Generalities vs specificity in fiction -

[alreadyhome]

I wanted to get people's opinion on this because it's something that completely changes a piece of writing even if you were writing the exact same plot.

If you were reading a book, do specific references add or take away from the experience? The following is a really simple example - which of the following sentences do you prefer?

Allie went into the 7-11 and bought a Snickers.

Allie went into the gas station and bought a candy bar.

Besides specific brands and companies, things like current slang and topical political references really transform a writing style. Based on the few modern books I've read, for the last 30 years or so, popular fiction has been hyperspecific and I think it can take away from a story's content, even though it may, as its proponents presumably think, create a stylistic "texture" or something which I'm sure many people enjoy as well. What do you think?

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

I wanted to get people's opinion on this because it's something that completely changes a piece of writing even if you were writing the exact same plot.

If you were reading a book, do specific references add or take away from the experience? The following is a really simple example - which of the following sentences do you prefer?

Allie went into the 7-11 and bought a Snickers.

Allie went into the gas station and bought a candy bar.

Besides specific brands and companies, things like current slang and topical political references really transform a writing style. Based on the few modern books I've read, for the last 30 years or so, popular fiction has been hyperspecific and I think it can take away from a story's content, even though it may, as its proponents presumably think, create a stylistic "texture" or something which I'm sure many people enjoy as well. What do you think?

No. But depends on the circumstances
If one starts throwing references to shit in otherworldy settings then I'll get so annoyed.

But in urban settings then it can actually be quite enjoyable. Gives a sense at what a character likes.

 

[Overly Serious]

Specificities can fix your work at a point of time. You never know what little detail will seem anachronistic to a reader in ten year's time. Last year you could have described "Uncle Ben's smiling face seemed to mock his misery from its colourful carton". And this year find you'd written a period piece. Who could have anticipated it? It can also trip you up with regionalities and other cultural gaps. Twenty years ago you'd have written "Marathon bar" in the UK before the US company renamed them to "snickers". A reader elsewhere wouldn't know what it is and that can pull them a little out of the story.

But as a general rule I find people tend to err on the side of being too general in description. It often means the author is being lazy or simply doesn't have a clear vision of what they're describing. Which sticks in the mind best? "He sat and ate the candy bar" or "he sat on the bench, sucking on the Curly-Wurly" ?

Ultimately you need a mix of both. Use specifics when vagueness doesn't add anything. Vagueness lends itself well to creating impressions. Contrast "He was 6'4, heavyset" with "He loomed in the room, taller than all of them". Specifics lends itself well to clarity of vision. Contrast: "He wore bright, ill-matched clothes" with "he wore a bottle-green jacket, cream slacks and a rose-coloured shirt. His shoes were blue!". Even there I mixed in "bottle-green" and blurred the line between specifics and vagueries. See how I took two different approaches in each case and how in one the specifics add and in the other, the more impressionistic version is stronger? All of it is a judgement call but what you want to do is always catch the reader's attention.

You've asked an interesting question. Your choice lends itself to style. Specifics can make your writing sound quite autistic and lack emotional impression. For me it makes me think of hard-boiled detective style stories. Which is interesting because Raymond Chandler, one of the greatest examples of that genre wrote very poetically. He described a woman with "she smelled the way the Taj Mahal looked by moonlight" and Los Angeles as "one giant, sun-drenched hang-over". How would you do either of those descriptions with specifics? But like I say, lack of specifics is often the result of laziness more than anything. Make sure that's not why you avoid them.

Specifics can also make your writing sound like you're spelling things out for less-intelligent readers. Example: "Her large breasts drew the eye" vs. "Her 36DD breasts drew the eye". The latter sounds more pornographic and keyed to men who get off on such specifics. Your more autistic reader, essentially.

I hope this helps.

EDIT: Don't let specifics slow your story if you're trying to keep a brisk pace. You don't need to draw your readers' attention to things that aren't important. If the point of a scene isn't the chocolate bar, just let it be a chocolate bar. Unless you want to go full Margaret Attwood. Know what you want to achieve. Raymond Chandler can unfurl a whole conspiracy and resolution in 130 pages. Tolkien can spend half-that walking through the countryside and twelve pages hiding from a rider on a horse. Both are justly considered great writers. Specifics or the lack of can impact your pace. You don't want your writing bogged down with unnecessary details, either. Know what's important in your writing and in your scenes and draw your readers's eyes to those things.

 

[alreadyhome]

-snip-

Thank you, really great advice.

No. But depends on the circumstances
If one starts throwing references to shit in otherworldy settings then I'll get so annoyed.

But in urban settings then it can actually be quite enjoyable. Gives a sense at what a character likes.

Thank you. In non sci-fi, urban settings as you said, is there a point at which the feeling that specific references give for a character's personality would turn to annoyance, for you personally, or is the more of that kind of detail the better? If not, what would that point be?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It depends on what those characters should think/say. A specificity means the character is more invested in the particulars of what's happening. For instance, taking Overly Serious example about clothing, the character who can articulate what's bothering him/her in a person's clothing will appear to the writer as having an interest in fashion rather than just a character with a general notion of something not appearing right.
A character speaking naturally is more important than being vague to make the reader understand what's happening. Almost every term can be understood through context: "I went to the XYZ and bought gum" - most readers will understand that XYZ is some store.

No. But depends on the circumstances
If one starts throwing references to shit in otherworldy settings then I'll get so annoyed.

Tbf, a person making references to video games will be just as annoying in real life.

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

Thank you. In non sci-fi, urban settings as you said, is there a point at which the feeling that specific references give for a character's personality would turn to annoyance, for you personally, or is the more of that kind of detail the better? If not, what would that point be?

If he starts saying TV Tropes as gospel.
Also if it's for very "how do you do with fellow kids" type stuff. If its generally ironic or just as a mention than I'm fine. If I start seeing dabs, I am done.

 

[Justtocheck]

If I may say so, doing brands is a very American way of writing, and it emphasizes the mentality of consoom that American culture values so much. That's the whole Bret Easton Ellis thingy.

"Tom took a sip from the coca-cola. It woke him up."

"Tom took a sip from his soda; the sweet taste and coldness of the drink gave him a jolt he needed."

It's all about how much info you are giving and to be honest, while there are obvious things like coca-cola which everyone in the world can know just by the brand but then you are hamstringing yourself from cool descriptions you can come up with as a writer. "It tasted like coca-cola" has no individuality or fun. "The sugary black tar tasted like victory after a day of hard work." At least is unique and is food for the imagination.

Also, what the fuck is with writers making references to obscure musicians and albums. They go on and on about the taste of their characters in jazz and classic rock, and I'm like dude, not everyone is an L.A. hipster. They don't even give decent desciptions of the music or how it makes their characters feel; they just throw the name out there and bam, they expect you to know this shit. TBH Haruki Murakami also does this shit.

 

[The Fool]

Only add information when it's actually important. Being specific means you're making a note of that specific noun, meaning you plan for it to have some impact in the story somehow.

For instance, in American Psycho, brands are brought up constantly. Very famous, expensive brands, which develops not only the overall setting of the book being all yuppies living in high-rise NY apartments, but it exaggerates Bateman's focus on branding and image, he is obsessed with looking rich. I think American Psycho is one of the best examples of using brands and specific locations to develop the story.

Otherwise, bringing up specific things just gets confusing and annoying, and the author becomes more unreliable as they're unable to properly lead the reader into uncovering the setting and characters through their preference of branding or location, if any. If a character doesn't care about food, or location, or anything, just be vague. If the character doesn't care, neither does the reader.