Is worldbuilding pointless?

[Anne Lyle]

I get the impression Harrison is describing a particular type of world-building-related writing, one that can afflict historical fiction writers as well as SF&F writers. You know the sort of writing I mean - "I've invented/researched this fact, so I'm d***ed well going to stick it in the book". This technique is not to be confused with books that describe their invented worlds in vivid sensory detail, or even wander off into diversions. The latter are a feature of the writer's style, not his or her degree of world-building.

The best world-building gives the impression that there's a lot more the writer isn't mentioning - even if sometimes that impression is false

[Wiglaf]

What is necessary is obviously a matter of opinion. What you missed, Teresa, was my alluding to the fact that world building often seems to be done after the fact in order to sell a crappy guide to the world of whatever for some quick cash. Maybe I'm just cranky.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

The best world-building gives the impression that there's a lot more the writer isn't mentioning - even if sometimes that impression is false

That's one of the things I like in an SFF book; there is more to it than is put on the page; just like a book (a well-written book, that is) about the real world.

As an aside, the North-South mainline through the middle of Hampshire travels through a lot of cuttings; even where these are shallow, you often don't get to see more than a couple of fields' distance away from the tracks. I somethimes get the feeling that, as far as I'm concerned, there might be a void beyond the horizon. On the other hand, I know that this is false.

Reading a book with the right amount of description of the environment (right for me, that is) is like that: I feel that, were I to venture beyond the current horizon, the imagined world would not suddenly end. Something in the writer's description cons me (in a good way) that I am travelling but one path through a maze of others. Apart from anything else I, as a reader, can safely imagine what is happening around the story being told. I can do this because the writer's skill permits me (to borrow a verb!) to do so.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

What you missed, Teresa, was my alluding to the fact that world building often seems to be done after the fact in order to sell a crappy guide to the world of whatever for some quick cash. Maybe I'm just cranky.

I didn't miss it. I had a reply all ready, but it was very much aside from the point I was really trying to make, so I decided not to include it. I will now:

According to my observations most of these crappy guides are written by fans instead of by the authors themselves, or by people who make it their business to make money by exploiting other people's creativity.

There are, for instance, dozens of guides of different sorts devoted to Middle Earth (many of these by David Day, and most of his cover the same territory over and over), and I think I am safe in saying that not one penny of the money made by selling these guides is going into J. R. R. Tolkien's pocket.

[chopper]

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: every story needs a rationale. The "world" is a part of that rationale - I take it as read that in SF/F certain things will happen that cannot happen in everyday life, so the writer must tell us why those things can happen.

Frodo's journey down the River Don to Rotherham would have been dull and frankly uninspiring (and frequently interrupted by gangs of unruly pre-teen glusniffers). Thus, Middle-Earth.

[Lith]

Well, there's world-building, and then there's... world-building. It works for some authors, and not others. Tolkien did a lot of worldbuilding, but not even a small amount of it shows up in LOTR- for my part I think LOTR would have been as good a story if he'd just sat down and wrote it (although I wonder if it was even possible for him, as an author, to do that). Other authors do a lot of world-building, and don't end up with LOTR. I think it's more in what the author's focus is, and how well developed their grasp of/instinct for humanity is. (By which I mean the whole of politics, history, psychology, religion, etc.)

To bring in artistic metaphor, it's a little like saying a stained glass rosette is an inferior piece of work, because everything is rigidly defined, pre-planned, and stale; and that a modern piece (be it impressionist, abstract, or whatever) is better because it's more vibrant and free. I dunno; I think they're both valid and each appeals to different people.

[Marvolo]

It is very possible that the author of that comment just doesn't want to put in the work, so he developed a view on writing that fits his work ethic.

Setting is one of the major pieces of fictional writing. If you are writing in a world that is completely foreign, you'd better have a good idea of the setting.

Would George R. R. Martin's epic be as enjoyable if he didn't have all that history and culture worked out before he began?

The Dark Tower is a good example of what happens when someone starts an epic fantasy story with no world building. Incontinuities and rereleases of the original novel occur.

World Building is good. Good storytelling ability is good. One shouldn't exist without the other. If you have good storytelling ability, no one is going to fault you for describing your completely fictional world, because they don't know you're describing it.

But if you're lazy then just write stories that have so little depth they don't need a detailed setting.

[chrispenycate]

In my (never particularly humble) opinion, the world buiding is essential, but that doesn't mean that the readers should be able to see allthe nuts and bolts. The author should know, and the reader sholud see what he or she needs, but with the solid feeling that the rest exists somewhere.
I know I've a tendency to try and tell the entire background, which, if I did not curb it regularly would render my stories unreadable; but I have to know the information I shouldn't be delivering to the potential reader.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

In my (never particularly humble) opinion, the world buiding is essential, but that doesn't mean that the readers should be able to see allthe nuts and bolts. The author should know, and the reader sholud see what he or she needs, but with the solid feeling that the rest exists somewhere.
I know I've a tendency to try and tell the entire background, which, if I did not curb it regularly would render my stories unreadable; but I have to know the information I shouldn't be delivering to the potential reader.

That is exactly my point. By building the world off stage you know what details are needed on stage. You don't have to show the storeroom full of props, but they're there, and you know they're there for when you need them. By having it prepared beforehand you can dictate which details make it through and which remain hidden, or hinted at, or revealed through cultural habits or dialogue patterns. It is all in the presentation.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

It is very possible that the author of that comment just doesn't want to put in the work, so he developed a view on writing that fits his work ethic.

With another author, I might suspect the same thing. Having read Harrison's work, I would say a very resounding no to that.

Even though I disagree with what he is saying and think he is being very narrow-minded.

Actually, I think he's just reached the age when many writers look back on their careers, wonder why they and other writers they admire -- usually with the same viewpoint and the same aesthetic -- aren't getting as much attention and respect as they feel they deserve, get angry, and start to vent.

It's a natural and quite understandable reaction. It's just that in this case, with M. John Harrison being a writer of some distinction, people are paying more attention.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

With another author, I might suspect the same thing. Having read Harrison's work, I would say a very resounding no to that.

Even though I disagree with what he is saying and think he is being very narrow-minded.

Actually, I think he's just reached the age when many writers look back on their careers, wonder why they and other writers they admire -- usually with the same viewpoint and the same aesthetic -- aren't getting as much attention and respect as they feel they deserve, get angry, and start to vent.

It's a natural and quite understandable reaction. It's just that in this case, with M. John Harrison being a writer of some distinction, people are paying more attention.

I'll have to check out some novels of his. But what he is saying is actually detrimental to the entire process. Stephen King made the comment that "an outline is a bad ficiton writer's last resort." With King being the most influential author to me at that point, I took the advice to heart. About 600,000 words later I can say that particular method may work well for him but definately not for me. I need a good idea of where it is heading so that I can try to make every word put me one step closer to that goal. King has had some stellar work, but also some complete duds. He even admitted having an outline to his Dark Tower series at one point that would have made the series about 17,000 pages if he went all the way with it.

So what you say is exactly right. Writers vent. Readers/Aspiring Authors listen and are occasionally hurt by outright bad advice.

This is one of those times.

Do world build. Do use sparing exposition that capitalizes on inferred meanings and detailed cultural motivations for the characters. Stories are better due to these things.

Don't take that guys advice. That way lies massive rewriting and story death.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Don't take that guys advice. That way lies massive rewriting and story death.

Unless you're a massive talent like Harrison, in which case it may lead to a long and distinguished career.

But most of us don't have that kind of talent (and by that, I mean type as well as degree) and we would be much better off trying to perfect whatever it is that we do best.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Interesting discussion.

But isn't John Harrison just saying, in a grumpy grumpy way, that writing is more important than wordbuilding?

And isn't he also saying that a certain worldbuilding sums up to padding?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Everything adds up to padding, if it's done in excess, and it's not to your personal taste in the first place.

[Sephiroth]

For me, if the world-building is incongruous, it ruins everything. That's just my taste. I can't put up with it, though.


The way I see it, the artistry must be built on top of a solid foundation, or in the end it falls flat.

I am also in the camp that prefers to know many more things than will ever make it into my narrative.