Why more writers should value more effort into the Immersion of a story before its easy Relatability.

[P.K.Acredon]

The only reason why I have discussions online is so I can understand what and how people think so I have a better understanding on how to present my own stories to them. However, I've noticed a mindset that seems to be dominant in most writing communities which doesn't align with how I write a story. So instead of only listening, I will offer some advice to new writers by saying: Immersion should be the focus of a story. And this mindset seems to clash with Relatability should be the focus of a story.
I value Immersion of a story before the relatability. Which means I hold value in the setting, atmosphere, and themes just as much as Character. And every time I mention that, I always get the same quotes regurgitated to me as if I don't understand them:
"Genre is just a marketing tool."
"Character is what's most important because it helps the audience relate."
"Any sufficient advanced science is indistinguishable from magic."
"Who cares about the mechanics of the world? Just write what you want and don't over think it."
I won't hide the fact that I am so sick and tired of these freaking quotes constantly being repeated every time I value Immersion before Relatability. And I'm also tired of peoples minds being completely imbedded in those statements that when someone doesn't agree with them, people immediately jump to conclusions that I don't value character or I just waste my time building a world instead of writing a plot for a story. Or that I waste my time overthinking things. Despite me saying countless times that I value character just as much as any other person, I just find that having a well defined world helps the character even more. As if their mindset only allows them to see things, that aren't perfectly aligned with their agreements, as a 100% opposite.

Here's the thing about those quotes, WHO CARES? So what if all of that is true? In no way do any of those quotes mean that writers shouldn't put some harder effort in all aspects of their stories. I've notice every time someone puts a lot of value in the setting that is similar to the genre, they get floods of replies repeating that genre is a marketing tool. A stories setting and world is not the same as genre. Genres and Stories use their world mechanics differently. Genre uses it to market to people who like the setting. A story can use it to Immerse people. I'm seriously baffled at the idea that people use that quote as a way of saying how wrong people are to think of their worlds setting other than a marketing aspect.
Speaking of people who always use quotes to make people think they're wrong is the Sufficient advanced science and magic quote. Dear new writers, This quote says nothing on how a story should be made. It is just a materialistic philosophy. And philosophy is not the same as science or magic. Heck, people flat out admit that its a philosophy of the modern world that can die some time.

Anyway, me valuing the Immersion of a story before its Relatability does not mean I don't value character as much as everyone else does. It means that there is more to consider if you want a truly incredible story. When I think of a story, I think: "How can I make my story immersive? Step 1: Make it Relatable to the audience. That is the first thing to consider. Step 2: Forge the mechanics of the world to help characters go through trials that the readers don't know..." And so on and so forth. Most people seem to only get to step 1 and just go from there.

My underlining point to new writers is this, most people seem to consider putting more effort to your story past its relatability is a waste of time. If time is so precocious then it should be used as efficiently as possible. Yet here I see this sad, collective, attitude that just says: "Who cares about all of that complicated stuff? Just write what you want because its easy to write what you want. Just go write!" As if writing is only an easy thing to do that should be finished as soon as possible to. Why is time so important for writing? Why are writers looked down for taking their time to use writing as an art instead of hurrying up and writing their story? If I speak hypothetically, is it because they want to hurry up and get noticed? Do they want their stories to get popular and make money because writing is easy? Are they worried that no one will notice them in their lives so that have to hurry up and make something that people will notice before they die without anyone knowing?

Dude, do writers not think for a second and wonder if those kinds of thoughts are in the minds of film makers? Or Comic artists? Or Video game designers? Those people have the same thoughts, yet they have way more things to do to make their games, movies, or comics. A film needs production sets, actors, scripts, editors, cinematography, and lighting to try to make something immersive. They can't afford just hurrying up with their production because its more than just putting words on a paper. Same with game designers. The knowledge they must to have for coding, computer science, and unique game designs that provide a cool experience is difficult.

Making things in other mediums take a lot of resources. Effort is essential, something it seems that writing communities look down upon. Why should novels only take it easy? And not only that, why is it argued so much that novels SHOULD only take it easy? Who said its a rule that novels have to only do easy things?

The greatest authors didn't become the greatest because their writings was easy. They took effort in how to make their words flow and convey to the reader what is happening in their story. The Lord of the Rings is a prime example and yes I'm a Tolkien nerd who always references Lord of the rings and if you find that I'm just mentioning a cliché example that seems like an obvious example for how to write stories, than that just means you're only familiar with the Lord of the Rings surface instead of its deeper purpose. If you know anything about Tolkien, beyond the fact that he's the guy who wrote Lord of the Rings, you will have a much more appreciation for his genius. He didn't write Lord of the Rings because writing was easy, he actually praised writing for doing something that other mediums couldn't do. And that is act like a history book that feels real. He added his languages to his mythology to make it seem like a lost record of a history thousands of years ago. And he made it seem like it was someone else that wrote it. Not him. If you read his non fictional work, his normal writing style is much different from the writing style he used in Lord of the rings. Tolkien never cared about making Lord of the Rings popular. In-fact, there were times he thought Lord of the Rings would be silly and would not be liked by people. But what matter to him was Lord of the Rings immersive world that he made for his family to experience something they could not only relate to, but immersive into things they had no idea about.

Whenever I reference Lord of the Rings being a quintessential example on how to write stories, the responses, besides the ones that say that Lord of the Rings is a cliché example, are these:
"So you like Excessive worldbuilding instead of the plot and character?"
"Tolkien was a Linguistic who took decades to Write Lord of the Rings. We don't have the time or resources Tolkien had."
The first quote can be easily proven wrong because if someone thinks an example like Lord of the Rings values the structure of the world over its characters, they most likely never read it because its very relatable. It would not have been as successful if it wasn't.
As far as the second quote, that is literally one of the most B.S. things I have ever heard in the context of putting more effort in your writing. That is nothing more than saying: "Its too hard. I can't do it." First of all, using Tolkien as an example doesn't translate to demanding that you should do the same things that he did, like be a linguist, it just means to put some effort in your story similar to how he did. Second of all, its the 21st century. We have an unlimited access to any types of information. We have Microsoft word that allows us to type and still be able to fix our mistakes. Unlike the type-writer Tolkien used. And yet I hear that pathetic excuse countless times in writings communities. As was just mentioned with the trials and errors that people in other mediums go through, they do WAY harder things to make stories immersive. There is literally no excuse for a writer thinking that writing beyond what is easy and relatable is too hard. They have plenty of time to do a quick google search to better understand something that someone 50s year ago could never dream of doing. Literally one of the the most famous authors today, Brandon Sanderson, writes constantly. Thanks to the privilege's of the modern world. And its further proof how much people hardly know anything about Tolkien. Tolkien wasn't a writer like Sanderson. He was just an old war veteran who had a huge passion about fantasy and myth which led him to write Lord of the Rings as a hobby. He had other things going on in his life. In-fact he admitted to being a procrastinator and only continued writing lord of the Rings because CS Lewis convinced him all the time. If Tolkien only Worked on Lord of the Rings as his job, Lord of the Rings would have been written much sooner.

If this post makes me seem upset or annoyed at people, its not. I have no ill view of anyone who says the things that I can't stand. It just the state of mind that I can't stand. A state of mind that I myself had when I was first learning how to write. And what made me so sick of this mind-set is when I started helping an indie book publisher when they asked me to write for them and review other writers submitting their works, and I'm always bombarded with a bunch of "writers" that treat writing like its an easy thing that any fool can do and flood me with painful fanfics that they immediately submitted without editing it once in hoping to get fame and fortune. They're only concern is if their work will make money and be popular. And all it does it make the Book publisher be looked down upon people when they ask for their help. They see the Book publishing website as just some children's game that lets people write their amateur writings for the sole sake of publicity. Which is why they had a great joy when they found me because I shared their passion and desire to write stories that are more than just people writing with their unrestrained want seeking publishes to sell them for money.

TL;DR: My advice to new writers: If you want to just do what you want and write without worrying about anything else, that's fine. But it doesn't mean harder effort on stories should be looked down upon. To those who want to make something truly magnificent, don't let the crowd make you think that stories should only be easy. Even though Relatability is an essential aspect to stories, that doesn't mean that its the only aspect. Immersion should be the goal of a story. Relatability is just step one. Try to muster up some desire to go beyond step one.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Didn‚t you already post most of this?

 

[BAYLOR]

The average reader want's an enjoyable reading experience with likable or at the very least, relatable characters . If on the other hand, the writer choose gives the reader an unpalatable story with equally unpalatable characters, the reader is going to be very reluctant to read anything else by that author.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I would say, as a reader but also as a writer and editor, that being able to relate to the characters (as different from ourselves as they may be) is part of the immersion. It is not a matter of either/or, because in the best-written stories it is both.

I don't know who you have been talking to that has told you otherwise, or where the quotes you have included at the beginning of your post have come from, P.K. Acredon. I have certainly heard them here, but only very occasionally, and only as part of discussions in which a broad variety of views on the subject are advanced. There is a certain amount of truth in each of those statements, but they should not be taken as immutable rules. In SFF, and literature in general, there is room for a wide variety of styles and approaches. I believe most everyone here, or at least most who have been here for very long, and therefore have been exposed to views that might be somewhat (or a lot) different from the ones they came in with, knows that very well.

The fact is that not all readers want the same things. Some prefer books that are heavy on characterization and others prefer books that are focussed more on plot and others still are looking for worlds they can utterly immerse themselves in, some can get drunk on words, on gorgeous prose, and then there are those who prefer a balance of all these things.

The key is to figure out which sort of book you are trying to write, and then make it the best of its kind that ever you can. And then not worry about people who want to see you turn it into something else completely—but understand that if it is to be among the best of its kind, you are going to have to listen to the opinions of others, and sometimes accept that things you don't want to hear may nevertheless have value.

 

[msstice]

Related: Embracing the Clomping Foot of Nerdism

 

[P.K.Acredon]

I would say, as a reader but also as a writer and editor, that being able to relate to the characters (as different from ourselves as they may be) is part of the immersion. It is not a matter of either/or, because in the best-written stories it is both.

I don't know who you have been talking to that has told you otherwise, or where the quotes you have included at the beginning of your post have come from, P.K. Acredon. I have certainly heard them here, but only very occasionally, and only as part of discussions in which a broad variety of views on the subject are advanced. There is a certain amount of truth in each of those statements, but they should not be taken as immutable rules. In SFF, and literature in general, there is room for a wide variety of styles and approaches. I believe most everyone here, or at least most who have been here for very long, and therefore have been exposed to views that might be somewhat (or a lot) different from the ones they came in with, knows that very well.

The fact is that not all readers want the same things. Some prefer books that are heavy on characterization and others prefer books that are focussed more on plot and others still are looking for worlds they can utterly immerse themselves in, some can get drunk on words, on gorgeous prose, and then there are those who prefer a balance of all these things.

The key is to figure out which sort of book you are trying to write, and then make it the best of its kind that ever you can. And then not worry about people who want to see you turn it into something else completely—but understand that if it is to be among the best of its kind, you are going to have to listen to the opinions of others, and sometimes accept that things you don't want to hear may nevertheless have value.

You say this as if I'm demanding people to comply to a certain rule when that is precisely what I'm arguing against. I'm not trying to preach to this site about how to write the "right" way, I'm defending exactly what you're defending and that is that people want different things. Varity is needed, obviously. If you didn't read the parts that I mentioned, because the post was so long, I apologize , I don't say that people should stop writing in an easier way. I just say that, yes, its true that books have Varity. Which is why there should be more variety in books that have more effort put into them. I'm not accusing people on this site, I'm just making a statement to any new writers who happen to come across this site as a starting point to learn how to write. And I'm using my own experience that was filled with people from different places who belittled writers who wanted to put more effort in their stories.
And making a story relatable is an essential aspect that makes a story immersive. When you said, "being able to relate to the characters (as different from ourselves as they may be) is part of the immersion." I said that three times. I don't know why you're saying it to me as if I disagree with it. Just because being able to relate to a character is essential, that doesn't mean that people should use that as an excuse to not put effort in their stories. And speaking of criticism, I value criticism more than most people. And when I criticized people for their writings, they tend to use those quotes as a way to deflect criticism.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I must say I have never given any thought to immersion and relatabiility. In fact, I wouldn't know how to separate 'em. (Possibly due my lack of a writing education). I frequent a lot of writers' boards and this is the first time I've seen this subject discussed.

You make some very interesting points, but I do think you are very demanding of new writers. In my opinion, they need to go through the 'teenage' stage of writing when they think they know everything and slowly come to the realisation that they are embarking on a lifetime of learning (if they keep at it). It's a very sobering, frustrating and rewarding journey of discovery and I like to leave them to it!

My thoughts, a few decades after I thought I knew everything, are that I should give the same amount of attention to every aspect of my novels and this, if I get it right, will mean my readers will have the immersive experience I intended.

 

[hitmouse]

A possibly dogmatic objection to your Tolkein characterisations, including the one about him being “just an old war veteran”

This might not be the best example to illustrate your point.

Tolkein was a distinguished academic, steeped in language and mythology, with a whole circle of relevant friends beyond just CS Lewis.

@Extollager might take the bait here.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Building I’m done earlier thoughts - I don’t think these are two different things. Believable characters aid relatability and immersion. Ditto world building. They are the tools, not the raison d’etre

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

As others have said, why not excel in all aspects of the craft? It isn't either/or. But I do understand your frustration when the accepted practice seems to go against your own preferences. I feel the same way about excessive descriptive passages within the Fantasy genre. It is as if the author wants the reader to see a character, scene or object exactly as s/he sees it. Leave the poor reader alone and let him/her fill in some of the details with imagination. The result will be more vivid that way. Spend the saved space and time on the character's personality and motivation, and in developing an engaging story.

 

[Extollager]

From the original post: "He [Tolkien] added his languages to his mythology"

It might be good to check this, since I thought what came first of all to Tolkien was the desire to create a language or languages, with the legendarium coming out of that. Probably Tolkien's published letters plus his "Secret Vice" lecture, and something about Tolkien by Tom Shippey, would help to clarify the matter.

This issue is beside the main point of the original posting, which I'm not commenting on.

[Added later] In the interview published in Niekas No. 18, Tolkien said , "The seed [of his creative work] is linguistic, of course. I'm a linguist and everything is linguistic -- that's why I took such pains with names. The real seed was starting when I was quite a child by inventing languages, largely to try to cpature the esthetic mode of the languages I was learning, and I eventually made the discovery that language can't exist in a void and if you invent a language yourself you can't cut it in half. It has to come alive -- so really the languages came first and the country [i.e. Middle-earth, Arda] after."

https://fanac.org/fanzines/Niekas/Niekas18.pdf

 

[Mon0Zer0]

I value Immersion of a story before the relatability. Which means I hold value in the setting, atmosphere, and themes just as much as Character.

Good for you. But, with respect, why should anyone else care what you value?

I always get the same quotes regurgitated to me as if I don't understand them:
"Genre is just a marketing tool."
"Character is what's most important because it helps the audience relate."
"Any sufficient advanced science is indistinguishable from magic."
"Who cares about the mechanics of the world? Just write what you want and don't over think it."

The people you are having conversations with are telling you something, and you're not listening.

What they're saying is:

1. Books that emphasise plot and character over world building sell like hot cakes and are reviewed highly.
2. We can conclude from 1. that absence of a fully realised world is no barrier to immersion.
3. Books that feature excess world building to the detriment of character or plot are frequently mentioned disparagingly.
4. Ergo: Most readers value plot and character over world building.
5. The priority you place on world building as a factor in your immersion in a story is your own, personal peccadillo and not shared by the public at large.
6. The public don’t need world building to the degree you suggest to be immersed in a story.

Re: 6. I think this is because, as far as literature goes, reading actively encourages readers to fill in the gaps and conduct the business of world building themselves.

Film and the kind of games that engage in world building are visual mediums. Their work is explicit. The impression of a lived in world is necessary to overcome the suspension of disbelief in order to achieve immersion. They are not the product of one man in a room with a type writer but hundreds of skilled craftsmen. The reason studios can afford them is because films make vast sums of money compared to books.

Reading, on the other hand is an implicit medium. The reader's mental image of the world is constructed entirely in the imagination. Writing, description in particular, is usually more effective if it's evocative and not explicit.

For example: When we read descriptions of characters, they’re usually more effective if the reader can conjure their own mental image of the character. Surprisingly, impressionistic description can be better at conveying how a person looks than a dry, literal description of their physical attributes.

“[Tom Buchanan had] arrogant eyes [that…] had established dominance over his face and gave him the appearance of always leaning aggressively forward.”
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

They paint vivid mental images although everyone will picture the character differently. Reading's use of the imagination makes it an active medium. When you read you're engaging in a dialogue with the writer and the text.

In real life we don't think about the wonders of air flight or the infrastructure behind electricity or sewage, we accept as mundane things that would be utterly miraculous to generations passed. There's no need for a character to ever think about these things unless they are directly involved in them. And books are usually written from a Point of View because omniscient narrators can be too distant from the emotional core of a story. Readers are always engaged by emotion, not facts.

The point is, not all information needs to be within the text. Readers can construct their own connections, their own worlds from the bare bones on the page.

My advice to new writers

Again, with respect, but why should a new writer listen to your advice over Stephen King, or Tolkien or Sanderson. The advice you're giving is for an imaginary writer who, for some reason, wants to write exclusively for an audience of one. If your artistic needs aren't met there's only one person who can fulfil them: you. Don't expect others to do it for you!

 

[DLCroix]

Everything is evolution, ultimately, and all of us who start writing first do so only guided by enthusiasm and in a rather instinctive way, and the percentage of us who think of studying the existing theory of literature in the web is just that, a part, not everyone. The problem is that both groups later meet again in forums like this one and obviously you are faced with comments of this type. You even find people who write SFF but read little or in fact don't read, and think that everything depends only on writing, and then you have the cases of those who are not only lazy about building worlds, or the description. Even for some time now they brandish the flag that you have to show, not tell, they also say that you should be careful of information dumps; but they ignore that it is a bromide that comes from minimalist writing of the 80's and does NOT work in SFF where you have to constantly supply details of your imaginary worlds to the reader.
Blame it on TV, too. And also a large percentage of established writers give conferences where they support that television philosophy. What is the cause? A certain crisis of screenwriters that has imposed the objective of privileging the what more than the how. And quickie. Because now the series are full downloads, you don't have to wait for the next week for the next episode and therefore there is no time to mature concepts. The consequence is that much of today's literature no longer really exists for the appreciation and enjoyment of literature itself but functions in support of the consumption of popcorn and chips. Oh, God...
Blame it on the evolution of the media, too. Cable killed the print media and magazines and now the internet killed Blockbuster first and just because they seem to have reached a truce the internet hasn't quite killed cable and although newspapers and magazines still exist everyone knows it's not anymore like before. Hail Netflix.
But it takes time to build those worlds, and to be honest it's also something you become aware of only years later. But I also agree that the characters come later, first is the story, the concept, where is the breaking point or what makes it original. That's where you start talking about style, narrative voice. And aspects such as dialogues are also important, differentiating well when it is more useful to use a first-person approach or when in the third person, or the credibility of a story, etc. Now, as for Brandon Sanderson, it's clear he's a ghostwriters-based company; in fact Starsight or the second part of Estelar, and even though many will say: "ah, but it's a YA novel", it is a perfect example precisely of what NOT to do in SFF literature (and in any other). Even so, it must be admitted that the guy started by saying that the story comes first and that is valuable.
IMHO, naturally.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

Good for you. But, with respect, why should anyone else care what you value?

With respect myself, please ask more educated questions. Or better yet, try to have a more mature point of view when seeing other peoples point of views. Because that idea comes from the primitive impression that says: "what everybody "knows", based on shared data, should be valued more than other individuals personal experience" It reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis: "When the whole world is heading toward a cliff, the one man heading from it will be seen as the insane one." Do you really think that what the majority of people are aware means truth? Should Albert Einstein not have develop the theory of relativity because the scientists of his time said: "Why should anyone care what you think over what Isaac Newton taught centuries ago?"

More people knowing a fact doesn't make people have more free thinking. It just gives the fact more freedom to use people to spread its message. It views everything as a perspective, so its only natural response is to assume what the majority of people perspective is true. Nevertheless, that mindset is just as guilty, if not more, of thinking it is right and everybody else is wrong.

Everything you said was under the impression that I felt I was the only one right and everybody else was wrong and that people should limit their perspectives to my supposed "right" perspective. As as said to Ms. Edgerton, that is exactly what I'm arguing against. And it's something that primitive mindset is precisely guilty of.
Literally everything you've said is something I understand is true. Whose saying you're wrong? I'm not. I understand the abilities of all mediums. In-fact when I write I make sure to provide details that the reader can imagine themselves to help them be more immersed in the story. Yet here you are making false assumptions about me not listening to others, or that I'm asking for an imaginary writer, or that I'm valuing an exclusive audience of one person while stating facts I already know as if I'm saying their wrong. Which I find very ironic how you claim that I'm demanding people limit their perspectives on my "right" way of thinking when here you are saying things that you claim is true despite having no experience of. Who are you to say what I'm doing when you didn't experience one thing that I did. An experience that explained at the end of my argument.

As I explained plenty of times in my argument, its not Relatability that I have an issue with. Its Relatability being used to disregard Immersion because Relatability is easier. I'm not trying to Prove something wrong, I'm trying to expanded that something to show a new perspective. Something that you and many others value. So when you criticize me for saying what I value, I'm confused. Would you rather I said that I absolutely value those quotes and love them with all my heart only for me to criticized them really hard? That would have completed confused people. I'm just trying to provide the whole view for people to understand. I'm not the one presenting that whole view as a stance that claims authority over the truth like how you keep seeing it as.

I never said anyone was wrong to think those quotes, I said that those facts should not not be used to limit peoples effort in storytelling. You think that I was saying people were wrong and I was right so based on that fact, the only conclusion available to me is that YOU didn't listen to what I said. Other people listen to me and their criticism was that I was being too demanding. I'll admit I was. For that I'll be better next time. But they understood my points.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

With respect myself, please ask more educated questions. Or better yet, try to have a more mature point of view when seeing other peoples point of views. Because that idea comes from the primitive impression that says: "what everybody "knows", based on shared data, should be valued more than other individuals personal experience" It reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis: "When the whole world is heading toward a cliff, the one man heading from it will be seen as the insane one." Do you really think that what the majority of people are aware means truth? Should Albert Einstein not have develop the theory of relativity because the scientists of his time said: "Why should anyone care what you think over what Isaac Newton taught centuries ago?"

Moral values are subjective, not objective.

Saying your values take priority over others is..... a touch egotistical. Comparing yourself to Albert Einstein and your personal aesthetics to the theory of relativity is, well, yeah, you can see where I'm going with that.

you are saying things that you claim is true despite having no experience of.

It's unclear which things I'm "saying [are] true" are the things I have "no experience of".

If you mean evidence for my claims that people are not put off by not fully realised worlds can be found by looking at the Amazon best sellers charts or book reviews of the kinds of books you were criticising, to know that readers are more concerned with character than world building.

If you mean your experience coming to forums, as you have, and the reactions to your opinions, then the evidence is precisely the reactions to your post. You asked above (in bold) "WHO CARES", to which the reply is, Readers care.

People are telling you character is more important, and your response is [paraphrased], 'No, I need a high degree of world building so I can be immersed.' That's your preference, and you're absolutely entitled to it, but please don't believe your values are universal values.

When it comes to experience, if you're going to advise writers to not be put off at having to write a hard story, I say, "demonstrate it can be done in today's economy!" then we'll listen.

For what it's worth, I don't think any writers who have a burning desire to write Tolkien level fiction are put off by commercial realities of modern fiction in the slightest. I suspect a writer like that would be well aware of the risks, effort and time involved.

Yet here you are making false assumptions about me not listening to others,

Well, the problem is that your arguments above are contradictory and don't demonstrate understanding.

One minute you're arguing that writers shouldn't have to conform to market expectations, then you're telling us your values and bemoaning the lack of matter that fills your wants. Then you're saying people should just do what they want. Then you're offering advice to younger writers, as though you were a successful author of note.

The only way I can all parse that is to assume you're just moaning at a lack of what you consider quality reading matter (i.e. the market doesn't fulfil your needs). To which I respond, "blaze that trail!" Get out there and show us how it's done!

Anyway, my friend. Be the change you want to see in the world. I genuinely look forward to reading your masterpiece.

 

[Luiglin]

I've only skimmed read a lot of the above, mainly due to time and mainly due to that's a whole lot of text.

For me, and me alone, as a reader I want characters that raise an emotion in me. From loving to hate Thomas Covenant to laughing out loud to the Librarian for saying "Eeek" rather than "Oook". It is the characters that draw me into a world, they are my senses and I rely on them to let me immerse myself in the world they live in.

For me, and me alone, as a writer (and as a long standing gamemaster of over 30 years) world building is easy, it is all facts. I have whole loads of immersive world building for many projects that I will never use just because I need to fix it in my head. The only part that can be hard is adding something unique but even then, that comes down to facts. What then brings those facts to life are the inhabitants. Writing characters that you enjoy are the first step. Writing ones that others will enjoy is a whole staircase full.

From the GMing side, I know that I can wax lyrical about a city, a desert, a country but until my players get there get involved with the inhabitants then that's all it is, description - it's not alive.

In my opinion (and remember an opinion is like an @#$3hole, everyone has one), if it's worth anything, use your relatables to immerse your readers. I've found, both in reading, writing and GMing, it doesn't work the other way around.

 

[Extollager]

"Moral values are subjective, not objective."

This isn't the place for a discussion of this topic, which sooner or later would probably run afoul of Chrons policies, but I thought I should say that, as I understand the remark, I disagree. There have been varying societal and personal applications of perennial moral values, many evasions of them or restriction of them. A good short book on this topic is C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, readily available online, and a book that anyone interested in the matter should consider. But even if Chrons policy invited such discussions, this thread would probably not be the appropriate venue for such.

I think it might be well for the original poster and any other interested folk to spend some time clarifying the "should" factor, as an authors should value immersion more than relatability (or vice versa), etc. What does "should" mean? That they ought to do X because it is the morally correct thing to do? Please explain. Or because it is (pragmatically) the approach that pleases more readers? (How do we know?)

Maybe someone would like to run out some further questions that seem to be involved and then the discussion of answers could be more productive.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

Moral values are subjective, not objective.

Saying your values take priority over others is..... a touch egotistical. Comparing yourself to Albert Einstein and your personal aesthetics to the theory of relativity is, well, yeah, you can see where I'm going with that.

Sir, I don't know how your brain processes information but quit saying I'm doing things that I'm not. You sit here and keep making assumptions that YOUR mind is creating and acting like it is my fault. You know fully well that I never compared myself to Albert Einstein. You also know fully well that I didn't criticize the Amazon best sellers. You taking my words into that meaning is your minds doing. Not my actions. Here you are criticizing me for being egotistical as you act like your perspective of MY ACTIONS are correct. It's a basic rule of common decency to ask the person themselves what they're doing rather than relying on what someone thinks what that person is doing. That is all I'm getting from you because that is all you're presenting. Its as if you're intentionally trying to change the subjects from understandable examples to comparisons towards myself. Like you can't provide a solid counter argument to my claims so you try to argue with a different subject. Even if its a subject you made up on the spot. You view doesn't decide what I do. Your mind doesn't make a magical, limiting claim that I'm doing what you think I'm doing. Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy going on here?

You keep holding on to the lie that I value Character over Worldbuilding. From this I can only assume that you're intentionally not listening to anything that I'm saying.
And don't try to use the; "the problem is that your arguments above are contradictory and don't demonstrate understanding." Just because you can't understand(or you flat out refuse to understand) doesn't mean nobody else can. You can look at this very thread to find out how that's not true.

How about before you lecture people on how to "be the change" or take responsibility. You yourself take responsibility of your own mind and fix your perspective on how you see others before you judge them of things from your doing. That is thinking what you think what someone else is doing is what they're doing when its not.

 

[The Judge]

I've closed this thread, if only temporarily, while the mods debate whether to allow it and all its posts to remain.

We've been watching since the first post here was made, and it's clear that if left unchecked the complete lack of insight on show is likely to lead to posts which contravene our rules, so I'm nipping it in the bud.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

To be fair, readers may express an opinion about what they like and then their choices in reading material say something else entirely. I once asked someone who said he didn't care about descriptions of characters, scenery, etc. who his favorite fantasy writer was and he said it was David Eddings. Well, Eddings's writing was very descriptive: not nearly as much as say, Mervyn Peake, but more descriptive than the average writer. So while this reader may have been drawn to the books because he liked the plot and characters, at the very least he obviously wasn't put off by the amount of description or Eddings would not be his favorite, would he? Or maybe he didn't realize how much the description in the books added to his pleasure on a subconscious level. Who knows?

But if you look at the fantasy writers with the biggest and most devoted followings, they all hit the mark on all three: characters, plot, and descriptive and immersive world-building. To be a big commercial success, then, it seems like it is necessary to be good at all three.

However, critiquers sometimes erroneously assume that a writer is aiming to write something that will be a big commercial success, when the writer is actually quite happy writing for a niche audience that reflects their own personal tastes as a readers. Which is a perfectly acceptable goal. Those who belong to that niche audience deserve to find plenty of books they will love just as much as those whose tastes are more in line with the books that achieve popular success. (And sometimes a book that seems like it won't be a popular success turns out to be an enormous and enduring hit. Tolkien's publishers bought and published LOTR in the belief that the book would lose them money—the specific sum, I believe was a thousand pounds—but that it deserved to be published. It was a different day, and people like the Unwins, not having to answer to the accountants at big conglomerates who cared nothing about literature and everything about money, would occasionally publish a book simply on principle, or to enhance the reputation of the firm, or ... any reason that was not all about the cash it might bring in. Surprise! Instead of losing money it eventually brought in millions. But there is no way to predict this sort of thing, so it would be foolish to count on it happening.)

My advice to aspiring writers is always to write the kind of book they would love to read if somebody else had written it. That way, at least they will have at least one satisfied reader.

If we try to write the kind of book that doesn't appeal to us personally because we think people will buy it, or be impressed, we may not end up with even that one satisfied reader. At the same time, we have to realize that the book inside our head is filled with things that never made it onto the page, which enrich it for us, but can't do the same for readers who don't have a handy window into our brains. So the "if somebody else had written it" implies that the book needs to stand on it's own even for those who can't see inside the writer's skull or don't have them stored in a box on their beside tables ready to answer questions and offer explanations whenever something doesn't make sense.

Leave the poor reader alone and let him/her fill in some of the details with imagination. The result will be more vivid that way

I don't entirely agree with this. First of all, the "poor reader" might actually love highly detailed descriptions. Not everyone has the same tastes. But even for the average reader, while the writer doesn't need to provide all the details, they do need to provide enough for the readers' imaginations to work with. Otherwise, some readers will be disappointed by what they perceive as the emptiness of the background and the invisibility of the characters, while others, the kind who like to fill in the details themselves, might fill in things that actually have no place in the story and contradict what will later occur (for which the reader is likely to blame the writer for inconsistency).

I once asked a writer friend (a very fine writer, not devoid of description in her own stories, but as a reader she belonged to the "let me fill it in" school) to tell me what she visualized when I said the word "sunset." She then went on to describe a very vivid and beautiful scene of the sun sinking into the sea. Which was all well and good, but supposing she imagined that when she was reading a story and then later discovered that the setting was thousands of miles from the nearest ocean? At the very least, she would be momentarily jolted out of the story if she had been imagining a seaside setting ever since I chanced to use the bare word "sunset" with no further description.