# Completely fictional world versus alternative Earth



## SnappingTurtle (Dec 29, 2013)

I am working on a fantasy trilogy with elements of horror (see my introductory post in the Member Introductions sub-forum).  In the past, I have always been able to set my stories on Earth, but I think this may be the first time where the story may involve the creation of my own world.  I have been debating about whether to set this in a completely fictional world or to set this in an alternative Earth, similar to the setting of _Atlas Shrugged_, and I wanted to discuss this with others here.

I could think of arguments for the alternative Earth option.  Parts of the plot involve animals that currently exist on Earth such as the duck-billed platypus.  Several events throughout the trilogy involve piano music.  The setting of the first book is a world similar to Earth in 2010 A. D. in terms of culture, political issues, and technological and scientific advancements; in fact, I could probably set the events of the first book to take place in Pittsburgh without substantially affecting the story.  The setting of the third book is a futuristic dystopia that could also plausibly take place on Earth.

However, I could also think of equally convincing arguments for the fictional world.  The second book, unlike the first and the third, would probably require a rewriting of history if I were to set the entire trilogy in an alternative Earth.  The setting that I have envisioned is a steampunk-style civilization with culture and politics similar to those of ancient Greece whose destruction was brought on by a series of natural disasters; I have been unable to come up with an actual historical setting on Earth to match this vision.  Also, all three books heavily involve a religion that has heavily influenced the thoughts, beliefs, and culture of this world.  I wanted to avoid making this religion Christianity, but instead, incorporate elements from existing religions and exaggerate them.

My intuition says that if I could get away with setting this trilogy on Earth, then set it on Earth to ground this work in reality as much as fantasy fiction would allow; I would think it would be good to maximize the number of elements with which the reader could identify.  But there are some aspects that would strongly indicate it would make more sense to set the entire trilogy in a completely fictional world.  

What are others' thoughts?  When do you set your work in a fictional world, and when do you set your work on Earth or some alternative version of it?


----------



## Guru Coyote (Dec 29, 2013)

You already name many of the thoughts/arguments I came up with while reading your post.

* Horror is strongest when based in familiar things. It is the tension of what we know to be 'safe' and 'good' ... and then learning that it is not.
A purely fictional world has much less of those 'assumed safeties' - everything is strange and new.

The other thought I had when reading 'purely fictional world' is this: there is no such thing. We always use elements of what we know to build new worlds.

Now would I lean towards using 'real Earth' as the setting? Or maybe and 'alternate history Earth?'
Actually, no. What if you can use the beginning of book one to BUILD a familiar and 'safe' place in the fictional world? You will need some of that simply to set up that base religion you talk of. The reader will have to becom a local almost...
Using out (alternate or not) Earth would start the reader out as local... but much of the mystery of your book would be around what is different from our Earth to the one your characters inhabit. I don't think that is waht you intend.

And as to how I go about the question of fictional or real world... I started out my current WiP world as a 'purely fictional' one... but after building the geography and cultures for a while... I come to a point where I can see readers assuming my world was some future/alternate version of our Earth. Personally I'm ok with that, although I think I will never openly address the question of what it is


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 29, 2013)

I think the primary factor in decisions like this should always be: which one interests YOU more? Which are YOU going to be the most passionate about? If you already have characters, then which feels more natural to those characters? If you already have a plot, which best facilitates and engages with the plot? Essentially, which is going to enable YOU to tell the best story that you can? Only you can answer that. 

Because each option has advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I like reading about either, AS LONG AS THEY ARE WELL DONE. Either can be brilliantly done and either can be a half-assed mess. Every story is as unique as its creator.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 29, 2013)

I went with a completely fictional world. It seemed the most fun to me. It also gives me the freedom to set up my history and geography and whatever else the way I want it.
There are many similarities with the modern day real world, but at the same time there are enough differences that you'd be hard pressed to get the two mixed up.

Then again, it may just be that I went with fictional world because I didn't want to have to bother too much with historical or geographical accuracy.


----------



## SnappingTurtle (Dec 29, 2013)

Thanks, everyone who responded.



Guru Coyote said:


> You already name many of the thoughts/arguments I came up with while reading your post.
> 
> * Horror is strongest when based in familiar things. It is the tension of what we know to be 'safe' and 'good' ... and then learning that it is not.
> A purely fictional world has much less of those 'assumed safeties' - everything is strange and new.
> ...



When I mean "completely fictional world," I mean something like China Mieville's Bas-Lag.  But after thinking about it a little more, I think what I should do, especially given the events of the second book, is to use the "fictional" world.  But it will be very similar to Earth; it will be populated by humans, the technology in the first book will be similar to that on Earth, and animals from Earth will appear in this world.  I actually am even thinking about leaving it completely ambiguous about whether this world is actually an alternate Earth, with different names for the continents, an alternate history, and different countries and borders; for example, Edgard, the country in which the events of the first book take place, would occupy what is actually northeastern Quebec, whereas the country in which the events of the second book take place would occupy what is actually North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.  

I like the idea of a "familiar" and "safe" place in this fictional world, and here is where I could really use the setting of the first book to my advantage.  I have mentioned either here or in my introductory post that the setting of the first book is similar to that of Earth in 2010 A. D., with a similar culture, political atmosphere, and level of scientific and technological advancement.  Since the setting of the first book is by far the most "familiar," I could use this to acquaint the reader with the world, the religion, and relevant aspects of the world's history, to prepare them for the second book, which takes place in the past, and the third, which takes place in the future.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 29, 2013)

One way to forestall making an official decision is to write it and let the story decide.  Like, take all the elements you like and know you are using and begin writing.

I have written a lot of stories in a fictional world, but for my WIP I went with an earth-like alternate.  I named the city, several regions, and modeled it off historical Venice and Germany, but I reinvented the names.  I think world-building can easily gt too big and overshadow the story, whereas if you base it on the rules you know, for instance, I based it off a particular time period and region of Earth, it helps keep the laws of physics, science and society in check.  

So... people in both my worlds ride horses, but in the Earth-like world, they're called Fjerian Trotters (for a region based off Hungary), and in the made-up world, they're called Mortigans and Vanigans (light and heavy war horses) breeds known throughout the continent and bred by people on the plains.

I think either world would work, it's just about how many differences from Earth you are using that should probably determine in the end which you go with.


----------



## SineNomine (Dec 29, 2013)

The only caution I would offer with an alternate earth is to be mindful of how the changes impact certain groups that actually exist.  More than a few authors have done harm by erasing already marginalized groups from existence in their novel with little or no thought as to how people from those groups reading might feel.


----------



## OlgaGodim (Jan 3, 2014)

My fantasy novels are all set in a fictional world, with different geography. But I found that we all mostly base what we write on what we know - it's easier this way for readers and writers. For instance: the animals in my imaginary world are the same. I call them the same names - dog, cat, wolf, bear, eagle, etc - and I don't describe them. The religious beliefs in my imaginary world are different, but they still have temples and shrines and monks. I suppose it's a mix of unknown and familiar.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 4, 2014)

I wrestle with the same question all the time. I believe the problem lies in my desire to write historical fiction without having to worry so much about strict accuracy. History can be a great source of inspiration, but sometimes the facts get in the way of the stories I want to tell. Switching the genre to fantasy would give me more creative leeway in that regard. On the other hand I can see why people think it's lazy to rip off history when world-building.


----------

