The 'Middle-Earth' Dilemma: Too much backstory

[Azul-din]

"No one" is overstatement. I hate it when the works don't have "worldbuilding notes" included, be it as appendices a la Tolkien, or separate books a la Martin.

Oh by all means include them, if it suits your personal taste. My point was, that what is crucially important is that you, the writer, have all of this detail in your mind as you write. Tolkien was very good at this, dropping bits of information which melded seamlessly into the narrative, as in Strider's conversations with the Hobbits, drawing on a whole history which in the end he couldn't resist writing down separately. As Hamlet says, though, 'the Play's the thing'.

 

[Aldarion]

Oh by all means include them, if it suits your personal taste. My point was, that what is crucially important is that you, the writer, have all of this detail in your mind as you write. Tolkien was very good at this, dropping bits of information which melded seamlessly into the narrative, as in Strider's conversations with the Hobbits, drawing on a whole history which in the end he couldn't resist writing down separately. As Hamlet says, though, 'the Play's the thing'.

Yeah. It is important to have world built up beyond what is just in the books, because that then can give it a sense of history. But you are mistaken about Strider's conversation with the Hobbits: Tolkien first wrote down said history and then referenced it in the conversation. Silmarillion and related writings came first; Lord of the Rings came when Tolkien decided to integrate originally completely unrelated Hobbit into said mythology.

Anyway:

https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1225&context=mythlore

 

[Azul-din]

Yeah. It is important to have world built up beyond what is just in the books, because that then can give it a sense of history. But you are mistaken about Strider's conversation with the Hobbits: Tolkien first wrote down said history and then referenced it in the conversation. Silmarillion and related writings came first; Lord of the Rings came when Tolkien decided to integrate originally completely unrelated Hobbit into said mythology.

Anyway:

https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1225&context=mythlore

Subject to correction, referencing a previously written history does not obviate the point that LOTR is a stand alone book and does not require (except for savants such as yourself) having read the previous volume. Here's another point- it frequently happens when I am writing that some element comes up which suddenly begs to be explained or justified, which requires some quick hard thinking and/or even rewriting of previous chapters. Do not be a slave to your notes and histories!

 

[Finchbearer]

I think Tolkien was an excellent worldbuilder, but not a great storyteller.

 

[pmmg]

For me, if it catches on, I intend to have a website.

But...while I do have tons of stuff that would be of interest to those wanting to know the world, they story follows a character is not worldly, and does not know it. So, to give the reader information beyond what they know and what would be their experience in it, would hurt the understanding of being in their role in it. As the author, I do regret that so much is not made plain, but I want to experience of the reader to grow with the story, and not from extraneous stuff outside of it.

I do have readers who have commented that they want to know all that history, and my response is usually, but you do understand why its not there. The MC doesn't know it, and we are following from their perspective. (course, now my answer is, you need to read book 3, cause that's where a lot of it is).

My feeling is, to ask for this stuff up front is to not give credit to the artistic vision of the author. It may be they just don't feel its meant to be introduced first, or at all.

In my own story, I have a number of early races, and their history is mostly unknown. I'd not mind spelling it all out, but not just for the sake of it in the narrative of the books.

If one day, I find my self big like LOTR and GOT, I suppose I'll make all those companion books.

 

[Aldarion]

Subject to correction, referencing a previously written history does not obviate the point that LOTR is a stand alone book and does not require (except for savants such as yourself) having read the previous volume. Here's another point- it frequently happens when I am writing that some element comes up which suddenly begs to be explained or justified, which requires some quick hard thinking and/or even rewriting of previous chapters. Do not be a slave to your notes and histories!

You are missing the point here.

My point was how having an already pre-built world - setting, mythology and so on - allowed Tolkien to have far more depth and context to his story than will have been possible had he immediately started with Lord of the Rings. The entirety of Lord of the Rings is just peppered with references and details that add to story's depth and sense of mystery. These references only really make sense after one has read the Hobbit, the Silmarillion and/or Unfinished Tales, but you don't need to. Even without having read any of these works, presence of said references adds depth to the world; it lets reader know that there is, in fact, world full of stories beyond just the story he is reading right now, and that knowledge makes Lord of the Rings feel alive and real in a way very few other works manage to pull off (Harry Potter certainly doesn't).

If you are there only for the story, you may not even notice that stuff. But somebody (like myself) who enjoys not only the story but also the world itself will notice and appreciate this "unnecessary" detail.

A puddle may also look nice on the surface. But somebody who enjoys swimming will certainly appreciate a nice deep lake far better!

 

[Foxkeyes]

As part of my strategy to develop an interesting secondary world, and avoid cluttering up my website with 'everything' I've created, I am currently training an AI chatbot to provide information about my world to site visitors.

I will shortly be looking for volunteers to help me to test this. So, if anyone's interested, I'll be 'pleading' for volunteers tomorrow or Tuesday.

 

[D. Gray Warrior]

A common issue I have with my current fantasy series [I call it a Unity, not a Duo or a Trilogy] is that I've explored too many different races and cultures that simply won't fit into one book or even three. I have so much interesting 'material' [for lack of a better word], but it's all currently in the appendices section of the second book, and I'm not sure what to do with it all.

Well, you could make a world encyclopedia for it. It's not essential for understanding the story, but it's there for people who want to learn more about the lore of the world that may not pertain to the story directly.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

"No one" is overstatement. I hate it when the works don't have "worldbuilding notes" included, be it as appendices a la Tolkien, or separate books a la Martin.

This, there are more than enough hardcore fans of certain stories and settings. Some people even learn Middle Earth languages like real ones. The sister of a friend learned the elven language (I think it was that one?) and had a quote tattooed. That dedication is really impressive. xD

 

[Finchbearer]

The Elven glyphs are really beautiful.

 

[Gallio]

But, a fair bit of time is spent with orcs/goblins, enough to gain an understanding of how they're organized and do things.

Except that there is no clue as to how they procreate. Not a single female orc anywhere.

 

[Aldarion]

Except that there is no clue as to how they procreate. Not a single female orc anywhere.

And why would there be? The only ones who go into orcish territory (with orcs still alive) are Frodo and Sam, and they take pains to avoid the orcs.

You need to work out a lot of details if you want to build a consistent world, but that doesn't mean you have to put everything down on the page. But that particular question I am not sure Tolkien himself every really worked out.

 

[Gallio]

And why would there be? The only ones who go into orcish territory (with orcs still alive) are Frodo and Sam, and they take pains to avoid the orcs.

You need to work out a lot of details if you want to build a consistent world, but that doesn't mean you have to put everything down on the page. But that particular question I am not sure Tolkien himself every really worked out.

It would just make the orcs a little less one-dimensional, in my opinion.

 

[Aldarion]

It would just make the orcs a little less one-dimensional, in my opinion.

They are hardly one-dimensional as it is. Just discussion between Shagrat and Gorbag gives orcs more depth than most villains - including modern "grey" ones - really have.

 

[pmmg]

Tolkien did provide a bit of lore about his orcs, but I think he always felt it was not completely settled where they came from and how they renewed their numbers. His explanation of them changed several times throughout his life. I think he could never quite logically get over his idea that Evil could not create, and Orcs had to come from somewhere, but if not from the evil side, then where? To me, it feels like he got stuck with a comment he later thought differently on, but it was too much a part of the lore to outright change.

However, the idea arrived at was that Orcs were fashioned of stone before the appearance of elves, and after they were fashioned and born of corrupted elves and men.

Tolkien did make a comment in a letter once that he believed there would be female orcs, but not many and they don't appear in his story.


Tolkien wrote in the Similrillion: For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar.

It does imply a birth cycle, and by inference, female orcs.

 

[rubixxcube]

No such thing as too much lore. Keep building off your world as much as you want! But when writing, only include the necessary. I know it feels like practically cutting off your arm, but if lore junkies want more you can release it away from completely official material. Lore makes the world, not the story.

 

[Finchbearer]

Without having read all of Tolkien’s life story and letters and so on… my take on the orcs is that he probably wanted them to be somewhat ambiguous. They’re representative of something bigger than them being portrayed as individuals. Just like in a war, you see soldiers who are simply the enemy, not individuals with wives and mothers and daughters all safe at home in their orc burrows or something.

 

[pmmg]

I would agree, and Tolkien, I think was aware of the shortcomings. And I suspect he wrestled with them till he died.

The obvious question, if the orcs were born of female orcs, did the orcs love their children too? And there would be great implications from the answer.

Orcs, and most evil races, have built in issues. How can they build siege engines without some type of craftsmanship, and a way to learn it? What orc is raised as a craftsmen? Who prefects their trade? They dont even seem to have trade. Who makes their stuff? Who does the agriculture? Who makes the bread? How can a race so prone to violence ever grow and expand? How can they be true to their evil nature and ever work together?

So...its like a big blank spot in their culture. But...it was not needed to answer to satisfy the LOTR. Just the fanbase that came from it.

 

[Aldarion]

Orcs, and most evil races, have built in issues. How can they build siege engines without some type of craftsmanship, and a way to learn it? What orc is raised as a craftsmen? Who prefects their trade? They dont even seem to have trade. Who makes their stuff? Who does the agriculture? Who makes the bread? How can a race so prone to violence ever grow and expand? How can they be true to their evil nature and ever work together?

None of that is actually an issue, though, at least for Tolkien's orcs.

Evil and violence are not one and the same. There may well be orcs who are evil but not violent, and instead turn their evil tendencies towards science - think Dr. Orcdele. In fact, Orcs are some of the great innovators in Middle-Earth: it is noted in the Hobbit that it was the orcs who had come up with gunpowder and many other evil inventions that had plagued the world for centuries afterwards. Elves are craftsmen - but the orcs are industrialists, effective and efficient.

So to answer your questions from the perspective of Tolkien's orcs specifically:

1. How can they build siege engines without some type of craftsmanship, and a way to learn it? - Orcs do have craftsmanship, and obviously a way to transfer it somehow. Just remember how effective orcish medicine was in the Two Towers when they were treating Merry and Pippin's wounds!
2. What orc is raised as a craftsmen? - Who knows, and why should we know? Personally, I imagine they likely have actual schools, in keeping with their industrial and impersonal way of doing things.
3. Who prefects their trade? They dont even seem to have trade. - We don't know if they do or do not. But you don't need trade when you have colonies.
4. Who makes their stuff? - Orcs do.
5. Who does the agriculture? Who makes the bread? - For Mordor orcs, there are massive agricultural fields around Lake of Nurnen that are worked by slaves. Rest of the orcs, we don't know - but somebody obviously does, likely orcs themselves.
6. How can a race so prone to violence ever grow and expand? - Same way how human tribes prone to violence could and can grow and expand. By breeding more quickly than they are able to kill each other off.
7. How can they be true to their evil nature and ever work together? - Why would "evil nature" prevent them from working together? They merely follow the biggest bully in the block.

 

[Finchbearer]

Orcs, and most evil races, have built in issues. How can they build siege engines without some type of craftsmanship, and a way to learn it? What orc is raised as a craftsmen? Who prefects their trade? They dont even seem to have trade. Who makes their stuff? Who does the agriculture? Who makes the bread? How can a race so prone to violence ever grow and expand? How can they be true to their evil nature and ever work together?

I think these are very valid questions. Without getting into a discussion that is too political in nature, there are many present day real world examples of an extremist or isolated groups that are largely headed by males, ‘behind the scenes’ you inevitably have women, children and the elderly or infirm, where the system is largely ineffective, dangerous or damaging.