It's a small world. At least, it should be.

[At Dusk I Reign]

Walking.

I'm not a fan, I must admit. I'll do it when I have to, but too many years of traipsing through rough terrain have turned my knees to biscuits – they're firm to look at but crumble easily. A sedan chair would be a boon in this day and age, but no matter how generous the wages I'm sure I'd be accused of exploiting the proletariat. Huh, that's progress for you.

Whatever my perambulatory problems though, I'm delighted I don't live in a generic fantasy world. There's a lot of walking to be done in those. Traipsing about on foot (or horse, which presents its own problems) seems to have become de rigueur, with or without the mortis.

And that's the killer, so to speak.

Consider the Gormenghast trilogy by Mervyn Peake. The action occurs in a castle for the most part, but the reader is never left thinking 'what's the point of this, then?'

And that's one of the most annoying things about fantasy novels today. They don't seem to have been spawned purely from an idea or a philosophy. Rather, the authors have immediately bent their minds to world creation, no doubt spending much time fleshing out a perfectly-realised planet on which their characters can congregate but never thinking to themselves: is any of this really necessary?

In most cases, I believe, the answer is no. Flitting from A to B and eventually to Z may be great for boosting word count, but it seldom serves any useful purpose. Indeed, most trilogies could happily lose all of the second book and a fifth of the third and the reader would be just as happy.

Characters matter in a work of fiction. They decide whether we choose to continue reading. Setting is secondary, and should only be there as a backdrop. Unless you intend to do a Peake and make the setting a character in itself, there's no need for it to take up so much space on a page.

I'd like to think I'm not alone in my view, though it's always a possibility (shock! horror!) So what do you think, fellow fans? Is fiction (regardless of genre) best set on a small stage with limited furniture, or have I finally lost touch with reality (or, in this case, fantasy)?

[JBryden88]

I think it depends on how the large stage is.

The benefits IMO to major world building is that you know your world if you decide to tell other stories besides the ones you first aim to tell.

Using a large stage vs. a small stage however in the actual writing? Again, it depends. Alot of fantasy stories DO have useless description of traveling. Others however, use the traveling as a perfect "downtime" for some character development without the actual main story conflict, which is kinda nice. Sometimes I like to see characters bonding without the threat of XYZ looming above them.

I think its a matter of context.

[At Dusk I Reign]

The benefits IMO to major world building is that you know your world if you decide to tell other stories besides the ones you first aim to tell.

Do you really need to know your world in such painful detail from the beginning, though? More importantly, does the reader? Do people really care about which province belongs to whom if it has little bearing on the plot?

Others however, use the traveling as a perfect "downtime" for some character development without the actual main story conflict, which is kinda nice. Sometimes I like to see characters bonding without the threat of XYZ looming above them.

Can't downtime occur whatever the setting or its relative size? That's down to plotting, surely, and isn't dependent on acreage?

[JBryden88]

I really think context is the key.

Sure, you could keep it in the confines of a castle or village. And if that's the natural progression of the story, and what the characters intend to do so be it.

But, using a perfect example from what I'm writing. There's a key scene where my main characters are basically riding back from a battle with some bandits, to the castle to report to the king. In that ride, while I may describe the sweeping grasslands and the highlands of the country the characters are in, the focus is on the fact that these three main characters are having something of a bonding moment. They're talking, they're joking, and you get some insight into who they are in that moment alone.

If that moment didn't feel "in character" then it wouldn't happen. That's at least, my thought. If there is no reason for something to happen it shouldn't happen.

As much as I respect what Tolkien did for the genre, I -loathe- reading Lord of the Rings because so much fat could have been cut out because it didn't add anything.

That's probably the real question. Does it add anything? If so, then it's necessary, and if not, then it's not.

[Neunzehn]

I've had this idea before, though not in so many words.

It seems that in many cases the travel description is written for the author and could be done without (or more likely reduced). I seem to remember that those are the parts that I often can't help but scan though.

On the other hand without knowing what the world looks like through the MC things could feel a little empty, so I don't see why, in most cases, travel description should be mostly removed. I suppose it depends on how well plot will work without reader knowing and having the "feel" of the world that it takes place in.

I'm reading the Hobbit again. And it has struck me that his descriptions of Middle Earth are as short as they can be to get the job done. That is, to get the same picture in roughly the same way, to produce the same sense of dread, comfort, quite ect. Honestly there are ways that it isn't a "descriptive" book, but it is without taking up much space.

[At Dusk I Reign]

@ JBryden88: I'm not suggesting that world-building should be confined to one physical location, be it a village or a keep. I merely suggest that creating an entire world is a waste of intellectual resources unless there's a very good reason why the protagonist should visit each and every area on his way to fulfilling his destiny (every hero's got to have a destiny, apparently). Kay's Tigana succeeded as a work of fiction despite having a limited geographical setting. I guess I just deplore the mindset which thinks world-building is more important than compelling characters. It seldom is in my experience.

@ Neunzehn: I'm a big Tolkien fan: he did it right. He had a reason to create Middle-earth. So many authors these days seem to world-build because they think it's expected of them.

[I'm too slow to edit properly...]

[JBryden88]

Well, with world building, I create as much detail as I can because I like to :P

I like to know the history, and general idea of the cultures and peoples I'm writing about before I write them. Then, when I have more details, I add it to my little "codex" I have written up.

[Neunzehn]

I believe you are correct. I'm wondering. Why do you think people feel the need to focus on world building?

Personally I suppose that it's related to hoarding. I've begun my story without building the whole world (though I have a general idea) and it seems that people are trying to prepare for however the story might take place. Or perhaps they assume that they will write more books in that world? It just seems like over preparedness.

Edit: Although JBryden88 brings a point to mind. A first draft tends to have a lot of unnecessarily stuff in it. Maybe there's a connection with excess of info in the earlier drafts of a story and the early world building "shrugs"

[At Dusk I Reign]

Well, with world building, I create as much detail as I can because I like to :P

And there's nothing wrong with that. Unless you intend members of the public to buy your work, in which case I come back to my original question: how much is necessary?

I believe you are correct. I'm wondering. Why do you think people feel the need to focus on world building?

Personally I suppose that it's related to hoarding. I've begun my story without building the whole world (though I have a general idea) and it seems that people are trying to prepare for however the story might take place. Or perhaps they assume that they will write more books in that world? It just seems like over preparedness.

It's a mentality fantasy fans have developed. Like thinking they have to write a trilogy because Tolkien was originally published in that form (apparently post-war austerity plays no part in their thinking). I'm like you. I start with a character and gradually build the world around them. Doing things the other way around seems wrong-headed to me. But hey, what do I know?

[Telcontar]

Hmmm... nah, I disagree. Show me the world.

Of course, you can't bore me while you do it - and that's one hell of a caveat. Whether or not the various 'travelling' sequences will serve a purpose really differs from reader to reader. A lot of character building can happen as your cast jaunts about the countryside. You can show time passing if that is necessary. Or you can just lose yourself (and your reader) in beautiful prose depicting a well-imagined and interesting world.

What I'm saying is, so long as the writing isn't BORING, it serves a purpose. If a writer can keep me entertained with world-building details, great! Good for them. I find it likely that I'll eventually start thinking "Okay... back to the story now?" and that is the responsibility of the author to predict.