# How many of you are world-building minimalists



## Garren Jacobsen (May 21, 2015)

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 (May 21, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## Miskatonic (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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 BrontÃ«s. The BrontÃ«s 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 MelnibonÃ©. 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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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


----------



## Chessie (May 22, 2015)

Brian, don't feel bad! I'm glad to know you're also a minimalist like myself!  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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> 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 (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 22, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> 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.


----------



## ChasingSuns (May 22, 2015)

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 (May 23, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> 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.


----------



## Miskatonic (May 23, 2015)

Sheilawisz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 24, 2015)

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.


----------



## ThinkerX (May 24, 2015)

> 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 (May 25, 2015)

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 (May 26, 2015)

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 (May 27, 2015)

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.



			
				Michael Moorcock said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Michael Moorcock said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Garth Nix said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Alastair Reynolds said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				China Mieville said:
			
		

> 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.)



			
				Jeff Vandermeer said:
			
		

> 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 (May 27, 2015)

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


----------



## Russ (May 27, 2015)

Laurence said:


> 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 (May 27, 2015)

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 (May 27, 2015)

Incanus said:


> 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 (May 27, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (May 28, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (May 28, 2015)

Laurence said:


> 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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 28, 2015)

Russ said:


> 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 )
> 
> ...



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 (May 28, 2015)

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-AÃ»jas 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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 28, 2015)

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 (May 29, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> 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.


----------



## Incanus (May 29, 2015)

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 (May 29, 2015)

Incanus said:


> 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 (May 29, 2015)

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 (May 29, 2015)

Incanus said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 29, 2015)

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 (May 29, 2015)

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 (May 29, 2015)

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 (Jun 1, 2015)

Incanus said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2015)

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 (Jun 9, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 clichÃ©) 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 (Jun 21, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2015)

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 (Jun 22, 2015)

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 (Jun 22, 2015)

evolution_rex said:


> 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.


----------

