DH didn't get to update my website last night because of a crisis at the office that had him on the computer half the night. Just as well, since this morning I got a nice review from A Romance Review (my first five rose review from them!) for STRANGER: "A thoroughly entertaining book... an intriguing, yet startling look into the future. This powerful book has many twists that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don’t pass up a fabulous book!"
I wrote a couple of pages on a novella yesterday, but got a little sidetracked when I had to go do some research on the setting. All my other contemporaries have been set in a fictional town in Virginia; this one is set in Norfolk, VA. I happen to be very familiar with Norfolk, since I grew up in the adjacent city of Virginia Beach, and I visit Norfolk frequently. It's a small city with an opera, an excellent museum, and a pretty good symphony. Still, I had to check a couple of things on the Internet, and that slowed me down a bit.
So I'm curious-- if you're a writer, which do you prefer, writing a book set in a real town or a fictional one? As a reader, which do you prefer to read?
Hmm, I think I prefer real towns and cities to read and write, but with my paramedic novels I've had to make up a fictional city because of the way many cities are starting to use firefighter-paramedics for all 911 calls instead of using private ambulance companies (which my guys work for) for 911 calls. So I had to make up a city. Sucks! : (
ReplyDeleteI prefer real towns or a fictional place that makes up a collection of towns, etc. For example: Faulkner did a fictional county and towns, but everyone knows where these places are in reality. And then he incorporated real cities and places into it.
ReplyDeleteSo it felt real.
Now if I could create Middle Earth, I would. Laughing. I cannot.
Janie