Apparently, one of the aphorisms of real estate is "Location, location, location." It's said as a truism, so I'm guessing it has all sorts of exceptions that those in the business could point out to me, but as I'm willing to recite it at face value, we'll go with the basic idea--except for writing.
One of the things that makes for a larger, more lasting impression in some fiction is where it takes place.* Here's a quick and dirty list, right off the top of my head: Spider-Man doesn't work in the rural south (he needs skyscrapers); Aquaman free of the ocean loses some of his prestige; Luke Skywalker sans the Death Star isn't much of a Luke; The Lord of the Rings in a place other than Middle Earth fails on a lot of levels; the gladiatorial fighting of Panem makes less sense in almost any other setting.
But there's something to be said for writing where the location is so fully realized and integral to the story that it feels like it's a character. Two titles: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the Harry Potter series. Two locations: The river and Hogwarts.
Huck Finn without the river isn't the character we know and love. The growth that Huck has throughout the story comes because of the river, which acts as a mentor, a revelator, a guide, and a vehicle. The river acts as forward momentum for the plot and the characters floating down it. This is not accidental: Mark Twain's intimate knowledge of the river infuses his writing, giving the river a sense of personality. It isn't anthropomorphized (like in a lot of Ray Bradbury's works), but instead transcends the need for a thing to look like a human in order for us to care about it.
This same feeling is amplified in Rowling's Hogwarts. Especially for those who are rereading the series, it takes far too long for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts in The Philosopher's Stone. And though there are exciting things to look at and pieces of the Muggle world to consider in every volume, The Goblet of Fire can drag because our return to Hogwarts is delayed through all the plot setup. And don't get me started on Deathly Hallows.
Hogwarts is the thing that every person who enjoys the series wishes were real. Harry is fine, if a little vacuous; Hermione is wonderful and spunky; Ron is Ron; and everyone has their special favorites (I have a soft spot for Snape, which I should write about some other time). But it's hard to find anyone who isn't enamored of the creaky old castle in Scotland. That kind of texture and tangibility, that specific location, is--so far as I can see--the biggest reason that people return to the books again and again. The Boy Who Lived is fine, but it's Hogwarts that matters so deeply.
When it comes to my own writing, the closest I've arrived to that is creating a place called Pandra, which is a strange dream world where a human girl gets lost while trying to get home. It's a fun(-ish) place, but it's lacking some of the heart and warmth of the castle. Without treading in the same footsteps as Rowling, it is hard to generate the same feeling in my own writing.
Nevertheless, the location is important to many stories, and I should spend as much time on my locales as I do the rest of my stories.
----
* I say some because there are many examples that counter my point. Much of Shakespeare, for example, relies more on characters than locales, though The Tempest shows that isn't always the case.
One of the things that makes for a larger, more lasting impression in some fiction is where it takes place.* Here's a quick and dirty list, right off the top of my head: Spider-Man doesn't work in the rural south (he needs skyscrapers); Aquaman free of the ocean loses some of his prestige; Luke Skywalker sans the Death Star isn't much of a Luke; The Lord of the Rings in a place other than Middle Earth fails on a lot of levels; the gladiatorial fighting of Panem makes less sense in almost any other setting.
But there's something to be said for writing where the location is so fully realized and integral to the story that it feels like it's a character. Two titles: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the Harry Potter series. Two locations: The river and Hogwarts.
Huck Finn without the river isn't the character we know and love. The growth that Huck has throughout the story comes because of the river, which acts as a mentor, a revelator, a guide, and a vehicle. The river acts as forward momentum for the plot and the characters floating down it. This is not accidental: Mark Twain's intimate knowledge of the river infuses his writing, giving the river a sense of personality. It isn't anthropomorphized (like in a lot of Ray Bradbury's works), but instead transcends the need for a thing to look like a human in order for us to care about it.
This same feeling is amplified in Rowling's Hogwarts. Especially for those who are rereading the series, it takes far too long for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts in The Philosopher's Stone. And though there are exciting things to look at and pieces of the Muggle world to consider in every volume, The Goblet of Fire can drag because our return to Hogwarts is delayed through all the plot setup. And don't get me started on Deathly Hallows.
Hogwarts is the thing that every person who enjoys the series wishes were real. Harry is fine, if a little vacuous; Hermione is wonderful and spunky; Ron is Ron; and everyone has their special favorites (I have a soft spot for Snape, which I should write about some other time). But it's hard to find anyone who isn't enamored of the creaky old castle in Scotland. That kind of texture and tangibility, that specific location, is--so far as I can see--the biggest reason that people return to the books again and again. The Boy Who Lived is fine, but it's Hogwarts that matters so deeply.
When it comes to my own writing, the closest I've arrived to that is creating a place called Pandra, which is a strange dream world where a human girl gets lost while trying to get home. It's a fun(-ish) place, but it's lacking some of the heart and warmth of the castle. Without treading in the same footsteps as Rowling, it is hard to generate the same feeling in my own writing.
Nevertheless, the location is important to many stories, and I should spend as much time on my locales as I do the rest of my stories.
----
* I say some because there are many examples that counter my point. Much of Shakespeare, for example, relies more on characters than locales, though The Tempest shows that isn't always the case.
Comments