To me, “the Olive Garden” is the McDonald’s of Italian food, a step up the Italian cuisine ladder from Pizza Hut. There’s one within a block of every interstate exit, right alongside Taco Bell, Cracker Barrel, and all the familiar flavors that comfort hungry travelers. They all look the same. They all have the same food and the same assembly-line service. I assume, since it’s a franchise, there’s little variation wherever you may be.
To me, “an Italian restaurant” is smaller, probably family owned. It has some ambience, even if stereotyped and contrived. It’s not located in the highest-rent district of town. Its clientele is local and loyal. Its menu has the usual fare but varies in some respects from any other Italian restaurant you’ll ever go to because there’s no corporate enforcement of continuity.
Two sets of three words with distinctly different connotations to me and 90% of those participating in my highly scientific poll. Good. I’m not the only one.
I know someone who submitted a story to a certain writer site for critique. It’s a fun story. It’s fast paced. It has steadily escalating conflict and a satisfying resolution. There were a couple of tiny issues like “was -ing” verb constructions that could be cleaned up, but with a quick one-day edit, the story would fit seamlessly into an anthology with multipublished authors in the same genre. Yay for her.
I checked back the next day, and there were FIVE HUNDRED comments, the majority a flamefest regarding the—dun dun DUUUUUNNNNN—flagrant brand-name usage!
Yes, within 30,000 words, the author used three—”the Olive Garden”—to identify a food source for a character staying at an interstate motel. Didn’t name the motel (because it was purposely generic). Didn’t name the character’s car (because it was deep POV and people think “my car” not “my 2004 Toyota Corolla”). Didn’t name her clothes or her shoes or her shampoo. The sole mention of any publicly recognizable entity was “the Olive Garden.”
Clearly FLAGRANT brand-name abuse that completely overshadows the remaining 29,997 words of the story.
I suppose the point is, once again, that I’m dismayed by the lack of interest in STORY so many writers display, having a 500-comment tantrum over a detail that was deliberately chosen to evoke a certain familiar setting rather than evaluating any other element of the STORY.
Is it any wonder books are becoming “homogenized” when all the identifying characteristics are being stripped from the material like a damn HIPAA-regulated medical record during the “critique” phase?
The last huge flamefest I witnessed over there suggested we strike Americanisms from our writing vocabulary because our international friends don’t get the references. God forbid anyone shouldn’t understand and be curious and look something up and learn. I know what “football” means in other countries. I know what a “loo” and a ”lift” and a “flat” are. I know what a “Tata” is. Hey, I can even handle medical and scientific and legal and archaic and foreign and MADE-UP words in the books I read. Are these writers suggesting non-American readers are so unintelligent their reading material must be run through a language filter to strain out all the tricksy words before they can comprehend?
Wow. How staggeringly condescending.
Hey, how about a poll to address in the comments:
Does anyone think “use vague, generic terms to identify all items” and “don’t use your own vocabulary because everyone on the planet might not understand what you mean” are valuable pieces of criticism, or even valid pieces of criticism? And do you think this “crit, crit, crit, must have crit” thing (which is not anywhere near as common in the world of male writers, by the way) does more benefit or harm to the art of storytelling?