It's a small world. At least, it should be.

[At Dusk I Reign]

Walking.

I'm not a fan, I must admit. I'll do it when I have to, but too many years of traipsing through rough terrain have turned my knees to biscuits – they're firm to look at but crumble easily. A sedan chair would be a boon in this day and age, but no matter how generous the wages I'm sure I'd be accused of exploiting the proletariat. Huh, that's progress for you.

Whatever my perambulatory problems though, I'm delighted I don't live in a generic fantasy world. There's a lot of walking to be done in those. Traipsing about on foot (or horse, which presents its own problems) seems to have become de rigueur, with or without the mortis.

And that's the killer, so to speak.

Consider the Gormenghast trilogy by Mervyn Peake. The action occurs in a castle for the most part, but the reader is never left thinking 'what's the point of this, then?'

And that's one of the most annoying things about fantasy novels today. They don't seem to have been spawned purely from an idea or a philosophy. Rather, the authors have immediately bent their minds to world creation, no doubt spending much time fleshing out a perfectly-realised planet on which their characters can congregate but never thinking to themselves: is any of this really necessary?

In most cases, I believe, the answer is no. Flitting from A to B and eventually to Z may be great for boosting word count, but it seldom serves any useful purpose. Indeed, most trilogies could happily lose all of the second book and a fifth of the third and the reader would be just as happy.

Characters matter in a work of fiction. They decide whether we choose to continue reading. Setting is secondary, and should only be there as a backdrop. Unless you intend to do a Peake and make the setting a character in itself, there's no need for it to take up so much space on a page.

I'd like to think I'm not alone in my view, though it's always a possibility (shock! horror!) So what do you think, fellow fans? Is fiction (regardless of genre) best set on a small stage with limited furniture, or have I finally lost touch with reality (or, in this case, fantasy)?

 

[JBryden88]

I think it depends on how the large stage is.

The benefits IMO to major world building is that you know your world if you decide to tell other stories besides the ones you first aim to tell.

Using a large stage vs. a small stage however in the actual writing? Again, it depends. Alot of fantasy stories DO have useless description of traveling. Others however, use the traveling as a perfect "downtime" for some character development without the actual main story conflict, which is kinda nice. Sometimes I like to see characters bonding without the threat of XYZ looming above them.

I think its a matter of context.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

The benefits IMO to major world building is that you know your world if you decide to tell other stories besides the ones you first aim to tell.

Do you really need to know your world in such painful detail from the beginning, though? More importantly, does the reader? Do people really care about which province belongs to whom if it has little bearing on the plot?

Others however, use the traveling as a perfect "downtime" for some character development without the actual main story conflict, which is kinda nice. Sometimes I like to see characters bonding without the threat of XYZ looming above them.

Can't downtime occur whatever the setting or its relative size? That's down to plotting, surely, and isn't dependent on acreage?

 

[JBryden88]

I really think context is the key.

Sure, you could keep it in the confines of a castle or village. And if that's the natural progression of the story, and what the characters intend to do so be it.

But, using a perfect example from what I'm writing. There's a key scene where my main characters are basically riding back from a battle with some bandits, to the castle to report to the king. In that ride, while I may describe the sweeping grasslands and the highlands of the country the characters are in, the focus is on the fact that these three main characters are having something of a bonding moment. They're talking, they're joking, and you get some insight into who they are in that moment alone.

If that moment didn't feel "in character" then it wouldn't happen. That's at least, my thought. If there is no reason for something to happen it shouldn't happen.

As much as I respect what Tolkien did for the genre, I -loathe- reading Lord of the Rings because so much fat could have been cut out because it didn't add anything.

That's probably the real question. Does it add anything? If so, then it's necessary, and if not, then it's not.

 

[Neunzehn]

I've had this idea before, though not in so many words.

It seems that in many cases the travel description is written for the author and could be done without (or more likely reduced). I seem to remember that those are the parts that I often can't help but scan though.

On the other hand without knowing what the world looks like through the MC things could feel a little empty, so I don't see why, in most cases, travel description should be mostly removed. I suppose it depends on how well plot will work without reader knowing and having the "feel" of the world that it takes place in.

I'm reading the Hobbit again. And it has struck me that his descriptions of Middle Earth are as short as they can be to get the job done. That is, to get the same picture in roughly the same way, to produce the same sense of dread, comfort, quite ect. Honestly there are ways that it isn't a "descriptive" book, but it is without taking up much space.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

@ JBryden88: I'm not suggesting that world-building should be confined to one physical location, be it a village or a keep. I merely suggest that creating an entire world is a waste of intellectual resources unless there's a very good reason why the protagonist should visit each and every area on his way to fulfilling his destiny (every hero's got to have a destiny, apparently). Kay's Tigana succeeded as a work of fiction despite having a limited geographical setting. I guess I just deplore the mindset which thinks world-building is more important than compelling characters. It seldom is in my experience.

@ Neunzehn: I'm a big Tolkien fan: he did it right. He had a reason to create Middle-earth. So many authors these days seem to world-build because they think it's expected of them.

[I'm too slow to edit properly...]

 

[JBryden88]

Well, with world building, I create as much detail as I can because I like to

I like to know the history, and general idea of the cultures and peoples I'm writing about before I write them. Then, when I have more details, I add it to my little "codex" I have written up.

 

[Neunzehn]

I believe you are correct. I'm wondering. Why do you think people feel the need to focus on world building?

Personally I suppose that it's related to hoarding. I've begun my story without building the whole world (though I have a general idea) and it seems that people are trying to prepare for however the story might take place. Or perhaps they assume that they will write more books in that world? It just seems like over preparedness.

Edit: Although JBryden88 brings a point to mind. A first draft tends to have a lot of unnecessarily stuff in it. Maybe there's a connection with excess of info in the earlier drafts of a story and the early world building "shrugs"

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

Well, with world building, I create as much detail as I can because I like to

And there's nothing wrong with that. Unless you intend members of the public to buy your work, in which case I come back to my original question: how much is necessary?

I believe you are correct. I'm wondering. Why do you think people feel the need to focus on world building?

Personally I suppose that it's related to hoarding. I've begun my story without building the whole world (though I have a general idea) and it seems that people are trying to prepare for however the story might take place. Or perhaps they assume that they will write more books in that world? It just seems like over preparedness.

It's a mentality fantasy fans have developed. Like thinking they have to write a trilogy because Tolkien was originally published in that form (apparently post-war austerity plays no part in their thinking). I'm like you. I start with a character and gradually build the world around them. Doing things the other way around seems wrong-headed to me. But hey, what do I know?

 

[Telcontar]

Hmmm... nah, I disagree. Show me the world.

Of course, you can't bore me while you do it - and that's one hell of a caveat. Whether or not the various 'travelling' sequences will serve a purpose really differs from reader to reader. A lot of character building can happen as your cast jaunts about the countryside. You can show time passing if that is necessary. Or you can just lose yourself (and your reader) in beautiful prose depicting a well-imagined and interesting world.

What I'm saying is, so long as the writing isn't BORING, it serves a purpose. If a writer can keep me entertained with world-building details, great! Good for them. I find it likely that I'll eventually start thinking "Okay... back to the story now?" and that is the responsibility of the author to predict.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

A lot of character building can happen as your cast jaunts about the countryside.

Indeed it can. But mainly due to the fact that it's become a truism of fantasy fiction. A talented writer can build character in a single room. I personally consider moving from A to Z a lazy device and the sign of an author devoid of anything more interesting to write.

Or you can just lose yourself (and your reader) in beautiful prose depicting a well-imagined and interesting world.

Of course, but the world doesn't have to be a billion miles wide for that to apply. A village can be interesting if the author is talented enough to unearth its various mysteries. So too a single house. Continents, I feel, are a step too far for most.

If a writer can keep me entertained with world-building details, great! Good for them.

But that's the problem, isn't it (at least for me)? I don't care about the details. I won't shed a single tear if I don't know how a certain dress was weaved or where the silk came from. I'm interested in character. I'm interested in what the author thinks. I want to know how both view certain political/social issues. All the rest is frippery, surely? Shouldn't good fiction hold a mirror up to the world?

 

[Amanita]

Actually, I like the travelling. Meeting new people on the way, having to deal with alien cultures not knowing how to behave, passing through dangerous territory, getting lost, ending up in dubious places and so on are among the fantasy clichés I really like to see.
At least as long as it’s a) done well, b) suits the story and c) furthers the plot. In Lord of the Rings this has definitely been the case, in some other works it doesn’t really work. Harry Potter is an example for this. The main characters don’t come across anything interesting till they’re stupid enough to call the bad guys and get information from them by accident. If the story is going like that it’s better to keep it limited to one location. (Such as Hogwarts and the surrounding area.)
If there’s a thread to be fought that endangers the whole county or a war that brings chaos everywhere, the story can’t really be limited to a small location in my opinion. If the whole country/world is supposed to be in danger but we only see the effects on the main character it’s easy to believe that the danger for the world at large isn’t so great at all and/or that it doesn’t need the main character to do anything about it. (Once again something that didn’t really work in Harry Potter.)
I also like stories that feature more than one interesting and important location and characters that might have to travel between them with no big focus on the journey.

There are plenty of stories that can be done without journeys or building entire world including the already mentioned school settings, castles full of intrigue, cities with political troubles, cities or villages with magical problems only affecting this one place or even houses with the same situation (This is a common thing in horror stories but also works with more fantastical settings.) or magical institutions set in one place and suffering from power struggles, the bad guys trying to get in charge etc. Or…

One of the greatest things about fantasy are the many possibilities, pity that most writers and publishers only use so few of them.

 

[Neunzehn]

The idea (I think) is that fantasy writers have become too consistent in how they use travel. Not that they shouldn't, or that it doesn't serve a purpose. It's all right to give detailed description of a world, but in many cases/for certain plots, this should be cut down considerably.

A story who's focus is intrigue, power struggles or relationships might use a number of things aside from travel to build characters and give richness to things. On the other hand a sea faring adventure might not have too much of a choice (though it could be worked around).

In a nutshell it's overused. But it's useful, when appropriate and done correctly and almost every story needs it up to a point.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

I like the travelling. Meeting new people on the way, having to deal with alien cultures not knowing how to behave, passing through dangerous territory...

There's nothing wrong with any of that. I'm happy for characters to explore the world they've been given. I just have problems with characters who move hither and thither because the author has bought into the lie about fantasy fiction.

Harry Potter is an example for this.

Don't get me started on children's fiction, please! Mortal Engines by Phillip Reeve deserves much more recognition than Harry Potter. Grr...I'm biting the cat now in frustration, even though
I don't own one...

One of the greatest things about fantasy are the many possibilities.

Indeed. Fantasy means many things to many people. That's its triumph, but also its downfall. I'm not against jaunts around mythical landscapes. Done well they're a joy. I just despair of those who think such things are a prerequisite to writing in the genre. They're not, nor should they ever be.

In a nutshell it's overused. But it's useful, when appropriate and done correctly and almost every story needs it up to a point.

Amen to that.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

(I've only just noticed I missed out the 'a' in the thread title. Duh! Don't worry, I'll punish myself. Whips may be involved. Also cream, depending on how persuasive I can be...)

 

[Ophiucha]

I didn't solidify most of the major details of my world until the fifth draft or so. Needless to say, I don't consider it to be of the utmost importance, and my story is about traveling to new cities. But it's about the characters and their experiences, and less about the aeroplanes or new breeds of faery they might discover there. It is a very colorful, vibrant, and interactive backdrop, but it is firmly placed behind the characters and - honestly - it is not in any way fully realized. I am very much against the idea of setting other stories in an established world, because I've never seen it done well. More accurately, I have never seen it done in a way that did not require a little retroactive continuity. Oh, retcon, you raise your ugly head. Aside from Anthony and Pratchett who start their series out with the firm guideline that things are going to change in this world to fit later stories, deal with it, near every author and otherwise established canon is forced to change one thing or another for the sake of a better story. You simply cannot create a world that is so all inclusive unless all of your books are going to simply be about the world as opposed to the characters or plot.

I get miffed when people say worldbuilding is the end-all, be-all to writing fantasy, as well. Michael Moorcock, on his forum, has said, (in response to someone asking about worldbuilding) "I don't do world building. I tell stories. The places exist because they serve the narrative. I don't sit about drawing maps and working out the GNP of Melnibone. Indeed, I'm rather inclined to consider that the death of imagination. I've no objection to others spending their time doing that, of course, and I understand its fascination, but maybe there's someone else here who can give you a more positive and helpful answer. " Can't argue with Moorcock, can I?

 

[Black Dragon]

You can hold off on the self-flagellation. The thread title has been fixed. Feel free to go ahead with the cream, though, if that's your thing.

(I've only just noticed I missed out the 'a' in the thread title. Duh! Don't worry, I'll punish myself. Whips may be involved. Also cream, depending on how persuasive I can be...)

 

[Telcontar]

Aw, you should have left it...

As to this:

Shouldn't good fiction hold a mirror up to the world?

Fiction has one purpose - to entertain. The best fiction may be so much more, but I hardly think we can hold most of it to that standard.

You say that you don't care for detail - I take it you mean non-character detail. In that case, perhaps the so-called "Epic" fantasy simply isn't your cup of tea. In fact, I would say fantasy itself isn't your cup of tea. The ONLY thing that remains constant through every single genre is people.

People are always the same. The challenges they face may be different, thus leading to a different mix of characters and personalities, but it's always just people. Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the genres where the author has to waste time on extraneous details like 'the nature of reality.' I guess historical fiction requires a bit of that as well, but not nearly to the same degree...

So I guess my question to you is... why do you like fantasy, if you don't particularly care for alternate worlds?

 

[Ophiucha]

Fantasy is not defined by its gratuitous detail, it is defined by being otherworldly, if not in another world, then by being in our world - but different. With the addition of vampires, often. I have never been to Chicago, and if I pick up a book that takes place in Chicago, I don't expect - or desire - any description of the lights in the city, the parks, the schools, the local government, the entertainment, unless any of those are part of the story. I don't know a damn thing about the city, and I don't need to in order to read the story, more often that not.

I believe, though do not presume, that Dusk simply means that though these words are foreign, perhaps fantastically so, it does not necessarily mean that these stories should drag us down and around with the setting simply because nobody has experienced it. And, perhaps more importantly, you don't need to go everywhere IN the setting just because you designed. We may not know it all, but we don't need to in order to understand what drives the characters and why they are the way they are. And, also, walking around is boring.

 

[Neunzehn]

I know I'm not that one your asking, but the idea is that long travel descriptions are overused. Not that they (much less the description of alternate worlds) should be thoroughly avoided.