Is worldbuilding pointless?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Insult? I don't think he would consider it an insult. He's proud to be so prolific.

Even if you're writing original work, publishing a series of books in swift succession is a good way to build a following. You get readers to buy the second book while questions left by the first book are still in their mind; but if you wait long enough for their curiosity to become blunted, you can lose the momentum.

After three or four books, though, most readers are hooked into the series, and momentum doesn't matter so much.

I wonder if the Harry Potter books would have built up to such an international phenomenon if the first three books hadn't come out at yearly intervals? If there had been a gap of two or three years between the first and second and the second and third, would the books have enjoyed a far more modest success? I think this is highly probable.

Of course many, many readers would have returned to the series, because they were enchanted by the world [Teresa drags her post back on topic] and the characters. But I don't see how the word-of-mouth could have swelled to such gigantic proportions.

 

[iansales]

A good point. John Crowley's Aegypt quartet was 7 years between each book. That may be why the 4th one was published by a small press...

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

A good point. John Crowley's Aegypt quartet was 7 years between each book. That may be why the 4th one was published by a small press...

Maybe, but I never stopped longing for the following instalment.

Call me Fidelia...

 

[Marvolo]

A weak argument, Marvolo. I can remember when "pet rocks" were all the rage. The idea was bizarre enough to appeal to a lot of people, the hype set in, and the man who thought of it became very rich. Was his success, then, an indication of the quality of the product he was selling? They were just rocks, and it was just a fad.

Of course it is a weak argument if you relate it to pet rocks. But I wasn't speaking of pet rocks. I was speaking of success as a novelist/writer. Anyone can make any argument look retarded by picking out a certain situation that has nothing to do with the actual statement or intention of the statement. Success is an indicator of quality in writing and writing has little to do with pet rocks.

It is amazing to me how many people scoff at the statement though. It seems to deeply offend people that successful authors might actually have become successful because of anything other than a lucky break or good timing or a fad. Most successful authors are good at their craft and genre. That is what makes them successful.

It doesn't bother me to think that writers are successful because they are good. It gives me even more hope. The only ones who argue against that argument are the ones who deep down inside don't think they're good enough to make it, so they want to justify their insecurities by deluding themselves into thinking that successful authors are just idiot savants.

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

... as I tend to edit my prose about a strabillion times, that's fine by me.

"strabillion"? Is that in the same ballpark quantity-wise as the "Jiga-Watt", from "Back to the Future"?

And while we're on the subject of quantity not quality, how about "Back to the Future"? Okay, nevermind, those weren't books.

So when (several of you) say that you don't do worldbuilding up front, is that to mean in the prose, or seperately as an exercise, or in your head? The reason I ask is because I do a fair amount of it in my head, and then follow a similar process to what you're describing (...just insert ideas as I go, and then copy-edit the whole thing until I can find no more contradictions...).

- Z.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

"Strabillion" comes from my worldbuilding, like "purpish", "darp it!", "sleek!". I should stop bubblishing (sic) these words online before my novel is out . Shouldn't I?

This is how it works for me: I start with a central idea about the physical and metaphysical laws of the new world, and then I concentrate on the story, and a character-driven plot. After the first draft is finished, I go back to the beginning and insert anything that seems pertinent but, as I do this, I often charge the darped thing with too many purpish details. So, I make another pass, cutting and slicing, until the novel is tightened up. This is where my kind beta-readers kick in. They ask for explanations (the incosiderate purps!), and I add other details based on their comments. And, of course, this triggers another pass to avoid inconsistencies.
And also, when I work on consistency, I check my typescript for any typical info-dump mistake that could have escaped Rubescant (my loyal editing sword), and I try alternative ways of giving the relevant information.

That's an Inf (Inferno) of a work, innit?

The interest of the aforementioned, painstaking process is that my imagination runs free, coming up with new associations instead of being gaoled inside a well-crafted fortress built up-front. And this leaves me with the freedom of concentrating on what is important (the characters, the story, and the plot). Oh, and I make another pass for dramatisation of dialogues (each character must have a distinctive speech), and style (this is the last, neverending, polishing phase).

Of course, I'm not saying that this is the universal procedure everyone should take up (I am too empathic for that; I couldn't stand seeing my fellow-writers wade in such suffering).

Sometimes, I think that fishing the wild trout up in the Alpi range would be a very pleasurable activity, but I keep writing, instead.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It seems to deeply offend people that successful authors might actually have become successful because of anything other than a lucky break or good timing or a fad. Most successful authors are good at their craft and genre. That is what makes them successful.

I think you are twisting what people are saying out of all recognition. No one is saying that success and excellence never go together. It's the automatic equation of success with good writing that many of us are protesting against.

People do not buy a book they haven't even read because they think it is good, but because they anticipate that it will be good. Sometimes, they are disappointed. And sometimes they don't even buy it with the expectation of liking it, but for motives of curiosity: because everyone else is talking about it (even if some of what they hear is not good), or because they are hooked into the series and want to find out what happens next.

The Da Vinci Code is a very good example of a book that became wildly successful, even though a large proportion of the people who bought it, and therefore contributed to that success, thought it was mediocre at best (and many thought it was horrible). Even of the people who raved about it, their praise was often for the fascinating premise, which wasn't even the author's own.

There are just too many, many factors that add up to publishing success to be able to say without qualification that success = good writing, and good writing = success. Often they go hand and hand, but not invariably.

A good writer stands a good chance of being published, if they persist, and if they continue to turn out good work. It is a reasonable hope. (All over the boards here I have said this, when others have said it was nearly impossible.) But to hope for a Harry Potter success or a Da Vinci Code success is not reasonable, because it involves forces entirely outside the writer's control. There are fads in publishing, just like there are elsewhere; some people will respond to those fads in the same way that people responded to the pet rock.


But to return to worldbuilding. Giovanna, while your imagination is visibly running free, it may be doing all sorts of more organized things under the surface where you can't see it. Imaginations can be remarkably double-sided that way.

Of course they don't have time to play these sneaky (if beneficial) tricks on those who don't spend a long time working on their stories, or who don't put in as much time editing as you do.

I also firmly believe that it is a good thing for early drafts (supposing there are to be later drafts) to be over-written. Those florid passages, those massive info dumps, may be the place where the writer is working things out for his or her own benefit -- in fact, they can be a form of worldbuilding. Once that benefit has been realized, those passages may have served their purpose, and they can be cut out.

 

[Marvolo]

A good writer stands a good chance of being published, if they persist, and if they continue to turn out good work.

And that is why success is an indication of quality. A one shot deal isn't success. Continually being published with good results is success and that comes from a writer's ability. People don't let themselves be burned more than once. At least I don't.

 

[Ursa major]

Are you saying, Marvolo, that the Da Vinci Code is a good book, well written and researched, with three dimensional characters and all the rest of the stuff that goes towards fine writing?

And if you're not, can you give us an explanation as to why the sales of Brown's other books increased after the DVC sales phenomenon? (Digital Fortress and Deception Point are truly dire, for those intending to dip into Dan's oeuvre.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

People don't let themselves be burned more than once. At least I don't.

Tell that to all the Robert Jordan fans and the Terry Goodkind fans who complain about each new book as it comes out but read the next installment nevertheless.

 

[Sephiroth]

*shuffles in guiltily*


Some people let themselves be burned eleven times. Now I have an oven glove.

Ahem.

 

[JDawg2.0]

Well, let me ask you guys this, then:

What indicates quality? Or, better yet, WHO indicates quality? I mean, it seems to me that it's one hell of a subjective matter. You guys bash Robert Jordan, but apparently he has some appeal if people continue to buy his work.

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

"Strabillion" comes from my worldbuilding, like "purpish", "darp it!", "sleek!". I should stop bubblishing (sic) these words online before my novel is out . Shouldn't I?

Dosen't bother me one bit. A writer must entertain oneself, no?

That's an Inf (Inferno) of a work, innit?
Sometimes, I think that fishing the wild trout up in the Alpi range would be a very pleasurable activity, but I keep writing, instead.

If it works for you, keep it. We all have our process.

I have a simpler way to ask the question, but I'm not sure there's a simple answer:

Does the worldbuilding build the character, or does the character build the world?

- Z.

 

[Culhwch]

Does the worldbuilding build the character, or does the character build the world?

Yes.

...in that sometimes it's the former, and sometimes it's the latter. For me, anyway.

 

[Giovanna]

we build our world out of what we know

 

[Marvolo]

Tell that to all the Robert Jordan fans and the Terry Goodkind fans who complain about each new book as it comes out but read the next installment nevertheless.

Well, on this I can't honestly take a high road. I never bought anything past the sixth book. I listened to seven and eight on unabridged audio. I despise Terry Goodkind and everything past book four I read because I enjoyed one through four. Looking back, I wonder how I enjoyed them but blame it on the inexperience of youth. And stupidity. Apparently I was very, very stupid.

But I can honestly say that after reading The Eye of the World I didn't waste my money on The Great Hunt. I have a friend who has read them all, including all the Goodkind books. He swears by them, even with the abysmal ending to The Sword of Truth series. To each their own I guess.

 

[lin robinson]

What indicates quality? Or, better yet, WHO indicates quality?

Read "Zen In The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenence?"

That's the question that throws the guy's mind out of gear...just what the hell is quality?

Worth mulling over. See if you come up with an answer. (The hilarious thing is, everybody assumes, down deep, that they know.)

 

[Marvolo]

I think you can define quality by a product delivering what you were looking for at a reasonable price and/or a product fulfilling a need amply at an affordable price.

So to a person who craves the type of fantasy Terry Goodkind writes, he produces quality work. The same with Tolkien, Jordan, Martin, etc.

Folks who crave stories with creepy settings and in depth character backrounds with horrific conclusions find quality in Stephen King's work.

That definition seems to suit for me. I'm sure someone is going to pick it apart but... oh well.

 

[iansales]

Quality isn't competence or mediocrity. Quality is excelling expectation.

There are also a series of objective yardsticks that can be used - chiefly to do with use of language, or techniques of story-telling. An idiot plot does not lead to a quality story. A writer with a vocabulary of 500 words does not lead to a quality story. A style of prose that relies on cliches rather than original turns of phrase does not lead to a quality story.

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

Just a note. It's "Zen and The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenence".

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Z.