Is worldbuilding pointless?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.