Fantasy vs SF worldbuilding

This might seem like a really obvious 'duh' point, and if it is, I apologise, but I find with SF I tend to think of current cultures and issues and extrapolate them to make a new society, whereas in Fantasy I tend to base it more on historical cultures. I haven't written much SF for a long time though so I'm interested to see what the more seasoned writers think, especially since my new WIP falls into that sort of grey area between fantasy and SF.

I'll just add that I tend to use/describe some physics when I'm planet world-building, or visiting a different system. That's one of the main differences between my SF and F.

Tri

I think it depends on the writer, their knowledge and interests. For me, fantasy worldbuilding is a lot easier because that's what I usually do, and when I think about SF it tends to be with a fantasy-ish mindset. I also find it more intimidating because, with SF, I feel as though it's supposed to be possible in this world, whereas with fantasy, you get to define your own physics/metaphysics however you want, so you can't get it wrong so long as you're internally consistent.

For a very practically-minded person with a good grasp of physics and technology, it might be easier to work with what you know really works, rather than making up your own systems, so SF might be easier.

I've toyed with SF in the past. You face some similar issues. First, are you going to use this world or another world? I like the clean slate quality of the past- pre history, such as Tolkien's Arda, because then you can make anything work.

The down side of SF is also the upside. You're using information others would know. That can be a plus as people connect to a place, but can also work against, because then you have no room for error with factual information.

In my SF sketch, I created an agency, think of Men in Black, but it wasn't a comedy. Well, if I put the agency in Maryland, but don't know the simple street routes- which I didn't, I was limited in some of the kinds of filler information that could enrich the story. My idea was a good one, and perhaps it could have worked. And in fact it couldn't work in another world. But I'm sure I'd have had to do more research to make the story work, and for me research isn't pleasant work.

Both fantasy and SF demand their own areas of expertise. Depending upon which area you are more versed, it will be easier or more difficult for you to build a world. For instance, I can't touch Triceratops in the SF realm. But I can hold my own against him in fantasy.

Gray Rose said:

Thanks for your great replies!

Nateskate - a new world, futuristic, multiple planets inhabited by humans and an interstellar war. Level of technology is above ours (FTL), but not insanely futuristic. I am very sure about how the society works. I think this might be a space-opera universe

Click to expand...

I love the first three Star Wars. It blended that futuristic and the familiar. And some might call Star Wars a space opera, which isn't an insult.

I thought the Chronicles of Riddick was a decent movie. But again, they drew a great amount upon the familiar. I think that's the ticket in some respects, is to blend the familiar with the fantasy or sci fi, as the readers connect better.

Most of my SF worlds are entirely human based. I rarely use aliens, besides the odd space opera, so creating a believable alien species is beyond my field.


When I create science, I try to base it on something slightly factual. This does not mean that its actually possible, but it becomes easier to accept. Today even science is seriously talking about SF terms like time travelling, teleporting and using dimensions to reach beyond our solar system. Its hard to create a concept totally which is unacceptable for the reader.


I know a lot of SF writers build their world separate to their story, but I tend to let the world grow, as i develop the story. This might not be a great idea, but it saves me from developing too many things that i don't need. It might also make my worlds slightly less believable, but I'm normally willing to sacrifice that for a the actual story.


Strangely enough I do the exact opposite, when i write fantasy. But i think its because I intend to tell many stories from the same fantasy world. Although i might not actually do it. Tolkien set the standard for fantasy worlds, a history, maps, mythology, even languages and cultures. I think you need those things to write good fantasy.


SF can be told with "In a galaxy far, far away." it needs no background. The extended universe of Star Wars was developed after the original story had been written. I seriously doubt, that Lucas spend much time writing about Mandalorian culture and history, when he introduced Boba Fett. All that was added later by other people. That's why we don't hear about midi-chlorians in the first three films. Its introduced later to explain how they can test Anakin. Don't get me wrong, I love the film, but the story is really all over the place. Like Obi-wan not knowing R2-D2 in "a new hope", when he obviously spend the most important part of his life, with the very same robot.


Maybe that's the main difference between SF and Fantasy. In SF you tell a story by means of the world you have created, and in fantasy you tell a story set in the world. I don't think, I have ever reused a SF world (besides using it in a serial), but my fantasy world can contain a lot of unrelated stories.


Telling SF stories is down to the famous "suspension of disbelief". One of my favourite worlds is the Verse from Firefly. Joss Whedon gives no explanation why his main character carries and ancient colt revolver, or why people have reverted to dressing like 19th century pioneers, they just do and its great.

I think it's not giving secondary-world fantasy the credit it deserves to suggest it's 'easier' to construct. To me a poorly-thought out fantasy world is just as jarring if not more so than a poorly-thought out SF one. In fact the best fantasy worlds (I find) are ones with realistic ecology, economy and sociology, with magic just one more element in the world.

Albedo said:

I think it's not giving secondary-world fantasy the credit it deserves to suggest it's 'easier' to construct. To me a poorly-thought out fantasy world is just as jarring if not more so than a poorly-thought out SF one. In fact the best fantasy worlds (I find) are ones with realistic ecology, economy and sociology, with magic just one more element in the world.

Click to expand...

That's how I like to tackle fantasy worldbuilding as well. Even though magic exists I like to have a (potentially) feasible explanation why it exists, an ecology that allows it or some sort of reason through physics or at the very least mythology that is all consistent. I love that when I'm reading and I wanted to do the same when I created worlds. I've had magical systems based on quantum mechanics (although that was urban fantasy, technically), and on biology, one on linguistics... I find that a lot of fun.

I'm not sure if I write worlds to set stories in or worlds to tell the story - I do a mixture of both, in both SF and Fantasy. I tend to tackle both in a fairly similar mindset. I wondered if that was why my latest story is a bit hazy as to which category it could fall into (it involves inter-dimensional travel to different worlds, a few of which have FTL technology, and one part in particular is set on a huge big derelict spacecraft, but there are also parts in Tolkien-ish settings).

I also wondered if the reason I tend to criss-cross between both genres is because I grew up from age 4 watching Dr Who, which could be said to do the same thing at times.

I was going to say world building is world building because I don't have any difficulties building a sci-fi world over a fantasy world, but then I realized I don't write hard sci-fi, I'm a Burroughsian space opera sci-fi writer so there isn't much difference in my mind between either world.

Yes, I think which is harder depends entirely on what you already know vs. what you have to research. It takes just as much knowledge to write (well) a battle with knights on horseback as it does for a space battle--it's just knowledge about different things.

Although I would argue that the "soft" sciences, unusual sociological setups, cultures, economies, etc., apply just as much to SF as to Fantasy.

I also was not suggesting that fantasy worldbuilding was inherently easy (I can see how my 'make it however you want' comment could be taken that way). I only meant that it was easy for me. My background is in philosophy and linguistics, so it's easy for me to construct systems of metaphysics that operate behind the physical world (and these tend to tie well into fantasy plots), and languages. I've also been prone to drawing maps my whole life, so that element is also relatively easy and fun for me.

Well, in my case, I definitely find SF worldbuilding harder than Fantasy. Not the societal worldbuilding, but the actual science of it. I'm a longtime writer of fantasy, who has actively avoided writing SF for some time, even though I enjoy reading it. (I hated math and didn't pursue any science beyond chemistry in school.) That is, until a group of characters in a very SF setting suddenly took over my muse while I was completing my last WIP. I made them wait until I finished it, did some worldbuilding for them, got intimidated by all the science involved (space travel, a lethal virus wiping out half the population, a bunch of other little things), and set them aside for the next fantasy book tickling my muse. But the SF characters are not satisfied with this, and have been extremely impatient about getting their story told.

I've accepted that it's not an idea that's going away, and I've even written about 13,000 words of the SF book. At least, I had until the science got in my muse's way again. I tried to research, and ended up blinking blearily at some articles on string theory. In desperation, I posted about my troubles on my blog. Turns out, one of my longtime online friends happens to be a scientist - an actual 'rocket scientist' as she likes to call it. And her brother-in-law has a PhD in string theory. So now I have official scientific constultants for the SF book, and I am so much happier.

Consultants definitely help.

I write primarily SF, but worry more about story than the science. Sure the science is there, in that things must work consistant with the level of tech available. In other words, My characters can't go from Earth to Mars in a couple of hours--there is no such thing in my world as FTL travel. But they can get there in a week, because someone (before the story begins) discovered a new very efficient rocket fuel. But the fuel is too "hot" to be used to lift a payload from the planet, so they're still dependent on current rocket technology to get into orbit.

I wanted that idea to work, asked my friend the physicist at the local college if I was on track. He said I was, helped me with a few technicalities, and my story sounds good. (If I don't say so myself.)

But now I'm contemplating writing a fantasy. And I am having one helluva time deciding how the world I've placed my characters in works. I don't want to resort to the time-worn solution of magic (you know: oh, they got all the way across the continent in a minute because of a magic spell. I guess my SF muse is watching over my shoulder.), but I want the reader to accept things happen the way they do without scientific basis anyway.

I guess we all have our hurdles to overcome. But that's the fun of doing this, isn't it?

Rhien Elleth said:

And her brother-in-law has a PhD in string theory. So now I have official scientific constultants for the SF book, and I am so much happier.

Click to expand...

I seriously needed one of those the other day. Tried to read up on string theory on my own. My brain is still a bit bruised.

I'm quite lucky in that I have a relative whose background is in chemistry but he has a keen interest in both physics and SF, so if I run an idea past him he can tell me if it's scientifically feasible and usually knows if another SF writer has done it before.

My background is in history and law with a little bit of politics thrown in, so I tend to write fantasy more often than SF. I'm quite confident that I can have a social structure in my made up worlds that would work. Even if I use magic I like it to have some sort of logic behind it, so not the example of just using a spell to travel. It just occurred to me that I actually tend to cheat more in SF, as not having much of a technology background, I am more inclined to make up a 'magic' machine that does whatever I need it to.

I'm not sure which is easier to create. You can get away with a lot in either sub genre. With a traditional fantasy world, you have to know about folklore, a good bit of specific history, and some cultural information to really make it a realistic pseudo-medieval world. With a traditional space opera type story, you have to know bits about technology, political systems, and maybe even a bit of economy, to give it a strong feeling of realism.

Despite being a pretty sciencey guy, when I read science fiction I don't care much about all the specifics of the gadgets. I would rather that someone hand wave an explanation then invent pages of fake theory to explain why a device works. The thing that kills me though is failing to understand the implications of the shiny new tech that you created.

Say your world has teleporters. Great, that means business and culture have been changed forever. You could have anything delivered to your house in a matter of seconds, so stores are going to be a dying way means of distribution. How do people protect themselves from criminals who can just appear in the middle of your house? You could also imagine just how much this would affect the psychology of people in the world. People want everything NOW, no one wants to wait for anything, etc. Imagine if such people were forced to stand in line for something (maybe standing in line is a foreign concept?). You get the idea. I hate it when a writer just drops in some gadget and doesn't work through how much it would ripple.