It seems like we are talking about two different things. One
is product
descriptions for verisimilitude, the other is product
placement for money.
(Or a lifetime of free shirts.)
I just finished a novel I call : Princess Naughty and the
Voodoo Cadillac.
There's this character, Ray Justus, who buys a Cadillac on
the cheap
because it's supposed to carry a curse of death. To me, Ray
was the sort of
guy who would like Eldo's and not care much one way or the
other about a
curse of death. No Problem... I'm also not driving a free
Cadillac (sigh).
Just imagine by some strange, surreal twist of fate that I
was offered
money to change the name of the book to Princess Naughty and
the Voodoo
Toyota Corolla. It wouldn't have quite the same ring.
So the point I was trying to make earlier in this
conversation is that I
think products should only be included in service to the
story. That is the
unspoken contract between the writer and reader. (I'll tell a
good story.
In exchange, please buy this book.)
I don't think a reader needs to be led to wonder if a scene
was included
because you were trying to sell mouthwash. It messes with the
suspension of
disbelief.
After someone has contributed as much as Elmore Leonard, I
think the rules
can be bent. I also know something about the financial
realities of making
films and don't have any problems with background product
placement in
films as long as it doesn't interfere in any way with what
the main
business of getting on with the meaning. There's a big
difference between
visual and written language.
In written language, once you bring something out of the
background by
describing it, it has meaning - intended or not.
Fred
----
Down on Ponce a novel by Fred Willard
http://www.mindspring.com/~fwillard
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.