Specificity of Setting

[Alex]

My novel End Man's first line is a description of the setting: "Los Angeles in the fourth decade of the twenty-first century." An editor recently noted, "This didn’t quite register on my first read. Why phrase it like this instead of just saying 2047, or something like that?" The editor was under the impression that the fourth decade of the twenty-first century was the 2040s (it's the 2030s). This has happened several times, but is only the tip of the iceberg regarding that line. On a fairly sophisticated writers' site, several writers argued that the line shouldn't be there at all. That the story itself should reveal the timeframe, and that it's always a mistake to provide the information. One writer used the example H.G. Wells's War of the Worlds: "By the way, go back and consider the opening of The War of The Worlds, which I hope you accept as at least one of the most popular and important sci-fi works of all time. 'No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own…' The only point of that apparently crucial sentence was to establish a time frame… yet establishing that time-frame in no way helped either the plot or the telling of the story." So, the writer's argument was that I shouldn't use an initial timeframe, because he was offended at its use in a classic science fiction novel. Before I settled on the opening line above, I was experimenting with a device such as Los Angeles, 203--(an en dash) or Los Angeles, 203x. Similar have been used in many kind of novels, but this was another writer's response: "Honestly I have to say 203-, 203x, and 203_ (your original first three options) are simply terrible in my opinion. Since none represent a widely used convention there's enough ambiguity in them to make reading them clunky to read and even worse if someone actually tried to read the text aloud." (Abuse goes along with the writers' game). This writer eventually admitted that "Los Angeles in the 2030s" or the line I ended up using, weren't too bad. Now why was I being so cagy? I wanted to give myself some wiggle room in terms of the technology and the distance from past historical events. By keeping the exact year a little fuzzy, I could conflate some events. Something like a magician's use of misdirection. I'd like to hear some opinions of Science Fiction readers on the opening line. Keep it? Ditch it? Thanks, Alex

[[deleted user]]

I personally use what I call 'space-time' sub-titles to separate main chapters and sub-chapters, so that the readers don't get lost or confused when the action jumps off to a new location or time/date. Those space-time sub-titles go like this:
12:43 (GMT)
Mon, Sep 04, 1961
The White House, Washington D.C.

Up to now, this system seems to be appreciated by the readers and only help them situate themselves in relation to the action, while not disclosing what that action will be. To allow the reader to get confused about the setting of the story only augment the chances that the reader will not want to finish the book. If you really want to keep the reader in a fog, then put as space-time sub-title 'Date unknown' and/or 'Place unknown'.

[Becky]

I'm not a writer or an editor, just a regular readery type person, but I hope you don't mind if I offer my thoughts. :)

As a standalone sentence "Los Angeles in the fourth decade of the twenty-first century." feels a bit awkward to me. As is, it seems more like a sort of header. I personally would prefer if it was the first part of a longer sentence, and went on to describe something that's occurring then and there. Sort of how Orwell's 1984 opening line goes: " It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

But, that's not really what I think your post is ACTUALLY about, which from my understanding is more a question of how to communicate a general time some point in the future for reference, while still leaving it flexible and sort of open.

Upon first reading your post, my initial knee-jerk response to "fourth decade of the twenty-first century" was negative, because it reminded me of a line from the book The Power by Naomi Alderman that I really did not like and felt entirely out of place in the book. The line was "On the thirteenth day of the fifth month of the third year after the Day of the Girls[...]". It was the ONLY instance of this type of time-framing, and it was also in a book that is supposed to be a sort of historical novelization, and there was just no reason not to say something like "around 3 years later" or something. It was needlessly convoluted and overwrought, and stood out like a sore thumb to me because of it.

My guess is that your opening line is probably the only instance of this type of framing, but as I've thought about it, I don't think that is a problem because as it is, it's sort of a utilitarian line that's a bit separate from the rest of the book. It's setting the scene, and then getting out of the way. Totally fine by me.

I prefer your version to 203x or 203- or something along those lines. Those remind me strongly of Victorian or Edwardian literature, and to me those just feel old-fashioned. I've always felt that they could have been handled better if the goal is to avoid being too specific about a date (or name for that matter).

Anyway, I think it's fine. I actually think that the wording works a bit better than intended if flexibility was the goal, because of the confusion around people not knowing how decades work. If you include technology, it gives you a whole additional decade for that to potentially happen! :P

Jokes aside, readers will interpret everything by their own understanding and experience and mood and whatnot. If someone thinks you meant the 2040s instead of the 2030s, it doesn't really matter. (Think of it as a potential topic for bookclub discussions.) I say that reader interpretation or understanding shouldn't necessarily be the reason you change the line. I'm willing to bet that there are readers who misunderstand Wells' "nineteenth century" line because they don't understand how centuries work either.

Change it if you don't like it, or if it doesn't fit the tone or style of your book, etc. I personally think it's fine how it is. :)

[Alex]

Michel wrote: "I personally use what I call 'space-time' sub-titles to separate main chapters and sub-chapters, so that the readers don't get lost or confused when the action jumps off to a new location or time/d..."

I could see your strategy working well, especially if your setting shifts a lot both in time and place. In earlier drafts of my novel when I had a second POV character whose time-frame didn't sync with the main character's, I did something similar. But I eliminated the second POV and took out those headings. Thanks for the input,

[Alex]

Becky wrote: "I'm not a writer or an editor, just a regular readery type person, but I hope you don't mind if I offer my thoughts. :)

As a standalone sentence "Los Angeles in the fourth decade of the twenty-fi..."

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do consider it a header, not the true first sentence of the novel ("Death was a good place to hide.") I don't use a period with it. I'm glad you think it works. I see your point about getting an extra decade out of the header (from now on, I'll claim it was intentional). Best, Alex

[Andres]

That line reminds me of, "Duck Dodgers of the twenty fourth and a half, CENTURY!!!" - Looney Tunes.

I think your line is fine being your target audience is sci-fi and should understand how 00's end in 9 and are not true decades. However, you will probably lose your general reader audience on this fact.

You could try, "Los Angeles, almost forty years into the third millennium..."

You could also name a specific event and use a time line after that. "Los Angeles, almost forty years since the seven ten pile up..."

In the end its your story and you write it how you wish. Maybe this lets you see which editors are as smart as you are.