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

World Building > Writing Skill?

Amanita

Maester
A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader.
I don't think that's really possible for such a magic system with influence on almost anything. At least not without adding plenty of information that would slow down the story.
I have to admit that the question if they can create life by turning objects into animals did bother me quite a bit, another thing that can be answered.
If the magic system is more limited by its nature, that's easier. If the magic user can control fire, it's immediatly clear that there are plenty of things he can't do. The specifics of his abilities can be explained while he's learning.
That's the path I've chosen myself. I used to experiment with a magic system which gave influence on almost anything. some call it "high magic" I think, but failed to make it work in a way that satisfied me.
I still like to read them if I'm interested in the story though.
I generally dislike static and predictable magic systems "if I do x spells, I'm going to lose y days of my life" and similar suggestions. Prefer things along the lines of "if you smoke a pack of cigarettes each day, you're more likely to die early, but you may not."
 

Amanita

Maester
So, Amanita, care to rate the authors?
I haven't read all of them but I'll try with the rest.

1. J.K Rowling: Story teller. I think the "typical fantasy plot with dark lord and chosen one meets contemporary UK"-plot was the most important part and not building a new world with vastly different cultures.
2. Stephen King: Haven't read because horror never really interested me.
3. JRR Tolkien: World builder first, but I think it's a relatively good balance.
4. CS Lewis: Combination of both.
5. Terry Pratchett: Haven't read that either. The German cover put me totally off those books and I haven't brought myself to look at them since then. Maybe I should. ;)
6. Robert Jordan: Didn't read it either. What I've heard about it never appealed to me and it was too long to try out just for fun.
7. Terry Goodkind: I don't really like either his world-building or his plot. His world is an example of fantasy world where various pieces are put together without creating something whole. It's not the only one.
8. Terry Brooks: Haven't read his books.
9. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: Haven't read anything by them either.
10. Frank Herbert: Haven't read his books for some reason. Something I really should do I think.
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
I believe that the true reason behind the wild success of some Fantasy authors is not their technical writing skills, magic systems or how complex and detailed their world building is:

We are not only writers, we are Fantasy writers. Our job is to take our readers out of this world and throw them into another world that we create, and that is something that writers of other literary genres do not have to do...

That is the ability that we really need to master: To transport the readers to another world, not just to write technically well, create a world or design a good magic system.
 
I'm curious, what do people see as the flaws in Rowling's world building?

I didn't really have problems with her world building, although I did have trouble with the magic being exactly what she wanted it to be without feeling logical or sensical at all.

Instead, I had the biggest trouble with her bad Hollywood like treatment of anti-Deus ex Machina.

1. J.K Rowling: Story teller followed by world builder.
2. Stephen King: Writing technique (although I can't tolerate it personally)
3. JRR Tolkien: World builder.
4. CS Lewis: World builder with Narnia.
5. Terry Pratchett: Split between world building/writing & storytelling
6. Robert Jordan: World builder--his writing & storytelling is actually pretty rough in retrospect
7. Terry Goodkind: Haven't read
8. Terry Brooks: Haven't read
9. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman: World building
10. Frank Herbert: World building

Personally, I don't even think story telling is as important. To me, story creating is the most important (with other elements needing to reach sufficient levels obviously), and that usually is strongly tied up in the world itself, hence why I think people think world building is so important.
 

Shockley

Maester
To me, there didn't seem to be any real world building done at all. Does she logically explain how all these magic users exist without any knowledge of the muggle world. In the books, as opposed to the movies, non muggle born magic users are shown as highly ignorant of the mortal world. At the same time, the world of the magic users is shown to overlap world of the muggles everywhere.

That doesn't strike me as strange at all. One only has to look at a lot of the ethnic enclaves that exist right here in the United States – and not in the ways one initially thinks of. One perfect example is that of the Hasidic community in New York City – they are very prevalent (almost a stereotype of the city) but also very insular. There are some Hasidic communities in New York that have been here for over a hundred and fifty years where the English language is spoken by less than 7% of the population.

So the idea that magic users – especially when you have the in-universe/real world history of witch burnings (which were briefly touched on) coupled with the xenophobia of the wizarding community, it doesn't surprise me that there would be a divide, and a divide less severe than one present in some communities in the United States of America.

Additionally, there is the magic system. What are the limits? Is there any kind of cost? To me, it's never really developed or explored as a true fantasy magic system. Instead, it exists as a prop for the characters.

Well, I think a good portion of the story's moral arc revolves around the 'costs' of magic. Not in physical terms, but in spiritual.

As to the limits, I tend to take a view that is different from other writers on this – it's her world, she sets her limits. If she properly builds up to the moon growing wings and attacking a dinosaur, and there are no plotholes and it doesn't break the narrative, that's fine by me. Rowling was very consistent in the way she handled her magic system, at least in my opinion, and I think we have a decent idea of the limits – horcruxes, the killing curses, the deathly hallows and the philosopher's stone.

I think the limits are in-world, as opposed to being spelled out as limits.

I don't necessarily have a problem with having the world exist as a prop, but, given these flaws, how can she be declared to be a world builder?

Well, I think a lot of the trappings of her world are more recognizable than her prose style, which is so-so. She created a lot of places, a lot of 'worlds' as it were, etc. and tied them into our real world without it seeming just absolutely ridiculous. It's a more subtle form of world-building than Lewis used with Chronicles of Narnia, but it's world-building nonetheless.

This is a discussion of world building. If the world of the story were fully developed, we'd have a greater understanding of the magic system. As it is, it seems you can do anything you want by saying a few words and making the right motions. If there are no limits, why can't Harry simply say the right words and, poof, Voldemort is dead. Aparently the magic doesn't work that way, though, 'cause he never did that or tried that. Why didn't he? What other limits are there?

Well you can kill someone with magic – that is very clearly established from book one. The problem with that is entirely the same one you have with swords, guns, etc. You're only as good with those things as you train to be, and inversely to the amount your opponent trains with them.

They establish you need the wand for magic, and generally you need to point the wand at the item you want changed/destroyed/fixed/whatever. That itself is a limiter on how it can be used and explains adequately why he can't just 'poof' away Voldemort.

Why is gold important to them? Why can't they conjure gold? Is that another limitation of the magic?

A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader.

Okay, I have to throw in a corollary here: 'A fully developed magic system answers these questions for the reader, so far as it is relevant to the story being told. If the story were about the economics of the wizarding world, then yes, I'd want that question answered. But within the confines of the story presented, I don't expect that question to be answered and I won't hold Rowling accountable for not answering that question.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
I would describe Terry Pratchett as a split, both worldbuilder and brilliant storyteller. Discworld is such an incredible and varied world that it really stands out to me. Arguably, Hogfather was a story more about the world and the nature of magic in the world than it was about the story. Pyramids was to a certain extent too. There are so many elements to the Discworld that make such an interesting world, a world full of depth and variety, and each new novel just adds to it in a remarkable way.

I am also surprised by how few of you have read Pratchett. Ever since I read Colour of Magic when I was 12 I've not been able to get enough of him. Some of them I've read several times over. I've probably read an average of 5 Pratchett books a year when including re-reads of books I'd read before in the last 12 years.

As for Rowling, I wouldn't describe her as a master worldbuilder. Sure, the world is interesting and pretty cool, but it lacks depth. It feels like she's just stuck stickers over things when she has needed to. Now, maybe that's because she started with a world that exists and built into that one that does not, with the requirement that the wizarding world is hidden from the real one as if to imply that it really is there, just we're all muggles so can't see it, so she really is sort of sticking stickers over the top of reality; she can hardly change reality itself, and making the muggle world too different or the wizarding world to invasive would take away some believability. And maybe also it's because she is writing for a younger audience, one for whom a direct and concise approach to the world is more suited than a nuanced one.

But still, her world is not deep. It's like having a Lego Star Destroyer and deciding to make it more cool by adding lasers and little turrets and go faster stripes on the outside using red instead of grey bricks because you think it'll be cooler, even though it's not on the box, and maybe slightly changing the design of the nose or the exhaust to make it look really cool. But it's still an altered Lego Star Destroyer, not a space ship of your own design.
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
About the style of Magic seen in the Harry Potter series, I think that it was intended by the author to be that kind of mystical, mysterious and unexplained Magic instead of the more scientific, heavily limited and clearly-defined styles that are described in other Fantasy works...

It's the kind of Magic that turns people into ferrets, creates a large house inside a camping tent and makes birds appear out of nowhere, and there are some people that love that kind of Magic... like myself =)

I did notice an inconsistency in the Harry Potter magic that I did not like:

Avada Kedavra was first described as a flash of green light and the sound of an invisible something soaring through the air, like throwing pure death at your enemies causing them to drop dead without any physical harm. Then, later in the series Rowling describes it as jets of green light, and I liked the original Avada Kedavra much better!!

I cannot rate the authors in the list because of all of those I have read only Tolkien and Rowling, but I can tell you this:

The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter both are not only fascinating stories told with great narration and storytelling skills, but also they deal with the moral values of things like friendship, family, loyalty, courage and doing what is right instead of what is easy, and I think that really touches people's hearts.
 

JCFarnham

Auror
The success of these author for me is nothing to do with either world or writing skill. Its almost entirely down to product placement. If you track the progression of the story from beginning to end in Harry potter something rather striking jumps put at you.

The age of the protagonists and the main readership directly has an effect on the tone and type of story told. In the beginning. Rowling's books were pure children's chapter book. By the end she was telling an almost entirely YA story.

That's why it worked so well. She followed her target reader and matched the books to them as she went.

Clever, but obvious stuff frankly.

Edit: take Twilight. It was successful for more or less the same reason. A good knowledge of the intended reader progressively dictating the tone of the series.
 
Last edited:

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Not really trying to start an argument about Rowling's skill or technique as much as her status as a world builder.

Here's how I see it. Ankari and I approach things quite differently. I think about a character and a situation and fill in the details of the world as I go along. I am not a world builder.

Ankari, however, is. He puts a lot of thought into building races and magic systems and how his world interrelates. To him, I think the world is as important as the characters or story. In fact, he wrote a short story for the sole purpose of introducing a new race.

I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach. They lead to different types of stories and have their own advantages and disadvantages.

To define someone as a world builder, in my opinion, that person has to focus on the building of their fantasy world. I simply can't fathom how anyone would say that Rowling is a world builder. Everything about her world is inserted as a place for the characters to live and play. She clearly chose the characters and situation and then used the magic system and world as props.
 
To define someone as a world builder, in my opinion, that person has to focus on the building of their fantasy world. I simply can't fathom how anyone would say that Rowling is a world builder. Everything about her world is inserted as a place for the characters to live and play. She clearly chose the characters and situation and then used the magic system and world as props.

I don't think of her as a world-builder because of her great skill or even intentional desire to world build. I classified her as being more famous for being a world-builder because everyone remembers the "world". If you talk to fans of Harry Potter, many have rather negative things to say about J.K. Rowling and even where she took the story or what she did, but they all fell in love with the world and idea of Harry Potter.

For me, the world is canvas for the characters to explode themselves upon. I world build as much (or more) than anyone I've ever heard of, but my characters are free to change the world around them and frequently do. I develop my characters and they in turn act and react to their own desires and what is going on in the world around them.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I had a different view. I liked Potter because of the characters. The world I've seen before, in various forms, to one extent or another. She did a nice job of it though.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
Very interesting thread. I really enjoyed reading through all the posts with some good points made. I have read "The Hobbit" and all of the Narnia books amongst the list of books/authors being compared here. I thought the stories were fascinating and well-written. I think world-building is perhaps slightly more important than writing skill because if the author has a deep knowledge of what the characters are experiencing down to certain details, the story can only be that much better. It definitely takes a certain amount of patience and creativity to create the kinds of fantasy worlds like Tolkien did. When someone has the ability to get that specific about a make believe land, then I think the writing is just the icing on the cake. To me, it seems like world-building and creative storytelling go hand in hand.

I have not ever read or watched any Harry Potter because although I love wizards, the whole idea of the kids at magic school has never peaked my interest. But what Rowling has created with her story is amazing and worthy of kudos for selling such a popular tale.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Rowling has a beautifully detailed setting, from the school's rich history all the way down to a dozen varieties of magic candy.

Some people, I think, are missing the point. There's much more to building a world than the details of a map or a magic system.
 
Rowling has a beautifully detailed setting, from the school's rich history all the way down to a dozen varieties of magic candy.

Some people, I think, are missing the point. There's much more to building a world than the details of a map or a magic system.
I acknowledge those points, but thought they seemed cobbled together for when she needed them or as a "oh that's cool" moment instead of serious world building. I don't know what she actually went into with her world building, but it did not give the appearance of a seamless world to me.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
I acknowledge those points, but thought they seemed cobbled together for when she needed them or as a "oh that's cool" moment instead of serious world building. I don't know what she actually went into with her world building, but it did not give the appearance of a seamless world to me.

To me, Zero nailed it.

All fantasy writers have to build a world, and all fantasy writers have to develop characters and story.

Though both sides have to borrow from the other, I think that there are two distinct schools of thought represented in this thread. One side enjoys the world building and focuses on it as the framework for their characters and story. The other side builds character and story and works in a world around that.

To me, Rowling, despite any level of detail, fits in better with the character and story crowd. I am not saying in any way that this is a bad thing. It is, in fact, my approach as well, and I think that her story is both better and more successful because of the path she took. I have a hard time, after reading her books, thinking of her as someone who approaches a story from the standpoint of fitting the characters and story to her world than the other way around.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
The second way you mentioned is my approach as well. I personally don't see the need to explain details into a story that don't necessarily matter when it comes to character/plot progression. Its nice to see fantasy works simplified every once in a while. I think there are a lot of readers out there that probably appreciate that.
 
The second way you mentioned is my approach as well. I personally don't see the need to explain details into a story that don't necessarily matter when it comes to character/plot progression. Its nice to see fantasy works simplified every once in a while. I think there are a lot of readers out there that probably appreciate that.

It's definitely a different core audience. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other in the same way I don't think it is better to be 100% a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants writer or an outliner, but it is worthwhile talking about the differences and being aware of them. I personally enjoy seeing excellent examples of world-building and enjoy the merits of world-building independent of story. I think I am pretty far on one extreme however and am by no means typical.
 

Mari

Scribe
I have to say I disagree. I truly enjoyed HP novels, and The Hobbit.

The opening paragraph to The Hobbit, asks a question: what is a hobbit? It is descriptive. You hear a distinctive voice.

Harry Potter has a light-hearted tone, and opens in away that makes you hope that Mr. and Mrs. Dudely, get something blown up their collective behinds.

I am fan of both books.
 

Mari

Scribe
To me, Zero nailed it.

All fantasy writers have to build a world, and all fantasy writers have to develop characters and story.

Though both sides have to borrow from the other, I think that there are two distinct schools of thought represented in this thread. One side enjoys the world building and focuses on it as the framework for their characters and story. The other side builds character and story and works in a world around that.

To me, Rowling, despite any level of detail, fits in better with the character and story crowd. I am not saying in any way that this is a bad thing. It is, in fact, my approach as well, and I think that her story is both better and more successful because of the path she took. I have a hard time, after reading her books, thinking of her as someone who approaches a story from the standpoint of fitting the characters and story to her world than the other way around.

It is my understanding, JKR, first met Harry and from there wen to on to see what was his story. I would think that characters came first. The world was explored from their povs. It wasn't the school that came first, as it was who was there.
 
Top