Is worldbuilding pointless?

[Ursa major]

I didn't think The Da Vinci Code was the worst book I've read.

* Dodges brickbats *

Oddly enough, given what this thread is about, the thing that jarred most with me was his incorrect placing of Versailles in relation to Paris**. It seems that even where the world is pre-built, with umpteen maps available, an author can make themselves look dumb.

** Okay, I knew the rest of the book wouldn't be up to much and so I read it in that spirit, with most of my critical faculties switched off; but getting geographical information wrong: I can't abide that.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

I have done that. Stephen King, for example, spent his 40s and 50s writing great stories that also happened to be 300 pages too long. They were too long because he became too wordy, too loose with his narrative.

I don't think anyone here was thinking of Stephen King when they were talking about writers who can seduce you with beautiful prose.

I'll give you an idea of what I am talking about, and ironically it was written by M. John Harrison, the very author whose negative comments on worldbuilding inspired this thread.

Under the brow of Hollin Low Moor he slowed to a walk. His feet and ankles hurt. He sat on a rock by the path to message them, and his attention was captured by the City, waiting there in its mantle of stillness and distance. Light flared through the haze: heliographing from the riverine curves of the Proton Circuit; phosphorescing from the pleasure canal at Lowth where under a setting sun banks of anemones glowed like triumphal stained glass; signaling from the tiered vivid heights of Minnet-Saba, from the inconceivable pastel towers and plazas of the Ateline Quarter. All was immaculate -- illuminated, transfigured, miniature. It attracted him not as a refuge (although he saw himself as a refugee), nor by its double familiarity, but by its long strangeness and obstinacy in the face of Time, celebrated here in the generation (or so it seemed) rather than the reflection of light. Viriconium, the Pastel City: a little cryptic, a little proud, a little mad. Its histories, as forgotten as his own, made of the air a sort of amber, an entrapment; the geometry of its avenues was a wry message from one survivor to another; and its Present, like his own, was but an implication of its past -- a dream, a prediction, a brief possibility to be endured.

To me, this is poetry, and I don't care how much of the information is essential to the plot. It creates an atmosphere, it gives me entry into a world I could never otherwise visit.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I didn't think The Da Vinci Code was the worst book I've read.

There's worse?!

;-)

[iansales]

Teresa - hear, hear

[JDawg2.0]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

But a writer shouldn't worry about what's salable when the story is still in the conception phase

I never said they should. The quality (and therefore, marketability) should come into play in your final draft, though. You should be aware of your audience by then.

Originally Posted by Ian Sales

You've contradicted yourself. You're equating "best" with popularity, and we know that's false. Success is no indicator of quality.

Popular was the wrong word. I should have gone with "well-known". But let me help you down from your romantic cloud ride, and let's get real: success is an indicator of quality. There are those who slip through the cracks, on both ends, but if success was no indication of quality, then no quality writer would ever be successful. Success is not the sole indicator, but it is an indicator nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Teresa

To me, this is poetry, and I don't care how much of the information is essential to the plot. It creates an atmosphere, it gives me entry into a world I could never otherwise visit.

Did I miss something? I could have sworn...

Ah, yes. Here it is:

Originally Posted by ME

Not everything needs to advance the storyline, but everything must be information that we need to make the experience more enjoyable.

See? I already said that the writing does not need to advance the plot. My point has been that the writing cannot be filler. What you posted, and what we both agree on, is that writing to serve the atmosphere is fine (and recommended). Serve the atmosphere, the characters, the story. Do not serve the word-count.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

Popular was the wrong word. I should have gone with "well-known". But let me help you down from your romantic cloud ride, and let's get real: success is an indicator of quality. There are those who slip through the cracks, on both ends, but if success was no indication of quality, then no quality writer would ever be successful. Success is not the sole indicator, but it is an indicator nonetheless.

Your logic is flawed. You're saying that because some successful works are of good quality, then quality is an indicator of success. And yet the low quality of many successful works, and the lack of success of many works of high quality, indicate otherwise. In order to be successful - a best-seller, in other words - a book has to appeal to as large an audience as possible. And, let's face it, the criteria by which we judge the quality of a work of fiction are not the same criteria which lead to across the board success.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Not everything needs to advance the storyline, but everything must be information that we need to make the experience more enjoyable.

And my point is that not everyone enjoys the same thing. One reader's idea of what adds depth and richness to a story is another reader's idea of a tediously long-winded info-dump. When someone says to take out the non-essentials, that's too vague to be useful, because not everyone will agree on what the non-essentials are.

And whether you are going to measure success by popularity, financial success, or critical recognition, by the regard a writer is held in today or in the future, there are enough readers out there that it's been proven possible for writers with very different approaches to be successful in all of these ways.

[JDawg2.0]

Ian,

My logic is fine. There are enough great writers who are also successful to lend credence to the idea that success is an indicator. As I said before, it is not the sole indicator, and maybe not the best indicator, but it is one nonetheless. Just because a few of the greats did not reach the peaks of financial success that they would have liked, a great number of them have.

Teresa,

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one. I don't think anyone would call the example you posted an "info-dump". If they do, then they don't really know what they are talking about. Even if it isn't your cup of tea, you can't argue the beauty of it, or the importance it has in regards to the atmosphere of the story. And there is certainly no way that could be called an info-dump.

I see info-dump as the sign of a bad writer. Writing is akin to poetry, and to music, in the way that they all have a beat, a rhythm. Info-dump does not serve the story, the atmosphere, the characters, or anything other than the word-count. Info-dump happens because a writer is not talented enough to lend their story a beat. I'm not implying that writers who do use the info-dump aren't creative, but they certainly aren't talented.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

My logic is fine. There are enough great writers who are also successful to lend credence to the idea that success is an indicator. As I said before, it is not the sole indicator, and maybe not the best indicator, but it is one nonetheless. Just because a few of the greats did not reach the peaks of financial success that they would have liked, a great number of them have.

Quality writing and success are completely unrelated. Just because some writers of quality have enjoyed success, it does not mean success is an indicator of quality. Or are you going to claim that Harold Robbins - a very successful writer - wrote high quality fiction? Or perhaps you could claim that John Kennedy Toole, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning A Confederacy of Dunces, did not write fiction of high quality because he was unsuccessful - so much so, in fact, that his novel wasn't published until 11 years after his suicide.

You cannot judge the quality of a work by its success. Entirely different criteria pertain. Number of units sold is extrinsic to the text. Quality is intrinsic.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

I don't think anyone would call the example you posted an "info-dump". If they do, then they don't really know what they are talking about. Even if it isn't your cup of tea, you can't argue the beauty of it, or the importance it has in regards to the atmosphere of the story.

Oh, but people do call that sort of thing an info-dump, especially when it goes on the same way for 200 pages. And whether you and I think that they know what they are talking about or not, it makes it very hard for a large group of readers and writers to agree on what is essential.

I was on a panel a while back -- oddly enough, it was a panel that was supposed to be about language and style and eloquence -- with a writer who will remain nameless (anyway, she sells a lot more books than I do) who proudly stated as part of her introduction that she doesn't have time for beautiful language. She gave me a very evil look when it was my turn to introduce myself and I said very emphatically that I did. She then said, very condescendingly, that maybe some writers might, but no reader has time. I replied that she should tell that to all the people who buy books by Joyce Carol Oates and John Crowley.

It suffices to say that the conversation deteriorated from there.

[JDawg2.0]

Oh, but people do call that sort of thing an info-dump, especially when it goes on the same way for 200 pages. And whether you and I think that they know what they are talking about or not, it makes it very hard for a large group of readers and writers to agree on what is essential.

Those people are idiots. I mean, honestly! But I agree with you point, anyway. Nothing about this is universal.

It suffices to say that the conversation deteriorated from there.

Good for you! Seriously, people like that are just the worst. I knew a writer a while ago who had been published, but was bitter that he didn't have record-setting sales. He saw himself as being on-par with the literary giants, and condescended to everyone. He was just horrible.

Or perhaps you could claim that John Kennedy Toole, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning A Confederacy of Dunces, did not write fiction of high quality because he was unsuccessful

You don't call winner a Pulitzer Prize a success??

[iansales]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

You don't call winner a Pulitzer Prize a success??

The author wasn't successful in his lifetime. The Pulitzer was awarded 12 years after he committed suicide. I suspect he didn't consider himself a success.

[Anthony G Williams]

I think that the most important issue for writers is that high sales figures are a huge measure of success (in fact, a survival issue) for publishers.

[magician2magici]

Originally Posted by JDawg2.0

Hi! I'm new here, and I couldn't wait to post in this thread.

When pondering the question serving as the topic of this thread, I almost immediately typed "yes, it is pointless". I suppressed that urge, and thought on it some more.

It ultimately depends on what you are trying to do. Someone else in this thread wrote that the answer is dependent on what the reader is looking for. I believe that completely. Some readers want glorified summaries, with a lovin' spoonful of melodrama. And that's fine. Others want a rich world, full of places and people and creatures and kingdoms and castles and...well, convolution! And that's fine, too.

When talking about what is widely considered to be good fiction, the definition shrinks, generally, to tightly-written narratives. For my money, the best writers can pound out a great story in ten thousand words.

To be fair, there is something to be said for grabbing a sheet of scrap paper, and drawing the map of an alien world. I've done it as recently as yesterday! There is something very fatherly about creating your own universe, and the feeling is nearly god-like. It truly is.

In reality, however, to expect your readers to enjoy a story that is comprised of 1000 countries, 10,000 people, and 100,000 battles, equates to asking them to fund your "I want to build a robot out of empty Diet Pepsi cans" project. As others have already mentioned, info-dump is no one's friend.

And info-dump is exactly the cliff's edge on which we breakdance when we undertake world-building. In my opinion, world-building is best used for the author's purposes, and not meant to be revealed in full to the reader at any one time. If you want to build yourself an epic planet, full of strife and battles and drama, then feel free. Draw a map, write a thousand-page outline, hang both on your bedroom wall. Feel free to use it as a path to spinning your highly-complex weave of stories in the YOUniverse...but don't give it all away. It is a sound guideline, but never an entertaining storyline.

Just my two cents.

hi JD
how are you ?

first of all i apologize for my late reply here , i was too busy , but i used to follow you all here , so i have my point too to share..

i may accept part of your talk , and may not accept the other ..
for me , i see the world building a stage in my way of writing a good novel, epic , whatever , in this way each stage has its important role , i can't see the point in comparing between one and another to determine who is the best of both , this is for no one sake at all . it's like i make you to choose between sun and moon , both are important to me and to everybody , by different degrees from one to another , so why putting ourselves in such bad situation ?

info dumps , i'm with you all , it's a nightmare , it's really my nightmare , presence means threat of failure , i can't afford that , neither any of you ..

the story determines what to do , it's like a fact for me , when i first think of my new story , while thinking , i make my opinions about other stages , and feel how much i'll take from every one to help my story to look better , that's not by our choice , it's by story choice..

so , i have one comment on your words here , about making 1000 countries and so on .. for me i'm doing this right now , it may sound crazy , but i'm doing extensive worldbuilding process now , you may see me making huge mistake , but let me share you something..
as long as i make my huge process away from my main storyline and make them both away from my mind , i'm successful. my mind here is like the traffic officer , who says who passes and in which direction to go , here is the same.
what is the harm i get from planning these huge lines for my story and future epics and only tinny info mentioned at it ? you know i'm like building my own world history , it's awesome , and also crazy , but that's what i feel towards my epic , and so i did and still doing..
what i want to say here , is regardless what huge or tinny planning anyone does , the story still the main challenge here ..

i'm just doing like my great teacher tolkien did long tiem ago , i'm ready to make huge amount of hidden work to just make my own legend be a true legend .

and i'll come back to share you discussion here..

salam..
thanks for good info lies deep here..

el-saher>>

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Oh, but people do call that sort of thing an info-dump, especially when it goes on the same way for 200 pages. And whether you and I think that they know what they are talking about or not, it makes it very hard for a large group of readers and writers to agree on what is essential.

I was on a panel a while back -- oddly enough, it was a panel that was supposed to be about language and style and eloquence -- with a writer who will remain nameless (anyway, she sells a lot more books than I do) who proudly stated as part of her introduction that she doesn't have time for beautiful language. She gave me a very evil look when it was my turn to introduce myself and I said very emphatically that I did. She then said, very condescendingly, that maybe some writers might, but no reader has time. I replied that she should tell that to all the people who buy books by Joyce Carol Oates and John Crowley.

It suffices to say that the conversation deteriorated from there.

I think its very sad that a famous writer thinks so little of her readers....