Why does world building matter?

[Devor]

I've only dabbled a little in Warcraft, was the entire thing designed by a single individual? I'm guessing not.

I can respect that there are certainly many differences that make the comparison moot for the most part. And I'm a fan of Tolkein. But Warcraft is far and away the richer IP, and Chris Metzen, who greenlights the lore, deserves most of the credit for the world they've developed.

Looking at what Tolkein created, however, I think you do have a point in many regards. At the same time, the world building in A Song of Ice and Fire is often just as deep in its own somewhat different way. Tolkein's worldbuilding goes back eras, but Martin has reams of secondary characters on a scale that's almost unheard of in literature. It's likely that both of these will go unrepeated, in some ways, but I think Martin shows that there's still room for the genre to grow in depth in ways that we have yet to see.

 

[FatCat]

Let's first get out of the way that I've never read Tolkien.

From what I've heard, though, he is obviously the master craftsman of worldbuilding, and as such I can see why his name is brought up so frequently in this conversation. If you understand my first post beyond the title of the thread, I'm not disregarding world building as a legitmate function. Sometimes a backstory makes the connect between the mundane and something captavating to the reader. And while this obsessive-function of world-building is striking, I don't believe it to be the norm.

As Devor stated, if your world has the ability to make castles irrelevent, why would castle exist? A solid world-building concern. The question, for me, arises when the need for the details of your world cascade into a "non-fiction" account of rhetoric behind the actual narrative. Instead of a fictional account to motivate a character, such as a cruel king, why that cruel king exists inside the character's development is more important.

So, then, when does world-building coincide with character development? Or is it one in the same? I'd most likely find 100 pages of what basically is a phone book of the Shire less fascinating than a novel explortion of the human condition. an idea that the genre of fantasy can easily shadow upon.

 

[ThinkerX]

So, then, when does world-building coincide with character development? Or is it one in the same?

Harry Mondon grows up in a large city where mages wear green cloaks secured with intricate broaches denoting their alliance to this or that wizardly sub-faction. The cities ruler is chosen by lot, rules for five years and then ritually executed. Literally anybody in the city can be chosen as ruler.

These things shape Harry's personality. Moving elsewhere, he still associates green cloaks with wizards, and finds the notion of a purely hereditary leadership to be bizarre.

Elaborating on why this is so requires worldbuilding.

 

[Mythopoet]

Incanus, I guess my problem with your argument is that you're basically saying that even if it is my goal and I put in the time and effort, I can't do what Tolkien did. Now, I would be more than willing to concede that I may not have the skill to create a world as believable and beloved as Middle-earth, but you're basing your argument on the number of names associated with The Shire (which is not all that large a number) and the general quantity of detail in Middle-earth. At least, that seems to be the crux of your argument. The amount of details in Middle-earth is simply not as large as you think it is (I think I have some insight into this as someone who has had arguments as to exactly which details from works like HOME and UF and even The Sil can be counted as canonical for RP). As much as I love Tolkien, it's simply not that hard to sit down and generate a ton of details about an imaginary world. I can do it. Other authors have done it. The genuineness and depth of the details is another matter, but that doesn't seem to be what you are arguing.

And we pronounce Maedhros as Mythros. We don't stress about whether the th sound is pronounced like then or throw because Maedhros ended up being autistic and needed lots of speech therapy just to be able to communicate with us. It's a lot easier for him to say it as in throw so we roll with it.

 

[Mythopoet]

Let's first get out of the way that I've never read Tolkien.

From what I've heard, though, he is obviously the master craftsman of worldbuilding, and as such I can see why his name is brought up so frequently in this conversation. If you understand my first post beyond the title of the thread, I'm not disregarding world building as a legitmate function. Sometimes a backstory makes the connect between the mundane and something captavating to the reader. And while this obsessive-function of world-building is striking, I don't believe it to be the norm.

As Devor stated, if your world has the ability to make castles irrelevent, why would castle exist? A solid world-building concern. The question, for me, arises when the need for the details of your world cascade into a "non-fiction" account of rhetoric behind the actual narrative. Instead of a fictional account to motivate a character, such as a cruel king, why that cruel king exists inside the character's development is more important.

So, then, when does world-building coincide with character development? Or is it one in the same? I'd most likely find 100 pages of what basically is a phone book of the Shire less fascinating than a novel explortion of the human condition. an idea that the genre of fantasy can easily shadow upon.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding what worldbuilding actually is. "100 pages of a phone book of The Shire"? Do you actually believe that is what worldbuilding amounts to?

 

[thedarknessrising]

Before I started my WIP, I detailed the history of the land. I wrote of the major wars, the heroes, the political turmoil, etc. In doing so, the stories started to come alive on their own. I could pick any war and write the story surrounding it. Perhaps there's a character somewhere in my notes who has a really epic story that needs told. I can go through my notes and write about his exploits.

 

[Gurkhal]

If our story is a play then I would think that the stage that the play takes place on is constructed with our world building. It will be much more difficult to get a grasp on what's going on if there isn't a world to support the story and make sense of what is going on.

That's my immediete thoughts on the matter anyway.

 

[Incanus]

Hey Mytho--I like to think we probably have more in common than not. I like to think we're on the same team, but are having a little dispute about some arcane strategy or something. I'm loathe to argue against someone with children named Luthien and Maedhros! (So cool). I'm normally pretty level-headed, but I can see how some of my Tolkien enthusiasm could be a bit annoying. I want to be super-clear about one thing--I did not at all mean to sound discouraging. I want you to work on a detailed world, I'm glad you are and I encourage you to do so, I sincerely hope that you succeed (it sounds like something I would want to read!). From my point of view, there isn't enough of them out there yet (good ones that I really love). I'm doing the same thing myself. But, I have too much to say on this subject, though, and want to get back on point.

My advice to FatCat--I don't know anything about what project you have in mind and fantasy can be wildly versatile and is full of sub-genres. Re-reading your OP, I think the most important thing for you to consider is the finding of ideas to work with that you LOVE. I gather that coming up with more and more world details and spending time on world-building would, for you, end up being a tedious chore, done only because it was perceived to be somehow 'expected'. For me its a labor of love, no matter what ultimately gets used. I'm thinking of two examples of 'successful' stories that have little or no world-building in them:

The Blade Itself, Joe Abercrombie--I saw very little 'world' here. I don't think there were a dozen place names in the whole thing, and no map or glossary needed. (It was an OK book, not terrible, not awesome--lack of world building was a factor for me.)

The movie Midnight in Paris--I know, its a romantic comedy, but the fantasy element is the major mechanism for the whole thing. No world-building at all, none needed. The fantasy element isn't even explained. Nor does it need to be. It works fine. I liked the movie for what it was, but I didn't really love it.

Maybe not the greatest examples, but the point is that there are 'degrees' of world building ranging from a billion details to one that might be used in making a fantasy story. Try to stick to what you think is important and try to minimize the details you don't care about, or don't seem to add anything. It might not be a book that would interest me, but if its otherwise done well, there should be plenty out there who would appreciate it.

(And yeah, the 'phone-book' thing I usually associate with fantasy outsiders dismissing the genre as a whole--again I don't know what project you're working on, but I have to wonder: does it even need to be a fantasy at all? I guess I'm just not picking up much enthusiasm for fantasy from you, right or wrong.)

 

[Penpilot]

One thing I failed to mention in my post is what you don't say about a world can be just as important as what you do say. Sometimes worlds feel larger than they actually are, in terms of actual text and details supplied, because the author gave enough information so that the reader could fill in the rest. Whether or not what they filled in was accurate to what the author envisioned didn't matter. As long as it sparked the reader's imagination to dream beyond the page, then the world becomes larger and grander.

 

[Svrtnsse]

One thing I failed to mention in my post is what you don't say about a world can be just as important as what you do say. Sometimes worlds feel larger than they actually are, in terms of actual text and details supplied, because the author gave enough information so that the reader could fill in the rest. Whether or not what they filled in was accurate to what the author envisioned didn't matter. As long as it sparked the reader's imagination to dream beyond the page, then the world becomes larger and grander.

This matches well with a previous post here:

I can’t think [and haven’t read] that Philip K Dick or HP Lovecraft spent any time world-building as we would know it [especially in the case of PKD if what I’ve read about him is true]. Admittedly neither is “fantasy” in the purest sense, yet both these writers create some of the deepest and elaborate worlds in the stories. They leave grey ill-defined parts of their realities, maps with the proverbial [or not] “Here be dragons” legend. They do this because you and I as readers don’t need to know. It doesn’t add to our enjoyment of their stories.

In the case of Lovecraft I think that leaving the information out actually improves the story. The things we can suspect or imagine or fear in our own minds are very likely to be more fearsome than what they could have actually put on paper. So in this case it's about know what to leave out for best effect, rather than what to show.

 

[WooHooMan]

In the case of Lovecraft I think that leaving the information out actually improves the story. The things we can suspect or imagine or fear in our own minds are very likely to be more fearsome than what they could have actually put on paper. So in this case it's about know what to leave out for best effect, rather than what to show.

A lesser known fact about Lovecraft was that his mythos and Conan the Cimmerian share their universe. Isn't that interesting? Each time Howard wrote a Conan story, he was fleshing-out (in some small way) the universe of Lovecraft. And vice versa. There were other writers who also shared the universe as well. And this universe was really a strange kind of extension of our own.

Most, if not all, of Howard's worldbuilding for the Conan saga was done in a single essay called "The Hyborian Age". Which opens with the following disclaimer:

"Nothing in this article is to be considered as an attempt to advance any theory in opposition to accepted history. It is simply a fictional background for a series of fiction-stories. When I began writing the Conan stories a few years ago, I prepared this 'history' of his age and the peoples of that age, in order to lend him and his sagas a greater aspect of realness. And I found that by adhering to the 'facts' and spirit of that history, in writing the stories, it was easier to visualize (and therefore to present) him as a real flesh-and-blood character rather than a ready-made product."

And I think that's the point of worldbuilding: make the characters and setting feel more real by giving them some ethos. And, of course, ethos is one of the fundamental ways of appealing to an audience.

 

[Hananas59]

Well why does World Building matter?
The answer to that question is pretty simple for me.
For me the world I make is one of the most important things. When you've got a strong world set up you can create characters and a setting for it much easier. The setting you have in mind can be used in the world building to make a strong world that lets you remember a project/novel.

 

[SeverinR]

I've never needed to build a world, but I've often needed to build a town. What are the local laws? What attitudes do the citizens share? What do they consider prosperity, and what do they consider lack of resources? From there, I may need to build a region, or a society, or even a continent, showing the differences from place to place.

You world build as you need it. You establish the world on a small scale, the only need is the local town/city. What the realm does outside of the town/city doesn't matter to the story. That's how I started, but then I started a second and a third story in the same world, so I needed to tie them together. I am world building to the country and it's primary enemy country(basically only the basics for the enemy) There are neighboring countries, but I have not needed them so, they are a blank canvas. When Bored I create animals or plants that I might include in the stories as interesting mentionables, rather then important plot notes. Little things to make the world more real.

Let's first get out of the way that I've never read Tolkien.

From what I've heard, though, he is obviously the master craftsman of worldbuilding, and as such I can see why his name is brought up so frequently in this conversation. If you understand my first post beyond the title of the thread, I'm not disregarding world building as a legitmate function. Sometimes a backstory makes the connect between the mundane and something captavating to the reader. And while this obsessive-function of world-building is striking, I don't believe it to be the norm.

As Devor stated, if your world has the ability to make castles irrelevent, why would castle exist? A solid world-building concern. The question, for me, arises when the need for the details of your world cascade into a "non-fiction" account of rhetoric behind the actual narrative. Instead of a fictional account to motivate a character, such as a cruel king, why that cruel king exists inside the character's development is more important.

.

If there is a way to defeat castles, then how profitable would it be to invest in a castle? If there is only a percentage of people able to destroy the walls with magic or might alone, and every country has an army, then a castle could protect from the majority of people, while they would have a way of dealing with the castle breakers. Special defenses, anti-mage mages, etc.
If the tactic or ability is known, then the common warrior will know of it, and will have considered how best to deal with the problem. (definately alot more then some writer would, the writer is safe from harm, the defender's betting his life on his defenses and tactics.)

Anyone know if Rowling is a big world builder or is she a story driven writer? I assume she is a creator as she goes, since I heard there is contradictions in magic through the books.
My goal in world building is to have all my stories follow all the rules established in my world building no matter if they are Mentalists, Mages in training, Warriors, Dragon corp.

My world building royalty goes up to Baron/Baroness, I won't be writing King/Queen, Prince/Princess characters for a while. I would think the part of my story devouted to these high ranking leaders would only be a cameo.
I am not one to enjoy writing politics, RR Martin does that very well, I don't think I could.
As you can guess, my novels are not Epic.

Just a note on my world building... I use Word, I compiled all my world into one large document, I believe the last check, my table of Contents(toc) is 10 pages long. Later I changed it to more of an encyclopedia style document.

 

[FatCat]

You seem to be completely misunderstanding what worldbuilding actually is. "100 pages of a phone book of The Shire"? Do you actually believe that is what worldbuilding amounts to?

That is my opinion of excessive world-building, to the point where your writing a world for your own pleasure instead of illuming a narrative arch.

 

[Mythopoet]

That is my opinion of excessive world-building, to the point where your writing a world for your own pleasure instead of illuming a narrative arch.

And yet every time you talk about worldbuilding in this thread you've described it in terms that make it sound like you find all worldbuilding excessive.

Let's be clear here, there is no "100 page phone book of the Shire". It doesn't exist. You made it up. There are appendices to LOTR that give significant amounts of worldbuilding information including several Hobbit family trees full of names. To reiterate: these are not a part of the narrative, they are appendices added after the end of The Return of the King. No one is required to read the appendices, but scores of Tolkien fans have enjoyed learning more about Middle-earth because of them. And perhaps when you write the book of the century you can criticize Tolkien's worldbuilding.

The bottom line is, there are many, many fantasy readers who read fantasy specifically because of the worldbuilding. Only the speculative genres (sci fi, fantasy, and sometimes horror) require a foundation of worldbuilding that sets them apart from the real world and from other genres. For a large number of the readers of speculative fiction, THIS IS THE POINT OF READING IT. I include myself in that number. I love worldbuilding. I crave worldbuilding. I want to be transported away from real life by the books I read, to explore new worlds and new civilizations. I've put down I don't know how many books because of a lack of worldbuilding. I've only read one book where I said to myself, "Wow, tone down the worldbuilding details, man." Why do you think LOTR is the most popular book of the last century? People LOVE Middle-earth. It's the one thing almost anyone whose read the book and liked it agrees on: Middle-earth is awesome.

So, it all comes down to this: Worldbuilding matters because readers want it.

 

[WooHooMan]

Why do you think LOTR is the most popular book of the last century? People LOVE Middle-earth.

[citation needed]

So, it all comes down to this: Worldbuilding matters because readers want it.

Not always. It depends on the reader, as do most things.
I actually know two people who gave-up on LotR (and an additional two or three people who didn't like LotR) because they felt the worldbuilding was distracting.

I do, however, think it is safe to say that readers want some character/personality in the setting and worldbuilding is a good way in which that can be provided.
It's as valid a writing tool as mood or style.

I also agree with you that some readers mostly care about the setting in fantasy and some writers find worldbuilding as fun and as rewarding an activity as actually storytelling. There are plenty of people who create a setting for the sake of creating a setting. And that's fine. There are also people who write story with little thought or interest in the setting. That's also fine.

Now, I'm going to go ahead and backtrack to FatCat's initial post...

Let's say I have a story about a young farmer fulfilling a prophecy (I know), how does the world you build around that narrative effect the overall narrative arch? Beyond the basics of 'when' and 'where', like, with most fantasy, Europe in ages past with knights and what-not, isn't 'how' the most important question? The idea behind the world, the reason why the stage is set in such a way.

Generally, I like to have themes illustrated in the setting.
In the example you've provided, I'd imagine such a story would involve the Campbellian Hero's Journey business of the Known world vs. the Unknown world/world of Adventure. In a typical Feudalistic European setting, the rural peasantry can act as the Known world while the noble upper-crust (as in knighthood) or the mythic elements (prophecy) acts as the Unknown world. So, the setting would reflect the theme.
Usually, the kind of fantasy that falls back on these cliches do so because it's a simple way to illustrate the main characters development from youth (farm boy) to maturity (epic hero/knight).

I recently did a story about the dichotomy between dreams and reality. So, I used Aboriginal Australian culture as a basis for the setting. What with the whole "Dreamtime" thing. I didn't do a historical fantasy because real Dreamtime spirituality wouldn't illustrate the theme as well.
And the setting was a desert to both better fit the Australian-vibe and to demonstrate the main character initial feelings of isolation and stagnation (which acts as their motivation).

the rest of FatCat's first post

I notice that when people give advice on how to worldbuild, they tend to ask a lot of rhetorical question, usually dealing with unromantic and mundane things like economics.
I think if we were to create a more streamline method of worldbuilding, we would have to acknowledge that different stories/settings have different needs.

Likewise, the use of actual cultures (especially historic cultures) as a basis is a phenomena that may be with looking at. How often do people create fantasy cultures straight from the own imaginations without any historic basis? And how often do people use preexisting fictional cultures as a basis?

And are historically-based, fiction-based and straight-fantasy all equally valid ways to go about creating cultures? It seems like people look down on fiction-based as copying or a lack of originality (despite a lot of people doing it) while historically-based is seen as the norm and straight-fantasy is seen as the ideal.


I've been on this forum for too long, my posts keep getting longer and longer.

 

[Svrtnsse]

So, it all comes down to this: Worldbuilding matters because readers want it.

...and because I want it. At least in my case.

 

[Devor]

[citation needed]

Mythopoet said LOTR was the most popular book of the last century, and most of Harry Potter's success is from this century. So, putting aside the Bible, and the Chairman's book that I can't even describe without sounding political, I think her statement is pretty accurate.

 

[WooHooMan]

Mythopoet said LOTR was the most popular book of the last century, and most of Harry Potter's success is from this century. So, putting aside the Bible, and the Chairman's book that I can't even describe without sounding political, I think her statement is pretty accurate.

I wasn't literally asking for a citation, that was kind of a joke.
But mostly, I'm trying to say that Middle-Earth shouldn't be the standard by which all fantasy settings are measured regardless of how successful LotR is. Middle-Earth and it's use or level of detail might have worked for Tolkien but whatever, not everyone is trying to write Lord of the Rings or something like it.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I wasn't literally asking for a citation, that was kind of a joke.
But mostly, I'm trying to say that Middle-Earth shouldn't be the standard by which all fantasy settings are measured regardless of how successful LotR is. Middle-Earth and it's use or level of detail might have worked for Tolkien but whatever, not everyone is trying to write Lord of the Rings or something like it.

Whether it should or not is an entire discussion in its own right. We can debate the quality of it back and forth for ages and we probably won't reach any kind of conclusion or agreement.

The fact (as I see it), is that thanks to its renown and its impact on the fantasy genre it IS a de facto standard to measure against when it comes to world building. There are surely better worlds, made with more detail, but they're not necessarily as well known.
Middle Earth is a setting with which most people "in the scene" are familiar with to some extent. That is, of course, only in cases where someone feels the need to measure up against something. Ideally we ought just to write what we feel like because we enjoy it, without paying too much attention to what Tolkien did or didn't do.



For me, with my writing, the important part isn't to tell a certain story or stories, but rather to provide a pleasant escapist reading experience. To that end, the setting feels really important, which is why I've put a lot of effort into it. It makes me more confident about my world when I know in detail how it works and I don't have to stop and figure it out as I'm going.
Once I sit down to write I can focus on just getting the words down and I don't need to stop and consider the implications of whatever new additions I come up with for the world (luminous-tail night-squirrels).

This is what works for me and what I enjoy doing with what I'm trying to do.