recurring world
- Thread starter satyesu
- Start date
- Status
My opinion? It depends...
Is there enough story to fill multiple books in the same world? Is there some new aspect of this world, with new conflicts and interesting characters, to explore? Go for it.
Are you just stretching things out to show off your worldbuilding skills, or because you're reluctant to let go and move on to other things? Go ahead and write it, but don't expect me to keep reading in perpetuity if that's all there is.
Is there enough story to fill multiple books in the same world? Is there some new aspect of this world, with new conflicts and interesting characters, to explore? Go for it.
Are you just stretching things out to show off your worldbuilding skills, or because you're reluctant to let go and move on to other things? Go ahead and write it, but don't expect me to keep reading in perpetuity if that's all there is.
If it's a great story, tell it. If someone has fallen in love with your world in the first book, then they're likely to want to read more about it.
If you're just in love with the world, but the story isn't that compelling, then it may not be successful. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't write it, though.
If you're just in love with the world, but the story isn't that compelling, then it may not be successful. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't write it, though.
Ah, but a world is HUGE!
Consider the differences between China, the US and Brazil, between the UK and the US even though they are nominally similar.
I could set every book I ever wrote on one world and the setting wouldn't be the same each time.
That said, I do like to play with different worlds...
Some writers write mostly in one world, some don't. Do what you want, as long as the stories are good.
Write what excites you.
Consider the differences between China, the US and Brazil, between the UK and the US even though they are nominally similar.
I could set every book I ever wrote on one world and the setting wouldn't be the same each time.
That said, I do like to play with different worlds...
Some writers write mostly in one world, some don't. Do what you want, as long as the stories are good.
Write what excites you.
Discworld does the multiple books in a single setting best. I think a lot of series get absorbed in trilogies and long running stories that focus on a certain aspect of a created world. There's nothing wrong with that but the thing about reusing a well built setting is the different aspects a writer can focus on in each novel.
I bring up Discworld because of its stand alone nature. Each book focuses on a different aspect and individual/groups without getting caught up in "I have to read the last three books to figure out what this guy's talking about."
I never read any of the original Guard books but picked up THUD! as a kid and I loved what I discovered about it. What Pratchett did right was give enough callbacks/continuity nods to long time readers while also writing a good stand alone story.
Good worlds have enough stories and plots to keep digging for years. That's what I prefer. Trilogies and continuous series have their place but for me, Stand alone novels with subtle links set in the same, well thought out world are better than varied settings.
I bring up Discworld because of its stand alone nature. Each book focuses on a different aspect and individual/groups without getting caught up in "I have to read the last three books to figure out what this guy's talking about."
I never read any of the original Guard books but picked up THUD! as a kid and I loved what I discovered about it. What Pratchett did right was give enough callbacks/continuity nods to long time readers while also writing a good stand alone story.
Good worlds have enough stories and plots to keep digging for years. That's what I prefer. Trilogies and continuous series have their place but for me, Stand alone novels with subtle links set in the same, well thought out world are better than varied settings.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
I was going to cite the Discworld as well. Pratchett doesn't seem to have run out of stories yet.
Just look at all the fantasy authors have set in the same world. In some cases, it all builds on what came previously. In others, you can pick up anything in the world and feel grounded enough.
Pratchett is a good example, as others have noted. Anne McCaffrey used Pern to great success. Joe Abercrombie's standalones are in the same world as his First Law trilogy. Brandon Sanderson has an interconnected universe between all his works (and has set Elantris and The Emperor's Soul in the same world without making the stories connected in any major way). Tolkien has the Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin. Terry Brooks has used the same world and locations over the course of many different generations of characters. Weis and Hickmann wrote a ton in the Dragonlance world. David Eddings, I believe, set at least two series in the world of the Belgariad.
All these authors have been very successful in using the same world over and over again. Some will debate just how good some of the authors are, but that doesn't change the fact that their worlds have worked for many, many readers.
After all, there's a lot to explore in a world. You can set your stories in vastly different areas and bring out entirely new aspects of the world.
Pratchett is a good example, as others have noted. Anne McCaffrey used Pern to great success. Joe Abercrombie's standalones are in the same world as his First Law trilogy. Brandon Sanderson has an interconnected universe between all his works (and has set Elantris and The Emperor's Soul in the same world without making the stories connected in any major way). Tolkien has the Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin. Terry Brooks has used the same world and locations over the course of many different generations of characters. Weis and Hickmann wrote a ton in the Dragonlance world. David Eddings, I believe, set at least two series in the world of the Belgariad.
All these authors have been very successful in using the same world over and over again. Some will debate just how good some of the authors are, but that doesn't change the fact that their worlds have worked for many, many readers.
After all, there's a lot to explore in a world. You can set your stories in vastly different areas and bring out entirely new aspects of the world.
Last edited:
There's also Raymond E Feist. He's been publishing books set in the same world for the last 30 years.
Or Sara Douglass, who used the Darkglass Mountain series to show that a number of different 'worlds' were really just different times and places in the one world.
If you choose to set multiple novels/series/whatever. in the same world, you won't be the first. As others have said, it's a great idea if you can build an interesting enough world for readers to keep coming back to it.
Actually, maybe it's more important to say you'd need an interesting enough timeline. What happens in one series could be the history or mythology of another series. The MC of one book could be the reviled ancestor of another MC, or even a post-apocalyptic culture's god/devil figure.
A single world is huge - there's potential for countless cultures both across geography and history.
Or Sara Douglass, who used the Darkglass Mountain series to show that a number of different 'worlds' were really just different times and places in the one world.
If you choose to set multiple novels/series/whatever. in the same world, you won't be the first. As others have said, it's a great idea if you can build an interesting enough world for readers to keep coming back to it.
Actually, maybe it's more important to say you'd need an interesting enough timeline. What happens in one series could be the history or mythology of another series. The MC of one book could be the reviled ancestor of another MC, or even a post-apocalyptic culture's god/devil figure.
A single world is huge - there's potential for countless cultures both across geography and history.
Piers Anthony, anyone? 
I think it's a perfectly viable idea. You just need to make sure your world is an interesting one that readers might want to revisit time and time again. (Like everyone else already said. Dang it.)
I think it's a perfectly viable idea. You just need to make sure your world is an interesting one that readers might want to revisit time and time again. (Like everyone else already said. Dang it.)
The way it's all connected doesn't even have to be too obvious. Three examples pop out of my mind: Stephen King, Kurt Vonnegut and Gabriel García Márquez.
All three of them have more or less a common setting, or at least an "axle" of sort that can be traced down (New England, particularly Maine; Upper NY, especially the made-up city of Ilium and Macondo, in a dream-like Colombia) and several landmarks that help settle their stories in the same universe (i.e. Mentions of The Shawshank State Penitentiary, Kilgore Trout's novels, the exploits of colonel Aureliano Buendía, etc.) but besides that, all stories are strong enough to stand on itself.
Basically, you try to keep the familiarity of the world for old readers while avoid alienating the new readers.
All three of them have more or less a common setting, or at least an "axle" of sort that can be traced down (New England, particularly Maine; Upper NY, especially the made-up city of Ilium and Macondo, in a dream-like Colombia) and several landmarks that help settle their stories in the same universe (i.e. Mentions of The Shawshank State Penitentiary, Kilgore Trout's novels, the exploits of colonel Aureliano Buendía, etc.) but besides that, all stories are strong enough to stand on itself.
Basically, you try to keep the familiarity of the world for old readers while avoid alienating the new readers.
Either way has been done with great success; it all depends on how you write and what story you want to tell.
Once I find a world I like, I want to stay there for many books, as both a reader and a writer. Getting to keep exploring a world I liked is a major factor in which books I buy. As far as writing . . . yeah, I spent years building this world. You're nuts if you think I'm doing that over again when I have a perfectly good world already developed, lol.
To rehash what most of us already said, but from a different perspective: if you can't get more than one or two stories out of a world, you've done a pretty lousy job of world building.
Sounds like a valid approach to me. I mean, there are many novelists, historic and contemporary, who have set many novels in the same world (the so-called real one). If you want to create a richly drawn fantasy or sci fi world/universe, I don't see why there would be a problem with visiting it at different times and places in its history.
And there are plenty of spec. fiction authors who have set many stories and novels the same fantasy or sci fi world/worlds, often developing different characters in different settings or times within their world. Mercedes Lackey, Robin Hobb, C.J. Cherryh, Lynn Flewelling, Pratchett, Anne McCaffrey, David Brin, Brandon Sanderson, Connie Willis... And that's just from glancing over at a couple of my bookshelves.
I've got multiple worlds and universes I'm working my fiction into.
The Fire On The Suns universe is space opera. The Hatchings world is hard SF. My Quentin Dallas, PI world is urban fantasy. The world of Porter's Way is fantasy/western. The world of Third Pulse is filled with superheroes and villains. The world of Dark Horizons will be filled with strange creatures that might or might not have evolved on Earth if evolution had gone differently.
Many, many authors revisit the world of a story here, there, and again because an author's imagination really cannot leave such things alone. You create a story set in a world that you know is much vaster than what your single story allows to be shown and the temptation to go back and play in that world again and again is just enormously tempting and a temptation tangled before a writer is like dangling a carrot in front of a horse.
The Fire On The Suns universe is space opera. The Hatchings world is hard SF. My Quentin Dallas, PI world is urban fantasy. The world of Porter's Way is fantasy/western. The world of Third Pulse is filled with superheroes and villains. The world of Dark Horizons will be filled with strange creatures that might or might not have evolved on Earth if evolution had gone differently.
Many, many authors revisit the world of a story here, there, and again because an author's imagination really cannot leave such things alone. You create a story set in a world that you know is much vaster than what your single story allows to be shown and the temptation to go back and play in that world again and again is just enormously tempting and a temptation tangled before a writer is like dangling a carrot in front of a horse.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
Valdemar world by Mercedes Lackey, anyone? Most of the books in that world were connected BY the world, but were trilogies or five-book arcs set in various villages/cities. The world was plenty big enough to pull it off. Just make it a rocking world and it's all good.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 6,326
- Reaction score
- 856
If the world can sustain multiple plotlines, epic or otherwise, that is fine by me.
I find that I might have a good premise for magic that doesn't get fully explored in a particular plot, so an unrelated arc might show more depth or expand upon the idea. Not to explain, but to experiment.
I find that I might have a good premise for magic that doesn't get fully explored in a particular plot, so an unrelated arc might show more depth or expand upon the idea. Not to explain, but to experiment.
- Status