All Comments on 'Story Telling 101'

I remember Smokey and the Bandit. I haven't seen it on TV in many years, so I didn't remember the specifics. I don't even remember whether they were going to Texarkana on the Texas side or on the Arkansas side.

My guess about the georgraphy is that they filmed the whole movie in Georgia, closing off various state highways to get the "locations" they want and saying who gives a (bleep) about what part of the Deep South they are going through. When you go on location, you generally stick pretty close to your hotel room for obvious reasons (money being the biggest one) and try to pass off the surrounding country as being pretty much the same. That's why Hollywood became so popular because you could go an hour's drive in any direction (except on traffic-jam days) and find almost anything you wanted. Of course, audiences COULD tell the difference sometimes and you WOULD have to shell out to go somewhere else, but then you would have to drag the "name" stars out of their homes in L.A. and stick THEM in a hotel room somewhere, and a lot of them would turn you down for that reason.

I don't know much about Georgia geography but I live in Texas (far, far from Texarkana, even pretty far from Abilene), and I get a chuckle out of parts of Texas passing themselves off as other parts of Texas. But ...

I agree that if you are going to write a setting you should make it as generic as possible unless it's vital to the story. Even with erotica. There are quite a few Lit stories where the location is important to the characters -- either they grew up there or they are vacationing there.

Overall, this is a good piece of advice. [Although, and admittedly without doing research, it occurs to me to ask why the regulating authority for distilleries would be the IRS, instead of the BATF. (Although, I'm sure the IRS keeps their finger in the pie (or thumb in the eye, if you prefer that metaphor).] Back to movies. You did leave out "Sugarland Express" in which it took hours to drive from Sugarland to Houston; that distance is something closer to thirty or forty miles, tops. And these days, Sugarland is practically a suburb of Houston.

Details, details, details.

-- KK in Texas

I appreciate your comments. I always enjoy John Grisham's detailed environments in his stories because they are always written with almost documentary-style authenticity. You won't hear a lie in his story! I've always held that you might enjoy hearing a story about someone's skydiving experience, but it won't really affect you emotionally unless you've shared the experience. And their story is worthless if you hear a lie in it. If you stick to what is real, what you know, what your audience is familiar with and what touches you personally, you should have a good story.

It was a good balance of starting with correct facts and then writing good fiction that can go anywhere. It was not perfectly writen; incorrect use of capitalization in some places, but did not matter. Well done and useful.

This is a note from the Author of the Story, Build_it_Write.

In response to “Anonymous in Texas” concerning the IRS regulating distilleries. Your question makes perfect sense and after writing such a piece touting the importance of being accurate, it would be terribly embarrassing to get this one wrong. I knew I remembered what we were told during my five guided tours of the distillery in Lynchburg, Tennessee. However, I do not remember anyone asking why.

Since your question came up, I have contacted the Jack Daniels Distillery, researched the IRS, the BATF (and they have now added “Explosives” to their name) as well as the “Distilled Spirits Council of the United States” known as DISCUS if you want to do your own research. I have not been able to determine the “Why” portion of the question. The people at Jack Daniels did confirm it to be correct and made comments about the huge amounts of taxes they pay on their product.

The consensus “Guess” is the distilleries were assigned to the IRS for tax collection purposes, immediately after the repeal of prohibition in 1933. I have not even found the date when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (and now Explosives) was established. If it was after December of 1933, that is probably “why.”

If anyone has more information, please let us know.

Well, Mr. Build_it_write,

I like your articulation of a storyteller's challenges of establishing a creditable background/scenario for the action to take place in, and other unique writing-styles, can frequently see harsh/overly critical reviews from readers unable to express what they thought was missing from a specific story. I do think you are correct in approaching the foundation work until you have it 'right', as the background is an irreplaceable foundation for any work. I just want to comment on the 'credibility' scale you seemed to have employed when 'gauging' Jimmy. Please allow me to start this by comparing the equality of our definitions of the concept/word: "LIAR". I would define a LIAR as anyone who actively sought to deliberately convey to another something they know to be a LIE. OR anyone who intentionally seeks to mislead, deceive, misdirect another from what is in fact known to the conveyor as TRUTH! (NOTE: this concept is not necessarily restricted to just language use). So lets say it is discovered I made an error(s) with the accuracy of some facts, while in a conversation does not by definition make me a LIAR, even though my statement was inaccurate.

I think this should be a very big factor in anyone's thoughts when they attempt to determine how much 'stock' to place in the creditability of any conversation. It is especially murky when it is further complicated by a 'Tall Tale' style of presentation (requiring more attention), like Mr Jimmy's embellished tale of transporting this whiskey barrel. I feel the need to caution against taking any such 'tale' too seriously though (as in killing ALL his credibility by your reckoning). Too likely to work out being some degree of an injustice to either you or them. Why? Because I know of no truer saying than my own 'Personalities Count!' Your description of Jimmy's personality is what I have simply labeled as a 'Glory Gabber'. Conversation(s) with Glory Gabber(s) of even a few short minutes very efficiently raises irritation levels in (me and many other) folks. So, it was with some measure of surprise when I it dawned on me that most Glory Gabbers are not 'LIARS' (I guess I wanted them to be LOL). How could they be, as they have purposely set their conversation style to a farce credibilty level on a near-par with the old school "Larger Than Life" Paul Bunyan/Blue Ox Tall-Tales!?!

The Glory Gabbers that I personally have known for years, would certainly make some attempt to 'tone down' the wild details of their tale, if you got to asking them for advise on how one might could handle a similar situation better than the folks in the tale did. This is evidence that the embellisher had no nefarious intent to deceive, (so he's not a liar). Glory Gabbers indisputably are the super-heroes of embellishers so be sure to wear your hip-waders if you both frequent the same coffee shop daily! The biggest down side to any tale from a Glory Gabber is it wrecked before it starts in every method for reasonable 'Validation' employable in determining a conversation's trustworthiness. So, if any degree of certainty is needed to be trustworthy; you will require another (more creditable) source of the SAME INFORMATION to enable any determination of the likely validity of any event or incident.

Keep up the good work!!