Fantasy series that are both character-driven and with great worldbuilding

[Darth Richard II]

I'm confused again. It is nice to see non Europe based worlds though. Soneone up thread mentioned Bears Shattered Pillars, which is a great example.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Three Worlds by Ian Irvine. A none European setting. Think Africa, Asian pacific sort of thing.

[Jo498]

Bakker is not simply the middle East around 1100 AD. The campaign and some Empires of the first three books can be matched to that. But several features of the cultures are rather different (sometimes closer to ancient mesopotamia), not to start with his Dunedain ("Old North") and the magic schools are based on ancient philosophical schools. And Cnaiurs tribes are some mix of mongols and native Americans or whatever. So he gets more depth already from using more diverse sources than many others and still making a somewhat coherent mix from them. (As opposed to the random orientalist tropes supposed to make up Essos.) And things do have a history and feel like that.

On the other hand, I find his treatment of religion and the empire-church relation that was central for medieval Europe (and different in Byzantium) not very convincing (but I only read the first 2.5 books).

But despite not being completely convinced by lots of things in Bakker, his worldbuilding is without a doubt above average (and I do not mean this as damning with faint praise although it could be reasonably understood in that way).

[Liver and Onions]

Sarah Monette's Labyrinth Doctrine (I think that's the title, first book is Melusine) is very character focused with some decidedly interesting world building. However, that unconventional series isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I think the second book may still be out of print. 

I'm seconding the Prydain series by Lloyd Alexander. It's technically a YA series, so it's a quick read. An excellent and underrated set of books. Also another shout out to the Locke Lamora books, if you haven't read those already. 

I'm also a big fan of fantasy with strong characters and immersive world-building. I admit I tried out the first Prince of Nothing book by Bakker and... well... it just didn't grab me. So I didn't continue.

[Jo498]

I think immersion and atmosphere are both more subtle and more subjective than what can simply be described or captured as world building. (What I have read of Bakker's varies between quite atmospheric and far less so, main problem with immersion might be the unlikeable characters and grossness.) E.g., I remember both Memory, Sorrow and Thorn as well as what I read by Kay as fairly atmospheric although both MST and Fionavar are teeming with standard tropes and not terribly original settings and characters. (I think one reason is that Williams and Kay are above average fantasy authors in writing style so they can turn somewhat generic or pseudo-historical settings into something more.)

Again, it's been almost 20 years but Earthsea are fairly short books with an original setting (but only "sketchy", compared to the epic descriptions of others) and I remember them as very atmospheric and immersive, not all standard fare.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn was actually quite original for its time (the 1980s). It was the first major epic fantasy series to give the Dark Lord figure a sympathetic backstory - not even Donaldson did that. And yes, it has some nice atmosphere, especially once the apocalyptic winter gets going.

Kay's big selling point is his prose. Shame about the melodrama.

[Jo498]

Sure, but Memory/Sorrow/Thorn also has (sometimes cringeworthy) stock characters, especially Simon and most of the world is pseudo-medieval Europe. My point was mainly that atmosphere is not connected to original world building in a simple way or vice versa.

[redeagl]

On 4/28/2016 at 10:02 PM, David Selig said:

"Huge world" and "good worldbuilding" are two pretty different things.

Anyway, here are a few series with good worldbuilding and character development:

Eternal Sky - Elizabeth Bear

Earthsea - Le Guin

Riddle-Master - Patricia McKillip

 

I think that Malazan is an example of huge world rather than good worldbuilding.

[sologdin]

worldbuilding is just faux elevated nerd talk for setting, right?  can't we just say setting?

 

anyway, go read the vorrh.  it kicks ass.

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

worldbuilding is just faux elevated nerd talk for setting, right?  can't we just say setting?

Not necessarily. Worldbuilding's broader. If you set a work in one room or a tiny village or something, and never venture outside, you might have a good setting, but you've not done much worldbuilding.

[Pilusmagnus]

Actually, I think I misused the word worldbuilding. What I actually meant was immersion.

World-building is a highly un-literary aspect of a book. You can do worldbuilding without doing literature or even telling a story, just for fun.

But in fantasy series, great world-building is one way among others to immerse the reader into the universe. Since the universe has to feel real, either you work a lot on the worldbuilding, either you immerse the reader through writing style.

A great example is Jaworski's Vieux Royaume series (untranslated in English). His universe is basically a mashup of fantasy classics and actual history. You have the city of Ciudalia which is basically Renaissance Italia (with actual Italian names) then the Duchy of Bromael which is feudal Europe, a people named Boegars who are ruled by Khans, a Viking-like people ruled by Jarls, a Ottoman-like people ruled by a Chah, and then you have Tolkien elves and dwarves and orcs called the Uruk Maug.

So this universe seems excessively uncreative, but the immersion is among the best I've ever read. First, the style is absolutely gorgeous, expertly crafted (very French and extremely difficult to translate) and moreover, every aspect of daily life is described thouroughly. Plus, the various plots are not all centered on war and epicness, as is too often the case in fantasy, but also on art, poetry, peasant life, culture, religion, etc...

So this is an instance of an author having weak worldbuilding but still managing to plunge his readers deeply in his universe through other means, which I feel authors like Abercrombie do not manage as well, although having equal or better worldbuilding.

And Malazan must be an example of having great worldbuilding but failing to deploy it in a manner that is enjoyable.

 

(And if you're an editor, please have Jaworski's works translated into English, pleaaase...)

[Darth Richard II]

I enjoyed Malazan fine.

[all swedes are racist]

4 hours ago, sologdin said:

 

anyway, go read the vorrh.  it kicks ass.

Just looked that up. Fuckin a, looks gnarly. Definitely going on the list

[ants]

Ones that haven't been mentioned yet would be Janny Wurt's Wars of Light and Shadow, Michelle West's Sun Sword and Elantran series, Anne McAffery's Perne chronicles, Ian Irvine's books, and C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy.

[Darth Richard II]

That's because Janny Wurts is terrible.

[Andorion]

1 hour ago, ants said:

Ones that haven't been mentioned yet would be Janny Wurt's Wars of Light and Shadow, Michelle West's Sun Sword and Elantran series, Anne McAffery's Perne chronicles, Ian Irvine's books, and C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy.

I have only read Wurts' To Ride Hells Chasm but I loved it. The big series is on my TBR for this year. Michelle West Elantra books are pretty good but a bit repetitive. 

[Darth Richard II]

Pretty sure Ian Irvine is considered poop, but I don't THINK I've read any of it.

I tried one of Wurts books once and it was one of the most god awful things I've ever read. Think it was a stand alone? Oh hell, to wikipedia!

Nope it was the first book of her cycle of fire trilogy, and it stands out in my mind as one of the top ten worst books I've ever read.

Michelle West is great, don't know if I'd call her books character driven though.

[Jo498]

As I already said, whereas it is fairly easy to identify and recognize standard tropes and clichees it is not so so simple, how and why immersion works (and it is also fairly subjective). It has a lot to do with language because this is how atmosphere is created, but this is not the only aspect. A lot of fantasy is stylistically rather poor but can still feel immersive and fascinates readers older than 15 who are used to stylistically better writing.

As for (e.g.) Abercrombie, First Law is not at all an original/creatively built world. Neither is Shattered Sea. They do not feel very deep (as in most other fantasy there is hardly any art, poetry, religion or if then it is largely irrelevant and not done well). I think the appeal is mainly due to page-turning action, "badass characters", plot twists and cynical humour. Which is fine, but one should not expect what is not there.

The world of IaF is not so much better as has been pointed out above. Worse, most of the things that are different from you faux medieval Europe (without the in real history all important religion including the frequent power struggles between secular and religious authority - there is the faith of the Seven but until the Sparrows it's completely moot for the action and no major character could be called devout) have almost no impact on the world and the first 5 books (namely, the odd seasons). But it's colorfully done and there are great characters placed in interesting dramatic constellations.

[HairBearHero]

On 29/04/2016 at 8:56 PM, polishgenius said:

No, don't do that ffs. It is indeed where the series kicks up a notch and stronger than the first two but if you read it without the context, while most of the immediate stuff will make sense much of the background stuff and emotional impact will be lost.


Also: I loooooove Daniel Abraham's stuff but I don't think his worlds are particularly deep. They're very much built in the service of the characters and plot - what you see is engaging and wonderfully described but I never feel like there is, or has been, much going on outside the immediate frame of the story. Like, in Long Price, even Galt is barely sketched out as a nation, and it's a place pretty important to the plot. I guess it's what you see as good worldbuilding though.

 RE: Dresden Files, I disagree. I read the first two books well aware that the series got considerably better (just as well), then have never included them in my re-reads.

The characterisation of Michael and Murphy changes so drastically between 1 and 3 that they may as well be different characters, the writing is miles clunkier and I'm honestly not sure what major background stuff and emotional impact you're referring to. Get a plot synopsis of the first two and dive into the better books.

RE: Abraham, I don't think his worlds are enormously deep, but they are all coherent, hang together well and suffer realistic consequences as a result of plot events. To my mind good worldbuilding doesn't mean reams and reams of lore and history, it means a world in which I can immerse myself and believe in. Pretty much all of Abraham's work qualifies by that standard.

On 29/04/2016 at 9:04 PM, Darth Richard II said:

I have a better idea. Don't read Dresden, because it's shit.

Your opinion is noted.

On 29/04/2016 at 10:41 PM, williamjm said:

I like Adrian Tchaikovsky's Shadows of the Apt series. Again, I probably wouldn't say it has quite the same feel of depth as ASOIAF, but unlike The Dagger and The Coin it's a series that really embraces the idea of different races and civilisations. Despite there being a lot of world-building, I'd say it mostly doesn't overwhelm the characters or the plot (there's maybe one book which gets a bit carried away with introducing new races).

Can't believe I didn't recommend these, as they're one of my favourite series. Great call. Don't read them if insects give you the creeps though.

[End of Disc One]

5 hours ago, HairBearHero said:

The characterisation of Michael and Murphy changes so drastically between 1 and 3 that they may as well be different characters

I guess that's one way to put it...Michael went from not even existing to being a character in book 3.