Return of the Setting

[Ghost]

A while back there was a thread about Stephen King where one poster disliked King's use of Maine in several of his stories.

Does it bother you to see authors returning to the same setting for different books and stories?

I've never had this problem as a reader. How common is it? In some subgenres, like urban fantasy, it's expected that you return to the same place (Jim Butcher's Chicago, Ilona Andrews' Atlanta, Holly Black's NYC, etc). I used to be a big fan of Christopher Pike as a kid, and while I have no interest in California it didn't bother me that he wrote about SoCal in different books. Entire worlds seem to be acceptable, or there'd be fewer fans of Discworld, Pern, or Shannara.

It surprises me that returning to a setting could be a problem, and I hope readers bothered by the it are in the minority. I'm already writing myself into a niche. By returning to New Mexico for multiple short stories, I hope the stories don't become more exclusive (or boring).

I believe most readers won't see this as a big deal, but I don't really know. What do you guys think?

 

[Ankari]

I love stories in a persistent setting. I think the issue with King's example is that he uses it for multiple stories and characters. Jim Butcher uses it for one main character (I'm assuming, I've never read the books). Since King changes characters, why not change settings?
Fictional settings can get away with it because they are usually larger. A writer has more freedom to create settings instead of rending actual environments into a book. You'll have people scream "That's not how So-and-So building looks at night!" or "What sane person would live in So-and-So part of town? It's a dump!"

 

[Steerpike]

Doesn't bother me a bit. A good story is a good story; I don't care where it is set.

 

[MadMadys]

If he doesn't write about Maine, who would? Writer's are allowed to set things where they want and where better than places they know the best? Fair play to me.

 

[michael.harrel]

I haven't really read much of Stephen King, but I will say my interest in him went up when I heard that many of his stories shared a common setting and that sometimes characters from one story or novel would have a cameo in another. Slowly building up those connections in otherwise unrelated stories appeals to me for some reason. Same thing with Faulkner and his Yoknapatawpha County.

 

[Wanara009]

Usually it won't. However, I'm a fan of consistency in a setting so unless the books is set on parallel continuity, you can bet your wage for the next 30 years and pensions that I'll be looking up and down for the inconsistencies and get into a blood rage.

 

[SeverinR]

I think as long as it is fresh in the book, it doesn't matter where the story takes place.
Now if he has the characters in the same place, doing the same things, just changing what happens, it would get old.

I would think it hard to research a place to know specifics, and feel secure knowing the lay of the land enough to write.
You should know you can't walk on the river walk of San Antonio and go from Davy Crocketts resting place to the zoo, but neither are actually on the river walk. (DavyCrockett's resting place isn't far from the walk, but the zoo is miles away.)

I know authors don't concern themselves with specifics like this, but I think it would help a story to work within reality if the setting is a real place. Now if its Imaginsberg Ohio, feel free to set it up as you like.