• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

World Building > Writing Skill?

Ankari

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

T.Allen.Smith

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

Others:
Raymond Feist
Michael Morcock
Piers Anthony

Not sure about sales figures but writers like Anthony have enormous bodies of work to consider.
 
Christopher Paolini (12 million)

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

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

Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.
I don't think anyone will argue for Paolini's success coming from his writing, and I think he is a world-builder first and foremost, but I don't think he's particularly good at that either. It seems his success comes from novelty more than anything in my opinion (he was really young, so no one held him to a standard).

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

Does it? Maybe to an extent, just as fantasy does. A lot of good science fiction is set in the modern world, so the world is already created for you. Even if you look at a classic like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land...OK, you've got a guy from Mars. But he comes to earth and that's where the book takes place. How much world-building is there? Jurassic Park, OK Crichton creates the amusement park, but how much world-building does he do, exactly? Does researching dinosaur behavior count? Or his earlier work, The Andromeda Strain - how much world-building is going on there? Are we confusing world-building and plotting? Just some thoughts.
Hm, so I guess I don't think of this stuff as science fiction. I can't find a genre describing what I want to express. Space science fiction? I know, I know, requiring off-world-ness (or a future so drastically different as to be unrecognizable) in science fiction and saying that requires world building is kinda' circular!
 
There are large segments of the populace that will tolerate poor storytelling if the world-building is awesome, and other segments that don't care about worldbuilding and are only interested in good storytelling. The upshot is that as long as you're good at at least one of world-building or storytelling, there's an audience out there for you. It's possible to be good at both, but all evidence points to storytelling being harder than world-building.

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

TheokinsJ

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

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

So I guess success doesn't necessarily come from writing skill alone- but if you are a great world builder but a terrible writer your book will be just as terrible. I believe that you need to have a certain amount of skill, but at the end of the day it is the story that wins over the reader- if they don't care about the characters or the plot why would they continue reading? Think of what a story is- a story is about literally what the word means- it is about telling an epic tale of adventure or of love or a story of friendship or greed, it is not about writing skill.
I mean if you were a reader and an author was the best writer in the world, but the ideas were terrible would you continue reading? At the end of the day good writing skill helps to tell the story better, but if the story is terrible to begin with you can't dress it up by writing well. So to answer your question; ideas, world building, characters and plot are very important- if not vital to the success of a novel.
 
The whole reason that Tolkein's book wouldn't be published if he we alive today and submitted them, is because now the market is flooded with fantasy writers. In tolkein's day not nearly as many fantasy novels were written, not nearly as many of them were built with good worldbuilding and good writing. Tolkein was a genius- he essentially created the fantasy genre. Since the time of tolkein heaps of writers have basically been writing rip-offs of the lord of the rings by using elves, dwarves and having the 'dark lord' thing which is now cliche but in Tolkein's day was unheard of. Basically the reason Tolkein did well is because his ideas were new and fresh, and they were something completely different to what's been done before.

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

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

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

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
Eoin Colfer (18 million)

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

Never read him.

Raymond E. Feist (15 million)

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

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

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

Christopher Paolini (12 million)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Gaiman (2 million)

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

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

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

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

Hence, a split vote.
 

Steerpike

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

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

Legendary Sidekick

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

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

CupofJoe

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

wino

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

Scribble

Archmage
Ideas are cheap. Writing is a skill.


Codex Alera is a fantasy book series by Jim Butcher. The series chronicles the coming-of-age of a young man named Tavi in the realm of Alera, an empire similar to Rome, on the world of Carna. Every Aleran has some degree of command over elemental forces or spirits called furies, save for Tavi, who is considered unusual for his lack of one. As the aging First Lord struggles to maintain his hold on a realm on the brink of civil war, Tavi must use all of his intelligence to save Alera.

Alera inhabits most of a large continent that is inhabited by the Icemen to the north. They are connected to another large continent held by the Marat via a land bridge, which is the location of the Calderon Valley. The Canim reside across the ocean to the west, staging regular, bloody raids on coastal settlements. A map of the realm, illustrated by fan Priscilla Spencer, was published in First Lord's Fury.

The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Delray Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “Pokémon”.

Codex Alera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Scribble

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

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

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

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

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

BWFoster78

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

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

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

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

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

If you're concept/characters are good and your writing is competent, I think you have the possibility of becoming a successful author, though I don't think either guarantee your success (no matter how good). Frankly, to become successful, you have to figure out how to reach your audience, which is a separate skillset altogether.
 
With all due respect, I utterly reject that idea. Creativity is a skill that can be learned. Everyone's brain has the same creative potential, you can learn how to unlock it.

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

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

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

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

Scribble

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

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

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

Talent is a myth, in my opinion.

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

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
Talent is a myth, in my opinion.

Yes and no.

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

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

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

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

Scribble

Archmage
Yes and no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was learning programming without realizing it.

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

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