Is it a must for the writer to visit the places described in his book?

I haven't been to several of the places I wrote about in my last novel.
Some of them didn't require it, but one did. I asked people who knew. I visited websites with maps, tourist-type sites, and read articles relating to the city. I asked people here.
One of them gave me a site link that had a street webcam. It had sound as well. I watched for a few hours, listening to the chatter, watching the people walk by the cam, etc.
You don't have to be there to write about them.
I suppose it depends on the book and how detailed the writer should be in understanding the locale, but for my needs, I found all I needed to know without ever living the state.

I can be argued either way, I think, like any aspect of writing.

(Do you have to kill somebody with a sword to write good fantasy...?)

I suppose part of the trick is to avoid letting reality interfere with the story - that's why you'll see a lot of authors use a disclaimer to note that they've 'played' with reality for art's sake.

(You've just gotten your literary license, of course you want to take it out for a spin...)

Perhaps the best way to think about it is the way Verne did: how likely is it that your readers will know the setting you are using? Unless you are writing a travelogue or textbook, you're not 'required' to be entirely truthful; however, stating things the reader 'knows' to be untrue will tend to kill that willing suspension of disbelief...

I think it is a mixed bag... I don't think you are required to visit those places, but it may add more to your story if you did. Now there is so much info online, you could write a lot without buying a plane ticket.

So far, I have worked on fantasy, and sci-fi stories. So I can make things up about the environment, but even then, I like to draw pictures or maps of these places just so I have a visual reference.

If you choose to write historical fiction, then you certainly do have to research the heck out of your location. If you get one little detail wrong, you may be safe because I don't think there are many New Orleans citizens left who were around in the 18th century. But there are some historical fanatics who might call you on it.

If you choose to write about presen-day "anywhere" you'd better have your facts as close as possible to reality. I was mad at Elmore Leonard for years because he had to streets intersecting in my home town that are parallel.

Do what Stew said. There are a number of ways these days to virtually visit almost anywhere in the world. And reach out to the AWers. I can think of a couple right offhand that are from the NO area.

Hope this helps.

I don't think you have to go to the locality but have a good visual of it helps. Just today I was researchingthe Greyhound terminal in Washington, DC becausesome of my action is centered there. I went to yahoo.maps and I clicked on the satalite maps and found exactly what I needed.

My other book starts off in the drug areas of Columbia and again I went to yahoo.maps and found just what I needed.

If you need anything spacific about an area comehere to Absolute Write and as if anyone lives in the area that could help.

Best of luck...

The world is more interconnected every day. That means, if you make a mistake, locals will pick it up and it may spread and make you look less than 100% sharp. When Jules Verne wrote books, the residents of distant lands did not point out his errors in London or New York. However, that can and does happen today. If you do not visit and know a place, you are a lot more likely to have any errors called out.

Yes, there's no doubt visiting existing places you write about, but it is not required, the tech age means you have plenty of sources at your disposal to learn about exotic places without ever leaving your study.

It isn't necessary, of course. Research and the plethora of pictures out there makes it more than possible to capture an environment without visiting.

Still . . .

The opportunity to go someplace awesome for "research" and then writing it off as a business expense . . . not so bad either . . . sigh . . .someday . ..

I'm going to go ahead and say no. It probably helps, but I've personally been offended by people who tell me I can't possibly write a competent story because I've never traveled more than ten hours from home. I devote a lot of time to research and unless I'm writing a tour guide to Tokyo, I don't think it'll ruin the book. Right now I'm writing a book about the 1960's and my time machine is broken, so I'll have to make due with good old fashioned research.

People who have never been to ancient Rome have written about it.

However, if you write about a specific place and you are wrong about a detail, you will certainly hear about it.

Here's an Amazon review for evidence of "if you get something wrong, people WILL call you out on it": review of the YA novel MERMAID PARK

I think of that review every time I start getting a little lazy with the setting details in my novel. I write contemporary, realistic YA, and I figure that since I'm trying to get the characters and their motivations to be as believable and as real-life-like as possible, I should do the setting the same justice. Then again, I'm lucky that my story is set near to where I live.

Setting a story outside places I've lived is definitely something that's way out of my writing comfort zone. About a month ago I started a short story that's set in Berkeley, California. I've never been there (though Husband and I have a San Francisco trip planned for our wedding anniversary next month, so perhaps we'll have to stop in Berkeley, too), and the story has been a slog to write. I'm very detailed in my stories, and I keep having to go and look stuff up, and well, sometimes I just wind up lost in Google Maps for hours on end.

satori said:

Here's an Amazon review for evidence of "if you get something wrong, people WILL call you out on it": review of the YA novel MERMAID PARK

Click to expand...

And that's why I research the hell out of the places I write about, especially if they're actual places. One of the WIPs is set in Coney Island. Of all the time I spent in New York City, I've never been to Coney. Thankfully I can just hop on a train and travel down there. Gruelling it will be for me to spend a day at an amusement park. I don't know how I'll handle it but I will. It also takes place in surrounding neighborhoods which I want to make sure I have accurate. I want my MC to live in Gravesend which I assumed was just "typical" Brooklyn when, in fact, it's pretty ritsy, someplace that wouldn't work in her and her husband's salary so I need to go there and actually see just how ritsy it is and see if I can make it work. The name is so fitting to the WIP that I just can't pass it up. If the travel is feasible, I don't see why you wouldn't do it but like what's been said, you're going to have to rely on old-fashioned research for historical stuff.

I'm writing a serial about ancient Egypt and while it's web-published and I can be a little more relaxed about it, ancient Egypt is one of my loves and I wouldn't feel I'd be doing it justice if I just farted past some major pieces of history. While I've never been to Egypt (most importantly, it's just not safe for Americans at the moment, nevermind the cost), I have maps of not only the Nile village layouts but worker layouts at Temple sites because that's where my MC lives. While the village I'm working in is fictional, it's based on Deir el-Medina which is real and I hope it comes across as realistic in the writing.Then there's balancing what you know with the writing and not exposing everything you know simply because you can when it's not relevant to the story, but that's another conversation.

I think visiting a location is ideal, but not necessary if you do a lot of research and/or interviews, and probably not practical for writers whose WIPs may travel between multiple cities or countries.

My thriller WIP has scenes in DC, Paris, Istanbul, Belfast and Moscow. I've been to the first four and done my legwork; I just can't get to Moscow anytime soon. But I have a good friend who is Russian, who grew up in Moscow and visits every couple of years, so I'm interviewing her ad nauseam to get the details there.

Google, wikipedia and travel guides help alot. Also, there is an Experts Needed forum here on AW where you can post requests for help. Like, for instance, if you want to know about Mount Greylock in Massachusetts, ask for help there and someone like me might drop by and help (since I lived a couple miles from said mountain). I answer a lot of questions about the Appalachian Trial for members here.

Unless you're doing a travel book on the place, no, you do not need to travel there. Here's why.

I have a manuscript someone is beta reading for me right now. Much of that is set in Los Angeles (a place I've been) and Brooklyn, New York (a place I have not been). So, instead of going to Brooklyn, which would be difficult in the first place, I researched what Brooklyn looked and felt like in the 1960s. Once I had some fact, I mingled in some fiction because the fictional bits made the story move. And I ended up liking what I did with Brooklyn descriptions more than Los Angeles stuff.

There will be evangelists here who SWEAR you need to go and experience the place. And I tacitly agree with that. It doesn't hurt. But chances are you'll write that some "one way" street goes two ways or won't have the correct manhole cover count. And there will always be fans (which, remember, "fan" is short for "fanatic") who will snap you down for every square foot of tarmac, sidewalk and Brownstone door.

Do the homework. Look at a map. Get a feel for the weather. And so on. But unless you're compiling the next Fodor's, stick to your story.

another way to get pics of an area is to go to photography web sites where you can post all your vacation pics etc.
Most of these sites will allow you to search members pics, using key words. I have found it to be a good source of pics for locales, and also a good source for finding pics of my 'characters'.

My current WIP is set in Providence and surrounding towns, which I know very well as a long-time resident. It is also set in Arkham and Kingsport, Massachusetts, which are towns invented by H. P. Lovecraft but invented from New England models he knew to the core.

On the other hand, I've written novels and short stories in worlds I invented.

Knowing a place by having been there or knowing a place through research or knowing a place as its creator. I think all three will work fine, so long as you visualize and write your setting "rich," with vivid details, and so long as you maintain internal consistency.

Hi mate

I reckon there are two schools -
1 is people writing from experience . I mean going there and traveling and maybe using your own material and your friends
2 would be using Internet - doing some research - thats what most people do from obvious reasons - like money and time

Most writers prefer solution NR 2 - but personally I reckon its a bad idea to use other peoples work and you have to remember we are all different and we use different glasses to look at the world !!!

I think it depends on how much of a character the setting is in your story. I have a MG novel set in a nameless small town (based on several towns in Northern CA), but the setting isn't that important and could have taken place in any small town in any state. But if the setting is more important maybe you should check it out before you write about it.

I have a WIP based in Shibuya, a ward in Tokyo, and I never would have tried writing it w/o living in Japan first and spending a lot of time in Shibuya and the areas in Japan my characters travel. There isn't a lot of information about obscure places in Japan (like Aokigahara Jukai!) online and I found it helpful to just travel there on my own. It was difficult, but I had to do it. Plus, Tokyo is almost another MC in my WIP, so it's important for me to give the reader a feel for what the city and its wards are really like.

Also, I found I have a completely different idea of a place before I've been there than I do after. I mean, you can read all about touristy things, but you won't know certain things unless you visit. I had no idea what Phnom Penh smelled like before I went there or felt like, for that matter. Pictures don't do it justice. You just can't know certain things w/o visiting.

Now, I do think you can write about a place w/o going, but if you can try to see it for yourself. I think it could only improve a story and not distract from it.

I've never been to Harfaith, nor to Altiar.

If writers were limited to where they had been that would eliminate a lot of good SF and Fantasy. For a modern, realistic novel it helps. It's not necessary for either every writer or every book. Do what's needed for your book.

satori said:

Here's an Amazon review for evidence of "if you get something wrong, people WILL call you out on it": review of the YA novel MERMAID PARK

Click to expand...

Hmm. I looked at the review and this was the line that struck me:

Scattered inconsistancies jump out at a reader deeply familiar with the Wildwood, NJ setting, however

Click to expand...

So, how many readers of that book do you suppose were 'deeply familiar with the Wildwood, NJ setting'? I'd bet not a huge proportion. If it were my book, I think I'd be happy to read a review like that and shrug. You can't be an expert on everything. If the story's good enough and the writing's good enough, people will read it, whatever inaccuracies you happen to have.

Weighing in my own opinion here, but I don't think it's a must. If it was, I would have gone broke on the series I'm working on since the characters travel to Germany, Africa, Antartica, and a few other places in the US.

I think it IS important to do your research. All of the resources that everyone suggested are great ideas. If you can find someone online from the place you're going to, they could always read and check for inaccuracies.

That said, two people can go to the same place at the same time and pick up on different feels from it. They might notice different things, or may even read different things into certain landmarks, etc. Like my hometown for instance-there are a few different sides to it. On the one hand, it has charm and a history of being a circus town and a few other things that set it apart (i.e. an old brick road going through downtown). But then it's also a community surrounded by farms, so someone else might pick up on the farmer vibe. and then on the other hand, some of the population is made up of very low income immigrants (some whose residential status is less than legal) and then on the other hand, we have a lake that is surrounded by ridiculously large homes, most of them vacation homes.

So this is a small town and there are several dynamics going on here, depending on where you live and what your own personal history is. If someone were to write a novel about it, the characters would dictate what feel is given to the town and what is seen of it.

With bigger cities, this will be even more pronounced because the populations will be larger and more diverse. If writing about an exact neighborhood, it's important to get the facts right, but there's room to create your own neighborhoods, etc.

So while it's important if you're putting certain facts into the book (i.e. saying that such and such neighborhood is near such and such bay when in fact the neighborhood is miles away from the bay) then check those out. But I would say that for most things, do as much research as you can but feel free to take some creative license.

Anyways, that was a really long way to say that I don't think you need to break the bank visiting anywhere you want to set your story or only write about places you've been. You just need to be willing to do some research and fact checking

While going to the sites of your story is probably the most ideal, you don't have to. However, if you can't, try and see if you can interview someone local to your site. They can add spice to your story because they know things that a tourist wouldn't. That helps especially if your character is from the area in question. On the other hand, a tourist notices the things a local takes for granted.

For example, I have a friend who works in NYC and lives in the area. He never went on the carriage rides through Central Park until I dragged him along because I wanted to go on one. It's just a touristy thing. On the other hand, he gets to show me all of his favorite little haunts - such as the Jacques Torres chocolate shop. Places that I might not have found on my own. Also, because I'm looking at the City with fresh eyes, I can point out things he might not have noticed or not noticed in a long time - like a small waterfall in Central Park he hadn't seen. He was also having a great time watching me drool over some of the brownstones in the Village.