Picking up on the Bloomsbury thread, but going off at a tangent and not wanting to disrupt that thread...what do people think about using real locations in novels?
My story location is both real and not. Key features are inspired by the Malverns, as would be apparent to anyone reading it who knew them. But I've cheated and taken big liberties, not wanting to be contrained by the real life geographical constraints. Choices, choices. To use a real town, as many authors do, grit and veracity and a local tourism marketing angle thereby, Morse and Oxford now go together for Morse fans, but with the risk of having every error pointed out, or someone deciding that your character is based on them (and is maybe libellous :) ) Or make it both harder and easier on yourself....with a landscape invented from scratch, though there is nothing new under the sun, so unless it's speculative fantasy, people might still try guessing the 'real' location. anyway. More pros and cons, people?
Ooh-er...that sounds a bit highbrow for my jottings :)
Actually, I guess that's what we're all really aiming for.
That's wonderful. You achieved a poetic truth there as well, because you still left sufficient space for him to mobilise his own imaginative emotional energy.
Ah, but you never know who's going to read your book...like a ballistics expert! And any little error observed makes the story less real in that reader's mind. And when he tells his mates about it, they're less likely to want to read it etc, etc.
'Course, I may be completely wrong. Though I had a very complimentary reviewer of my first story who said he'd stood on a beach I'd described (from pics and maps - I've never actually been there) and could see the army landing and the problems they faced. So I think it's worth being as accurate as one can when using facts in fiction.
Most of the time :)