How many of you are world-building minimalists

[Incanus]

I like Elric OK. But the poor quality of writing throughout makes me a little less inclined to pay too much attention to Moorcock. The term Sword and Sorcery was coined by Fritz Leiber for the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales. These run circles around Elric, leaving Moorcock in the dust in my estimation.

But yeah, balance is the thing. World building miminalism certainly has one thing going for it: less work involved. For myself, I respond to fantasy that shows that a lot of work went into it--the flimsy or breezy varieties are sometimes OK here and there, but the heavy stuff almost always wins out.

I really like Saigonnus' "racecar driver in a pinto" analogy. Gotta remember that one. I think that's how I responded to Joe Abercrombie--The Blade Itself had two or three really interesting characters (as well as two or three totally uninteresting ones), the plot was mediocre, and the world... barely anything at all, almost non-existent: the racecar driver was on a skateboard. Being a slow reader, I'm unlikley to read anymore based on that alone.

 

[Russ]

I like Elric OK. But the poor quality of writing throughout makes me a little less inclined to pay too much attention to Moorcock. The term Sword and Sorcery was coined by Fritz Leiber for the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales. These run circles around Elric, leaving Moorcock in the dust in my estimation.

Moorcock was actually a big big fan of Lieber's and loves his work. Hopefully you are not judging Moorcock on the Elric work of the 60's and 70's when his work in Glorianna, or The Pyatt Quartet, or Mother London, or the Elric work done since 2000 are all pretty well regarded as literary masterpeices.

 

[Incanus]

It's the only Moorcock I've ever read. His name is on it, so he's responsible for it. Most of my favorite authurs tend to write uniformly well across their careers. I don't know why he didn't, but it makes little difference. That was his chance to win me over and he didn't. It's hardly my fault he chose to publish mediocre works.

 

[Russ]

It's the only Moorcock I've ever read. His name is on it, so he's responsible for it. Most of my favorite authurs tend to write uniformly well across their careers. I don't know why he didn't, but it makes little difference. That was his chance to win me over and he didn't. It's hardly my fault he chose to publish mediocre works.

99.9% of Fantasy authors would give their eye teeth to produce a character like Elric with the success and impact that character and those "mediocre works" had on the genre. I have no doubt he and many of the greats of fantasy litarature are very pleased his name is on it.

Dear Mike,

I started reading your work thirty years ago. I was nine, and the book was Stormbringer.

At the time it was a little like having the top of my head ripped off and magnificent multicoloured ideas poured in.

I read everything I could find you'd written as it was published-several feet of books rapidly appearing on my bookshelves over the next couple of years. I even read everything I could find by people you mentioned, discovering authors like Mervyn Peake in the process.

I took it for granted that a good author could and should be able to write anything and write anything well in any genre or way, and bend and break genres and rules at will-after all, you did it.

Looking back now, the things that stick are the strange ones that don't fit, from the Sex Pistols' novel-newspaper (Irene Handl as Mrs Cornelius?) to the mysterious newspaper-wrapped packages of The Chinese Agent…
You've been an inspiration. Or to put it another way, I'm probably mostly your fault.

It's good finally to have someone to blame-

Neil Gaiman

I could go on and on.

While you may not have been won over by the Elric books, millions and millions have been. I wonder why that is?

 

[Ryan_Crown]

I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the early Elric books, but it has been quite a long time since I last read them. I think I'll have to put it on my list to re-read the series, and see if I still feel that way. I also need to read the Corum series, as I haven't read them yet.

 

[Incanus]

I don't much wonder about this kind of phenomenon, as it happens all the time. Brittany Spears has millions of fans too (though I have almost infinite more respect for Moorcock). Most folks aren't very critical about the art they like. I hope you don't judge art by how many fans there are. Surely you've come across something that many people like, but that you don't care for. Art is pretty subjective, and I never, ever pass any kind of judgement on people that like things that I don't, even if I form negative opinions about the work itself. If someone likes something, I'd be the last person to tell them they shouldn't. By all means go forth and seek out the things you love, that's what I do.

Meanwhile, I'm not a Neil Gaiman fan at all, so his endorsement doesn't do much for me. I imagine we could both go on and on. I admit my views are a bit quirky and not the most popular, but they're at least fairly consistent.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I have to disagree with the Pinto analysis. I don't think it's accurate. I believe a better analysis would be that the engine of the car, to continue the automotive analogy, is the character, the drive system the plot, the world and setting is the body, and the author is the driver. The characters are primarily what keeps people interested. The readers relate to the novel and come to love the novel not because of the world, but the characters. It's human nature to attach to that which is human. Your characters are the ones to bring about that human element (regardless of their actual humanity). Your world cannot do it.

Look at all of the successes with worlds that are rather bland. Harry Potter is the first that comes to mind. It's not a very interesting world at all. It's quirky and only kind of deep. The magic system is utter garbage and non-sensical. Further, the society is untenable and the fact that people haven't seen magic people and that the human government isn't monitoring them is laughable. But, I love those books anyways. Why? It's because of Snape, Ron, Hermione, Mrs. Weasley, Bellatrix, the Malfoys, Sirius, Lupin, and on and on and on we could go, but you get the message. These people are what makes Harry Potter great. Not the lackluster world or dull magic system.

Take as another study Game of Thrones. It's society is cliched, feudal fantasy how original (sarcasm), it's magic is practically non-existent, the major human killing threat are snow zombies (cliched point number 2), the religions are meh. World=boring. But, the characters are interesting. That is what makes the world love GoT. Just watch the reaction videos to the Red Wedding. It was violent sure, but characters that people came to love were murdered brutally. It affected them. It changed them. That didn't come from the world but the characters.

Last example to prove my point. I like the Furies of Calderon by Jim Butcher. It's an epic fantasy that combines some basic concepts of Pokemon with a society that stems from the lost Roman Legion. He created this on a bet to combine the two worst ideas a person could think of. The Vord are a cliched villain: bug monsters. The other quasi-villains, the Canim, are boring villains as well. There is not much original or interesting in giant wolf people. The world is Earthlike but for the magic elements of it. The Furies powers are ill-defined save that they control a certain element. What do I love about the book. Tavi, the perpetual underdog always overcomes his underdoggedness. His perseverance is an inspiration. Bernard and his love for his nephew is just amazing. I can connect with that.

Anyways I think I made my point clear. All are needed for a super fast car, but the world building is there to enhance an already solid book, it does not and cannot make a book good.

 

[Russ]

I don't much wonder about this kind of phenomenon, as it happens all the time. Brittany Spears has millions of fans too (though I have almost infinite more respect for Moorcock). Most folks aren't very critical about the art they like. I hope you don't judge art by how many fans there are. Surely you've come across something that many people like, but that you don't care for. Art is pretty subjective, and I never, ever pass any kind of judgement on people that like things that I don't, even if I form negative opinions about the work itself. If someone likes something, I'd be the last person to tell them they shouldn't. By all means go forth and seek out the things you love, that's what I do.

Meanwhile, I'm not a Neil Gaiman fan at all, so his endorsement doesn't do much for me. I imagine we could both go on and on. I admit my views are a bit quirky and not the most popular, but they're at least fairly consistent.

I would suggest you go to the encyclopedia of science fiction and the encyclopedia of fantasy and have a look at the entries for Mr. Moorcock in both and wee if you think he has made a lasting contribution to both genres, and literary fiction in general.

I think the comparison to BS (great initials) is kind of funny. I don't think you will see people writing articles 40+ years after her work is released praising how it made the genre better or was revolutionary in nature. At least I hope not.

Elric was an original and is perhaps the quintissential anti-hero. I suspect MM is pleased to be "responsible" for him.

 

[Bruce McKnight]

I tried to be a minimalist, I really did. In a way, I still am. I wait until I need to know something for the sake of the story. However, the more I wrote, the more I needed to know, so the more I built.

On some fronts (geography, food sources, cultures, details of orc society), I had to define very specific details. On other things (lands outside the main continent, how magic works), I still haven't had to into it.

I suspect I will continue to find more hole the longer I write - and then I'll build more.

 

[Bruce McKnight]

Take as another study Game of Thrones. It's society is cliched, feudal fantasy how original (sarcasm), it's magic is practically non-existent, the major human killing threat are snow zombies (cliched point number 2), the religions are meh. World=boring. But, the characters are interesting. That is what makes the world love GoT. Just watch the reaction videos to the Red Wedding. It was violent sure, but characters that people came to love were murdered brutally. It affected them. It changed them. That didn't come from the world but the characters.

Great point!

The world is not very original, but I think it is deep and consistent. I think stories are about the characters, but having a rich world (even if it's cliché) can add a lot of texture and help with immersion. Like you said: "the world building is there to enhance an already solid book, it does not and cannot make a book good. "

 

[evolution_rex]

I have to disagree with the Pinto analysis. I don't think it's accurate. I believe a better analysis would be that the engine of the car, to continue the automotive analogy, is the character, the drive system the plot, the world and setting is the body, and the author is the driver. The characters are primarily what keeps people interested. The readers relate to the novel and come to love the novel not because of the world, but the characters. It's human nature to attach to that which is human. Your characters are the ones to bring about that human element (regardless of their actual humanity). Your world cannot do it.

Characters certainly are important in any work of fiction, however I'd disagree with you that world building isn't what makes someone like a fantasy story. For example, I've always loved Harry Potter, but I never cared two-hoots about any of the characters except for maybe the occasional feeling of sympathy for Ron or Nevil Longbottom. Ever since I read it as a kid, the only think I ever cared about was the mechanics of the world they lived in and all the details. This is in contrast to most of Harry Potter's fanbase, which is (speaking generally, so no intend to offend anyone) people who obsess over how great the characters are (which in my opinion are not particularly good or bad) and almost exclusively talk about hypothetical situations for the characters including shipping (it makes it hard to be in HP communities because of this, no one cares about the world and everyone just writes fan fiction about 'what if Harry married Draco').

But of course, that's not the mainstream audience. I'm probably in the minority. However, I think if you're targeting your writings to that demographic, the ones who do enjoy detailed explorations of the fantasy's universe, then there really isn't a problem with that.

 

[Gurkhal]

I used to be a maximalists but have since then become a minimalists due to the fact that when I flesh out to much I end up limiting myself when I wrote the stories.

 

[BWFoster78]

I've always taken it as a given that there are readers and writers who prefer character driven stories and readers and writers who prefer plot driven stories. There's some crossover, of course, but I'm not sure one should try to please both.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Characters certainly are important in any work of fiction, however I'd disagree with you that world building isn't what makes someone like a fantasy story. For example, I've always loved Harry Potter, but I never cared two-hoots about any of the characters except for maybe the occasional feeling of sympathy for Ron or Nevil Longbottom. Ever since I read it as a kid, the only think I ever cared about was the mechanics of the world they lived in and all the details. This is in contrast to most of Harry Potter's fanbase, which is (speaking generally, so no intend to offend anyone) people who obsess over how great the characters are (which in my opinion are not particularly good or bad) and almost exclusively talk about hypothetical situations for the characters including shipping (it makes it hard to be in HP communities because of this, no one cares about the world and everyone just writes fan fiction about 'what if Harry married Draco').

But of course, that's not the mainstream audience. I'm probably in the minority. However, I think if you're targeting your writings to that demographic, the ones who do enjoy detailed explorations of the fantasy's universe, then there really isn't a problem with that.

Even still the characters of Harry Potter had something that interested you enough to continue reading didn't they? If they were so bland or so unlikeable then you wouldn't have continued reading. Which is a point I tried to make later than the post you quoted, a good world cannot create a good book, that comes from plot and characters, but it can make a good book better.

By that I mean the characters and plot need to reach a minimum level of intrigue and depth in order for the world building to kick that book up a notch or two. If they do not meet this level of interest then no matter how interesting the world the reader won't discover it, and even if they do, they won't care enough to continue exploring the book.