and history of the British Isles ('The wall' is Hadrian's Wall, 'The North' is Yorkshire, 'The Wildlings' are the Scots, etc.) . If you've seen a historical movie or read a book set in the Plantagenet era, those books ring like a bell.Horror can happen anywhere, and the closer to the familiar it feels, the scarier the story is.
If you get a chance, try John Ajvide Lindqvist. He's a Swedish horror author that I greatly admire. Creepy, horrifying, and very literate (he gets compared toe Mr. King quite often, but he actually reminds me more of Joe Hill).
Those bits helped the story ring so true to one local reader that she SWORE she once lived in a house in the story (not possible--that part was made up out of whole cloth).
But that was a local reader. A lot of readers of a book will never visit the location of the book personally, so there is no way for them to tell if it's authentic or not.
I've never visited Maine, but there is so much detail in his books that it feels very real. He always talks about the interstates and all sorts of roads. But at the same time some towns are real and some are fictional.
So basically it seems that for a setting to ring true you need a lot of details that at least SEEM authentic, they don't have to BE authentic. The only thing you have to avoid is using things that absolutely could never be in a particular place (unless it's part of your plot of course, that they are there), like certain fauna or flora that doesn't live or grow there.
Or am I seeing it wrong?
That sounds about right to me. And if you do put something in that setting that's not supposed to be there, at least give a believable explanation of why it would be possible. So basically you have to make the reader believe. That is the greatest challenge.
Don't really thinks it matters if it's modern world or fantasy world if 5he writer gets into detail of 5he setting bc either way the detail adds credibility . So even in fantasy the reader believes it bc the detail gives it credibility. Without the detail to settings there is no foundation for the story to have teeth. The more detail the farther u can go and have your audience stick with you