# World Building > Writing Skill?



## Ankari

I've been thinking about this topic for a few months.  In light of stories like Harry Potter and the revitalization of the JRR Tolkien franchise, the answer isn't as clear as I would have thought.  I've tried reading a few chapters of JRR Tolkien's books (The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring) and a took a stab at a few pages of Harry Potter.  I couldn't get into either of them.  And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Which is the problem.  I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher?  I don't think so.  Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful?  Is it the _potential?_  The complexity of the worlds?  The vastness?  Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?


----------



## Shockley

I actually think Rowling did a pretty fantastic job of writing her story, even if she's not a technical master. The little things that we saw as superfluous the first time through developed deep meaning later on, and that says something about her skill. Tolkien - granted; but I think his story had more to do with tapping into a blackhole in the market than anything else (despite my love for LotR).

 If you're creating an idea - which is really what LotR and Harry Potter are, considering their influence beyond writing and the fact that so many of their die hard fans have never read the books - then I would say development trumps writing.

 But if you're writing a book, no, it's the writing.


----------



## FatCat

I'm completely on the side of writing skill. While world-building is fun, and interesting, it is not what comprises a story. A story should grab you from the get-go, while world-building is a nice side affect. While this is completely my own opinion, and I know a lot of people on this site love world-building, for good reason, in my mind it is a far second to actual narrative. When I think of a fantasy world, I wonder at what it adds to the theme, to the mood and setting and feel, although at times when I look through this site it seems as if people are so hung-up on how to implement real-world logistics and technology that this is lost. Again, I'm not disliking complex world-building, but at the same time I feel like too much importance is placed on it. A story is a self-sustained unit, integrating a lot of outside influences. You have one shot at it, and as much as any of us would love to publish a brief history on a fictional world, this option does not exist in commercial publishing. World-building, in my mind, should serve only to enhance the narrative, not override it, and keep to the same theme and mood as to what your characters are experiencing.


----------



## ThinkerX

What you are talking about is a gradual shift of writing styles over a period of decades.

Tolkiens style was the norm, or rather 'a norm' fifty to a hundred years ago.  Authors used words to build a picture from the ground up, not just physical description but character and local history as well.  A *lot* of the older works begin with a one or ten page description/history of an area and the character(s) before the action properly gets underway. 

Whats changed, I think, is the nature of the audience.  When Tolkien and the other old line greats wrote, photography was pretty simple and movies were in their infancy.  Hence, to describe a sinister castle in the woods in the minds of their readers, they *had* to use lengthy descriptions.  These days, 'visual media' is omnipresent; a few words is what it takes to bring forth a mental image - though, perhaps not the one the author had in mind.  

As to the questions:



> Which is the problem. I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher? I don't think so.



The problem here is that Tolkien pretty much founded the genre, or at least popularized it.  There was at least one near clone of his series, published many decades later which did pretty well.



> Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful?



Because they appeal to a segment of readers.  The concepts resonate with them.



> Is it the potential?



This too. 



> The complexity of the worlds? The vastness?



These things add DEPTH to a world, make it more phausible in the readerss mind.  Its not just generic characters going through a generic landscape, but people with a place in a land steeped in history and mystery.



> Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?



AD&D, and the vast profusion of novels stemming from it say 'yes'.  Same also goes for Warhammer, to a lesser extent.

A case for this could also be made with Erikson; his plotlines tend to get lost in the depth and scope of his worlds history.

As for myself, like I said before, I spent far too much time world building in my younger days (though I can put forth the excuse it was for a game background).  I still use large elements of that world building, but there are also huge sections I basically ditched because they get in the way of the stories.  (For example, my magic system is FAR simpler than it once was.)


----------



## Sparkie

FatCat said:


> I'm completely on the side of writing skill. While world-building is fun, and interesting, it is not what comprises a story. A story should grab you from the get-go, while world-building is a nice side affect. While this is completely my own opinion, and I know a lot of people on this site love world-building, for good reason, in my mind it is a far second to actual narrative. When I think of a fantasy world, I wonder at what it adds to the theme, to the mood and setting and feel, although at times when I look through this site it seems as if people are so hung-up on how to implement real-world logistics and technology that this is lost. Again, I'm not disliking complex world-building, but at the same time I feel like too much importance is placed on it. A story is a self-sustained unit, integrating a lot of outside influences. You have one shot at it, and as much as any of us would love to publish a brief history on a fictional world, this option does not exist in commercial publishing. World-building, in my mind, should serve only to enhance the narrative, not override it, and keep to the same theme and mood as to what your characters are experiencing.



What he said.

Also, to answer Ankari's final question, I think great world builders can indeed find sucess even if their storytelling skills aren't up to par, but not in the realm of literary fiction.  Perhaps they can have an easier time making a contribution in a more collaborative medium, such as television, gaming, or cinema.  In prose, the ability to write well is the most important skill.  All other skills are secondary.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ankari said:


> I've been thinking about this topic for a few months.  In light of stories like Harry Potter and the revitalization of the JRR Tolkien franchise, the answer isn't as clear as I would have thought.  I've tried reading a few chapters of JRR Tolkien's books (The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring) and a took a stab at a few pages of Harry Potter.  I couldn't get into either of them.  And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
> 
> Which is the problem.  I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher?  I don't think so.  Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful?  Is it the _potential?_  The complexity of the worlds?  The vastness?  Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?



...I'm having a hard time seeing your correlation between Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, honestly. You mean to say you had a hard time getting into them for similar reasons?

Because, I mean, you can fault Harry Potter for a lot of things but the premise is pretty easy to understand: British kid lives with an aweful family, then finds out he's a wizard. _Boom! _Magic school of adventure and mystery! 

Even the magical world Rowling created, I wouldn't exactly describe as "vast and complex." More like she added new stuff with each book as she went along, and most of it is still implied. Rowling doesn't strike me as a major world-builder.

And I wouldn't really say that LotR and Harry Potter became popular for the same reason, either. I mean, there are similarities, but I also think there are some different mechanics at play.


----------



## wordwalker

ThinkerX said:


> Tolkiens style was the norm, or rather 'a norm' fifty to a hundred years ago.  Authors used words to build a picture from the ground up, not just physical description but character and local history as well.  A *lot* of the older works begin with a one or ten page description/history of an area and the character(s) before the action properly gets underway.



Absolutely. A lot (not all) of the "But Tolkien did it--" writing questions just lead to "For readers seventy years ago, period." He's still an amazing writer for a lot of us, but a little harder to appreciate these days.

I think there's a difference between saying people *remember* the world and that it's still the story that hooked them. It might even be as simple as how it's more comfortable to _say_ "Part of me wants to be one of the Riders that were ready to ride with Theoden" than "When I read that moment, I just felt..."

What a good world --or just a complex one, more to buy into once you're hooked-- can do is multiply a story's success, but it can't make it. I don't know of any "great world ideas" that got far (in direct fiction, as opposed to gaming and such) without good stories, but plenty of tales that have transcended their background.


----------



## Inglorious_Hero

I've only read the Harry Potter books one time through, and that was back in high school.  I think she is a particularly good writer, actually.  The story is fairly simple to grasp.  I _do_ consider her a good world builder because, while it was pretty much just a school she created, the degree of detail she applied to the school is extraordinary.  The spells, names, characters and their personalities; the classes, punishments, dark lords.  I sometimes find it hard to believe that she came up with all she did.  Not to forget the back-story she gave to just about everyone; especially the little elves.

If the world an author can build is enough to keep his readers devouring his books, it's a successful venture.  Whether his/her writing is good or sub-par.  If the writer can make you believe a story without reading like Charles Dickens, all the more power to them.  I think the focus on world-building versus your writing skill is up to the individual writer.  Either way, you must grab the reader by his shirt collar and pull him in.


----------



## Amanita

For me, world-building is an extremely important element of fantasy. I actually believe that a fantasy story set in an alternate world can't be really good, if the world-building is lacking. Stories where the writer simply throws some generic elements together and expects the reader to fill in the blank with the help of other works (and more skilled writers) make me want my money back if I've actually spent any on them.
Even something like forbidden romance or war doesn't work without the proper background. If we don't get a plausible explanation why these people aren't supposed to be in love or what they're fighting over, there's nothing interesting about it.
This might just be me, but I think that someone who's able to create plausible history and culture for his world won't be completely unable to deliever a good story either. 
Technical writing skills can be improved if they're lacking, the ability to create a story is the thing that has to be there first.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah, I think the posts above about Rowling are correct. She did a nice job of writing her books in a way that captivated readers. The ideas in them had been around, by and large, in other works. Tolkien evidences a more archaic style, to me. I think a work like that would still be published today, but probably not by the big publishing houses. With respect to Erikson, he's a good writer AND a good world-builder.

On the whole, I think writing ability far outweighs world-building.


----------



## Ankari

> Tolkien evidences a more archaic style, to me.



I want to focus more on Tolkien.  I really only read a few pages of Rowling.  The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite.  So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?


----------



## Sparkie

Ankari said:


> I want to focus more on Tolkien.  I really only read a few pages of Rowling.  The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite.  So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?



The movie adaptations.

No, really!  Granted, there are a lot of true fans of the books, and rightly so.  But there is, I believe, a sizeable group of people who liked the _Lord of the Rings_ movies enought to buy the books.  Some of these people were disappointed at what they found in the books (for reasons already mentioned in this thread).  And yet these same people would still consider themselves fans of Tolkien because they liked the story and world presented in the movies.


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> I want to focus more on Tolkien.  I really only read a few pages of Rowling.  The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite.  So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?



The movies have something to do with it. But I do think your original point about the depth and grandeur of the created world illustrates an important factor. People do find that compelling, I think, even if they may not enjoy the writing style as much as they would something else. But in terms of world-building, I think you have to consider Tolkien somewhat of an outlier. Not many authors, if any, are going to be able to replicate that.


----------



## Shockley

Tolkein's writing style is archaic, but only so archaic. Tolkien was modeling his writing off of guys who became popular right at the turn of the century (Lord Dunsany, William Morris), so his writing style wasn't so old as to be impenetrable (as is the case with say, Vanity Fair).

 A second point, and this is my subjective interpretation of events, is that Tolkien benefited immensely in the US from pulp magazines. The two driving forces of pulp at that point were Robert E. Howard and H. P. Lovecraft - who were also modeling their stories off of Lord Dunsany and William Morris, just on a smaller scale. So you had a massive audience that had become fanatic about pulp stories, and Tolkien comes onto the scene after Lovecraft and Howard are gone, providing something drawn from the same primal style (Dunsany's style, bluntly said) yet grander, longer and in many ways deeper. So he was filling a void that the mid-century American fantasists (L. Sprague de Camp, for example) were wallowing in. 

 On the UK front, it's important to remember that very specific trends and figures created modern American literature - namely, Ford Madox Ford, Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. In the UK, the popular books were dense, lush, etc. The UK's literary traditions developed earlier, and none of their giants had that innate love of tight, adverb-absent writings. I already referenced Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair - try reading that and then follow it up with Lord of the Rings; Vanity Fair is a very traditional piece of British literature, and it becomes obvious how readable and enjoyable Lord of the Rings is in contrast. Really, he was improving the standard level of writing in the UK, at least as far as non-critics were concerned. 

 In Germany, another place where Lord of the Rings was really popular, there is a long-standing literary tradition of telling older stories in a modern light. Any Tolkien fan really familiar with Germanic mythology has to struggle with the idea that Lord of the Rings is really a repackaged Nibelungenlied; this is problematic to Anglophonic audiences, but this was wonderful for German audiences who still appreciated the revisionist habits of Wagner, Goethe and Mann. 

 That's just my theory, though.


----------



## Ankari

@ Shockley:  I read all of the Robert E Howard books concerning Conan.  The style may have the same roots, but their evolution is quite separated.  REH wrote in a style that modern readers can relate and appreciate.  Tolkien isn't.  At least in my opinion.  What makes one author's work greater than the other?  The difference is the world building and lore associated with Tolkien's stories.


----------



## danr62

It's been a long time since I've read Tolkien, but I can't recall ever feeling that his writing was inaccessible or something I couldn't relate to even as a young teen (or earlier, possibly). In fact, it was Narnia, followed by the Hobbit and the LOTR that got me into reading in the first place.

It might be a different story now that I'm much wider read. Who knows.


----------



## ThinkerX

For me LOTR was a class project in a 7th grade english class.  We only made it through the 'Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring', but I was so completely entranced I went down to the bookstore and bought the whole set.

Tolkien put his characters in a world which had true depth.  The landscape wasn't generic: it had history and so did the characters upon it.  Bilbo gets dragged off on an adventure - and many decades later, the consequences of that adventure impact his nephew Frodo.  The barrowdowns early on are not just piles of dirt, but a place where kings were buried and a nation ended.  And so on.   

A lot of later works are like 'cookie cutter' versions of Tolkien's world, and fail miserably because they lack Middle Earths depth. 

Another thing is Tolkien was an expert in old line northern european mythology.  He not only knew the myths, he understood the messages the myths were trying to convey - and drew heavily upon this for LOTR.  Star Wars was the same way - Lucas understood key myths and incorporated them into his tale.

A great many of Tolkiens (and Lucas's) successors fail miserably at this; many do not seem to be aware of these mythic roots in the first place. Hence, their works...'ring hollow'.


----------



## Ankari

@ThinkerX

That post just reinforces the debate that world building > writing skills.  Do you agree with that, then?


----------



## ThinkerX

> That post just reinforces the debate that world building > writing skills. Do you agree with that, then?



Hmmm...

The quality of the world can and does affect the quality of the story.  It is a key building block.


----------



## FatCat

An author can create an amazing world, but without the talent to describe it to the readers, then what's the point? I wonder at how many books never see the light of day because the prose was mundane and unreadable, while we all have read stories that have those cookie-cutter worlds. Either way, the creation of an amazing and in-depth world is nothing without the ability to convey it with the same quality that was put into building that world. That's how I see it, at least.


----------



## Ankari

I would like to get a list of the top 10 most read fantasy novels and the top 10 fantasy novels of 2012.  It would be interesting to see how many books are known and appreciated for their world building versus how many are appreciated for their writing skill.


----------



## ThinkerX

> I would like to get a list of the top 10 most read fantasy novels and the top 10 fantasy novels of 2012. It would be interesting to see how many books are known and appreciated for their world building versus how many are appreciated for their writing skill.



Well, there are lists out there...some of which have been posted to this site.  I would point out, though, there is a large subjective element involved in the rankings.

Out of curiosity, does this line of questioning pertain to your own worldbuilding efforts?


----------



## Steerpike

How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?


----------



## Ankari

ThinkerX said:


> Out of curiosity, does this line of questioning pertain to your own worldbuilding efforts?



No.  I'm trying to figure out what makes Tolkien's works so celebrated even though I couldn't stomach the books.



Steerpike said:


> How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?



I would have to put GRRM on that list.  He is a great writer, but his world building is stronger.  Others would include Robert Jordan and Glen Cook.  They are good writers, but I think their world building is stronger.


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> I would have to put GRRM on that list.  He is a great writer, but his world building is stronger.  Others would include Robert Jordan and Glen Cook.  They are good writers, but I think their world building is stronger.



Hmm. I wouldn't agree with any of those personally. None of them are in the same ballpark as Tolkien. I tend to put Cook on the other end of the scale, at least for his Black Company books. As ThinkerX said, there's a lot of subjectivity here, but I don't think of any of those authors as world-builders as opposed to writers. You might be able to make an argument for Jordan, as the series dragged along and the quality of his writing went down. Still, I think the characters make his story moreso than the world.


----------



## Ankari

I'm not implying they aren't good, or even great, writers.  I'm stating that their world building is greater than their writing skill.


----------



## ThinkerX

> No. I'm trying to figure out what makes Tolkien's works so celebrated even though I couldn't stomach the books.



The subjective thing again.

However, Tolkien always apparently regarded LOTR as a fairly minor tale in his world.  The archaic style also comes into play.



> I would have to put GRRM on that list. He is a great writer, but his world building is stronger.



Hmmm...I would have to disagree here.  GRRM had some solid writers credits for film making.  To most people, the appeal of 'Game of Thrones' is in the detailed characterization, the way he climbs right into the skulls of people as diverse as Jamie Lanister, Sansa Stark, Jon Snow, and Cersi.  His world does have depth, though. 



> Others would include Robert Jordan and Glen Cook. They are good writers, but I think their world building is stronger.



Jordan I don't know about...but Glen Cook doesn't even have MAPS of his worlds.  Likewise, while Cooks worlds appear to have a past, it is a patchy one at best, and the same goes for the breadth.  His characterization is pretty good, though.  This is another subjective issue.  (I liked the Black Company series and the Garrett books).

For what its worth, I never could get into 'Dune', 'Harry Potter' (though I did see some of the movies), 'Wheel of Time', or 'Twilight' (though I saw the first movie).  Nothing really 'hooked' me with any of them.

Early next year, I intend to take a crack at Kurtz's 'Deryni' series, which I apparently overlooked somehow way back when rather than rejected outright. From what I've seen, the magic system is much like what I finally ended up with, as are some of the social aspects.


----------



## Zireael

Harry Potter isn't really great in terms of worldbuilding. I'll agree that ASOIAF and the Middle-Earth are, though.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I would have to put GRRM on that list. He is a great writer, but his world building is stronger. Others would include Robert Jordan and Glen Cook. They are good writers, but I think their world building is stronger.



This is all really subjective, but what I liked about WoT was the characters, not the world.

You already know my approach to world building - show only as much as needed to provide the characters with a place to play (okay, that's a little bit of an exaggeration).  Still, if one were to write a fantasy story with great characters and little world development, I would guess it would be more interesting and readable than a story with a great and original world but with little character development.

I think any fantasy author that seeks to be commercially successful needs to be able to tell a good story.  I also think that good world building can enhance the possibility of attaining that success.

Finally, I think that the author who builds a world at the expense of the story is not likely to find a wide readership, though the fans that author does gain are likely to be dedicated.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zireael said:


> Harry Potter isn't really great in terms of worldbuilding. I'll agree that ASOIAF and the Middle-Earth are, though.



I agree completely.  I never thought of the Harry Potter world as strong.  After reading all the books, and seeing the movies, I still have no clear understanding of the limits of the magic system.


----------



## Shockley

Ankari said:


> @ Shockley:  I read all of the Robert E Howard books concerning Conan.  The style may have the same roots, but their evolution is quite separated.  REH wrote in a style that modern readers can relate and appreciate.  Tolkien isn't.  At least in my opinion.  What makes one author's work greater than the other?  The difference is the world building and lore associated with Tolkien's stories.



 Howard definitely had his own style that I find quite beautiful to read. That said, there was always a plethora of critics waiting to tear him down. That's not my real point though: Once you read Dunsany, which could really be defined as any of the major fantasist writers, it gets in your bones. Howard and Lovecraft introduced that to American audiences, and it took Tolkien to satisfy the hunger caused by their early deaths.



Steerpike said:


> How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?



Lewis, whose possibly less efficient than Tolkien as a writer.. Possibly Howard and Lovecraft, seeing how influential their creations ultimately were. Ed Greenwood for sure, since he can't write period/gave R. A. Salvatore a premise world on a silver platter/Became the D&D standard. Maybe Frank Herbert.

I definitely disagree on Cook; I think his real strength is in his writing and gritty characterizations.


----------



## Steerpike

Greenwood is terrible, but he did create FR so that may be a good example.

I don't see any of Lewis, Howard, or Lovecraft as primarily world builders. Even though Howard and Lovecraft had influential creations, I think the staying power of those stories came from the writing itself, and how the characters and/or mythos was presented.


----------



## Zireael

Steerpike said:


> Greenwood is terrible, but he did create FR so that may be a good example.



What do you mean Greenwood is terrible? As a writer? His books are the best of the entire series of Forgotten Realms books, only Elaine Cunningham comes second. And as to the fact that Forgotten Realms isn't particularly high-aspiring - well, you can't blame Greenwood, he gave away the rights long ago to TSR (which is now WotC)...


----------



## Steerpike

Zireael said:


> What do you mean Greenwood is terrible? As a writer? His books are the best of the entire series of Forgotten Realms books, only Elaine Cunningham comes second. And as to the fact that Forgotten Realms isn't particularly high-aspiring - well, you can't blame Greenwood, he gave away the rights long ago to TSR (which is now WotC)...



Yes, I mean as a writer. Of the books of his I've tried to read, one was decent (can't remember which) and the handful of others I never even got more than a couple of chapters in. I agree that Cunningham is decent. Of FR authors, past and present, both Mel Odom and R.A. Salvatore are many times better at writing fiction than Greenwood.


----------



## Shockley

Steerpike said:


> Greenwood is terrible, but he did create FR so that may be a good example.
> 
> I don't see any of Lewis, Howard, or Lovecraft as primarily world builders. Even though Howard and Lovecraft had influential creations, I think the staying power of those stories came from the writing itself, and how the characters and/or mythos was presented.



 I think Narnia as a concept has been more influential than any of Lewis' writings, excepting perhaps his theological work. At the very least, it gave us His Dark Materials.

 The first think about Howard and Lovecraft is that they considered their world to be one and the same - Conan, Cthulhu, Thulsa Doom and Nyarlothotep all reside in the same universe, and their universe has introduced (and reintroduced, in some cases) a lot of very influential world aspects. For example, Lord Dunsany's fantasy occurred exclusively in European settings (Gods of Pagena doesn't, but it's more a collection of poems) - Howard introduced the concept of incorporating foreign fantasy elements. That's why Conan fights in Sumerian temples, west Africa, etc. Prior to that, fantasy was really little more than retelling fairy tales (Dunsany's main work is just that, and that helps to explain what Tolkien was doing as well).

 Lovecraft, of course, created the basic concept of creator aliens, eldritch horrors, dream universes, etc. You can say that those are just facets of his writing, but I do think that this background and reality he created are very much pure world building exercises.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Lovecraft, of course, created the basic concept of creator aliens, eldritch horrors, dream universes, etc. You can say that those are just facets of his writing, but I do think that this background and reality he created are very much pure world building exercises.



A lot of later greats made extensive use of Lovecrafts worlds.


----------



## Devor

There's a few things about Tolkein that need to be considered when asking this question:

1 - As others have said, his writing style was typical for the time.

2 - Lord of the Rings was the _first_ or nearly the first to include a large number of world-building elements that have become mainstays in the genre, not just "elves and hobbits," but even down to the idea of having new races, set in a new world, with its own history.  And a lot more, I'm sure.  What can modern world-builders lay claim to?  Some of them get credit for a few things which help their books stand out for the moment - GRRM does a phenomenal job balancing what feels like a thousand characters, for instance - but there aren't quite as many firsts as with Tolkein.

3 - Tolkein's writing, while "archaic," _was pretty good_.  A friend of mine pointed out, whenever a line in the movies comes straight out of Tolkein, it makes an impression.  I think if Tolkein lived today, and wrote today, and absorbed a writing style of today, and wrote something for the audience of today.... the talent would be there.  But many modern readers don't see it buried beneath the "archaic" style.

4 - _World Building_ is something we do because _Setting_ is a key part of a _story_.  It can be as large or as small a piece as we need it to be, but it's a formative piece to understanding the characters and the story.  We build the setting to shape the lives of the characters we want to play with.  Can you separate "Middle Earth" from Bilbo and Gandalf and Aragorn?  They all come together.

5 - Following off number 4, one aspect of LOTR and many other fantasy stories is that they kind of _exhaust_ their setting.  I don't really mean that no other story could be written in Middle Earth, but that everything about Middle Earth thoroughly comes together in Lord of the Rings with a feeling of finality and completion, something which normally happens for the plot and characters, but in this case extends to the setting as well.  The setting is thoroughly ingrained into the story and it delivers something of an emotional payoff along with everything else.

When you put these together, I think there's a lot to be said in favor of world building having the _potential_ to be a decisive factor in delivering the power of your story, which Tolkein was able to tap in to in ways that other writers do not easily match.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?



How many fantasy authors other than Tolkein do you read in English class?


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> How many fantasy authors other than Tolkein do you read in English class?



We weren't allowed to read Tolkien in English class. The teacher considered it not up to her standards, and had a standing rule about it since so many students apparently asked to read it for class over the years


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> We weren't allowed to read Tolkien in English class. The teacher considered it not up to her standards, and had a standing rule about it since so many students apparently asked to read it for class over the years



Do you know what her standards were?  There's a lot in English classes that aren't really "well-written," there's usually more that they're looking at.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?



Apparently, Sanderson markets himself (or I should say his publisher markets him) as a "master of secondary creation in the same vein as Tolkien" (I'm quoting from a book jacket that I am recalling from memory, so I may be off slightly on exact words). 

So there's one!

I'd say Weis & Hickman, Norton & Lackey and Anne McCaffrey are known more for their worlds than their writing and definitely George Lucas as well.

Even so, writing has to be momentous for you to really remember it. You have to have the exact perfect lines and words and delivery for you to quote something directly. In other genres, it is easy to remember story, but in the speculative fiction genres, world-building frequently interweaves with story and is yet another thing that is easy to remember and notice. 

Nowadays I find myself in the position where I will go back to re-read old series and be beyond annoyed by the writing of them. This has happened to me recently when I went back to read the Halfblood Chronicles of Norton and Lackey. I loved the world and the ideas, but the execution frustrated me. I found myself skimming entire pages to get to the next "goody" I remembered. (Yikes! Didn't know Andre Norton died...or that she was 93!)


----------



## Shockley

George Luvas doesn't really fit in this topic - his novels were ghostwritten (natural for a director I would guess).


----------



## Zero Angel

Shockley said:


> George Luvas doesn't really fit in this topic - his novels were ghostwritten (natural for a director I would guess).



? I'd say that is the quintessential example then. George Lucas can't write worth crap and pays other people to write about his ideas which become wildly successful not because of the writers writing for him, but because they are from his world.


----------



## Ankari

Zero Angel said:


> ? I'd say that is the quintessential example then. George Lucas can't write worth crap and pays other people to write about his ideas which become wildly successful not because of the writers writing for him, but because they are from his world.



Actually, George Lucas is the best example of this.  He just made $4.4 billion for selling a world he created.  As Zero Angel pointed, out, his writing sucks or doesn't exist (ghost writing).


----------



## Shockley

Well, I figured we were talking solely about books, and I don't think his Star Wars novel fits the bill since he didn't write it. So it's a rough area.


----------



## Ankari

I've continued to think on this subject and have come to this theory:

Great world building is parallel to an author that gives a reader enough description in a story to allow the reader to plug in the rest with his imagination.

As authors, we seek the perfect balance in description.  Enough to give the reader an idea of what's going on, but not too much that we stamp the imagination element out of the reading experience.  Great world building does just that.  We build enough of a living world to provide a framework for the reader to imagine the rest.  The reader than creates the best story; the one in his head.

Think of all the best world building projects.  Tolkien's Middle Earth, Lucas' Star Wars universe, TSR (WotC) Dungeons & Dragons, Steven Erikson's Malazan universe, Robert Jordan WoT universe, George RR Martin's ASOIAF universe, Warhammer, and World of Warcraft.  For those of us who still visit the bookstore, you'll see displays and aisles full of these books. In many cases, multiple authors contribute to these universes.  

Not to mention all the cosplay, conventions, LARPs, and little boys and girls who conceive such dreams in the first one of these universes introduced to them.

Soon you can add R Scott Bakker, Dragon Age (there are two or three books and counting), Elder Scrolls (Oblivion and Skyrim), Assassin's Creed and Everquest (they are launching a new game in a couple years.  They would have been on the list had their second game been as successful as their first game.)

Now, compare the success of these intellectual properties to that of authors who are amazingly skilled writers.  There are some overlaps, but not much.  I know you can list some authors that seem masters of the English language, but are not on that list.  I've never read him, but I hear China Mieville and Guy Gavriel Kay would be such authors.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Great world building is parallel to an author that gives a reader enough description in a story to allow the reader to plug in the rest with his imagination.



Or...great worldbuilding is a key 'building block' to a great story. 

It provides depth, makes the world something other than a series of backdrops with the odd extra or bit player roaming around. Hence, not just a castle on a hill, but a castle built by the invading Chomak barbarians five hundred years ago which changed hands in the bloody 'feast of knives' two hundred years after that and is now occupied by Lady Humbolt, as Lord Humbolt is off on crusade against the infidels.  Those details, worked into the text, give depth not just to the castle, but the whole region.



> Now, compare the success of these intellectual properties to that of authors who are amazingly skilled writers. There are some overlaps, but not much. I know you can list some authors that seem masters of the English language, but are not on that list. I've never read him, but I hear China Mieville and Guy Gavriel Kay would be such authors.



China Mieville creates detailed bizarre worlds...or rather highly detailed bizarre cities.  

Guy Gavriel Kay...never could get into his stuff.

Andre Norton - her 'Witch World' grew...on its own, yet is amazingly consistent despite that - and despite quite a few other (mostly female) authors adding large chunks to it.

Kate Elliot's 'Crown of Stars' - dang impressive world building (even if the world map looked like a warped version of europe and africa) with a cast of scores and a detailed history.  Well written...but you might have to look a bit to find copies these days.

Feist 'Midkemia'...good worldbuilding, good enough to where there were some video games and even some AD&D type stuff released for it.  First books are good, but the more recent ones...not so good.  

Compare with Moorcocks 'Eternal Champion' (Elric) or Liebers "Fafhrd and Mouser' tales...the world building in those is mostly backdrop type stuff.  But the characterization - for the MC's at least - is good enough to make the tales work regardless.


----------



## BWFoster78

I think a related topic is perhaps more important: How do you build a world?

A lot of writers on boards like this one, perhaps, get into writing fantasy because they enjoy creating backdrops for stories.  To me, though, the world is just that - a backdrop to the story.  If you set out to build a world, I think you're probably going to end up with a lot of dry passages.

Instead, perhaps try to think of world building like character building.  A character is defined by his actions.  If I want a character to be strong, I do not ever write, "Jake was strong."  Instead, I create a scene where Jake does something that shows he is strong.

A world is defined by the events that take place in it and by the characters who inhabit it.  If you want to show a feature of a world, create a scene that demonstrates that feature.

For both world and character building, however, the scenes that you create must integrate into the plot.

If you do your world building in this manner, you're not going to end up sacrificing the story, and you'll keep the reader interested.


----------



## Ankari

BWFoster78 said:


> Instead, perhaps try to think of world building like character building. A character is defined by his actions. If I want a character to be strong, I do not ever write, "Jake was strong." Instead, I create a scene where Jake does something that shows he is strong.
> 
> A world is defined by the events that take place in it and by the characters who inhabit it. If you want to show a feature of a world, create a scene that demonstrates that feature.



I'm reading a book, _The Weekend Novelist,_ which talks about character building.  I liked much of what the author has to say on the subject.  One of the things he points out is that a character needs to have a history.  He advises that main characters should have a time line of major events of their life.  From these major events, you'll harvest fears, ambitions, prejudices, likes and dislikes.  You put all of this down in a character sheet, along with descriptions (physical and nonphysical).  By the time you're done, you'll have a living character.

I think world building is exactly as you put it: "world building (is) like character building."  I think a universe that has received the same level of detail that a character gets in a story will add a dynamic, and lasting, appeal to a book.  This is especially true if the world will serve as a setting for more than one story.

World building doesn't mean you have paragraphs of dry description.  It means that when a character interacts with a vendor in a new land, the reader can detected how jarring the exchange is between them.  Or when a character sees a woman of high rank and he asks for her hand in a dance, the ballroom gasps in disbelief because the MC is nothing more than a mercenary lucky to have lived long enough to acquire his wealth.

Those are not dry examples.  They give the reader more to consume.  They give the reader a framework for their imagination to generate endless stories and possibilities.  You see how such things have made Tolkien's work thrive so many years after they've were originally published.


----------



## BWFoster78

Ankari said:


> I'm reading a book, _The Weekend Novelist,_ which talks about character building.  I liked much of what the author has to say on the subject.  One of the things he points out is that a character needs to have a history.  He advises that main characters should have a time line of major events of their life.  From these major events, you'll harvest fears, ambitions, prejudices, likes and dislikes.  You put all of this down in a character sheet, along with descriptions (physical and nonphysical).  By the time you're done, you'll have a living character.
> 
> I think world building is exactly as you put it: "world building (is) like character building."  I think a universe that has received the same level of detail that a character gets in a story will add a dynamic, and lasting, appeal to a book.  This is especially true if the world will serve as a setting for more than one story.
> 
> World building doesn't mean you have paragraphs of dry description.  It means that when a character interacts with a vendor in a new land, the reader can detected how jarring the exchange is between them.  Or when a character sees a woman of high rank and he asks for her hand in a dance, the ballroom gasps in disbelief because the MC is nothing more than a mercenary lucky to have lived long enough to acquire his wealth.
> 
> Those are not dry examples.  They give the reader more to consume.  They give the reader a framework for their imagination to generate endless stories and possibilities.  You see how such things have made Tolkien's work thrive so many years after they've were originally published.



If these things impact the story, I have no problem with them.  It's when details that have no bearing on plot are added that I have issue with.

World building for the sake of building a world does nothing for the story.  The author needs to make intelligent decisions on exactly what detail is needed.

Is that vendor interaction integral to the plot?  Does the reader need to understand that an exchange is jarring?  If so, then great!  If not, the author needs to cut it.


----------



## ThinkerX

> If these things impact the story, I have no problem with them. It's when details that have no bearing on plot are added that I have issue with.
> 
> World building for the sake of building a world does nothing for the story. The author needs to make intelligent decisions on exactly what detail is needed.
> 
> Is that vendor interaction integral to the plot? Does the reader need to understand that an exchange is jarring? If so, then great! If not, the author needs to cut it.



The problem here is you run the risk of a world which is 'bland' from end to end.  MC starts in a hometown with a generic tavern, generic market, with a generic castle on a generic hill nearby - all populated by generic charcters straight from central casting.  MC leaves hometown, travels across generic mountains, through generic forests, and despite a journey of thousands of miles ends up in another generic town with much the same generic elements as the first, with just a very few tweaks to set it apart from the town he started in.

This is what the old line 'sword and sorcery' authors used to do - Lieber with "Ffahrd and Mouser', Moorcock  with the 'Eternal Champion' series, as well as Lin Carter and Howard.  In their works, the world...isn't much more than a quickly painted backdrop...and it shows.

At times, Brian, you seem to be following in their footsteps here, allbeit with more modern prose.  

In my current world I have a number of different countries because the tales I write require different settings within the same world.  Solaria, for example, is entering into a tumultuous time of social reform and industrial revolution.  Cimmar, on the other side of the ocean, is locked in old style (russian/norse) feudalism with no major social changes or industrial revoluition in sight. 

In Solaria, you can send a message via semaphore towers over thousands of miles in a days time.  Bicycles are common, as are telescopes, microscopes, and complex spring / steam mechanisms. It also boasts a uniform law code (badly flawed in some respects).

In Cimmar, messages are sent via riders or riverboats, and can take months to reach their destination. Outside of a couple cities, the techological innovations common in Solaria are unknown. In Solaria, the nobility is at least partly bound by the law; in Cimmar each Boyar (petty noble) is almost a petty king with near absolute powers in his own right.

I'm barely scratching the surface here.  What is doable in Cimmar would not work in Solaria.  

Yet, with the type of writing you appear to be promoting, you'd have substantial difficulty getting these differences across to the reader: instead it seems as though you'd use the same generic backdrop for both realms, with maybe a few quick alterations.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

ThinkerX said:


> The problem here is you run the risk of a world which is 'bland' from end to end.  MC starts in a hometown with a generic tavern, generic market, with a generic castle on a generic hill nearby - all populated by generic charcters straight from central casting.  MC leaves hometown, travels across generic mountains, through generic forests, and despite a journey of thousands of miles ends up in another generic town with much the same generic elements as the first, with just a very few tweaks to set it apart from the town he started in.



And nobody comments that the MC wears funny clothes or talks funny or eats with his fingers. Indeed, everybody speaks the same language (let's call it the Common Tongue, shall we?). And everywhere the same political system, usually the patriarchal rule of primogeniture, although luckily the princess is feisty and rebellious... I've read this book about a million times, it seems. 

Yes, Tolkien was wordy, but his world had real depth. The self-effacing hobbits lived underground. The soaring architecture of Minas Tirith reflected the confidence of its Numerorean builders. The rivalry of Legolas and Gimli had deep historical roots. When characters pass through Lorien or Moria, the places and cultures feel believably different, the different races feel 'other'.



> In Solaria, you can send a message via semaphore towers over thousands of miles in a days time.  [...] In Cimmar, messages are sent via riders or riverboats, and can take months to reach their destination.



Very cool. Now that's a world I'd be interested to know more of.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Very cool. Now that's a world I'd be interested to know more of.



There are fragmentary glimpses of both Solaria and Cimmar in the last few 'Iron Pen' challenge stories (though I don't really do Solaria justice in them).  Cimmar is also the setting for 'Waiting for Godek', my entry in the 'Second Reaver Challenge'.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Yet, with the type of writing you appear to be promoting, you'd have substantial difficulty getting these differences across to the reader: instead it seems as though you'd use the same generic backdrop for both realms, with maybe a few quick alterations.



That is not what I'm saying at all.  My point is that the story should be the focus, not the world building.

Just as a writer should ruthlessly cut scenes that do not advance the plot, he should not bog down the story with unnecessary details just to create "depth."

Admittedly, it is a fine line, kinda like with emotion.  Too much emotion is melodramatic leading to eye rolling.  Too little is flat.

With world building, you have the same problem with too little, but too much leads to a bloated, uninteresting story.



> At times, Brian, you seem to be following in their footsteps here, allbeit with more modern prose.



I don't think this evaluation is accurate.  Sword and sorcery (I don't read much of it so correct me if my perceptions are wrong) is an action based genre.  The plot drives the story.

Whereas your comment regarding my approach to world building is, perhaps, on the mark, characters drive the story rather than plot, which I believe to be a significant departure from sword and sorcery.

I get that Ankari is much more into world building than I am.  I'm much more into character than he is.  I think there's room in genre for both types of stories.

Just as I have to make sure that I don't include character development that detracts from the story, he needs to make sure he doesn't put too much world building in.


----------



## Ankari

I didn't mean for this to devolve into evaluating member writing styles.  I'm more concerned with the discussion of whether or not authors find greater success when they put a heavy emphasis in world building.

I would like some examples of fantasy novels where the author reached world renown success when their greatest achievement is writing skill or character development.  Make another list of authors who put extravagant detail into their world building and have earned great success.

You'll see that the list with of authors with world building as their prime focus earned the greatest level of success.

Am I wrong?


----------



## BWFoster78

> I would like some examples of fantasy novels where the author reached world renown success when their greatest achievement is writing skill or character development. Make another list of authors who put extravagant detail into their world building and have earned great success.



How do you even begin to make that evaluation?  Is it possible?  Do you have some kind of scale for each scene that says this is world building and this is character?

No offense, but I see the whole premise of your question as flawed.

I'll say it again: with, perhaps the exception of Tolkien, every author I've read in fantasy that has become popular, has done so because they've told a good story.  A story integrates characters, world, and plot.


----------



## Graylorne

Yes, precisely. I was formulating an answer like this, but Brian's is much better than mine, so I won't .

I was thinking of David Eddings, who said of Belgarath that he could tell a story so, that you could hear the snow fall.

That's telling. And thus writing skill.


----------



## Steerpike

Yes, I agree with Brian as well. I don't view those authors 'primarily' as world builders. It seems to me we can't all agree on which authors are primarily world builders, and without agreement on that we cannot address the underlying question effectively.


----------



## wordwalker

Yes, are we really talking about *World > Writing*, or *Word + Writing > Writing*?


----------



## SeverinR

Personally, I think its a balancing act, creating a believable world and writing a great story.
In fantasy, we expect something out of the ordinary, so ignoring world building and you ignore the freedom of Fantasy.
But if you write just to show off the world, it won't be very interesting either.

I think to many writers just drop their stories into a European setting with spellcasters and try to fake the fantasy powers.
If you don't think the powers through, they easily become to weak or to powerful to control.  The spell caster can wipe out a thousand men army marching towards him, or the spell caster can't use magic fast enough to prevent a blade or arrow from hitting him while he casts it.
The info dump is the easiest pitfall for a world builder. Telling of all the magnificient things your world has, you forget about the story.  But to not go in depth would seem to be as bad.
My Dragon bard story, I feared an info dump when I let the young bard take time to really look at the hatchling, and tell about the anatomy of my dragons, but it was needed and also showed the love she had for the dragon.
World building and writing are a balancing act, but ignore either and you aren't doing your best.


----------



## Ankari

I'm willing to do a little exercise to find out which is the more successful of the two components.  I found a list below ranking the top selling fantasy authors.  I'll place my verdict on which of the two the author is best known for (world building or writing skill).  I would ask that everyone interested in this debate do the same.  At the end, we can determine which path offers the greatest success.

*1) J.K Rowling (400 million)*
The Harry Potter series has been a phenomenon the likes of which publishing has never seen. In less than a decade, Rowling went from an impoverished single mother writing in an Edinburgh cafe to one of the richest women in the world, overtaking dozens of writers who had been working for decades in the process.

*2) Stephen King (350 million)* 
In The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (1996), it was stated that Stephen King's total worldwide sales in all languages are probably incalculable, and the figure given above is on the conservative side of things. I've seen some figures suggesting he has sold twice this amount, but the 350m figure seems to crop up most often. Some may argue that Horror isn't necessarily part of the SF&F genre either and King shouldn't be counted, but most of his horror features supernatural forces, which firmly places it as a subset of Fantasy. Also, no-one would really argue that Eyes of the Dragon and the Dark Tower series aren't fantasy, and both of these works are set in the same multiverse as most (or, as some fans argue, all) of his other books, which puts him firmly in the Fantasy genre

*3) JRR Tolkien (c. 300 million)*
Tolkien's sales really are incalculable, given how widely his books have been copied, published without permission and distributed worldwide in the last fifty years. However, it is pretty clear that by itself The Lord of the Rings is the biggest-selling single genre novel of all time, and possibly the biggest-selling single novel full stop of all time. 50 million copies of the novel have been sold this century alone. When you factor in the massive sales of The Hobbit, and the smaller but still significant sales of The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The Children of Hurin, plus his non-Middle-earth work, Tolkien is clearly a major force in SF&F publishing, arguably all the more notable as his output was small compared to some others on this list.

*4) CS Lewis (120 million)*
It is perhaps fitting that Tolkien's one-time best friend and sometimes collaborator should be next on the list. The 120 million sales is allegedly for his Chronicles of Narnia series by itself, and doesn't include his numerous non-fiction books or his other novels, such as his Space Trilogy

*5) Terry Pratchett (70 million)*
Up until Rowling overtook him around the turn of the century Pratchett was a bona-fide phenomenon, publishing at least two novels a year for almost twenty years and being responsible for the sales of over 1% of all books sold in the UK and his books hitting the top of the Times bestseller lists like clockwork. Major success in the USA had eluded him until The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents won the Carnegie Prize in 2001. Following on from that, his US profile steadily rose until his books began hitting the NYT bestseller list as well. Aside from the occasional bit of mickey-taking, Pratchett was good-natured about losing out on his position as Fantasy's biggest-selling living author (with the King debate still going on) to Rowling, although his ire was provoked when some Potter fans complained that Equal Rites (1987) ripped off Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997), demonstrating a flexible interpretation of causality. Whilst Pratchett has now been firmly overtaken by Rowling, he bore it with equanimity and proudly maintains his position as the UK's most shoplifted autho

*6) Robert Jordan (44 million)*
Given how it dominates the discussion on some forums, this would seem to be a fairly lowly position for the biggest-selling of the modern epic fantasists. However, by any standards this is a seriously impressive number of books sold, especially given that the sales are split between a relatively small number of books (I suspect his Conan and Fallon novels' sales are all but negligible compared to those of The Wheel of Time sequence).

*7) Terry Goodkind (25 million)*
Pinning down concrete figures for Goodkind is harder than most due to some truly batty figures being circulated by his fanbase (at one time claiming he was Tor's biggest-selling author but failing to account for why only half as many copies of his latest book had been printed than Robert Jordan's). The worldwide figure of 25 million seems to be well-supported, however.

*8) Terry Brooks (21 million)*
Recently, with the announcement that movie versions of The Elfstones of Shannara and The Sword of Shannara are in development, it was suggested by some papers that Brooks was the 'second-biggest-selling living fantasy author', which would appear to be hyperbolic. An interview with JIVE Magazine reveals them to be rather more modest, although still extremely impressive. His books have sold very well for more than thirty-one years and Brooks, along with Donaldson, arguably kick-started the entire modern epic fantasy subgenre and has been one of its most reliable and visible writers ever since.

*9) Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman (c. 20 million)*
This one was a bit of a guesstimate, coming out of discussions over these two authors' success on a message board several years ago. The figure is certainly highly plausible, with TSR claiming that more than 4 million copies of their Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends trilogies by themselves had been shipped in less than a decade, and this doesn't account for their gaming products, other Dragonlance books and numerous non-Dragonlance novels, many of which have been bestsellers as well.

*10) Frank Herbert (18 million)*
If there's one thing this list has proven, if you want to be a massive-selling author you're far better writing Fantasy than Science Fiction, unless your SF novel features a ton of Fantasy elements. Frank Herbert's Dune is SF's biggest-selling single novel, with more than 12 million copies by itself sold. I'd also make a fair guess that the other 6 million sales are comprised almost entirely of his other five Dune novels.

You can find the link I used here.  I went through the top ten names and tried to verify the numbers.  If you see a difference between his post and mine, that's why.


----------



## Ankari

That being said, this is how I vote on the names I know:


J.K Rowling: World builder
Stephen King: Writing Skill
JRR Tolkien: world Builder
CS Lewis: World Builder
Terry Pratchett: N/A (never read him).
Robert Jordan: Split
Terry Goodkind: World Builder (by default)
Terry Brooks: Split
Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World Builder
Frank Herbert: N/A


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I like the list but I'd argue that the reason for Rowling's success as well as many others is not because they are world builders, but rather, fantastic story tellers.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Ankari said:


> That being said, this is how I vote on the names I know:
> 
> 
> J.K Rowling: World builder
> Stephen King: Writing Skill
> JRR Tolkien: world Builder
> CS Lewis: World Builder
> Terry Pratchett: N/A (never read him).
> Robert Jordan: Split
> Terry Goodkind: World Builder (by default)
> Terry Brooks: Split
> Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World Builder
> Frank Herbert: N/A




J.K. Rowling, to me, certainly didn't earn money due to her world building skills.  She earned money because she told a good story.  She may not technically be a great writer, but her ability to tell that story in a way that was easy to understand and interesting (for an audience that consists, in large part, of younger people and adults that don't read much) says more of her writing skill than her world building ability.  I won't make my own list because I have never read enough of Pratchett, Goodkind, Jordan, or Brooks to evaluate them honestly.  

I really don't mind Tolkien's style as much as many here seem to.  LOTR can be tough to get through, but I think The Hobbit is written very well.  In fact, the style of The Hobbit is why it is one of my favorite books.  I don't think many authors could write with a narrator as obviously present (showy, if you will) as Tolkien's is in that work and still hold my interest.


----------



## Steerpike

My take on these authors:


J.K Rowling: Story teller
Stephen King: Writing Skill / Story teller
JRR Tolkien: world Builder and story teller
CS Lewis: Story telling
Terry Pratchett: Story teller I guess. I didn't get far.
Robert Jordan: Story teller
Terry Goodkind: Don't know. Couldn't reach very far.
Terry Brooks: No opinion.
Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: More characters / story telling to me, but I haven't read a lot of them.
Frank Herbert: A bit of both, but a good writer / story teller


----------



## ThinkerX

hmmm...

1.J.K Rowling: Pass...because I didn't read her books.
2.Stephen King: Writing Skill
3.JRR Tolkien: world Builder
4.CS Lewis: World Builder
5.Terry Pratchett: story teller
6.Robert Jordan: Pass...didn't read.
7.Terry Goodkind: Pass...didn't read enough to make a judgement.
8.Terry Brooks: Split
9.Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World Builder
10.Frank Herbert: Pass...didn't read.


----------



## Ankari

How is story telling different from writing skills?  I thought part of the skill of writing was telling a good story.  I mean, I thought there were only so many stories you can tell.  It's up to your writing skills to make it your own and accessible for your audience to consume it.


----------



## Ankari

Just an FYI, Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman created the Dragonlance universe for TSR


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> How is story telling different from writing skills?  I thought part of the skill of writing was telling a good story.  I mean, I thought there were only so many stories you can tell.  It's up to your writing skills to make it your own and accessible for your audience to consume it.



I think there is a difference. You can be a superb writer from a technical standpoint, but if you can't tell a story you won't get far in my view. On the other hand, if you are a mediocre writer, in terms of your prose, but can tell a story effectively (Rowling; Meyer) you can have great success.


----------



## ThinkerX

> How is story telling different from writing skills? I thought part of the skill of writing was telling a good story. I mean, I thought there were only so many stories you can tell. It's up to your writing skills to make it your own and accessible for your audience to consume it.



We've had entire threads dedicated to this topic.  BWFoster summed it up...lessee if I can remember this:

1) Great Story Telling with Great Writing Skill

2) Great Story Telling with acceptable (not great) writing skill

3) Great Story Telling with poor writing skill 

4) Mediocre Story telling with great writing skill

5) Mediocre story telling with mediocre writing skill

6) Mediocre story telling with poor writing skill

7) Poor story telling with great writing skill

8) poor story telling with mediocre writing skill

9) poor story telling with poor writing skill.

Story telling is the creative aspect of things - the story itself.

Writing skill is how well you can express said creativity to your readers.

World building falls into the catagory of 'prep work' - at a minimum, the author has to know enough about the world to craft the story.


----------



## BWFoster78

Again, I think the whole process is flawed, but I'll weigh in.

J.K Rowling: Absolutely a story teller.  Her world sucked imo.  What exactly were the limits of the magic again?  It seemed to me that the magic was purely there to provide amusing things for the characters to do.
Stephen King: Definitely writing skill over world building.
JRR Tolkien: I'll go with world builder here.
CS Lewis: pass.  Been way too long since I've read it.
Terry Pratchett: pass again.  I've read some of his stuff, but it didn't stick in my mind at all.
Robert Jordan: I'll go writing skill b/c, to me, his world building actually detracted from the books rather than added.
Terry Goodkind: Writing skill.  The story of the two characters drew me into the series.  The world building got tedious.
Terry Brooks: Again, I've read some of his work, but it wasn't very memorable.
Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: I wouldn't know either of them if I hit them with a truck.  Sorry.
Frank Herbert: I'll give you world building on this one.  His stories definitely focused on the world.

Where is Stephenie Meyer?


----------



## Ankari

> Where is Stephenie Meyer?



This list focused on fantasy authors.  Stephenie Myers is consider, I think, paranormal romance.


----------



## BWFoster78

Ankari said:


> This list focused on fantasy authors.  Stephenie Myers is consider, I think, paranormal romance.



It's hard to know where people are categorized.  Thanks.


----------



## Shockley

1. J.K Rowling: Writer, though she was no slouch at world building
   2. Stephen King: Writer
   3. JRR Tolkien: World builder
   4. CS Lewis: World builder
   5. Terry Pratchett: That's... difficult. 
   6. Robert Jordan: Writer, though I don't think he did either particularly well.
   7. Terry Goodkind: N/A
   8. Terry Brooks: N/A
   9. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World builder
  10. Frank Herbert: World builder

 Interestingly enough, my favorite (Tolkien, Lewis) are world builders, as are some of my least favorite (Weis & Hickman).


----------



## danr62

I'll take a shot at this list:

J.K Rowling: Great story, writing skill and world building not so much.
Stephen King: Would you believe that I haven't actually read King? What's wrong with me?
JRR Tolkien: Both
CS Lewis: Both
Terry Pratchett: Haven't read.
Robert Jordan: World building. 
Terry Goodkind: Hard to say. Some of both, I guess.
Terry Brooks: How could people keep reading the generic stuff he kept writing? I stopped halfway through his third book with a feeling that I already read that book twice before...
Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World building.
Frank Herbert: To my shame, I have not read him either.


----------



## Shockley

I'm curious, what do people see as the flaws in Rowling's world building?


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> I'm curious, what do people see as the flaws in Rowling's world building?



People seem to dislike the ad hoc nature of magic, but to be honest that doesn't bother me.


----------



## BWFoster78

Shockley said:


> I'm curious, what do people see as the flaws in Rowling's world building?



To me, there didn't seem to be any real world building done at all.  Does she logically explain how all these magic users exist without any knowledge of the muggle world.  In the books, as opposed to the movies, non muggle born magic users are shown as highly ignorant of the mortal world.  At the same time, the world of the magic users is shown to overlap world of the muggles everywhere.

Additionally, there is the magic system.  What are the limits?  Is there any kind of cost?  To me, it's never really developed or explored as a true fantasy magic system.  Instead, it exists as a prop for the characters.

I don't necessarily have a problem with having the world exist as a prop, but, given these flaws, how can she be declared to be a world builder?


----------



## Amanita

> What are the limits? Is there any kind of cost?


I simply don't get this. Why are "limits" and "costs" always the first thing mentioned in every discussion about *magic*? 
And why is it supposed to be a flaw if magic doesn't have more "cost" than exercising other human abilities in real life? I liked the way magic was simply part of some humans nature in HP and I generally prefer this approach to any kind of "mana" or "ley lines" etc. especially if those are thrown in only to counter such critisism but without putting any work in.
But anyway, Harry Potter has some things magic cannot achieve. I admit that there isn't a recognisable system behind this though. Mabye it exists in Rowling's mind, maybe it doesn't, hard to tell. 

I agree with the first part of the post. Generally, I think it's really hard to tell how good the world-building really is and how much stuff has simply been added by countless fans trying to figure out the ending. The HP-world's closeness to the real one gave plenty of background without forcing the author to create it herself.
In my opinion the main reason for the success of Harry Potter was neither the world-building nor the plot but well-done mixture of many different elements which allowed huge numbers of readers to find characters and themes that interested them. 
I don't really think all of it was handled well in the end though.

Another example that came to my mind while reading this thread is Marion Zimmer-Bradley's Darkover. The world-building's good, at least in my opinion, the characters often (not always) are as well, but few of those books have a really convincing plot. In many of those books, there's no real action at all and if it's there, the scenes often aren't well-done.
Thinking of my own work, I think I'm having similar problems. 

In my opinion, world-building, characters and plot are all integral elements of a good fantasy story. If all of them are excellent the story will be too, if one is lacking it can still be an enjoyable read, if two are bad not so much anymore.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I simply don't get this. Why are "limits" and "costs" always the first thing mentioned in every discussion about magic?



This is a discussion of world building.  If the world of the story were fully developed, we'd have a greater understanding of the magic system.  As it is, it seems you can do anything you want by saying a few words and making the right motions.  If there are no limits, why can't Harry simply say the right words and, poof, Voldemort is dead.  Aparently the magic doesn't work that way, though, 'cause he never did that or tried that.  Why didn't he?  What other limits are there?

Why is gold important to them?  Why can't they conjure gold?  Is that another limitation of the magic?

A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader.


----------



## Amanita

> A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader.


I don't think that's really possible for such a magic system with influence on almost anything. At least not without adding plenty of information that would slow down the story. 
I have to admit that the question if they can create life by turning objects into animals did bother me quite a bit, another thing that can be answered.
If the magic system is more limited by its nature, that's easier. If the magic user can control fire, it's immediatly clear that there are plenty of things he can't do. The specifics of his abilities can be explained while he's learning. 
That's the path I've chosen myself. I used to experiment with a magic system which gave influence on almost anything. some call it "high magic" I think,  but failed to make it work in a way that satisfied me. 
I still like to read them if I'm interested in the story though. 
I generally dislike static and predictable magic systems "if I do x spells, I'm going to lose y days of my life" and similar suggestions. Prefer things along the lines of "if you smoke a pack of cigarettes each day, you're more likely to die early, but you may not."


----------



## Ankari

So, Amanita, care to rate the authors?


----------



## Amanita

> So, Amanita, care to rate the authors?


I haven't read all of them but I'll try with the rest. 

1. J.K Rowling: Story teller. I think the "typical fantasy plot with dark lord and chosen one meets contemporary UK"-plot was the most important part and not building a new world with vastly different cultures. 
2. Stephen King: Haven't read because horror never really interested me. 
3. JRR Tolkien: World builder first, but I think it's a relatively good balance. 
4. CS Lewis: Combination of both. 
5. Terry Pratchett: Haven't read that either. The German cover put me totally off those books and I haven't brought myself to look at them since then. Maybe I should. 
6. Robert Jordan: Didn't read it either. What I've heard about it never appealed to me and it was too long to try out just for fun.
7. Terry Goodkind: I don't really like either his world-building or his plot. His world is an example of fantasy world where various pieces are put together without creating something whole. It's not the only one. 
8. Terry Brooks: Haven't read his books.
9. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: Haven't read anything by them either. 
10. Frank Herbert: Haven't read his books for some reason. Something I really should do I think.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I believe that the true reason behind the wild success of some Fantasy authors is not their technical writing skills, magic systems or how complex and detailed their world building is:

We are not only writers, we are _Fantasy_ writers. Our job is to take our readers _out of this world_ and throw them into another world that we create, and that is something that writers of other literary genres do not have to do...

That is the ability that we really need to master: To transport the readers to another world, not just to write technically well, create a world or design a good magic system.


----------



## Zero Angel

Shockley said:


> I'm curious, what do people see as the flaws in Rowling's world building?



I didn't really have problems with her world building, although I did have trouble with the magic being exactly what she wanted it to be without feeling logical or sensical at all.

Instead, I had the biggest trouble with her bad Hollywood like treatment of anti-Deus ex Machina. 

1. J.K Rowling: Story teller followed by world builder.
2. Stephen King: Writing technique (although I can't tolerate it personally)
3. JRR Tolkien: World builder.
4. CS Lewis: World builder with Narnia.
5. Terry Pratchett: Split between world building/writing & storytelling 
6. Robert Jordan: World builder--his writing & storytelling is actually pretty rough in retrospect
7. Terry Goodkind: Haven't read
8. Terry Brooks: Haven't read
9. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World building
10. Frank Herbert: World building

Personally, I don't even think story telling is as important. To me, story creating is the most important (with other elements needing to reach sufficient levels obviously), and that usually is strongly tied up in the world itself, hence why I think people think world building is so important.


----------



## Shockley

> To me, there didn't seem to be any real world building done at all. Does she logically explain how all these magic users exist without any knowledge of the muggle world. In the books, as opposed to the movies, non muggle born magic users are shown as highly ignorant of the mortal world. At the same time, the world of the magic users is shown to overlap world of the muggles everywhere.



 That doesn't strike me as strange at all. One only has to look at a lot of the ethnic enclaves that exist right here in the United States – and not in the ways one initially thinks of. One perfect example is that of the Hasidic community in New York City – they are very prevalent (almost a stereotype of the city) but also very insular. There are some Hasidic communities in New York that have been here for over a hundred and fifty years where the English language is spoken by less than 7% of the population.

 So the idea that magic users – especially when you have the in-universe/real world history of witch burnings (which were briefly touched on) coupled with the xenophobia of the wizarding community, it doesn't surprise me that there would be a divide, and a divide less severe than one present in some communities in the United States of America.



> Additionally, there is the magic system. What are the limits? Is there any kind of cost? To me, it's never really developed or explored as a true fantasy magic system. Instead, it exists as a prop for the characters.



 Well, I think a good portion of the story's moral arc revolves around the 'costs' of magic. Not in physical terms, but in spiritual. 

 As to the limits, I tend to take a view that is different from other writers on this – it's her world, she sets her limits. If she properly builds up to the moon growing wings and attacking a dinosaur, and there are no plotholes and it doesn't break the narrative, that's fine by me. Rowling was very consistent in the way she handled her magic system, at least in my opinion, and I think we have a decent idea of the limits – horcruxes, the killing curses, the deathly hallows and the philosopher's stone. 

 I think the limits are in-world, as opposed to being spelled out as limits.



> I don't necessarily have a problem with having the world exist as a prop, but, given these flaws, how can she be declared to be a world builder?



 Well, I think a lot of the trappings of her world are more recognizable than her prose style, which is so-so. She created a lot of places, a lot of 'worlds' as it were, etc. and tied them into our real world without it seeming just absolutely ridiculous. It's a more subtle form of world-building than Lewis used with Chronicles of Narnia, but it's world-building nonetheless.



> This is a discussion of world building. If the world of the story were fully developed, we'd have a greater understanding of the magic system. As it is, it seems you can do anything you want by saying a few words and making the right motions. If there are no limits, why can't Harry simply say the right words and, poof, Voldemort is dead. Aparently the magic doesn't work that way, though, 'cause he never did that or tried that. Why didn't he? What other limits are there?



 Well you can kill someone with magic – that is very clearly established from book one. The problem with that is entirely the same one you have with swords, guns, etc. You're only as good with those things as you train to be, and inversely to the amount your opponent trains with them. 

 They establish you need the wand for magic, and generally you need to point the wand at the item you want changed/destroyed/fixed/whatever. That itself is a limiter on how it can be used and explains adequately why he can't just 'poof' away Voldemort. 



> Why is gold important to them? Why can't they conjure gold? Is that another limitation of the magic?
> 
> A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader.



 Okay, I have to throw in a corollary here: 'A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader, *so far as it is relevant to the story being told.* If the story were about the economics of the wizarding world, then yes, I'd want that question answered. But within the confines of the story presented, I don't expect that question to be answered and I won't hold Rowling accountable for not answering that question.


----------



## Chilari

I would describe Terry Pratchett as a split, both worldbuilder and brilliant storyteller. Discworld is such an incredible and varied world that it really stands out to me. Arguably, Hogfather was a story more about the world and the nature of magic in the world than it was about the story. Pyramids was to a certain extent too. There are so many elements to the Discworld that make such an interesting world, a world full of depth and variety, and each new novel just adds to it in a remarkable way.

I am also surprised by how few of you have read Pratchett. Ever since I read Colour of Magic when I was 12 I've not been able to get enough of him. Some of them I've read several times over. I've probably read an average of 5 Pratchett books a year when including re-reads of books I'd read before in the last 12 years.

As for Rowling, I wouldn't describe her as a master worldbuilder. Sure, the world is interesting and pretty cool, but it lacks depth. It feels like she's just stuck stickers over things when she has needed to. Now, maybe that's because she started with a world that exists and built into that one that does not, with the requirement that the wizarding world is hidden from the real one as if to imply that it really is there, just we're all muggles so can't see it, so she really is sort of sticking stickers over the top of reality; she can hardly change reality itself, and making the muggle world too different or the wizarding world to invasive would take away some believability. And maybe also it's because she is writing for a younger audience, one for whom a direct and concise approach to the world is more suited than a nuanced one.

But still, her world is not deep. It's like having a Lego Star Destroyer and deciding to make it more cool by adding lasers and little turrets and go faster stripes on the outside using red instead of grey bricks because you think it'll be cooler, even though it's not on the box, and maybe slightly changing the design of the nose or the exhaust to make it look really cool. But it's still an altered Lego Star Destroyer, not a space ship of your own design.


----------



## Sheilawisz

About the style of Magic seen in the Harry Potter series, I think that it was intended by the author to be that kind of mystical, mysterious and unexplained Magic instead of the more scientific, heavily limited and clearly-defined styles that are described in other Fantasy works...

It's the kind of Magic that turns people into ferrets, creates a large house inside a camping tent and makes birds appear out of nowhere, and there are some people that love that kind of Magic... like myself =)

I did notice an inconsistency in the Harry Potter magic that I did not like:

Avada Kedavra was first described as a flash of green light and the sound of an invisible something soaring through the air, like throwing pure death at your enemies causing them to drop dead without any physical harm. Then, later in the series Rowling describes it as jets of green light, and I liked the original Avada Kedavra much better!!

I cannot rate the authors in the list because of all of those I have read only Tolkien and Rowling, but I can tell you this:

The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter both are not only fascinating stories told with great narration and storytelling skills, but also they deal with the moral values of things like friendship, family, loyalty, courage and doing what is right instead of what is easy, and I think that really touches people's hearts.


----------



## JCFarnham

The success of these author for me is nothing to do with either world or writing skill. Its almost entirely down to product placement. If you track the progression of the story from beginning to end in Harry potter something rather striking jumps put at you.

The age of the protagonists and the main readership directly has an effect on the tone and type of story told. In the beginning. Rowling's books were pure children's chapter book. By the end she was telling an almost entirely YA story.

That's why it worked so well. She followed her target reader and matched the books to them as she went.

Clever, but obvious stuff frankly.

Edit: take Twilight. It was successful for more or less the same reason. A good knowledge of the intended reader progressively dictating the tone of the series.


----------



## BWFoster78

Not really trying to start an argument about Rowling's skill or technique as much as her status as a world builder.

Here's how I see it.  Ankari and I approach things quite differently.  I think about a character and a situation and fill in the details of the world as I go along.  I am not a world builder.

Ankari, however, is.  He puts a lot of thought into building races and magic systems and how his world interrelates.  To him, I think the world is as important as the characters or story.  In fact, he wrote a short story for the sole purpose of introducing a new race.

I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach.  They lead to different types of stories and have their own advantages and disadvantages.

To define someone as a world builder, in my opinion, that person has to focus on the building of their fantasy world.  I simply can't fathom how anyone would say that Rowling is a world builder.  Everything about her world is inserted as a place for the characters to live and play.  She clearly chose the characters and situation and then used the magic system and world as props.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> To define someone as a world builder, in my opinion, that person has to focus on the building of their fantasy world.  I simply can't fathom how anyone would say that Rowling is a world builder.  Everything about her world is inserted as a place for the characters to live and play.  She clearly chose the characters and situation and then used the magic system and world as props.



I don't think of her as a world-builder because of her great skill or even intentional desire to world build. I classified her as being more famous for being a world-builder because everyone remembers the "world". If you talk to fans of Harry Potter, many have rather negative things to say about J.K. Rowling and even where she took the story or what she did, but they all fell in love with the world and idea of Harry Potter.

For me, the world is canvas for the characters to explode themselves upon. I world build as much (or more) than anyone I've ever heard of, but my characters are free to change the world around them and frequently do. I develop my characters and they in turn act and react to their own desires and what is going on in the world around them.


----------



## Steerpike

I had a different view. I liked Potter because of the characters. The world I've seen before, in various forms, to one extent or another. She did a nice job of it though.


----------



## Chessie

Very interesting thread. I really enjoyed reading through all the posts with some good points made. I have read "The Hobbit" and all of the Narnia books amongst the list of books/authors being compared here. I thought the stories were fascinating and well-written.  I think world-building is perhaps slightly more important than writing skill because if the author has a deep knowledge of what the characters are experiencing down to certain details, the story can only be that much better. It definitely takes a certain amount of patience and creativity to create the kinds of fantasy worlds like Tolkien did. When someone has the ability to get that specific about a make believe land, then I think the writing is just the icing on the cake. To me, it seems like world-building and creative storytelling go hand in hand. 

I have not ever read or watched any Harry Potter because although I love wizards, the whole idea of the kids at magic school has never peaked my interest. But what Rowling has created with her story is amazing and worthy of kudos for selling such a popular tale.


----------



## Devor

Rowling has a beautifully detailed setting, from the school's rich history all the way down to a dozen varieties of magic candy.

Some people, I think, are missing the point.  There's much more to building a world than the details of a map or a magic system.


----------



## Zero Angel

Devor said:


> Rowling has a beautifully detailed setting, from the school's rich history all the way down to a dozen varieties of magic candy.
> 
> Some people, I think, are missing the point.  There's much more to building a world than the details of a map or a magic system.


I acknowledge those points, but thought they seemed cobbled together for when she needed them or as a "oh that's cool" moment instead of serious world building. I don't know what she actually went into with her world building, but it did not give the appearance of a seamless world to me.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zero Angel said:


> I acknowledge those points, but thought they seemed cobbled together for when she needed them or as a "oh that's cool" moment instead of serious world building. I don't know what she actually went into with her world building, but it did not give the appearance of a seamless world to me.



To me, Zero nailed it.

All fantasy writers have to build a world, and all fantasy writers have to develop characters and story.  

Though both sides have to borrow from the other, I think that there are two distinct schools of thought represented in this thread.  One side enjoys the world building and focuses on it as the framework for their characters and story.  The other side builds character and story and works in a world around that.

To me, Rowling, despite any level of detail, fits in better with the character and story crowd.  I am not saying in any way that this is a bad thing.  It is, in fact, my approach as well, and I think that her story is both better and more successful because of the path she took.  I have a hard time, after reading her books, thinking of her as someone who approaches a story from the standpoint of fitting the characters and story to her world than the other way around.


----------



## Chessie

The second way you mentioned is my approach as well. I personally don't see the need to explain details into a story that don't necessarily matter when it comes to character/plot progression. Its nice to see fantasy works simplified every once in a while. I think there are a lot of readers out there that probably appreciate that.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chesterama said:


> The second way you mentioned is my approach as well. I personally don't see the need to explain details into a story that don't necessarily matter when it comes to character/plot progression. Its nice to see fantasy works simplified every once in a while. I think there are a lot of readers out there that probably appreciate that.



It's definitely a different core audience. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other in the same way I don't think it is better to be 100% a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants writer or an outliner, but it is worthwhile talking about the differences and being aware of them. I personally enjoy seeing excellent examples of world-building and enjoy the merits of world-building independent of story. I think I am pretty far on one extreme however and am by no means typical.


----------



## Mari

I have to say I disagree. I truly enjoyed HP novels, and The Hobbit. 

The opening paragraph to The Hobbit, asks a question: what is a hobbit? It is descriptive. You hear a distinctive voice. 

Harry Potter has a light-hearted tone, and opens in away that makes you hope that Mr. and Mrs. Dudely, get something blown up their collective behinds. 

I am fan of both books.


----------



## Mari

BWFoster78 said:


> To me, Zero nailed it.
> 
> All fantasy writers have to build a world, and all fantasy writers have to develop characters and story.
> 
> Though both sides have to borrow from the other, I think that there are two distinct schools of thought represented in this thread.  One side enjoys the world building and focuses on it as the framework for their characters and story.  The other side builds character and story and works in a world around that.
> 
> To me, Rowling, despite any level of detail, fits in better with the character and story crowd.  I am not saying in any way that this is a bad thing.  It is, in fact, my approach as well, and I think that her story is both better and more successful because of the path she took.  I have a hard time, after reading her books, thinking of her as someone who approaches a story from the standpoint of fitting the characters and story to her world than the other way around.



It is my understanding, JKR, first met Harry and from there wen to on to see what was his story. I would think that characters  came first. The world was explored from their povs. It wasn't the school that came first, as it was who was there.


----------



## Ankari

I don't mean to bump this thread, but I came across it during a search.  I felt obligated to count the tally for the quick poll I put together.  Here are the results:

World Building: 30
Writing Skill: 18
Story Telling (Steerpike insertion): 13

So, of the successful authors, world building seems to be the ingredient that has the largest contribution to their success.

PS:  If you noticed that the numbers don't add up to a denomination of 10, it's because I counted split votes as one each.


----------



## ThinkerX

So...

...the foundations for a good story are built upon a world which has been well thought out.


----------



## Ankari

ThinkerX said:


> So...
> 
> ...the foundations for a good story are built upon a world which has been well thought out.



No.  The foundation for extended success is to have a well though out world that immerses the reader.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Since we're reopening this can of worms....

I just can't see how world-building trumps story telling. If you're a great story teller, you can get by with minimal world building. The reverse is not true. I know plenty of great world builders that can't tell a story to save their lives.


----------



## Ankari

The thing is, I've never stated these facets are mutually exclusive.  I'm stating that of the 2 (now 3), world building is the difference maker.  The one thing that will give you a larger fan base and more success.  The list, by it's very nature, assumes that every one of those authors _are good at story telling_ because they are professional authors.  The degree of their skill is questionable, I'm sure.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Understood and I agree.

However, the list that is provided has a fatal flaw. You're grouping modern succesful authors with authors from the 1950's (what some call the inception of the genre). 

If we looked at only modern authors...those still producing works or having written a book in the last 5-10 years, would the results differ? I only wonder this because I believe their is a successful move towards a more minimalist approach to world building and a higher reliance on character and story telling.


----------



## ThinkerX

> I just can't see how world-building trumps story telling. If you're a great story teller, you can get by with minimal world building.



I would say that depends on the story.  If the story setting doesn't have a lot of...'world' to it, say the whole thing is set in a single town or castle or whatnot, then yes, you can get away with minimal worldbuilding.  A good example of this would be the play 'Waiting for Godet' - the 'world' consists of a road, a field with a boulder or two, and a tree - yet the events within that world are fascinating (at least to me).

But to tell a tale involving strange cultures and political intrigue...then the author, at least, has to do at least some worldbuilding.  Otherwise, the setting would have a sort of blatently obvious 'movie set' feel to it.  I've paged through a number of 'Lord of the Ring' type knockoffs where the lack of worldbuilding did detract from the story.


----------



## Ankari

To discard the success of earlier authors would be a flaw, especially since their books are still selling.  But, for arguement's sake, I'll look it up.


----------



## Sparkie

This again?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

ThinkerX said:


> I would say that depends on the story.  If the story setting doesn't have a lot of...'world' to it, say the whole thing is set in a single town or castle or whatnot, then yes, you can get away with minimal worldbuilding.  A good example of this would be the play 'Waiting for Godet' - the 'world' consists of a road, a field with a boulder or two, and a tree - yet the events within that world are fascinating (at least to me).
> 
> But to tell a tale involving strange cultures and political intrigue...then the author, at least, has to do at least some worldbuilding.  Otherwise, the setting would have a sort of blatently obvious 'movie set' feel to it.  I've paged through a number of 'Lord of the Ring' type knockoffs where the lack of worldbuilding did detract from the story.



Agreed thinker. When I say minimalist world building I didn't mean to imply there was none. I only meant little as compared to massive, genre founding world builders like Tolkein and Lewis.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I was hoping you would Ankari...  Thanks in advance.

I don't mean to discount previous works. However, it's hard not to see that there are some vast differences in the fantasy of today compared to that written 50 years ago.


----------



## Chilari

Since we're bringing this up again, I think I'll share a recent experience that has bearing on this topic.

I recently bought a new book by an established author (he'd previously published a trilogy I haven't read; the book I bought was the first in a new series, newly released, and was on offer). But I'm really struggling with it. I bought it about 2 or 3 weeks ago with the aim of reviewing it for my website, but I've only got 8% of the way through it.

It's a worldbuilder's novel. It's not well written, though.

There's clear evidence of the depth of the world. Interesting races and cultures, a supernatural world living within nature unseen by most mortals, a range of nations with complex relationships with one another. Magical technology that lights up the city streets at night. The world certainly has depth to it, and this has come through in the 8% of the book I've read.

But I've read 8% of it. In fact I stopped reading it more than a week ago when I started reading the book I actually did review a little over a week ago on my website. Why? Because it didn't engage me. It wasn't well written. I had no reason to care for the characters. Almost everything I knew about them I was told, not shown. The protagonist has all this angst that the author is very keen to make the reader aware of, and he overstates his case as a result. The characters don't seem to interact in a human manner either, bar one minor character who as far as I can tell might never reappear.

Establishing an interesting and varied world might be important, but without the ability to entertain the reader through engaging characters and interesting storylines, it is pointless.

I do intend to finish reading this book, and then I will post my review, both on Amazon and on my website. At best, it'll get 5/10 or 3 stars. I shouldn't have to slog through a book. I shouldn't be thinking "urgh this character is dull" or "yes, I get it, he isn't fond of his uncle, no need to wangst about it". I shouldn't be so easily distracted by every car that drives past my house or ping of an email from Amazon about how I liked my purchase or from Twitter telling me someone favourited my tweet; I shouldn't be looking for reasons to not read it.

By comparison the book I actually read and reviewed was very well written. Characterisation was fairly good, but nothing special - the protagonist has obvious approval issues regarding his father, much like the protagonist of the book I'm 8% of the way through does for his uncle. There's some good worldbuilding too - subtle hints that it's not all what it appears, a strong sense of the atmosphere of isolation, but through far fewer words, much less in focus than in the 8% book. But it was well written. It kept me reading. The only time I stopped reading was when my stomach rumbled loudly and reminded me to have lunch. I finished the book in only a few hours, in two sittings either side of lunch.


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Understood and I agree.
> 
> However, the list that is provided has a fatal flaw. You're grouping modern succesful authors with authors from the 1950's (what some call the inception of the genre).
> 
> If we looked at only modern authors...those still producing works or having written a book in the last 5-10 years, would the results differ? I only wonder this because I believe their is a successful move towards a more minimalist approach to world building and a higher reliance on character and story telling.



I'd say that an even bigger fatal flaw is the lack of definitions.  A good portion of the people in the "poll" consider JK Rowling to be a worldbuilder because that term means different things to the people who are answering the question.

Without clear definitions, the "results" are pretty much meaningless.

It's kinda like a poll asking, "Is the tomato your favorite vegetable?"

You answer, "Yes.  They're tasty and can be used in a lot of sauces.  Ketchup and salsa both rock."

I answer.  "No.  A tomato is a fruit."

If the purpose of the poll is to find out who likes tomatos, the failure to define what a vegetable is pretty much negates the whole process.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> I'd say that an even bigger fatal flaw is the lack of definitions.  A good portion of the people in the "poll" consider JK Rowling to be a worldbuilder because that term means different things to the people who are answering the question.
> 
> Without clear definitions, the "results" are pretty much meaningless.
> 
> It's kinda like a poll asking, "Is the tomato your favorite vegetable?"
> 
> You answer, "Yes.  They're tasty and can be used in a lot of sauces.  Ketchup and salsa both rock."
> 
> I answer.  "No.  A tomato is a fruit."
> 
> If the purpose of the poll is to find out who likes tomatos, the failure to define what a vegetable is pretty much negates the whole process.



You sound like a mathematician!

Anyway, I was thinking something now that this has been re-opened. I think we all agree that some skill is necessary with writing and storytelling in order to tell a story any story, but what about a series? Does a series of books naturally need more world-building? Or is it just that whenever there is a series, the world gets built up enough that as we look back on the work as a whole we see a cohesive world and think of the author as a world-builder?


----------



## BWFoster78

> You sound like a mathematician!



Engineer.  Good enough for government work.



> what about a series? Does a series of books naturally need more world-building? Or is it just that whenever there is a series, the world gets built up enough that as we look back on the work as a whole we see a cohesive world and think of the author as a world-builder?



I don't think you'll get people to move much off their novel positions in reference to a series.  I think the latter is the case.  My guess is that Ankari will say the former.


----------



## Addison

Writing a book that is read by more than just the family, one with a fantastic world, is like fishing. the truth of fishing is that the fish doesn't need the worm on the hook, they're attracted to whatever shines and glitters. But with a fantasy world you need the bait. If a reader picks up a book and your inside flap promises magic duels, ogre hunts or anything like that, they'll be expecting those wonderful elements, that juicy bait. That's what they'll be sucking on as you reel them in hooked securely by your unique glittery writing. 

So to me it's hand in hand of the three. world building, storytelling and writing skills. 

And remember that no two people's reading preferences are the same. Some read fantasy for the worlds they're given, others for the characters and adventure presented.


----------



## Zero Angel

I personally am a large fan of "secondary creation", but I definitely believe that I am in the minority overall and definitely no more than a plurality as it applies to fantasy fans. Interestingly, I feel that fantasy gives us the option to be world-builders or not as we choose or deem necessary, but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building


----------



## Ankari

I looked at the list again.  I can only see three names that are not current; JRR Tolkie, CS Lewis, and Frank Herbert.  If you take those names out, you have the following list:



J.K Rowling
Stephen King
Terry Pratchett
Robert Jordan
Terry Goodkind
Terry Brooks
Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman


*Eoin Colfer (18 million)*

The author of the Artemis Fowl series, which has proven a massive hit amongst YA circles. Colfer was recently picked to write the sixth Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy novel.

*Raymond E. Feist (15 million)*

The author of the extremely long-running Riftwar Cycle of novels, which when complete will comprise approximately thirty books. Mixed reviews for his books published over the last decade or so do not seem to have influenced his legions of loyal fans.

*Christopher Paolini (12 million)*

His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.

*George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)*

Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.

*Neil Gaiman (2 million)*

If GRRM's figure is conservative, this is even moreso, and based solely on the figures I could find for sales of the Sandman graphic novels. Add in his other, highly successful novels and his real sales and position should be much higher.

I threw in the last two because they are so current.  What do you think of this list?


----------



## Addison

Zero Angel said:


> Interestingly, I feel that fantasy gives us the option to be world-builders or not as we choose or deem necessary, but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building



That's sort of right, and then not. True we add witches, fairies, living trees and all that to our fantasy when we need if and if the story needs it. There's limitless elements in fantasy which are at our disposal. But the same can be said about science fiction. It doesn't need aliens but we can add them. It doesn't need inter-planetary travel but we can add it. Like fantasy, science fiction gets that label if there's an element in the story which deals with alien life, future technology or other planets. Just adding one will give it a genre title.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> ... but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building



Does it? Maybe to an extent, just as fantasy does. A lot of good science fiction is set in the modern world, so the world is already created for you. Even if you look at a classic like Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_...OK, you've got a guy from Mars. But he comes to earth and that's where the book takes place. How much world-building is there? _Jurassic Park, _OK Crichton creates the amusement park, but how much world-building does he do, exactly? Does researching dinosaur behavior count? Or his earlier work, _The Andromeda Strain - _how much world-building is going on there? Are we confusing world-building and plotting? Just some thoughts.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Ankari said:


> What do you think of this list?


What about Sanderson? Isn't he among the top in current sales?


----------



## BWFoster78

You also missed Brian W. Foster.  I know he's not on there yet, but soon.  Soon.


----------



## Ankari

Apparently, not in relation with the ones I've listed.  I tried looking for his sales figures, but to no avail.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm fairly certain Sanderson is a current top seller.

Others:
Raymond Feist
Michael Morcock
Piers Anthony

Not sure about sales figures but writers like Anthony have enormous bodies of work to consider.


----------



## Zero Angel

Ankari said:


> *Christopher Paolini (12 million)*
> 
> His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.
> 
> *George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)*
> 
> Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.


I don't think anyone will argue for Paolini's success coming from his writing, and I think he is a world-builder first and foremost, but I don't think he's particularly good at that either. It seems his success comes from novelty more than anything in my opinion (he was really young, so no one held him to a standard). 

As far as Martin, I think even if he is good at writing scenes, that he has really dropped the ball in writing his books. I like the world he's created, but I am angered at the deliberate obfuscation of the mechanics and history of the world, so I cannot even evaluate him as a world-builder. I'm not enough of a masochist to enjoy Martin's books any longer and have given up on the series entirely.



Steerpike said:


> Does it? Maybe to an extent, just as fantasy does. A lot of good science fiction is set in the modern world, so the world is already created for you. Even if you look at a classic like Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_...OK, you've got a guy from Mars. But he comes to earth and that's where the book takes place. How much world-building is there? _Jurassic Park, _OK Crichton creates the amusement park, but how much world-building does he do, exactly? Does researching dinosaur behavior count? Or his earlier work, _The Andromeda Strain - _how much world-building is going on there? Are we confusing world-building and plotting? Just some thoughts.


Hm, so I guess I don't think of this stuff as science fiction. I can't find a genre describing what I want to express. Space science fiction? I know, I know, requiring off-world-ness (or a future so drastically different as to be unrecognizable) in science fiction and saying that requires world building is kinda' circular!


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

There are large segments of the populace that will tolerate poor storytelling if the world-building is awesome, and other segments that don't care about worldbuilding and are only interested in good storytelling. The upshot is that as long as you're good at at least _one_ of world-building or storytelling, there's an audience out there for you. It's possible to be good at both, but all evidence points to storytelling being harder than world-building.

Of course, there are many other elements to a story besides storytelling and world-building. Prose style, for example, is important. I've thrown aside books by prestigious, award-winning authors, merely because I couldn't stand their prose style (C. J. Cherryh comes to mind). (This is not to make any objective claims about Cherryh's skill, just that I don't like her writing style.)


----------



## TheokinsJ

The whole reason that Tolkein's book wouldn't be published if he we alive today and submitted them, is because now the market is flooded with fantasy writers. In tolkein's day not nearly as many fantasy novels were written, not nearly as many of them were built with good worldbuilding and good writing. Tolkein was a genius- he essentially created the fantasy genre. Since the time of tolkein heaps of writers have basically been writing rip-offs of the lord of the rings by using elves, dwarves and having the 'dark lord' thing which is now cliche but in Tolkein's day was unheard of. Basically the reason Tolkein did well is because his ideas were new and fresh, and they were something completely different to what's been done before. 

The same applies with harry potter, JK Rowling did so well because it was a fresh, new idea that had never been done before, yes it has a 'dark lord' but the whole idea of Quiddich, horcruxes, a school of magic, tri-wizard tournaments had never been done before, it was unique and it was a story that really stuck.
Other writers of the fantasy genre such as George RR Martin have created unique works with captivating stories that have intrigued millions of people and are fresh and new.

So I guess success doesn't necessarily come from writing skill alone- but if you are a great world builder but a terrible writer your book will be just as terrible. I believe that you need to have a certain amount of skill, but at the end of the day it is the story that wins over the reader- if they don't care about the characters or the plot why would they continue reading? Think of what a story is- a story is about literally what the word means- it is about telling an epic tale of adventure or of love or a story of friendship or greed, it is not about writing skill.
I mean if you were a reader and an author was the best writer in the world, but the ideas were terrible would you continue reading? At the end of the day good writing skill helps to tell the story better, but if the story is terrible to begin with you can't dress it up by writing well. So to answer your question; ideas, world building, characters and plot are very important- if not vital to the success of a novel.


----------



## Zero Angel

TheokinsJ said:


> The whole reason that Tolkein's book wouldn't be published if he we alive today and submitted them, is because now the market is flooded with fantasy writers. In tolkein's day not nearly as many fantasy novels were written, not nearly as many of them were built with good worldbuilding and good writing. Tolkein was a genius- he essentially created the fantasy genre. Since the time of tolkein heaps of writers have basically been writing rip-offs of the lord of the rings by using elves, dwarves and having the 'dark lord' thing which is now cliche but in Tolkein's day was unheard of. Basically the reason Tolkein did well is because his ideas were new and fresh, and they were something completely different to what's been done before.
> 
> The same applies with harry potter, JK Rowling did so well because it was a fresh, new idea that had never been done before, yes it has a 'dark lord' but the whole idea of Quiddich, horcruxes, a school of magic, tri-wizard tournaments had never been done before, it was unique and it was a story that really stuck.
> Other writers of the fantasy genre such as George RR Martin have created unique works with captivating stories that have intrigued millions of people and are fresh and new.
> 
> So I guess success doesn't necessarily come from writing skill alone- but if you are a great world builder but a terrible writer your book will be just as terrible. I believe that you need to have a certain amount of skill, but at the end of the day it is the story that wins over the reader- if they don't care about the characters or the plot why would they continue reading? Think of what a story is- a story is about literally what the word means- it is about telling an epic tale of adventure or of love or a story of friendship or greed, it is not about writing skill.
> I mean if you were a reader and an author was the best writer in the world, but the ideas were terrible would you continue reading? At the end of the day good writing skill helps to tell the story better, but if the story is terrible to begin with you can't dress it up by writing well. So to answer your question; ideas, world building, characters and plot are very important- if not vital to the success of a novel.



I don't object to most of what you have to say, but a horcrux is just a lich's phylactery. It's not new at all.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Eoin Colfer (18 million)
> 
> The author of the Artemis Fowl series, which has proven a massive hit amongst YA circles. Colfer was recently picked to write the sixth Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy novel.



Never read him.



> Raymond E. Feist (15 million)
> 
> The author of the extremely long-running Riftwar Cycle of novels, which when complete will comprise approximately thirty books. Mixed reviews for his books published over the last decade or so do not seem to have influenced his legions of loyal fans.



Ahhh...the first few books (the original 'Magician series') were awsome.  I used to tell myself I wanted to write like that, and despaired of doing so.  The next few books (The Kelewan trilogy, and the 'next generation') of books were also pretty good.  Readers learned what became of their favorate characters twenty years on, and watched a new generation of heros come of age.  But then...well...'Serpent War' saga was good, but not great.  He really should have ended the series there, or combined the next subseries into a single volume and tacked it onto the end as an epilogue.  The last few books...I suppose a bit like Robert Jordan.  Sorry to go on like that.

Anyhow...Feist gets a split vote from me.  In his prime, he was a first class worldbuilder who integrated worlds and stories and characters together.  Sadly, he's declined on all counts over the past few years.



> Christopher Paolini (12 million)
> 
> His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.



I've only read the first book in this series, and was utterly unimpressed.  Hence, I must walk away in bafflement at his popularity.



> George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)
> 
> Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.



Ok...'Game of Thrones' is great.  I have read some of his earlier stuff (Windhaven and a couple SF books whose titles escape me at the moment) They are solid, but not particularly outstanding.  

That said...GRRM has been doing the whole writing thing long enough to have 'found his balance' between worldbuilding, characterization, and story telling.  Hence, I have to give him a split vote.



> Neil Gaiman (2 million)
> 
> If GRRM's figure is conservative, this is even moreso, and based solely on the figures I could find for sales of the Sandman graphic novels. Add in his other, highly successful novels and his real sales and position should be much higher.



I've read a few of his works.  In 'American Gods' he includes a sort of 'thank-you' section for the people who helped him out, and most of that help went towards what could be termed 'world building' - looking up odd bits of info on odd towns and places across the globe.  That info was essential to the story, but it was also info he had somebody else put together for him (as I understand it).  Hence, from that blurb and the other tales of his I've read...I'd have to say characterization, story telling, and 'weird ideas' are his strong points.



> I threw in the last two because they are so current. What do you think of this list?



I'd suggest adding in Kate Elliot: her 'Crown of Stars' was very good, and sold pretty well.  These days, her 'Cold Fire' series is also doing pretty good.  In both series, the world map itself is vaguely familiar, but the cultures and races occupying it differ radically from the real world versions - by way of minor example, the 'vikings' in 'Crown of Stars' were literal 'dragon men', and in 'Cold Fire' the north american continent is the domain of sapient dinosaur descedants.  She also does a good job of keeping multiple characters and plotlines going.

Hence, a split vote.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I don't object to most of what you have to say, but a horcrux is just a lich's phylactery. It's not new at all.



Actually a lot of what J.K. Rowling did has been done before, including a wizard's boarding school in the style of Hogwarts, with portraits on the wall that move etc. People tend to assume that if they personally haven't seen something before it has to be new.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

J.K. Rowling's success with something that has been done before can be best explained by what R.A. Salvator said to me of his own success: "I wrote the right book at the right time."

(For the record, Bob Salvatore lives in my town. I talked to him exactly two times in my life. Not trying to claim I know the guy.)


----------



## CupofJoe

Well... I have spent from 06.25 until now [about 18.15 as I type] "world building" mainly drawing a map. I have only about a fifth of the world map filled in but I now know so much more about my characters and how they act because I know where they came from.
The map making / world building has identified to me topics and motivations that I need to sort out and even given me some ideas on how to do it.
Now I'm going to watch athletics on TV...


----------



## wino

I would have to say that mediocre writing + excellent world building trumps great writing skills but little imagination.  Good writing can be learned but imagination can't be learned.


----------



## Scribble

Ideas are cheap. Writing is a skill. 




> Codex Alera is a fantasy book series by Jim Butcher. The series chronicles the coming-of-age of a young man named Tavi in the realm of Alera, an empire similar to Rome, on the world of Carna. Every Aleran has some degree of command over elemental forces or spirits called furies, save for Tavi, who is considered unusual for his lack of one. As the aging First Lord struggles to maintain his hold on a realm on the brink of civil war, Tavi must use all of his intelligence to save Alera.
> 
> Alera inhabits most of a large continent that is inhabited by the Icemen to the north. They are connected to another large continent held by the Marat via a land bridge, which is the location of the Calderon Valley. The Canim reside across the ocean to the west, staging regular, bloody raids on coastal settlements. A map of the realm, illustrated by fan Priscilla Spencer, was published in First Lord's Fury.
> 
> *The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Delray Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “PokÃ©mon”.*



Codex Alera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Scribble

wino said:


> I would have to say that mediocre writing + excellent world building trumps great writing skills but little imagination.  Good writing can be learned but imagination can't be learned.



With all due respect, I utterly reject that idea. Creativity is a skill that can be learned. Everyone's brain has the same creative potential, you can learn how to unlock it. 

You can begin one day to feed it images, ideas, and new experiences. You learn how to be curious about ideas. You can learn methods to extract from your brain new ideas. You can learn how to mind map, to free write, to start a cauldron of ideas simmering. It's a skill. It's learning how to use your brain, how to use experience, media, words, images, music, and your natural human pattern-seeking abilities to make new connections between previously unrelated things.

I work in a creative industry, making video games. I have seen testers become great game designers, project managers become creative leads. Creativity is a muscle you can develop and grow. 

No offence, but I get irritated when I see this idea being spread. It holds people back from developing their creativity and finding a way to express themselves. They think that they "can't do it". The idea that it is somehow "inborn" is a pile of ocelot droppings.


----------



## BWFoster78

My main objection to the concept of "world building" being important, I think, is that, in my mind, that term refers to setting and background details.  While setting and backstory certainly impact story, neither drives it.

I prefer character driven stories.  Start with a person and throw him into an interesting situation.  Get inside his head and show him transforming based on his reaction to what you throw at him, and you've got something that, given a bit of writing skill, has the potential to engage your reader.

I can certainly understand that some of you prefer plot driven to character driven and, if you were to argue that plot is more important than character, I'd say it's purely a manner of taste.  However, if you try to tell me that setting is more important than either character or plot, I'd disagree rather strongly.

Now, if you define "world building" as comprising plot, character, and setting, that's a horse of a different color (purple, I think).

In that case, both are obviously important.  If you have no plot and your characters are flat, I have no desire to read your story no matter how well you convey those elements.  On the other hand, if you have a great concept but can't convey it to me, I'm never going to get through to the end.

If you're concept/characters are good and your writing is competent, I think you have the possibility of becoming a successful author, though I don't think either guarantee your success (no matter how good).  Frankly, to become successful, you have to figure out how to reach your audience, which is a separate skillset altogether.


----------



## Zero Angel

Scribble said:


> With all due respect, I utterly reject that idea. Creativity is a skill that can be learned. Everyone's brain has the same creative potential, you can learn how to unlock it.
> 
> You can begin one day to feed it images, ideas, and new experiences. You learn how to be curious about ideas. You can learn methods to extract from your brain new ideas. You can learn how to mind map, to free write, to start a cauldron of ideas simmering. It's a skill. It's learning how to use your brain, how to use experience, media, words, images, music, and your natural human pattern-seeking abilities to make new connections between previously unrelated things.
> 
> I work in a creative industry, making video games. I have seen testers become great game designers, project managers become creative leads. Creativity is a muscle you can develop and grow.
> 
> No offence, but I get irritated when I see this idea being spread. It holds people back from developing their creativity and finding a way to express themselves. They think that they "can't do it". The idea that it is somehow "inborn" is a pile of ocelot droppings.



Great point! I encounter this all the time with people that think mathematics is somehow an innate skill as well, and when you think about problem solving / creativity / art and everything else, most people assume it's an innate skill. Same thing with writing. Some people think it's a "knack" you have to have already. We can keep getting better at everything.


----------



## Scribble

Zero Angel said:


> Great point! I encounter this all the time with people that think mathematics is somehow an innate skill as well, and when you think about problem solving / creativity / art and everything else, most people assume it's an innate skill. Same thing with writing. Some people think it's a "knack" you have to have already. We can keep getting better at everything.



I like to lump this under the "talent" myth. Tiger Woods was swinging clubs when other kids were learning to walk. Find any prodigy pianist and count the hours spent playing piano. Maybe not always 10,000, but I'd say close to it. 

Not to toot my own horn, but when I went to school for computer programming they gave us one text book on C++, but by the end of the semester, I had read a dozen by different authors. I had spent every night learning techniques. I wasn't "talented" when I scored a 98 in that course, I was determined, prepared. The other people in the class who relied on only the one book, and didn't put all that extra time, did not score a 98, or even a 90. 

Talent is a myth, in my opinion.

Creativity is a skill, just like writing is a skill.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Scribble said:


> Talent is a myth, in my opinion.



Yes and no.

I believe there is such a thing as talent. However, just talent won't get you that far. You need to have a passion for and enjoyment of what you're doing. If you hadn't been interested in coding or computers you probably wouldn't have gone for those extra textbooks and you wouldn't have scored as well as you did.

I guess in that sense maybe talent isn't the best word? Talent probably isn't the near magical ability to perfectly perform whatever specialty your talent falls within, but I do believe that some things come easier to some people than to others. Just like people have different personalities we have different way of relating to things and to me it seems reasonable that different people can be better than others at different things.

That doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, or even most important.

When observing the world (as I see it) I get a feeling that the "work" and "effort" parts are being hidden away and forgotten. What's celebrated is being smart, talented and beautiful - Americans seem to love to compliment others by how intelligent they are. Sure, being smart and intelligent and beautiful can get you far, especially when it comes to pop culture, but is it enough to make you stay at the top once you get there. I don't think so.


----------



## Scribble

Svrtnsse said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I believe there is such a thing as talent. However, just talent won't get you that far. You need to have a passion for and enjoyment of what you're doing. If you hadn't been interested in coding or computers you probably wouldn't have gone for those extra textbooks and you wouldn't have scored as well as you did.
> 
> I guess in that sense maybe talent isn't the best word? Talent probably isn't the near magical ability to perfectly perform whatever specialty your talent falls within, but I do believe that some things come easier to some people than to others. Just like people have different personalities we have different way of relating to things and to me it seems reasonable that different people can be better than others at different things.
> 
> That doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, or even most important.
> 
> When observing the world (as I see it) I get a feeling that the "work" and "effort" parts are being hidden away and forgotten. What's celebrated is being smart, talented and beautiful - Americans seem to love to compliment others by how intelligent they are. Sure, being smart and intelligent and beautiful can get you far, especially when it comes to pop culture, but is it enough to make you stay at the top once you get there. I don't think so.



Yes, there are factors. School was easy for me. Computer programming was a breeze for me. 

I had some brains, so it seems. My mom had me reading at 3 years old. She was home with me, I was playing Scrabble and Backgammon with her when I was 5. When I went to school and could read in kindergarten at a grade 3 level, they put me in the Talented and Gifted program. Instead of regular classes, I went to the library and worked at my own speed on self-learning modules. We went to museums, the planetarium. 

When I was 9 my dad bought me an Atari 800 computer. It came with Centipede and BASIC. If I wanted to play other games, I had to buy books of the source code and type out thousands of lines of BASIC, save the cassette and hope it ran. If I made a typo, I'd have to scan through miles of computer code looking for it. If the book had a typo, I had to figure out what it was and fix the syntax error. If I was really unlucky, the syntax was ok, but there was a logic error. 

I had a skiing game, and there were three "lanes". You could jump or go in the middle, left or right lane to avoid obstacles. Well, something was wrong, and you couldn't change lanes. That sucked, because there was a tree about 30 feet down the mountain that you would just crash into. I couldn't figure out why, but I found the data section which listed the coordinates of all the trees. So, I deleted all the trees in the middle! It made a really boring game, but at least I made it to the finish.

I was learning programming without realizing it.

The point is that when I went to school for programming, I was considered a "natural talent". Yes, some brains or IQ or whatever you want to call it, helped me, but it was all the other experience that bootstrapped me to _appear_ talented. Nobody saw all that background, only what amazing things I could do without any apparent experience. They called it _talent_.

I feel very confident that anyone who makes a claim of talent, either of themselves, or of another, if you dig in, you can follow a chain of events that explains that talent.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Svrtnsse said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I believe there is such a thing as talent. However, just talent won't get you that far. You need to have a passion for and enjoyment of what you're doing. If you hadn't been interested in coding or computers you probably wouldn't have gone for those extra textbooks and you wouldn't have scored as well as you did.
> 
> I guess in that sense maybe talent isn't the best word? Talent probably isn't the near magical ability to perfectly perform whatever specialty your talent falls within, but I do believe that some things come easier to some people than to others. Just like people have different personalities we have different way of relating to things and to me it seems reasonable that different people can be better than others at different things.
> 
> That doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, or even most important.
> 
> When observing the world (as I see it) I get a feeling that the "work" and "effort" parts are being hidden away and forgotten. What's celebrated is being smart, talented and beautiful - Americans seem to love to compliment others by how intelligent they are. Sure, being smart and intelligent and beautiful can get you far, especially when it comes to pop culture, but is it enough to make you stay at the top once you get there. I don't think so.



Oh, Svrt, you're so cute!  I'm not sure how we Americans are perceived across the Atlantic, but I guarantee you that we don't compliment each other's intelligence.  Oh, sure, "talent" and "beauty" are the Golden Tickets here, but the third Great American Virtue is "athletic."  We view intellect with suspicion, because those elitist, over-educated types are just too smart for anyone else's good.

But, I digress on a float of sarcastic obnoxiousness.

I agree with Scribble.  Talent is largely a myth, and Svrt, you actually danced around the real quality.  It's *passion* that cannot be taught, and is absolutely required to excel.  Passion is the fire that sends us to our worlds again and again, that sent Scribble to read more than that one textbook, that had Tolkien spend 40 years creating a language no one was guaranteed to ever see.  And, no, world building will never be more important than writing, but passion will always rule us all.


----------



## Scribble

A. E. Lowan said:


> It's *passion* that cannot be taught, and is absolutely required to excel.  Passion is the fire that sends us to our worlds again and again, that sent Scribble to read more than that one textbook, that had Tolkien spend 40 years creating a language no one was guaranteed to ever see.  And, no, world building will never be more important than writing, but passion will always rule us all.



Wonderfully said! You must be a writer or something!

You inspired me to try to create a quotable quote...



> Passion cannot be taught, it can only be found.



It seems to me that there is an intrinsic relationship between passion and wisdom. If passion is the raging fire, then wisdom the ember in the cool ashes. And neither can be taught, but only found. I think it is because both passion and wisdom require a particular kind of love in order to exist, one that you can't fabricate.


----------



## Ankari

I'm surprised to see this thread resurrected. But we are fantasy writers, and we do tend to keep the good ones alive.

A.E Lowan, passion is indeed something that cannot be taught, but it has no influence on the topic of World Building Vs. Writing Skills. A passionate person isn't passionate about everything. An author may be passionate about world building, but not about writing technique. An author may stare at a computer screen for an hour trying to find that one word that sends lightning from the pages to the reader's mind.

The point I'm trying to make, passion can be applied to both aspects of the argument. What it boils down to is what will resonate through the consumer more?

A piece of evidence for World Building that I forget to mention when I first introduced this debate is the hugely popular Comic Cons sprouting throughout America (and the world). Comic Cons are a testament to the power of World Building. People flock to these things dressed in their favorite characters costume. They paint their faces to match the pattern of the cat-folk from (insert whatever these cat-people belong to).

Also, and I hope this is not a stretch, take into account SCAs (Society for Creative Anachronism). These people are trying to recreate an entire time period, a different world.

Another point. Take into account the fantasy genre. Why pick the fantasy genre to write in if world building isn't important? Even if the author doesn't focus on World Building, but borrows it from, say, JRR Tolkien, isn't that a testament to how alluring Tolkien's world is?


----------



## Jabrosky

I would argue that world-building and writing skills have equal importance in the speculative fiction genre. Of course good world-building by itself won't suffice to save a poorly written work, but on the other hand I find it hard to maintain interest in a book if its setting doesn't appeal to me. That's probably why I don't really care all that much about, say, _Game of Thrones_. Its writing quality may be all right, but I find the generic pseudo-medieval setting boring.


----------



## Steerpike

I think there are certainly people all over the spectrum, some who find world-building to be the most important, some who find them of equal importance, and so on.

When you look at the genre as a whole, however, I think world-building is lower on the scale for most readers. The reason we can say a pseudo-medieval European setting seems 'generic' is because it has been done hundreds of times. And yet readers continue to buy them in great numbers. These are the best-selling epic fantasies. If having a completely originally world was most important to the majority of readers, that wouldn't be the case. And beyond that, look at all the speculative fiction that takes place in the real world, but with some minor twist like vampires are real. 

If you come up with some magnificent, breakthrough idea for world-building or even for a plot, I think it can carry you a long way and maybe even be the most important aspect of the work. Short of that, I think the writing ability, particularly in terms of how you handle characters, is what most readers are after.


----------



## BWFoster78

> A piece of evidence for World Building that I forget to mention when I first introduced this debate is the hugely popular Comic Cons sprouting throughout America (and the world). Comic Cons are a testament to the power of World Building. People flock to these things dressed in their favorite characters costume. They paint their faces to match the pattern of the cat-folk from (insert whatever these cat-people belong to).



I don't see this as evidence of anything beyond that people like dressing up.

Are you saying that comic books succeed because the writers have created a great world?  Seems to me that there are a ton of superheroes that fail to find an audience.  You're saying that the main reason for this is that the world is bad?

From what you're arguing, it sounds like you're trying to say that having a central Idea that resonates is more important than writing ability.  That's not the same thing as world building.


----------

