World Building > Writing Skill?

[Zero Angel]

How many authors other than Tolkien are known first and foremost for world-building and not for storytelling and/or writing?

Apparently, Sanderson markets himself (or I should say his publisher markets him) as a "master of secondary creation in the same vein as Tolkien" (I'm quoting from a book jacket that I am recalling from memory, so I may be off slightly on exact words).

So there's one!

I'd say Weis & Hickman, Norton & Lackey and Anne McCaffrey are known more for their worlds than their writing and definitely George Lucas as well.

Even so, writing has to be momentous for you to really remember it. You have to have the exact perfect lines and words and delivery for you to quote something directly. In other genres, it is easy to remember story, but in the speculative fiction genres, world-building frequently interweaves with story and is yet another thing that is easy to remember and notice.

Nowadays I find myself in the position where I will go back to re-read old series and be beyond annoyed by the writing of them. This has happened to me recently when I went back to read the Halfblood Chronicles of Norton and Lackey. I loved the world and the ideas, but the execution frustrated me. I found myself skimming entire pages to get to the next "goody" I remembered. (Yikes! Didn't know Andre Norton died...or that she was 93!)

 

[Shockley]

George Luvas doesn't really fit in this topic - his novels were ghostwritten (natural for a director I would guess).

 

[Zero Angel]

George Luvas doesn't really fit in this topic - his novels were ghostwritten (natural for a director I would guess).

? I'd say that is the quintessential example then. George Lucas can't write worth crap and pays other people to write about his ideas which become wildly successful not because of the writers writing for him, but because they are from his world.

 

[Ankari]

? I'd say that is the quintessential example then. George Lucas can't write worth crap and pays other people to write about his ideas which become wildly successful not because of the writers writing for him, but because they are from his world.

Actually, George Lucas is the best example of this. He just made $4.4 billion for selling a world he created. As Zero Angel pointed, out, his writing sucks or doesn't exist (ghost writing).

 

[Shockley]

Well, I figured we were talking solely about books, and I don't think his Star Wars novel fits the bill since he didn't write it. So it's a rough area.

 

[Ankari]

I've continued to think on this subject and have come to this theory:

Great world building is parallel to an author that gives a reader enough description in a story to allow the reader to plug in the rest with his imagination.

As authors, we seek the perfect balance in description. Enough to give the reader an idea of what's going on, but not too much that we stamp the imagination element out of the reading experience. Great world building does just that. We build enough of a living world to provide a framework for the reader to imagine the rest. The reader than creates the best story; the one in his head.

Think of all the best world building projects. Tolkien's Middle Earth, Lucas' Star Wars universe, TSR (WotC) Dungeons & Dragons, Steven Erikson's Malazan universe, Robert Jordan WoT universe, George RR Martin's ASOIAF universe, Warhammer, and World of Warcraft. For those of us who still visit the bookstore, you'll see displays and aisles full of these books. In many cases, multiple authors contribute to these universes.

Not to mention all the cosplay, conventions, LARPs, and little boys and girls who conceive such dreams in the first one of these universes introduced to them.

Soon you can add R Scott Bakker, Dragon Age (there are two or three books and counting), Elder Scrolls (Oblivion and Skyrim), Assassin's Creed and Everquest (they are launching a new game in a couple years. They would have been on the list had their second game been as successful as their first game.)

Now, compare the success of these intellectual properties to that of authors who are amazingly skilled writers. There are some overlaps, but not much. I know you can list some authors that seem masters of the English language, but are not on that list. I've never read him, but I hear China Mieville and Guy Gavriel Kay would be such authors.

 

[ThinkerX]

Great world building is parallel to an author that gives a reader enough description in a story to allow the reader to plug in the rest with his imagination.

Or...great worldbuilding is a key 'building block' to a great story.

It provides depth, makes the world something other than a series of backdrops with the odd extra or bit player roaming around. Hence, not just a castle on a hill, but a castle built by the invading Chomak barbarians five hundred years ago which changed hands in the bloody 'feast of knives' two hundred years after that and is now occupied by Lady Humbolt, as Lord Humbolt is off on crusade against the infidels. Those details, worked into the text, give depth not just to the castle, but the whole region.

Now, compare the success of these intellectual properties to that of authors who are amazingly skilled writers. There are some overlaps, but not much. I know you can list some authors that seem masters of the English language, but are not on that list. I've never read him, but I hear China Mieville and Guy Gavriel Kay would be such authors.

China Mieville creates detailed bizarre worlds...or rather highly detailed bizarre cities.

Guy Gavriel Kay...never could get into his stuff.

Andre Norton - her 'Witch World' grew...on its own, yet is amazingly consistent despite that - and despite quite a few other (mostly female) authors adding large chunks to it.

Kate Elliot's 'Crown of Stars' - dang impressive world building (even if the world map looked like a warped version of europe and africa) with a cast of scores and a detailed history. Well written...but you might have to look a bit to find copies these days.

Feist 'Midkemia'...good worldbuilding, good enough to where there were some video games and even some AD&D type stuff released for it. First books are good, but the more recent ones...not so good.

Compare with Moorcocks 'Eternal Champion' (Elric) or Liebers "Fafhrd and Mouser' tales...the world building in those is mostly backdrop type stuff. But the characterization - for the MC's at least - is good enough to make the tales work regardless.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think a related topic is perhaps more important: How do you build a world?

A lot of writers on boards like this one, perhaps, get into writing fantasy because they enjoy creating backdrops for stories. To me, though, the world is just that - a backdrop to the story. If you set out to build a world, I think you're probably going to end up with a lot of dry passages.

Instead, perhaps try to think of world building like character building. A character is defined by his actions. If I want a character to be strong, I do not ever write, "Jake was strong." Instead, I create a scene where Jake does something that shows he is strong.

A world is defined by the events that take place in it and by the characters who inhabit it. If you want to show a feature of a world, create a scene that demonstrates that feature.

For both world and character building, however, the scenes that you create must integrate into the plot.

If you do your world building in this manner, you're not going to end up sacrificing the story, and you'll keep the reader interested.

 

[Ankari]

Instead, perhaps try to think of world building like character building. A character is defined by his actions. If I want a character to be strong, I do not ever write, "Jake was strong." Instead, I create a scene where Jake does something that shows he is strong.

A world is defined by the events that take place in it and by the characters who inhabit it. If you want to show a feature of a world, create a scene that demonstrates that feature.

I'm reading a book, The Weekend Novelist, which talks about character building. I liked much of what the author has to say on the subject. One of the things he points out is that a character needs to have a history. He advises that main characters should have a time line of major events of their life. From these major events, you'll harvest fears, ambitions, prejudices, likes and dislikes. You put all of this down in a character sheet, along with descriptions (physical and nonphysical). By the time you're done, you'll have a living character.

I think world building is exactly as you put it: "world building (is) like character building." I think a universe that has received the same level of detail that a character gets in a story will add a dynamic, and lasting, appeal to a book. This is especially true if the world will serve as a setting for more than one story.

World building doesn't mean you have paragraphs of dry description. It means that when a character interacts with a vendor in a new land, the reader can detected how jarring the exchange is between them. Or when a character sees a woman of high rank and he asks for her hand in a dance, the ballroom gasps in disbelief because the MC is nothing more than a mercenary lucky to have lived long enough to acquire his wealth.

Those are not dry examples. They give the reader more to consume. They give the reader a framework for their imagination to generate endless stories and possibilities. You see how such things have made Tolkien's work thrive so many years after they've were originally published.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm reading a book, The Weekend Novelist, which talks about character building. I liked much of what the author has to say on the subject. One of the things he points out is that a character needs to have a history. He advises that main characters should have a time line of major events of their life. From these major events, you'll harvest fears, ambitions, prejudices, likes and dislikes. You put all of this down in a character sheet, along with descriptions (physical and nonphysical). By the time you're done, you'll have a living character.

I think world building is exactly as you put it: "world building (is) like character building." I think a universe that has received the same level of detail that a character gets in a story will add a dynamic, and lasting, appeal to a book. This is especially true if the world will serve as a setting for more than one story.

World building doesn't mean you have paragraphs of dry description. It means that when a character interacts with a vendor in a new land, the reader can detected how jarring the exchange is between them. Or when a character sees a woman of high rank and he asks for her hand in a dance, the ballroom gasps in disbelief because the MC is nothing more than a mercenary lucky to have lived long enough to acquire his wealth.

Those are not dry examples. They give the reader more to consume. They give the reader a framework for their imagination to generate endless stories and possibilities. You see how such things have made Tolkien's work thrive so many years after they've were originally published.

If these things impact the story, I have no problem with them. It's when details that have no bearing on plot are added that I have issue with.

World building for the sake of building a world does nothing for the story. The author needs to make intelligent decisions on exactly what detail is needed.

Is that vendor interaction integral to the plot? Does the reader need to understand that an exchange is jarring? If so, then great! If not, the author needs to cut it.

 

[ThinkerX]

If these things impact the story, I have no problem with them. It's when details that have no bearing on plot are added that I have issue with.

World building for the sake of building a world does nothing for the story. The author needs to make intelligent decisions on exactly what detail is needed.

Is that vendor interaction integral to the plot? Does the reader need to understand that an exchange is jarring? If so, then great! If not, the author needs to cut it.

The problem here is you run the risk of a world which is 'bland' from end to end. MC starts in a hometown with a generic tavern, generic market, with a generic castle on a generic hill nearby - all populated by generic charcters straight from central casting. MC leaves hometown, travels across generic mountains, through generic forests, and despite a journey of thousands of miles ends up in another generic town with much the same generic elements as the first, with just a very few tweaks to set it apart from the town he started in.

This is what the old line 'sword and sorcery' authors used to do - Lieber with "Ffahrd and Mouser', Moorcock with the 'Eternal Champion' series, as well as Lin Carter and Howard. In their works, the world...isn't much more than a quickly painted backdrop...and it shows.

At times, Brian, you seem to be following in their footsteps here, allbeit with more modern prose.

In my current world I have a number of different countries because the tales I write require different settings within the same world. Solaria, for example, is entering into a tumultuous time of social reform and industrial revolution. Cimmar, on the other side of the ocean, is locked in old style (russian/norse) feudalism with no major social changes or industrial revoluition in sight.

In Solaria, you can send a message via semaphore towers over thousands of miles in a days time. Bicycles are common, as are telescopes, microscopes, and complex spring / steam mechanisms. It also boasts a uniform law code (badly flawed in some respects).

In Cimmar, messages are sent via riders or riverboats, and can take months to reach their destination. Outside of a couple cities, the techological innovations common in Solaria are unknown. In Solaria, the nobility is at least partly bound by the law; in Cimmar each Boyar (petty noble) is almost a petty king with near absolute powers in his own right.

I'm barely scratching the surface here. What is doable in Cimmar would not work in Solaria.

Yet, with the type of writing you appear to be promoting, you'd have substantial difficulty getting these differences across to the reader: instead it seems as though you'd use the same generic backdrop for both realms, with maybe a few quick alterations.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

The problem here is you run the risk of a world which is 'bland' from end to end. MC starts in a hometown with a generic tavern, generic market, with a generic castle on a generic hill nearby - all populated by generic charcters straight from central casting. MC leaves hometown, travels across generic mountains, through generic forests, and despite a journey of thousands of miles ends up in another generic town with much the same generic elements as the first, with just a very few tweaks to set it apart from the town he started in.

And nobody comments that the MC wears funny clothes or talks funny or eats with his fingers. Indeed, everybody speaks the same language (let's call it the Common Tongue, shall we?). And everywhere the same political system, usually the patriarchal rule of primogeniture, although luckily the princess is feisty and rebellious... I've read this book about a million times, it seems.

Yes, Tolkien was wordy, but his world had real depth. The self-effacing hobbits lived underground. The soaring architecture of Minas Tirith reflected the confidence of its Numerorean builders. The rivalry of Legolas and Gimli had deep historical roots. When characters pass through Lorien or Moria, the places and cultures feel believably different, the different races feel 'other'.

In Solaria, you can send a message via semaphore towers over thousands of miles in a days time. [...] In Cimmar, messages are sent via riders or riverboats, and can take months to reach their destination.

Very cool. Now that's a world I'd be interested to know more of.

 

[ThinkerX]

Very cool. Now that's a world I'd be interested to know more of.

There are fragmentary glimpses of both Solaria and Cimmar in the last few 'Iron Pen' challenge stories (though I don't really do Solaria justice in them). Cimmar is also the setting for 'Waiting for Godek', my entry in the 'Second Reaver Challenge'.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yet, with the type of writing you appear to be promoting, you'd have substantial difficulty getting these differences across to the reader: instead it seems as though you'd use the same generic backdrop for both realms, with maybe a few quick alterations.

That is not what I'm saying at all. My point is that the story should be the focus, not the world building.

Just as a writer should ruthlessly cut scenes that do not advance the plot, he should not bog down the story with unnecessary details just to create "depth."

Admittedly, it is a fine line, kinda like with emotion. Too much emotion is melodramatic leading to eye rolling. Too little is flat.

With world building, you have the same problem with too little, but too much leads to a bloated, uninteresting story.

At times, Brian, you seem to be following in their footsteps here, allbeit with more modern prose.

I don't think this evaluation is accurate. Sword and sorcery (I don't read much of it so correct me if my perceptions are wrong) is an action based genre. The plot drives the story.

Whereas your comment regarding my approach to world building is, perhaps, on the mark, characters drive the story rather than plot, which I believe to be a significant departure from sword and sorcery.

I get that Ankari is much more into world building than I am. I'm much more into character than he is. I think there's room in genre for both types of stories.

Just as I have to make sure that I don't include character development that detracts from the story, he needs to make sure he doesn't put too much world building in.

 

[Ankari]

I didn't mean for this to devolve into evaluating member writing styles. I'm more concerned with the discussion of whether or not authors find greater success when they put a heavy emphasis in world building.

I would like some examples of fantasy novels where the author reached world renown success when their greatest achievement is writing skill or character development. Make another list of authors who put extravagant detail into their world building and have earned great success.

You'll see that the list with of authors with world building as their prime focus earned the greatest level of success.

Am I wrong?

 

[BWFoster78]

I would like some examples of fantasy novels where the author reached world renown success when their greatest achievement is writing skill or character development. Make another list of authors who put extravagant detail into their world building and have earned great success.

How do you even begin to make that evaluation? Is it possible? Do you have some kind of scale for each scene that says this is world building and this is character?

No offense, but I see the whole premise of your question as flawed.

I'll say it again: with, perhaps the exception of Tolkien, every author I've read in fantasy that has become popular, has done so because they've told a good story. A story integrates characters, world, and plot.

 

[Graylorne]

Yes, precisely. I was formulating an answer like this, but Brian's is much better than mine, so I won't .

I was thinking of David Eddings, who said of Belgarath that he could tell a story so, that you could hear the snow fall.

That's telling. And thus writing skill.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, I agree with Brian as well. I don't view those authors 'primarily' as world builders. It seems to me we can't all agree on which authors are primarily world builders, and without agreement on that we cannot address the underlying question effectively.

 

[wordwalker]

Yes, are we really talking about World > Writing, or Word + Writing > Writing?

 

[SeverinR]

Personally, I think its a balancing act, creating a believable world and writing a great story.
In fantasy, we expect something out of the ordinary, so ignoring world building and you ignore the freedom of Fantasy.
But if you write just to show off the world, it won't be very interesting either.

I think to many writers just drop their stories into a European setting with spellcasters and try to fake the fantasy powers.
If you don't think the powers through, they easily become to weak or to powerful to control. The spell caster can wipe out a thousand men army marching towards him, or the spell caster can't use magic fast enough to prevent a blade or arrow from hitting him while he casts it.
The info dump is the easiest pitfall for a world builder. Telling of all the magnificient things your world has, you forget about the story. But to not go in depth would seem to be as bad.
My Dragon bard story, I feared an info dump when I let the young bard take time to really look at the hatchling, and tell about the anatomy of my dragons, but it was needed and also showed the love she had for the dragon.
World building and writing are a balancing act, but ignore either and you aren't doing your best.