Worst World Building Tropes

[pmmg]

Well it's all true. I think I suggested once, a couple years ago, that a sticky be added to every Fantasy Writing forum on MS:

If you are planning to post a new thread to the effect of "Can I...," then the answer's always yes. No need to ask. Just make it good. Then post a different new thread.
Edit: I don't mean to make light of your well-considered comment, so sorry if I seemed to.

But I mean by the above...

"Can I ... base my world's morality on Christianity?"
"Can I ... make my fantasy world's culture, climate, etc., like Medieval England's?"
"Can I ... write about elves, dwarves, halflings...?"
"Can I ... "

Answer's always Yes.

Sorry, I cant tell if this is supposed to be an answer to my post or not. I was not answering a question of 'can I', I think that is a given. I was saying it might be quite likely that these Abrahamic religions might pop up in far away places, and so to treat that as in impossibility, and something that should be avoided, is to discount the likeliness that it would happen. I think it is more likely than one might think. Particularly in worlds that have human and humanish races, with similar mortality and family-type relationships.

In the same way that people who engage in science might come to the same conclusions about the way things work, the same types of things would work out in philosophy. And there would be the same types of questions. Who am I? Who are we? What is there? How did it come to be? What does it all mean? What is true?

Of course I can see things being very different. If I had a race of Ant people, for example, removed from their lore might be a concept of a disapproving father. So, the stories they create might not have those types of themes. But themes of Creation, Gods liking and disliking their creation, being good to each other, not murdering and stealing and lying, Gods being active, and perhaps the mortal people thinking there is something better coming....I think these would almost universally pop up.

Fantasy worlds, were Gods are more present might lend to strong examples that one need look no further, but philosophy, like science, will not be stopped. And sooner or later people will ask...Is this God the prime god, or was he created too?

Anyway, that it is your preference not to see these in the fiction you would like to read, is fine. But it is not necessarily ridiculous that it would appear.

As I said, I suspect there would be many concepts in any world all at once. They have Zeus, and they have Vishnu, and we have Odin, and those other dudes over by the pyramids...well, they are just crazy to believe in things with bird heads. But all these things would either have to be true, or they would dissipate in time.

If there are not gods walking about, then how long can I believe in stories where Zeus is fathering so many heroes, and no one has ever seen Zeus, and there are not any of his sons walking about? Sooner or later, I ask is there really a Zeus? At that point I would suspect many religions would pass into myth, and the more sensible ones would linger on.

All of the above does not take as a given that an Abrahamic type deity is true. But if I do presuppose a single creator God, then I would think the above becomes more likely than less.

But this is a thread about preference and taste. So, there is no wrong answer. Don't prefer it if you don't. I was addressing what I thought to be notion that because we have a world without Abraham, therefore it is just silly to have a world that has a religion like Judaism (or any other monotheistic one). I think that requires more inspection. I don't think it is silly, it think it might be quite likely.

Actually... I did not intend to address that at all, but threads drift.

I think my larger point was about hating on stuff. I know it lets off steam, but I hope (and suggest) a better tactic might be to look at it differently, and ask how might this be used? and use it to make better what you already have.

 

[FifthView]

I was saying it might be quite likely that these Abrahamic religions might pop up in far away places, and so to treat that as in impossibility, and something that should be avoided, is to discount the likeliness that it would happen.

I was a little confused, because my comment just before yours included this:

On the one hand, if the list is taken as an absolute proscription—What is hereby listed is verboten!—then there is the corresponding reaction that says, Um, no.

On the other hand, it's fun to make lists like this about things we personally don't like, usually with the bad examples in mind, heh.

—which, in its way, is in agreement with what you posted afterward. The list may be taken as an absolute proscription or as a fun list used as an occasion to name things one personally dislikes.

BTW, I think there's a wide gap between the theoretically possible and what will or won't be aesthetically pleasing. As concepts, I mean. As I wrote afterward, "Yes, you can" do anything you like; especially for a fantasy world, where the imagination is the limit, the list of possibilities, or likelihoods if you wish, is vast in scope. But the likelihood is a separate consideration from the question of aesthetic enjoyment. If it weren't, I'd be forced to consider the possibility that everything ought to be aesthetically pleasing to me, if done well, simply because the likelihood of something happening in the real world is high. I don't think this is how art works.

I am in full agreement about the likelihood of near-similarity of religions, morality systems, and so forth, occurring if the possible permutations are vast. For years, I've contemplated something similar. Some viewers of Star Trek or other sci-fi television shows and movies have complained about the fact that many of the aliens are basically humans with only minimal physical differences. But given the vastness of the universe—brilliant video here:

—I do wonder whether similar physical conditions in sun type, planet size and composition and orbit, etc., etc., might lead to intelligent non-Earthlings that look an awful lot like us. Perhaps our very form bears some important correlation to the likelihood of human-level intelligence occurring. Perhaps the same sort of initial conditions that life on Earth enjoyed, and the same sort of geological events, were required for the development of intelligence in the first place. I don't know; no one knows. But given the vast number of possible permutations of solar system configurations, surely some similarity of conditions might form, and maybe very human-like non-Earthlings might develop.

Yet there are critics who insist on a different approach, who will say that the likelihood is far greater that such a race will not look anything like humans. I would ask, On what basis?

Here we run into the problem of the limit of human imagination. How many artistic creators have avoided basing their non-Earthlings on humans but instead based them on insects, or the octopus, or lizards? Heh. Well, those are Earthlings too.

My initial answer in the thread that I, too, disliked the appearance of Abrahamic religions in these secondary world stories was not due to the fact that I thought such a possibility was unlikely. That seems to be the assumption in your well-considered comments: The argument against those tropes is founded on the assumption that such things would be unlikely.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me the dislike is due to a) the many poor examples I personally have experienced in my reading, and b) what I feel in those poor examples to be a lack of imagination, a facile approach.

As for "a", I believe I've explained that already. I dislike the poor examples, but this doesn't mean I think the appearance of Abrahamic religion and morality is unlikely, and it also doesn't mean I'm arguing for an absolute prohibition.

But, what is this word, "poor"? For "b" I'd use an analogy. If someone were to write a new superhero story and create two superheroes who would at first fight each other and then team up, and one is basically Batman with a new name—Night-Creature Man!—and the other is basically Superman—Sun-Powered Invincible Man!—etc., etc., I'd probably not like this. It's a thin copy. (As parody, farce, comedy, I might like it however; depends.) In other words, those poor examples have felt to me to be thin copies, an expediency, a lack of imagination. I feel the same sort of thing when I read secondary world Medievalish stories in which all the idioms, concepts, etc. in the language are very modern. If a barbarian warrior says, "OMG, don't have a conniption fit!" I'm going to feel it's a mere expediency, a lack of imagination, no matter how forcefully someone argues it's a "translation" into English and that world has naturally developed "similar" speaking patterns and concepts because, duh, the Universe is infinite.

None of these concerns are meant to be an argument against every possible permutation of Abrahamic-like religion, philosophy, and morality in every possible future story.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

"Space is big. Really big."

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

^ This, 100%. It's not really fantasy, but it's the most unrealistic and condescending thing I see in books, movies, and people on facebook. There's kindness, foolishness, meanness, and some level of smarts in groups of almost all kinds, but especially ones as broad as social class. That goes for good or bad across the board.

I blame Marx.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Thanks for mentioning this, Ireth. It annoys me SO bad! Like, it just puts this image out there that women choose poorly because lust. So stupid. And dumb. And enraging. ---rant over

If anything it's the man that makes the dumb choice because the power of boners compels him to.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

So, one of the things that bugs me, is found in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The legal system in their wizarding world is complete garbage. Due process isn't even a thing. The procedures are arbitrary and capricious and make no sense. It bugged me at 15. It bugs me at 29.

The other problem is that the governments often created are completely unsustainable. Read The Prince dang it.

Also, rebellions in these worlds are often unprincipled. Not that they are bad but they aren't fighting for a certain ideal. Also, also, these rebellions are almost never subject to the excesses that rebellions find themselves subject to.

Next, parenting in fantasy worlds. WTF is up with them? Parenting is piss poor. Although, I loved the eventual catharsis in the Wheel of Time between father and son. But most of the time it's nothing but neglect abuse and stupid, stupid Homer Simpson level of decision making.

 

[TheKillerBs]

So, one of the things that bugs me, is found in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The legal system in their wizarding world is complete garbage. Due process isn't even a thing. The procedures are arbitrary and capricious and make no sense. It bugged me at 15. It bugs me at 29.

The other problem is that the governments often created are completely unsustainable. Read The Prince dang it.

Speaking of unsustainable governments and Harry Potter, Rowling has said that the population of Magical Britain is 3000. In Goblet of Fire, we find out that there was a Ministry task force assigned with maintaining the World Cup grounds. It consisted of 500 people. That's one-sixth of the entire population working for the government on one specific task. An entertainment task. Bad at maths indeed.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Speaking of unsustainable governments and Harry Potter, Rowling has said that the population of Magical Britain is 3000. In Goblet of Fire, we find out that there was a Ministry task force assigned with maintaining the World Cup grounds. It consisted of 500 people. That's one-sixth of the entire population working for the government on one specific task. An entertainment task. Bad at maths indeed.

JKR abuses Word of God imo

 

[pmmg]

Speaking of unsustainable governments and Harry Potter, Rowling has said that the population of Magical Britain is 3000. In Goblet of Fire, we find out that there was a Ministry task force assigned with maintaining the World Cup grounds. It consisted of 500 people. That's one-sixth of the entire population working for the government on one specific task. An entertainment task. Bad at maths indeed.

I had a similar event in a RPG I was hosting once. I said there was a band of 50 orcs (meant to be a big enough number to give the party pause about attacking them), and I said they sent out scouting parties in groups of 5 in the major compass directions. That being 8 directions, equating to 40 of their 50 wandering off in small groups. I said that because I knew if they just sent out one, the players would kill them and that would be that, and I wanted to give them something to play around. However...I did not do the math right.

In the future, I've always been cognizant of how many of something I am claiming for something.

I think this same thing happened in the LOTR and hobbit movies. In the hobbit, Azog wants to chase the hobbits but is called back by Sauron and he splits his forces, leaving Bolg in charge. Bolg chases the hobbits to the Elvin village and gets into a big fight when the dwarves escape. If you follow that battle, and I did because I became curios, in that one sequence 98 Orcs are killed---and Bolg still has a lot of them left over.

That's a lot of Orcs. If Bolg has a band of say 200 Orcs when he splits with Azog, Azog must have about 400--or more. 200 Orcs is a pretty big band and would draw quite a bit of attention, and not so easily sneak into Dale to have another big battle. All to say, its no small band chasing the hobbits, and Bolg does not look like a very good war leader having had so many killed for so little results (maybe orcs are used to it).

I think this is also kind of a case where, for movie magic, they need a lot of reasons for the action scene to remain tense, but they dropped a heck of a lot of orcs, and I don't think the orcs get a single kill. That does not make them look as tough as they should be. Anyway, I am not supposed to notice that stuff, but I do.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

If we're going to play the numbers game, I think the Shanarra tv series (It's so long since I read the books that I can't be sure if they have the same problem) has them all beat. So in the show we have the four or five races, all of them amassing vast armies for the wars and having their own cities. Only problem is the geography. It's two days walk to anywhere. How can you support vast armies for wars when your entire world is only say a hundred miles in diameter?

The second problem of course is the age of the world - which is post human. But at the least it would take thousands of years, even including radiation to increase the rate of mutation, to create new races. But we still have steel structures like the San Fran bridge and helicopters? No.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

It's two days walk to anywhere.

Isn't this place a geographical oddity, couple of days from everything!

 

[CupofJoe]

"Space is big. Really big."

 

[psychotick]

Hi Garren,

Sorry, badly worded. I'm not pointing out a strange geography, just that it's a tiny scale world with massive population events happening in it.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Hi Garren,

Sorry, badly worded. I'm not pointing out a strange geography, just that it's a tiny scale world with massive population events happening in it.

Cheers, Greg.

Don't take away my O Brother Where Art Thou moments. That's blasphemy.

 

[pmmg]

None of these concerns are meant to be an argument against every possible permutation of Abrahamic-like religion, philosophy, and morality in every possible future story.

Well, Mr. Fifth. I do like your well thought-out posts and appreciate your that you spend your efforts here with us. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

But the likelihood is a separate consideration from the question of aesthetic enjoyment. If it weren't, I'd be forced to consider the possibility that everything ought to be aesthetically pleasing to me, if done well, simply because the likelihood of something happening in the real world is high. I don't think this is how art works.

I don't feel I have anything to add that would be considered a rebuttal. Seems we would agree on many aspects of this.

The above lends itself to me towards the suspension of disbelief, which albeit, is really hard for me. Perhaps harder than it is in others. But if the story is putting out stuff I think unlikely, ill start asking questions. If it gets to the point where I just dont buy it, the story is going to get a lot of unwanted scrutiny. That's just the way my brain turns it. So...I like when authors have something to say, and I think it is probably true that even those who are not meaning too, or are not aware of if, are still adding the body of human thought and experience. I am fine not agreeing with them when I don't, but I do find it is still important what they create. And I very much like when I am still thinking of the concepts in a story after the story is completed. And if I get to incorporate them into something that I must think about as a something possibly true about something, even better.

Religions are just one thing among many.

Truth is, I have wondered on the biblical lines, 'we are made in God's image', and 'we are wonderfully and fearfully made' along the lines of what shape is a more fearful shape for a creature to be. Humans are in fact quite powerful. The male body, with its center of balance in its chest, and its arms clutching in from the side, is kind of made to pound the crap out of things (like the den-den diako drum). It is albeit small compared to things that may be out in space, but is there another shape more fearful? Big teeth and big claws seem to be the best we can come up with for more frightening, but actually, I might argue other humans are more frightening than monsters. And bigger human like shapes are just exaggerating what is already powerful about the man like shape. (Sometimes, I look at the creatures with big sharp teeth and wonder can it really open its mouth wide enough to make those teeth useful?)

I do feel that SciFi has pretty much run the gamut on what can be imagined, not to say they have exhausted all possibilities, but I am unlikely to go 'Wow, that is a type alien that has never been considered before...' And, along with the suspension of disbelief...you know, some shapes would also seem to be universal. Worms, for example, would likely be a shape that repeats often.

Given strange enough worlds, with higher or lower gravity, or different atmospheres, well, it might be a task to imagine what sorts of creatures may exist in those, but reason would still seem up to the task of doing so.

An issue I had with Star Trek was that all the worlds seemed to be of one culture. All Vulcans were the same, and all Klingon's likewise. I found that unlikely, but not enough to care. It would be too big of a story to really show all the diversity. I like-wise asked about the giant worm in star wars that the Millennium Falcon hid in, in terms of its eco system. How can I get a big worm? I would need a large food supply, which it seemingly does not have. But....I also did not fall out of suspension of disbelief over it.

Ill be honest, I don't read a lot of books trying to sneak in Abraham. Maybe I just don't read the right types of books. Most often, when a religion is in it, I find they are presented as something that is wrong and needs to righted. As a Christian, I don't really enjoy it, but I understand, Christianity (Abraham) does kind of underpin western culture, and what better to be asking questions about? Most of us come, or see the world greatly affected, from western culture and Abrahamic influence, and so our experience, and reaction to it, kind of stems from it. So that is just how it goes.

The universe is vast and endless, and so, it should seem, are all the possible concepts. But I am not sure that is true. I don't think the answer to the question, 'what happens when I die?', has an infinite amount of answers. Perhaps a few big concepts and then a lot of not-really important variations (though maybe cool).

I suppose I would also say, that writers come in all stripes and flavors and any concept is sure to have a gigantic share of people doing it lazily or poor. That just kind of follows sturgeons law (90% of everything is crud). No escaping that either.

But in general, towards the topic, I would just say 'hating on' is not useful, better to understand and make use of (as a tool in ones tool box).

I am beating a dead horse....moving on.


Here, I always found this one to be impressive.

 

[Skybreaker Sin K'al]

Fake roman empires.

Or, really just any placeholder for a real world empire but ignoring the conditions that caused that culture in the first place.

 

[Corwynn]

Tropes aren't necessarily good or bad, but some can rub people the wrong way. These are my personal pet-peeves:

Bad geography. Swamps right next to desert, rivers that flow uphill, and most especially, obviously rectangular continents. That last one really gets me. If the main continent follows the Law of Cartographical Elegance to a tee, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

I don't mind temperate climates and Europeanesque cultures so much, but what really gets me are the endless fantasy kingdoms that are essentially copies of medieval England. The worst part is that these places aren't particularly English either. There is no sense of national identity whatsoever to distinguish it from any number of generic fantasy kingdoms.

Related to both of the above, really generic place names, like Highwatch, Black Bay, the Mountains of Doom, ugghhh.

Choosing the most boring and bog-standard racial, cultural, and social class combination for the protagonist to make the main character more "relatable". If I wanted familiar and relatable, I wouldn't be reading a fantasy novel, would I? It doesn't help the reader relate, it just makes the main character boring. I swear, if I see one more American 30-something white male with brown hair and stubble, I'll...

Wizards who spend years in their ivory towers studying and experimenting, and yet for all that, they never make any meaningful contribution to the magical arts and sciences. Even worse is when magic and/or technology was more advanced long, long ago, and yet after 3000 years, nobody has been able to figure out how they did it, or replicate it.

Always Chaotic Evil races and cultures. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and carries certain Implications. Always Lawful Good races are bad too, but they crop up less often.

Fantasy religions that are basically just ripoffs of the Greco-Roman pantheon, especially when the temples and clergy also have the aesthetics of the Catholic Church.

Fantasy races that are all basically just humans, both mentally and physically, with only a few minor differences. Also, humans are the majority and dominant race, despite the fact that they have no (or very few and minor) physical or mental advantages over the others.

And of course, misuse of language, and pathetically illogical action; but this is common to all literature, not just fantasy.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

^Hear, hear.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

We needn't add the "of course tropes aren't bad" disclaimer in some cases. A river flowing backward isn't a trope, it's a mistake.

one of my least favorite book series put a "jungle" right in the middle of an otherwise cold/temperate continent

 

[TheKillerBs]

We needn't add the "of course tropes aren't bad" disclaimer in some cases. A river flowing backward isn't a trope, it's a mistake.

Only if it isn't part of a world with alien geometry or is otherwise magical or supernatural.