Does History matter?

[Yora]

A lot of very highly admired and popular settings include a great amount of past history as part of their worldbuilding. But I often wonder whether this really something that makes an actual important impact on the work as a whole and its plot and characters, or if it is merely something that provides a lot of material to talk about.

There certainly are some kinds of stories that very much rely on it. Stories that revolve around complex ongoing conflicts that go back to unresolved past grievances. But aside from these, does working out a complex history for the setting really add much to most stories? Does it make a notable difference for a story when you ignore this aspect of worldbuilding almost entirely?

 

[Ban]

A lot of very highly admired and popular settings include a great amount of past history as part of their worldbuilding. But I often wonder whether this really something that makes an actual important impact on the work as a whole and its plot and characters, or if it is merely something that provides a lot of material to talk about.

There certainly are some kinds of stories that very much rely on it. Stories that revolve around complex ongoing conflicts that go back to unresolved past grievances. But aside from these, does working out a complex history for the setting really add much to most stories? Does it make a notable difference for a story when you ignore this aspect of worldbuilding almost entirely?

History provides the framework for the present to make sense, so it certainly is important. The second purpose it serves is to pull readers into the illusion that the world extends far beyond the peripheries of the story. That there lies a vast ocean of other stories outside of what we are allowed to see.

If you don't want to include it, you don't need to, but I do believe you give up a wonderful tool for pulling the reader in and deepening the background.

 

[skip.knox]

Nah, nobody needs history. ;-)

Story is important. Story is the only important thing. That's axiomatic.

When you say history, there are two aspects to that. There's background and then there's the history that makes it into the story. Let's take the latter first. I see three ways history enters story.

One, through dialog. This could be something as simple as referencing an earlier monarch or legendary wizard, recounting past conflicts with a neighboring kingdom, all the way to recounting some legend. For myself, this goes close to eye-roll territory, but sometimes it can be effective. Heck, even two characters have a history with each other, right?

Two, through narrative. This would be describing ancient ruins, or narratively doing any of the things mentioned above. I like it when it's description; I like it less often when it's backstory presented through description.

Three, through events. That is, some action on the page takes place because of something historical driving it. We are not merely on a scouting expedition into the Iron Hills, we're there because of the ancient running war with the Grim Kobolds who will raid our villages if we are not vigilant. The events lend substance to what is related via dialog and narrative.

Now for the background history. The most obvious thing is consistency and verisimilitude. If you don't work out the history beforehand, you run two risks. You might contradict yourself, and you might be unrealistic. Both problems can be caught by an editor, but both might take quite a bit of work to fix, especially if you have hung plot developments on them.

Equally important, but harder to explain, is depth. The more backstory you develop, the more you "live" in your world. I see it as akin to building vocabulary. The richer your vocabulary, the more likely you are to choose a memorable word or phrase, because you have developed your ear. So it is with world building. Let's say you use only ten percent of what you build. One school might argue the other ninety percent is wasted, or at least under-used, so why not concentrate on just that ten percent. Another school (called the Correct School) will argue that you need all one hundred percent so that the ten percent you use is the best and most effective.

Ah, I guess history might just matter after all. Go figure.

 

[Yora]

Currently my setting does not have any history. None of the places or groups have an established origin, there are no historical events except a few very recent ones that started the current stage of a present conflict.
And yet I feel that there isn't anything missing, nor that there would be any gain from adding it. Which seems weird, as most of the great famous settings have a great amount of history worked into them. For them it certainly adds something significant, but I can't really point out what.

 

[skip.knox]

Rule #1: the author must be satisfied.

So, keep writing. Don't worry about it. Maybe you'll decide you need more back story (this happens most often when you, or one of your characters, asks "why"). Then again, maybe you won't. The first novelette I wrote had almost no back story; it wasn't needed. The first novel I wrote had tons. Second one, only some. Next one will again have much.

How much is needed? See Rule #1 above.

 

[elemtilas]

A lot of very highly admired and popular settings include a great amount of past history as part of their worldbuilding. But I often wonder whether this really something that makes an actual important impact on the work as a whole and its plot and characters, or if it is merely something that provides a lot of material to talk about.

There certainly are some kinds of stories that very much rely on it. Stories that revolve around complex ongoing conflicts that go back to unresolved past grievances. But aside from these, does working out a complex history for the setting really add much to most stories? Does it make a notable difference for a story when you ignore this aspect of worldbuilding almost entirely?

Of course, history is vital!

I get that the story is the thing and all that, but really, you don't have much of a story if you don't have the world, the culture, the history and the social bits-n-pieces all ready to go. Every action that your characters undertake will be, in some way, not outright determined by but certainly influenced by the last few centuries of history. You have to look no further than this morning's headlines to see how the events of history from a hundred or two hundred years ago are clearly and definitively affecting modern geopolitics.

To be honest, and I'm saying this as a reader, if you haven't done all that worldbuilding work, it's going to obvious. Your story is going to be crap because it has no basis and will get tossed because it's too shallow. When I read, yeah I want to read a good story. But I want to be immersed in the world. I want to experience its reality. I want to feel assured that the actions aren't just there to satisfy the sequence blocks on a story board but actually have meaning and consequence within a broader in-world historical and social context.

Basically, I want the intellectual stimulation and satisfaction that a good historical fiction brings, but set in Phantasia so that the emotional and aesthetic sensibilities are also stimulated! Do that and you'll have me as a fan for life!

 

[skip.knox]

There's a wonderful old saying, attributed to an Arab source by Marc Bloch: men resemble their times more than their fathers.

As a historian, I have found this to be profoundly true.

As for world building (which is broader than just history), I agree with elemtilas except I stumble over one small word: all. Which is to say, how much world building is sufficient unto the day? I have no answer for that. I can't point to a quantity, or even to a topic area, and say that if the project has not done that, then the story is doomed.

This is, I suspect, what drives beginners nuts. Once you have three or ten or fifty stories completed, you start to get a feel for how much is sufficient, at least for yourself. If you were lucky enough to have lots of readers, you get additional confirmation there, but it really starts with the author himself. But until that time, the author, poor dear, goes bonkers trying to figure it out.

 

[elemtilas]

There's a wonderful old saying, attributed to an Arab source by Marc Bloch: men resemble their times more than their fathers.

As a historian, I have found this to be profoundly true.

As for world building (which is broader than just history), I agree with elemtilas except I stumble over one small word: all. Which is to say, how much world building is sufficient unto the day? I have no answer for that. I can't point to a quantity, or even to a topic area, and say that if the project has not done that, then the story is doomed.

This is, I suspect, what drives beginners nuts. Once you have three or ten or fifty stories completed, you start to get a feel for how much is sufficient, at least for yourself. If you were lucky enough to have lots of readers, you get additional confirmation there, but it really starts with the author himself. But until that time, the author, poor dear, goes bonkers trying to figure it out.

Okay, that all!

That, only you as author can decide. After all, you're writing the story!

Mind you, my idea, again as reader, might differ wildly! Some readers may think you've done very well indeed! Others may think not enough by half.

There is no quantity I can point to either! It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. Maybe a cop-out answer, but it really isn't a one size fits all proposition anyway. If your aim is to write a focused series of YA fantasy novels (Harry Potter?), then you probably really don't need to a whole lot of worldbuilding, historical or otherwise. If your aim to write the vast scope of a legendary history from the Creation right down to the (not quite!) defeat of Evil in the world, then you might have to do just a touch more!

Another ancient saying comes to mind: the enemy of good is better. If you as author are satisfied that the worldbuilding is enough for the work at hand, well, leave it at that! One way or the other, your readers will determine if you're right or wrong! (Or, more likely, both.)

 

[Miles Lacey]

World building without history is like not having a janitor to clean the office. It might not always be obvious what the janitor does when they are there but you sure as hell know all about it when they're not - and it's not pretty. Ditto for world building and history.

 

[CupofJoe]

There has to be enough history for the story you are going to tell.
If it is a tale set in modern day New York then you probably don't have to add much history at all as you can call on the city's own history. Just add in the bits you need to get your story going.
If you are building a tale on the scale of LotR then you are going to probably have to work out a lot of history. And I mean a LOT!
And this is separate from the history of your characters. You may have to build histories there to create rounded characters.
Why does X hate clowns?
How come Y never travels by plane?
Exactly how did X end up with the dreaded spoon of Clutie? And why is everyone trying to kill her to get it back?