Worldbuilding in Literature

[fionwe1987]

There's a big, rather substantive difference, though. You might think of setting as being "passive," Adam, but it is the placing of the action within a place that exists. New York is, for all extent and purposes "real." Middle-Earth is not; it is an imagined construct that cannot be placed in this physical realm. Yes, people can imagine aspects of a real place (New York with fairies, werewolves, etc.), but that does not change the notion that New York exists, that it has geographical coordinates. Minas Tirith does not have that; it was created by an author and no matter how much of a patina of "realism" that might be added to that or any other imagined story "world," it does not and will not ever exist in this physical world. It does not have a proper "setting" in the sense that there is nothing existing outside one's imagination. The physical world in which we reside is, no matter how much we might desire to reimagine it as being something else, exists outside our attempts to manipulate it via language, semantic paralanguage, and the like. It is a place in which real or constructed historia might take place, and writers might need to make sure that there is a harmony of information that correlates with readers' common, shared understandings (based on their own lives and experiences and learned information) of what ought to exist, but that differs in quite a few magnitudes from a writer creating a "world" whole cloth (or as much as one could due to the limitations of semantic understandings of what would constitute a simulacrum of a "real" setting).

But what if I have never seen New York city, have lived all my life in a tiny village, and have no conception of what a big city is like except what my imagination can come up with based on books I've read? Can we say New York, as portrayed in a novel, is "setting" for someone who has been there or at least to some other big city, but "world building" for someone who has not?

After all, just as the real New York acts as a foundation for the fictional New York in a story, so too do green fields, shady forests and beautiful fortresses act as the foundation for secondary worlds like Middle Earth. Even where such worlds contain elements totally alien to any possible human experience (floating palaces, worlds that are vertical instead of horizontal, etc.) build upon the familiar, the known. The phrase "floating castle" is pure fantasy with no real basis, but it relies upon my association of the words in the phrase with very real phenomena like floating and castles. Must we use two words to describe things that hardly dissimilar?

And if yes, then must we not use a new word for characterization in fiction as opposed to a biography? After all, Tai the old boatman in Rushdie's Midnight's Children requires as much of a flight of fancy as Minas Tirith. He exists only in our imagination, as opposed to a real person. And so, we must conclude that attention to the detail of personality, the careful spinning of motive, emotion and dialogue to create a character who does not exist is also a sign of the clodding foot of nerdism...?

So yeah, feel free to use "world building" for imagined worlds; it's just rather odd to claim that it is a better word than "setting", which after all takes place in a "real" location and thus can be placed (or "set") by readers and non-readers alike.

So the fight is over which word is to be used? Does it really make that much of a difference when the actual effect of setting or world building to the story is exactly the same?

And find me a person who cannot "place" a village called Hobbiton where tobacco is grown, people like to lead simple lives and don't like foreigners. A non-reader might well ask where in England this place is located.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I think its silly to tar setting and 'worldbuilding' as exactly the same thing. No novel can exist without setting, that's plain, but worldbuilding tends to be an extension of that premise.

And to an extent, it is necessary. There are themes you may wish to explore which require something beyond what is 'real'. We don't require worldbuilding within literature set in reality because we already by and large know the laws and boundaries. But with an imagined world, these boundaries must be constructed and layed out. Without them, the themes and overall story will simply not work, since the reader won't be able to comprehend them as you, the writer, intend. It simply won't create the desired result. That's not to say that you can't go overboard in this respect. No-one wants to read useless waffle, so you have to find a balance.

edit: Dylan Fanatic- no offense, but you don't strike me as a typical reader. ;) What attracts you is unlikely to attract most others, so in this regard we must look at the mainstream. Tolkein, Jordan, Martin (and dozens others), the most popular fantasy authors all utilise 'worldbuilding', and its unlikely they'd have gained as much success had they not used it. Simply put, in some areas of fiction an extended setting is required if you want to be successful.

[fionwe1987]

I think its silly to tar setting and 'worldbuilding' as exactly the same thing. No novel can exist without setting, that's plain, but worldbuilding tends to be an extension of that premise.

And to an extent, it is necessary. There are themes you may wish to explore which require something beyond what is 'real'. We don't require worldbuilding within literature set in reality because we already by and large know the laws and boundaries. But with an imagined world, these boundaries must be constructed and layed out. Without them, the themes and overall story will simply not work, since the reader won't be able to comprehend them as you, the writer, intend. It simply won't create the desired result. That's not to say that you can't go overboard in this respect. No-one wants to read useless waffle, so you have to find a balance.

This is a good explanation for why more effort goes into creating the setting in a fantasy or SF book, but doesn't tell me why we need a new term for it. The purpose "world building" serves within a work of speculative fiction is the same as that performed by the setting in "normal" literature.

For example, if exposition of the drainage system in Washington DC is critical to my story on the life of a DC plumber, then I'm going to have to build the world of a network of pipes under DC through which shit flows. Sure, I don't have to explain what pipes are, but I sure as hell cannot assume that everyone is going to know about the valves and ducts that are going to be of importance to my plot. I need to build this aspect of the setting, and the fact that it is real and can be understood by referring to wikipedia matters not one jot to my writing.

The same is with any work of speculative fiction. Any imagined aspect of the secondary world that has a part to play in the story needs to be developed. That doesn't make it special or different or worthy of scorn.

[Larry.]

I don't have much time for replying, unfortunately (not only do I need my rest, but I have a host of other matters to attend to in the morning and the coming week), so this will be relatively brief.

Your first example can be turned around to underscore a point I really haven't made explicit in related discussions but shall now. If a setting/place is "real" (has a shared history, some shared features of understanding, etc.) to a group and another group out of ignorance (neutral in this case; similar to a hypothetical case if I were to try and imagine life as a llama herder) believes otherwise, that doesn't change the possibility (or rather, probability in such cases) that the first locale exists. Which of course touches upon that slightly controversial topic of religion. I'm somewhat of a cultural relativist when it comes to popular religion and its manifestations in material cultures, so I'm not going to be one of those who go out and proclaim that [insert religion] is "fake" or a "fantasy" with its rules of "world building." That would be rather insulting to practitioners of [insert religion], especially those whose faiths have shaped their cultures, languages, histories, politics, and general world-views for thousands of years.

To try to expropriate or usurp one set of definitions and apply it to another, (mostly, in this particular case) unrelated set of conditions is rather odd at best and insulting at worst. Take for instance realismo mágico (the Spanish word order fits better here than the English "Magic Realism"). Writers in this tradition, including Gabriel García Márquez, have resisted having the term "fantasy" applied to their work, in large part because the form and functions of their stories differ considerably from say secondary-world fictions. After all, in such stories, the metaphors embedded in the rains of Macondo are meant to be read first and foremost as metaphors for very real historical events (there was a massacre of striking banana plantation workers that was covered up by the Colombian government); they are not meant to be taken as literally as the anthropomorphizing of Evil in the form of a Dark Lord which occurs in several secondary-world fantasies. You bring up Rushdie, but in the Rushdie novels and stories that I've read, including Midnight's Children, don't such abnormalities serve to underscore very real concerns within modern Indian and Pakistani societies? Wouldn't Rushdie be quick to point out that the messages contained in his fictions are no "fantasies," especially in concern to a certain fatwah from over 20 years ago that apparently is still in effect?

And as for the semantics behind all this, shibboleths are rather telling at times. Why else would I put "world building" in parentheses most, if not all, of the time? ;)

[Larry.]

I think its silly to tar setting and 'worldbuilding' as exactly the same thing. No novel can exist without setting, that's plain, but worldbuilding tends to be an extension of that premise.

And to an extent, it is necessary. There are themes you may wish to explore which require something beyond what is 'real'. We don't require worldbuilding within literature set in reality because we already by and large know the laws and boundaries. But with an imagined world, these boundaries must be constructed and layed out. Without them, the themes and overall story will simply not work, since the reader won't be able to comprehend them as you, the writer, intend. It simply won't create the desired result. That's not to say that you can't go overboard in this respect. No-one wants to read useless waffle, so you have to find a balance.

edit: Dylan Fanatic- no offense, but you don't strike me as a typical reader. ;) What attracts you is unlikely to attract most others, so in this regard we must look at the mainstream. Tolkein, Jordan, Martin (and dozens others), the most popular fantasy authors all utilise 'worldbuilding', and its unlikely they'd have gained as much success had they not used it. Simply put, in some areas of fiction an extended setting is required if you want to be successful.

No offense taken! :D I agree that I'm approaching this from a different vantage point and while I'm going to try and present that vantage point, I'm not going to look down upon others who have a different take (and level of investment) in all this. I just thought it'd be a good idea to question a few assumptions and see what happens. Do agree that the focus on creating a semi-realistic feeling imagined world is a great draw for several types of readers. But for others it is not (like the OP's friend and to a degree, myself) and it is rather odd to claim the ground rules for one type of fiction apply completely for another (or at all, even).

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

This is a good explanation for why more effort goes into creating the setting in a fantasy or SF book, but doesn't tell me why we need a new term for it. The purpose "world building" serves within a work of speculative fiction is the same as that performed by the setting in "normal" literature.

For example, if exposition of the drainage system in Washington DC is critical to my story on the life of a DC plumber, then I'm going to have to build the world of a network of pipes under DC through which shit flows. Sure, I don't have to explain what pipes are, but I sure as hell cannot assume that everyone is going to know about the valves and ducts that are going to be of importance to my plot. I need to build this aspect of the setting, and the fact that it is real and can be understood by referring to wikipedia matters not one jot to my writing.

The same is with any work of speculative fiction. Any imagined aspect of the secondary world that has a part to play in the story needs to be developed. That doesn't make it special or different or worthy of scorn.

No, in all honesty we don't need a new term. I wasn't the one who invented the phrase, so for the sake of argument we can simply call it an 'extended setting'?

[Arthmail]

Now go forth and write a treatise on how "world building" should supersede "setting" as the designated word/phrase of choice for mimetic fiction and convince a gaggle of literary academics and perhaps I'll reconsider my viewpoint.

That would, of course, happen if we gave two shits about literary academics. Which many don't, aside from yourself and...well, no one else that i know of on this board.

So basically, then, any historical fiction in which there is a vague or relatively unknown amount of historical data is basically world building, right? We have recorded texts telling us what 15th Century London was like, or moments during the Spanish/Portuges Inquisition, but we have no CURRENT point of reference. We are, for all intents and purposes, extrapolating. In other words, making most of what we right down, up. That there is some historical evidence to it means little, it is still building a world. Its just that in this case, we have some non-imagined data to help back it up.

And while its not the most reliable source of information, Wiki has setting listed setting as: "In fiction, setting includes the time, location, and everything in which a story takes place, and initiates the main backdrop and mood for a story."

Then it equates it with fantasy worlds, parallel universes, and other such methods of world building. So, yea, i would equate world building and setting.

[Shryke]

But what if I have never seen New York city, have lived all my life in a tiny village, and have no conception of what a big city is like except what my imagination can come up with based on books I've read? Can we say New York, as portrayed in a novel, is "setting" for someone who has been there or at least to some other big city, but "world building" for someone who has not?

After all, just as the real New York acts as a foundation for the fictional New York in a story, so too do green fields, shady forests and beautiful fortresses act as the foundation for secondary worlds like Middle Earth. Even where such worlds contain elements totally alien to any possible human experience (floating palaces, worlds that are vertical instead of horizontal, etc.) build upon the familiar, the known. The phrase "floating castle" is pure fantasy with no real basis, but it relies upon my association of the words in the phrase with very real phenomena like floating and castles. Must we use two words to describe things that hardly dissimilar?

And if yes, then must we not use a new word for characterization in fiction as opposed to a biography? After all, Tai the old boatman in Rushdie's Midnight's Children requires as much of a flight of fancy as Minas Tirith. He exists only in our imagination, as opposed to a real person. And so, we must conclude that attention to the detail of personality, the careful spinning of motive, emotion and dialogue to create a character who does not exist is also a sign of the clodding foot of nerdism...?

And if I take a book about New York and hand it to a man who's grown up in a remote tribe in the Amazon, will this not be a non-real setting to him?

"Buildings higher then trees and men who fly in tubes of metal? Pure fantasy!"

Or how about if we unfroze a man from the 10th century and handed him the same book. Same reaction.

And then you get to things like Angel (the TV series) or an innuemerable number of Urban Fantasy books set in real cities. Do they have "settings" or "world building"?

You are trying to draw a line and say "Here is Literature" and "Here there be Nerds", and yet your line is unbelievably ill-defined and arbitrary.

You are attempting some bullshit "This is the real world" (despite it being full of fake elements made up by the writer) based on some sort of shared idea of realness we all possess.

If "setting" and "world building" are delineated by what is "real", then said definition changes based on the reader.

[Poobah]

I have to agree with Shrike really.

The New York city that exists within the context of a Serious Fiction novel is no different to Minas Tirith, both are fictional constructs which exist only on the page and in the novel. The fact that there is a real city called New York just means that it's possible for a bad writer to be sloppy and say "hey this is New York, you all know New York" and shuffle aside from putting effort into creating an immersive setting.

Fictional New York is fictional.

-Poobs

[Joe Abercrombie]

Dunno about this at all. To me, worldbuilding (especially used as one word) is pretty specific to sci-fi and fantasy, and usually secondary world, epic-style fantasy at that. You use the word to people who don't read a lot of fantasy I think it's pretty doubtful they'd know what you were talking about. The action of creating setting and atmosphere may be universal to any fiction, but I don't think the term is. Apart from anything else wordBUILDING seems to imply the creation of something new. To me it refers to that effort of creating a secondary world, of mapping, and cataloguing, and creating the cultures and languages and magic systems and creatures and all the rest of it, and then to the way in which that world is evoked on the page, the way in which that background material is communicated to the reader. James Ellroy creates a vivid feel of period LA, but would you really say Ellroy does some great worldbuilding? Or Tolstoy was a good worldbuilder? Probably there's a great grey area between worldbuilding and creation of setting just as there is between fantasy and anything else, but still, it just seems to render the term meaningless if you use it so widely.

[Calibandar]

I wouldn't mind having that discussion with your literary friend. I'm quite sure I could prevail upon him the uses of "worldbuilding" in fiction. I don't see why, if read merely mainstream fiction, he would be unfamiliar with worldbuilding even in that genre alone.

I get the feeling your friend was referring more to something like a D&D campaign? But if not, would not his comments have bursted forth from ignorance of the Fantasy genre? Seriously, if he's read a couple of good secondary world Fantasy novels, he may still not be a fan, but that will show why there is worldbuilding. It is inherent to the genre, and it is required to immerse most readers into that new world.

I honestly don't see how that would be hard to understand.

[Larry.]

Now go forth and write a treatise on how "world building" should supersede "setting" as the designated word/phrase of choice for mimetic fiction and convince a gaggle of literary academics and perhaps I'll reconsider my viewpoint.

That would, of course, happen if we gave two shits about literary academics. Which many don't, aside from yourself and...well, no one else that i know of on this board.

Since I was referring to me myself and no one else, why would I want/care to know another's opinion? After all, wasn't the hypothetical referring to me being convinced and no one else? I'm just one of those beknighted souls that has a somewhat less jaded faith in the authority/expertise that comes from study. Certainly not going to give much credence to those who conflate terms cavalierly.

So basically, then, any historical fiction in which there is a vague or relatively unknown amount of historical data is basically world building, right? We have recorded texts telling us what 15th Century London was like, or moments during the Spanish/Portuges Inquisition, but we have no CURRENT point of reference. We are, for all intents and purposes, extrapolating. In other words, making most of what we right down, up. That there is some historical evidence to it means little, it is still building a world. Its just that in this case, we have some non-imagined data to help back it up.

And while its not the most reliable source of information, Wiki has setting listed setting as: "In fiction, setting includes the time, location, and everything in which a story takes place, and initiates the main backdrop and mood for a story."

Then it equates it with fantasy worlds, parallel universes, and other such methods of world building. So, yea, i would equate world building and setting.

No, for reasons that Joe stated above. There is no "building" that is taking place, especially since the said "world" predates any of us. It is independent of human creation. Setting in non-secondary-world fiction deals with the interactions between the "real" and the imagined. There is no "world" being built; it exists. To continue to argue otherwise seems pointless and would actually make a term specifically created for RPG games and secondary-world fantasies rather redundant and meaningless, it would seem. Might as well argue that there's no real discernible difference between terms such as "Canadian" and "American." After all, Canucks have to be virtual Americans and to argue otherwise would be stupid, no? ;)

[Nerdanel]

We could define a new term: character building (not to be confused with building character). Character building is to worldbuilding as characterization is to setting. So when an author is figuring out an imaginary character's occupation and favorite color he is engaging in a pursuit analogous to worldbuilding.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Dunno about this at all. To me, worldbuilding (especially used as one word) is pretty specific to sci-fi and fantasy, and usually secondary world, epic-style fantasy at that. You use the word to people who don't read a lot of fantasy I think it's pretty doubtful they'd know what you were talking about. The action of creating setting and atmosphere may be universal to any fiction, but I don't think the term is. Apart from anything else wordBUILDING seems to imply the creation of something new. To me it refers to that effort of creating a secondary world, of mapping, and cataloguing, and creating the cultures and languages and magic systems and creatures and all the rest of it, and then to the way in which that world is evoked on the page, the way in which that background material is communicated to the reader. James Ellroy creates a vivid feel of period LA, but would you really say Ellroy does some great worldbuilding? Or Tolstoy was a good worldbuilder? Probably there's a great grey area between worldbuilding and creation of setting just as there is between fantasy and anything else, but still, it just seems to render the term meaningless if you use it so widely.

Nice to see you replying to my thread Joe.

Personally, I'd say that setting almost always requires the 'creation of something new' whether or not we're discussing a secondary world in relation to fantasy/sci-fi, or literary fiction set in the real world. The very term fiction would imply this, and 'worldbuilding' could be argued as simply a way of taking this a step further. I'm starting to wonder just what we're discussing.

I wouldn't mind having that discussion with your literary friend. I'm quite sure I could prevail upon him the uses of "worldbuilding" in fiction. I don't see why, if read merely mainstream fiction, he would be unfamiliar with worldbuilding even in that genre alone.

I get the feeling your friend was referring more to something like a D&D campaign? But if not, would not his comments have bursted forth from ignorance of the Fantasy genre? Seriously, if he's read a couple of good secondary world Fantasy novels, he may still not be a fan, but that will show why there is worldbuilding. It is inherent to the genre, and it is required to immerse most readers into that new world.

I honestly don't see how that would be hard to understand.

You'd probably find discussing the issue with him difficult, since I admit he's a bit of a snob when it comes to his reading material. For him its entirely about the writing itself, and the themes explored. Plot comes second, and since world-building in his eyes requires no inherent writing talent, he automatically looks down on it, and any author or genre associated with it. Frustrating to argue with, but thats how it is.

[Shryke]

Since I was referring to me myself and no one else, why would I want/care to know another's opinion? After all, wasn't the hypothetical referring to me being convinced and no one else? I'm just one of those beknighted souls that has a somewhat less jaded faith in the authority/expertise that comes from study. Certainly not going to give much credence to those who conflate terms cavalierly.

No, for reasons that Joe stated above. There is no "building" that is taking place, especially since the said "world" predates any of us. It is independent of human creation. Setting in non-secondary-world fiction deals with the interactions between the "real" and the imagined. There is no "world" being built; it exists. To continue to argue otherwise seems pointless and would actually make a term specifically created for RPG games and secondary-world fantasies rather redundant and meaningless, it would seem. Might as well argue that there's no real discernible difference between terms such as "Canadian" and "American." After all, Canucks have to be virtual Americans and to argue otherwise would be stupid, no? ;)

No it doesn't. The New York of Sex and the City doesn't exist. The Dublin of Ulysses doesn't exist.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

No it doesn't. The New York of Sex and the City doesn't exist. The Dublin of Ulysses doesn't exist.

Agreed. One man's New York is not another one's, and so on and so forth.

[Larry.]

No it doesn't. The New York of Sex and the City doesn't exist. The Dublin of Ulysses doesn't exist.

But the places do...with some additional cultural understandings (misunderstandings as well?) of what those places represent. I can visit either locale; I can't visit a fantasy world with my own two feet.

[Shryke]

But the places do...with some additional cultural understandings (misunderstandings as well?) of what those places represent. I can visit either locale; I can't visit a fantasy world with my own two feet.

You know what else exists?

Horses, Tobacco, swords, trees and most of the stuff present in LOTR. (to pick an example work) You can go see them, hold them, do whatever.

The New York of Sex and the City doesn't eixst. I can visit REAL New York, that the other New York was based on, but that's it. But then again, I can also visit rural England to see what the Shire was based on.

Sure, you can't go to Hobbiton, but I can't talk to Leopold Bloom. Nor can I visit HIS Dublin or the people he meets there.

At this point, your definition has become:

World Building is when you create a mostly fake place full of mostly real things and fake people. That's low brow.

Setting is when you create a fake place based loosely off a real place full of mostly real things and fake people. That's Literature.

[Arthmail]

Since I was referring to me myself and no one else, why would I want/care to know another's opinion? After all, wasn't the hypothetical referring to me being convinced and no one else? I'm just one of those beknighted souls that has a somewhat less jaded faith in the authority/expertise that comes from study. Certainly not going to give much credence to those who conflate terms cavalierly.

Exactly why we wouldn't really care what academics think, not based on any notion of experience and expertise that comes from study, there certainly is a place for that, but rather from their prejudices. I suppose its similar in that i'm not going to give much credence to someone that adheres religiously to "acceptable" academic forms of study and understanding.

As for the argument that world building is specifically tied to fantasy or science fiction is missing the point, and it certainly has nothing to do with making a term initially coined for RPGs and secondary worlds pointless. Who really cares? Meanings are fluid over time. All that history is is taking what data we have and extrapolating. There have been any number of substantive changes to our understanding of the historical narrative because we were missing a few key pieces, or had made badly realized assumptions about such and such a group or event. From there, one fills in the rest with notions and thoughts of their own creation. Its the setting, but they are building the world up, filling in the hallow spaces.

Someone writing about a minor noble during the Spanish Inquisition, or a Templar during the Crusades, is for all intents and purposes, making up wide tracts of the story and the world. There is still a great deal of things we do not know. That there is hard facts to build it from means nothing. Bakker's Prince of Nothing is based off the crusades with his own elements put in it. GRRMS work is based off of historical data as well. Event he movie Underworld takes what we know and changes it for literary purposes, they are building a world from which their character and plots stride forward.

You're Canadian/American example has no substantive purpose.

Joe: "You use the word to people who don't read a lot of fantasy I think it's pretty doubtful they'd know what you were talking about." - Doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Your doctor can list a long litany of parts on your body that might fail, and you know nothing about them, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to you. Ignorance of a word, or its popularity within another genre, really has nothing to do with it.

I'm not so sure why people are worried about the term becoming meaningless when applied to other areas of literature. There is no reason why this has to be. If someone builds a house, they are a home builder. But within the industry, they are still home builders if they gut a room or two and make changes to them. Some people call that renovations, but the professionals still call it home building. Funny how things CAN work both way without getting our knickers in a knot.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

But the places do...with some additional cultural understandings (misunderstandings as well?) of what those places represent. I can visit either locale; I can't visit a fantasy world with my own two feet.

All fantasy really is is an extravagant reinterpretation of our own world. Its impossible to create something COMPLETELY original, since all writing comes from human experience. Therefore its impossible for a world in a fantasy novel to be devoid of any factual influences. And even if that was the case, noone would read them, because they would be incapable of connecting to them.