Going all in....

[Oomatu]

As my actual novel has progressed, I've come to neglect expanding/enhancing the world I had created for it. I had developed dozens of cultures, art-styles, historical races, events, and settings... but that doesn't seem to be enough. So I'm going all in, I'm going to world-build the sh*t out this place.

I've already begun a true historical timeline where I'm calculating the lifespans of various species, the number of generation within the existence of them, the longevity of past various civilization in relation to each other. Once I have a comprehensible and accurate time-scale, I'm going to go into the "cavities" and fill them the transitional culture shifts and "events" that shaped them. I'm going to develop historical figures and implement how much( or little) impact they had on the modern setting [i.e man who invented flight].

I don't plan on writing a bible of this stuff, but I do want to give myself a feeling of an "expanded universe" where events DO take place outside of relevance to the book.

My book's facebook page >>Islandfall

Any tips or suggestions for me as I begin this daunting task?

 

[Queshire]

Just be wary about the common pitfalls when it comes to writing. Since you've already started writing there's less risk of getting so caught up in world building that you don't finish writing the actual story, but there's also the risk of filling your story with trivia that doesn't affect the story at all and just serves to show off your world building.

 

[Oomatu]

there's also the risk of filling your story with trivia that doesn't affect the story at all and just serves to show off your world building.

Understood. My biggest struggle is to not explain my world to the reader. I just feel that knowing my world, and knowing who knows what about that world, helps with natural dialogue and interaction.

 

[trentonian7]

Let the scenery and characters show the reader your world; you don't need to explain it.

 

[Velka]

My only question is why do you feel you need this "drilling to the molten core of the earth" depth?

I've gone down the rabbit hole of way-beyond-the-requirements-of-the-story world building once or twice years ago, it added absolutely nothing of great value to my story, actually stalled my progress because I was mapping out family trees that went back 15 generations (and were absolutely inconsequential to anything in my work) instead of actually writing the story I wanted to tell, and buried me in such a deep and winding morass of details that ended up contradicting things in my story that it all became a huge mess and wasted time.

I keep worlds much simpler now with the attitude that everything in the world should only exist to support the story. Massive layers of history and whatnot are fine, I guess, but I've never read a story and said to myself, "It was okay, but you know what would have made it better? A whole bunch of inconsequential information on history, culture, and how fashion changed over the last century."

If this is something you feel you need to do, then my warning would be, for every piece of world building you invest in, ask yourself how will it specifically support the story you are writing. If you can not come up with a very concrete example of how it will help your characters/plot/conflict then I suggest it isn't worth investing time in. (And no, adding depth and interest is not a specific example.)

I'm going to develop historical figures and implement how much( or little) impact they had on the modern setting [i.e man who invented flight].

Does the whos and hows of the invention of flight in anyway actually directly impact your story? You can have flight exist without a detailed Wright brothers biography.

 

[skip.knox]

Velka is right, of course. But I do not deny the charm of doing the writerly equivalent of "simply messing about in boats". I regard it as time spent on *me* rather than time spent on the story. That way, I have fun with it, and every once in a blue and purple moon, I pick up a tidbit that fits somewhere in an actual story.

 

[WooHooMan]

Ok, here's my advice: go for it. Just do whatever. There's pitfalls about focusing too much on worldbuilding...but whatever, just keep going. There's nothing wrong with deep worldbuilding being the goal.

I would also recommend making a wiki. I find it's the simplest, cleanest way of keeping track of expansive worldbuilding.

Also, keep in mind that if your fantasy world really is its own world, then civilization isn't likely to develop the same as ours. Too often I find that worldbuilders have their technology develop the same as ours (gunpowder precedes electricity and the printing press was built before the automobile or whatever) and often at roughly the same rate.
The same is true for social progress. Like imperialism and social hierarchies being seen as traditional/backwards while democracy and social equality are modern/progressive. Just like how it works in our world.
This is a weird pet-peeve of mine though I generally don't mind when it shows-up in less-deep settings.

 

[skip.knox]

I agree with you, WooHooMan, but there's a danger in being too innovative. As someone mentioned on another thread regarding noble titles, when an author says "prince" readers will bring to that word certain expectations. It doesn't matter that the word derives from princeps, which merely meants "first" and can apply in a variety of situations. Say "prince" and your readers will assume "son, probably eldest, of a king". If you are going to use it in another way, you'll need to explain yourself.

If we start mucking around with too many preconceptions at once, we risk losing our readers. So, that's a tricky one.

A wiki, eh? I have a dedicated Scrivener project for world building, but maybe a wiki ... maybe.

Have I sufficiently hijacked this thread yet?

 

[WooHooMan]

I agree with you, WooHooMan, but there's a danger in being too innovative. As someone mentioned on another thread regarding noble titles, when an author says "prince" readers will bring to that word certain expectations. It doesn't matter that the word derives from princeps, which merely meants "first" and can apply in a variety of situations. Say "prince" and your readers will assume "son, probably eldest, of a king". If you are going to use it in another way, you'll need to explain yourself.

If we start mucking around with too many preconceptions at once, we risk losing our readers. So, that's a tricky one.

Is Oomatu writing for the readers? I thought they were writing for the setting.
I was aiming my advice entirely at Oomatu worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding. Not advice for any writer creating a setting for a story.
Heck, I'm half expecting Oomatu to start writing about the pirinihi who are the earthly incarnations of the ks̄ʹạtriy̒suppexr̒. Whatever. As long as it's internally consistent and defined, it's fine.

 

[Oomatu]

Also, keep in mind that if your fantasy world really is its own world, then civilization isn't likely to develop the same as ours. Too often I find that worldbuilders have their technology develop the same as ours (gunpowder precedes electricity and the printing press was built before the automobile or whatever) and often at roughly the same rate.
The same is true for social progress. Like imperialism and social hierarchies being seen as traditional/backwards while democracy and social equality are modern/progressive. Just like how it works in our world.
This is a weird pet-peeve of mine though I generally don't mind when it shows-up in less-deep settings.

This is more than true in my world. In Islandfall, the Predecessors "skipped" a few technological eras with the help of defecting gods. They developed levitation before bows, teleportation before vehicles, electricity before wires, and AI before textiles. They literally skipped three or four technology tiers and shot straight for the biggies.