# On Putting the Story First



## Devor (Jan 8, 2012)

Following a few of the great discussions taking place in these forums, I've seen a number of tips for world-building and on making that world interesting and exciting and believable and in-depth.  And always someone points out, the world has to _follow_ the story, instead of overshadow it.

In both of the stories I'm working on, I've built the world into obsessive levels of depth and detail that might not be important, but I _have_ always built the world around the story, and not the other way around.

I want to tell a story about a person who has been afflicted with a transformative curse, which is heavy in unique and interesting characters.  To keep the story personal and the characters relevant, I need a small landmass - hence, a single small country.  I want to make the curse edgy and dangerous, afflicting others, which makes the entire landscape dangerous.  I've had to build the history and society around these limitations and others, creating a unique picture, a unique history, a unique landscape - to some extent, I feel that given these limitations which I've chosen, I've had little choice in concluding what the world and the societies involved actually look like.  They _have_ to look that way in order to balance out the details of the story I want to tell.

I feel the same way in the other story I'm working on, a mythological piece set in a Norse/Viking culture.  I'm locked, in many ways, by the story I want to tell and the research I come across.  It's high in action, high in visuals, with probably too many characters.  There are _over fifteen distinct types of magic_.  For instance, based on the research, dwarfs turn into stone if they're out in the sun, unless they've done something which transforms them into an animal instead.  This plays out in the history, has consequences for certain half-dwarf characters, and so on.  Because I want to bring the mythology to life in a particular way and story, I have to build the details of the world around what I want to do, and not just because it's "cool" or interesting by itself.

But those are just examples.  The real question is:  *How has the story you want to tell dictated the world you want to build?*  Are there circumstances unique to your story which you have had to build your world around?


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Jan 8, 2012)

There are many times I had to revise the worlds I have written for, sure. To be rigid dooms you to failing when it comes to writing well. Sometimes you come upon a tidbit that might change everything. You should incorporate it without guilt.

However, it is a better idea to have the world first if you can, even in rough detail. More characters will introduce themselves and more interesting things will happen when you have the visuals in front of you. Of course, to each their own and their writing is between them and their god(s).

It sounds as though you have a good system in place though, I am glad to see people that interested in world building in any situation.


----------



## Graham Irwin (Jan 8, 2012)

My trilogy that I'm working on takes place in a world that has just uncovered secrets that propel its people quickly from an iron-age society to a technological one. The story follow the main character from his agricultural hometown across his world, towards the more technologically advanced countries of the east. The lessons my protagonist learns are those learned by humankind as we made our way from nomads to where we are today (sort of, in theory). Thus, the setting is completely tied to the story in every way.


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 8, 2012)

I have sort of done both, I started with a basic premise for a world and one person in that world, and four (five?) rewrites later, I have a good idea what I am doing in my world and the support structure needed. Although I don't have as complex a world as most others here do.


----------



## ScipioSmith (Jan 11, 2012)

This happened to me by accident: in my initial drafts, I quickly realised that I needed a way for my hero to defeat the obscenely powerful villain in hand to hand combat, where at present he wouldn't stand a chance. I hit upon the idea of spirit magic, which enables a sufficiently good person to harness the power of his soul to protect the object of his devotion. Many more drafts later and spirit magic, and the theme of stregnth of soul overcoming the bodily strength of the foe (as well as the bodily weakness of our heroes) are keystones of the setting.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 12, 2012)

At the moment I'm doing a huge amount of work on my world, more so than the novels themselve right now.  My plan is to have several  novels set in the same world (bit like the Discworld or Pern- one world but loads of independant novels).

But the work is not on the landmasses ect, its on the lore and mythology of my world.  And on establishing the key peoples of my universe ie different races ect.  To a certain extent this has been affected by the story I'm wanting to tell in the two existing novels I'm working on.  But at the same time the stories are also being affected by the mythology, so its a bit of both for me.  

As I write the history of my peoples relationship with my Gods it actually fuels new ideas for my stories and can reshape events in my stories.  One particularly big scene is being re-written to take into account part of the mythos of my world - for the better I think. 

So I'd say let your worlds effect your story and vice versa, but make sure that once you have finally established the rules of your world - stick to them!  theres nothing worse than deus ex machina because someone has decided that they can't write their way out of the limitations of their own world.


----------



## Hans (Jan 12, 2012)

Devor said:


> But those are just examples.  The real question is:  *How has the story you want to tell dictated the world you want to build?*  Are there circumstances unique to your story which you have had to build your world around?


Simple answer in my case: No.
I have stated several times I am more a worldbuilder than a story author. And I know that my approach contradicts the standing dogma of good writing. Whenever I get to write a story, the story is formed by the world, not the other way round.
This does not mean that the story is full of world description, just the plot has to fit in the world. Like you want to write a crime story set, say, in the 1920s you can't start to redefine that time period. Your choice forms your story.


----------



## mirrorrorrim (Jan 12, 2012)

I've found that the interaction between my world and my story is more of a symbiotic relationship of mutual dependence than it is one aspect driving the other.

For example, when I first conceived my current work, I knew I didn't have the historical know-how to write a medieval child realistically (I know that hasn't stopped a lot of great authors from doing the same thing, but for my particular story, it was rather crippling), so I introduced a time travel mechanic to allow my two protagonists to come from the modern world. This mechanic grew and grew, however, until it has became a fundamental element of the tale I'm trying to tell, and not just the convenient plot mechanic it originated as. This has made it necessary, in turn, for me to flesh out my rules for time travel far more than I'd originally intended, and doing so has led to even _more_ plot developments. 

At this point, it's hard to sort out which parts of my story dictated how my mechanics would work, and which ones evolved in reaction to the rules I'd already constructed.

My worlds always predate my stories (sometimes by years), and so the tales I set out to tell usually originate with some world-driven concept I'd like to explore. As I start plotting the story, I'm able to flesh out my world at the same time. To me, this just seems natural. Does that mean I'm more of a science fiction writer than a fantasy one?  That's something I've tried my best to avoid, and I'd be mortified if it had happened without my knowing it.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 13, 2012)

Down through the years, I've built probably half a dozen fairly well detailed worlds, and at least twice that number that were not so detailed.

However, I came to realize something: you don't need an entire world to tell a story - just a part of it, and frequently not that big of a part, so I took to merging worlds.  Hence, my half dozen detailed worlds have since dropped down to two or three.  

The other thing I came to realize is that a setting is not a story.  More than once, I have come up with marvelous settings (at least I thought so) and would start in with writing a story set there, only to realize the story had no point or end, it was merely part of a story.


----------



## morguloth (Jan 13, 2012)

Unless you wanna go all Tolkien; I'm pretty sure it should be a build as you go type thing.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Jan 13, 2012)

morguloth said:


> Unless you wanna go all Tolkien; I'm pretty sure it should be a build as you go type thing.



Perhaps, but if you need someone from another culture and you are too far into your book to alter everything, it is better to have all that information at your fingertips. Sure, if not many societies are different in your world then it isn't a problem. If you have more exotic interaction, you'll want to make sure you have everything down from the lay of the land to the fact that their lakes are purple if it helps a story out.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 13, 2012)

Also of interest to you guys may be this thread from awhile back. Not the exact same discussion, but along the same lines.

I think the most important thing to remember is that while you may have designed a few aspects of the world independent of the story, you should never fail to change those things to improve the story, provided of course they they are not 'canon' yet by having been publishing in a _different_ story. If so, then you're stuck with those details. Retconning is always an option, even then, but be careful you don't give your readers the feeling that you don't care about what came before.


----------



## pmmg (Oct 3, 2022)

<-necroed another.

My world certainly came from story first. I am pretty sure I started with no place names or concept of the world created. It began with a scene on the snow and expanded from there. The only thing I knew was that the world would be entirely new and different from any other I had created. It started small and has expended organically from there. Originally it was four lands, but now it is a giant Pangea with a lot of islands, and two largish land masses. I have stories in it over many time periods, many cultures, many climates, lots of maps, and as much as I can, I have tried to place most of the short stories I have written into it...though some of them were not really written with the new world in mind. I have no real name for the world, and I suspect it would be called different things by different cultures. I tend to call it the silver world, but only because I cannot think of a better name. The only constants are the color of the sky and various plants, and the two big lights in the sky. One of the difficulties of the world is that the sky is hazy, and the stars are not visible. None of the characters knows what a star is, so for them, its not something to question. For me the author, its been difficult to include in the story.

Anyway....when I finish this one, I will move on to another new world 

The last story world I had, I based loosely on my old D&D world. But decided to abandon it and start new.

But story first, world build second. Might say characters first, they kind of had a spontaneous creation. Like, let there be light, and poof characters appeared as well.


----------

