So I was thinking about the setting in The Wolfman. I watched the trailer and was completely sucked into the mood and setting of the story; and I thought, for a total remake, they did an excellent job of choosing the time and location—it was practically a character itself. And yet, description and setting are often disregarded in the realm of importance of writing.

Characterization and Plot are frequently featured like A-list celebrities, while things like Voice, Theme, and Setting often get shunted with Kathy Griffith to the D-list. Tragic, because these very writing techniques are the Jeff Bridges of the writing world. We all know they were absolutely essential to the overall product, but no one remembers to acknowledge them in their Oscar speech. Or give them their own Oscar.

Consider Dracula. A brilliant character, but nothing without the setting he was drawn in. The story wouldn’t work if he were in a setting like modern day California, with all its sunny weather and “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” people. His whole inner-makeup would dissolve like his face in the sun. He needs weather as moody and dramatic as he is, to mirror his moody and dramatic nature. We’re constantly reminded to write bigger, and using setting to the best advantage in our writing is one of the simple ways to show a Bigger Story. (Simple, but not easy.)

And the setting is much more than mere location. The when of the setting is extremely important. Timing is everything. The new movie, The Wolfman, takes place in Victorian England. What better time setting could you have given such a tale? It’s the perfect blend of science and superstition, of the modern and the old. We clearly see the progressive methods of solving crime using Scotland Yard detective work as well as new medical techniques and studies, but at the same time, the threat itself, a wolfman, is a realm of the old world. Not only are we experiencing the hero’s conflict with becoming a monster, but also the conflict of science versus magic (curse). It makes for a much dramatic telling of the story than say Teen Wolf. Which was quite a classic for me growing up, but is pretty much what would happen if we discovered a wolfman now, right? We—in theory—would be accepting of something that was different from us and wouldn’t try to trap it for the discovery of science. We’d bring it in the house and enroll it in high school.

I like to watch movies (obviously, since most of my blogs involve movies), but more than for the story. I like to watch what was included in a screen shot because I know, like scenes in a book, everything is there for a reason. And you can’t fit everything into a screen shot either. You have to focus on what’s most important, especially to the character. What shows character/story the most?

For example, I watched Adventureland and picked out all the very 80s things in the “description.” There were the girls who had their hair styled in that Gilled Lizard sort of fashion (very popular) and had their t-shirt collars ripped out and the bottom tied into a knot so we could see their midriff. Blue eyeshadow. Madonna-esque fashion accessories. All the cars the boys drove were Gremlins or those monster cars that their grandparents would drive. Cassette tapes were predominant; one boy bragged about his CD player that he paid a ton of money for. (In fact, the only thing not very setting authentic was Kristen Stewart, who not only pranced about in low-rise jeans, but whose hair looked exactly like it does from Twilight.)

The best description and setting (in my opinion) is active within the story, the little drops here and there that are explicit to the character themselves. Like the lemondrops on Dumbledore’s desk (you see them in the 6^th movie); or the way Dracula’s shadow moves outside of what his actual ‘reflective’ shadow should be. Doing what Dracula would actually like to be doing to Harker. (I always laugh at that scene.) I also think description and setting is probably best done during the second draft, after you’re done getting the story on paper because after all, character and plot are the A-list; and setting and description is more in the B- and C-list range. (You know, you gotta deal with the divas first before you return for the ones who help make the whole thing hold together cohesively. You can’t have A-list characters and plot in a white room. It doesn’t work.)

I agree with some articles that say less is more (mainly because when it comes to writing description, I definitely am a less is more.) However, I’ve read some books where description is definitely that writer’s forte and I wouldn’t have them change a word. I’ve also read authors, like me, who are minimalists and you see the story just as clearly as you do Harry Potter’s world. Both ways work—just don’t forget about it.

So how do you deal with description and setting? What tips and tricks work for you? What movies have you admired for their use of setting/description? Is anyone else looking forward to The Wolfman and not Valentine’s Day like I am? Who’s hoping Jeff Bridges finally gets an Oscar?