• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

How many of you are world-building minimalists

Hi, I'm Brian, and I have a confession to make. I am not a fan of world-building. It's not that I don't like making new and exotic locales, I do, but sometimes world-building is boring. Hear me out on this.

So my world building is pretty minimal. I rough sketch some basic things: magic system, basic governmental structure, and other things. But I never get too detailed. I don't have a 10,000 year history with various heroes and myths. I loathe writing about battles I merely mention in passing. In fact, for most of my original worlds I don't even have maps. I have religions and they worship a deity. I couldn't begin to tell you what their tenants on most topics. I have no idea what their rituals look like. But the religions are there. Food, pfft I have no idea what spices they use. Other small details that while interesting are relatively unimportant to my stories.

Where I do my world-building is on subjects that directly affect my story or only have one degree of separation of affecting my story. Take for example one book I am writing The Fallen. The story is about a kid who gets orphaned, becomes a Force Mage (name is a work in progress; these guys can manipulate gravity and motion), a spy, rebel, and eventual ruler of a kingdom. Do you know what I know about the government for that world? That there's a king and some lords and some other workaday peasants that have no say in how the government functions. I have a scene where the kid starts down this disillusionment path by seeing justice for the murders of his parents denied by his king. You know what I know about the legal system? Murder is bad. There are two judges, called the Voice and the Hand, two "attorneys" and the Hand makes the decision while the Voice relays the decision. Beyond that, I have nothing else. Not how attorneys become attorneys there. No idea what the property laws are, or contract laws, or anything else.

Now for another story their magic system is tied to their legal system. I know a lot of their common law doctrines about property, torts, contracts. I know their philosophies about where laws and rights come from. How the government and legal systems work. The structure of the legal system. I'm currently working on court procedures. All of that is important to the series since 1/3 of the tension comes from the legal system. (Think a fantasy John Grisham novel)

So I have to ask, how many of you do what this barebones world building? By that I mean get down the stuff you need for the story and get to writing. Then while you are writing just add a couple of things here and there to spice up your world and make note of those additions later so you don't lose track of them. Please tell me I am not the only one.

Also, any advice for a noob like me that does this kind of thing? What are some pitfalls for world-building this way?
 

MineOwnKing

Maester
I too wanted the freedom to write without restrictions.

However, I also figured that once I could be lucky enough to hook a few fans of my alternate universe, I would need some kind of reference or foundation for it.

So, I bit the bullet and wrote a sort of modern style Silmarillian for my series.

Since it is basically a novel of universe building, and because of the way I wrote it, it does not fall into the definition of genre fiction.

Instead, it is a work of literary fiction, or more specifically literary fantasy.

My choice to create a literary work instead of a commercial piece, puts the novel into a very small target audience.

But, now as I continue with the developing series that is a sort of crossbreed between literary and commercial, I feel free to write without any info dumping or over extensive world building.

If a fan wants to research the specifics of character origin or a magic system, they can go back to volume one and geek-out on all the extremely detailed info contained in those mind boggling pages.

Writing now, more in the style of commercial fantasy, is great because I can try to focus on a character arc, growth and a goal.

The literary piece was great to write because I did not have to fulfill an expectation that things will get better. The deeper I explored the minds of the ensemble cast, the less obligated I felt to create a good versus evil scenario.
 

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
Different situation than some other folks here. Way back when, I envisioned my worlds as game settings, and designed them accordingly. Actually spent way, way too much time on world building. As a result...well, I didn't finish many stories.

Then I didn't write much of anything for a few years - a couple shorts, a few fragments, no real worldbuilding needed.

About six or seven years ago, I started writing again in earnest. What was supposed to be another short turned into a novella, and I used some of the old gaming stuff as a template. Then I came here and focused on writing. But, my setting was horribly dated. So I plowed through my notes, took the more relevant pieces, and shaped them into a story of sorts. An old draft of this is in my portfolio. (A really terrible draft). As to the rest...

...well, a bunch of the gaming stuff translated straight across. I have a sort of history, descriptions of a couple of kingdoms, and notes on military structure. Magic...I went a different route.

I did have to compose some other things, most notably genealogies (I *had* to know who was related to whom to keep the stories straight).

Yet, I still invent piles of stuff on the fly, so to speak. What garments are popular where? Which foods are regional favorites? Things like that.
 
I am far from a minimalist but what I do doesn't have to show up completely in the story, it may just be a good guide for me to put in when necessary to move the plot along, as well as being inspiration if I'm stuck somewhere.
 

Russ

Istar
I have a background in history and am still an avid amateur historian. My work tends to be set in historical settings with magic imported into them, so my world building is more like research.

However my favourite fantasy author is a vocal and proud world building minimalist:

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.

and

MM: I think the notion of worldbuilding is a failure of literary sophistication. Take the Romantic writers of the 19th century, particularly the Brontës. The Brontës loved the idea of depicting weather to suit moods – it’s called the pathetic fallacy, where you give inanimate things animate qualities. The point of that style of writing is that it used landscape and weather, all exteriors, to symbolize internal con*flict within the individual or within a small group of individuals. I only invent what’s necessary to explain the mood of a character. I haven’t thought about an imaginary world’s social security system; I don’t know the gross national product of Melniboné. If worldbuilding is a sophisticated working-out of how a world interacts in and of itself, I don’t really have any of that. People interact in my worlds. Weather systems interact. The weather system is always sup*posed to show what’s going on inside the character. That’s why I don’t see myself as a worldbuilder. The world unfolds in front of the character as the story develops. If the story doesn’t need it, it’s not there.

I’ve fought against this kind of anti-romantic rationalization most of my career. That’s why I don’t like Campbellian science fiction as such, because it has to present itself as a pseudo-realism to create a suspension of disbelief. I’m trying to do the op*posite. I’m trying to tell a good story without you having to believe it as ‘‘reality.’’ Cornelius in par*ticular depends on you NOT suspending your sense of disbelief! Most science fiction tries to rationalize something so you believe it as reality and frequently ruins the great visionary quality which inspired it. I’m describing reality, but it isn’t a construct. I’m not trying to convince you this is going to be real. I’m trying to convince you that these ideas have to be considered, that what’s going on in the world has to be thought about. The conscious life is all I’m advocating.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I prefer a minimalist approach. I don't mind doing the world-building - it can be fun. However I prefer to write in a more vaguely-defined environment, and let the world grow organically as the story grows.
 

Ryan_Crown

Troubadour
I've found I need to start with at least a basic map and a general history of the region, just so that I have a solid feel for the world my stories will take place in. And sometimes that general history can become an in-depth, lengthy history, depending on how much fun I'm having writing it. But beyond that I tend to figure things out as I go.

For example, in my current story world, I've only developed the political system as I've needed it for the narrative, and I have no idea about the religions of the world (although I assume they exist), as my main characters aren't religious types. Magic is minimal in this world, so that is another element that I'll only develop as it impacts the story.

My problem with fully developed world-building is that I start to get bored as I get bogged down with the little details. And with a fully developed world, there really are a lot of little details you can explore (most of which likely will have minimal if any impact on your stories themselves, so why bother?).
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
In the beginning, I would probably have considered myself a moderate world-builder because I worked out things like how my magic worked and what the different magical paths were (though less than half of them ever appeared in the series). I made maps of cities and countries and a world map. I had a sort of brief history of the world that led up to my opening novel. It was moderate, not really detailed.

Now, I don't bother. I begin writing, never knowing where I'm going, and I let odd details flow through the keyboard as I realize I need something. Basically, my thought process goes something like this:

Writing a scene with a character I preconceived to be a steamfitter in a steampunk world. Have the character interact with his surroundings, say, making a cup of tea in the kitchen. Wait, that isn't terribly interesting, let's have a moment of internal thought to define the character a little. Put in some thought he's having that's pertinent to the immediate situation. Then introduce a little bit of conflict--someone shouting from the next room...his hysterical sister who lost something valuable--maybe a ticket to an airship tour, or her goggles. But wait, why would she need goggles...let me think about that a moment.

And it just sort of goes from there. That's exactly how I write now, beginning with a character and just letting inspiration do its own thing. The pitfalls are in editing. But I'd have to say that I've read a lot of first drafts written by both world-builders and planners, and minimalists and pantsers. Most first drafts suffer the same kinds of issues, and while world-builders may be more inclined to bore readers with erroneous history and detail, non world-builders often have the same kind of pacing problems, just of a slightly different flavor. So, I'm not sure there's a better method. The best method is what works for an individual and sees them through to the end of their projects. It's no fun boring yourself with world-building if you hate it. And it's certainly tedious to rewrite a manuscript because it was poorly planned and you lose sight of what you're even doing.

Here's an article that might help with figuring out what kind of planning is the right fit for you:
One Mistake Never to Repeat - How to Plan a Novel
 
C

Chessie

Guest
Brian, don't feel bad! I'm glad to know you're also a minimalist like myself! :D Right now, I have a story world that took me a couple of months to create, and I'm being stubborn by only writing in that world. I detest world-building with a passion. My method: start with character, story, then create the world around it. The negatives: usually I come across something where I need to world-build a bit more before continuing on with my story. Especially when it comes to magic systems. I get those down first along with plotting, since magic is key to our genre.
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
Hello Brian and everyone else =)

I am yet another minimalist world builder, indeed. The settings, background history and maps that I create for my stories have never been as detailed as the work of other people, I leave most of it unknown to the reader and I think this gives my stories a nice twist of shadows and mystery.

Even my Magic is not truly explained within the stories, it's just there and that's all.

My opinion is that concentrating hard on world building can sometimes cause the storytelling to suffer, because it gets very distracting to us and distracts the readers as well. Building a good setting is important too, but what is the most important in what we do is to tell the stories themselves.

@Brian: The best advice is to continue with this style of world building because it sounds like it really works for you, and to always maintain a good discipline to keep writing your stories.
 

Incanus

Auror
I think I fall into the moderate world-builder category. At the risk of setting up a straw-man to knock down, I don’t believe in this statement:

Elaborate World-building = bad info dumps/getting in the way of characters or story, IN ALL CASES.

All my favorite fantasy novels or series’ feature moderate to elaborate world-building, and yet they almost always play a subordinate role to the story itself.

One exception: The Lord of the Rings (one of the most popular novels ever). I think a case could be made that the main character of this story is Middle-earth itself, due to the fact that the story does NOT end with the completion of the quest, but with the ending of an age.

I would argue that if world-building elements are interfering with the unfolding of a story, the problem is one of narration, handling of exposition, or of execution, and not automatically a world-building issue. The continuing popularity of LoTR, and of other fantasy series’ with elaborate world-building, seems to support this view, though I’m perfectly willing to be corrected.
 

Saigonnus

Auror
I certainly do some world-building, but i don't have a 10,000 year history. I am working with about 60 years of history, but only in regards to events that have a direct impact on the novel.

I think some building is necessary so you at least know where things are in relation to something else and can tell the story with consistency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I should note that I don't think there is a right or wrong approach. I like fantasy works where there is a more minimal approach, but one of my favorites is also Steven Erikson, who takes world-building to a high level.
 

Incanus

Auror
I should note that I don't think there is a right or wrong approach. I like fantasy works where there is a more minimal approach, but one of my favorites is also Steven Erikson, who takes world-building to a high level.

Yes, an important point. Approach and appropriateness. If you're writing a single 85,000 word novel and trying to get in world-building on the scale of a Tolkien, Erikson, or even GRRM, I would expect you to be running into all kinds of problems. But three to ten LARGE books should be able to support an elaborate world, if done with thought and skill.
 

Tom

Istar
I'm obsessive when it comes to worldbuilding for my main project, Southerner, but for a lot of my other stories, it's pretty minimal. Not surprising that I'm inconsistent with this, as I am for several other writing preferences.
 

Incanus

Auror
I'm obsessive when it comes to worldbuilding for my main project, Southerner, but for a lot of my other stories, it's pretty minimal. Not surprising that I'm inconsistent with this, as I am for several other writing preferences.

Rather than seeing this as 'inconsistent', it sounds to me like you are actually putting thought into what kind of preparations each different story you are working on will require. Really, what better way could there be? No two stories are alike, and so their development will necessarily be unique as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom
Personally it depends on my story. Sometimes I come to a point in a story where I have to do some extensive worldbuilding in order to have a better understanding of how that part of the story is gonna go. On the other hand, sometimes I only need a little detail here or there, which I will take a sidenote of in case it comes up again. I will usually draw up a basic outline or map before I start writing, but it is REALLLLY basic. This allows me to alter it as needed to fit the story. I guess the way that I can sum it up is that my writing affects my worldbuilding as much as my worldbuilding affects my writing.
 

Saigonnus

Auror
I should note that I don't think there is a right or wrong approach. I like fantasy works where there is a more minimal approach, but one of my favorites is also Steven Erikson, who takes world-building to a high level.

I completely agree. A short story wouldn't require much world-building all, while a multi novel epic certainly would require a lot of established world building aspects. I think I have done much more building for my novel than on all of my shorts combined, though one is seeming to be needing a bit more than I have done considering there are now three shorts set in the same world.

Also I might mention that I have been building a world that doesn't even have a story yet... I enjoy it sometimes as a diversion from the real world.
 
Hello Brian and everyone else =)

I am yet another minimalist world builder, indeed. The settings, background history and maps that I create for my stories have never been as detailed as the work of other people, I leave most of it unknown to the reader and I think this gives my stories a nice twist of shadows and mystery.

Even my Magic is not truly explained within the stories, it's just there and that's all.

My opinion is that concentrating hard on world building can sometimes cause the storytelling to suffer, because it gets very distracting to us and distracts the readers as well. Building a good setting is important too, but what is the most important in what we do is to tell the stories themselves.

@Brian: The best advice is to continue with this style of world building because it sounds like it really works for you, and to always maintain a good discipline to keep writing your stories.

I can definitely support the idea of having magic exist without a lengthy explanation. A lot of times authors want to give this huge backstory regarding the evolution of magic, how it works and all the different schools. If a certain character that can use magic has a consistency about their spells, how they are performed and what elements/sources they rely on to use it, then the reader can usually put the pieces together.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I wonder if "minimalist" is overly-precise, or at least if it doesn't confuse the issue unnecessarily. I suggest the writerly issue (oh it is too a word) here is not how much world building is done as where one starts. Some start with the story and build the world as needed. Others start with the world and find stories within it.

I'm in the latter camp. I had an idea, many years ago now. I took real history up to the fall of the Roman Empire, but instead of barbarians invading, I had monsters invade. And magic came along with them. I then posited all the events of the Middle Ages happened more or less as in the real world, but with tweaks ... without being very specific about the nature of those tweaks.

So, I began with the world building. Or, in my case, with world altering. And I have found stories therein. With two thousand years of ready-made history, any writer ought to be able to find a story or two! Though it turns out modifying existing history is every bit as difficult as inventing whole cloth.

One thing I've learned that is worth passing along. If you are writing a single story with a world behind it, then this is no big deal. But if you wind up writing multiple stories based on your invented world, this advice is germane.

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.

So, for me, it's a rather complex dialectic between individual stories and general world-building.
 
Top