Is worldbuilding pointless?

[lin robinson]

Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.

This is just nonsense. For one thing, worldbuilding IS writing.
For another, and especially in sciFi and fantasy, it's very often a major payoff for the reader. Just as Old South or Restoration settings are beloved by many romance fans.

When I was a kid gorging on scifi those were the stories that really nailed me...the ones I wanted to go live in. I figured out later that the books I set aside as the end drew near were dear to me: I didn't want it to be over and have to "go back home to Kansas".

It's not for somebody to separate out elements of fiction...or any art...and tell people which one they should like more than the others.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

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.

Having not read the guy's novels I can't say for sure, but I bet he does at least some world-building. This really just sounds like bitterness towards the fact that he has to world build because SF and F fans expect detailed settings.

Another popular author claims he doesn't do "world building." His name starts with Terry and ends with Goodkind.

[Flavia]

Someone named Terry can't be good

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Flavia

Someone named Terry can't be good

It does seem to be a very auspicious name for writers. (And my own failure to realize that in time was yet another misstep on the road to success.)

Marvolo, as a strong believer in world-building myself I appreciate your indignation. But a writer of Harrison's stature doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. His work is not for every taste and it will never command a huge audience, but it will be published and many will admire it, whether he soils his hands with world-building or not.

[Flavia]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

It does seem to be a very auspicious name for writers. (And my own failure to realize that in time was yet another misstep on the road to success.)

You intended to call yourself Terry?

And, are you sure? I mean... Terry Brooks... I mean...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Early in my career an editor did hint that it might be a good idea (androgynous names for female writers being still in vogue at the time), but I had abandoned the nickname at about the age of ten, and I declined the hint.

[magician2magici]

well , i see good discussion here..

for me writing without world -building is like walking at the desert without water , it's essential..

for those who don't like it , i really get exhausted after doing little work on my world , but who cares , life is harsh , without my own taste to my work , how my readers get the true feelings ?

i can see this is maybe another story of this auther which doesn't need world-building , or need such a thing but in small amount , without fine inner-consistency , so that they can write down from theit own minds - i tried this way before - but i hate this ..

after all this is an advice from this auther , he says what fits for himself , not necessarily for everyone..

salam..
el-saher>>

[Wiglaf]

Maybe he's just pissed off that his world building is going as bad as mine.

[lin robinson]

World-destroying is much more fun anyway.

[iansales]

Maybe the point is that a story written in deathless prose in a highly original world designed down to the smallest detail is still a story written in deathless prose. When the writing gets in the way, it doesn't matter how well you've built your world, or how long you've spent building it. Spending the bulk of your effort on the background is a waste of time.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by iansales

Maybe the point is that a story written in deathless prose in a highly original world designed down to the smallest detail is still a story written in deathless prose. When the writing gets in the way, it doesn't matter how well you've built your world, or how long you've spent building it. Spending the bulk of your effort on the background is a waste of time.

I agree with that, although with a qualifier on your final point: if you're already a successful author (so you know you can deliver) and you decide to plan a series of novels in some strange universe, then it makes sense to get that universe sorted in some detail, in conjunction with the frameworks for the novels, before you start the first one. Otherwise you might find yourself contradicting in a later novel something which you'd put in an earlier one...

[iansales]

Does that really matter? Both John Varley and Alastair Reynolds have taken a flexible approach to their universe-building, and later novels do indeed contradict earlier ones. And not to their detriment.

[JDP]

I don't think that world-building can ever be considered pointless; it occurs to some extent in any work of fiction.

Info dumps and asides that have nothing to do with the story/characters (but are used to describe some irrelevant details of the built world) are not problems with world-building but simply bad writing.

For me, it's a consistency of internal logic that makes an enjoyable world in fiction -- however unusual or outlandish it may be, as long as it doesn't contradict itself, I'm happy.

Whoever pointed out earlier that it sounds like he was in a bad mood and having a bit of a grouse has probably hit the nail on the head. I'd actually never heard of Harrison apart from in reference to these anti-world-building comments.

[iansales]

Well, Harrison did win the Arthur C Clarke Award this year. His The Centauri Device is in the SF Masterworks series, and an omnibus of his Viriconium novels is in the Fantasy Masterworks series. Both deservedly, I should add. In none of his fiction has Harrison privileged world-building over his writing - if anything, in some of his novels the mutable nature of the world is a feature of the story. If he was "having a bit of a grouse", it's against those who willingly accept bad fiction because they're interested only in immersing themselves in an invented world-- No; correction: not "accept", but actively promote. If that's what they want, who don't they play role-playing games? They can even make up their own stories, if they want...

[Marvolo]

I just read the first chapter of Nova Swing on Bantam Dell's site. I don't see how he can honestly say that he didn't world build or isn't world buildings as he is writing. I think he is simply bitter that writers he feel have less talent than him get by with novels he feels aren't as good as his due to detailed worlds.

He's award winning, but until today I've never heard of him. So I think the bitter verdict is the winner.