Literally Geeky discussion
World Building - More or Less, or is More Less?
date
newest »
newest »
Some houskeeping first: "Against worldbuilding" link is not working. Here's a working one: https://electricliterature.com/agains....I still haven't read the linked articles and I will only speak from my personal perspective: I despair when someone takes a page to describe a sofa (Buddenbrooks) or three pages to describe in intricate detail a journey (Lord of the Rings). I start skipping and skimming and all this does not even help me to picture what's going on, I'm wired differently it seems.
Sir Terry at his best is one way I like it: imply what is going on and let me fill in the blanks. Interesting Times is a good example for this.
Or another true master in my eyes is David Brin: You always get the feeling that he knows exactly how his worlds work, yet he only gives you enough detail at a time so you can follow the story.
What it probably boils down for me is the old show-don't-tell approach: show me the world through the senses of the characters, don't describe it to me or tell me about it.
And, personally, I often like the broader brushes when an author paints me this image - as long as I still get the sense that they somehow hang together.
Last thing before I leave this for now: Look at short stories. In just a few pages, they often evoke the feeling of true world, caught only in glimpses, but definitely there.
That's sexy, erotic worldbuilding - hinting at what is there, but not baring it for everyone to see.
So, pornographic and erotic worldbuilding as categories? The latter one is more subtle, more thrilling, more mysterious. But sometimes, you just need satisfy an urge directly, without too much frills.
Mod
I've struggled with steampunk novels where the author insists on telling me too much (The Difference Engine really is a cut above them all). I have some issues about imperialism that a lot of steampunk seems set on ignoring in favour of zeppelins and dashing fashions. Clever books address it, the less able ignore the darker side of the historical period in favour of adding more cogs.
Alt-history is a particular bugbear of mine though. The 'alt' can be great, but if the 'history' is badly researched - especially when famous figures are co-opted for window dressing and end up acting out of character I get pulled out of the world, and end up very aware that I'm about to throw things at the wall. Again, that's a case where less can be more.
All I can say is that this all boils down to story, story, story - if an author is giving us something that is not in service of that, it is nothing more than masturbatory navel gazing.Other than that, this thread is the best thing I've read on t'internet for ages!
I'm reading the articles now.First up: Against Worldbuilding
https://electricliterature.com/agains...
Interesting, I never expected this kind of intricate worldbuilidng he describes. Yes, I've been one of those fans looking for pattern and rules and the edges where the puzzle pieces don't fit (Star Wars being my favourite victim). But never as a way to interpret the story, to take it in.
The term "World Conjuring" he uses pretty much goes in the same direction as the erotic worldbuiling we talked about.
Some of the comments on that article put it well: Story, plot and character probably should come first - and worldbuilding should then support them. So, some stories might need more of it, some less.
And, also interesting point, some authors need more of it than others to write.
Confusion of Terms/Perspective
I think, there are different kind of worldbuilding going on.
I always used as a term to describe what an author does in the finished work to help the reader build the world in their own mind.
This article uses it to describe the work an author does to create the world - whether it shows up on the page or not.
On the Prevalence of Worldbuilding in Understanding a Work of Fiction
An interesting point he makes is that his students look to worldbuilding as a primary (or even the primary) tool to understand, explore and interpret works of fiction.
One of the comments suggests that this might be due to the modern (western/US) TV series which pretty much has continuity as part of its foundation.
Which made me think of all kinds of games as well: games, be it computer games, board games or rpgs, are very much rule-based. You have a buch of assumptions you start from plus rules and that creates the game - the story.
And our digital world thrives on rules as well.
So maybe the fact that our whole culture is currently steeped in algorithms is part of why worldbuilding, more specifically logical and coherent worldbuilding, is used so much by his students as a tool.
Making Mordors Economy Workhttp://www.centives.net/S/2013/making...
does not add anything to the discussion, I think. It's just one of those fund, nerdy/geeky things fans get caught up in.
But if a student would come up with that in a literary class discussing Lord Of The Rings, I would understand the frustration of the teacher. Other things in the books are much worthier of discussion - sacrifice, destiny, old vs new, ...
Against Worldbuildinghttp://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles...
seems mostly to argue that the term has become to big, to all-encompassing.
The author also says that worldbuilding should be in service of the story - although it is important, it should not become the primary concern.
So, for me, a mildly interesting companion piece. But the first article definitely was the most thought-provoking.
Mod
Comprehensiveness and continuity allows us to nit-pick, or to write immersive fanfic perhaps; to obsess and lose ourselves in different worlds, but the intense focus can make the reader myopic to the point of being (ironically) ill informed. Moreover if you need a book that comes with an encyclopedia, a dictionary, and an atlas, I imagine you're going to be pretty limited on choice. That's not to disparage authors who put in all that work, though forgive me if I mutter quality not quantity under my breath.
Like Mitchell, I'm not sure using world-building as the primary tool for analysis is particularly worthwhile.
"[W] hen students encounter a book outside of the modes of actual realism or faux world-building realism, they don’t know how to evaluate it. They believe that a different way of seeing reality aren’t invitations to see reality in a new way yourself, but simply failures of worldbuilding."
As with anything, a reader will get out what they put in. In a very roundabout way, I wonder if there's another problem at work here. That this expectancy of rules and structure that Mitchell describes is perhaps laziness on the part of the reader who doesn't want to do their own homework/ think laterally/be creative and would rather be spoonfed every bit of information that passes through the author's transom?
Maybe readers who employ such methods cast themselves as raggedylittle orphan Olivers, as they march to the front, bowl proffered asking for 'more'. The same readers might be quick to judge Terry Prachett's clever (and snarky) hand-waving of how dragons work. They demand to know to have it explained, because 'huge firebreathing dragons are bloody cool' isn't enough. There's no right way to properly evaluate a book but, if you're reading 'Guards! Guards!' and getting angry about wingspan ratios and tensile strength, I hate to tell you this, but, you're doing it wrong.
Mod
https://t.co/hZ1CaoCpxK
Both Kennedy and Mitchell argue that the attention to detail demanded by obsessive little nerdlings like me comes at the expense of storytelling, and further more that it’s also detrimental to the reader’s imagination. It is a hindrance; narrowing the our focus until we end up bickering for days about plausibility (how did the orcish economy work, etc?*) while missing the point entirely. We could be star gazers gaping on a dark hill with all the riches of the sky spread before us. Instead we’re picking at lint, marvelling at its consistency, and congratulating our woollens for bobbling. NK Jemision’s Dreamblood series made me wonder. It was intricate and detailed, but unconfined too - comfortable to wander about in, sort of like a really posh dressing gown. There was room to make up your own answers.
What is world-building? It’s having the answers, or rather it’s having the details and structure from which answers may be plausibly conjured. Good world-building is beautiful bridge - or even a spiderweb. It supports the story, allowing the reader to travel along its path nodding at the tensile strength. It hold us, ad in some cases grabs us. How much of it do we really need? Have you seen those spider-webs when the spider is on crack or caffeine?
In his post Kennedy quotes extensively from Tolkien “Lord of the Metal Umlauts,” reminding us that while ol’ JRR might be held up as the Grand High Wizzard of World-building, even he understood the necessity of mystery and a bit of slack in magical realms. That bagginess provides room for imagination; it’s a fulcrum for storytelling. Authors who lose sight of that lose the mechanics of spinning a good yarn.Y'know what, why not go read Kennedy’s article:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles.... It’s a good un’. I’ll wait here…
My favourite bit of LotR provides a good example of both top notch world-building but also of knowing when less is more. It happens on Paths of the Dead….A dwarf, and elf and a human walk into a, well, I wish it were a bar (Pub of the Dead), but that sort of thing was four hobbits and two books back. The dwarf, elf and man walk along haunted paths to a haunted stone to summon an unseen army of ghosts. Everything is haunted because of course there’s a big backstory of angsty oathbreaking (oh the added heft of centuries old betrayal). Remember, I’m not arguing that all world-building is bad. Aragorn marches along (probably singing in his head, the bastard), while Gimli is busy being terrified, He notices a skeleton reaching for a closed door. And that’s it, the story goes on by and takes us somewhere else. My favourite bit in all of the Lord of the Rings. Skeleton, hand, door. Bit of weft to the ongoing epic’s weave.
You never find out in the main book what’s behind it. You don’t need to. And yes, there’s a wee paragraph of backstory in the appendices, and hasn’t Tolkien’s oft noted thoroughness totally undermined my point? No. You don’t need to read the appendices to wonder about that door or what’s behind it, and reading them won’t stop you from be troubled, like Gimli or from feeling sympathy for that stodgy little axe nibbler. You’re both out of your depth, and you’d be out of your depth whether there’s an explanation tucked away somewhere or not.
Maybe the learned reader gains something later on, by knowing that REDACTED lies mouldering there, but it doesn’t add anything to the story or the moment, and again, even in the appendices it’s only a quick sketch of a bigger story - one you’ll never know, because Tolkien isn’t going to tell you, Even this vast, historied world, is actually quite empty, full of pauses and held breaths.
Mitchell’s argument
(https://electricliterature.com/agains...), which prompted all this mulling, concerns laziness. Not any specific author, but ours. By shifting the focus from the story onto the minutiae, readers creative faculties are left untaxed and under nourished. Not everything has to be explained or planned out, he argues; let the reader work - engage them as something more than problem solvers (or nit pickers); turn their imagination into your own personal dancing monkey. World-building in overdrive can provide ample manure for the roses of pedantry, but little else of value will grow.
I’m not immune to sniffing those particular blooms. Sometimes it’s in appreciation of a wonderful world: I want to know more, I want to go beyond the story. Other times it really is a persnickety critical huff. I get very frustrated with Wizarding World’s cult of isolationism. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets we learn that Arthur Weasley, a grown man doesn’t understand electricity, or …. ahem, no… I’m sorry, I can’t help myself…. USE A BIRO! IT’S A LABOUR SAVING DEVICE! LEARN ABOUT ELECTRICITY! DO YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT THE ANIMAL CRUELTY USING QUILLS INVOLVES?!!!!!!!!!!!
… Ahem.
I quite agree with Mitchell that the longer a reader is asked to spend in a world the more structure that world requires, but that doesn’t mean that it necessarily needs lots of depth; sometimes a superficial structure will do… Think Camelot from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: it’s only a model. I often think of the Discworld as a old house (built on loam), with bits added on in different styles - clashing styles, with doors opening to reveal stairs that go nowhere, and that’s fine.
We regularly praise good world-building during Literally Geeky hangouts. Rightly so; skillfully evoking worlds, whether historical, fantastical or futuristic is artful (and, the cynic in me would add, lucrative). I’d argue it’s not limited to genre fiction, though genre fiction is primarily, though not exclusively, the stamping ground of in-depth world-building. All authors create a world with unique rules of some sort that you have to process and invest in. Warren Ellis is weird, wonderful and highly conceptual, Lolita plunges the reader into the tilted summers of Humbert Humbert, Joyce gives you a Dublin you can smell. Mary Shelley paints a chiaroscuro with shades of detail and withholding; the endless lists of Frankenstein’s university readings, his nocturnal trips; procuring, stitching, followed by a spot of misdirection. Bam. Life! ….How did he do it? How much detail is too much? Robert Jordan, I’m looking at you.
Did William Goldman have the right idea with his 'good bits’ Princess Bride? Maybe. AS Byatt built not one but two romantic poets from the ground up in Possession, and as good as that book is, oh my god, when you turn the page and see the beginnings of another six pages of meticulous pre-Raphaelite verse, well, it’s the same sinking feeling you get when Aragorn strikes up another sad Elvish song. There’s a point to the poems and the songs, and yes, the respective authors put a lot of hard work into their art, but battering me round the head with the cudgel of needless intricacy (+10 to over-complication) won’t stun me into loving a story. Excess baggage bogs the bloody thing down.
Detailed world-building can be a joy and I’ll hold my hand up; I fetishise the good stuff, I buy into the franchises and sequels and want more of the same beloved worlds. That sort of thing isn’t not always good for you. Less is more. Take Gaiman at his best.That cunning mop-haired fiend! He knows how to use just enough detail to make you believe. Just enough weirdness to make you want more (oh gods, more Neverwhere, please!). Just enough reality that the magic seems … right. Natural. Something that was always there but never articulated, lurking deep in your marrow. Then he ends and moves on.
Compare that ruthlessness and confidence in storytelling to a dull but meticulous world: an indulgence of detail, stifling in its tediousness; weighty and constricting. Slowing authors down, sidetracking them like a primrose path from their original purpose. In putting out faith in in the heaped bricks of world-building, we the reader (and perhaps publishing houses) are losing sight of the joys of the bigger, vaguer picture.
Thoughts?
*http://www.centives.net/S/2013/making...