Great Worldbuilding

[Arthmail]

My girlfriend is a biologist, and had a good point. The purpose of all living creatures, alien to us or not, is to reproduce. Plain and simple. I explained it away with slow birth rates and indemic wars against the Dark Lord, but the fact remains that they would probably have a larger population base. Their retreat from the world plays a part of course, but short of massive infertility rates, there is really no way to explain away such a low population. Its not like they were in competition with the humans, who were as children to them.

Anyways. I am a huge fan of LOTR, so i'm not knocking it...just some thoughts on it. I still find Tolkien's world building to be miles deeper than anyone else, but like anything, there are always problems.

[polishgenius]

My girlfriend is a biologist, and had a good point. The purpose of all living creatures, alien to us or not, is to reproduce. Plain and simple.

Yeah, but your girlfriend is a biologist in a world where all living creatures are mortal and have come into existence as they are through a long string of biological processes slowly altering their ancestors in accordance with the traits of the most successful reproducers.

Not in one where Elves were sung into existence and woke, already fully formed and immortal, under a starry sky because the guy who made them hadn't got round to making the sun yet.

I'm not suggesting Tolkien's worldbuilding is flawless or anything (I'm no great expert on these things and don't usually get hung up on them much but his lack of farms and serious traderoutes always bothered me) but I think complaining about biological things isn't a valid route to go down, regarding him.

I've always liked China Mieville's worldbuilding, myself... I have noticed an apparent convenient lack of colonial ambition in most of the non-human races (ie, a lot of them seem to hail from one place, or don't have any major colonies mentioned at all) but that's fairly minor, and on a place called the Infinite Plateau where we see only a comparatively small part, it could easily just mean they live in greater numbers beyond the borders of what we know. Other than that it's very detailed.

Mieville's job is probably made easier by the fact that, not writing epic fantasy, he can focus on closer details and only hint at the wider spread, leaving it to our imagination.

[Starkess]

I don't really think it makes sense to apply to apply our real-world biology to a mythological race.

I would also disagree that the "purpose" of all living things is to reproduce. I don't think living things have a purpose at all.

[Galactus]

Galadried is thousands of years older than Elrond, IIRC.

OTOH, Elrond is half-elf.

I think Tolkien made a great show of creating a mythic history for a world, but I can't really imagine people actually *living* in it.

[Arthmail]

Thats all partly my point. We sipmly wave away our sense of how things work and replace it with, well, its magic. And i'm not complaining about it, i rarely even think about it, its just an observation.

All living things reproduce, i would call that a purpose.

Whatever, i do like at least knowing that the author has considered the minutiae. Where trade routes are, crop cycles or perhaps even the application of magic to trade and commerce. I don't necessarily have to see it very much, but if i feel thats its been thought out i'm generally pretty happy. I think that it doesn't really have a place in LoTR however, as it would detract from the mythological feel of the story - but as a thought excercise i wonder how a place like Bree could even exist.

Meh. I don't want to argue it.

[Poobah]

My girlfriend is a biologist, and had a good point. The purpose of all living creatures, alien to us or not, is to reproduce. Plain and simple.

At risk of offtopicking a bit here but nevermind... All living creatures that we have experience with are mortal.

Elves are immortal and were created directly by the god of their universe. Who is to say what their purpose is, or how they have been designed. A creature that has higher birth than mortality rates will be forced to keep expanding, and as far as I am aware this isn't hugely common in the natural world. Dark Lords aside the expected mortality rate for immortal elves is gonna be pretty low, and as far as I am aware the paradise that they were originally living in (Valinor) isn't infinite in size so surely they wouldn't have been designed so that they will breed themselves to the point where they overrun their own paradise?

It just seems like a flaw in logic to presume that a creature which is naturally immortal will behave like a mortal creature.

Edit: ok quite a few people beat me to the punch while I was making dinner! :)

Also worldbuilding isn't a massive big deal for me. I know nothing about rain shadows and trade routes and stuff like that so I don't really think about it. Verisimilitude is very important though.

-Poobs

[Amun]

I don't really think it makes sense to apply to apply our real-world biology to a mythological race.

I would also disagree that the "purpose" of all living things is to reproduce. I don't think living things have a purpose at all.

From a biological point of view I don't think "purpose" is meant to mean anything like destiny or design, but in that the process of evolution produces individuals that are best suited to spread their genes in a particular environment. Many organisms are hard-wired to reproduce to such a point that many give up their lives in the process. I've heard many biologists use similar language that can be misconstrued as implying teleology in evolution, but this is often in lectures when the professor is trying to explain something to the students about this or that adaptation and he or she will use the word "designed" or something similar. Obviously, they don't really mean that an adaptation "designed," but they are just using the first word that comes to mind.

I do believe it is in scientists' best interests to be more careful about what they say in these situations, though. Especially today with the infuriating debates about evolution versus intelligent design/creationism.

[Poobah]

From a biological point of view I don't think "purpose" is meant to mean anything like destiny or design, but in that the process of evolution produces individuals that are best suited to spread their genes in a particular environment. Many organisms are hard-wired to reproduce to such a point that many give up their lives in the process. I've heard many biologists use similar language that can be misconstrued as implying teleology in evolution, but this is often in lectures when the professor is trying to explain something to the students about this or that adaptation and he or she will use the word "designed" or something similar. Obviously, they don't really mean that an adaptation "designed," but they are just using the first word that comes to mind.

I do believe it is in scientists' best interests to be more careful about what they say in these situations, though. Especially today with the infuriating debates about evolution versus intelligent design/creationism.

The main issue is that in the lord of the rings universe there is no debate. It's a stated fact that Ilúvatar and his Valar created everything.

IDK about earth. This isn't a politics, religion and flame wars thread so /shrug.

[Spring Bass]

My girlfriend is a biologist, and had a good point. The purpose of all living creatures, alien to us or not, is to reproduce. Plain and simple. I explained it away with slow birth rates and indemic wars against the Dark Lord, but the fact remains that they would probably have a larger population base. Their retreat from the world plays a part of course, but short of massive infertility rates, there is really no way to explain away such a low population. Its not like they were in competition with the humans, who were as children to them.

If you get the chance, go find the book Morgoth's Ring. It's another one of the books that Tolkien's son has put together from JRR Tolkien's note and the like, and it has a section in it called the "Laws and Customs of the Eldar" that actually talks about all of this.

If I recall correctly, the reason why they have such a low reproductive rate is because their sexual desire more or less tapers off after a not very long while in the scheme of things (meaning hundreds of years), and they tend to be very finicky about who they hook up with. Having more than one or two children over the course of their lives is extremely rare, to the point where the one family that had six or seven sons was basically legendary.

They also don't tend to re-marry if their partner dies/leaves.

And, as mentioned, we have no idea what their numbers are in Valinor, and the numbers in Middle-Earth are affected by the population slowly draining away as elves make the journey into the West.

[Kat]

I've always liked China Mieville's worldbuilding, myself... I have noticed an apparent convenient lack of colonial ambition in most of the non-human races (ie, a lot of them seem to hail from one place, or don't have any major colonies mentioned at all) but that's fairly minor, and on a place called the Infinite Plateau where we see only a comparatively small part, it could easily just mean they live in greater numbers beyond the borders of what we know. Other than that it's very detailed.

Mieville's job is probably made easier by the fact that, not writing epic fantasy, he can focus on closer details and only hint at the wider spread, leaving it to our imagination.

I like Mieville's worldbuilding because he throws in enough details for his city to actually feel populated. I have a problem with cities in fiction that are supposed to be diverse and crowded, but the extent of that is a description of a crowded marketplace with some traders from other locations. When he describes a group of people, I tend to actually believe that the narrator actually does know a number of them, and not know others, and when he describes an underground group, I like how not everyone knows what's going on, but not because they are just a clueless or oblivious person, but because they are also busy with this other thing. Jeff Vandermeer is also good at throwing in enough details that it makes sense that someone is actually living in a city. (That's my main problem with Minas Tirith-- I get that Tolkien wasn't really trying to portray all details accurately, but the city, with all its history, does not feel populated. It feels masterplanned. Same goes for a lot of urban fantasies, which admittedly are also not focused on worldbuilding. But they often have fairly complex political scenarios described between vampire factions, or whatnot, while still leaving the city feeling unpopulated and simple compared to its real-world counterpart.)

When it comes to worldbuilding details, I like Kim Stanley Robinson, who I actually trust to understand the underlying principles of...well, lots of things. I would immediately pick up an epic fantasy or secondary-world sci-fi book if he wrote it, not because characterization is his strong point, but because I'd be interested to see his approach.

[Starkess]

RE: elves, not all living creatures reproduce. And elves' immortality means they don't die of old age--they can still be killed. So I don't think a small, sustained population is so crazy. Especially considering the elves are supposed to be the lofty and enlightened race, and even amongst us mortal, puny humans we see birth rates decline with increasing education and prosperity.

I like worldbuilding, but I guess I think more about the culture than the terrain or trade routes. I think authors should research and plan, of course, but I don't expect them to have an in-depth knowledge of cartography or economics. Especially in a fantasy novel--you could spend 5 years worldbuilding and still have holes because it's just not a real place. Whereas the little cultural details really make a place feel alive. I don't care that it's genetically unlikely that all the Lannisters have blonde hair, it adds a vivid richness to my picturing of the story. So yes, I appreciate details and depth in worldbuilding, but I also don't expect authors to consult city-planning experts before mapping out their capital city. Writing a book is hard enough!

[Arthmail]

I see the direct hand of the gods in Tolkien as the weakest thing about the Silmarillion, and part of me always wants to think of it as a creation myth. But thats the athiest in me, and in my own writing i certainly cannot fault him for it because religion plays a key part in my story.

The part about them only being active for a few hundred years, and being very picky about their mates, makes sense.

I don't really care in the end, i just like to know that its been considered. Tolkien is also an exception in this case, as many other fantasy novels have Elves live a few thousand years but never explain how they always seem on the decline. And why, for that matter, do they need to be on the decline? Dwarves too always seem to be one of the races dying off.

(As a side note, why do Dwarves build such vast entrances to their underground kingdoms? If i were a Dwarf king i'd have a dozen doors, but all of them little bigger than my tallest subject. Perhaps have one big door for bringing in larger goods, but nothing like the Dwarrowdelf in Moria. And i would have it so that you could collapse the entire damned thing at any time. As every evil race seems intent on killing the Dwarves and taking their loot, i would make all of the entrances into my Dwarf kingdom so confusing and complex and deadly that nothing short of a god would make a difference.)

[JGP]

Indeed, Starkess.

This discussion brings one of my classical animation instructors to mind. The class was layouts, and our assignment had been to compose a background along a forgotten, busted temple type description. Nick sat down at my desk and went over the core strengths of the drawing, this balances out this, good use of other elements to direct the eye to the focal point, or it would've been weren't it so damned busy. Say wha? Sure he said, some audience members might get pulled into all the detail-- Look, beside that busted lintel, a skull half hidden, constricted within the spiny vines of neglect. Look closer, there's actually a small vine curled within the orbital confines of its eye socket, all spines directed inward to where the pupil would've been, and so on, and so forth. I got the point and I aced the class for the remainder of the year.

Don't get me wrong. I love world building, myself. But I only use what's necessary. There's ways to do it, like Braids and other have said, and ways not to.

Is more, really more than less... fuck NO.

[jurble]

Bakker's world is pretty well-thought out. And by well-thought-out, I mean obsessively thought out. The cities, the history, the nations, language groups, AND trade routes, he's got them all.

[slim da reaper]

My girlfriend is a biologist, and had a good point. The purpose of all living creatures, alien to us or not, is to reproduce. Plain and simple.

I disagree the consequence of blind traits happen to give survivability factors to a species, to speak otherwise gives an all powerful purpose that is too self-affirming and is used as absolute bedrock for some dictarial people. Reproduction is a trait not a purpose, be it an extremely powerful one. Even that trait is at the species level and not at any given individuals level within the species. It is the species that reproduces not individuals in a Natural selection way.

It is possible to have a race of extremely powerful aliens who have forgone reproduction and have the power to stave off all threats of death, however death is but change in a strong and strangely reversed sense, and change will always be there, all beings exist within time and interaction, any who escape time will have embraced death. So these beings will be reproducing a version of themselves by being beings within time, which is exactly what we do. Change is the fundamental of life.

The universe is in a constant state of creation, and can never be pinned down by such a finality as purpose.

I actually feel like deleting this post, far too big a question haha.

[Arthmail]

I disagree the consequence of blind traits happen to give survivability factors to a species, to speak otherwise gives an all powerful purpose that is too self-affirming and is used as absolute bedrock for some dictarial people. Reproduction is a trait not a purpose, be it an extremely powerful one. Even that trait is at the species level and not at any given individuals level within the species. It is the species that reproduces not individuals in a Natural selection way.

It is possible to have a race of extremely powerful aliens who have forgone reproduction and have the power to stave off all threats of death, however death is but change in a strong and strangely reversed sense, and change will always be there, all beings exist within time and interaction, any who escape time will have embraced death. So these beings will be reproducing a version of themselves by being beings within time, which is exactly what we do. Change is the fundamental of life.

The universe is in a constant state of creation, and can never be pinned down by such a finality as purpose.

I actually feel like deleting this post, far too big a question haha.

You should have deleted it, because your quibbling over semantics. And reproduction means nothing if it is not being done by individuals, you're just obfuscating the point with a bunch of distorted theory and garbage philosophy.

And standing outside of time in no way emplies that you embrace death.

Edit: And did you mean dictatorial?

[Spring Bass]

Dwarves too always seem to be one of the races dying off.

Are they usually dying off? The only example I can think of in fantasy where the honest-to-goodness Dwarves were dying off was in Tolkien, and he had an explanation (less than a third of Dwarves were female, not all of the women had children, etc).

I disagree the consequence of blind traits happen to give survivability factors to a species, to speak otherwise gives an all powerful purpose that is too self-affirming and is used as absolute bedrock for some dictarial people.

To be more precise, Evolution affects populations, although the actual action takes place at the individual level in terms of traits affecting reproductive success with regards to Natural Selection (which is only one of the processes involved in evolution - the other is Random Genetic Drift).

I don't know what the "dictatorial people" comment is referring to. Evolution and Natural Selection say nothing about the inherent quality of a particular individual (and the population that individual is a part of), other than that their ancestors successfully managed to reproduce.

Reproduction is a trait not a purpose, be it an extremely powerful one.

Reproduction is at the heart of evolution, and traits that actively hinder/prevent reproduction are less likely to get passed on.

In any case, this is getting away from the main topic.

[The Evil Hat]

For me, the three settings that I keep coming back to are:

Jeff VanderMeer's Ambergris: The immense of amount of detail and the different perspectives from City of Saints and Madmen brought the city to life in a way that pretty much nothing I can think of can equal. The city feels populated, diverse, and messy, and the shifts between CoSaM, Shriek, and Finch give it a feeling of history and movement.

Alastair Reynolds's Inhibitors Setting: Though this one's not detailed in the same way as, say, Westeros or Wheel of Time, what we do know is incredibly interesting, and the world feels vast and, again, messy, as if it's too disparate for one person to ever really grasp it all. Or, to say it another way, it feels real, while obviously being anything but.

Martin's Westeros - Do I really need a reason on this board?

Undoubtedly forgetting several excellent world builders here, but those three would probably take the cake for me.

[Liadin]

On worldbuilding generally:

I wince at the multi-thousand-year histories fantasy authors like to give their worlds; I just don't believe it when you have pre-15th century technology, unless there's some explicitly magical way for people to keep track of it (i.e. making sound recordings in non-decaying magical items). Why do authors want to do this, anyway? Isn't a few hundred years of history enough? And medieval stasis: why?

A basic knowledge of Earth's history and geography is a good thing. I do prefer books by people who know a lot about the world; it's hard to respect an author when you think you're smarter/know more than they do. Beyond the basics, verisimilitude is important.

The authors who do best with cultures are the ones who leave room for complexity. Some mediocre authors will try to build an entire culture around one theme. Say, it's all about loving dogs, and they extrapolate all cultural values and practices from this love of dogs and everyone in the society loves dogs. It's a fun thought-experiment but it's ultimately shallow; real societies are made up of disparate customs and practices and (most of all) people. So when you define an entire country by "these people are arrogant and flamboyant. Thus, they wear bright clothes and challenge each other to duels all the time," it's better than not developing the culture at all, but if you spend much time in that country it's going to feel shallow unless you actually give various people from the country different personalities and opinions.

[Galactus]

I should note that I don't mind fantastic settings at all: I'm violently in love with D&D's Planescape setting for instance, which is just plain crazy and literally logic-breaking. (There's an infinitely high mountain above which floats a city, said city can be seen from the bottom of said mountain, this should be impossibe)

Martin I think feels a bit unoriginal, it gets better in Daenrys' chapters but it still feels like "generic medieval setting" and "generic "eastern" setting". It's fleshed out well enough that it doesen't feel unbelievable, but it's not very compelling.

Jordan is great in the details: The magic system, the fact that cultural norms and even stuff like clothing is going to be different across nations. He's not a good at the "big picture", but he's very good at making the little details work out.

Mieville is great for ideas, and as said he makes his world seem populated, but he doesen't *show* much. I have absolutely no sense of what his world looks like, this means he can pretty much stick anything in it and mae it work.

Bakker has great world-building, but apart from the metaphysics he sticks most of it in the appendices.

What I like to see is a sense of dynamism. Feist of all people is/was pretty good at that, Krondor started out as a typical medieval town and by the Serpentwar it had developed into something like an early-modern one, with stock exchanges, coffee houses and football leagues. That's a nice touch.