Jump to content

World Building


Galactus

Recommended Posts

Okay, people in the Bakker thread were lauding his world-building, and my reaction is just "WTF"?

I don't see anything particularly grand about Bakker's World building (or for that matter, Tolkien's)

Which I guess brings us to the question of what makes for good world-building? For me it is the feel of a "complete" or "organic" world one that, by it's own rules, could conceivably have developed into the world as described. It also has to have a sense of... I don't know, inertia? If it is just a place for the Plot to happen and feels like it would collapse if you turned your gaze away, then it's not good worldbuilding.

And for that, i feel I need a functioning economy. Not neccessarily that the author DESCRIBES it, but I need to feel that it is there, in the background, doing it's stuff. Tolkien never gives me the feeling that he's actually considered how anything in his world would *work*. Martin has issues himself, but I think he manages it cleverly by simply stealing from medieval societies... Bakker? I have NO IDEA how any of his socities (who incidentally, tend to flow together a fair bit in my mind's eye) are supposed to operate.

That's not neccessarily a sign of BAD world-building (for it to be bad it has to actively detract from the plot) but it's hardly the bees knees either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's the sense of 'oh, that makes sense' that I love about good worldbuilding.

One example: Mirror of her Dreams/Man Rides Through by Donaldson. The magic use in his world makes sense, but the [i]consequences[/i] of that magic also makes sense. One beautiful thing that I'll always love is the use of the mirror magic to teleport supplies to the army on the march. It's a mundane detail that as soon as you think about it, you realize 'of COURSE they would do this'. Another consequence is the requirement of slaves to deal with a person's image and appearance; they have no mirrors, so they must use people to gauge. Again, another of course, but it's a small detail.

I love those kinds of consequences - those little details that fall out organically from the fantastical. I love when authors extrapolate based on their fantastical elements and show how they would affect the world. Mieville does this very well, which is one reason I love his worldbuilding.

Martin consistently mentions how medieval societies work. We hear weird details about storing grain, about bank loans, about shipping and trading and what each area grows and makes. These things make the world pop for me. He doesn't spend a ton of time on this, but it's clear that it's there. It makes the world alive and real in a way that most fantasy does not.

This is a failing in Bakker's world. The use of magic is entirely for war and war alone. It's partially cultural, but it's also an oversight I think. While Maia brought up some points in how it could be used that I don't think were entirely valid, I think a lot of them were, especially things like mining and roadbuilding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty shitty quote, if it's the one I'm thinking of.

[quote][url="http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=4136"]Above all, worldbuilding is not technically necessary[/url]. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there. It isn’t possible, & if it was the results wouldn’t be readable: they would constitute not a book but the biggest library ever built, a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study. This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.[/quote]

There's a balancing act between writing a D&D manual and writing a world that just doesn't make sense. Good worldbuilding exists without being explicit; it exists in the little details that make you believe the world is there. Bad worldbuilding is jarring; you wonder why wizards exist but magic communication does not, or why genies exist but do not power vehicles. (at least I do). You are given the fantastical without figuring out what that would be used for by humans who are first and foremost tool users.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Martin consistently mentions how medieval societies work. We hear weird details about storing grain, about bank loans, about shipping and trading and what each area grows and makes. These things make the world pop for me. He doesn't spend a ton of time on this, but it's clear that it's there. It makes the world alive and real in a way that most fantasy does not.[/quote]

The main problem with Martin is the entire "years and years of winter" thing. That and the medieval stasis. (comes from Sci-fi writers have no sense of scale I guess :P) the effects would quite simply be huge. Even on a modern society. I'm not even certain a medieval society would ever actually be able to survive, given the limits of transportation and storage.

If you ignore the entire seasonal thing it's a great little world.

EDIT: That say, there is a difference between writing a world for a specific story and writing one to "play around" in. An RPG setting has higher standards for detail and... Well, sense-making.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the seasonal thing + 8000 years of iron age is a problem, but the world is so much more otherwise alive that it's not that much of one. It does bug me the same way that the arrows could hit the top of the wall from the bottom, but the actual mechanic (how winter works) doesn't bug as much as the response to it. I don't mind suspending disbelief that for whatever reason asoiaf has long-ass winters. Just any unrealism regarding it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]mechanic (how winter works) doesn't bug as much as the response to it[/quote]

Oh, I agree, I am perfectly fine with "A Wizard Did It" to explain why there's seven years of winter. But I want to know how people deal with storing that much food in an economy that's barely above subsistence level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abraham's another one who's thought of how the fantastic fits into his setting.

There are areas where GRRM's ... somewhat blase attitudes towards worldbuilding show through. For example, his ideas on jurisprudence in Westeros don't really make sense once you scratch the surface (for example, there don't seem to be any kind of advocates or lawyers in existence; courts are purely a kind of feudal thing where you plead and some random person decides what happens to you). But in other areas, yes, he's good at giving the sense of a medieval world, although he might say it's all "furniture" that can be exchanged for other ideas that would give the sense of a particular setting. (And to answer the remark about big castles in the middle of nowhere, I think you'll find that all the major castles have some sense to where they're placed -- Winterfell was sited at the location of natural hotsprings, a distinct advantage with many-years winters, for example).

I actually don't think Bakker's setting is particularly inauthentic, and in some areas he was almost too authentic (as others have said, he followed the First Crusade really, really closely). He also clearly spent a great deal of time adding depth to his world's history, which I appreciate it, and it's this that makes him more like Tolkien than anything else that comes immediately to mind.

Jordan as a world-builder, I can't get my head around so many very distinct cultures when they all share a common language. It rings false to me. In other areas, he was quite good, on the other hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Jordan as a world-builder, I can't get my head around so many very distinct cultures when they all share a common language. It rings false to me. In other areas, he was quite good, on the other hand.[/quote]

For all the complaints about Jordan spending pages on describing dresses, he does pay attention to the tiny little cultural differences (be it sense of dress or mannerisms) the equivalent of italians liking to stand a few centimetres closer when talking to you, if you will.

[quote]I actually don't think Bakker's setting is particularly inauthentic, and in some areas he was almost too authentic (as others have said, he followed the First Crusade really, really closely). He also clearly spent a great deal of time adding depth to his world's history, which I appreciate it, and it's this that makes him more like Tolkien than anything else that comes immediately to mind[/quote]

He has the problem of a sense of scale too, but mainly it's the fact that I don't get a sense of how his socities *work*. And the paralells to the first crusade makes it *worse* because we *do* know (in a sketchy kind of way) how those socities work, but Bakkerworld isn't just like our world in the middle-ages...

[quote]ourts are purely a kind of feudal thing where you plead and some random person decides what happens to you).[/quote]

That actually sounds pretty similar to early-medieval scandinavian courts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1696784' date='Feb 23 2009, 20.29']Jordan as a world-builder, I can't get my head around so many very distinct cultures when they all share a common language. It rings false to me. In other areas, he was quite good, on the other hand.[/quote]

I agree, the language thing was unbelievably absurd. However, I studied linguistics and the fact is, that all authors are going to get something wrong somewhere. Whatever your own area of expertise is (and we've all got one), it's going to be a source of world-building "errors" as far as you are concerned. Guaranteed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others have said, it's the little details. No author (that I know of) opens up their doorstopper fantasy novel with a 100 page introduction to the history, customs, culture, and economy of their imaginary worlds. It's all tidbits, little bits and pieces thrown out along the way that eventually form up one's opinion. This is hard to describe, but most of the time when I'm reading a book I can just [i]tell[/i] if the author has thought long and hard about how his or her world works. The effort, if there, bleeds through. Reading Bakker, I get the sense he has spent long hours thinking about his world. Reading Joe Abercrombie, I get the sense he hasn't spent much time thinking on the world at all. Whether or not that is important is up to the reader to decide.

One of the little things that Bakker does that I love is his chapter quotes. Having imaginary books (or parables, legends, plays, folk sayings etc.) within his book, and having characters reference them, is always a neat little way of making the world seem alive. Characters that allude to their own worlds history and major events is a major help in the believability.

Another thing that Bakker is good at, as is Martin: the tease. Alot of times in these books, we only get a sliver of information about something, and this makes the reader hunger for more details about these things. This is backed up by the belief the writers have instilled in us- that they actually know what the hell they are doing and they have the full answers. Bakker does this with his little tidbits about Seswatha's life, and the history of the Ancient North. I don't know everything about these places and people, but I know enough to intrigue me and I can tell Bakker knows more about it, encouraging me to read on. Or, for a Martin example, take Robert's Rebellion. I just LOVE it anytime somebody talks about it and we get another piece of the puzzle. Also, take Arthur Dayne for example. What a great character? But how much do we really know about him? Not much at all. If Martin came out and wrote a bio of Dayne he would be much less interesting. So I think there is alot to be said for the tease, the gradual revealing of details about the world, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1696751' date='Feb 23 2009, 20.09']Which I guess brings us to the question of what makes for good world-building? For me it is the feel of a "complete" or "organic" world one that, by it's own rules, could conceivably have developed into the world as described. It also has to have a sense of... I don't know, inertia?[/quote]

World-building can serve the book in lots of ways and not all of them are necessarily about verisimilitude. Ursula Le Guin's short-story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" has an extremely unlikely world that exists solely and unashamedly as a vehicle for its own theme.

The city of Felix Gilman's [url="http://www.amazon.com/Thunderer-Felix-Gilman/dp/055359110X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235422242&sr=1-1"]Thunderer[/url] didn't strike me as being in the least bit "workable", but its very improbability adds rather than detracts from the atmosphere...

None of which means I don't love a brilliantly put together world like [url="http://www.amazon.com/Helliconia-Spring-First-Book-Trilogy/dp/0743444728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235422276&sr=1-1"]Helliconia[/url], of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I'd consider both WoT, ASOIAF, and even Farseer or Soldier's Son to have better worldbuilding than Bakker.[/quote]


What is it about those settings that make it easier to understand how these societies are supposed to operate, that Bakker or Abercrombie or Lynch or whatever lack?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever people hate about Jordan I think that his world building is awesome. The distinctive cultures and the history behind their development is pretty amazing . I kind of agree that it is strange how they all speak the same language, but I guess it does not bother me greatly. If you think about some of the nuances of the Aiel, Seanchan, Sea People, etc it is really interesting and often quite unique. Even if some concepts are stolen from actual history their is great explanation and motivation behind it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1696751' date='Feb 23 2009, 20.09']Tolkien never gives me the feeling that he's actually considered how anything in his world would *work*.[/quote]

Why do you read fantasy then?

Some of Sci-Fi might work for you. But you should stay away from fantasy. It is all childish and unreal, fairy tale.... :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]What is it about those settings that make it easier to understand how these societies are supposed to operate, that Bakker or Abercrombie or Lynch or whatever lack?[/quote]

Lynch... I can't recall much of Lynch's world-building, although it seemed decent enough. Nothing jarring. (there were mentions of trade and the sense that at least people did make a living when they weren't engaged in Plot, which is the, not particularly high, bar I've set)

Not read Abercrombie.

Bakker's main issue is that there is NO sense of what people do with their lives. No sense of *the ordinary* at all. You get the feeling that things are either unrelenting horror or the occasional bit of heroism. You barely know what people eat or drink, and nothing about how these things come to be there. (at least in TLOLL there are mentions of expensive brandy and where it is imported from)

[quote]World-building can serve the book in lots of ways and not all of them are necessarily about verisimilitude. Ursula Le Guin's short-story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" has an extremely unlikely world that exists solely and unashamedly as a vehicle for its own theme.[/quote]

In that case I'm more likely to judge it as a part of the plot (and it fails in the world-building department *precisely* for that reason, it feels like it would evaporate the moment Plot stopped happening)

Mind, you can have good plot and characters, and even setting, without good world-building.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Astra' post='1696857' date='Feb 23 2009, 21.58']Why do you read fantasy then?

Some of Sci-Fi might work for you. But you should stay away from fantasy. It is all childish and unreal, fairy tale.... :rolleyes:[/quote]

Paradoxically, I read fantasy precisely for those snippets of world-building. (well, not JUST because of that, but it's certainly a major draw)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are external elements that make a world grand. I mean knowing about culture, dress, legal systems, trade, etc., etc. certainly can add alot fo the design of the world.

I think there are internal elements that also can be used as a guide to great world building. A Characters thoughts, motivations, emotions, morals, values, etc., etc. also lend flavor to the world about them. The character doesn't exist in a vaccuum (sp?) and when his internal "mechanisms" match interact well with other characters and the enviornment about them this lends to the impression of a believeable place.

I think this is where we people give credence to Bakker's world building, because, for one reason for another they buy his characters.

Now if people do not "buy" his characters, then it lends to an inauthentic world.

(I know Galactus said that as a history major or whatnot that he looks for trade routes. As someone with a strong psychology background I look for internal motivation and cognitive thought patterns. I identify with a world strongly when I have "good" charactars and their interpretation of the world around them to draw upon.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...