Preferential reading/writing of World-building?

[Misanthrophile]

I'm questioning any forum members on their preference for either reading, or writing a comprehensive background to a fictional world in perhaps a certain order.

The content I'm talking about specifically; is the arrangement of concepts that educate or prime the reader of aspects in the world/universe - BEFORE a novel commences. And whether or not this makes for easy or accessible information the author may regard as critical to understanding unique concepts and terminology expressed in the novel later. There are several means I have gone to lengths with - to prime my readers of the world as it exists in my WIP well in advance of the novel's opening chapter.

For example - The below is lifted from the table of contents in my book. The arrangements are supplied with some vagueness in explanation for their content.
(I'm new to the forum and haven't acquired the posted limit yet to ask for critique - so this is a roundabout way of asking for feedback that isn't direct criticism of my work - but perhaps what I'm doing with it in a delivery sense...)

As follows:

<Book title.>
<By me.>

1. Foreword (Almost a blurb, or a basic recounting of the scenarios which occurred up until the (relatively) present tense in the novel.)
2. Primer - 1 - (A scientific analysis of an involved faction important to the story. Detailing what it is, its history, and linking it to the Foreword.)
3. Primer - 2 - (An in depth examination of hypothetical concepts employed by the mentioned faction, again with an analytical tone.)
4. Primer - 3 - (A look at people - what has changed about them, and their world. Specifically what THEY'VE done to affect such change.)
5. Primer - 4 - (An intricate study of why these people have changed or moved so much.)
6. Primer - 5 - (A focus on a sub-faction in this newly altered human world with importance to the later story.)
7. Primer - 6 - (A brief overview of this sub-faction's exclusive concepts and design that relate to the plot with immediacy.)
8. Primer - 7 - (A roll of the characters in the novel proper.)

<Chapter 1 begins here.>

- I ask for some insight, whether my intent to foreshadow and enlighten a reader is maybe detracting from their eventual immersion in the story itself?
The content of the novel lends itself to the information produced in the Primers. Events, terminology, specificity, and world building comprehension - are a unifying repository for the reader.
In Fantasy, the use of topography and maps to build worlds as a reference, is almost replete.
So I wonder if the portent for historiography, analysis, and speculative concepts alongside jargon and named characters in a Science Fiction novel - is somehow misplaced or unwise to engage the audience...

Discuss with me any thoughts you care to make.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Could work; might not. I strongly suspect the primer is for the author rather than the reader.

As author your task is to include those details in the story as organically as possible if you really care about reader experience.

But then you have to trade that off against the artist’s (your) desire. What’s more important to you?

I’ll bring up Moby Dick once more: I’ve been enjoying reading it (slowly) for the past few months. The thing people said I would struggle with was all the factual explanations about whaling etc. I actually quite enjoyed those passages (I’m only struggling with the cruelty aspect). What Melville has done therefore (in terms of your question) is embedded ‘primers’ in his story rather than at the outset.

Times and predilections have changed since MD was published, though, so as to how well it’d be received (either way; primer or scattered in the prose) is debatable.

Taking yourself out of the equation, ask yourself how crucial these primers are to the story (nb not the plot).

 

[Toby Frost]

If the question is "Would you wade through X pages of backstory/infodump before the actual narrative begins?" my answer would be "No". That sort of thing should be dripped into the course of the story, or left out if irrelevant. I (and I suspect most other people) read for story and characters rather than setting.

I suspect that a lot of writers come up with very detailed fantasy and SF histories that readers often gloss over. A lot of "galactic federations" or the like are "a bit like Star Trek/Dune/the Culture/whatever else as appropriate" and the intricacies of how they were founded and how their government works etc aren't really all that interesting unless the concept being used is really, fundamentally new in SFF. If necessary, the information could be put into appendixes, as per Dune.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Most readers read books for the story and characters, not to consume information. The convention is that worldbuilding should be shown as the narrative unfolds. No one likes a text book.

That being said, there are a small amount of readers who like worldbuilding for whom supplementary material would most likely be enjoyable - RPGers and the like. But for the rest it would just make them up the book down.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Have you started writing the story yet or is this conjecture on what may be needed? I would suggest writing the story and then determine whether the background information is really necessary to the story's telling. As a reader, I do not like having to flip back to the front of the book to understand a plot point or determine who a character might be. Write the story without the background and see if it works without the explanations.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Perhaps provide us with an example of what you are talking about. What other authors / novels are you imitating.

There are countless examples of fantasy / Science Fiction that introduce that information progressively. Literally every story I know. Frank Herbert went so far as write a bunch of novels that explained the back story of Dune, but those were after the fact. Much like Tolkien's backstory of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings came after - AKA The Silmarillion. AND several other books edited by his son. OR did Tolkien trick us into learning his world building by starting with a seemingly cute walking tour in the Hobbit.

Part of the joy of reading world building is the act of slowly learning about the world. Great world building keeps you involved and excited to learn more. Terrible world building has you asking, "Wait, they could do that? Why didn't they just communicate by fireplace in the first book?"

In fact, the best world building has characters doing specific things and only several chapters later do you find that the reason they did THAT was because that's the way things are done in this world, after you see it done again and again in different contexts.

One of the charms of 1977 Star Wars was the relative low amount of exposition. (There certainly was some, but not like the Matrix - was Laurence Fishburne paid per word?). Yet 1977 Star Wars led us into a completely new world with different everything and kept us there in rapt attention.

At first I thought you were planning on launching a Wiki page or something at the same time you launch the book. Start a website with all the world building minutiae perhaps. That wouldn't necessarily be terrible.

 

[tinkerdan]

There's a lot of worldbuilding that should not make it into the book.

The best thing is to get the story started and expose the reader to the world as it goes. There might be circumstances where you might have to break that rule, but you still need to find a way to make it digestible to the reader. If they scan or zone out and there really is something in there they need to know then you lose the battle as later they will be somewhat in the dark and lost.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Having a huge infodump at the beginning of a novel is not a good way to start a story.

Most novels that world-build are written over several books. As the story progresses, more information about the world is imparted to the reader.

If you are writing a story that requires the reader to have prior knowledge of your world, that is asking an awful lot of them.

 

[Misanthrophile]

I predicted this outcome in review of my plan.
Thank you all for contributing.

I will have to appendicise much of the content.
Mercifully, that won't be too difficult.
What I must do now, is alter jargon and acronyms to reflect those elements of the world that have them. To have the reader better understand the context of things without resorting to what amounts to encyclopedic consultation...

This has been educational. I have never once encountered any author I've read attempting to do this I confess. It was an experiment on my part to see what ideally I should be providing the reader.

Exposition in the story itself is recurring and ever present, but contextually I must improve my writing to show the reader the world the characters are in, rather than give them a lecture on topics which won't necessarily drive their interest.

Much review and editing is ahead of me.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I tend to agree with the other commenters. However, unconventional methods of story telling can sometimes work. I'm thinking of John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, or some of Kurt Vonnegut's works. I once read a Milan Kundera novel where a whole chapter was spent explaining a Czech word that had no direct translation to English (I guess he really wanted to use that word!). Strangely enough it was gripping.

 

[Misanthrophile]

I'll examine this with an excerpt from the project as it stands.

N.B: This is lifted from the novel without so much of the context overlayed from Primers...

-As the lead Hydra began to climb upward, all the while receiving intermittent hits from energy weapons, someone shouted over the open channel:
“LC!! MAJOR! CANIDS ON THE GROUND!!”

The trailing dropships had just disgorged their suspended payloads back from the checkpoint area on either flank East and West. Four REMTAV's landed on the planet and shook the ground with each. Their displacement incredible as they absorbed the impact in fast order. The giants began marching off to confront the hordes of foreign siliconoid creatures assaulting from the West-North-West. Huge mechanical legs carried the gun platforms over the snow with commanding views. Turreted upper superstructures scanned right and left, mechanical leg assemblies and feet kept advancing. Simultaneously, the awesome firepower of high velocity electromagnetic field guns drove the battle to near ecstasy.-

Established in their own primer, are what precisely a 'Hydra', 'Canid', and 'REMTAV' are...
There is also a passage in a previous chapter where a character reminisces about the REMTAV. (A Canid and a REMTAV are the same thing, just official and unofficial designations for it are used by the narrator and characters.) Its purpose/design - from his perspective - is given in a monologue about his memories of combat stress testing.
There is a sub-plot dealing with the availability and use of Hydra Dropships. Naturally there are descriptions of what they are.

The Primer for these vehicles (alongside others) and their inclusive terminology - is a table of naming conventions and extraneous information that may not be essential to the plot, but is immersive world-building perhaps. If I've made it clear what these objects are to the reader through careful description and action involving the characters in the novel, I hoped that skimming a compact table of minor information wasn't too removing for the reader.

The Primers explain other factors too. Like the alien menace, the technology of said menace, the human menace, the technology and military institution of said human menace...

I didn't include this context in my original post - because I wasn't aiming to have its content revealed until I could have it critiqued - by following the Forum's rules. (It will take some time to achieve 30 posts I'm guessing. I am in the meantime seeking other means for feedback.)

The intent here was to study whether or not I can adequately balance separate experiences in world-building with functional narrative which still advances the plot.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I'll examine this with an excerpt from the project as it stands.

N.B: This is lifted from the novel without so much of the context overlayed from Primers...

-As the lead Hydra began to climb upward, all the while receiving intermittent hits from energy weapons, someone shouted over the open channel:
“LC!! MAJOR! CANIDS ON THE GROUND!!”

The trailing dropships had just disgorged their suspended payloads back from the checkpoint area on either flank East and West. Four REMTAV's landed on the planet and shook the ground with each. Their displacement incredible as they absorbed the impact in fast order. The giants began marching off to confront the hordes of foreign siliconoid creatures assaulting from the West-North-West. Huge mechanical legs carried the gun platforms over the snow with commanding views. Turreted upper superstructures scanned right and left, mechanical leg assemblies and feet kept advancing. Simultaneously, the awesome firepower of high velocity electromagnetic field guns drove the battle to near ecstasy.-

Established in their own primer, are what precisely a 'Hydra', 'Canid', and 'REMTAV' are...
There is also a passage in a previous chapter where a character reminisces about the REMTAV. (a Canid and a REMTAV are the same thing, just official and unofficial designations for it are used by the narrator and characters.) Its purpose/design - from his perspective - is given in a monologue about his memories of combat stress testing.
There is a sub-plot dealing with the availability and use of Hydra Dropships. Naturally there are descriptions of what they are.

The Primer for these vehicles (alongside others) and their inclusive terminology - is a table of naming conventions and extraneous information that may not be essential to the plot, but is immersive world-building perhaps. If I've made it clear what these objects are to the reader through careful description and action involving the characters in the novel, I hoped that skimming a compact table of minor information wasn't too removing for the reader.

The Primers explain other factors too. Like the alien menace, the technology of said menace, the human menace, the technology and military institution of said human menace...

I didn't include this context in my original post - because I wasn't aiming to have its content revealed until I could have it critiqued - by following the Forum's rules. (It will take some time to achieve 30 posts I'm guessing. I am in the meantime seeking other means for feedback.)

The intent here was to study whether or not I can adequately balance separate experiences in world-building with functional narrative which still advances the plot.

If introduced properly then you won't need an index. If the book takes off and becomes a series then you can publish the handbook as well.

so, tell me the precise technical spec differences between a TIE-Fighter and an X-Wing - But only from information provided during the original 1977 Star Wars. The answer - the fictional characters probably know. I don't need to. George Lucas probably didn't know or need to also.

But if you know the differences then you can write a better story. This dogfight or that one resolves because of technical requirements. As an example the Allied Fighter Pilots used very different strategies fighting Japanese pilots than they did German Pilots. Why? Because the Japanese and German Aircraft were so different from each other that Japanese and Germans used very different fighting techniques.

But the reader doesn't need to understand the specs -- only how the fight resolves. There is a line from Serenity where the fearless captain remarks to (himself/the audience/the ship bearing down on him) "I can do something you can't do" and then contacts the Engine room to prepare for a "Crazy Ivan." ---- They showed us something. And it was believable and a great moment. We didn't need to know any of the technical specs. The characters knew the technical specs.

 

[Misanthrophile]

In retrospect. A good chunk of the jargon in the above isn't used at all by the characters and narrator. Surplus to requirements. But lends some idea of what dialogue is exchanged between characters who are the personnel utilising it.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

If introduced properly then you won't need an index. If the book takes off and becomes a series then you can publish the handbook as well.

so, tell me the precise technical spec differences between a TIE-Fighter and an X-Wing - But only from information provided during the original 1977 Star Wars. The answer - the fictional characters probably know. I don't need to. George Lucas probably didn't know or need to also.

But if you know the differences then you can write a better story. This dogfight or that one resolves because of technical requirements. As an example the Allied Fighter Pilots used very different strategies fighting Japanese pilots than they did German Pilots. Why? Because the Japanese and German Aircraft were so different from each other that Japanese and Germans used very different fighting techniques.

But the reader doesn't need to understand the specs -- only how the fight resolves. There is a line from Serenity where the fearless captain remarks to (himself/the audience/the ship bearing down on him) "I can do something you can't do" and then contacts the Engine room to prepare for a "Crazy Ivan." ---- They showed us something. And it was believable and a great moment. We didn't need to know any of the technical specs. The characters knew the technical specs.

OK, I misquoted Serenity all over the place. Here is an abridged cut of the film scene.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

View attachment 128518

Yep. That's a lot of technical data I don't want to learn. You might have to mention why it's important to the characters that a specific vehicle is there. In your previous post, you description seemed to be enough. This looks like stats from Warhammer 40K table top

 

[Misanthrophile]

Yep. That's a lot of technical data I don't want to learn. You might have to mention why it's important to the characters that a specific vehicle is there. In your previous post, you description seemed to be enough. This looks like stats from Warhammer 40K table top

As I feared.

I have the same problem reading Fantasy:

"Arbrand Sull, Fourth Dreckor to the Seat Of Seven Kings and Prelate to His Dandelion Sooth, marched forward to grasp the Retelion. His blistered fingers showed rot, but also devotion. He sang praises to the Weer-Nog Waters..."

... What?!?

Get on with the feckin' story!!!

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

OK, I misquoted Serenity all over the place. Here is an abridged cut of the film scene.

Just rewatching the scene there is another moment worth noticing. At the very beginning of the scene the ship entering the atmosphere flips over (upside down) while going through the atmosphere. We see this throughout the movie and the Firefly TV series. Why? Technical reasons that are never explained. And to not need to be.

The the TV Series The Expanse (based on a book series) we often see ships flying in space "backwards." That is: their main engine is forward and firing. It is not explained in the show. I had to watch an explainer to understand it. They don't have artificial gravity. Some space stations spin. Most space ships derive the sensation of gravity through acceleration. Ships accelerate about half way to the destination and do a controlled deceleration as they reach their destination. The establishment shot will show you on which half of their journey they're on. So, if you look at ships they are all built like a high-rise on it's side from end to end, not like a cruise ship. Again, technical things that weren't explained in the show but was consistently adhered to. ---- I didn't read the books so I can't comment on those.

And this time I remembered it pretty well. I just found this video to explain Expanse Gravity:

 

[Misanthrophile]

Just rewatching the scene there is another moment worth noticing. At the very beginning of the scene the ship entering the atmosphere flips over (upside down) while going through the atmosphere. We see this throughout the movie and the Firefly TV series. Why? Technical reasons that are never explained. And to not need to be.

The the TV Series The Expanse (based on a book series) we often see ships flying in space "backwards." That is: their main engine is forward and firing. It is not explained in the show. I had to watch an explainer to understand it. They don't have artificial gravity. Some space stations spin. Most space ships derive the sensation of gravity through acceleration. Ships accelerate about half way to the destination and do a controlled deceleration as they reach their destination. The establishment shot will show you on which half of their journey they're on. So, if you look at ships they are all built like a high-rise on it's side from end to end, not like a cruise ship. Again, technical things that weren't explained in the show but was consistently adhered to. ---- I didn't read the books so I can't comment on those.

And this time I remembered it pretty well. I just found this video to explain Expanse Gravity:

There is a comprehensive chapter in my book displaying this.
To the point where human Dropship payloads are reoriented in their seats to take acceleration/deceleration G-Forces on their front.

The only sensible artificial gravity system I've examined is what you described. Centrifugal force.

Having my characters experience these was essential to my mind for plausibility's sake.

Joe Haldeman's - The Forever War ensured I never overlooked cosmological constants, or Newtonian/Einsteinian physics for plausibility in plot...

Robert Heinlein never let me forget it either. He'd slap me and make me start again I imagine... Navy man that he was...

 

[Swank]

This is all a terrible idea. I love wonderous world building, but wonderous world building is something that occurs in the story. REMTAV is only interesting if the word "REMTAV" creates a certain feel in the scene or connects to a prior event. If it doesn't have a function in the text of the story, it is a nonsense word.

World building are the details that make the story feel genuine and provide the context for the most exotic events. World building is not the point. The story is the point, and the story better be good.

World building is an attractive trap for writers. But you are writing fiction prose in the novel form, not a role playing manual or the Star Trek Technical Manual. If you can't shrug off the attractions of daydreaming about a fake place, you will never execute a useful story.


Story. Story. Story.

 

[Misanthrophile]

This is all a terrible idea. I love wonderous world building, but wonderous world building is something that occurs in the story. REMTAV is only interesting if the word "REMTAV" creates a certain feel in the scene or connects to a prior event. If it doesn't have a function in the text of the story, it is a nonsense word.

World building are the details that make the story feel genuine and provide the context for the most exotic events. World building is not the point. The story is the point, and the story better be good.

World building is an attractive trap for writers. But you are writing fiction prose in the novel form, not a role playing manual or the Star Trek Technical Manual. If you can't shrug off the attractions of daydreaming about a fake place, you will never execute a useful story.


Story. Story. Story.

Thank you.

I had realised well in advance - that this thread and its experimental nature was going to elicit this response.
I'm ever grateful for the insight given.

After all, science that doesn't test its hypotheses, is not science...