How many of you are world-building minimalists

[ThinkerX]

Yes, you can just write the story and build the world details as needed by the story. I tend to work that way. But here's the deal. Every decision you make on the world building side, you're going to have to live with. Elves have gray eyes? Then they have gray eyes in the next story too. Dwarves are monotheistic? Orcs and trolls are mortal enemies?

What I'm saying is, while a world-building decision may be right for the current story, you may find yourself regretting that decision in the next story. So, in that regard, it does actually make sense to step back from time to time and make sure the background is both consistent and is something you feel is robust enough to serve multiple stories.

Happens with me. I'll pick out a place or situation or event on my world, and use it for the core of a story - or rather part of the core. The rest I have to come up with on the spot...which fixes the improvised bit into the worlds overall lore. The stories are part of the world building.

 

[thedarknessrising]

I don't know if you could call me a minimalist. I spent the last couple years building the world in which I set my stories. Granted, I created it solely for the purpose of having something to tinker with and use as an escape. I liked the idea of creating my own cultures and lore.

The stuff that I do have rarely appears in my actual novel. I just like having something to keep me inspired or help me out of a tight spot. And the world isn't even completely built, nor will it ever be. I'm always adding new stuff to it.

 

[skip.knox]

I think of the choices made as like those point in time in the Doctor Who universe. Some bits can be changed, but there are other bits that are fixed forever. Maybe my goblins will learn to talk, but my orcs will always be monotheists. And I'm just going to have to accept that in the next story and the next one after that.

Writing alternate history makes for an interesting exercise in world building. My big challenge right now is figuring out where to put the bad guys. If I do the obvious and have the good kingdoms in the west and the bad ones in the east, it just feels like stereotyping. But really, who wants an orc empire in their backyard. Put them in Scotland? Spain? Rumania? No matter where I put them, it's like a cultural commentary.

It's a puzzle.

 

[Ophiucha]

I've tried to do a heavy dose of worldbuilding, notebooks full of flag doodles and conlangs and such, but I always get bored with it and - in turn - bored with the story that it was attached to. Worldbuilding as I need it works best for me, and building the world around the story and characters that I want to write about as opposed to trying to set a story in a world I've already created. But I'm also inclined towards very character-oriented stories, so I suppose that works out well for what I write.

Rest assured, there are professional fantasy and science fiction writers who feel similarly.

I don't do world building. I tell stories. The places exist because they serve the narrative. I don't sit about drawing maps and working out the GNP of Melnibone. Indeed, I'm rather inclined to consider that the death of imagination.

I hardly know what this means. I used to draw a rough map if the story was a 'journey' adventure and made up the rest as needed for the story. My worlds are always inner (unconscious) worlds made manifest. I just learned to tap and shape that unconscious. I've never really understood 'world building' and it seems to derive from D&D etc. about which I know almost nothing.

I honestly believe this is what Howard was doing and what Leiber was doing. I grew up reading Freud and Jung (as it were) and I respond well to plots about people creating their own worlds in their minds. When writing s&s I made my landscapes and weather conditions fit the mood of the characters in straight Romantic tradition. Everything is co-opted into narrative and to a lesser extent character development. Realism or quasi-realism wasn't what I was attracted to in s&s and it's what I rejected in fantasy/sf. It became a convention to suspend disbelief by making the invented world as 'believable' as possible. I preferred mine to be as supportive of the story as possible and not bother to suspend disbelief because my readers already knew what they were reading and why. You don't have to persuade someone who has picked up a fantasy book that it is 'real'. What they want is a good story and characters, some good marvels, and maybe a bit to think about.

No, I haven’t been building a guidebook, though I do make ad hoc notes. I think this is a dangerous trap for fantasy writers. You can get caught up ‘worldbuilding’ and end up with all sorts of amazing detail and no story. I actually tend to make up only as much detail as I need for the story as I go along, though I do try and give the impression that there is much more there. I just don’t know what it is unless I need it for the story later, in which case I’ll work it out. I believe a fantasy novel should be like an iceberg. You can see some of it all the time, but you know there is much more, lurking dark and mysterious beneath the surface.

I don’t think I encountered the term “world-building” until long after the point when I was already selling SF, so it’s always struck me as one of those hermetic, workshop-insider terms that doesn’t have a lot of bearing on the actual process of writing.

Nor do I ever remember reading an SF novel, at any point in my life, and thinking “hey, great world-building going on here.” To me it smacks very much of the mindset that you must assemble your fictional universe from the atoms up — working out the orbits of your planets, the plate tectonics, the atmospheric chemistry, the irrigation, economics and sanitary plumbing of your invented society, in numbing detail, before you can get on with the trifling afterthought of actually doing fiction.

For me it doesn’t work like that, and I can’t imagine it works like that for many of the writers whose work means anything to me. In so far as world-building is meant to make an invented environment feel plausible, that plausibility is surely more effectively conveyed by the accumulated layering of depth and texture, the telling detail and the off-hand reference. That’s why Gene Wolfe’s Urth, or Herbert’s Arrakis, feel real to me: not, I think, because either of them worked it all out beforehand.

Worlds are too big to build, or to know, or even, almost, to live in. A world is going to be compelling at least as much by what it doesn’t say as what it does. Nothing is more drably undermining of the awe at hugeness that living in a world should provoke than the dutiful ticking off of features on a map. ‘World-Building’, at its worst and most compulsive inexorably means the banalising of an imaginary totality. How ****ing depressing is that? Surely we want culture shock, which is about not understanding, rather than understanding. And we can get culture shock at home, too.

(Although he also spent half of his life working on the Bas-Lag setting that a few of his books are set in, so he falls into both extremes with regards to worldbuilding.)

The main thing, overall, that I learned would simply be that: there are a thousand ways to create a place and a thousand ways to portray it, but if you follow your characters, honestly and to the end, the place will become real around them.

Not to say I agree with all of the quotes in their extremity, but if there are accomplished writers who loathe the concept, then I daresay you can get away with very light worldbuilding as needed.

 

[Laurence]

Some of the authors you quoted seem almost bitter toward world builders. I wonder why that is?

 

[Russ]

Some of the authors you quoted seem almost bitter toward world builders. I wonder why that is?

I cannot speak for all (or really any) of them, but Moorcock believes it distracts from the art, and arises from people who are more influenced by role playing games rather than by the desire to write great "romantic" (in his sense of the word) stories.

It also seems clear than many of them believe that too much emphasis on world building is a waste for time for effort better spent elsewhere.

I lean that way myself. I remember reading a fantasy recently where there was almost three paragraphs describing in detail what a certain female character was wearing and why she was wearing it. It could have come from a very dry history text on that world, and I remember thinking to myself "that's great but is she going to do something now?"

 

[Incanus]

If a writer believes that world-building is a distraction from characters or story, then what is the point of working in the fantasy/sf genre? The solution seems pretty simple: if world-building is bad, choose a genre that doesn't use it or need it. Seems straight forward to me. If characters are the only important thing, why muddy it up with extraneous fantasy stuff? Write a character study. No world-building, no muss, no fuss.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

If a writer believes that world-building is a distraction from characters or story, then what is the point of working in the fantasy/sf genre? The solution seems pretty simple: if world-building is bad, choose a genre that doesn't use it or need it. Seems straight forward to me. If characters are the only important thing, why muddy it up with extraneous fantasy stuff? Write a character study. No world-building, no muss, no fuss.

I don't think that's what the quoted authors are really saying. Nor do I find this critique persuasive. To me the quote is saying create interesting worlds but ultimately your story fails or succeeds based on your characters not your world. Your characters are ultimately the most important things out there; they need their due diligence. This requires more work than most people care to admit. However, people often place their world and its creativeness above the strength and depth of character. I mean look at this forum: how many threads are there asking if this world or world building element is cool? Now compare that to truly in depth critiques and questions about character. I'm Willing to bet that the world building questions far outweigh the character questions. This I think is bass-ackwards. The character must be the first among equals, not as pawns to show off your world. That I think is the core of the quotes.

I agree with these writers. An interesting world provides a gee whiz factor, but that is fleeting. But good, deep, rich, vibrant characters offer lasting impact and power. It's these stories that stick with us. Tolkien's work is not particularly original in its world. Not like Roshar of the Way of Kings. But the characters are deep. Their stories stick with us. Game of Thrones has a moderately interesting world, but we invest in the characters. So much so that when a favorite dies we rage agains GRRM but come back for more. Too often novices try to be Tolkien but forget that to be him we need more than a setting; we need people whose blood is ink, whose bones are paper, but their emotions and spirits are real (to us).

That I think is why I'm a minimalist.

Aside: sorry for the typos using my phone.

 

[Laurence]

I mean look at this forum: how many threads are there asking if this world or world building element is cool? Now compare that to truly in depth critiques and questions about character. I'm Willing to bet that the world building questions far outweigh the character questions. This I think is bass-ackwards. The character must be the first among equals, not as pawns to show off your world. That I think is the core of the quotes.

I can't speak for other members, but in my case, I joined these forums because I was interested in writing and have no skill or experience in it whatsoever. I'm not interested in making a living from writing - I would quite happily only ever write one novel (or series of novels in one universe) but I want it to be perfect in my eyes. If this means spending literally years building the world first then so be it. At the moment I'm just enjoying writing full histories of each race in my world, which includes a bit of story writing as each major event requires an explanation! Rest assured I'll be posting a hell of a lot about character and plot development once I'm satisfied with my world.

My point, I guess, is that thorough world building seems like a way to achieve as near to perfection as possible, given you have a lifetime to put in to it.

 

[Miskatonic]

I don't think that's what the quoted authors are really saying. Nor do I find this critique persuasive. To me the quote is saying create interesting worlds but ultimately your story fails or succeeds based on your characters not your world. Your characters are ultimately the most important things out there; they need their due diligence. This requires more work than most people care to admit. However, people often place their world and its creativeness above the strength and depth of character. I mean look at this forum: how many threads are there asking if this world or world building element is cool? Now compare that to truly in depth critiques and questions about character. I'm Willing to bet that the world building questions far outweigh the character questions. This I think is bass-ackwards. The character must be the first among equals, not as pawns to show off your world. That I think is the core of the quotes.

I agree with this, even if I spend a lot of time world building. You can always do what Tolkien did with the Silmarillion if you really want to get into all the specific details about the world you created. Just sell it as a separate book for those who are interested.

 

[Russ]

I can't speak for other members, but in my case, I joined these forums because I was interested in writing and have no skill or experience in it whatsoever. I'm not interested in making a living from writing - I would quite happily only ever write one novel (or series of novels in one universe) but I want it to be perfect in my eyes. If this means spending literally years building the world first then so be it. At the moment I'm just enjoying writing full histories of each race in my world, which includes a bit of story writing as each major event requires an explanation! Rest assured I'll be posting a hell of a lot about character and plot development once I'm satisfied with my world.

My point, I guess, is that thorough world building seems like a way to achieve as near to perfection as possible, given you have a lifetime to put in to it.

If you are writing for yourself, simply do what makes you happy.

 

[Russ]

It was funny, we were talking about WB here yesterday and I got home to a new Writer's Digest and read an interview with Patrick Rothfuss where they asked him about his worldbuilding.

(by the by he has a charity project called Worldbuilders Inc worth looking at Worldbuilders )

I don't have the magazine in front of me but he said that after Tolkien far too many people invested far too much time in world building because of Tolkien's great success with it and that much of that worldbuilding (post Tolkien) was crap (I think he used a different word but that seemed to be what he meant).

Anyways he went on to analyse the problem and suggested that Tolkien's WB really worked because he brought his tremendous skill as a linguist to his worldbuilding and that allowed him to make it in depth and worthwhile. Apparently Rothfuss has a background in economics and built a really interesting currency system for his world that he thinks works well because he has a passion and skill in that area (I have not read his books so I cannot say).

The message he seemed to be conveying was that worldbuilding needed to be fueled by both a passion and some skill or significant depth of knowledge of some field (linguistics or economics etc) to be worthwhile really investing a great deal of time and effort in.

 

[X Equestris]

I wouldn't call myself a minimalist, but I don't have tons of material lying around. I've written a few in-universe texts about magic, religion, geography and history, and creatures, but most of it is directly relevant to my writing in some way or another. I've made maps in order to keep things straight, but they aren't super detailed.

 

[Laurence]

It was funny, we were talking about WB here yesterday and I got home to a new Writer's Digest and read an interview with Patrick Rothfuss where they asked him about his worldbuilding.

(by the by he has a charity project called Worldbuilders Inc worth looking at Worldbuilders )

I don't have the magazine in front of me but he said that after Tolkien far too many people invested far too much time in world building because of Tolkien's great success with it and that much of that worldbuilding (post Tolkien) was crap (I think he used a different word but that seemed to be what he meant).

Anyways he went on to analyse the problem and suggested that Tolkien's WB really worked because he brought his tremendous skill as a linguist to his worldbuilding and that allowed him to make it in depth and worthwhile. Apparently Rothfuss has a background in economics and built a really interesting currency system for his world that he thinks works well because he has a passion and skill in that area (I have not read his books so I cannot say).

The message he seemed to be conveying was that worldbuilding needed to be fueled by both a passion and some skill or significant depth of knowledge of some field (linguistics or economics etc) to be worthwhile really investing a great deal of time and effort in.

He's not wrong. You feel for Kvothe as a character because you're constantly reminded just how poor he is, how rich the nobility are, and how this effects many of the characters' personalities.

 

[Creed]

It's a given, generally, that you write what you read. And I love reading epic series with wonderful, believable worlds, like The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Second Apocalypse, and The Long Price Quartet. I also like to play games with sprawling worlds and detail, like the Dragon Age series, the Witcher Saga (haven't finished the books yet), and the Mass Effect trilogy. So it's no surprise I want to write in that line. But note if you've read/played any of these that the world and the story aren't detracting from one another, nor are they in competition: they work in tandem, and the characters are lifted up by them in wonderful narrative harmony.
As fantasy/science-fiction storytellers I think we should all strive for this world-story-character trifecta in some way. As long as there's balance, then, no matter the amounts, the tale should be able to draw its readers in for the ride. I still worry profusely for Achamian in the Black Halls of Cil-Aûjas even if (in fact more so because) he's told me about the feats of ancient Triamis. I still feel bad for Cassandra after (again more so because) she's told me some Seeker history. But a world with less history and less detail can still have the same effect on me (I'm just more inclined to purchase big series).
So in that sense it's about delivery and personal choices. I want a living, breathing world. But of course I want a clever and compelling story, and characters to match. I'm working on one Universe with three worlds, in which I can and have found many stories to tell, and many characters to tell them.
Any problems with finding the harmony I refer to is what this community is for. We can all agree that there's no right way, but there are effective ways and they can be taught, passed on, and learned from experience. Big world or small world. Simple story or complex one. We can distill it down not so much to the world, but the way it's written (i.e. info-dumps vs weaving the detail into the plot).
The one true danger I believe that's mentioned here is that one can be overwhelmed by world building and lose the spark of the tale, of imagination as Michael Moorcock called it. However, it is paramount to understand that the same can happen if you spend all your free time making plot graphs or character portfolios. And, of course, graph, map, or portfolio, leave yourself time to actually write (which is where I need to improve on :-/ ).

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I'm not saying and never will say that world-building isn't important. It's just not quite as important to the story as a character is. Good stories have good characters always, having a new or interesting setting is neat and can enhance but it will not make a bad story good. That and it can distract from the story writing part if you get world builder's disease.

 

[Incanus]

Well, I'm still firmly convinced that character-setting-plot are all of equal importance. Stinting on any one of them is stinting on the story itself, or at the very least is a missed opportunity. I for one do not want to miss any opportunity to create a decent story. If I seem to over-emphasize world-building, it is only because I don't see it as the (so-called) red-headed step-child that some are making it out to be, or a lesser story element in any way.

I don't mind being a little different. Since just about everyone is emphasizing character, character, character over everything else, I may just end up standing out (though not necessarily in good way).

 

[Saigonnus]

I think "minimal" is a relative thing but I feel that a great character in a world with minimal work on it would be like a racecar driver in a Ford Pinto... He looks awesome, drives well and whatnot, but he's extremely limited in what he can do.

It would seem to me that it would depend on the story how much building is needed. If the entire story is set in a village on the edge of nowhere, you won't need as much as your three novel epic spanning 7000 miles of territory and involving several kingdoms.

"Minimal" for the former would be simple... A cast of important NPCs, map of the area and a basic idea of how the society works.

The latter might require at least a basic map, a basic idea about how each of the kingdoms functions, how they interact with each other and any potential conflicts between them. It might also require the author to know who is the leader of the different factions, what their basic goals are...

I tend to do more world building than that, but I tend to focus on the what will affect the story and not in extraneous details that may never be known by the readers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skip.knox]

I vote with Incanus and Creed. I vote for balance.

In fact, I tentatively propose that the hallmark of epic fantasy is exactly that the world building steps forward more than in any other genre (even science fiction). In this particular field, the balance between character, plot and setting (world) is the most even.

I noted that Moorcock referred to his writing as sword and sorcery. The phrase is partly generational, but perhaps in s&s the world building can take more of a back seat. But in epic fantasy, the world is in effect another character.

The closest analogy that comes to mind is the detective novel. It's a commonplace that New York or Los Angeles or San Francisco are as important to how the story gets told as the hard-boiled gumshoe or the twisting plot lines. The same story set in Topeka simply wouldn't work as well.

So, however the world gets built--before or during--it plays an important role. At least in the Department of Sprawling Epics.

 

[Russ]

I noted that Moorcock referred to his writing as sword and sorcery. The phrase is partly generational, but perhaps in s&s the world building can take more of a back seat. But in epic fantasy, the world is in effect another character.

Truth is Moorcock wrote both, and stuff that he called "romance as well." But he also made that comment about the GDP of Melnibone, and that work was not S&S by an definition.

While I agree we should strive for balance I see a lot of world building that is disappointing and slows things down. I think Moorcock and Rothfuss are right on the modern state of the game.