World Building in fantasy - how important is it?

[Toby Frost]

One phrase I seem to hear frequently is “world building”. My understanding is that this refers to the inventing of background/setting/history for the events of the story. It seems to be more contentious in fantasy writing than SF: I’ve heard it criticised as squeezing out other factors such as character development, and regarded by others as absolutely vital. Furthermore, I note that neither Joe Abercrombie nor Scott Lynch originally provided maps in their novels.

I must admit that I am biased here, as the sort of fantasy I’m writing is very character-based and, more importantly, set in a small area that to my mind doesn’t need to be mapped out. In the most generic books, it would seem that world building could just mean “the wood with the wood elves goes in the top right corner”, but in others it seems not just important but vital to understanding and appreciating the story. I’d be interested to know what other people think about world building: what is it exactly, and how important do people think it is to fantasy?

 

[Fried Egg]

I would say that "world building" is becoming more and more popular, even in the realm of SF. At least it seems that readers come to expect extensive world building these days, in either fantasy or SF.

Personally it is not something that is particularly important to me (as a reader), especially when it gets in the way other more important aspects of the story (which it so often does). Although I sense I am in a minority, especially amongst modern readers.

However, I don't think that you can escape the need for detailed world building, even if the scale of your setting is small. Just look at "Perdido Street Station" by China Mievielle The entire (some 900 page) story was set entirely within the scope of a single city. But one would still have to say that his world building was extensive. That's because your world building doesn't literarlly have to mean "world". If the "world" in your story is only a city, a forest or whatever, it can still be extensively built and with a lot of attention to detail.

I think it is ok to sacrfice the world building if your story has a different emphasis, other aspects that make up for it's lack. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Nik]

Do you mean 'world building' or 'society building' ??

If you want to get all technical, you start with a galactic region, collapse a juicy nebula into your local star(s). Design planet (s), derive geology, geomorphology and climate, estimate flora, fauna and mineral resource availability, plonk towns and cities at the river crossings, caravanserai at their natural positions, grow settlements to kingdoms or their equivalents, spawn regional and global tensions etc etc.

The technology must be carefully chosen, and should be workably self consistent. I must invoke Clarke's Laws and consider 'Majik' as Tech in this context. Even if you conceal the meta-technology, the rules behind the rules, you should have them worked out in your notes lest they trap you and your characters...

For my 'Red Tower' parallel world, I set sea-level as a low-stand, exposing a lot of the continental shelves. I also made the US Gulf aulacogen zag instead of zig, so the Atlantic opened from Gulf to Hudson Bay, leaving the US East Coast watershed & geology attached to Europe. That left the interior rather more 'continental' than at present...

I recently read the opening to the Pern prequel. Okay, I used to *love* those Dragons --They reminded me of cats-- but I grew out of it. I was rather saddened by the way the settlers' casual assumptions for-shadowed their impending durance. Like watching a train-wreck in slo-mo, it had a horrible fascination.

I was more interested in the 'world setting' data-dump, which was done from hi-tek rather than retro-medieval-ish stand-point...

 

[Jon Sprunk]

World-building is in the eye of the beholder. If the story's setting feels "real" to you, like it could actually exist somewhere, then you might say that author has great world-building skills, even if they didn't include maps and page after page of setting detail. If fact, some people (like myself) prefer a less-is-more approach. Give me the important facts and get on with the story; my imagination will fill in the rest.

 

[HareBrain]

A fantasy story doesn't have to have extensive wordbuilding to work well, but the advantage that tends to come with extensive wordbuilding is a greater sense of immersion for the reader. As a kid, the greatest feeling I got from reading a fantasy book was wanting to go and have adventures in that world myself - not even necessarily with any of the characters. I don't get that any more, but the sense of the story-world being far greater than the story still tugs on the adventure-strings. In my recent reading, that's probably been the case most of all with GRRM's ASIF.

However, worldbuilding has to be secondary to character and story, or it becomes intrusive and offputting. And it has to strongly influence both, or it becomes pointless.

As a writer, I don't enjoy it. I got all the worldbuilding out of my system running D&D games, and the worlds I made for those were cliched as heck. Now, the need to create something coherent and realistic, and which isn't going to fall foul of the eagle-eyes of geologers, geographers, anthropologists and etymologists, to name a handful of potential spoilsports, makes me reluctant to even commit to naming a country.

 

[asher marquering]

its dependant on several things

firstly this is going to sound cliqued but it really is up to you as to how important it is LOL because the way you write attracts readers such as yourself, someone who builds worlds hopes to attract those would appreciated being immersed completely in that world, I hope that makes sense

also its dependant on the scale of your novel/series if its on an epic scale (i.e. wars, politics and nations) then its quite important to determine where conflicts can take place, where minerals are, what strategies could be implemented based on the nearby terrain etc.

what is important is that you have your rules worked out and that you desperately try not to break them, that makes for more coherent and believable writing, like nik said

one thing you shouldn't do is get bogged down by building worlds like myself, i've literally got about 500 word documents detailing worlds and variations of worlds and no complete story, my advice, which i've tried taking myself, is just to write and if a concept (city, capital, nation, culture, race, peninsula, continent, world, solar system, etc. (see how bogged down you can get)) does come up which you might feel is important build upon that but always keep the rules of your world in mind make specific notes about them and keep writing

good luck

 

[chopper]

to be honest, i make a lot of it up as i go along. as long as it doesn't contradict anything that is already written, its not a massive problem.

my first Great Epic Fantasy started with a map of the world. at the moment, the map is far more detailed than the story itself, which tails off after 20k. the current epic, on the other hand, is not dependent on a map, and actually has a far more cohesive background. whether the difference is down to experience, i couldn't yet say.

 

[J-WO]

I find that anyone trying to build a world begins with two polar opposites (forgive the pun) in their mind.

One is the world that immediately surrounds your characters- their home village, the prison they begin in, the space port where a mysterious stranger hires their ship etc. This is world building of necessity, very much in service to plot and character.

The second is the wide canvas, the goldfish bowl containing everything- the world/ planet whatever. And no F/SF writer can avoid giving that at least some thought. After all, if you love your characters, or are immersed in the genius of your plot you'll at least have some curiosity as to where its all going on. This 'wider canvas' world building involves maps and politics, religion and history etc and and is the part that gives world building its bad name. But that's not to say its a bad thing per se. In the right hands it can be the reason to read a book.

To one degree or another, any fantasy writer begins with both of these, the measures varying with each individual. I know I do. And, to me, the process of writing a novel/ story is about stitching these two ends together, creating the world's 'middle ground' as the plot unfurls.

And that's the fun bit.

 

[Culhwch]

Furthermore, I note that neither Joe Abercrombie nor Scott Lynch originally provided maps in their novels.


I must admit that I am biased here, as the sort of fantasy I’m writing is very character-based and, more importantly, set in a small area that to my mind doesn’t need to be mapped out.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be equating the act of drawing a map as worldbuilding. Certainly, that can be a part of worldbuilding, but it is not the entirety of the process. And it isn't even necessarily a key or essential part of the process.

It's already been said (here and elsewhere on these boards, I'm sure), but every fictional endeavour involves worldbuilding to some degree. But with fantasy, in as much as a lot of it is set in entirely fictional worlds, there is necessarily more worldbuilding going on behind the scenes. And, yes, maps (I like 'em, but I know they aren't everybody's cup of tea). But for some reason, in some quarters, wordlbuilding seems to have this negative stigma attached. It truly perplexes me.

 

[reiver33]

As I write from an egocentric first-person standpoint then 'the world' is pretty much limited to what the main character encounters and interacts with. If a story is set in contempory London then you can generally assume that the reader will have a fair idea of certain surroundings without having to go into excessive detail.

I prefer the claustrophobia of urban life and don't do wide open spaces very well, so even in a fantasy setting I feel that the character would comment on, and be aware of, only his immediate surroundings - unless they impinge upon his conciousness. Thus I would only mention a bell tower if it struck the hour, rather than describing the grand vista of a fantasy city 90% of which the character will never visit.

In terms of 'world building' in its broader sense though I have had to sketch out both the political and economic structure of a 'fantasy' city, if only to present a consistant and coherent backdrop to events (oh, and a major religion). Even if most of these elements are never referenced explicity in the narrative as it unfolds. I find this level of background organisation useful, and it can lead to spontanious plot developments.

But maps? No....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

When the subject of world building comes up, I remember a fantasy writing class I attended, that was taught by Tad Williams. He criticized a particular series by another writer (whose name I am not going to mention here) commenting that he didn't like the feeling that all the places the main character visited seemed like stage sets that were put up just before the protagonist arrived and taken down as soon as he left -- so that you could almost hear the stage-hands scurrying back and forth just out of sight as they whisked away one piece of scenery and brought in the next.

And I thought about what he said and realized that I didn't like books that gave me that feeling either, and that I certainly did not want to write one. Which is not to say that other readers and writers are wrong if they prefer that sort of thing, but as for me, when I am reading a book I want to feel like life continues to go on even when the POV characters aren't looking. (If a tree falls in the forest and there is no viewpoint character there to hear it, does it make a sound? I always want to believe that the answer is yes.) And, yes, I want to see things in the invented world that do NOT serve the characters or the plot, but are just there to clutter things up a bit so that it doesn't look empty like a stage set. I want depth. I want context. But I don't want to feel that the context only exists for the sake of the story, I want to feel like the context was there already, and that it is still going to be there when the story is over.

And to create these impressions takes a certain amount of world building. Some writers do this in advance, some discover the world as they write -- they begin with one or two basic premises, and the logic (or illogic) of those ideas just carries them along. You might call that second method world growing instead of world building. As long as the end result is sufficiently textured and consistent, I don't think that it makes a difference.

But for readers and writers who don't like their settings messy and full of random bits, then I can see how any sustained process of world building would seem like a waste of time.

 

[JDP]

I think that as long as your world's consistent, you're okay. The amount of worldbuilding done is horses for course really; some readers like a lot, some like a little. As long as you have that internal consistency, it will feel whole and real to the reader (as long as your writing grabs 'em).

 

[Toby Frost]

Interesting stuff. You're pretty much right, Culwch: I do see making a map as quite important in world building, or at least in the stereotyped view of it. For some reason, perhaps because of the traditional emphasis on travelling and quests, fantasy novels seem particularly fond of maps.

Although the map-making part of it doesn't appeal too much (I think it probably helps more if the story is really epic) I do find world/background construction very interesting. I like Teresa's description of "world growing", which is interesting to do and probably vital for the novel to seem 3D. So, say we have a world where clockwork is extremely prevalent. Logically, who winds the really big mechanisms up? Monsters or teams of oxen, perhaps. So is there now an increased market for really big draft animals?

This sort of extrapolation strikes me as a good sort of world building. I agree with Teresa in that, for me, it's important to feel that any place is more permanent than the characters experiencing it. I suppose a good example is The Difference Engine, which seems almost entirely world building, almost to the detriment of plot!

 

[Xelah]

I prefer the include it as it becomes important route. There's no point describing all of elf civilization for the sake of introducing a friend of the main character. Just a generic sentence about them should suffice until the cast is forced into contact with more of them.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I do see making a map as quite important in world building, or at least in the stereotyped view of it. For some reason, perhaps because of the traditional emphasis on travelling and quests, fantasy novels seem particularly fond of maps.

There are good reasons to start with a map, I think, and not just because you think it would make a nice finishing detail to the published book. It has been said (although not originally with an eye to fantasy and science fiction world building) that "geography is destiny." The physical conditions under which any group of people live is going to have a huge impact on their culture. The natural resources they have, where and how they get those things that are absent or not very abundant (obviously the society that obtains these things by way of trade agreements is going to be radically different than the one that gets by on piracy or border raids) the degree of isolation in which they live and their culture has developed, whether travel is difficult or easy for them and whether they are on the direct route to many other places ... all of these things influence how people live and what they think, and should, in a work of fiction, also influence how your characters think, as well as such things as their particular circumstances when they enter the story, the challenges they face, and how they meet them as the plot progresses

So a map, although not vital, is useful for determining much more than how your characters get from point A to point B and which obstacles they meet and have to overcome along the way. It is great for working out details that might not otherwise occur to you, and can save you from making thoughtless blunders that readers will easily pick up on.