• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Thinking of world building as sedimentary rock (and exposition as a drill, not a textbook)

So recently I've been thinking about how to do world building for my massive fantasy world. I've come up with a sort of diagram-like way of thinking of my world building. So, at the bottom layer of my sedimentary rock, I have a fossil. This is the world building that doesn't impact my story in any way at all. Stuff like what type of sword someone used to kill a king. No one cares. The second layer is more ancient history, events which impact the story on an academic level. On the third layer, we have recent history. Politics, wars, that sort of thing. On our final layer, we have that which is immediate to the story. Culture and religion, technology, language.

The second part of thinking of world building as sedimentary rock is using exposition as a drill, not a textbook. We dig into multiple layers at a time with this drill, we can drill small holes, and deep holes in various parts of our rock. The holes will represent that which our characters and readers know about.

I'd like you guys to tell me if you've tried this before, and any problems I might come into in the future by using this mindset.
 

elemtilas

Inkling
Well, they might care if that king is Angmar...

Me I've never thought about geopoesy as sedimentary rock, though I think the analogy is interesting! Kind of like the building block analogy, where the bottom layer is the foundation, the second layer is the rough stones & pillars of the basement and the third layer is the nicely dressed stone of the upper levels. The layering itself certainly makes sense though I'm not sure why an artifact like a sword would be at the bottom layer rather than principals and foundations like laws of Nature. I'd put the sword on level two.

But question: rather than calling them layers "one", "two" and "three", why not pick three prominent layers near your geographical location?

I don't foresee any particular problems using this model. If it works for you, great! So long as it's meaningful and flexible enough for actual use.
 
Well, they might care if that king is Angmar...

Me I've never thought about geopoesy as sedimentary rock, though I think the analogy is interesting! Kind of like the building block analogy, where the bottom layer is the foundation, the second layer is the rough stones & pillars of the basement and the third layer is the nicely dressed stone of the upper levels. The layering itself certainly makes sense though I'm not sure why an artifact like a sword would be at the bottom layer rather than principals and foundations like laws of Nature. I'd put the sword on level two.

But question: rather than calling them layers "one", "two" and "three", why not pick three prominent layers near your geographical location?

I don't foresee any particular problems using this model. If it works for you, great! So long as it's meaningful and flexible enough for actual use.
I could make one of these diagrams per location, perhaps? Thanks!
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I've tried this method before and I find it insufficient. It accounts for depth (barely) but not breadth. It also doesn't do well in understanding the relationships between setting elements.
What that style ultimately boils down to (in my experience) is that you've created four (mostly) arbitrary boxes that categorize elements of your setting by "how much do I expect the reader to care about this piece of information".

I think a wiki is the best possible tool for world building as it not only allows you to add depth to every element of the story but also makes it easy to link one element to several others.
 
I've tried this method before and I find it insufficient. It accounts for depth (barely) but not breadth. It also doesn't do well in understanding the relationships between setting elements.
What that style ultimately boils down to (in my experience) is that you've created four (mostly) arbitrary boxes that categorize elements of your setting by "how much do I expect the reader to care about this piece of information".

I think a wiki is the best possible tool for world building as it not only allows you to add depth to every element of the story but also makes it easy to link one element to several others.
This is really useful advice. How do you make a wiki private?
 

elemtilas

Inkling
There are many private wiki programs out there. They just reside on your own computer and only you have access. I'm sure you can set up an online wiki and require password access even to view it. The former method is certainly the easier!

I use a little program called "Notebook" wiki. I'm not sure if it's being actively developed or supported anymore, though.Works very nicely and is private!
 

WooHooMan

Auror
There are many private wiki programs out there. They just reside on your own computer and only you have access. I'm sure you can set up an online wiki and require password access even to view it. The former method is certainly the easier!

I use a little program called "Notebook" wiki. I'm not sure if it's being actively developed or supported anymore, though.Works very nicely and is private!

I've never heard of Notebook but I think I'll have to look into.
You can make a wiki that can be accessed through an account (I've done this before). The only possible issue is that anyone can access it.
 

Miles Lacey

Archmage
I think there is a serious flaw with the sedimentary rock example that was inadvertently revealed with the comment "Stuff like what type of sword someone used to kill a king. No one cares.". The problem is that those small and seemingly insignificant things that get relegated to the "not relevant" layer can actually have far-reaching consequences.

The sword used to kill a king will become very important. It will become a symbol of liberation for those who hated the king and a symbol of murder or treason for those who loved the king. It will become a symbol of unity or a symbol of division depending on allegiances. People will obsess over the make of sword used to kill the king because they will see it as a sign or as part of a conspiracy. (e,g "John the Smithy made the sword that killed the Great King Hunk-a-Licious! John is a Jew. Therefore the killing of the Great King is part of a Jewish conspiracy!")

What would be irrelevant is that the Great King Hunk-a-Licious ate bacon and eggs that morning unless the Great King is Jewish, Muslim or vegan. Then it becomes a very big deal.
 
I think there is a serious flaw with the sedimentary rock example that was inadvertently revealed with the comment "Stuff like what type of sword someone used to kill a king. No one cares.". The problem is that those small and seemingly insignificant things that get relegated to the "not relevant" layer can actually have far-reaching consequences.

The sword used to kill a king will become very important. It will become a symbol of liberation for those who hated the king and a symbol of murder or treason for those who loved the king. It will become a symbol of unity or a symbol of division depending on allegiances. People will obsess over the make of sword used to kill the king because they will see it as a sign or as part of a conspiracy. (e,g "John the Smithy made the sword that killed the Great King Hunk-a-Licious! John is a Jew. Therefore the killing of the Great King is part of a Jewish conspiracy!")

What would be irrelevant is that the Great King Hunk-a-Licious ate bacon and eggs that morning unless the Great King is Jewish, Muslim or vegan. Then it becomes a very big deal.
Yeah, sure. King Hunk-a-Licious example is fine, I was just trying to think of something I found irrelevant at the time :D

I agree that small things can be very important. Thanks for the critique, it will really help me.
 
Top