# How do you improve World-Building?



## Devora (Mar 19, 2016)

I realize with my WIP that the settings are dull or practically non-existent. I feel like there's no real sense of place in my characters' world, but i have terrible world-building skills.

Any general advice for improvement?


----------



## Geo (Mar 19, 2016)

You could start by becoming more aware of what surroundings you in your every day life and then translating that into sensorial sensations and impressions for your characters.

In other words, you could start building your world around the characters instead of creating the world and then placing them. Remember that, and many will disagree with what I'm about to say, while all stories (short, long, fiction, biographies) need of both CHARACTERS and a SETTING, you can start to build your narrative from either end, as long as you don't forget the other part of the required pair.

For example if you have already written a scene, read it but trying to imagine what the characters are seeing, smelling, touching, hearing and then imagine why all those things are there.  

For instance, if your character is hearing little birds chearping, probably there are trees around, probably a forest... then try to imagine what kind of forest, who lives there. How the forest smells, what else do you hear, etc, etc, etc...

What your characters were doing has influenced how you imagine their world... you have now a beginning from when you can keep growing, but now you can let the setting influence your characters. 

You have a forest now, what does that mean for your character... do she lives in the forest, do he has to cross the forest, is the forest the place where bad things happen...?

In the long run, this is a less structured way to build a world, other people prefer to do all their world building before starting with the story, but I think that you should try both and then see what works better for you.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 19, 2016)

The more you can world build through character interaction with said world the better. Also try and prioritize what elements need to be focused on the most, as well as how much time needs to be spent to give the reader enough to go on.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2016)

I would suggest an exercise that helped me a while ago.

 - Pick a location in your story. For me it was a fisherman's hut.
 - Describe it at length in no fewer than 250 words.  Do the best you can to make it interesting. But focus on capturing those details.
 - Now pick a POV character and write a scene in that setting.  In the first paragraph try to capture an establishing chunk of what's going on, and then build on it just a little in every paragraph.  Remember to go heavy on the POV perspective.

A quick tip on how to make it interesting:  Use good verbs.  Just because you're describing something doesn't mean you're all nouns and adjectives.  For example:  _Somebody had tucked the chair away under the desk_.  Most of those words are boring, but just that verb, "tucked," paints the image.


----------



## Laurence (Mar 19, 2016)

If your world is similar to our own, try basing, say, a room on a room you know or have a photograph of. Once you have said room pictured, every hand placement of your main character, every positioning of their feet to dodge a creak and ducking of their head will be obvious to you. You just describe how you'd traverse said scene yourself (or slightly differently depending on your main character's traits.)

If you'd like to keep your world separate from the real world then you could do this by drawing the scene instead. Obviously this is much harder if your scenery is more bizarre.

It's been said but don't forget to involve all the senses!


----------



## Chessie (Mar 19, 2016)

Read A LOT and take note of how other authors weave in setting details into their narrative. Remember the descriptive phrases that stand out to you and practice writing in similar ways when you sit down to work. Then read (for enjoyment) more and write more. Again and again. It's really the only way to learn how to do this.

I also like Laurence's tip on using pictures. I do that quite a bit when I write. Just google the setting, for example an apothecary, find the image in google that draws you in, then keep it in the background as you write, using mental impressions to stimulate the details.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 19, 2016)

Are you having trouble building worlds or are you having trouble describing the setting in a scene?

For building worlds, I usually start with three things and springboard off of them as needed. 

1 a religion or lack there of
2 group divisions
3 a moral compass what is considered right and what is considered wrong

For writing scenes with description. Here are a couple of links to posts I made a while back on how to describe things and what to describe with some examples.

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/3496-describing-things.html#post44195

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/4016-speaking-describing.html#post50273

Basically, you have to get into the head of your characters.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 19, 2016)

“The whole pose of 'man _against_ the world', of man as a 'world-negating' principle, of a man as the measure of the value of things, as judge of the world who in the end places existence itself upon his scales and finds it wanting–the monstrous insipidity of this pose has finally come home to us and we are sick of it.  We laugh as soon as we encounter the juxtaposition of 'man _and_ world', separated by the sublime presumption of the little word 'and.' "

–Nietzsche​





See how out of proportion these two are? When I first read the above, it was like a bolt of lightning for me although I'd been groping toward the same idea for a long time.  Essentially:  People speak of "the world" as if it's something separate from them; but people are in and of the world.  When it comes to writing fiction, we might sometimes also draw these out of proportion, focusing so much on character, on character POV, and on the plot (what the character does) that the world in which that character operates shrinks.

There are some curious side effects of what Nietzsche is addressing–curious re: written fiction.

First, realistic characters are probably going to be making the same mistake Nietzsche is ridiculing.  Maybe this is because "the world" filters in through the very tiny aperture of the pupil and people tend to feel themselves to be separate from that exterior "world" – as if it exists on the other side of a window, or outside of them.  It's _them_ vs _the world_.   In short, real characters have bias, limited perspective, and miss seeing a great deal. So when we write those characters, especially if we write from a limited POV, a lot of that world can go by the wayside.

But readers are outside those characters + world, really viewing those two aspects as parts of a single, whole world.  A reader becomes "judge of the world."  Ideally, readers will become so immersed, they can hop along with the characters and come to feel themselves as part of that fictional world.  But that's a little harder to accomplish if too much of that world is missing.



Devora said:


> I realize with my WIP that the settings are dull or practically non-existent. I feel like there's no real sense of place in my characters' world, but i have terrible world-building skills.
> 
> Any general advice for improvement?



There are two different things people mean by "world building," and I'm not sure exactly what you feel you are missing.

The term might address the larger aspects of a world like history, culture, mythology/religion, institutions, monuments and ruins (that suggest history, culture, etc.), and so forth.

Or it might mean simple description of the settings.  It would be possible to build a very realistic feeling world without describing much more than basic environment, everyday common items, the weather and climate–without needing to go into great depth about some of those other larger aspects of the world.

Either way–and you can do both–what Geo and Miskatonic have said is a good place to start.  Don't think and write in terms of *character and world*, but rather think and write in terms of *characters who are in and of the world*.

Being a part of that world (not _apart_ from it!) means those characters see and notice and understand a great many other things that are a part of that world, even if many things in that world are not given conscious attention by those characters 100% of the time.  The characters have been shaped by that world _and are always in a constant state of reacting to it._  Even if they themselves aren't always consciously reacting to things, this doesn't mean that their environment has little effect on them.  (For instance, I can go a half day feeling grumpy for no reason–even if it's probably just due to the cold, rainy, overcast weather, and I just haven't put 2 and 2 together yet.) 

I don't know what kind of POV you are using, but if you are writing in a tight 3rd person limited, there are ways to build up the world even if your characters aren't ruminating on those things or consciously noticing everything about their environment.  In fact, it's important to keep in mind that you are writing for a reader, and this trumps "staying true to a limited POV."

I'll explain.  

When I step outside my front door, I see a scene that I've seen thousands of times, and it rarely changes much.  There are the same trees, the same bushes, the same road, the same sun setting or rising at about the same place for this time of year....There's a very rich tableau, but most of the time I don't notice all that anymore, or don't think about it.  But if you were writing a scene about me stepping out my front door, _the reader hasn't seen any of that before._  So I as a character might not dwell on the three different types of trees in my yard, the flowers lining the side of the house, the old swing set; but if you are writing from a limited 3rd person POV, you can still mention those things.  I am, after all, seeing them, even if I'm not consciously noticing them.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 20, 2016)

On the chance that what I wrote above dips far too much into the abstract (my natural tendency when discussing process), I'll try to summarize and offer a concrete example of what I meant.

I mentioned Geo's and Miskatonic's focus on characters, because a) I think that using characters as a launching point for world building is an extremely effective approach, and b) from the OP, I gathered that, if scenes/description/world building were a problem, then maybe character and plot were largely already developed—so characters exist to serve as launching points for world building.

My essential points:


_Characters are not blank slates._  They have a wealth of information about their own world and long histories interacting with it.

_Characters are in and of the world, not separated from it._  This means they are in a constant state of interacting with it, and said interaction can help during the process of world building.

_Write for the reader._  Even if characters are extremely familiar with their own world and will often take in much of their surroundings in a glance, hardly ruminating on what they see, the reader can't take it all in at a glance if the writer doesn't write it down.

Here's an example from GRRM's _A Feast for Crows_, two paragraphs that are good examples of what I mean.  In the paragraph before these, Brienne of Tarth has been shown to have entered a market square.

There were pine and linden shields to be had for pennies, but Brienne rode past them.  She meant to keep the heavy oaken shield Jaime had given her, the one he'd borne himself from Harrenhal to King's Landing.  A pine shield had its advantages.  It was lighter, and therefore easier to bear, and the soft wood was more like to trap a foeman's axe or sword.  But oak gave more protection, if you were strong enough to bear its weight.

*Duskendale was built around its harbor.  North of town the chalk cliffs rose; to the south a rocky headland shielded the ships at anchor from the storms coming up the narrow sea.  The castle overlooked the port, its square keep and big drum towers visible from every part of town. * In the crowded cobbled streets, it was easier to walk than ride, so Brienne put her mare up in a stable and continued on afoot, with her shield slung across her back and her bedroll tucked up beneath one arm.​
Besides being a good example of character building, the first paragraph also shows how characters are in a constant state of reacting to, or interacting with, their environment.  We get a) a great sense of Brienne's thought processes as she is riding by the display of shields, and b) an idea for the kinds of things that might be on sale in such a market in such a world.

The first three sentences of the second paragraph, which I've put in bold face, are _not_, on their surface, an example of Brienne's thinking in the present.  The description of Duskendale's layout, and the fact that the castle is "visible from every part of town," are things Brienne has taken in at a glance, at best.  Perhaps, since she's not a blank slate, the idea that the rocky headland would shield ships from storms is something she understands already, or something she intuitively knows at a glance even if she is not actually consciously thinking about it.  So GRRM has been able to insert that description for the benefit of the reader without absolutely breaking POV and general immersion into Brienne's experience.

This idea that characters are not blank slates could be translated into:  Characters are great windows into the world they inhabit.  Characters can have an opinion on just about anything, a conscious or instinctive (and largely subconscious) reaction to things that they encounter and places they go.  Characters have a long history of having reacted to things, having learned about things, etc., and if you sat them down and had an extended conversation with them, they could tell a great many stories about just about anything they've encountered.  They carry their world with them.

And, incidentally, this goes for non-POV characters, secondary and side characters, also.  So sometimes things about the world can be introduced during dialogue between characters or through overheard conversations.


----------



## Devora (Mar 20, 2016)

i was talking more along the lines of "Building Middle-Earth", but i welcome the other advice. Still good.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 20, 2016)

But Middle-Earth's already been built!

There is a scene in S2 of _Daredevil_....and I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen it, but one character explains to another that individual people are like webs.  Each person has a web connecting him to everyone in his life, so when he dies, it is not so much a solitary death as it is a destruction of that web.  The idea's a good way of looking at world building.  Things are interconnected; each thing affects and is affected by multiple things; it's all a web.  So if you have a character who is stabbed by a magic dagger, ask yourself how such a dagger exists, why the person using it has it, how that person feels about its origin and existence in the world, etc.  As you build up the answers to those questions, the world takes shape.

Using this idea of webbing can help during the process of building the history and culture, etc., that bear upon the scenes you are building.  The settings, like people, are not blank slates.  Their construction, their very existence, is a massive web stretching back through time. And the characters who inhabit or pass through those settings will know something about the webbing or, if the setting is quite new for them, will be able to infer some things about that webbing, and will have opinions about it.


----------



## Geo (Mar 20, 2016)

Devora said:


> i was talking more along the lines of "Building Middle-Earth", but i welcome the other advice. Still good.



Have you ever read about how Tolkien developed much of the cultural setting, geography and characteristics of Middle Earth? 

In his book about Tolkien, Humphrey Carpenter interviewed many colleagues, friends, family members of the author, and one of the thinks I find the most interesting is how using quotes from all of them Carpenter pieced together what Tolkien did to create much of his amazing fantastic world: 

He used his own memories, sensorial perceptions of everyday life, and some of his academic research. Hence, I have to say that whatever you are trying to build to give a setting to your story and characters, it can't be build in the void or taken out of nothing, it has to relate to your characters and must, somehow, be born from the needs of your characters (and since you are the creator of such characters it must be born from your own perceptions).

I think FifthView did a great job explaining you what can you done and how it ca be done, and I have a hard time imagining what other kind of advice you were looking for.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 20, 2016)

I have to say, I think FifthView is spot on as world building advice goes.  Never thought I would see Nietzsche being used for world building but it's a great quote for the purpose.

I have little to add.

I world build from the ground up.  I make a map, tectonics, climate, etc. Then I start outlining cultures, start mixing culture histories and get a rudimentary naming language.  Then I start to go back and make everything more detailed.  It's very time consuming and slow.  One thing I like to do is use the world building I've done at the early culture outline stage and write short stories based on heroes of that culture.  Then when I get to the more detailed rework I distort the story and add things for the final culture.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2016)

Yeah, Fifth did a pretty thorough job of covering everything. Here's my really simplified breakdown (because Fifth sort of did my normal job of going into too much detail  ):

1). *CHARACTER-FIRST WORLD-BUILDING*: Create a character and a situation, and build a world to be challenging to that character's situation. If your character is a ship captain, make pirates a really big deal. If she's a singer, make a singer's whole reputation based on an American Idol-type show that she totally botches. Start with a character and then create a world and "laws" for that world in direct conflict to your current character, so they have to change during the story.

2). *WORLD-BUILDING HALF&HALF: *Come up with a basic world first and then choose characters who will struggle in that world. If you envision a world that's rich with magic and magical creatures, and magic's sort of in everything (like Piers Anthony's Xanth), then flesh out a bunch of awesome magical stuff to be the setting, and then create a character who defies the norm (the man who has no magic), and show the character's struggle to accomplish their journey/ goal/ quest and overcome the obstacles created by their inherent sense of not belonging (or whatever, however it relates to the world more as a character than background).

3).  *COMPREHENSIVE WORLD WORLD-BUILDING FIRST: *Make a huge list of things you NEED to know about your world before you begin writing. (I don't do this, so it's pretty unclear to me what people are filling their binders with) Include religion, social and political structures/ factions/ whatevers, and their effects on different people of the world. Maps, weather, terrain, travel times. I mean, you can do this forever and still never write a story, really, which is why I don't do it.


I think most writers fall into one of those categories. Either we tend to start with a character and let the world take form as details are needed, or we tend to begin with a world and all its awesomeness, and then consider what kinds of stories can be set within it. My personal method is the first.

If you're looking for ways to make your world better, it would help to know exactly what you think it's lacking. Is your world itself not creative enough and you wish you had binders full of background to pepper into the story? Then lean more toward the third method and come up with some ideas. Mythology is great for sparking ideas, because so much of it isn't commonly known, but it's there if you look for it.

If you're feeling like you have the details jotted down but can't find a great way to put them into the story without info-dumping, then maybe try more of the first. Get really into your character and let the details flow into the story naturally, in their internal thoughts, observations and detail descriptions (the character lens), or conversations. I'm doing that right now for my Top Scribe entry. All the information in the story isn't necessary, but it sets down the pace I want to keep to, so therefore, it IS necessary in a way, and it deepens the characters a little.

If you feel like you have a good character and a good story, and some fun and interesting things about your world that you really like, but feel instead like your scenes are bland, your descriptions flat, and your details largely erroneous, then the problem isn't world-building, it's execution, and that's the hardest one to get good at. This is where most folks struggle, I think. I don't know how many times I've heard, "Your characters are just sitting around having dinner and talking again..." and it took me a really long time to be able to switch those comfortable-feeling scenes into something else. it's easy to have a character walk into a room and notice everything, but it's terribly boring for a reader and quickly gets tedious. The secret is to run the filter constantly. And to pick words that really speak loudly about who the character is. Yeah, not easy to explain, but so much easier once you begin doing it and it becomes natural-feeling.

I'm not sure how else to describe "how to build Middle Earth" except for to say that mythologies from around the world have a lot of great information. Looking at history is a great way to borrow and change things to fit your own ideal scenario. If you like an island nation, look at how islands in our own world work. Then take what you like, and change what you need to. I mean, no one's going to call you out because you have an island that's supposed to feel like Australia, but it's tropical. Just make it what you want...we don't know what the wind and rain do in your world, right?

If you need lore and religion, there are loads in our world to take inspiration from! Are you shooting for a polytheistic culture who worships a pantheon of gods who literally mingle with mortals? Do you have gods who live in an ethereal plane and have worshippers but no real power to affect the world? Do you have cultures who have outlawed worship, and why?

Why is your world segregated into peaceful kingdoms, or why do you have an uncontrolled nation that's attacking all its neighbors? Why do nobles treat their lesser like garbage? If everyone's equal, why do no people rise to the top and try to rule over others? There are thousands of questions you can ask about your world, and if you just ask questions, you'll have to start coming up with answers. It can sometimes help to play games. I was recently playing Skyrim (after not playing for years) and I was dealing with a problem of including homosexual marriage in my world. I wanted it to be normal and not stigmatized in any way, and I knew what I was going for, but I'd just never seen it done in fiction before, but then as I was playing Skyrim I realized all you have to do to get married to anyone (that is, anyone who is preset to show interest in you regardless of gender or race) is put on the freaking Amulet of Mara. And that little detail gave me the confidence that I could do it too, just as I envisioned. 

If you want to build your own really rich world, I think you first have to determine what you feel makes a world rich. For me, it's small details that feel really authentic and allow a character to shine and not be limited to a set of overly simple or complicated "rules". I like to create characters that defy the norm of their worlds/ settings. But I don't like to go a whole lot into why they're not comfortable living with societal constraints. Sometimes I make is situational (my MC is a crime boss' mistress, but she's tired of doing the hard jobs of a spy. She wants to break away and make her own life, but it's hard to leave the family...). Sometimes it makes more sense to do something on a grander scale, like the farm boy who is called for military service after his father dies. He has to fill in for someone he respected, and so he's got a drive to succeed even at long odds. Or whatever. Depending on what kind of story you're writing, that'll let you know how much background you need on the world itself. I mean, if that farm boy is suddenly in a war against an invading kingdom, it'd be nice if you knew WHY the kingdom was invading, what their history was with the farm boy's kingdom, etc. but the character may not know about it. Then it again comes down to execution and how much you put in where and how. 

Best wishes!


----------



## FifthView (Mar 22, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> (because Fifth sort of did my normal job of going into too much detail  ):



Hey, I try to learn from the best!

I will summarize even a little more.  I personally find difficult the idea of creation of any character without simultaneous creation of the world.  I don't understand how any compelling character can be built when the world is left vague or mostly a blank slate.  I suspect (and base this on experience of attempting to read some books) that having a blank-slate world is a sign that the characters and the plot _probably_ verge on being clichÃ© or carbon copies of characters and plots already mass produced under a generic label which, for the purpose of this thread, we'll call "fantasy."

This is not to say that every world needs to be built on a Tolkienesque scale.  But characters are not whole characters until they inhabit a compelling world.

But how to go about deciding _what_ and _how much_ to build?



Miskatonic said:


> Also try and prioritize what elements need to be focused on the most, as well as how much time needs to be spent to give the reader enough to go on.





Caged Maiden said:


> Create a character and a situation, and build a world to be challenging to that character's situation. If your character is a ship captain, make pirates a really big deal. If she's a singer, make a singer's whole reputation based on an American Idol-type show that she totally botches. Start with a character and then create a world and "laws" for that world in direct conflict to your current character, so they have to change during the story.



I think a good general guide is to consider requirements of the story:  requirements of plot and requirements for character building and requirements for creating the tension between character and plot.  So these are good starting points—I particularly like the idea of determining the features of the world on the basis of the type of character you want to be your MC.  

[Incidentally, I think #3, of starting with massive world building, can work similarly:  Once you've created an interesting world, you can then create main characters who fit particularly well within it.  So, if you've created a world that has rampant piracy...then you can create a pirate MC.  If celebrity is a big deal in your world, you can create a singer or actress as MC.  And so forth.]

Edit:  Edited the last bit.  What I'd written before was going way, way too far into abstraction.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2016)

It's interesting for me to try to understand the workings of a true world-building mind. I begin exactly as I stated in that post. I think up a character and a situation, and then I begin filling in details. Now, all I can say about that method, is that I've written a lot and so in my brain, I've sort of stored a bunch of things applicable to writing, bits of research that are always on hand to pepper into my blank slate world. I can't explain why I work that way, but perhaps it's a symptom of Bipolar? My mind always works to store information and create connections, however tenuous, and indeed it derives some comfort from connecting seemingly different things and making them into something else, something new. But only to a point...I mean, you gotta draw the line somewhere, and that line is wherever your own personal comfort level is.

If I'm writing a short story about a thief who stole something and is running from some guards, and eventually gets cornered and is then saved by her friend, I begin with the character. There's nothing in that particular scenario that's wholly unique or requires actual world-building. So I'd keep it minimal: Decide on a setting (let's make it like Albuquerque--dry, altitude, no tall buildings), decide on a reason (she stole the item to satisfy a debt that might cost her her head if she didn't do as told)...(ooh, so who's she owe money too? and that starts me asking the questions that then turns into the plot and background), and a couple unique things to make the world stand out. Maybe they don't ride horses there because of the terrain, they have antelopes that carry people and goods, or llamas. As she's running through town, she's caught in a huge celebration, like the Indian one with the colored chalk (sorry, can't recall the name), and there's a certain level of increased tension because the streets are packed with people out celebrating. And I just make sure that as much as I can, I'm showing the world through that lens. Maybe she's religious and the holiday is important to her--she's guilty she's thieving on a holy day. Or maybe she sees all worshippers as fanatical and untrustworthy. Running through their celebration is her hell.

Anyways, my point is only to show how I develop details in the Character-First method I mentioned, because it isn't a linear process at all. To me, this is how thought naturally flows. Now creating a world with levels of depth and detail sounds nice to me, as I've done a bit of that for my fantasy series (making maps, charting lineages, researching elements of historical societies, populations, weather, crops, etc. which are bookmarked or pasted into documents for future reference, but I've never begun with world before character. I guess people are my world. the world is the place I get to meet people, experience people and animals and nature, teach people, love people. Without people, there would only be the tedium of existence. So, perhaps I'm so character-focused it's detrimental to my stories (especially the plots, which I've struggled with for a long while).

On the converse (which I suppose is method two, where world and character are more equal), if my character was a priest who plans to kill his superior so that he can close the gateway to the realm of the gods, I would at least have a minimum understanding of who those gods were, how much influence they had in the world, why the guy wants to close them out for good, and other pertinent details like whether there exists magic, what penalties he'll (and the world will) face after he either succeeds or fails, etc.. I couldn't possibly write that character without having at least some world-building done. But in that scenario, I personally would only have the necessary stuff written out, and that "background" would be very sloppy and precursory in every way. So yeah, we all have different methods, depending on how our brains organize information, I suppose. What works for one won't for another. What one person makes look easy another struggles with indefinitely. 

My pantsing methods aren't probably for most folks, because it truly is chaotic, but I love the chaos. However, the down side is that it's hard for me to stop the chaos sometimes, and I end up spinning in circles, wondering what I'm doing and where my story is and where it was going? And getting off track is the main pitfall for me. It could probably be prevented with better planning, but then I get all kinds of bogged down in trying to force my star-shaped mind into what feels an awful lot like a tiny square hole. And then I really hit the wall.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 22, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> Anyways, my point is only to show how I develop details in the Character-First method I mentioned, because it isn't a linear process at all. To me, this is how thought naturally flows. Now creating a world with levels of depth and detail sounds nice to me, as I've done a bit of that for my fantasy series (making maps, charting lineages, researching elements of historical societies, populations, weather, crops, etc. which are bookmarked or pasted into documents for future reference, but I've never begun with world before character. I guess people are my world. the world is the place I get to meet people, experience people and animals and nature, teach people, love people. Without people, there would only be the tedium of existence. So, perhaps I'm so character-focused it's detrimental to my stories (especially the plots, which I've struggled with for a long while).



For me, the most important thing re: world building is that the world needs to be _compelling_.  I'd use that word over "breadth" and "depth" anytime because, although breadth and depth figure into the creation of a compelling world, I think there's no hard-and-fast measurement for how broad and how deep world building must be in order to create a compelling world.  

Sometimes an extremely interesting set of characters can even imply a great many things about the world even if the world is not explicitly drawn broad and wide through exposition.  (What I wrote in a previous comment:  characters carry their world with them.)

Sometimes, rich descriptions for what is shown of the world can be compelling, and the act of using rich description can imply greater breadth and depth–especially, depth, which in my opinion is often more important than breadth–even if that description is only of immediate environments.

I think that one interesting side effect of thinking in terms of _compelling_ worlds is this:  In such a world, characters are also compelled by that world.  So the term speaks to character motivation as well.  I think that even if you focus on character, a natural consequence of developing interesting characters is a simultaneous development of a world.

As for #3, developing the world in detail first, one of the problems I've experienced is this:  The characters plugged into that world can sometimes default to stock characters, without my realizing it.  For example, say I decide to create a world in which piracy figures heavily.  That might mean that choosing to have an MC who is a pirate would be a good idea.  Unfortunately, that's like saying that I've created a forest and then, logically, I choose to make a tree my main character.  But what distinguishes that tree (or, pirate) from every other tree (or pirate) in that world?  So I have created a world, but when it comes time for me to decide upon a set of characters, I find that the world itself is not enough to help me make that decision.

BTW, plot is my major weakness.  Worlds and characters are very interesting for me, but plots generally bore me once I've drawn for myself a world and set of characters.  I think this is tragically ironic, because this seems to be what's going on:  Having created a world and interesting characters, _I don't want them to change_.  And plot's all about change.  This is something I can work through, but for me it's always a massive battle to break that ice.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 22, 2016)

I will give a real short answer on how to improve world building...

By doing it.

You can throw in everyone else's suggestions around this base principle, heh heh.

Now for personal babble. The world I write in has been around for a couple decades in various forms, but up until the last few years it didn't start to become concrete. Initially, back in olden times, the world kind of fit the characters and stories. But now that I've got a world created more from stone than straw, I pull the stories and the characters from world events.

If X people once lived on the island of Y, but somehow end up in place Z, why the heck did that happen?

Once the event is determined, then who would have an interesting POV?

From that POV, what further details for the event to create the basic plot?

What further character development?

What further plot development?

What further character development?

What further plot development?

Rinse and repeat until you have the story. But the primary objective is to tell a story very grounded in the world's history.

Also note however, that it's all part of a greater story... the world has a creation and destruction, and every tale within the world feeds this end game in one fashion or another.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2016)

Oh man, Fifth, I feel you on the plot thing. So much.

For me, I tend to have a very similar problem over and over. I have a character concept and the immediate situation she's in, and then I figure out some stuff to happen, but then I feel like I go off track and just add things, but don't exactly have a great journey to the end? Maybe that's clear? If not, I'll explain one certain novel I had this problem in:

I had a young soldier who graduated from a military academy. he was all excited to be going home after not seeing his family in two years. But the thing is, his personal dream is to be a holy knight (he's the son of a soldier and a priestess, and grew up in a temple). So when he begs for a free room one night on his journey home, he ends up witnessing a devastating disease eating away at a woman who says she was attacked by undead. That really disturbs this young man, so he diverts form his quest to return home and instead goes in search of witnesses to the phenomenon, to see whether there's any credence to the claim of walking dead somewhere nearby. 

His quest takes him into a sickly swamp that takes days to cross, and while there, he happens upon a young woman dressed in scale armor and a seriously unrecognizable helm. Before he even learns who she is, she grabs his arm and screams to run, that the denizens of the swamp are coming. And that's when he learns how deadly the swamp is His horse is killed and he loses all his equipment, money, and everything. He's alone with the young woman, but at least alive. But stuck far from home with no horse and no food or money. The young woman sprains her ankle during their run, and so he takes her to a cottage he saw earlier that day, thinking to enlist the help of whomever resides there. But it's vacant. They prepare to spend the night, but when he's out looking for food, he meets the cottage's owner, a man who points his crossbow first and asks questions second. 

After working out a semi-socialibility between them, the three decide their journeys are aligned, and they head east together. Now all that stuff I love, along with the various secrets each character is concealing, and their general distrust for each other. As they travel, their dynamic changes, especially when another member joins the party (the young man's best friend). Time and again, I show the young soldier as a sort of religious fanatic, which endears him to the young woman (a priestess) but alienates him from the crossbow guy and later the best friend. I love playing with polarizing character traits, and think I have a lot of great things going on in that regard, but the overall plot is thinner, the further on the story goes.

It's all good and compelling stuff up to a point, but then later in the story, I realize I never justified why undead things are walking around near the swamp (because they aren't in any other books in the series), nor how they were created, who governs them, what their purpose is, etc. While I could just invent some stuff, it feels cheap and flimsy, even to my own ears, so why would anyone else like it better than I do? They wouldn't! It's just all based on nothing. Like, how could I have overlooked that really critical detail? To salvage the tale some time ago, I added in some sort of relevant information, but really, it's just crap. And so that's how my plots fail me, so spectacularly, I should hang my head in shame.  I have a beginning I love, and ending that makes me grin and go misty, and the middle to last third is a heap of steaming rubbish. The thing is, I don't know whether it's a world-building problem, or simply that I'm sort of stupid at times and like to play connect the dots without reading the actual numbers because I think I'm clever enough to solve the puzzle without following the steps properly.

This is why my critique partners are priceless. They read my crap and put the screws to me, asking the tough questions and making me justify my sometimes idiotic assumptions and thin connections. HA! I suck at plot!


----------



## Ray M. (Mar 23, 2016)

Some simple advice I have to give is to pick a general location where the story is going to be told - is it going to be a forest, is it going to be a mountain, a cave, anything, and make up stories about it. Stories within a story. And like with your story as a whole, the stories within it have to have an allure as well. Make it original, yet inspired by something else if need be, make it share traits with other similar locations in fiction (but always take care that you don't outright steal, of course).

Interesting places usually have a story to them. Find out what that story is for your place and tell it.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 23, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> Oh man, Fifth, I feel you on the plot thing. So much.
> 
> For me, I tend to have a very similar problem over and over. I have a character concept and the immediate situation she's in, and then I figure out some stuff to happen, but then I feel like I go off track and just add things, but don't exactly have a great journey to the end? Maybe that's clear?



I think that problem is common for pantsers?

I would love to be able to offer insight, but I'm still feeling my way through my own issues with plot.  I have to psychoanalyze myself, and that's not easy.

Like you, I can create characters I like, and even a world (in general) that I like, and from that point I can imagine a great many scenarios or scenes that interest me.  But having a coherent plot that interests me as much as characters and world....not so much.

I don't begin writing with only characters and world in mind, but have to have some idea of a plot before I begin; so, that's where the problem starts.  Often, I think in terms of what will display my characters and world well, the sort of events that will shed light on the various facets of my characters and world.  (I like making characters suffer, for instance–although usually, emotionally and/or existentially, not so much physically.) But problematically, potential events are abundant.  The way I approach things means that my main characters will be interesting regardless.  (At least, that is my intention.)  So how to settle upon a single plot, a coherent thread of events, when just about any will do?  Plus, I often feel that no plot is good enough for my characters.  (A plot archetype just seems flimsy in comparison to a fully-fleshed character.)

I think my problem, and perhaps yours?, may be that plot needs to be driven at least in part from the _outside_.  From outside the main characters.  It's not enough to have just a series of events that allow a character to shine or suffer.  I suppose a character-driven approach can work great if the character is a strong protagonist–is _protagging_ strongly, or extremely proactive–but if he's not, or is often reactive (you want to show the facets of his character through reaction to exterior events beyond his control), then having a good plot means letting go a little bit of the character-driven approach and letting something else drive the story forward also.

Now, I don't know whether that means creating a compelling villain to protag (a new character to help drive things) or just building up the world so that it protags in a compelling way. (World in general.  Could be physical, e.g., ecological, geological...or could be human forces albeit without a single face or villain behind those forces.)

It's just that I feel that a convincing plot, when the MC isn't a very strong protag, requires the willingness to acknowledge that the MCs are not the end-all, be-all of the story, and that other things beyond them are just as important as they are, and need to be as fully fleshed...if that makes sense. I also think that maybe we always need a great answer to this question:  Why are _these_ characters and _that_ exterior reality coming together just now?

I realize this is rather vague and may not be helpful in the slightest.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 23, 2016)

Ok, this is a little weird, but I just finished listening to the latest Writing Excuses podcast, and at the end of it Brandon Sanderson brings up something that echoes the OP. Here it is, emphasis added:

[Brandon] That's very good. I think we're going to end on that note. Although I'm going to give you guys some homework. This is something I push my students to do a lot in my class, which is to take a step further on something in their story._ Often times, I'll have students come to me and say... They'll have actually a really compelling character, but they'll be in the most bland, generic world that's ever existed. So I want you to take a story that you've been working on, and I want you to push either some world building element or some character element further. I want you to brainstorm an idea. I don't want you to just have a monarchy. I want your monarchy to be weird in some way. I want you to follow the awesome. _I don't want you to just use coins in your thing, or just fly on spaceships like every other spaceship you've seen. I want you to take a story you've actually written, and make it weirder in a geewhiz kind of way.

[Mary] While you're doing that, make sure that you are thinking about the implications and consequences.

11.12: Idea as Subgenre, With Nancy Fulda | Writing Excuses​
This is interesting.  I started thinking about one long term project that has been bugging me, stalled.  I have characters and a world that I really like...but plotting?  Meh.  Nothing that was grabbing me the right way.  The world and characters do have some distinction, are not really generic; but on the other hand, even the novel ideas were not greatly far from many that have already been used.  

So as a mental experiment, inspired by Sanderson's suggestion, I started thinking, _What would happen if I just added these dark, oily, deadly pools of liquid that would start popping up for no reason in populated areas....that would disappear after a time and then reappear elsewhere?_

That's entirely outside the scope of anything I'd considered for my world, doesn't tie into anything I've already put in the world, including the magic system.

But it started my mental juices, because I'd then have to ask what those pools are, why are they appearing, how do they kill the unfortunate who wander into them (or, when the pools just appear _under_ them)  ... and so forth.

And I suddenly realized that all the great ideas I already had for my world and my characters were still okay, could still be explored, but now I'd have something like a plot–discovery of the origin/reality of those pools, and resolution of the problem.  All that other stuff could be developed around this.

I'm not saying I'm going to use this idea.  But it's an interesting exercise, to just introduce a totally random but really weird thing (weird for your world) and see where it takes you.

The entire podcast is about how to utilize "idea" from the MICE quotient to spice things up or, if you have all those ideas, how to go about creating a story that will incorporate those ideas.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 24, 2016)

How interested are _*you*_ in your world? Does it fascinate you? Do you feel compelled to tell its stories? The best fantasy worlds have a personality of their own and the stories seem to come alive from the world itself. The characters are part of the world, the world is not merely a back ground for the characters.


----------



## HellionHeloise (Mar 24, 2016)

I agree with most of what has been said on this thread, particularly FifthView and Caged Maiden's many points. World Building has many facets, so I am going to touch on some concrete ways I attempt to world build in my writing.

Ways to include world-building details:

-Narrator describes a scene
-Individual observes surroundings with his/her character-specific filter
-Plot includes aspects of your world, i.e. local government, religious authorities, geographical obstacles, etc.
-Dialogue drops hints about your world, i.e. a character around a campfire telling the story of a local legend

_Ata was ran for her life. As she crested a ridge at the edge of the valley, she passed a trio of clergywomen scourging a young girl for Code violation. She stumbled, nearly coming to a stop by the young girl, but staggered on over the slippery moss-covered tree stumps behind the ridge. Ata was no stranger to being scourged, but this could be her only chance of escape from The Flatlands and she had to stay hidden. _

This example shows you can combine methods all at once for more effective world building. As you can see, the narrator is describing the situation & throwing in geographical descriptors, the plot includes the MC running past key members of the religious authority & you can tell there are other parts of the religion/society like the "Code." Most importantly, the MC displays her bias toward the religious authority and narrator hints that might be part of the reason why she wants to escape. 

This is hard to do and I struggle to combine these methods organically in my writing. It takes time & many drafts. As Caged Maiden said, "it's easy to have a character walk into a room and notice everything, but it's terribly boring for a reader and quickly gets tedious. The secret is to run the filter constantly. And to pick words that really speak loudly about who the character is." 

I constantly default to having the character observe his/her surroundings, but that's more telling than showing readers. 

Does anyone else have more methods of world building they use in their writing?


----------



## Ben (Mar 24, 2016)

FifthView:
Thanks for the Sanderson quote. As a consumer of fantasy fiction, my point of view is I don't need a completely original setting. In fact, I have more trouble getting into it if it is too far from a traditional dungeons and dragons type setting. Maybe I'm old fashioned. Maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not. But I think Sanderson's idea is brilliant - take one aspect, use your imagination, and make it unique.
The example you mentioned from your own brainstorming is fantastic - I'm already intrigued and would definitely be interested in reading more.


----------



## Helen (Mar 24, 2016)

Devora said:


> I realize with my WIP that the settings are dull or practically non-existent. I feel like there's no real sense of place in my characters' world, but i have terrible world-building skills.
> 
> Any general advice for improvement?



Relate the worlds to the theme(s).

Not unlike Avatar (2009), where the human world believes one thing, the Na'vi another.

The worlds aren't random.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 25, 2016)

Ben said:


> FifthView:
> Thanks for the Sanderson quote. As a consumer of fantasy fiction, my point of view is I don't need a completely original setting. In fact, I have more trouble getting into it if it is too far from a traditional dungeons and dragons type setting. Maybe I'm old fashioned. Maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not. But I think Sanderson's idea is brilliant - take one aspect, use your imagination, and make it unique.
> The example you mentioned from your own brainstorming is fantastic - I'm already intrigued and would definitely be interested in reading more.



I might be old fashioned too, then.  Even when I add little twists and turns to an old standby, sometimes I find that my motivation just isn't strong.  There's a big _So what?_ factor.  So maybe Sanderson's idea is just the thing for breaking that kind of rut.


----------



## Heliotrope (Mar 25, 2016)

Hi everyone! I'm late to this conversation, but Fifthview, the Sanderson quote reminded me of something I had read a while back about the development of the Steampunk/fantasy/stealth game _Dishonered._ A few years back when I still had a gaming system my husband bought me the game for Christmas. I like reading about how the games are developed, so I did some investigating. The story of how the game progressed in development is fascinating. They changed the setting multiple times until they could find something that they liked/worked. But one quote stood out to me: 

_Because it was the last year of the plague, and the year of the great fire of London, which of course ended the plague by burning the slums down ... In this kind of game you’re always looking for a way to up the tension and frankly make the world a little more perilous, and justify why there aren’t giant crowds of people at the market. Then people had the idea for swarms of rats, and we were talking independently about possession, and we wondered if you should be able to possess rats and if they could clean up corpses so you don’t have to hide them. All these pieces just worked together.[41]_

This really makes me think about what you are talking about and world building and setting and Sanderson's quote of adding in that _one_ extra thing that twists the mundane into something weird. Adding that extra bit of tension and perilousness in the process… 

George RR Martin could have just had people fighting over the throne of Westeros. He could have just had all the different families and rulers and wars and people… But instead he used the environment… the setting… the world… against them by adding in the challenges of the long winter and the White Walkers, giving the story the extra oomph that pushed it over the edge. 

Very interesting…..


----------



## Incanus (Mar 25, 2016)

Very fascinating.  It think it is interesting that we all of us start with different things, or different sets of things, to get where we’re going.

The Sanderson thing a few of you have mentioned is—far more often than not—my starting point for a story.  (I wasn’t aware of the Sanderson quote-thing before now, it’s just how I work.)  I try to find an interesting combination of things, some common, some rare, that make for a unique situation—hopefully something intriguing.  Then I find a place and time for it in my existing fantasy world.  And then I think about who might be involved in it all.  Once I’ve got that far, I start to develop all the ideas together a bit further.  Then when it feels ready, I write.

Of course, my stories are more idea/plot-centric than character-centric, and not everyone loves that.

This leaves me with a similar problem to that of the OP, except that it’s characters, not setting, that I can’t seem to visualize or develop very well.  Things that make a character unique are the hardest things for me to come up with so far.  I just seem to always draw a big, fat blank.

So… problem identified, now I just need ways to address it.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 26, 2016)

Sanderson makes some good points and is good at explaining writing from a theoretical point of view, but I have never found his actual writing to be anything but par for the course. Maybe because I'm beyond the point of being satisfied with run of the mill "read for entertainment" novels that get enough things right to be popular. I don't want The Avengers where I can just sit there and stare at the screen and eat popcorn and not think, I want The Silence of the Lambs with superior storytelling, masterfully crafted characters and engaging concepts that make me think.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

I just had a little fun while bored this morning and popped up a preview on Amazon of a Sanderson novel and a paragraph glared at me... so I did a little counting. 60 words, 6 uses of had. 10%. Not to just pick on this guy, GRRM is also a haddict, heh heh. 

I myself am a recovering haddict. A very common mental illness in fantasy writers, because of the depth of history and world building. Now back on topic a bit.

Someday I will pick a Sanderson book and read all of it, but my general perception follows Miskatonic's view from what I've perused.  The writing excuses stuff is, well, ok, and apparently it works for some folks so that's great. As an exercise some of the suggestions, such as one gee-whiz weird thing, is borderline useful, IMO. I could see this working particularly well in short-stories, and of course, now and again it could conjure a truly inspired concept. But only if it provides the inspiration for an in depth run of world building is it really useful. 

I will take cultures, depth of history, and a wide array of detail over one weird thing any day. Really, the one weird idea notion is simply a variant of "high concept", a dead horse well beaten over the years. Not useless, but certainly no revelation if you've been around the writer block a few times.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 26, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I will take cultures, depth of history, and a wide array of detail over one weird thing any day. Really, the one weird idea notion is simply a variant of "high concept", a dead horse well beaten over the years. Not useless, but certainly no revelation if you've been around the writer block a few times.



I don't think the one weird idea notion was meant to be exclusive, an either-or choice between using a weird novelty and using cultures, history, and detail.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 26, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I just had a little fun while bored this morning and popped up a preview on Amazon of a Sanderson novel and a paragraph glared at me... so I did a little counting. 60 words, 6 uses of had. 10%. Not to just pick on this guy, GRRM is also a haddict, heh heh.
> 
> I myself am a recovering haddict. A very common mental illness in fantasy writers, because of the depth of history and world building. Now back on topic a bit.
> 
> ...



Not trying to be overly negative in this thread, but Writing Excuses is give or take for me. Some good ideas sprinkled in among a lot of generic advice and self-congratulatory book promoting. Might be smart marketing but I really don't need to hear about the books you have out and why you think your ideas for them were so great. You can use your books as an example without patting yourself on the back at the same time. 

Being a hardcore outliner/planner, like Sanderson is, can hurt the story if you are too methodical about everything and are constantly weighing literary devices to decide which is most effective from a theoretical standpoint. At some point it has to start to become organic. 

I like some of his rules on magic from a starting off point but even then it can be overkill if you spend a significant portion of your book trying to get the reader up to speed on everything related to magic in your story.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

Of course not.  It's a variant of the high concept mantra which drives so much screenwriting. 

The notion is neither good nor bad in and of itself, but either way, it's a rehash of the old high concept idea. The high concept model is fraught with story-telling peril. 



FifthView said:


> I don't think the one weird idea notion was meant to be exclusive, an either-or choice between using a weird novelty and using cultures, history, and detail.


----------



## Heliotrope (Mar 26, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Of course not.  It's a variant of the high concept mantra which drives so much screenwriting.
> 
> The notion is neither good nor bad in and of itself, but either way, it's a rehash of the old high concept idea. The high concept model is fraught with story-telling peril.



Hey Dem, I'm interested in this.... Can you explain how it is "fraught with story-telling peril"?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Not trying to be overly negative in this thread, but Writing Excuses is give or take for me. Some good ideas sprinkled in among a lot of generic advice and self-congratulatory book promoting. Might be smart marketing but I really don't need to hear about the books you have out and why you think your ideas for them were so great. You can use your books as an example without patting yourself on the back at the same time.
> 
> Being a hardcore outliner/planner, like Sanderson is, can hurt the story if you are too methodical about everything and are constantly weighing literary devices to decide which is most effective from a theoretical standpoint. At some point it has to start to become organic.
> 
> I like some of his rules on magic from a starting off point but even then it can be overkill if you spend a significant portion of your book trying to get the reader up to speed on everything related to magic in your story.



If Sanderson's writing excuses is hit and miss, I've only noticed misses in the few times I glanced at something. Self promotion is pretty much what I jot it down as. Which is neither good nor bad in itself, and if his stuff is useful to others, that's great. I won't argue that. 

I can't judge his stories because I have not read them as a whole, but as a writer in general, use of words etc., I've pieced together an impression with several free samples and I'm unimpressed. Not that story-telling and world can't overcome his writing style (which again is my personal taste, I'm not insulting folks who like Sanderson's novels) but it's unlikely to work for me. When I was in my late teens or early 20's I might have enjoyed his works. Now? It's pulp to me. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not what I'm going to pick and read and get all excited about. So many ways to waste my extra these days, I'm going to be really finicky about what books I read. If I've got time to read, I should be writing, LOL.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Hey Dem, I'm interested in this.... Can you explain how it is "fraught with story-telling peril"?



Wow, that's a long conversation, with a lot of back and forth with pros and cons, LOL.  It's probably far less dangerous in fantasy/sci-fi novels than it is in screenwriting. But there are pitfalls that can drag a writer down. And in a sense, if you write 120k words to discover the ending sucks, it's worse than a screenplay, in that sense. 

The most familiar world where high concept becomes a problem is in screenwriting, writers can just be beaten over the head with high concept. I've read many unproduced screenplays based on HC ideas. But this will also apply to many purchased and produced high concepts... High Concept produces great taglines or hooks, they get people's attention. Heck, a great high concept has sold screenplays without the thing being finished with a good pitch. HC ideas litter the shelves of production companies, with most never getting made. Okay, trailing off a bit here... back on point.

In high concept stories there is a deadly trend... really really interesting tagline, really interesting story beginning, the middle bogs down, and the ending falls flat or just belches in your face, heh heh. When encountering a screenwriter and hearing they are working on a high concept piece, the odds are high that the middle and particularly the ending are giving them hellish fits... and if not, they just don't realize that they should be having hellish fits. Mind you, middles and ends are a pain anyhow, but high concept fails are more spectacular and often more difficult to fix than a more standard story. High risk, high challenge, high reward. 

About a decade... oh heck, close to 15 years ago, damn I'm getting old... I was reading a HC screenplay WIP, awesome idea, great dialogue, story just lit up the first 20 or so pages. The trouble came when the middle just couldn't sustain the heat. Okay, here's an analogy:

The start was a stick of dynamite, trouble was the writer lit the dynamite and then the fuse burnt from there and ended on a ladyfinger bang. A beginning that burns bright tends to fizzle. The writer spent 6 months or more on that screenplay and couldn't find an ending that was both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. That spells trouble, and it is common with HC in any format. Next time they came to me with an idea, the first words out of my mouth were "great! How's it end?" I got the blank stare, and said come back when you know, LOL.  Novels have the advantage of being unlimited in length and scope, but it can also lead to trilogies (or god forbid) a giant series without a real ending. Pantsers with big ideas will often get muddled down in this situation, and it can last years in novel writing... been there done that.

Tomorrowland is a good, recent HC example that didn't totally fail, but demonstrates the lack of satisfying ending on both an intellectual and emotional level. 50/50 movie on rotten tomatoes with a 90+ HC that failed to retain its momentum, and finished with an "that'll have to suffice" ending.

Game of Thrones/SOIAF, to me is actually low concept, if there is such a thing, LOL. Its basis is semi-realistic medieval setting with a dragon queen and some undead thrown in, oh and gee, there's this winter thing. Martin's execution of the story gives a high concept feel, but at its root, low concept.

My personal thinking is HC is great, but if you're rummaging for ideas, look for High Concept endings, and work backwards, rather than the all too common High Concept beginning that struggles to launch.

This is just rambling, because again, its at least a short book worthy topic.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 26, 2016)

Unfortunately for GRRM, he's a pantser that is likely going to end up like Robert Jordan did. 

I'm glad I have my ending pretty much down. Helps me sleep a little better.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Unfortunately for GRRM, he's a pantser that is likely going to end up like Robert Jordan did.
> 
> I'm glad I have my ending pretty much down. Helps me sleep a little better.



I gave up on Wheel of Time before the fourth book came out... or somewhere around there... Thank goodness. A fine example of a writer I could enjoy in my youth, but even then, he droned on and on and on until all I could think of was a wheel going round and round until I fell asleep. 

I've got the ending to a trilogy written before I'm done with the first book. Trouble is, stories just seem to expand and expand, keeping book one under 120k words is going to be tough. Just hit 100k, which was my goal, and said oh higgly piggly! Can easily cut about 6k on one POV and move to book 2 to make book 1 more stand alone, but still got a ways to go, and I know when I go back I am description light, so there's more words... Writing is a B... I mean SO much fun!

If I lived long enough I could write a hundred books in the world, but every series would be self contained. And hey, the end of the world is written in my head, I know exactly how and why, but there's a lot of gaps in between, LOL.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 26, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Game of Thrones/SOIAF, to me is actually *low concept,* if there is such a thing, LOL. Its basis is semi-realistic medieval setting with a dragon queen and some undead thrown in, oh and gee, there's this winter thing. Martin's execution of the story gives a high concept feel, but at its root, low concept.


And still, he's a very rich man. Low concept seems to work better than anything else, imo. Take a look at Twilight, or Harry Potter. Books that have made their authors a respectable name along with a killing. Low concept ideas there, too. Readers don't necessarily want complicated. They want to be entertained.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 26, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> The start was a stick of dynamite, trouble was the writer lit the dynamite and then the fuse burnt from there and ended on a ladyfinger bang. A beginning that burns bright tends to fizzle. The writer spent 6 months or more on that screenplay and couldn't find an ending that was both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. That spells trouble, and it is common with HC in any format. Next time they came to me with an idea, the first words out of my mouth were "great! How's it end?" I got the blank stare, and said come back when you know, LOL.  Novels have the advantage of being unlimited in length and scope, but it can also lead to trilogies (or god forbid) a giant series without a real ending. Pantsers with big ideas will often get muddled down in this situation, and it can last years in novel writing... been there done that.
> 
> Tomorrowland is a good, recent HC example that didn't totally fail, but demonstrates the lack of satisfying ending on both an intellectual and emotional level. 50/50 movie on rotten tomatoes with a 90+ HC that failed to retain its momentum, and finished with an "that'll have to suffice" ending.





> My personal thinking is HC is great, but if you're rummaging for ideas, look for High Concept endings, and work backwards, rather than the all too common High Concept beginning that struggles to launch.



From what I gather of your criticisms, you are against the idea of basing an entire story around the "geewhiz" factor.  Writers who begin their projects believing that the mere inclusion of a geewhiz idea, some bit of "awesome," will be enough to carry a story will end up fizzling somewhere midway in the writing process and have bad endings.

Pitches for high concept stories pitch that geewhiz factor.  Because it's the awesome.  But "geewhiz factor" does not mean "great story."

I will not argue with that.  Any number of examples can be found. Once the geewhiz factor is introduced, in the first 20 pages or so, what's left to sustain the story?

Sanderson's suggestion does not seem to me to be "Create a high concept story."   Rather, it's a suggestion to brainstorm ideas that will help you take a bland, generic world and make it interesting.  Perhaps this also applies to bland, generic characters, since he also suggested taking some element of a character and pushing further.

There is a wide gulf between a) "Have one weird but awesome idea and make the story about it" and b) "Use a weird but awesome idea to give your world its own personality."


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> And still, he's a very rich man. Low concept seems to work better than anything else, imo. Take a look at Twilight, or Harry Potter. Books that have made their authors a respectable name along with a killing. Low concept ideas there, too. Readers don't necessarily want complicated. They want to be entertained.



In movie terms, Twilight and Potter could be pitched as "high concept", maybe, Twilight almost certainly, Potter less so. I can't speak to either as far as books, I can't stomach Twilight as movies let alone reading them, and Potter I've watched a few before they grew old and stale, no way I can read them. 

Complexity isn't the key to HC... and HC isn't perfectly defined despite many folks trying, heh heh. HC, keeping outside of purely movie terms, for me boils down to a story that can be pitched in 2-3 three quick sentences that makes the listener go "woah! that's a story I want to hear!" a combination of unique and lofty. Part of being HC is the ability to be summarized very succinctly in a tight word count. In the movie biz it also carries implications of wide appeal, etc. Not an easy term to pin down really. In many cases complexity is not conducive to HC, HC being based on a very tight storyline easily pitched.

But no, HC isn't necessary for success, and often blows up. But it will sure help sell a screenplay.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 26, 2016)

Screenplays and novels are different art-forms. And they're not marketed at all the same. Movies are way visual where with books we only have words. They're even structured differently, so I really don't see the point in forcing HC to be an indication of merit and value when it comes to literature.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 26, 2016)

High Concept crosses into all forms of story-telling, even into song and advertising, it's merely a descriptor for something that already exists.

Screenplays and novels being structured differently is arguable, depending on context. The Hero's Journey, 3-act, whatever, they're all over the place.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 27, 2016)

FifthView said:


> There is a wide gulf between a) "Have one weird but awesome idea and make the story about it" and b) "Use a weird but awesome idea to give your world its own personality."



So I've been rethinking this.  While _approaching the writing_ of a story, this makes sense.  Although some types of stories (particularly "Idea" stories a la the MICE quotient) might indeed be _about_ that geewhiz idea, the vast majority of stories will probably derail if you begin the story with nothing much more than that geewhiz idea.

But in practice, particularly for fantasy and sci-fi, the world can have such a great effect on the story that doing "b" can naturally push you toward "a" if your geewhiz idea becomes important to the unfolding of that story.  The "wide gulf" between "a" and "b" can be narrowed.

A couple examples.

The sandworms on Arrakis are a type of geewhiz idea. In theory, Frank Herbert could have written the first book of _Dune_ without sandworms but keeping many of the other aspects (spice production, perhaps through the existence if microbes in the sand; travel via Fremen-created machinery for the Fremen; etc.)   But the sandworms are awesome.  Importantly, they are not a mere addition to the world for some coolness factor, but they are tied into the ecology and geology, the mysticism, and also affect many other aspects of the story:  warfare, economy, culture—initiation rites, for instance—and so forth.   The sandworms figure prominently in the novel.  But if someone unfamiliar with _Dune_ asked what it's about, the answer, "It's about giant worms that live in the sand on a desert planet" would be wrong, I think, or at least very misleading.

Now, imagine our real world never had the novel _Dune_, and someone comes up with the idea of giant worms living under the sand on a desert planet and decides to pitch the idea to Hollywood.  The result might well be some mashup of Godzilla and Jurassic Park, with the addition of a token Hollywood romance and probably a nuclear family trying to save each other from the destruction of those giant worms on that desert planet.

The second example is a negative example and highlights what can happen with high concept beginnings.  The movie Surrogates (2009) did what a lot of mediocre/bad science fiction movies do.  It introduced a geewhiz technology—people use robots as surrogates for their bodies and go out and have a good time—but it failed to address the larger issues of how society would change significantly if this was a widely used technology. There are some token examples of people living differently, but the massive effect on the economy, government, religion, and so forth, that would surely happen, are pretty much absent.  So it becomes just another action movie that happens to have this technology in it.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 27, 2016)

Well written characters in an interesting situation is what storytelling has always been about for me. I just happen to prefer this to take place in certain settings, and certain fantastical or supernatural elements having a part to play. 

Though I stopped reading ASOIAF after the third book because I lost interest, the characters were what kept me interested in reading the books. Boring, predictable, cookie cutter fantasy characters have been a big reason why I have found very little to read in the genre.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 27, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Well written characters in an interesting situation is what storytelling has always been about for me. I just happen to prefer this to take place in certain settings, and certain fantastical or supernatural elements having a part to play.
> 
> Though I stopped reading ASOIAF after the third book because I lost interest, the characters were what kept me interested in reading the books. Boring, predictable, cookie cutter fantasy characters have been a big reason why I have found very little to read in the genre.



I would compare _Blade Runner_ to other attempts at sci-fi movies.  The idea, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, figures prominently; the story is about that; but it's delivered (necessarily!) through interesting characters having to deal with an interesting situation.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 27, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Boring, predictable, cookie cutter fantasy characters have been a big reason why I have found very little to read in the genre.


Oh, goodness yes. I'm with you on this. It's why I've moved on to Indie authors like Lindsay Buroker and Graham Austin-King. Our very own Pauline Ross also has an epic fantasy series that's on my TBR list. I've also gone back to looking for 80s and 90s fantasy gems. 

Back to topic, Blade Runner was too showy for me. I hated that movie and was mad at my husband for making me watch it lol. I prefer simple worlds with complex stories I can sink my teeth into. This is why short fiction is some of my favorite. 150k words of showing off how amazing your made up world is isn't story. Characters with problems? Yeah. You could keep them in one room and still have an intriguing story. Sorry but I just don't think high concept is necessary for a story to be good.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 27, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Characters with problems? Yeah. You could keep them in one room and still have an intriguing story. Sorry but I just don't think high concept is necessary for a story to be good.



I hope you don't feel sorry re: anything I've written here.  I didn't mean to imply, in any way, that I feel high concept is necessary.  Although I do particularly like _Blade Runner_.

I might have a slightly different requirement for stories, because characters with problems are sometimes the most annoying characters, for me.  If these problems are constant self-doubt, insecurity, fears that some boy or some girl just doesn't like them, and so forth, the problems grow tiring very fast.

But if they are problems connected to their worlds and predicaments, I find myself far more interested, and more so the more interesting their worlds.  So even if they are in a single room having a chat, they've brought their worlds in with them.

This reminds me of that one joke format.  Three people walk into a bar and... Usually it's not so generic.  A werewolf, an android, and the Pope walk into a bar—that's more interesting.  But this also suggests far more about the world than the generic example would.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 27, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Well written characters in an interesting situation is what storytelling has always been about for me. I just happen to prefer this to take place in certain settings, and certain fantastical or supernatural elements having a part to play.
> 
> Though I stopped reading ASOIAF after the third book because I lost interest, the characters were what kept me interested in reading the books. Boring, predictable, cookie cutter fantasy characters have been a big reason why I have found very little to read in the genre.



Some of the ASOIAF Characters bored me to death, but if I waited long enough they seemed to die anyhow, LOL. I enjoy enough characters and storylines to stay tuned. Arya is my girl. And now I am fascinated to see how the HBO series and the books will depart from each other. Its a good study in story telling.

I also have to say, no one thing... character, plot, world or what have you will ever keep me going on a book or series. If one area is strong enough, I'm fine. Crappy writing and other finicky bits I have can make me put a book down. I recently picked up a copy of the The Name of the Wind on a whim... gadzooks I got as far as chapter 2, don't know if I'll get much further.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 27, 2016)

@Fifthview, I meant problems as a generalism. So long as it's interesting, tied to plot and develops character, I'm good.


----------



## Vincent Lakes (Mar 28, 2016)

I can really only tell how I began building my setting, maybe it gives you something to work with. Then again, I'm not sure how well I've managed at that, but I went the long way because I think if you're going to use that same setting over and over again there should be a fair amount of details and information available to flesh out that world.

First I drew a map. Well, in fact I drew a whole bunch of maps, adding more details and points of interest with every new version. While I was doing this I pictured locations in my mind, and at the same I was taking some notes. As time went by, the main continent where most things take place got actually quite messy, and I'm planning to remake it at some point. It works for me though because I felt like I really needed all that nitpicking to work. (link to the mentioned map to show what I'm talking about).

As the notes piled up I began to look at the setting more closely. I wrote a brief description of each continent, each part of the continents, and eventually the world begun to take shape. It was slow, but with each new added detail it was coming to life, gaining the proper atmosphere. I wrote a short history from the moment of creation to that world's present day, detailed the magic, and as I'm not a big fan of flashy spells the mages pull out of thin air, I made it difficult for them by bounding it entirely to writing.

To sum it up: I forced myself to sit down and write a chapter about every new idea and a concept I came up with, and piece by piece the setting gained flavor and, at least I like to think so, some unique and interesting elements that give depth and credibility for the stories that happen there. What I also got was a lengthy book of its own that I can use as a reference whenever I'm writing a new story. It helps me to remember everything and keep the story in line with the existing environments. This process may seem a little laborious, but it worked for me. I'm sure there are shorter versions to basically reach the same goal, so I suggest just experiment with things. No matter how crazy idea, it may work incredibly well once you polish it and implement into the general setting.

I'm not saying this is the right way to do it, but it's one way, albeit painstakingly slow process.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 28, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Some of the ASOIAF Characters bored me to death, but if I waited long enough they seemed to die anyhow, LOL. I enjoy enough characters and storylines to stay tuned. Arya is my girl. And now I am fascinated to see how the HBO series and the books will depart from each other. Its a good study in story telling.
> 
> I also have to say, no one thing... character, plot, world or what have you will ever keep me going on a book or series. If one area is strong enough, I'm fine. Crappy writing and other finicky bits I have can make me put a book down. I recently picked up a copy of the The Name of the Wind on a whim... gadzooks I got as far as chapter 2, don't know if I'll get much further.



Yeah there are too many characters in ASOIAF. I like Arya, it's just taking forever and a day to progress through her story. 

Agree on TNOTW. There seem to be a lot of hyped authors getting the spotlight in the fantasy fiction world, but I can't for the life of me see why. I guess it's who you know more than whether or not you can actually write well. Not a very encouraging thought.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 28, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Yeah there are too many characters in ASOIAF. I like Arya, it's just taking forever and a day to progress through her story.
> 
> Agree on TNOTW. There seem to be a lot of hyped authors getting the spotlight in the fantasy fiction world, but I can't for the life of me see why. I guess it's who you know more than whether or not you can actually write well. Not a very encouraging thought.



Yeah, I think the hype is more the issue. I don't expect every book and writer to be to my taste, but yeah, sheesh! The number of "gah!" moments a decent editor should've picked out of the first chapter makes me not want to continue. With the praise heaped on it I at least expected it to be readable, or clean of really goofy things. The reality is it takes time to sort out quality books, much like pop music. A classic rock station is relatively filtered, those songs that've stood the test of time, and eventually, books and writers filter out also. Life will be better when Bieber gets sorted out, so I don't have to change the station quite so often. 

In a way I feel bad for the writer... to see all those beautiful hyped things said about your book (how much did those cost the publisher anyhow?) would build a sense of bloated confidence in the quality of their writing that they might not even feel obliged to try to improve, LOL. And on the other hand, it's a reminder not to believe your critics in either direction. 

I am just going to assume that the hype disease exists across all genres.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 28, 2016)

I think the internet has made things worse in a way given how big a platform it gives to zealous fans who want to champion their favorite author no matter what.  To me there are books I like that are just not my taste and that isn't a criticism against the author, and books that are just so poorly written that I just have to scratch my head and wonder how they got a book deal. 

I guess if the fantasy genre is full of mostly fans that want the style over substance type novel that they can burn through on a Saturday then that type of book is going to do well.  I see great world building without good writing in the same way I see a lot of action films that have amazing CGI, elaborate set design and well choreographed stunts, except that I'm far less likely to turn the movie off because the story isn't that great.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 28, 2016)

Hmmm, I certainly agree with wondering how book deals happen... maybe. If the book has a fabulous world, characters, and/or story I can understand the book deal. What I can't understand is how so much muck makes it past editors. Do they ink deals and the writer ignores the advice? or are the editors not worth their salt? Despite having done a little non-fiction editing (back in the days when computers spell checked for crud if at all, let alone grammar) and I would not claim to be a great editor, but for crying out loud, how does some of the ridiculous writing gaffs escape when anyone who's spent a few minutes looking up what not to do when writing a book can identify them? 

Ah well, way the heck off topic... may as well move on, LOL.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 30, 2016)

A little off topic but we can get back on track. To reiterate what was stated, the world building aspect isn't the be all end all of what fantasy fiction is, you still need a good story and characters.


----------



## Vincent Lakes (Mar 30, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> A little off topic but we can get back on track. To reiterate what was stated, the world building aspect isn't the be all end all of what fantasy fiction is, you still need a good story and characters.



This is so true. In my earlier post I was trying to give out a little how I've built my setting just to offer some helpful thoughts, but I missed the one that should have been there, and here it is! Without a good story and interesting character development it doesn't matter how unique or detailed your world is.


----------



## FatCat (Apr 16, 2016)

World building is only an expression of your character. They are too mutually cognitive to separate. Decide the theme of your story, then add levels of detail to support that theme, then write that characters drama with respect to the theme you've built.


----------



## Trueblue4U (Apr 16, 2016)

The best technique I ever learned was: ONE THING AT A TIME.

I remember I would try to throw everything into the first description, and readers were totally overwhelmed.  It felt like I was just throwing everything into my first descriptions to remember it or something….now, I take my time

Start with a room.  What does the door look like?  The floor?  The sounds?  Then enter the room.  What new things arise?  Is there a strange creature?  Good.  Stick with that one creature for a while.

One-thing-at-a-time…that's how stories unfold naturally as opposed to being/feeling forced.


----------



## AJ Stevens (Apr 19, 2016)

Vincent Lakes said:


> I can really only tell how I began building my setting, maybe it gives you something to work with. Then again, I'm not sure how well I've managed at that, but I went the long way because I think if you're going to use that same setting over and over again there should be a fair amount of details and information available to flesh out that world.
> 
> First I drew a map. Well, in fact I drew a whole bunch of maps, adding more details and points of interest with every new version. While I was doing this I pictured locations in my mind, and at the same I was taking some notes. As time went by, the main continent where most things take place got actually quite messy, and I'm planning to remake it at some point. It works for me though because I felt like I really needed all that nitpicking to work. (link to the mentioned map to show what I'm talking about).
> 
> ...



I did something a lot like this as well. It depends on the scope of your story, however. Do you need a whole world? Or do you just need a city and a couple of towns?

Another thing I tend to do is to begin with a place I like in my mind. That could be from the real world, a book, a movie or a game. Then, twist it to your needs, play around with it in your mind until it becomes something that works in your story. Give it some defining characteristics if it needs them.

Now for the really important part in my opinion. History. A thing is just that. It's inanimate (for the most part). It is a thing's history that gives it significance. The Berlin Wall was just a load of bricks and mortar, but of course we know it was so much more than that. So I ask myself a bunch of questions. Why is it there? How did it come to exist? Do I plan on it having any special significance, or is it just a really cool backdrop?

Then we have the inane. Most of any world is, in fact, inane. We all know what the inside of an inn/castle/house looks like. I've read plenty of fantasy books that love to describe the inside of a room in all its gory detail. The design of a four-poster bed isn't too important to me, to be quite frank. I like the things that make it different to usual. It could be the people within it, it could be the scorch marks on one side of the keep from such and such a battle, it could be the round windows in the inn, and the story behind that, when square windows are the norm.

Flora and fauna is another area where you can really go to town, without overdoing it. You have a chance to make things unique. I don't want to read about horses, per se, but if a special horse exists (think Shadowfax in LOTR), then horses just got interesting.

So, to summarise... Ignore the inane, or at least have it there only as backdrop, but go to town on the unique. Make it different, attach a story to it, and use that story to make your reader feel something, whether it's awe, fear, a sense of homely comfort, suspense. It's all at your fingertips.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> High Concept crosses into all forms of story-telling, even into song and advertising, it's merely a descriptor for something that already exists.
> 
> Screenplays and novels being structured differently is arguable, depending on context. The Hero's Journey, 3-act, whatever, they're all over the place.



I would suggest the term "high concept" is used differently by different people and means different things in different media.

In the world of genre fiction, I think the most functional definition is simply a story where a lot is at stake.

TV and movie people seem to approach it differently.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Hmmm, I certainly agree with wondering how book deals happen... maybe. If the book has a fabulous world, characters, and/or story I can understand the book deal. What I can't understand is how so much muck makes it past editors. Do they ink deals and the writer ignores the advice? or are the editors not worth their salt? Despite having done a little non-fiction editing (back in the days when computers spell checked for crud if at all, let alone grammar) and I would not claim to be a great editor, but for crying out loud, how does some of the ridiculous writing gaffs escape when anyone who's spent a few minutes looking up what not to do when writing a book can identify them?
> 
> Ah well, way the heck off topic... may as well move on, LOL.



There are actually pretty straightforward answers to all of those questions but this thread is probably not the place for the discussion.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

FatCat said:


> World building is only an expression of your character. They are too mutually cognitive to separate. Decide the theme of your story, then add levels of detail to support that theme, then write that characters drama with respect to the theme you've built.



in a lovely succinct form this is the answer I think the OP is seeking.

Decide what your story is about (not where it is, or when it was, but what is it about?) and then chose the characters and settings that support that central theme and best allow you to explore that central theme most effectively.

Here are some of my favourite quotes on worldbuilding from my favourite author:



> I only invent what’s necessary to explain the mood of a character. I haven’t thought about an imaginary world’s social security system; I don’t know the gross national product of MelnibonÃ©.





> The world unfolds in front of the character as the story develops. If the story doesn’t need it, it’s not there.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 19, 2016)

Yes. I agree that Fat Cat nailed it. 

The setting is only as important as the character finds it to be. POV is hugely important for world building. Develop a compelling character and then show the world through their eyes. 

What would Tyrion Lannister notice in a room? The booze (or lack thereof), the food, the women, how big everything is, how he can manipulate and how… etc. 

What would Arya notice in a room? It would be totally different. 

When I am describing my setting I pick and choose what elements to describe based on how they are seen by the character, and how it moves the theme of the story forward. 

Character: A young woman desperate to see the Pope for confession. 

_In this year of Our Lord 1540, this humble church, Santa Caterina delle Cavallerotte was too new to be important. It housed none of the bones of saints or shards from the True Cross that each year brought thousands of pilgrims to Rome from all over Christendom.

Antonia hobbled past the Caterina determined for the Vatican. Tonight she needed a miracle. Tonight she would settle for no less than the Pope. _

_Masks that split faces in half. Masks that spoke of death and masks that hinted at folly. All brought forth in Antonia an overwhelming dread, as if every face behind those masks knew her fate and were secretly laughing at her. _

_Antonia couldn’t pull away from the grotesque and magnificent scene. She stared, wide-eyed, lingering longest on one man, a damned soul at the moment of knowledge and grief of his punishment. He cowered in shame, even as two demons dragged him downward and a third reptilian creature bit into his thigh. _

Note how everything I chose to describe also illuminates the character in some way? Each of the descriptions are important to the plot and theme, not just there to "set a scene". I have described the world through the character's eyes. What she is seeing, and how she finds meaning in her world.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 19, 2016)

^ I'd like to emphasize that sentiment by Russ. How I approach this is in primary secondary tertiary thinking. My primary world building gets the deepest. Primary world building is done for things that directly affect the story. Secondary world building indirectly affects am either story or characters and gets a few lines worth of building. Tertiary building gets maybe a word or two at most. These are meant for only adding flavor to the story. This would be like mentioning s street name or a village that the heroes pass through.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Russ said:


> in a lovely succinct form this is the answer I think the OP is seeking.
> 
> Decide what your story is about (not where it is, or when it was, but what is it about?) and then chose the characters and settings that support that central theme and best allow you to explore that central theme most effectively.
> 
> ...



I think this is a great starting point, but depending on the book and the approach, it could lead to too-narrow a focus, even a bit too on-the-nose development of the world.

It doesn't _have_ to become too narrow, while still unfolding in front of the character.  But the danger is that bits of the world can be included only as a prop to serve whatever is necessary for the action of a given scene or to highlight some character trait—as if the world doesn't exist on its own but only as some kind of reflection of the character and character's journey.  Bits can be added that really make no sense, or would be ridiculous or unrealistic if considered from a larger p.o.v.   I think one of the classic cases is the massive city in the middle of a desert:  How are the people fed, where do they get their water, how is it they have trade from all over the world when the desert is difficult to cross in every direction?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 19, 2016)

The big trick with High Concept is that it's not just one thing, it's a combination of elements that builds to High Concept, and not every High Concept will have the same elements. For practical purposes, if a publisher is looking for High Concept, a lot at stake is not going to be what they mean... it may or may not be part of it. The rough definition seems fairly consistent across writing forms, but naturally, some people will emphasis different elements. And it is a crazy rough poorly defined definition, heh heh. 



Russ said:


> I would suggest the term "high concept" is used differently by different people and means different things in different media.
> 
> In the world of genre fiction, I think the most functional definition is simply a story where a lot is at stake.
> 
> TV and movie people seem to approach it differently.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 19, 2016)

This is a good point FV…. I was thinking much smaller scale… simply how to describe the world. Your point obviously is hugely important as well.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I think this is a great starting point, but depending on the book and the approach, it could lead to too-narrow a focus, even a bit too on-the-nose development of the world.
> 
> It doesn't _have_ to become too narrow, while still unfolding in front of the character.  But the danger is that bits of the world can be included only as a prop to serve whatever is necessary for the action of a given scene or to highlight some character trait—as if the world doesn't exist on its own but only as some kind of reflection of the character and character's journey.  Bits can be added that really make no sense, or would be ridiculous or unrealistic if considered from a larger p.o.v.   I think one of the classic cases is the massive city in the middle of a desert:  How are the people fed, where do they get their water, how is it they have trade from all over the world when the desert is difficult to cross in every direction?



You are entirely correct that executed poorly this method can lead to discomfiting absurdities.

However some would argue that the existence of that city in the desert is a traditional "marvel", which is what is at the heart of what fantasy is.

I would suggest the risk of spending too much time figuring out how much wheat needs to be brought in to that city to feed how many of its inhabitants turning into a crippling time suck followed by a painful info dump is much larger than the jarring absurdity, at least around here


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Russ said:


> You are entirely correct that executed poorly this method can lead to discomfiting absurdities.
> 
> However some would argue that the existence of that city in the desert is a traditional "marvel", which is what is at the heart of what fantasy is.
> 
> I would suggest the risk of spending too much time figuring out how much wheat needs to be brought in to that city to feed how many of its inhabitants turning into a crippling time suck followed by a painful info dump is much larger than the jarring absurdity, at least around here



I don't think an exhaustive plotting of the entire economy, viability, and so forth would be required.  That's an extreme.  A little magic here, a little magic there, a glimpse of some magic portal system or odd flying machines....these can at least leave the door open to plausibility.

But that was really only a generic example meant to highlight the sort of effect that can happen when worldbuilding is an _ad hoc_ process used only to accentuate some bit of characterization or to facilitate moving from Plot Point A to Plot Point B.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> This is a good point FV…. I was thinking much smaller scale… simply how to describe the world. Your point obviously is hugely important as well.



One of my greatest irritations is when I discover that an author is laying down props merely because, Can't have an empty scene!  or POV character needs to be noticing things as she moves along! or Gotta make it seem medievalish/fantastical!

I mean, random things without much context within the book.  Of course, random things can be good for building up an impression of the world, a tone, foreshadowing, and so forth.  But there are times when I feel things are added for no other reason than a desire to have something besides the character on the stage.  I was considering folding this into our discussion about on-the-nose-ish-ness.  But see how I have to invent convoluted terms!

_Edit:_ Don't want to give the wrong impression.  This hits me hard too, and I imagine lots of people experience it.  I have all these plot points, these interesting events, and so forth; and then, I have to write the in-between bits and cannot have a white room, an empty stage, even for the interesting events.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 19, 2016)

Yeah, I remember reading, I think in Orson Scott Card's book on Characterization? I'm not sure… he was mentioning the four different types of story, one type being the _milieu_. 

Ahhhh! Found it! 

_*STRUCTURE 1: THE MILIEU STORY*

The milieu is the world–the planet, the society, the weather, the family, all the elements that come up during your world-creation phase. Every story has a milieu, but when a story is structured around one, the milieu is the thing the storyteller cares about most. For instance, in Gulliver’s Travels, it mattered little to Jonathan Swift whether we came to care about Gulliver as a character. The whole point of the story was for the audience to see all the strange lands where Gulliver traveled and then compare the societies he found there with the society of England in Swift’s own day–and the societies of all the tale’s readers, in all times and places. So it would’ve been absurd to begin by writing much about Gulliver’s childhood and upbringing. The real story began the moment Gulliver got to the first of the book’s strange lands, and it ended when he came home.

Milieu stories always follow that structure. An observer who sees things the way we’d see them gets to the strange place, observes things that interest him, is transformed by what he sees, and then comes back a new person.

This structure is most common in science fiction and fantasy, but it also occurs in other types of novels. James Clavell’s Shogun, for instance, is a milieu story: It begins when the European hero is stranded in medieval Japan, and it ends when he leaves. He was transformed by his experiences in Japan, but he does not stay–he returns to his world. Other stories are told along the way–the story of the shogun, for instance–but regardless of how much we’re drawn into those events, the real closure we expect at the end of the story is the main character’s departure from Japan.

Likewise, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz doesn’t end when Dorothy kills the Wicked Witch of the West. It ends when Dorothy leaves Oz and goes home to Kansas.

As you conceive and write your own story, if you realize that what you care about most is having a character explore and discover the world you’ve created, chances are this structure is your best choice.

When writing a milieu story, your beginning point is obvious–when the character arrives–and the ending is just as plain: when she leaves (or, in a variant, when she decides not to leave, ending the question of going home).

Such stories are typically most effective when seen through the viewpoint of the arriving character, as she’ll be surprised by and interested in the same strange and marvelous (and terrible) things that engage the readers._

The 4 Story Structures that Dominate Novels | WritersDigest.com

I think this is true for a lot of Epic fantasy. Do we _need_ to know about what The Hound is eating in the pub? Probably not… but I think a lot of people love Westeros simply for Westeros and want to know all these details so they can "live" there, just as the characters live there… does that make sense? People love Middle Earth, people love Narnia, people love Hogwarts… I guess because they feel like real places. 

I'm not typically into Milieu stories, so I tend to skip those intimate details in my own world construction, but some people love that stuff.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I think this is true for a lot of Epic fantasy. Do we _need_ to know about what The Hound is eating in the pub? Probably not… but I think a lot of people love Westeros simply for Westeros and want to know all these details so they can "live" there, just as the characters live there… does that make sense?



I think this goes back to what I mentioned early in the thread and what Fat Cat was addressing with "World building is only an expression of your character. They are too mutually cognitive to separate."

_Too mutually cognitive to separate._  So let's imagine that large city in the desert, but without much magic or flying contraptions, etc.  Chances are very good that a POV character who has lived all her life in that city will have noticed its precarious position.  She might in fact be emaciated herself.  She might remember the year when the limited rainfall was even less, a year in which she lost many loved ones, perhaps even children.  She might be greedy for water, willing to steal or even kill for it; or, for food.  So I guess that, rather than accept such a city merely because it's one of the "wonders" of the fantasy genre, and thereby also have unrealistic characters (who just don't experience the world authentically), characters can't help but eat what they eat or believe as they believe.  Their world shapes them.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 19, 2016)

Yes. I believe that to be absolutely true… thus giving the reader the true experience of really "living" there… experiencing the hunger, the fear, the desperation through the character instead of simply being an observer.


Hmmmmm. which is perhaps why I love Cercie (She has power and control over her situation and gets to enjoy the luxury of Westeros)… or Arya (because she at least takes action and looks like a badass). 

This is also why I hate reading Sansa… because you would have to be pretty masochistic to want to live vicariously through Sansa.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

I think it's also about being aware that the characters have vast knowledge of their own world, probably more knowledge even than an author will deliver to the reader.

The character makes connections, mentally, between things, or accepts things without much consideration because she's already lived her first 20 years and made those connections in the past.  If the world is implausible, how can an authentic character be created? 

Of course, I often feel that we sometimes overlook the wide range of styles, sub-genres, and so forth in such discussions.  An adventure tale might not need much plausibility at all, just a lot of cool stuff and interesting personalities for the characters.  Light comedy might not need so much worldbuilding.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> The character makes connections, mentally, between things, or accepts things without much consideration because she's already lived her first 20 years and made those connections in the past.  *If the world is implausible, how can an authentic character be created? *



Let me challenge or push  you on that concept to explore its edges.

Firstly, to some degree, any world where there is magic, or dragons, or the supernatural at all, is implausible.

Secondly, many people in our world exist and function with completely implausible or wildly inaccurate world views, surely those real people are "authentic".

Lastly, many characters in fiction are completely implausible such as vampires, or liches etc.  It is only our willingness to suspend disbelief or to give effect to hand waving techniques that allows this genre to work.

Now I completely believe there is room for fantasy fiction where the distance between our understood reality and the fictional world is tiny, but I also believe that there is also plenty of room in the genre for worlds where the implausible, improbably or impossible is commonplace.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Russ said:


> I also believe that there is also plenty of room in the genre for worlds where the implausible, improbably or impossible is commonplace.



But can you create a _believable_ character for such a world—not merely imagine that character, but put that character on the page—without also giving the character insight into those things, a history with those things, beliefs about those things, and a belief that those things are real?  But then, if you write such a character, are you not creating plausibility for the reader, by giving all these things?

Plausibility is about being worthy of belief, not about having certainty about every last detail.  That the existence of humans with self-awareness is a plausibility in our world is not dependent on our complete knowledge of how the brain creates a mind—or even, of what consciousness _is_.  The question is whether that fantasy world is worthy of belief, for reader and for the characters themselves.

Plus, fictional worlds are a different context than our own reality, with in-world rules or initial conditions that may differ from our own.  I might find the prospect of my doing a 30-foot long jump very implausible.  On Earth.


----------



## Miskatonic (Apr 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> One of my greatest irritations is when I discover that an author is laying down props merely because, Can't have an empty scene!  or POV character needs to be noticing things as she moves along! or Gotta make it seem medievalish/fantastical!
> 
> I mean, random things without much context within the book.  Of course, random things can be good for building up an impression of the world, a tone, foreshadowing, and so forth.  But there are times when I feel things are added for no other reason than a desire to have something besides the character on the stage.  I was considering folding this into our discussion about on-the-nose-ish-ness.  But see how I have to invent convoluted terms!
> 
> _Edit:_ Don't want to give the wrong impression.  This hits me hard too, and I imagine lots of people experience it.  I have all these plot points, these interesting events, and so forth; and then, I have to write the in-between bits and cannot have a white room, an empty stage, even for the interesting events.



Very true. Even if what is around them might may be interesting, the character, like most of us, is usually preoccupied by whatever is most important at that moment. So unless they are taking a leisurely stroll through the city and purposely stopping to smell the flowers, throwing that in seems more akin to overly describing what the character _isn't_ focused on. 

This of course shouldn't be confused with using the setting description to establish an essential mood.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> But can you create a _believable_ character for such a world—not merely imagine that character, but put that character on the page—without also giving the character insight into those things, a history with those things, beliefs about those things, and a belief that those things are real?  But then, if you write such a character, are you not creating plausibility for the reader, by giving all these things?



I think a believable character only needs to share with the readers those unique features that are relevant to the unfolding tale.

To give you a couple of examples to make the point.  If the fictional world has no cows the character would not for a moment think about the fact that is has no cows over the course of the story.

Or perhaps a better example.  A character lives in a world where teleportation through magic is possible but could well go through many days without thinking about that fact the same way that I will go through many days without thinking about the miracle of air travel.

In a world where everyday things are very different than here,  it is likely many of those things will get taken for granted and no thought about.  

To me the character who is artificially aware or hyper aware of the common differences in their world is just a walking info dump.

Thus the need for a "stranger in a strange land" to write a mileau tale.

But perhaps most importantly for the OP who struggles with setting, having them flow naturally from character and plot is the easiest way forward.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Russ said:


> To give you a couple of examples to make the point.  If the fictional world has no cows the character would not for a moment think about the fact that is has no cows over the course of the story.



That one is rather broad.  This means that in my medieval fantasy novel I don't have to mention black holes and Harry Potter.



> Or perhaps a better example.  A character lives in a world where teleportation through magic is possible but could well go through many days without thinking about that fact the same way that I will go through many days without thinking about the miracle of air travel.



A much better example.  But this leads back to the caution I gave earlier.  If this plot device will play a role in the story, it could become rather on the nose.  Or, _deus ex machina_, if world building is _ad hoc_.

Plus, if the teleportation magic isn't going to play a role in the story, then we might be back to black holes and Harry Potter.

If the teleportation magic isn't going to play a role in the plot, the mention of its existence could still add to worldbuilding, maybe.  For creating mood.  For creating the sense that magic has many uses in the world—or at least, that there are many wild tales about strange magics.  Whether it would be useful would depend on what the author wants to do.  If not teleportation magic, then pixies.  Dragons, even if dragons play no direct role in the story.

The problem as I see it is that the failure to mention any aspect of the world that doesn't directly affect a POV character in the here-and-now of his activity or the plot can _potentially_ lead to an on the nose development of the story, _deus ex machina_, or Mary Suing it.   

Ex.:  Character needs to get from this tavern to a city 100 miles away; I know, I'll have a mage walk in who can teleport him for a fee!  "Very convenient; thank goodness I live in an implausible fantasy world!  Now I hope there's something like a magic sword at my destination point...."



> In a world where everyday things are very different than here,  it is likely many of those things will get taken for granted and no thought about.



This will depend on the importance and effect of those things.  If massive electrical storms strike every three days without fail—probably, they are going to be thought about.  If the King's soldiers patrol the streets day and night...probably thought about.

I imagine intelligent extraterrestrials in our own universe looking up at two moons and having a mythos about them.



> To me the character who is artificially aware or hyper aware of the common differences in their world is just a walking info dump.



It's not just about having a talking Wikipedia walking around vs someone who only thinks about what's in front of his nose.

The world around us constantly informs us of things about which we don't care and which are entirely (seemingly) unimportant to our daily quests.  I can see a delivery truck drive past me despite the fact that I don't need a refill of propane and haven't bought any in over a decade.  The other day, despite the fact that I'm not a farmer, I saw a truck pulling a trailer with a single huge hog going to slaughter (I assumed.)  No, I haven't seen any dragons lately.

Edit: I think we agree on avoiding the worldbuilder's disease, of the pointlessness of creating aspects of the world that have little chance of appearing anywhere in the story.  But I think that building outward from those things needed for plot and character is not a bad idea, and questioning the ramifications of those things you have built.


----------



## Russ (Apr 19, 2016)

> That one is rather broad.  This means that in my medieval fantasy novel I don't have to mention black holes and Harry Potter.



I picked that one as a live example.  A member here started a thread about that topic a while ago, I would not have come up with that one myself.








> The problem as I see it is that the failure to mention any aspect of the world that doesn't directly affect a POV character *in the here-and-now* of his activity or the plot can _potentially_ lead to an on the nose development of the story, _deus ex machina_, or Mary Suing it.



Ah...perhaps I have been not been clear.  I did not suggest that the observations need be limited to immediate need or notice, rather simply to what is needed for the story.  I am all for making sure the musket is noticed over the fireplace in chapter one, if the character is going to fire it in chapter seven.






> This will depend on the importance and effect of those things.  If massive electrical storms strike every three days without fail—probably, they are going to be thought about.  If the King's soldiers patrol the streets day and night...probably thought about.



It will depend on how they impact the character in question.  It is amazing how many things we take for granted that are really quite impressive if you think about them.  Nuclear power is a good example.





> The world around us constantly informs us of things about which we don't care and which are entirely (seemingly) unimportant to our daily quests.  I can see a delivery truck drive past me despite the fact that I don't need a refill of propane and haven't bought any in over a decade.  The other day, despite the fact that I'm not a farmer, I saw a truck pulling a trailer with a single huge hog going to slaughter (I assumed.)  No, I haven't seen any dragons lately.



Absolutely, but as a reader I don't want to read about the propane truck or the hog truck in your work unless they are going to collide on the road in front of you and cover you in bacon thus starting your adventure.  And as a writer I don't need to know all of those common things that might inform your character to write that character well.



> Edit: I think we agree on avoiding the worldbuilder's disease, of the pointlessness of creating aspects of the world that have little chance of appearing anywhere in the story.  But I think that building outward from those things needed for plot and character is not a bad idea, and questioning the ramifications of those things you have built.



We are probably quite close to agreeing on most things.  I advocate world building from the character, plot or theme(s) outwards.  You only need to build out as far as the story demands or a bit further to give a sense of solidity to the world.  There is nothing at all wrong with pondering all of the ramifications of every aspect of your world or every major aspect of your world, but I don't think it is necessary for good fiction to do so.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 19, 2016)

Russ said:


> Absolutely, but as a reader I don't want to read about the propane truck or the hog truck in your work unless they are going to collide on the road in front of you and cover you in bacon thus starting your adventure.  And as a writer I don't need to know all of those common things that might inform your character to write that character well.



As a writer and reader, I find that going from explosion to explosion boring.  If every time I mentioned a tavern on the street, I had to make sure bandits burst out of it to attack my MC, or that the necessary info my MC needed to make a breakthrough in his quest would be within, that would be boring. 

It would be awfully hard to surprise, also. 

The worst thing would be knowing that every item related to the world, when I bothered to describe the world at all, would need to be of major significance to that MC. Then again, if I wanted to create a highly neurotic character, this might be a great idea.


----------

