“Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.â€
Who can ever forget Daphne du Maurier’s opening line for her classic, chilling romance Rebecca—or Manderley itself, the haunting mansion to which young Mrs. de Winter comes as a bride? Equally, if you think of Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, images of Wuthering Heights itself and the wild, desolate Yorkshire moors upon which it is set inevitably come to mind, and for Margaret Mitchell’s
Gone With the Wind, it’s white-columned Tara rising from the rich red Georgia earth.
Although completely different from one another, each of these romances—and all good novels—have one important element in common: they all possess an extremely strong sense of place.
Ever read a book and couldn’t remember where it was happening? I have, and those are novels that don’t work for me as a reader on any level. Part of a writer making his/her book resonate with me, in fact, is fully grounding me in his/her place setting. Whether it’s Victorian London or the Scottish Highlands, the Deep South or the Wild West, New York City or Peyton Place, I want as a reader not only to know where a novel is taking place, but also to feel as though I have somehow been transported there.
A couple of lines to the effect that the place setting is the Scandinavia of the Vikings or the suburbs of Chicago isn’t going to cut it for me.
In recent years, however, the trend has been to excise description (among other things) from books. It’s a trend I find unfortunate. For one thing, it invariably damages the sense of place the novels might otherwise have had. For another, it completely loses readers like me. If description is present, and you as a reader find it boring, you can skim or skip it. But if it’s not there at all, readers like me don’t have the option of inserting it. We simply have to do without.
As someone who grew up being swept away to Manderley, Wuthering Heights, Tara, and a thousand and one other places, I don’t want to have to do without. I want the whole story—including a sense of place. I don’t know about the rest of you, but as a reader, I find that all the novels that have stayed with me over the years have pulled me into a place, whether real or imagined, and made it come alive for me.
Aside from the classics, which I reread time and again, one of the last novels I actually remember reading is Caleb Carr’s The Alienist—not because it was the last book I ever read (I’ve read many novels since, of course), but because it has an absolutely spellbinding sense of place (New York City during the Gilded Age).
Here’s author Sally Beauman’s top-ten list of books with powerful senses of place that do it for her. What about the rest of you? What novels do you most remember because the place settings are as vivid as the characters and the plots? What fictional place—like Manderley, Wuthering Heights, and Tara—would you most like to visit? As for me, well, ever since I was a child, I’ve been packing my bags for a trip to Camelot. Fortunately, I’ve got on my bookshelves many wonderful novels that will take me there. I do hope they’ve saved me a seat at the Round Table….
No related posts.
Wow, I couldn’t agree more!
I have a real passion for setting and sense of place in my own stories, and love books that offer the same to me. I’ve been a landscape officer, and I can’t escape from the fact that our environment shapes us in ways we constantly underestimate. Having a strong sense of place for a story is more than making the setting clear to the reader, it’s got to impact on the characters.
Okay, so you lost me a bit with Camelot
, but I can forgive you…. 
Her strong sense of place is one of the reasons I love Mary Stewards early romantic suspense novels.
Sense of place matters to me in a story. If it’s done right, it sets the scene without dragging the pace down. The Thin Woman by Dorothy Cannell has a very strong sense of place and it’s a fast, funny, twisted tale. Any of JoAnn Ross’ stories set in Ireleand could not have been set anywhere else. Even the Stephanie Plum stories are very dependent on their setting; New Jersey permeates the plot. I think any story that’s strong enough to leave a lasting impression has all the requirements of good fiction, including the setting.
I’m a bit astonished by the inclusion of Just William on Sally Beauman’s list – I read and enjoyed them as a child, but I’ve no sense of place associated with them – unlike say, Arthur Ransome’s books.
I agree with Anna Lucia – Mary Stewart has a wonderful sense of place. Madam Will you Talk? and The Moonspinners both have settings that I love.
Another book that transported me was Kim by Rudyard Kipling. I started reading Laurie R. King’s book – The Game – and when I realised it was related to Kim, stopped reading and bought Kim to read first. It had amazingly vivid settings, and was a fantastic read, and I don’t think I’d have read it if King hadn’t led me to it.
Alexander McCall Smith – I love his Botswana series. Eva Ibbotson as well – I think I’m thinking of a S. American setting she wrote, but I’m blanking on the title.
I suppose the problem is, if you haven’t been to the country, you don’t know if you’re being transported to a real place or not. Maybe it doesn’t matter, but it is a particular joy if you go somewhere that you feel you know from fiction and it is as you expect. I did get to many of the places Mary Stewart mentions in ‘Madam..’ [even went to the Chateau d'If for no other reason]. It was good fun, because they were recognisably the same as the book places even half a century later. That’s such talent – to write a description that allows the reader to visualise a place so clearly.
I’m in the middle- sense of place can both work to make me love a book more or to make me completely bored and impatient with a book. It depends on how the author weaves her description and feeling of place in with the pace of the book.
One author whose books are full of sense of place and rich with the vividness of it is MM Kaye. The Far Pavilions and Trade Wind remain in my imagination long after I read them because of the imagery.
A more recent author that comes to mind who I also believe does this with skill is Lynne Connolly and her Richard and Rose series.
But as I said, sometimes I get lost and give up on books that spend too much time develeoping place. Many classics have this effect on me (Dr. Zhivago and War and Peace- I tried with both of them, I really did!)
I find setting is hugely important if it “permeates” the story. Historical and Paranormal would have a stronger sense of setting for me than a Contemporary because the elements of a setting in a Contemporary don’t have that much of an effect on the story. A Time-Travel, Historical, or Paranormal all feed off setting. The time and place is crucial. The readers must feel as if they’ve joined you on the journey.
A Contemporary romance can use less setting. If the story is set on a ranch, we all have some semblance of a clue as to what that would look like. You can take the generic setting and build on it. You can describe the house, the horses, and the land. But essentially, it’s a ranch.
I love the JD Robb series. She makes me feel as if I’m in New York in the future. Every small element from start to finish is addressed. I love Rebecca’s books. They are rich with detail.
But setting, to me, isn’t the whole story. And if the plot doesn’t hold up, I don’t really care WHERE the story is. I won’t finish it.
I loved “Rebecca”, Mary Stewart’s work, and all the other great gothic classics for their sense of place. I also second the recommendation of M.M. Kaye. Lack of setting description particularly frustrates me when I’m reading a book that is supposed to take place in the past or in an exotic place. I picked out the book to escape to some place new. If it feels like it could have happened in any time or any place, what’s the point? I end up feeling cheated and won’t buy that author again.
Very interesting post and I couldn’t agree more. I do remember books and authors who transport me to a new place and make me feel as if I am really there, seeing what the characters are seeing. However, if there is too much description, it can be off-putting, but I can always skip it.
Nevada Barr is one of my favorite mystery authors. Her Anna Pigeon series takes place in a different national park each book. Most parks, I have never visited, but she really takes the reader there, to show them the beauty and cruelty of nature.
That’s my main problem: I love building the world I’m in as I’m writing. LOL, but I keep hearing that editors and readers can’t stand it. But books that have transported me have been books by Victoria Holt, Judy Cuevas/Judith Ivory, Betina Krahn and Marsha Canham.
Thanks, everyone!
Anna Lucia…sorry I lost you with Camelot— LOL!—but it really is my favorite fictional place (although, of course, it may actually be a real place).
I agree with everyone that the work of both Mary Stewart and M.M. Kaye has wonderful senses of place. They are two of my favorite authors, and that’s one of the reasons why.
Jill…I’m the same way: If something could happen at any time at any place, then I, too, feel cheated as a reader.
Evangeline…I’ve never had a single editor who disliked description, so maybe I’ve been lucky! *g* As for readers not liking it, I think it’s difficult to generalize about readers about anything. For every reader who doesn’t like description, there’s one like me who does. As a writer, I think it’s all a question of trying to find the right balance.
The Impression of Place
Rebecca Brandewyne, a Romancing the Blog columnist, asks about the impression of place in novels -- What novels do you most remember because the place settings are as vivid as the characters and the plots? What fictional place -- like M…