Authors and their obsession with one world.

[Peadar]

I'm blaming readers and evolution. As time goes by, the author who makes the reader feel most comfortable in her world is going to sell more.

When I was growing up, all the great SFF authors were famous for writing every subgenre and for coming up with new worlds for every book. You never knew what you were going get and for me, that was pretty exciting. I *wanted* to visit somewhere new when I opened the covers. That was the whole point of SF -- to boldly go etc.

But even for me, when I'm reading a book of short stories, for example, I find I have to spend a little bit more "psychic energy"* whenever I move on to a new tale. The effort needed to figure things out detracts just a little from my comfort every time. It's a bit like it used to feel when an author would head-hop within a single paragraph. You have to be on the ball to read such stuff.

You might say it's not the author's job to make us comfortable, and you'd be right, and you can point to plenty who don't do that and succeed anyway. But in general, with people working long hours and having plenty of stress in their lives, I feel the trend is more and more towards "easy" -- which doesn't have to mean "crap" by the way. It's a trend that moves away from short-stories and all the costs of reading them, and more towards endless series and TV.

*my apologies

[The Marquis de Leech]

When I was growing up, all the great SFF authors were famous for writing every subgenre and for coming up with new worlds for every book.

Reusing the same setting for a multivolume series is as old as modern fantasy. Frank Baum revisited Oz, Edgar Rice Burroughs revisited Mars (yes, there were other settings, but each of those were revisited too), Fritz Leiber revisited Lankhmar for half a century.

(9000th post. Yay.).

[Shinrei]

Depending on the author in question, i am glad if he/she does not change setting...because some settings are just so good that you want ever more of it ;)

If the setting is big and complex enough, i see no problem with that.

Often times i find that authors who change setting with every new book (or trilogy) do not have very deep settings...and the longer i am a reader of fantasy, the more i appreciate it if the setting is deep and well thought out. I want the world to be a protagonist as well. And that takes time to develop (and therefore i can more than understand an author not wanting to change the setting after a short time).

So my solution if i want a new setting (because i have enough of the one i read about for some time) is to go with a new author. Easy, eh? ;)

[sologdin]

another extreme is groups of writers who think they are writing the same setting, but editors later say it's different ones with the same names, such as in comic books.

[Yersinia]

I blame the readers, man.

Always blame the readers.

Admit it: You just don't want to waste any more of that paper with the little squares on it drawing new maps for yourself.

[scotcat]

I guess it depends on the author.

If it is a good author and the world they've created is rich enough to warrant multiple novels being set there why not?

[Toblakai]

Brandon Sanderson certainly bucks that trend, although I would say that he has only fully fleshed out Roshar from Stormlight Archives. Even the Mistborn world (and I love the trilogy) is only really a city with some surrounding smaller cities and towns.

[Samsaptakas]

Mistborn and Roshar are one setting.

[Toblakai]

Mistborn and Roshar are one setting.

No, they are the same universe but not the same setting. By that logic, that would mean Dune is the same setting as Gone with the Wind.

[Darth Richard II]

Sanderson has people traveling between his worlds. That Hoid guy is in every book. Same setting.

[AverageGuy]

No, they are the same universe but not the same setting.

The interlinking between them is meant to become more and more apparent in later stories. His YA books, on the other hand, all have one setting per series.

[Toblakai]

That doesn't make it the same setting, because he had to do full worldbuilding for each series. I am aware of all of the connections within the Cosmere, and even if one can argue that it is one setting, I don't think that is what is meant by this topic.

[WexPyke]

I think authors put so much work into building one world that they do not want to do it twice.

[Eponine]

I care more about my perception of the setting than anything the author says. If the setting looks and feels totally different than another setting the author has written, then I don't care if the author wants to say it's in the same universe. This applies even when there's a small amount of cross-over. OTOH, if the author claims that he's written in ten different worlds and each of them feels exactly the same to me (or if he's written the same story ten different times with minor background changes), I'd just as soon that he'd stuck to one world.

[Galactus]

Reusing the same setting for a multivolume series is as old as modern fantasy. Frank Baum revisited Oz, Edgar Rice Burroughs revisited Mars (yes, there were other settings, but each of those were revisited too), Fritz Leiber revisited Lankhmar for half a century.

(9000th post. Yay.).

And it's not even unique to genre authors: Balzac's works are famously intertwined, Söderberg has cameos from different characters in other novels, etc. etc.

[SilentRoamer]

Terry Brooks the Word and the Void series tied into Shannara as I think DR pointed out. It worked much better as a different world and I do not know what benefit was had by shoehorning it in.

[Arkash]

Personally, I'm in love with Robin Hobb's universe. Its expansion from "Farseer" to "Rain Wild Chronicles" was amazing to read, her world is fascinating and her characters are among the most vivid I've ever read about !

[SilentRoamer]

I recently read Assassins Apprentice following recs from this board.

While I did enjoy the novel I was not as blown away as I expected to be and other firsts in a series have pulled me in more. I did note at the time I was not used to reading something entirely in the 1st person PoV.

Love or hate WoT it has a fantastically well realised world with a very fleshed out history.

[Arkash]

It takes a while to really kick in the Farseer Trilogy but stick to it, it's damn worth it ! Until the last word of the Rain Wild Chronicles and in the expectation of the new Fitz novel coming up tommorow.... damn, it's tommorow already !

I guess I'll have to take a break from the Malazan Book of the Fallen to devour the return of Fitz and the Fol !

[red snow]

Like most folk are saying it's because it sells. Some authors may want to work on other things but the publisher/reader demands the stuff they are comfortable with. GRRM clearly likes to play around with different things but even I'm guilty of grinding my teeth a little at the idea of working on other stuff at the moment. I guess if ASOIAF were finished it'd be easier. On the other hand maybe GRRM has something even better that we may never see because of ASOIAF. That's what worries me when authors stick to one world/setting.

Is there a golden number of books to have in one world? I know I won't try/read more of Pratchett, Hobb, Sanderson and Erikson as I feel there are too many books and in some cases that they will never end. I think 10 is my limit and they better be ended at that stage.

I think Adrian Tchaikovsky has been wise with his "shadows of the apt" series. 10 books in the space of 6 years and now he's trying other genres/settings. I guess I'll forgive him if he comes back and does a sci-fi take on his apt series though as it's such a cool idea. I guess that's what it boils down to - how many people think the world is rich enough to keep coming back.