Real locations and dissing the residents

[Andre_Laurent]

In my WIP I use a real neighborhood within the limits of Cincinnati. My descriptions of the setting and the residents are accurate. Frankly I used this area because the residents could vanish and no one would spend a lot of time (the police for instance) looking for them. This particular area for the most part has two kinds of residents 1) those who are so poor and uneducated, they can't get out and 2) criminals who prey on the first group.

Now I could change the name of the neighborhood but I use landmarks like Cincinnati Music Hall and the abandoned subway system that runs under the area. I could change the name of Music Hall but the subway system still pegs the area and I need the subway because I turned it into a nice convenient torture chamber.

Is it a bad idea to diss the residents, even if it's the truth? Or what I really want to know is, can my negative descriptions get me in any kind of hot water. When I call them (group descriptions) losers and wh*res and dope dealers and say things like "no sane persone would enter the area after dark" am I setting myself up for legal problems? Assuming this ever sees publication.

[KTC]

Do it. Lots of people use real settings. I think of Michael Chabon telling the reader about the seedier side of PA. It's the truth and you can see that in the description. I don't think it's a diss to tell the truth.

[NeuroFizz]

One way around this is to put the description into the thoughts or words of one of your characters. If this information comes from the narrator, it's a little more risky, and easier to assign those impressions to the author. If you give those opinions to a character, you can also briefly describe an incident that makes the character feel that way. This insulates the writer from the impression.

If you are doing something like this, make sure it is integral to the story and not the least bit soap-boxy. As Kevin mentioned, accuracy of (a real) setting is a tactic used by many excellent authors. Another example of an author who does this well is Michael Connolly.

[Andre_Laurent]

One way around this is to put the description into the thoughts or words of one of your characters. If this information comes from the narrator, it's a little more risky, and easier to assign those impressions to the author. If you give those opinions to a character, you can also briefly describe an indicent that makes the character feel that way. This insulates the writer from the impression.

If you are doing something like this, make sure it is integral to the story and not the least bit soap-boxy. As Kevin mentioned, accuracy of (a real) setting is a tactic used by many excellent authors. Another example of an author who does this well is Michael Connolly.
Okay, so far so good then, all of these descriptions are coming through the characters.

[sfecphory]

I agree with NeuroFizz and would just add that if you are making statements disparaging the people it is one thing, but it's quite another to have respect for the people and diss their conditions.

[sammyig]

And of course, just make sure that you don't name names. Everything else should be alright.

[oswann]

My MC bitches about Paris all the time. This describes the character more than Paris.


Os.

[Andre_Laurent]

And of course, just make sure that you don't name names. Everything else should be alright.
No names are used. My characters aren't interested in being pals with them, they see them as easy dinner. :D

[virtue_summer]

As long as these are your character's impressions and come across as such, I don't see a problem. Tred carefully, though. I put down a novel last month that I've never returned to and it was for just this reason. I got annoyed at the author for his stereotyping and dissing of the people in Appalachia. In this case I did feel it was coming from the author. The comments didn't feel as if they were coming from the characters. It seemed out of place and, to me, just plain mean spirited.

[Andre_Laurent]

As long as these are your character's impressions and come across as such, I don't see a problem. Tred carefully, though. I put down a novel last month that I've never returned to and it was for just this reason. I got annoyed at the author for his stereotyping and dissing of the people in Appalachia. In this case I did feel it was coming from the author. The comments didn't feel as if they were coming from the characters. It seemed out of place and, to me, just plain mean spirited.
There is nothing mean spirited in what I have written. The neighborhood I use in my ms is very dangerous. Each year the murder rate hits a new record high. There are some very decent people there, I know, I walk through there twice a day. There are others there who aren't so decent.

Cincinnati has gone from being a desirable city to live in, to one of the most dangerous.... because of that particular neighborhood. If you drive through there at night, you better have your doors locked. If you don't someone will climb in next to you and offer what ever goods they are selling.

[kristie911]

I don't see a problem...I see this all the time in novels. As long as you are being true to the neighborhood and not just being mean-spirited (as virtue mentioned above) it shouldn't be a problem. And if the neighborhood is a bad as you describe, there's a good chance no one that lives there will ever read your published work (I'm sending you good vibes there!:) ).

[CrankItTo11]

I wrote a book set in a Chicago suburban slum - and I used a made up name. My reasoning: the town I created was an exaggeration of a real suburb in Chicago, it did get personal, AND I was chicken. HOWEVER, it was a terrible novel that will never see the light of day. (I moved on from it.)

With the information you have provided in your posts, I think you've made a good choice to base it on a real town. As a reader, I'd be much more inclined to read it if it was based on a real town.

Just my 2 cents... :)

[AnneMarble]

I prefer it when writers use the real names of neighborhoods, landmarks, etc. After all, imagine the effect if, for example, Lawrence Block set his Matthew Scudder novels in a fictionalized version of New York City, with crimes taking place in, for example, "Bluewich Village." :tongue Something would be lost from those stories.

Years ago, I bought a mystery by a novelist who lived in a famous planned community on the East Coast (where I worked at the time). I was really looking forward to reading a mystery set in that area. Imagine my disappointment when she changed the name of the city as well as the streets and neighborhoods! In an interview, I later learned that she hadn't wanted people to associate murder with her hometown, so she had changed the names! :rolleyes: She was a journalist, so I also wondered if she changed the names because as a journalist, she had been trained to worry about libel suits. (I don't know if this is true in all cases, but I've noticed that some journalists who become novelists tend to change the names of things.)

[UrsusMinor]

I prefer it when writers use the real names of neighborhoods, landmarks, etc. After all, imagine the effect if, for example, Lawrence Block set his Matthew Scudder novels in a fictionalized version of New York City, with crimes taking place in, for example, "Bluewich Village." :tongue Something would be lost from those stories.

Indeed. And Block himself in one of his Writer's Digest essays (repubbed in one of his collections on writing) argues that using real places and landmarks facilitates reader identification and even sells books. Outsiders feel they are getting the inside scoop on an area they don't know, and locals are fascinated to see common sights and locales on the page.