World Building

clawyer80 · Dec 1, 2020

I think part of the fun with the SciFi and Fantasy genres is how many take place in worlds that may be very different from the one in which we live. I think world building is very important for fantasy. In my own writing, the first novel, I completed was something like the Silmarilion in that it kinda set up a mythology/history for the world. It covered the beginning of the universe up until a turning point on the planet in question. All my subsequent stories take place on that planet after that turning point. If I can complete all the stories I have in mind, the last story will be about how the universe ends. Does anyone know if anyone has told the story of an entire universe from beginning to end through a series of books?

How many of you have gone in-depth in creating a dedicated world for your stories? What are your favorite or least favorite aspects of world building? Does anyone have tips for good world building?

VeryBigBeard · Dec 1, 2020

My biggest "tip" would be to mostly ignore the worldbuilding, at least at first. You need a story first. A lot of writers, even Tolkien to a point, write into the world. I find I tend to create bits of it as I go. I'll have an idea of what I'm working with, but it's almost completely malleable, and I will absolutely ret-con some element of the world if the story needs that later on.

Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with having a background compendium, especially for one's own use. Consistency matters, and I do think there's a lot of value in little details of setting and situation that make up what we usually call "world" in fantasy. But that's really part and parcel of storytelling as a whole. There's worldbuilding in the most realistic literary novel, too, just of a different sort and tenor. Every detail you choose to include in the story must work for that story, and it is generally advisable to conserve detail.

A lot of times, I think this debate or question is really a question of learning to love to write vs. learning to write for a reader. They're not opposed. You need both. If worldbuilding is your way in, great! At some point, assuming you want your work to be read (by no means a requirement), you will have to reckon that no reader is going to slog through 200 pages of background without an actual story to hang onto.

micahkolding · Dec 1, 2020

I'm big on building a grand, unified theory that governs a story's world. The best advice I can give is to give readers metrics by which to label and categorize characters; they go nuts for that stuff. Whether it's races/classes/alignments, sides of the Force, Water Nation/Fire Nation/Earth Nation/Air Nomads, or Hogwarts houses, readers love to look at your characters and see what it is they represent about the wider world. It also gets them thinking about where they would belong if they themselves were in your world.

Woollybear · Dec 1, 2020

clawyer80 said:
Does anyone know if anyone has told the story of an entire universe from beginning to end through a series of books?

I think it's more common to have a universe end within viewpoint (but only in viewpoint) ... and then realize some in-world device was at play--that the universe is actually fine, and the story can continue. Like has been done in the Hitchhiker's Guide, Star Trek, and others.

How many of you have gone in-depth in creating a dedicated world for your stories? What are your favorite or least favorite aspects of world building? Does anyone have tips for good world building?

I work on a colonized world named Turaset, which exists roughly 3000 years from now. It's maybe ten light years from Earth (I am not actually sure, but it took about 200 years to get there and we left in ~2100 with the tech of that time.) My stories are several thousand years later, after the civilization regressed.

My favorite aspects of world-building are the cultural elements that challenge our own culture. Sexist themes, violence, and so on--how will my world be distinct in a way to allow readers to recognize the biases we hold?

For example, there are no guns on my world. There never will be.

But guns are simple to engineer, and that is a fact that will never change. So, if there are no guns, and no one wants a gun, and every last person is appalled at the thought of a firearm that can take life instantly, how is that cultural view built?

Same puzzle with sexist biases, and some others.

Best tip is to go slow. If your world has multiple land masses, and multiple regions within a single land mass, you can world-build bit by bit. Continents are a nice tool to separate ... oh, loads of things. Religions, genetics, you name it. So, build the amount of world you need and can handle, and then when that is solid, tack on a little more.

Readers, especially some, seem to want more of the 'weird' than the sociopolitical. They are more interested by green hair than by a gender-gap in the pay scale, for example. (I find the pay gap infinitely more interesting than hair color.) But, as VBB points out, it's good to pay attention to what readers want.

For some, a little magic-esque (green hair or extra fingers or superpowers) goes a long way.

InkFinger · Dec 1, 2020

Story before world. No one will get to experience your world if the story doesn't take them there.
Know the world like the Simarillion, but pepper into your story in the same way you would include details about a story taking place in your own backyard. It gives depth and texture, but won't read like a textbook.

micahkolding · Dec 1, 2020

I see a lot of people recommending building a story before the world, and there is definitely wisdom in that. Ideally, I would say that the two should be intertwined. After all, if the plot isn't informed by the details that make your world different, what's the point?

Woollybear · Dec 1, 2020

Nah--VBB said both are valid. I made no suggestion, just shared my experience of world-building in a large sense. You have a GUT of WB'ing, and then inkfinger said story is paramount, a valid opinion, but only that.

clawyer80 · Dec 1, 2020

Woollybear said:
I think it's more common to have a universe end within viewpoint (but only in viewpoint) ... and then realize some in-world device was at play--that the universe is actually fine, and the story can continue. Like has been done in the Hitchhiker's Guide, Star Trek, and others.

I work on a colonized world named Turaset, which exists roughly 3000 years from now. It's maybe ten light years from Earth (I am not actually sure, but it took about 200 years to get there and we left in ~2100 with the tech of that time.) My stories are several thousand years later, after the civilization regressed.

My favorite aspects of world-building are the cultural elements that challenge our own culture. Sexist themes, violence, and so on--how will my world be distinct in a way to allow readers to recognize the biases we hold?

For example, there are no guns on my world. There never will be.

But guns are simple to engineer, and that is a fact that will never change. So, if there are no guns, and no one wants a gun, and every last person is appalled at the thought of a firearm that can take life instantly, how is that cultural view built?

Same puzzle with sexist biases, and some others.

Best tip is to go slow. If your world has multiple land masses, and multiple regions within a single land mass, you can world-build bit by bit. Continents are a nice tool to separate ... oh, loads of things. Religions, genetics, you name it. So, build the amount of world you need and can handle, and then when that is solid, tack on a little more.

Readers, especially some, seem to want more of the 'weird' than the sociopolitical. They are more interested by green hair than by a gender-gap in the pay scale, for example. (I find the pay gap infinitely more interesting than hair color.) But, as VBB points out, it's good to pay attention to what readers want. For some, a little magic-esque (green hair or extra fingers or superpowers) goes a long way.

I too enjoy the contrast of the new world with things that are present in the real world. With my stories, I don't really make a point of trying to draw connections between something like race in the fantasy world to race in the real world. However, in my fantasy world, there are many different races that have real significant differences, so within the context of the the world, the differences that separate us in this world (e.g., skin color) are considered trivial and really aren't even acknowledged.

clawyer80 · Dec 1, 2020

I appreciate the responses. I do understand that you do want your novel to put the story before world building. With me, I have a compendium of sorts that tells the history of my world. It actually does have an in-world representation. So everything in my stories fit accordingly to the rules established in that book, but as stated I've focused on telling actual stories that establish that lore independently of of the compendium.

For me, the benefit of having the compendium written is that all the devices I need to help the plot move are already there. I don't have to build anything. It's already established. That said, as someone noted, sometimes ideas in the story prompt changes in the lore, and I have gone and modified my compendium based on ideas that came about in the other stories.

ChaseJxyz · Dec 1, 2020

I love world building because I love science, history and telling stories. My brain comes up with a lot of "wouldn't it be cool if...?" scenarios that I take to their logical conclusions and come up with some wild stuff (What if there were a species that could see other wavelengths of light? > And what if they thought they were really good at science? > How would they look at the scientific advancements of other species?). I have multiple phylogenetic trees: the "correct" one and the ones that various cultures believe to be true because of their own biases/lack of knowledge of the other kinds.

There's a trap to it, though: you run the risk of dumping this stuff into the text and scaring people away. Yes, some people want to read a fictional textbook of another world, but most people don't. Imagine a story set in the real world where a character gets into a plane and then the narrator tells you for 1,000 words the history of aviation and the exact chemical reactions that happen with the combustion of jet fuel. It slows down the story and doesn't really add anything.

My current WIP is written by an academic who wanted to share the history of a remote part of the world, but in a way that is in the oral literary traditions of the people who live there and not a boring academic book, but there are footnotes for things when relevant. Being able to have an aside and say "hey here's how magic works" and not slow down the story is great, but they still serve the plot. The author is of the species that can see energy, and they are quite stuck up. The catalyst of the story is the aftermath of a radioactive kaiju obliterating the southern half of a kingdom...but the author doesn't believe that happened, there's no way there could be a being that big or powerful, but she's entertaining the thought for the sake of the story. She's a character and the things she shows (or chooses not to show) reflect her own biases.

But I have to curb myself from putting in footnotes just to expound on worldbuilding and don't add anything otherwise. I really like biology, especially birds. The story is about magic birds and oh my god there are so many bird facts. But I have to make them all either flow smoothly with the story (stating that a crest moves up/down, then a character says a thing, so you can go "oh that means she mad") or is relevant to...something. One bird has to grow her tail out for Important Reasons so pinnies come up in conversation, being able to see UV is a big thing. One of my trans characters is a bird (AFAH{atching?}) and only boy birds have sexually dimorphic UV markings, so humans can't tell sex differences. Birds can use magic to have a human form, but it takes a lot of time and money, but he did what he had to to learn that spell when he was very young so he could have a body where no one would misgender him. And I mention in footnotes that UV markings are a thing, that there's a bird word for hatchling that has two forms (the masculine and the feminine/I don't know what the gender of the subject is), gee isn't it weird that he knows this stuff that only really priestesses know about? Why doesn't he turn into a bird around other birds but only humans? So there's plenty of breadcrumbs that he's trans before there's that reveal, all those bird facts are relevant to the character and clever readers should be able to figure it out. I'm sure there's going to be plenty of other bird facts on the cutting room floor.

clawyer80 · Dec 2, 2020

I agree about there being a trap. I think in my case, the question more is more about how in-depth to go into something in a story. For example, there is a system of magic in the world I created. One of the main characters explains that system soon after she's first encountered. It's important that the reader knows about the system, but the question becomes how in depth should it be explained. I know some people love detailed explanations of that kinda thing, while some might just want enough so that things make sense. If the system has six types of spells, is it worth explaining all six at that point if that character really only knows how to use one? Areas like that are where its good to have insight from others because the writer might feel it's all important and natural, but the reader might have a completely different take.

lizmonster · Dec 2, 2020

clawyer80 said:
For example, there is a system of magic in the world I created. One of the main characters explains that system soon after she's first encountered. It's important that the reader knows about the system, but the question becomes how in depth should it be explained.

Why?

I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a useful question. IMO narrative isn't about illustrating every single detail of a particular scene; it's about sketching in enough detail to keep the reader engaged and entertained. In general, less is more. Knowing that a character understands and cares about something is far moe important than letting the reader in on all the salient details, and it gives the writer the opportunity to drop in the juicy bits when they become important to the plot.

clawyer80 · Dec 2, 2020

lizmonster said:
Why?

I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a useful question. IMO narrative isn't about illustrating every single detail of a particular scene; it's about sketching in enough detail to keep the reader engaged and entertained. In general, less is more. Knowing that a character understands and cares about something is far moe important than letting the reader in on all the salient details, and it gives the writer the opportunity to drop in the juicy bits when they become important to the plot.

Well, in the case of magic, I think there is a fine line between it actually being a reasonable plot element/device and a DEM that can be seen as lazy writing. If there are rules to such a system, then it's use comes of as more satisfying and understandable. At least that's how I feel as a reader. I know when I read stories where the rules of something were established early, it felt like a nice payoff when later in the story an important resolution came that called back to those rules. Conversely, I've found it to be a little corny when the resolution came and then a rule was presented at that point as an explanation. It felt cheap like the author was just making it up as he/she went along.

AW Admin · Dec 2, 2020

There's a point with world building, as with research for non-fiction, where you need to stop prewriting and start writing.

If you get to a point where you realize you need more research or more world building, then go back and figure out that specific thing, in order to return to writing.

Tolkien is not the most fortuitous example for world building, because he did not set out, at all, with the intention of writing a novel. His entire interest was in world building.

lizmonster · Dec 2, 2020

Well, in the case of magic, I think there is a fine line between it actually being a reasonable plot element/device and a DEM that can be seen as lazy writing. If there are rules to such a system, then it's use comes of as more satisfying and understandable.

It's absolutely a balancing act, and I'm perfectly happy assuming you've got it right.

I will say, though, that I don't think there's anything about a magic system that makes it special. Good world building needs to give the reader a tactile reality, whether you're talking about magic, politics, cultural conventions, weaponry, religion, social structures - any of it.

If your magic system is important to your plot, it presumably will drive the behavior of your characters. There's a lot that can be revealed in character actions without shoving things toward "as you know, Bob."

Woollybear · Dec 2, 2020

clawyer80 said:
Well, in the case of magic, I think there is a fine line between it actually being a reasonable plot element/device and a DEM that can be seen as lazy writing. If there are rules to such a system, then it's use comes of as more satisfying and understandable. At least that's how I feel as a reader. I know when I read stories where the rules of something were established early...

One way to pull it off nicely is to make the 'magic' (or other issue) do two or more things in the story.

If only the wizards can rule the people, for example, you can work the (subset of relevant) rules to your world in either through the magic, or the power structure. One of my favorite series has seven ruling houses and each house has its own specific area of expertise when it comes to magic. Each house has a head, and the heads of the houses meet twice yearly to decide how best to govern the people. They have a hierarchy too, amongst themselves, and that probably has something to do with the magic they wield. There's other intrigue as well, of course, like how they intermarry which causes wrinkles in things when it comes to passing down leadership of stuff, but the author is able to 'explain' the rules (which I love, seeing the structure to this part of the society like this) through a variety of settings and means. At a wedding. In chambers. During a magical duel. Etc.

... where the rules of something were established early, it felt like a nice payoff when later in the story an important resolution came that called back to those rules. Conversely, I've found it to be a little corny when the resolution came and then a rule was presented at that point as an explanation. It felt cheap like the author was just making it up as he/she went along.

Yeah, I agree. In those cases it feels like something should have been back-woven to avoid that.

clawyer80 · Dec 2, 2020

lizmonster said:
It's absolutely a balancing act, and I'm perfectly happy assuming you've got it right.

I will say, though, that I don't think there's anything about a magic system that makes it special. Good world building needs to give the reader a tactile reality, whether you're talking about magic, politics, cultural conventions, weaponry, religion, social structures - any of it.

If your magic system is important to your plot, it presumably will drive the behavior of your characters. There's a lot that can be revealed in character actions without shoving things toward "as you know, Bob."

You're absolutely right. Magic just happened to be an easy example, but this balancing act can be applied to pretty much every aspect of a world. That's what makes world building fun and intriguing but also precarious if you're not doing it well.

Woollybear said:
One way to pull it off nicely is to make the 'magic' (or other issue) do two or more things in the story.

If only the wizards can rule the people, for example, you can work the (subset of relevant) rules to your world in either through the magic, or the power structure. One of my favorite series has seven ruling houses and each house has its own specific area of expertise when it comes to magic. Each house has a head, and the heads of the houses meet twice yearly to decide how best to govern the people. They have a hierarchy too, amongst themselves, and that probably has something to do with the magic they wield. There's other intrigue as well, of course, like how they intermarry which causes wrinkles in things when it comes to passing down leadership of stuff, but the author is able to 'explain' the rules (which I love, seeing the structure to this part of the society like this) through a variety of settings and means. At a wedding. In chambers. During a magical duel. Etc.

That sounds pretty cool honestly. I really like divisions and hierarchies like that in stories.

Pallandozi · Dec 2, 2020

clawyer80 said:
Does anyone have tips for good world building?

Brandon Sanderson has given a course about it, which is online: LINK

Someone described speculative fiction novels as "the story of how a character we care about interestingly progresses in overcoming a difficulty which could have had negative consequences that deeply mattered to them, in order to arrive at a memorable finale that satisfies the promises earlier hinted at, while immersing us in a world that sparks our imagination"

In my opinion, if these elements of character, plot and world are linked, in such a way that you couldn't just drop them nearly unchanged into a different setting, that's a good thing. You need to keep asking "Why?" about all three. "Why are there multiple sentient biped races in my world?" "Why is my protagonist deathly afraid of fish?" "Why does the antagonist wanting to financially ruin the protagonist's father, lead her to steal the archmage's wand?".

But, if rather than doing all your worldbuilding first, or all your plotting first, or all your character fleshing out first, you spread your "Why?"s around, narrowing down the society's history a little, then switching over to the family history of the protagonist, then back to working out what trade good would be sent between which cities, then over to the plot, etc. I think you're more likely to end up with something linked and unique.

frimble3 · Dec 2, 2020

clawyer80;10665992 If the system has six types of spells said:
IMHO, it's not worth explaining all six if only one is going to be a factor in story.
If your character is only going to use one type of spell, that's all that needs to be explained. You can go into some detail, mention that there are other kinds of spells, but that this is the one your character uses: here's how it can go wrong, here's what it can do, but this is it. If we can't take down the BigBad with this, well, that's a whole other quest.

It's like if you're writing a story set on contemporary Earth, in the bayous of Louisiana, there's not much need for information on polar bears. Or the deserts of the Middle East. No matter how fascinating or well-researched.
On the other hand, if a djinn turns up in Louisiana, you might need to add a little desert description as part of his culture-shock.

clawyer80 · Dec 3, 2020

frimble3 said:
IMHO, it's not worth explaining all six if only one is going to be a factor in story.
If your character is only going to use one type of spell, that's all that needs to be explained. You can go into some detail, mention that there are other kinds of spells, but that this is the one your character uses: here's how it can go wrong, here's what it can do, but this is it. If we can't take down the BigBad with this, well, that's a whole other quest.

It's like if you're writing a story set on contemporary Earth, in the bayous of Louisiana, there's not much need for information on polar bears. Or the deserts of the Middle East. No matter how fascinating or well-researched.
On the other hand, if a djinn turns up in Louisiana, you might need to add a little desert description as part of his culture-shock.

Yeah, I think you're probably right. I think the explanation is probably one of those things that seems good to the writer, but no so much to the reader.

CathleenT · Dec 3, 2020

So, OP, originally you asked if anyone knew of a tale that included both the genesis of a world and its end. I'm all happy because I have one and nobody mentioned it yet--Narnia.

I'm going to swim against the current of the thread--a bit. I agree that story trumps all. Magnificent world building will not save a sloppy tale.

However.

You might still need to do it. Sometimes I have to. And it's not that I can't finish anything and use more world building as an excuse to procrastinate. It's that I really need to live in the world somewhat. And I didn't even write a secondary one.

I've looked up nineteenth century recipes in Godey's Lady's Book and cooked them. I had to physically cover the ground that my protags would on the California trail, and while we were camping along the way, I even made a campfire using cow chips (buffalo chips not being available anymore). I've cooked over fires with tripods, ridden horses, and drove over some amazingly primitive roads. I couldn't wrap my head around the story until I did this. There's a reason I site most of my stories in California. It's the one part of the country I know very well.

Be advised that unless you've got better control than I have, when you're done your patient beta friends are going to have to hammer your manuscript because you're likely to end up with a fair amount of "I've done my research and you will pay." But at least you'll have a draft to cut.

It would probably be a lot easier on you and everyone else if you didn't need to do a deep dive into your world. And you still might have to do it to get the job done.

I'm just throwing this out there in case you're like me. I usually need the world building to write the tale. I've got completed outlines that have world building weaknesses that I can't write yet, not until I work out a few more wrinkles. It happens. : )

ETA: On my to-do list for 2021: Learn how to build a fire using only flint and steel. And I might be working on some more herbal remedies as well.

clawyer80 · Dec 4, 2020

CathleenT said:
So, OP, originally you asked if anyone knew of a tale that included both the genesis of a world and its end. I'm all happy because I have one and nobody mentioned it yet--Narnia.

I'm going to swim against the current of the thread--a bit. I agree that story trumps all. Magnificent world building will not save a sloppy tale.

However.

You might still need to do it. Sometimes I have to. And it's not that I can't finish anything and use more world building as an excuse to procrastinate. It's that I really need to live in the world somewhat. And I didn't even write a secondary one.

I've looked up nineteenth century recipes in Godey's Lady's Book and cooked them. I had to physically cover the ground that my protags would on the California trail, and while we were camping along the way, I even made a campfire using cow chips (buffalo chips not being available anymore). I've cooked over fires with tripods, ridden horses, and drove over some amazingly primitive roads. I couldn't wrap my head around the story until I did this. There's a reason I site most of my stories in California. It's the one part of the country I know very well.

Be advised that unless you've got better control than I have, when you're done your patient beta friends are going to have to hammer your manuscript because you're likely to end up with a fair amount of "I've done my research and you will pay." But at least you'll have a draft to cut.

It would probably be a lot easier on you and everyone else if you didn't need to do a deep dive into your world. And you still might have to do it to get the job done.

I'm just throwing this out there in case you're like me. I usually need the world building to write the tale. I've got completed outlines that have world building weaknesses that I can't write yet, not until I work out a few more wrinkles. It happens. : )

ETA: On my to-do list for 2021: Learn how to build a fire using only flint and steel. And I might be working on some more herbal remedies as well.

I didn't know the world of Narnia came to an end. I thought I read all those books. Looking at the Wiki I just realized I only made it about halfway through stopping at the Silver Chair. In my defense, I read those books in elementary school which was decades ago. I'm not really sure why I stopped to be honest. It might have been an access thing.

CathleenT · Dec 4, 2020

Yeah, Silver Chair was the real low point of the series--a perfect example of a soggy middle. But this means you haven't read A Horse and His Boy yet, which was my very favorite Narnia tale.

I'm so jealous. : )

clawyer80 · Dec 4, 2020

CathleenT said:
Yeah, Silver Chair was the real low point of the series--a perfect example of a soggy middle. But this means you haven't read A Horse and His Boy yet, which was my favorite tale in the whole series.

I'm so jealous. : )

I might have to revisit and finish the series off. How do the stories hold for an adult reader? I can't really remember if the narrative and tone was kiddy or just something that could be accessible for kids.

CathleenT · Dec 4, 2020

A Horse and His Boy holds up very well, IMO. Written for older kids but fine for adults. Books 6 and 7 hold up well if you're Christian. If not, the religious parallels might be a bit heavy.

World Building

clawyer80

VeryBigBeard

Preparing for winter

micahkolding

Woollybear

InkFinger

micahkolding

Woollybear

clawyer80

clawyer80

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories

clawyer80

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

clawyer80

AW Admin

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

Woollybear

clawyer80

Pallandozi

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

clawyer80

CathleenT

I write

clawyer80

CathleenT

I write

clawyer80

CathleenT

I write