I've heard so much writing advice on how to make your setting so rich that it feels like another main character. I think this idea is inherently flawed. I have read hundreds of books and not once can I remember feeling that a place was a character for the story. Yes, I've thought parts of many settings were wonderful and/or well-thought-out, but I have never equated them with characterness. They are just in-depthness.
You don't ever say that the plot feels like a character when it's complex and interesting, so why do writers do this with the setting? Honestly, I don't know. A place doesn't want something--the people residing in the place might, but the place itself is an inanimate object. I suppose there are some instances where the land itself seems to react to characters (like Pride Rock having a drought after Scar becomes king) but I see these as more symbolic than anything, signs of the author's opinion on what's going on. The emotions the reader feel seldom stem from the setting itself, but rather from the characters within the setting. All the setting can really do is enhance those emotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment