Great Worldbuilding

[Liadin]

How bout the seasonal swings? Most of the realm essentially has a major once-in-a-generation famine once-twice a decade. It could explain population never building up and agricultural surplus staying low: Enough to support a few large, coastal trade centers propped up by the nobility and the occassional smaller town, but not enough to let those towns develop into major cities.

I would expect Martinworld's seasons to mean a more rural population. It takes a large rural base to feed an even moderately-sized medieval city; if everyone just flocks to the cities then what will they all eat?

IMO, one of the most unrealistic issues in many fantasy settings are the linguistic ones. Given the history and migrations in Westeros it's really hard to explain how the Umbers can speak the same language as the orphans of the Greenblood, in a continent the size of South America that has been unified only after three centuries.

Agree. This is a catch-22 because if he'd done it realistically, each of the Seven Kingdoms would have its own language, plus the mountain clans, Greenblood orphans, etc., would all have their own. Then there would be local variations and dialects on top of that, and noble and peasant speech would be different enough that they'd have trouble understanding each other. I'd love to see a fantasy that handles linguistics realistically, but I understand why most authors feel like doing so would just drag their story down.

What about North and South American natives? Aobrigines? African tribes? Southeast Asian island natives?

I am not saying that their societies were in permanent stasis, but there is very little technological change for hundreds or thousands of years.

Others have responded to this, and I'd agree with them that it depends on where you are technologically. Can a tribe remain hunter-gatherers for 10,000+ years? Absolutely. But developing medieval-level technology while having a central government controlling a huge area as well as trade routes that stretch around the world, and then staying like that for thousands of years?

(And it's worth noting that so much of what slowed societies' developments on Earth was catastrophic: major wars, major epidemics, etc. Westeros has never been overrun by barbarian tribes, or lost 1/3 of its population to a plague, or similar.)

But, "not being in stasis" is more than developing new technology, too. Societies change generation to generation, becoming relatively more strict or permissive, more or less religious and so on. Language and fashion change over time too. You'll see less change in a hunter-gatherer tribe that's mostly focused on survival, but in Westeros (and every other fantasy) we have a class of people living comfortable, even luxurious lives, and they're not questioning or changing anything. Every new generation is exactly like the previous generation in every way.

Re WoT, there have been nearly constant wars over the past 3,000 years since the breaking (Trolloc Wars, Hawkwing's conquest, wars of the False Dragons, and years of fighting between longtime enemies such as Illian-Tear, Andor-Carhien, all of the countries on the Almoth Plain and Borderlanders versus north).

Not so sure about this. They had a couple of major and long lasting wars, but we're talking about 3000 years here. Medieval England probably had more wars per century than Randland did per millenium. (That, and I'm not at all clear on why these Randland-countries are fighting each other; there's so much land for the taking, they all share the same language and religion, and I can't recall ever reading that there were some precious resources they all wanted.)

[williamjm]

Not so sure about this. They had a couple of major and long lasting wars, but we're talking about 3000 years here. Medieval England probably had more wars per century than Randland did per millenium.

I was thinking that as well, Randland actually seems relatively peaceful compared to European history, aside from the Borderlands.

(That, and I'm not at all clear on why these Randland-countries are fighting each other; there's so much land for the taking, they all share the same language and religion, and I can't recall ever reading that there were some precious resources they all wanted.)

If we were to try to judge the relative importance of various issues in Randland based on how often they get mentioned in Jordan's writing, I reckon most of the wars were caused by disagreements about women's fashion ;)

[Shryke]

Not so sure about this. They had a couple of major and long lasting wars, but we're talking about 3000 years here. Medieval England probably had more wars per century than Randland did per millenium. (That, and I'm not at all clear on why these Randland-countries are fighting each other; there's so much land for the taking, they all share the same language and religion, and I can't recall ever reading that there were some precious resources they all wanted.)

Not quite 3000 years actually, since there's one BIG reset/backslide (Trolloc Wars) and ALOT more wars then you seem to be thinking. They aren't mentioned by name but there's alot of them. Tear and Illian fight one like at least once a generation. Most of them are over land or trade routes. But the land they can't seem to sustain the will or the effort to hold on to. They claim it but they don't really control it.

Which is pretty much the story of the age WOT is set in. It's been a continual backslide caused by wars and lost technology and what appears to be a declining population. Some of which may be attributable to the Dark One since Seanchan seems to be getting along much better in that respect. Each time the whole continent descends into chaos, it comes back less populated, less cohesive and less advanced.

[Galactus]

That's actually the point "change" doesen't mean "development". But things DID change. For the better or for the worse, but they changed constantly. The 1630's were a different decade than the 1570's. Different fashion, different political situation...

[fionwe1987]

Not to derail this into a WoT thread again, but there certainly has been a lot of change in RJ's world. We know, for example, that the Covenant of Ten Nations was far more advanced societally, technologically and population wise than the current time. Then there was 300 years of the Torlloc Wars. Real world civilizations have never seen such long wars.

Then, around a thousand years later, you had the huge wars brought on by Guaire Amalasan, which was won by Hawkwing. Then he went on his own conquest, which was almost certainly bloody. Then he fought a big war with the Trollocs, sent a huge army to Shara (which was decimated), sent another huge army to Seanchan (which never came back), then faced a huge defeat from the Aiel. He also moved around the populations of some countries, then repented and allowed them to move back! Then he had a costly and long siege against Tar Valon.

Then he died, and the shit really hit the fan. It took a few hundred years more of fighting before most of the modern nations became stable again.

I count six huge wars before the war of the Hundred Years, and that itself lasted longer than a hundred years. It isn't really surprising that the Westlands are in a decline after this.

[RobMRobM]

If we were to try to judge the relative importance of various issues in Randland based on how often they get mentioned in Jordan's writing, I reckon most of the wars were caused by disagreements about women's fashion ;)

[RobMRobM]

Not to derail this into a WoT thread again,

Oh, go right ahead. Folks complain about excess wordiness in WoT but the world building is awesome - one of the main reasons that WoT-maniacs love the series. In a worldbuilding thread, WoT is an evident, obvious example to discuss.

Rob

[The Evil Hat]

Is Westeros that stable, politically? I may have just lost all concept of the dates, but I was under the impression that the Targaryens only took over three hundred years ago, and the recent generations certainly saw a change in that regime.

[jurble]

I would expect Martinworld's seasons to mean a more rural population. It takes a large rural base to feed an even moderately-sized medieval city; if everyone just flocks to the cities then what will they all eat?

Agree. This is a catch-22 because if he'd done it realistically, each of the Seven Kingdoms would have its own language, plus the mountain clans, Greenblood orphans, etc., would all have their own. Then there would be local variations and dialects on top of that, and noble and peasant speech would be different enough that they'd have trouble understanding each other. I'd love to see a fantasy that handles linguistics realistically, but I understand why most authors feel like doing so would just drag their story down.

No one is saying it needs 80% urbanization. In the year 1500, overall urbanization in Europe was 8%, "with peaks of over 10% and 20% in the Netherlands and in Belgium, respectively" (http://www.stanford.edu/group/SITE/SITE_2010/segment_5/segment_5_papers/yuchtman.pdf page 6)

Westeros isn't in the no-trade feudal era, it's got trade everywhere. According to that paper, Italy had 13% urbanization by the 1200's what with trade and all. Westeros has an estimated population of 40 million, if I recall from other threads. So, I'd expect Westeros to have around 5,200,000 people in cities.

On, on languages in Westeros, for all we know, regional dialects vary immensely, but Martin translates them for us. Brienne was able to tell that Gendry was from King's Landing by his speech.

[Liadin]

If we were to try to judge the relative importance of various issues in Randland based on how often they get mentioned in Jordan's writing, I reckon most of the wars were caused by disagreements about women's fashion ;)

:laugh:

I count six huge wars before the war of the Hundred Years, and that itself lasted longer than a hundred years. It isn't really surprising that the Westlands are in a decline after this.

I'll take your word for that, but all the talk about ancient wars in WoT is problematic in a couple of ways. One, the fact that everyone seems to be conversant with the basic facts of wars that happened millenia ago, even leaving aside the medieval-level technology, isn't very believable. Two, the fact that people are always talking about these ancient wars, rather than relatively recent ones as people generally do, implies that there haven't been many wars in the last 1000 years. You might say these wars are meant to be huge and epic and that's why they're so well remembered, but it just feels kinda false to me.

Westeros isn't in the no-trade feudal era, it's got trade everywhere. According to that paper, Italy had 13% urbanization by the 1200's what with trade and all. Westeros has an estimated population of 40 million, if I recall from other threads. So, I'd expect Westeros to have around 5,200,000 people in cities.

Why would you "expect" 13% urbanization? Westeros doesn't have much in common with Italy. Huge expanses of land and a less hospitable environment seem particularly relevant here.

But of course, it's a little silly to argue about levels of urbanization in Westeros when we don't have any idea what they are. This started with a post about how many strategic locations seem to be lacking in cities, which is fair (although I'm not sure whether that's actually true, or whether they just aren't marked on the map, fantasy maps tending to be rather simplified and marking plot-relevant points rather than all the statistically largest cities).

On, on languages in Westeros, for all we know, regional dialects vary immensely, but Martin translates them for us. Brienne was able to tell that Gendry was from King's Landing by his speech.

Accent and dialect are not the same thing. We're told that the Westerosi have accents. Given that everyone understands everyone else perfectly, even when the conversations involve savage tribesmen and the like, it's a safe bet that there are no dialects.

[fionwe1987]

I'll take your word for that, but all the talk about ancient wars in WoT is problematic in a couple of ways. One, the fact that everyone seems to be conversant with the basic facts of wars that happened millenia ago, even leaving aside the medieval-level technology, isn't very believable. Two, the fact that people are always talking about these ancient wars, rather than relatively recent ones as people generally do, implies that there haven't been many wars in the last 1000 years. You might say these wars are meant to be huge and epic and that's why they're so well remembered, but it just feels kinda false to me.

But they do talk of recent wars. The Aiel war is a prime example, but there is also the Whitecloak War, the Andoran War of Succession, the fall of Malkier, etc. Save the last and the first, these just haven't become in some way legendary enough for everyone to talk about them. But Hawkwing is a legend, and hence the battles surrounding him are more well known. But common people still don't know most of the details. They know Hawkwing defeated a False Dragon, besieged the Aes Sedai and conquered the world. That kind of thing is remembered, just like Alexander is remembered. Ask a guy on the street for an example of a great soldier, and he's more likely to name Alexander than someone recent. That's just the way it works.

[Cantabile]

The fact that the human brain requires input for its creative output doesn't mean that no creative output actually gets produced. If "original" has any meaning (and obviously it does have a relatively stable one in actually practiced discourse) then Engypt is, all else being equal, a more original setting than England or Egypt; no actual - or for the sake of argument, written - Engypt exists to copy; the worldbuilder must determine for herself how all these elements fit together. If she does it properly it should be as much a distinct setting as you're a distinct person from your parents.

Distinct, certainly, but wouldn't you say that 'originality' in terms of one fictional world over another is in many ways subjective to the reader's own cultural knowledge and experiences? For example, one of my good friends is a cultural anthropologist, and no matter what fantasy I introduce him to he never finds the worlds original, as from his own experiences he can pick out where all the customs are present in our own reality. A more common example is how readers from different cultures will view the 'originality' of a work's worldbuilding differently due to having different lenses by which they view it from. Cultures with flavors of China aren't nerely as 'original' to Chinese readers as to those from other ethnic backgrounds without former knowledge of those flavors.

I am not really arguing against the existence of 'originality' of worldbuilding, so much as if it's a valid form of judging a work's value. Can it be used in the same way as prose or characterization or other literary qualities? "Oh, this novel has better worldbuilding, therefore it is superior to..."

In my mind originality of worldbuilding is much like the style of narration; a personal flavor chosen by the author, without influencing the merit of the work itself. Whether a work is written in omniscient third person, second person, or has a world based upon England in the 1500s, as opposed to England in the 1500s crossbred with Egypt and Greece, it's all flavor in my opinion.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Forgive me ignorance, but what's the difference between micro and macro worldbuilding, and their effect on the story?

[Cantabile]

I don't know what the poster who used those terms meant specifically, but I'd imagine it'd just be microcosm and macrocosm. How that'd be exemplified in terms of worldbuilding is an interesting question though, and I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps micro-worldbuilding would be the more directly observable world as seen firsthand through the characters, whereas macro-worldbuilding is more of the behind-the-scenes depth and details of the world. :dunno:

[Ser Greguh]

Forgive me ignorance, but what's the difference between micro and macro worldbuilding, and their effect on the story?

I don't think these are real terms, just a distinction that exists in my own mind. To me, "micro" worldbuilding is my way of describing the frequency and eloquence with which an author patches up all the little holes in the metaphorical fabric of his or her world. It's the look and feel of different cultures, the sense that foreign lands feel foreign but never too homogeneous. It also, at its best, explains how the little differences fit in the bigger picture. Bad micro worldbuilding feels copy-pasted. Good micro worldbuilding speaks to an attention to detail, and fitting smaller pieces into a cohesive whole.

"Macro" worldbuilding is more with making sure there aren't any humongous, gaping holes in that fabric. An example of bad "macro" building would be a devastating war from which a culture recovered in under a year (because, say, it was convenient to the plot). A period of complete technological stagnation for tens of thousands of years in an otherwise medieval society would be another. Good macro worldbuilding has a sense of history and large-scale continuity that is cohesive and logical.

As for effect on the story, one's mileage may vary. Worldbuilding, to me, is all about immersion, and every reader has a different trigger that can throw that immersion off kilter.

[jurble]

Why would you "expect" 13% urbanization? Westeros doesn't have much in common with Italy. Huge expanses of land and a less hospitable environment seem particularly relevant here.

Large amounts of trade, Maester-directed agriculture = agriculture similar to High Middle Ages Europe, about as efficient as one can get without artificial fertilizers. Moreover, Westeros seems to have warfare incessantly like Medieval Italy, which would also drive up urbanization, to a point. Warfare can obviously have an opposite effect on Urbanization eg. Rome (30%->0%) if it's particularly bad, but at low-intensity where it doesn't disrupt trade, it can be a factor in favor of urbanization.

[MattL86]

Anyone who's not understanding the elf population issue in LOTR never read the Silmarillion. There is a handful left at the end of the first age, that's it. After that, a large part of the few elves that are left are the half elves under Elrond. All these have the option of choosing to be man or Elf. Elrond chose immortality, his brother to be mortal. Again, cutting a very samll population down further. Finally, the majority of elves at some point in their life build a ship and sail to Valinor, meaning they can never grow sufficiently in number.

Also, elves hunt, grow crops, etc, and who honestly wants more of that? I would really despise if when Frodo gets to Rivendell we had 8 chapters of him observing Elrond's irrigation systems. Anytime worldbuilding becomes the thing you are noticing the most about a book that's a problem IMO.

Every fantasy has impossibilities in it that can distract a reader if they get too nitpicky. Think of how much wood a pioneer family had to chop to heat a one room cabin for 4 months of American winter. Then think of how much wood the Stark's would have needed to heat a fortress like Winterfell for ten years. There would be no forests in the North after 1 winter of everyone doing this. And it's been the norm for centuries. No one mentions woodcutting in ASOIAF. It should be one of the main priorities all summer. Does Martin's worldbuilding suck? No, it's one of the best. It's just not terribly realistic. Which you know, is what fantasy's about a lot of the time.

[jurble]

Winterfell has geothermal heating.

[Rakka]

After that, a large part of the few elves that are left are the half elves under Elrond. All these have the option of choosing to be man or Elf.

Wait, what? Only Elros and Elrond were half elven, being that they were the only living ones at that point with both elven and human blood. See the family tree. And the dark elven tribes living east of Misty Mountains were hardly affected by the events in Beleriand. But yeah, the Noldorin realms were already quite scrapped thanks to Morgoth, and sons of Feanor went and destroyed Doriath. Don't go around swearing oaths, dammit.

[Datepalm]

Which is pretty much the story of the age WOT is set in. It's been a continual backslide caused by wars and lost technology and what appears to be a declining population. Some of which may be attributable to the Dark One since Seanchan seems to be getting along much better in that respect. Each time the whole continent descends into chaos, it comes back less populated, less cohesive and less advanced.

But its told, never shown. Theres lots of wars so the population is declining is not actually a logical causal link*. You need a few in between steps - theres lots of wars that are uprooting populations, causing harvests to rot in the fields, bringing disease and famine, completely collapsing central authorities and their ability to maintain infrastructure, etc, which is in turn leading to a lower level of quality of life, including worse hygiene and nutrition and education, which leads to a higher child, and mother, mortality and a lower life expectancy. We're told about those connective steps, at least theoretically, but where we actually see the lives of commoners up close - say, the two rivers, or in Camelyn or the bloody travelling circus - none of it is actually present. Hygiene is great, nutrition is great, education is great. Why are there not way more babies and why are these babies not growing up and founding new homestrads and tilling new fields?

Is there some war torn, devastated corner of Randland incapable of expanding out there somewhere? Presumably. The two rivers and all of Andor that I can recall - are not it.

*Rand once thinks "6000 men woiuld have been a large army once", before the current mess, so it can't be attributed to vast hoardes of menfolk dying off. even ww2 did little more than put a dent in population growth in Russia, rather than actually reversing it.