Setting as Character: What I Took Away from Faith Hunter and David B. Coe

I’m mixing it up today by talking about the panel I attended presented by Faith Hunter and David B. Coe called On Writing. The floor opened up to whatever writerly banter the two could come up with –you’ve got to love when banter between two great writers is so educational. The main idea I took away from their 50 minute conversation focused on setting, specifically, treating your setting as a character.

The following is a direct riff and interpretation of the ideas of setting Hunter and Coe brought up. The main ideas are theirs with my minor additions and extrapolations. Any incoherencies are my own.

I’ve heard “treat your setting as a character” time and again, which is why I spend so much time researching my settings.  I’ve had inspiration too, when setting is done so well and charismatically that I grapple to figure out how writers pulled it off, like in The Republic of Nothing by Lesley Choice, Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte, and Skinwalker by Faith Hunter, to name a few.

Anyway, there were three main points brought up about setting that I want to share and discuss. The ideas are somewhat like Russian nesting dolls, the first, the biggest that houses the others, involves setting, tone, and genre. This feeds into putting your character at odds with their setting, which ties directly to what does the setting mean to your character? Ultimately, this compact (and mini) matryoshka doll set is what makes the setting of any story relevant.

          Inner Circle by James Lee via Flickr

First and foremost, setting can, and does, set the tone for your story. For instance, urban and rural settings are going to have different impacts on the characters and what they can do. Plus, some cities are characters on their own from the get-go because of the place they hold in popular imagination, like New Orleans, New York, Paris, London, and Moscow. I wouldn’t say that you couldn’t create your own city and turn it into a character, I’ve seen it done, it just has to be more actively done than with a real city that has a complex, characterizing past that doesn’t need to be spelled out.

Regardless of a city’s legacy or lack there of, in order to turn your setting into a character all aspects of it must be utilized. Sights, sounds, and smells are the big three. But just as important are the intimate little details. What words would you use to describe your grandmother’s house versus a strangers? There would be far more finer details you’d be able to share about the place you’ve frequented and explored versus the place you’re unfamiliar with.

Writing what you know is a boon in this regard, but I truly believe strong research can help you give a good blow to that phrase.

The tone and pace of your story is inherently tied to the genre you’re writing. I think we can all agree that there’s a difference in how a romance and a horror story are written and presented? The genre usually dictates the tone your story needs to work with, and of course you need to have a setting that compliments both aspects.

An example Hunter and Coe gave is this: urban, darker genres need a setting with a level of menace. Humans aren’t a nocturnal species, they are not naturally comfortable in the dark –hence why all the bad creatures are dealt with at night in a lot of (almost all) urban fantasy series. Menace is created when humans are out of their element.

This leads into the next idea about setting: put your character at odds with their surroundings. Not only does doing this deliver much needed tension, but as a writer it lets you impart more about the setting to readers, it lets you add depth and show character strength and weakness.

Writing 101 says throw your character out of their comfort zone. Putting them at odds with their setting is an easy way to do this. Plus, it lets you get creative about their weaknesses and comfort zones and fears.

This then leads to idea number three: what does the setting mean to your character? Yes, it’s a great idea to put your protagonist at odds with their surroundings, but there has to be a legitimate reason for them to stay in those surroundings, especially if they’re out of their element.

Ergo, the setting actually has to mean something to the character. How they feel about it will in turn dictate how it’s fed through to the reader and will affect the nuances the main character picks up on and filters. People are nothing if they’re not perceiving. Your character can’t merely exist in dead space. And setting and description are made relevant via your main character.

Ultimately, it’s important that you’re deliberate in your narrative decisions. You can set a story in a city you love but you have to make the city relevant not only to your story but to your character. Believe me, I know how challenging this idea is. I’m currently scrambling to figure out why my main character has set roots down where my story is set because her background is not easily leading my to the city I chose. However, her and the story won’t leave. She’s there for a reason, I just have to figure out why.

After walking away from this panel and looking deep at the ideas presented, I want to strive to focus on setting as a character. It really should be treated as such because your story shouldn’t be able to move locales without your story being altered. Setting must be as significant as protagonists, antagonists, supporting casts, and the plot. If nothing else, that’s what I really took away from this talk.

The post Setting as Character: What I Took Away from Faith Hunter and David B. Coe appeared first on Anxiety Ink.