World Building > Writing Skill?

[Ankari]

I don't mean to bump this thread, but I came across it during a search. I felt obligated to count the tally for the quick poll I put together. Here are the results:

World Building: 30
Writing Skill: 18
Story Telling (Steerpike insertion): 13

So, of the successful authors, world building seems to be the ingredient that has the largest contribution to their success.

PS: If you noticed that the numbers don't add up to a denomination of 10, it's because I counted split votes as one each.

 

[ThinkerX]

So...

...the foundations for a good story are built upon a world which has been well thought out.

 

[Ankari]

So...

...the foundations for a good story are built upon a world which has been well thought out.

No. The foundation for extended success is to have a well though out world that immerses the reader.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Since we're reopening this can of worms....

I just can't see how world-building trumps story telling. If you're a great story teller, you can get by with minimal world building. The reverse is not true. I know plenty of great world builders that can't tell a story to save their lives.

 

[Ankari]

The thing is, I've never stated these facets are mutually exclusive. I'm stating that of the 2 (now 3), world building is the difference maker. The one thing that will give you a larger fan base and more success. The list, by it's very nature, assumes that every one of those authors are good at story telling because they are professional authors. The degree of their skill is questionable, I'm sure.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Understood and I agree.

However, the list that is provided has a fatal flaw. You're grouping modern succesful authors with authors from the 1950's (what some call the inception of the genre).

If we looked at only modern authors...those still producing works or having written a book in the last 5-10 years, would the results differ? I only wonder this because I believe their is a successful move towards a more minimalist approach to world building and a higher reliance on character and story telling.

 

[ThinkerX]

I just can't see how world-building trumps story telling. If you're a great story teller, you can get by with minimal world building.

I would say that depends on the story. If the story setting doesn't have a lot of...'world' to it, say the whole thing is set in a single town or castle or whatnot, then yes, you can get away with minimal worldbuilding. A good example of this would be the play 'Waiting for Godet' - the 'world' consists of a road, a field with a boulder or two, and a tree - yet the events within that world are fascinating (at least to me).

But to tell a tale involving strange cultures and political intrigue...then the author, at least, has to do at least some worldbuilding. Otherwise, the setting would have a sort of blatently obvious 'movie set' feel to it. I've paged through a number of 'Lord of the Ring' type knockoffs where the lack of worldbuilding did detract from the story.

 

[Ankari]

To discard the success of earlier authors would be a flaw, especially since their books are still selling. But, for arguement's sake, I'll look it up.

 

[Sparkie]

This again?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I would say that depends on the story. If the story setting doesn't have a lot of...'world' to it, say the whole thing is set in a single town or castle or whatnot, then yes, you can get away with minimal worldbuilding. A good example of this would be the play 'Waiting for Godet' - the 'world' consists of a road, a field with a boulder or two, and a tree - yet the events within that world are fascinating (at least to me).

But to tell a tale involving strange cultures and political intrigue...then the author, at least, has to do at least some worldbuilding. Otherwise, the setting would have a sort of blatently obvious 'movie set' feel to it. I've paged through a number of 'Lord of the Ring' type knockoffs where the lack of worldbuilding did detract from the story.

Agreed thinker. When I say minimalist world building I didn't mean to imply there was none. I only meant little as compared to massive, genre founding world builders like Tolkein and Lewis.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I was hoping you would Ankari... Thanks in advance.

I don't mean to discount previous works. However, it's hard not to see that there are some vast differences in the fantasy of today compared to that written 50 years ago.

 

[Chilari]

Since we're bringing this up again, I think I'll share a recent experience that has bearing on this topic.

I recently bought a new book by an established author (he'd previously published a trilogy I haven't read; the book I bought was the first in a new series, newly released, and was on offer). But I'm really struggling with it. I bought it about 2 or 3 weeks ago with the aim of reviewing it for my website, but I've only got 8% of the way through it.

It's a worldbuilder's novel. It's not well written, though.

There's clear evidence of the depth of the world. Interesting races and cultures, a supernatural world living within nature unseen by most mortals, a range of nations with complex relationships with one another. Magical technology that lights up the city streets at night. The world certainly has depth to it, and this has come through in the 8% of the book I've read.

But I've read 8% of it. In fact I stopped reading it more than a week ago when I started reading the book I actually did review a little over a week ago on my website. Why? Because it didn't engage me. It wasn't well written. I had no reason to care for the characters. Almost everything I knew about them I was told, not shown. The protagonist has all this angst that the author is very keen to make the reader aware of, and he overstates his case as a result. The characters don't seem to interact in a human manner either, bar one minor character who as far as I can tell might never reappear.

Establishing an interesting and varied world might be important, but without the ability to entertain the reader through engaging characters and interesting storylines, it is pointless.

I do intend to finish reading this book, and then I will post my review, both on Amazon and on my website. At best, it'll get 5/10 or 3 stars. I shouldn't have to slog through a book. I shouldn't be thinking "urgh this character is dull" or "yes, I get it, he isn't fond of his uncle, no need to wangst about it". I shouldn't be so easily distracted by every car that drives past my house or ping of an email from Amazon about how I liked my purchase or from Twitter telling me someone favourited my tweet; I shouldn't be looking for reasons to not read it.

By comparison the book I actually read and reviewed was very well written. Characterisation was fairly good, but nothing special - the protagonist has obvious approval issues regarding his father, much like the protagonist of the book I'm 8% of the way through does for his uncle. There's some good worldbuilding too - subtle hints that it's not all what it appears, a strong sense of the atmosphere of isolation, but through far fewer words, much less in focus than in the 8% book. But it was well written. It kept me reading. The only time I stopped reading was when my stomach rumbled loudly and reminded me to have lunch. I finished the book in only a few hours, in two sittings either side of lunch.

 

[BWFoster78]

Understood and I agree.

However, the list that is provided has a fatal flaw. You're grouping modern succesful authors with authors from the 1950's (what some call the inception of the genre).

If we looked at only modern authors...those still producing works or having written a book in the last 5-10 years, would the results differ? I only wonder this because I believe their is a successful move towards a more minimalist approach to world building and a higher reliance on character and story telling.

I'd say that an even bigger fatal flaw is the lack of definitions. A good portion of the people in the "poll" consider JK Rowling to be a worldbuilder because that term means different things to the people who are answering the question.

Without clear definitions, the "results" are pretty much meaningless.

It's kinda like a poll asking, "Is the tomato your favorite vegetable?"

You answer, "Yes. They're tasty and can be used in a lot of sauces. Ketchup and salsa both rock."

I answer. "No. A tomato is a fruit."

If the purpose of the poll is to find out who likes tomatos, the failure to define what a vegetable is pretty much negates the whole process.

 

[Zero Angel]

I'd say that an even bigger fatal flaw is the lack of definitions. A good portion of the people in the "poll" consider JK Rowling to be a worldbuilder because that term means different things to the people who are answering the question.

Without clear definitions, the "results" are pretty much meaningless.

It's kinda like a poll asking, "Is the tomato your favorite vegetable?"

You answer, "Yes. They're tasty and can be used in a lot of sauces. Ketchup and salsa both rock."

I answer. "No. A tomato is a fruit."

If the purpose of the poll is to find out who likes tomatos, the failure to define what a vegetable is pretty much negates the whole process.

You sound like a mathematician!

Anyway, I was thinking something now that this has been re-opened. I think we all agree that some skill is necessary with writing and storytelling in order to tell a story any story, but what about a series? Does a series of books naturally need more world-building? Or is it just that whenever there is a series, the world gets built up enough that as we look back on the work as a whole we see a cohesive world and think of the author as a world-builder?

 

[BWFoster78]

You sound like a mathematician!

Engineer. Good enough for government work.

what about a series? Does a series of books naturally need more world-building? Or is it just that whenever there is a series, the world gets built up enough that as we look back on the work as a whole we see a cohesive world and think of the author as a world-builder?

I don't think you'll get people to move much off their novel positions in reference to a series. I think the latter is the case. My guess is that Ankari will say the former.

 

[Addison]

Writing a book that is read by more than just the family, one with a fantastic world, is like fishing. the truth of fishing is that the fish doesn't need the worm on the hook, they're attracted to whatever shines and glitters. But with a fantasy world you need the bait. If a reader picks up a book and your inside flap promises magic duels, ogre hunts or anything like that, they'll be expecting those wonderful elements, that juicy bait. That's what they'll be sucking on as you reel them in hooked securely by your unique glittery writing.

So to me it's hand in hand of the three. world building, storytelling and writing skills.

And remember that no two people's reading preferences are the same. Some read fantasy for the worlds they're given, others for the characters and adventure presented.

 

[Zero Angel]

I personally am a large fan of "secondary creation", but I definitely believe that I am in the minority overall and definitely no more than a plurality as it applies to fantasy fans. Interestingly, I feel that fantasy gives us the option to be world-builders or not as we choose or deem necessary, but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building

 

[Ankari]

I looked at the list again. I can only see three names that are not current; JRR Tolkie, CS Lewis, and Frank Herbert. If you take those names out, you have the following list:

1. J.K Rowling
2. Stephen King
3. Terry Pratchett
4. Robert Jordan
5. Terry Goodkind
6. Terry Brooks
7. Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman

Eoin Colfer (18 million)

The author of the Artemis Fowl series, which has proven a massive hit amongst YA circles. Colfer was recently picked to write the sixth Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy novel.

Raymond E. Feist (15 million)

The author of the extremely long-running Riftwar Cycle of novels, which when complete will comprise approximately thirty books. Mixed reviews for his books published over the last decade or so do not seem to have influenced his legions of loyal fans.

Christopher Paolini (12 million)

His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.

George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)

Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.

Neil Gaiman (2 million)

If GRRM's figure is conservative, this is even moreso, and based solely on the figures I could find for sales of the Sandman graphic novels. Add in his other, highly successful novels and his real sales and position should be much higher.

I threw in the last two because they are so current. What do you think of this list?

 

[Addison]

Interestingly, I feel that fantasy gives us the option to be world-builders or not as we choose or deem necessary, but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building

That's sort of right, and then not. True we add witches, fairies, living trees and all that to our fantasy when we need if and if the story needs it. There's limitless elements in fantasy which are at our disposal. But the same can be said about science fiction. It doesn't need aliens but we can add them. It doesn't need inter-planetary travel but we can add it. Like fantasy, science fiction gets that label if there's an element in the story which deals with alien life, future technology or other planets. Just adding one will give it a genre title.

 

[Steerpike]

... but that science fiction REQUIRES world-building

Does it? Maybe to an extent, just as fantasy does. A lot of good science fiction is set in the modern world, so the world is already created for you. Even if you look at a classic like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land...OK, you've got a guy from Mars. But he comes to earth and that's where the book takes place. How much world-building is there? Jurassic Park, OK Crichton creates the amusement park, but how much world-building does he do, exactly? Does researching dinosaur behavior count? Or his earlier work, The Andromeda Strain - how much world-building is going on there? Are we confusing world-building and plotting? Just some thoughts.