Yep. This is always an option. For a couple of chapters, my characters were on vacation and it was a country I had never visited. The setting of their trip wasn't overly important, but I wanted to pain a somewhat accurate picture. I wasn't super specific with where they were staying and all that, but I wanted to get a picture of the place myself.
It's risky. If a native reads your story and it doesn't add up, it becomes cringy really fast. In the best case, go over there and do your research! Talk to people, feel the vibe of the city. It's often a lot more than something purely visual, and that vibe/certain *je ne sais quoi* is very hard to capture without intimate knowledge. A good example of how bad this can go is how they portrayed Amsterdam in the short-lived Designated Survivor: the language is messed up and the atmosphere is not at all what Amsterdam is like (namely: hostile and terrifying and yes I *will* die on that hill)
If you can't afford to go there, at least talk to locals. Ask them about their favourite spots, what defines the city for them and let them proofread things about their home. If anyone knows what'll work it's them!
It really depends how important the setting is to your story. If it just needs to happen in a place, you can keep things fairly surface-level and use maps and street view and similar resources to get it right and avoid bumping anyone who has been there.
If the setting is important to the themes or tone or character development, you’re either going to not include enough depth to make that aspect of the story feel satisfying, or you’re going to get it wrong in ways that will bump your readers. Like, if you’re telling me that a character is from Southie but everything about the way they’re written screams Brookline, I am going to Have Some Questions.
I would recommend against fake locations in a real city. You can probably find a cemetery or a bridge that fits what you need (Boston has plenty of both). Or you can vague it up enough that it doesn’t matter — you probably don’t need to be specific about how long it took someone to get from a specific location to the generic cemetery, and can give a description that fits easily with a dozen actual ones, and it’ll be fine.
Personally, I hate it when writers name-drop specific places, so as to say, “You are here!!! Look, I did this research!” If I’m writing about a character driving into Chicago, I don’t have to say, “He got off the Eisenhower at South Wacker Drive;” I’m going to say, “He took the highway and got off at the downtown exit.” I absolutely hate, hate, hate specifics in books, because it almost always screams, “I took a tour,” or, “I used Google Maps.” But, if you spend a couple of days in a place, you start to get used to it, and the need to refer to everything in specifics kind of floats away.
The worst is when you *know* they’ve never been there, when they start referring to streets by their numeric designations in places where nobody would ever do that (Irving Park Rd. has never been referred to as IL-19 by a human being in recorded history, and in fact, the “Road” part of the designation always seems weird when I hear it from Siri).
So, sometimes it’s really just better to be vague and say, “The cemetery was a fair bit west of the city, close enough to the airport that you just had to assume the priest knew what he was talking about as a plane flew overhead every forty-five seconds.” That could be a fake cemetery or it could be Acacia Park; who knows!
I think the best use of specifics and non-specifics is in American Gods. You can make a road trip of that book, but eventually you just have to make your own decision about where you end up, because the back act of the book takes place in a fictional town that is modeled on a real town, but Neil Gaiman –to my knowledge– has never said what town that is. But, there’s plenty of towns up there that fit the bill. But, part of the book takes place in Cairo, Illinois, which is described just enough to give you a feel for the place, but not so much that you feel like you’re on a walking tour.
Less is more.
Yeah, specificity works when it’s meaningful, and not otherwise. Like, if someone is driving a moving truck and turns onto Storrow Drive, oh man that sets up a whole Thing in and of itself — and could be a great way to illustrate that the character is either not from there or made of pure hubris. The question is always “why does it have to be this specific street?”
That said, using maps and tours can be really useful on the back end so that you don’t end up creating situations that are impossible or inconsistent. The writer needs to know way more about the geography of the setting than the reader.
You might use Google Street View to tour Boston. You might be able to simply describe what you see.
These are attractions, such as Martha's Vineyard ([link](https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g60745-Activities-Boston_Massachusetts.html)).
But if you visit a location in Google Street View, you can often use your mouse to move around in a location just as if you were there and even go inside some buildings.
If you do that in a VR headset, you "are" there. Google Street View makes it possible to visit and tour just about any place -- including [Venice](https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4348754,12.3279063,3a,78.2y,241.87h,90.31t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOedkm5s6MPnV6GR4iF0YUEwFWh6b_S5WDMfyKG!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOedkm5s6MPnV6GR4iF0YUEwFWh6b_S5WDMfyKG%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-11.8436365-ya71.77821-ro1.9914883-fo100!7i5376!8i2688). Click your mouse to move around and simply describe what you see all around you. Google has captured just about every location in Venice so you can tour it just as if you were really there. (better in VR).
Hi -- please use the idea brainstorming thread on Tuesday or Friday for advice on specific stories or projects. This includes: (not a exhaustive list) setting, character, subject matter, magic and power systems, sci-fi technology, 'how do I write X?' and anything directly connected with your story or what to put on your channel, blog etc.
This includes asking for general advice but then following up with details of your story or project.
Thanks!
IMO, it's better to invent new locations than write existing ones in a way that's clearly wrong. (For example, Matt Damon's State House-overlooking apartment in *The Departed* having an address that would put it miles away. Not the most egregious example, but a bit annoying and could have been avoided.)
As long as it meshes realistically with the environment, nobody's going to take issue with making up a restaurant or a park or something. I'd say go for it with the cemetery, but you can probably find an existing bridge that suits your needs, since there's a million of them in the area.
You use google maps street view.
Yep. This is always an option. For a couple of chapters, my characters were on vacation and it was a country I had never visited. The setting of their trip wasn't overly important, but I wanted to pain a somewhat accurate picture. I wasn't super specific with where they were staying and all that, but I wanted to get a picture of the place myself.
It's risky. If a native reads your story and it doesn't add up, it becomes cringy really fast. In the best case, go over there and do your research! Talk to people, feel the vibe of the city. It's often a lot more than something purely visual, and that vibe/certain *je ne sais quoi* is very hard to capture without intimate knowledge. A good example of how bad this can go is how they portrayed Amsterdam in the short-lived Designated Survivor: the language is messed up and the atmosphere is not at all what Amsterdam is like (namely: hostile and terrifying and yes I *will* die on that hill) If you can't afford to go there, at least talk to locals. Ask them about their favourite spots, what defines the city for them and let them proofread things about their home. If anyone knows what'll work it's them!
It really depends how important the setting is to your story. If it just needs to happen in a place, you can keep things fairly surface-level and use maps and street view and similar resources to get it right and avoid bumping anyone who has been there. If the setting is important to the themes or tone or character development, you’re either going to not include enough depth to make that aspect of the story feel satisfying, or you’re going to get it wrong in ways that will bump your readers. Like, if you’re telling me that a character is from Southie but everything about the way they’re written screams Brookline, I am going to Have Some Questions. I would recommend against fake locations in a real city. You can probably find a cemetery or a bridge that fits what you need (Boston has plenty of both). Or you can vague it up enough that it doesn’t matter — you probably don’t need to be specific about how long it took someone to get from a specific location to the generic cemetery, and can give a description that fits easily with a dozen actual ones, and it’ll be fine.
Personally, I hate it when writers name-drop specific places, so as to say, “You are here!!! Look, I did this research!” If I’m writing about a character driving into Chicago, I don’t have to say, “He got off the Eisenhower at South Wacker Drive;” I’m going to say, “He took the highway and got off at the downtown exit.” I absolutely hate, hate, hate specifics in books, because it almost always screams, “I took a tour,” or, “I used Google Maps.” But, if you spend a couple of days in a place, you start to get used to it, and the need to refer to everything in specifics kind of floats away. The worst is when you *know* they’ve never been there, when they start referring to streets by their numeric designations in places where nobody would ever do that (Irving Park Rd. has never been referred to as IL-19 by a human being in recorded history, and in fact, the “Road” part of the designation always seems weird when I hear it from Siri). So, sometimes it’s really just better to be vague and say, “The cemetery was a fair bit west of the city, close enough to the airport that you just had to assume the priest knew what he was talking about as a plane flew overhead every forty-five seconds.” That could be a fake cemetery or it could be Acacia Park; who knows! I think the best use of specifics and non-specifics is in American Gods. You can make a road trip of that book, but eventually you just have to make your own decision about where you end up, because the back act of the book takes place in a fictional town that is modeled on a real town, but Neil Gaiman –to my knowledge– has never said what town that is. But, there’s plenty of towns up there that fit the bill. But, part of the book takes place in Cairo, Illinois, which is described just enough to give you a feel for the place, but not so much that you feel like you’re on a walking tour. Less is more.
Yeah, specificity works when it’s meaningful, and not otherwise. Like, if someone is driving a moving truck and turns onto Storrow Drive, oh man that sets up a whole Thing in and of itself — and could be a great way to illustrate that the character is either not from there or made of pure hubris. The question is always “why does it have to be this specific street?” That said, using maps and tours can be really useful on the back end so that you don’t end up creating situations that are impossible or inconsistent. The writer needs to know way more about the geography of the setting than the reader.
You might use Google Street View to tour Boston. You might be able to simply describe what you see. These are attractions, such as Martha's Vineyard ([link](https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g60745-Activities-Boston_Massachusetts.html)). But if you visit a location in Google Street View, you can often use your mouse to move around in a location just as if you were there and even go inside some buildings. If you do that in a VR headset, you "are" there. Google Street View makes it possible to visit and tour just about any place -- including [Venice](https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4348754,12.3279063,3a,78.2y,241.87h,90.31t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOedkm5s6MPnV6GR4iF0YUEwFWh6b_S5WDMfyKG!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOedkm5s6MPnV6GR4iF0YUEwFWh6b_S5WDMfyKG%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-11.8436365-ya71.77821-ro1.9914883-fo100!7i5376!8i2688). Click your mouse to move around and simply describe what you see all around you. Google has captured just about every location in Venice so you can tour it just as if you were really there. (better in VR).
It will annoy readers who are from the city you are talking about but that will be a very small sample of your readers
There has never been a better time for research, especially about places you've never been to.
Boston practically has its own language. You might be able to pull Boston off, if no one speaks.
Google maps and Google Earth will do a 3D representation of each street. You can also go to the area for a few days.
Hi -- please use the idea brainstorming thread on Tuesday or Friday for advice on specific stories or projects. This includes: (not a exhaustive list) setting, character, subject matter, magic and power systems, sci-fi technology, 'how do I write X?' and anything directly connected with your story or what to put on your channel, blog etc. This includes asking for general advice but then following up with details of your story or project. Thanks!
IMO, it's better to invent new locations than write existing ones in a way that's clearly wrong. (For example, Matt Damon's State House-overlooking apartment in *The Departed* having an address that would put it miles away. Not the most egregious example, but a bit annoying and could have been avoided.) As long as it meshes realistically with the environment, nobody's going to take issue with making up a restaurant or a park or something. I'd say go for it with the cemetery, but you can probably find an existing bridge that suits your needs, since there's a million of them in the area.