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

[Ophiucha]

That, too. I think it's sort of cause and effect. Writers spend all their time drawing maps of eight continents and thirty kingdoms and can't content themselves to leave the story in the capital city of just one. They created this world and they'll be damned if they don't find a way to make their characters explore it.

 

[Neunzehn]

True, true. There's nothing dogmatic about this topic. It's a useful idea that will hopefully help people (including me) be a little more dynamic at times. Typical I enjoy drawing out maps (though I've not done a world) and it seems that if I have an idea of where people in story come from or what the MC might think about them or where they may have to go, then that's nice usage of über world building, (wow that was run on XD)

 

[Ophiucha]

Regardless, I'd like more trains, planes, or otherwise speedy forms of transportation if we are wandering about in the story. Lord knows walking just seems so impractical for all of this. Or, better yet, "And so they headed to the West." (next chapter) "After six months of long travel, they arrived in the West."

 

[JBryden88]

That, too. I think it's sort of cause and effect. Writers spend all their time drawing maps of eight continents and thirty kingdoms and can't content themselves to leave the story in the capital city of just one. They created this world and they'll be damned if they don't find a way to make their characters explore it.

Exploring for exploring's sake can be silly. I know in my case, I draw a map not necessarily so that I can explore the whole thing, infact, my intended novel takes place in one region (that isn't terribly huge - its in a small country and a border of another's land) ... it's more for a reference really.

 

[sashamerideth]

I don't know where I stand on this. My main character is sold to what are pretty much Gypsies so traveling is what the setting is. Eventually he gets free, but he wants to get home so he has to travel.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

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.

Presume away - you've encapsulated my thoughts perfectly.

 

[Telcontar]

Heh heh, musing on this a bit more I've realized that I often don't depict traveling much. I say 'characters X, Y, and Z are now leaving on a journey' and then I switch the POV to a different area where people are doing something more interesting.

 

[Fnord]

As a reader I like grand settings and epic journeys that tickle my imagination. But I'm an explorer type; I'll sit there and stare at fantasy maps and imagine all the people and places within them. That said, *because* I like to explore, I don't want a setting thrown in my face in full detail. I think a grand setting should only really be hinted at and unfold as the story demands. I certainly agree that just having banal traveling as filler isn't terribly interesting, regardless how grandiose or fantastic the world is. It quickly looses its charm if it does that. On top of that, I like stories where the setting unfolds before the characters' eyes with the same sense of wonder as it does for me. If it's pedestrian to the character, then I can't immerse myself in it either. If the entirety of the setting is crammed into my eyes in the first five chapters, then what is left for me to experience? Build a huge world if you want, but keep it hidden. Keep it implied.

I wholly agree with an earlier comment that the "traveling" can be a useful area for character development, but I think you need a certain degree of finesse to pull that off. My favorite book of all time is Moby Dick, and it mostly takes place on a ship with largely just endless water all around and yet I felt the romanticism of the traveling, the exploration, and the hunt itself.

 

[Behelit]

Case in point, if you want to describe your world make it pertinent every time. It doesn't have to mean something directly to the story, but make it meaningful in some way, like character development. Less prefacing and setting of stages, more pewpew?

 

[AvengerofOsiris]

Walking.

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 have to disagree, although I can see how not everyone would. I happen to love detailed fantasy worlds, and I've spent a lot of time reading the back history of Middlearth, for example. I couldn't get enough of it after the Hobbit, and the LoTR trilogy. I've read the Similarion twice (I know most people find it boring, but I didn't) and the Unfinished Tales as well. I do read some fiction solely for the characters...I actually don't like the world of Fire and Ice much, but the characters are awesome and that's why I read it. I wouldn't spend time, for example reading an equivalent of the Similarion for Fire and Ice. But that's just me.

 

[Talmay]

For my writing, the setting must always come first. If that means I need to create a world from the ground up, complete with different continents and history lessons, then I will. But this entirely for my benefit. Knowing a setting like the back of your hand, especially a fantasy one, is very rewarding: not only does it help flesh out the people and establish the rules of the cosmos, but it gives me a nice mental image to build off of. It makes everything really come to life.

I understand the need for moderation. But I don't see the need for reeling in your imagination, or making it a "small world". When you create something so meticulous you just feel the need to show it off; but when your story becomes boggled down by useless information that is in no way relevant to the plot, *then* you tone it down. Blatant exposition should be avoided. Otherwise, go nuts.

 

[Garolsh]

I think it depends on the point of the story. I read a series in high school where the world was smaller than say, the LoTR trilogy but larger than Azeroth (for you fellow WoW nerds). The travel needed to be fast to keep up with the "World is going to end unless..." timeline, and the deeply personal characters (the whole series revolved around the same 3-4 characters) that did not make it prudent to have a huge world.

But take for instance Lord of the Rings... Tolkien's ability to make it a "world is going to end unless..." (or, rather, the world will be consumed with evil unless) story but drag it out over 3 books is something that needed a larger, more detailed world. I don't have that patience, but then again my stories will have a huge earth but be broken into smaller sections for the purposes of the story. There will be new places to adventure in future books, instead of a set, populated world with rigid borders and cultures. In fact, the prologue to my book already incorporates the fusing of several cultural and racial peoples. But I also hope to write more than one book, so having a flexible world is important to my evolution.