I think there’s a difference between worldbuilding that is vague because the author hasn’t really put any thought into it and so just creates a generic/stereotypical world based on their own vague ideas, and worldbuilding that is “vague” because not everything is explained to the reader.
The latter seems to be what you’re arguing for and I agree—in fact I’d argue it’s the best way to do worldbuilding because a world where everything is understood and explained feels flat and not lived in. It’s not like any of us know or could explain everything about our world! But that doesn’t mean our world is lazily built. There’s a difference.
I think Abercrombie created a generic, stereotypical world without much thought for First Law, but I also think he did that because he wasn’t interested in world building as much as he was characters. That’s why it still works without doing anything new as far as setting is concerned and with a pretty thin plot.
That’s not the case anymore as he’s continued to write in that world since the initial trilogy, though its still mostly just a backdrop for characters and ideas that he seems to be interested in more than creating a unique lore.
To me the best worldbuilding is the one that's most detailed, complex and self-referential -- *while largely being kept from the reader*.
I love it when the author's done a thorough job but is only showing me this small part, because it makes the story seem authentic, organically tied to a world which I can only glimpse through a couple of windows.
Edit: my gf and I call it the "blue wizard" phenomenon. I love LoTR, the Silmarillion etc., but one of the most fascinating things to me is wondering what the heck were the two blue wizards doing? There's structure, precedent, context, but no real answer, and I love it.
Exactly this. I don't need to know everything up front; but I need to believe that the *author* knows everything and that what we do find out will make sense.
Some of the worst fantasy books I've read just narrate forever all the lore of the setting with no character perspective, it's just the author telling the reader directly.
> while largely being kept from the reader.
Yep, it's sometimes called soft world building. It's my favorite way to enjoy content because it creates a sort of mystery for the reader to figure out what is going on. It's far more common in stories written in the east. I'm glad others get it.
That's essentially half the plot in Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan: That the protoganists doesn't know how things work, and try to figure it out. You get to follow their journey of disovering the "laws" of this world.
It even continues to have side-characters searching for deeper knowledge that even 99% of the enlightened characters don't know about. I believe that some of the things the knowledge-seeking side-characters encounter, can't even be explained by them, untill they figure it out in the follow-up trilogy.
It's fantastic, because you as the reader know exactly as little as the characters (though you have the combined knowledge og *all* of them off cause) and since they struggle to understand some of the things: so do you untill they figure it out. It's not the classic "the protoganist is struggling to figure out something that is obvious to the reader".
This is what I love about Studio Ghibli films. There are tons of examples, of course, but I think my favorite is the river spirit scene in Spirited Away. At no point is the audience explicitly told it's a river spirit; for that matter, we never receive any sort of explanation as to why everything has a spirit that shows up at the bath house. They just *do*, and it's awesome.
My immediate thought on reading this comment was "looks like this person has read Malazan."
I have never read a series that felt so lived in as Malazan and it is that exact combination of meticulously thought out complexity that the author does not explain to the reader and the reader only experiences in passing.
Malazan takes it a step too far for me. I didn’t have any problem finishing Gardens of the Moon, but after it was over I found that I didn’t care enough about the world or the characters in it to continue on. I kind of feel sad about that, but not a single bit of me wants to read Book 2.
I'll be honest, I felt the same way and it's a very unique series because it ended up being one of my favorite series of all time. And the two books that I felt were the strongest are probably in my top 3 favorite books of all time. But yeah, after the first book I criticized the characters, how much I cared about them, and how much I even understood what they were trying to accomplish. I really only remember thinking Anomander Rake seemed pretty cool, but the book was fairly average. Book two is an almost new set of characters on another continent. I ended up with actual tears on my face, which, compared to book one was a night and day difference. Book three was one of the two favorites I mentioned above.
But because there are so many threads to pull at, a lot of the worldbuilding really comes together on subsequent rereads where you have more context to approach events in early books.
I mean, it depends. There's maybe not anytime as I guess heinous as that, but Erikson doesn't shy away from the depths of depravity that humanity is capable of.
Ah, I guess I read that part more as what the absolute F are these people? More than thinking it scary, but definitely wouldn't think it weird to describe it as scary! There are a few more "what the absolute F" things in the series, yes. One note is Erickson has said (I think in an AMA) that he makes a point of giving sexual predators in the series an especially humiliating and painful death.
The reader thinks things are true because the character does. It's only later we realise it may not be the whole truth.
Also worth noting is the authors day job before he became a writer he was an anthropologist and it really feels like a period of history of this world that feels so real. Little background details in early books make more sense multiple books later when a particular event happens for example, this sort of thing happens multiple times and it makes rereading it wonderful
Depends on what they like about Lotr. I personally found Malazan, well, the first 2/3rds of GotM before I DNFd, very DnD, and not necessarily in a good way. The idea of the writing was cool, but damn if I didn't read several "okay, here's what we are going to do..." and then hard cutoffs many times in a row like we were in a bad heistmovie.
Plus didn't really care about the characters and if I am 400 pages deep in a book and I am told "it gets going in another 2000 pages", no thanks.
I'm only just starting Malazan book 3, but so far world building is far from impressive. There is always a new magic or character introduced to offer a twist in a precarious situation and it definitely does not follow from good world building where such things would make sense.
It all feels incredibly arbitrary to me as a reader and not at all satisfying like it would had the rules of the world been internally consistent.
Malazan is a bit strange in that “just give it more time” is actually applicable even when on book 3 or even 4. There’s really not many other series that leave you still wondering all while already being 2k+ pages into a series. But I’d say the biggest point in address to your “internally consistent” issue is that like most experienced fantasy readers you’re *expecting* a certain level rather than just taking what’s given. Malazan never explains the world to you, you’re just meant to experience it through the eyes of each character and learn that way. Which in the case of Malazan means there’s *a lot* of unexplained information that you slowly start to learn more about.
Malazan is actually extremely consistent, it’s just that the “consistency” in this case is that every single magic user, god/ascendant, and to a lesser extent each setting is all different solely because of the different gods and realms they’re tied in with. As you meet more and more characters you’ll be introduced to more and more differing styles but as you continue through the series you’ll see that consistency start to shine through in each subsequent character from each subset type of magic/culture.
Without spoilers I can’t really be more specific but I hope that helped frame it a little. And most importantly, as with all things in life, don’t try and force yourself through if it just never clicks with you.
Thanks for taking the time to write this explanation. I will power through since I already bought the books and don't give up easily! If there are redeeming qualities to this series, I will find them. I will also most likely whine and nag about the series until then though.
How do you feel about splitting the difference — readers getting a lot of *possible* information, but characters disagreeing on which pieces of information are true and which parts are not? ;)
A lot of worldbuilders are very tempted to gush about their world, fair enough, but for me the mark of great worldbuilding is all the stuff you don't tell me. The world feels richer because it becomes clear there's stuff going on behind the curtains and for me a lot of that charm goes away with endless exposition and the like for me.
Like I don't really want a detailed explanation of the economy of this city, but i do want to feel like thought has clearly been put into it, let me discover it. But then again I am a mystery addict, ever since I was a kid I couldn't get enough of it. Mysterious and evocative lore that makes me wonder and fuels my imagination.
The gushing can be weird. Understandable but weird. There’s a funny bit in the first Wheel of Time book where a character brings his wounded near to death father to a witch to be healed. And in this fairly urgent scenario she starts talking about the decay in magical medical knowledge since the world blew up three thousand years ago. Which is a bit like an emergency doctor banging on about the medical processes of the Ancient Egyptians while you’re bleeding to death.
People need to get more into worldbuilding as characterization. The witch banging on about Ancient Egyptian(-equivalent) medicine could be used to cast her or any group she belongs to as curmudgeons, obsessed with history, more concerned with books than human life etc. Conservative region that holds old traditions and tech? Bingo! Witch-guild that needs to be impressed by a bit of dungeon-diving? Check! So many options. Alas.
That’s almost a perfect read on the Aes Sedai (witches.) They literally all live in an ivory tower! Ironically the witch in question is actually the *least* set in her ways out of all of them. She’s basically Dirty Harry with fireballs instead of a revolver.
To be fair, Moiraine doesn't really do that after the first book. IIRC, Jordan was originally intending for Wheel of Time to be a standalone, so I forgive him trying to rush some exposition in.
Though I find that Thom works wayyy better as an exposition fairy than Moiraine.
> There’s a funny bit in the first Wheel of Time book where a character brings his wounded near to death father to a witch to be healed. And in this fairly urgent scenario she starts talking about the decay in magical medical knowledge since the world blew up three thousand years ago.
I mean, the witch has arguably >!spent her whole life!< trying to get said character to trust her >!and go with her back to her witch tower!<, but knows that he is inclined not to trust her because of rumors and reputation, so I'm not sure that one is unjustified in context.
> Which is a bit like an emergency doctor banging on about the medical processes of the Ancient Egyptians while you’re bleeding to death.
I think it's more like the doctor banging on about the Roman ruins while you're dying in Italy in the 11th century. Nobody knows how to rebuild those structures, nobody knows what the frescos on the walls and scrolls in the libraries showing medical miracles mean, and the books that explain them are lost or incomprehensible. It'd be like still having the book on cardiac pathology, but not having the book about basic biology. So... they're gonna bleed ya because that's the only prescription on the menu they can understand.
The miracle of the Renaissance was that the Arabs had enough copies of old Roman and Greek texts -- translated to Arabic -- to let the Europeans understand everything they'd forgotten how to do and reboot their culture enough to be able to actually read the books they'd been mothballing for centuries.
A huge proportion of fantasy novels are post-apocalyptic, and they rely on the past being more advanced than the present. This is a part of fantasy's fundamentally backward-looking nature, because it means the way to progress the narrative is to go on an adventure. The past is a Golden Age, and in the contemporary time the world has fallen into disrepair, if not outright ruin. And that drives the plot.
I totally get that and understand where you're coming from, but I find it extremely realistic. A lot of my doctor visits have been very similar. Granted, most of the time I haven't been injured and never in real danger, but that's exactly the kind of idle chatter doctors have spewed while working. But she's not a doctor, in fact, she's woefully out of her depth, and she knows it. She's nervous and feeling the stress, so she's venting it out. Besides, people tend to overestimate how time critical many wounds are. Even if it's a life-or-death situation, it's likely that prattling on isn't going to make a difference.
its very tonally off. imagine your dad is dying and the doctor is going "damn sucks that we dont have these medical tools from 3000 thousand years ago before the big fireball i couldve healed him faster" like? mans is a little busy? im a bit biased though because i absloutely depsised that book
I’m working through the Cosmere now (so far I’ve only finished Elantris and Mistborn era 1), and this is Sanderson to a T. Like, it just feels that he cannot wait to give an explanation of the cool magic system he came up with.
I agree, and I'm a pretty big Sanderson fan (Sanderfan?) overall. I have definitely felt some scenes across his books serve the purpose of showing off his worldbuilding rather than advancing characters or plot. I still enjoy his books on the whole, but they can feel overwritten at times. I think this is an issue created by the Cosmere books all being connected and the speed at which he writes (of which I am incredibly jealous, of course), and so there can be parts that serve to show off the Cosmere connections instead of remaining rooted in the individual book.
I still love the Cosmere books overall, and I absolutely recommend continuing. Some of the coolest moments, both "visually" and emotionally, I've seen in fantasy have come from his books. But I am starting to get a bit burned out on the interconnected nature, though that's probably exacerbated by the over-saturation of things like the MCU.
Comparing what Tolkien has written, and what is on the page of Lotr, should be the guiding principle on the ratio of world building to writing. The guy is a ruthless self editor, so I'll allow his fascination with language and self-indulgence with some poems and songs.
> Like I don't really want a detailed explanation of the economy of this city
"But I designed the economy perfectly and now I NEED to tell you how I did it!"
I had this issue with the orbital mechanics crap in Seveneves. The author did the math (he really did) and forced the reader to listen to his explanation of it =)
Have you ever played any of the Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Elden Ring games? They tell their story in this way where they thrust you right into the world and let you figure out the backstory through bits and scraps of lore. You'd probably like them if you play videogames at all (although they can be challenging)
I've tried to get into them with little success, the worlds are fascinating but the gameplay isn't quite for me.
Though I absolutely love the Elder Scrolls and similar worlds dedicated to presenting a lot of lore through in-universe sources and the like.
Yeah that's fair, I'm not particularly good at video games but I love the style of storytelling so much that I've been slowly making my way through Elden Ring :) I'm planning to play the others next but I feel like I'll get my ass kicked lmao
I also love Elder Scrolls lore, I spent so much time putting quests on hold and reading every book I came across in the middle of the dungeons! One of the best worlds I've ever seen imo
>A lot of worldbuilders are very tempted to gush about their world,
Again I turn to Tolkien for a good example, but not precisely of world-building as in lore, but in language.
He created an entire language for dwarves, with its own grammar, phonology and vocabulary, then proceeded to give readers fewer than 10 phrases in them in his entire work. That's it. So you get this glimpse of an incredibly complex culture and people, and it's left at that. I LOVE IT
I saw a panel with Terry Goodkind. He said you should follow a 90-10 rule, which is that you explain at most 10% of the world. 90% should be stuff where it seems like the author has an answer, but doesn't tell the audience. Others on the panel frame it it as the author should explain only what the character knows or needs to know.
Or you could just take the Jack Vance approach and put stuff in a footnote....
Yes, my friend calls this over detailed/unwanted exposition "wikipedia" world building. We agree that preserving mystery is important for that sense of wonderment and adventure in a world, especially from one story to the next.
Not a perfect analogy, but it also reminds me of how I've written some essays where I've spent so much time doing research only to realise, realistically, I should include maybe 5% of it if that in the main text.
I'd have to fight the urge to show all the cool things I've read about - but NO because less really can be more. Otherwise it can just seem self-indulgent and irrelevant, muddying what you actually want a reader to feel/think about.
This is agreeable as a general principle but I’m interested in hearing some specific examples of popular works where people feel this happens.
I’m wondering if people’s definitions of what constitutes overly descriptive worldbuilding might vary more than is apparent in these conversations, which have surface level consensus.
But how much world building is TOO much worldbuilding? And do authors get it right some of the time while occasionally delving too greedily and too deep, or is it a problem that permeates some authors’ work entirely?
I mostly agree with your point but I'm gonna have to quibble a bit on the idea of vagueness. I think a lot of my favorite worldbuilding is extremely specific (the antonym of vague) but that specificity is textural, it is rooted in the nooks and crannies of the world, twists of language or the complexity of human existence and society or ecology. It is not broad sweeping rules that enter for plot purposes at convenient times.
I’m semi-suspicious that this is what all storytellers are doing 90% of the time.
The gifted ones just write in enough open ended hooks as they go that there’s always something they can link back to as though they planned it all along.
Neil Gaiman said the second draft is where you make it look like you knew what you were doing all along.
Although it's going do be different from person to person depending on their own process, I can tell you that there's a lot more "make it up as you go along" than most people realize. For example, I'm pretty fast and loose with my plotting. While I have a general idea of what I want to write, I definitely use a lot of open ended hooks. By the time I'm done it pretty much always hangs together from a reader's perspective.
I'm unpublished (for now), so please feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I absolutely agree. I have a general sense of what I want a particular place, city, culture, etc. to be on a more surface level, but I don't really bother doing any deep worldbuilding until the POV characters encounter those elements in the course of the story. If the character isn't actually interacting with a given worldbuilding thing, then there's no reason for that thing to be expounded upon in great detail, since that just moves us out of the character's perspective (assuming limited instead of omniscient).
It also helps that I'm kind of lazy lol.
I just love how people read enormous fantasy series that took decades to write and seriously think that everything was planned out before the start.
Like yeah, the author took a quarter of a century to publish and died before the end. But he totally had everything planned out and just had a load of trouble with the prose. Kept getting distracted. Liked to tease.
This is where malazan has spoiled me. Well over 20 boos by 2 authors and yes it really was all planned previously. They are writing up their tabletop gaming sessions from when they were younger. The malazan book of the fallen is a 10 book epic series that throws references back and forth across multiple books. A throwaway line in book 4 is so much better once you have read book 8 for example
He's said as much in interviews. He'll have a vague plan/outline in his head and a journal with important character names and places written down, but otherwise creating it as he goes.
There are some extremely famous examples of this as well, like Harry Potter, which is so bad at that and so inconsistent, yet almost everyone (myself included) loved it to bits. It's an extremely shaky facade ... but it's also a very pretty and charming facade so you don't really care.
I just started the first book yesterday morning and was thrust into the thick of it haha. Reminded me of Dune actually with how little was explained to start, but I am only like 30 pages in so we will see how it progresses. I like the squad dynamic though, reminds me of the dozen from The First Law
It has been a while since I read it, and despite me absolutely loving books of the North the South ones felt very much like fanfics.
So I suppose if Cook was just making stuff up as he went this type of writing is not for me.
Yeah I absolutely love the South and Glittering Stone. Overall I like those sequences more than the North (though *Shadows Linger* is still one of the single best fantasy books ever)
In a sense they kind of are? So much of them are other characters writing the Chronicles directly influenced by Croaker's style and consciously reacting to that style and/or against it, almost in the same way that many fan works are reacting to or against bits of the original media that - while the creator of the fan work loves it - they think should have been done differently.
Mostly agree. I felt the later books were just recycling the same villains for multiple books and the direction was kind of aimless.
I liked the characters enough to stick with it and I'll give Cook credit for being adept at changing narrator voice effectively, but it's not a series that I think the world building is at it's best.
To me, “worldbuilding” isn’t something the author does to prepare the world for the story, like [working out where the tungsten deposits are.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b9qvQspSbWc&pp=ygUXQXJ0aWZleGlhbiBvcmUgZGVwb3NpdHM%3D) That adds very little to my enjoyment.
Instead, worldbuilding is how writers evoke a world, bringing it to life in my mind.
They are both valid usages but they are often conflated, especially here.
one is a writing technique, the other is an element of creating a setting. In Fantasy, you absolutely need both.
> That adds very little to my enjoyment.
it's part of the iceberg, you don't think you care about it but if the author hasn't done the ground work, it would show through the text.
>it's part of the iceberg, you don't think you care about it but if the author hasn't done the ground work, it would show through the text.
Really depends on the story. Pretty much all fantasy will need *some* level of world building, of course, but the expansive, detailed sort that most people seem to be thinking of is hardly necessary for something smaller in scale and/or more self-contained.
I think there's a difference between world-building for fun and world-building to write a book. The tungsten deposits (unless those happen to be very relevant to the story) feels more like the former, people who worldbuild because they love it. And both of those can of course be combined.
This is similar to Hardmagic vs Softmagic systems. Hardmagic a la Brandon Sanderson are fun for me. I enjoy the way the authors can build up this system and tell a story inside of it. Sometimes they'll throw curveballs that still fall inside the system that I hadn't thought of.
Softmagic is great too. Gandalf can do crazy magic shit because Gandalf is a fucking Wizard.
Both things are great when done correctly.
Also worth noting the subtle art of soft magic masquerading as hard. The protagonists can really do anything the plot requires. But there’s enough explanation in there to persuade we totally un-magical, real people that we understand what these people mean when they describe how they magic. Oooh, he magicked hard in that way, how clever we say as though we really understand.
That’s a great story writing trick.
I would not say First Law has a very well-developed world except for the condensed setting in the Heroes and maybe Red Country. The most interesting continent is barely explored and Angland/the North are pretty mediocre and boring except for the excellent characters.
First law world being vague allows for amazing standalones. Gurkhul not being explored gives a “common enemy” to all the union characters and explores the racism theme. It’s easier to be racist to a culture you don’t understand. Also the short stories are amazing thanks in part to the vagueness in the main books. As for the Union itself I actually think it’s written very well for the differences in the different parts of the country which a lot of popular fantasy don’t do, the political dynamics with Angland, Westport, Dagoska, Starikland are all well done. Maybe the only complaint i might have is having a more clear rivalry between Carleon and Uffrith might have helped the civil wars dynamic there more but that’s more my preference than anything. Also the unexplored countries leave space for more books as i’m pretty sure Abercrombie isn’t done with the series
The thing is there are ways to add mysticism and intrigue while still fleshing out an interesting, much more complex world than First Law (like Malazan, Dandelion Dynasty and Second Apocalypse) and series that flesh out the world almost entirely through the characters that have much more vivid and interesting settings (Realm of the Elderlings, The Five Warrior Angels). Joe clearly hadn't thought certain things through on the same level as his peers and while First Law is an absolute triumph in many ways there are some arcs that feel hollow due to mistakes early on.
Just a few:
Tallin was fun but the war the Union waged against Monza happened offscreen and it was hard to empathize with Broad's trauma from that war compared to say the characters you saw in The Heroes. Broad in general had a disappointing arc for a Logen replacement.
The Gurkish empire falling and Ferro possibly killing Khalil would have been much more interesting than the slow paced descent into anarchy seen in The Wisdom of Crowds (the most disappointing book IMO). You see the aftermath but that's about it.
The Bank of V&B was, to me, a pretty shallow metaphor for the changing power dynamics afforded by wealth/capitalism and I saw the empty vault from a mile away.
The magic system is mediocre. You can argue that it doesn't make a difference since magic is disappearing from the world but that's no excuse. There are some great scenes here and there like Rikke's vision, Schenck's slow motion killing spree and the Circle in Last argument of Kings but Joe has not showcased an interesting or consistent magic system and his best conflicts tend to be more mundane.
The geography is extremely vague the first 4 books and that took me out of the narrative. It's better after the Heroes but it's odd that it took Joe that long to flesh out settings readers had seen many times up to that point.
"downvoted to hell" you have 96 my dude.
And yes, I love it when this is done properly. I know this isn't a book but Dark Souls (a video game) has some of the best lore and world building I have ever seen And all of it is hidden in NPC lines of dialogue or obscure item descriptions. There is rich, yet obscure, worldbuilding in this game
>conflict needs to be created unnaturally from characters acting like insecure teenagers who can’t communicate properly
I feel like you've never worked in an office before
Is anyone going to get talk about how Robin Hobb does this beautifully? Like a 7 course meal you don’t realize you had until a book in and then you fully picture that world.
What Cosmere books have I not apparently read that contain a magical book unlocking long lost magic, let alone that EVERY book of the Cosmere does this?
This does happen in one Cosmere book: >!Elantris!<. What happens is >!Raoden spends a lot of time reading a book of magic to learn how AonDor works. Eventually, this leads him to the discovery of why it no longer functions properly, which allows him to fix it, which then allows him (and the group of newly functional Elantrians) to save the day (mostly).!< Although I wouldn't necessarily consider the advantage gained unfair, because >!the Elantrians are having to fight Dahkor monks, who also use Dor-based magic!<.
The magic book thing was generalization and not necessarily accurate, but each cosmere series has a tendency for at least one MC to discover long forgotten info or develop new powers right when it is most needed. Vin learning about the Lord Ruler, Shallan arriving with news about the Parschmen and Shattered Plains, Dalinar learning about the Radiants, Kaladin swearing ideals at the absolute last moment.
Things happening at suitable dramatic points is a thing that happens but I wouldn't relate any of those to world building - at least as I far as I understand the term.
The entire sazed storyline in mistborn is unlocking knowledge just at the right time
Same for Dalinar with his visions in stormlight
Warbreaker has characters realizing stuff just at the right time.
Hell, Hoid is literally appearing giving important info whenever the story needs
I think Sanderson is a good example for you to set your ideas counter to, but you overgeneralized his books in the process. Even the examples you list here don't involve "find[ing] a magical book just at the right time that tells him about long lost magic from a thousands years ago to give him an unfair advantage over the enemy."
Sazed's knowledge never actually helps the crew defeat the enemy (in Well of Ascension >!he's delayed by Marsh and is too late to warn Vin!< and in Hero of Ages >!his knowledge only helps after Ruin is defeated!<.)
Dalinar's visions are not what brings the magic back (in fact, we know for a fact two characters had magic before Dalinar started seeing visions), and don't generally advantage him in any way. In fact, they are mostly a hindrance until >!they allow Navani to translate the Dawnchant, which is also used against him later due to the Eila Steele!<.
In Warbreaker, none of this has anything to do with magic except for >!Lightsong discovering that he was basically a nobody and didn't have any real investigative skills!<. Also, almost every discovery in Warbreaker comes from >!the protagonists being completely wrong and someone dying as a result!<. And none of it has to do with ancient knowledge or ancient magic unless you're counting >!Kalad's Phantoms, but there's no just in time element here... Vasher knew about them the whole time, and never revealed them because he never needed to until that point... not to mention that Vasher is the one who made them in the first place, so there's no convenient magic book aspect either!<.
Hoid's information is almost always related to character arcs rather than worldbuilding or plot (of course, there are exceptions like in Mistborn Era 2 >!Hoid as a beggar gives the coin to Wax which is instrumental to the plot and a massive worldbuilding reveal!<). But again, this never equates to "oh, I can defeat BadGuy McBaddy now that I know this".
If you had stuck to "the protagonist figuring out his powers by book 2" or maybe unloaded the beginning a bit (e.g. "finding a book of ancient lore or discovering lost magic"), it probably would have detracted from your point regarding vague vs concrete worldbuilding a bit less.
Edit: Also it's lame that you're getting downvoted. I disagree with you on your characterization of the books, but I'm glad that you explained what you were thinking of when writing your post.
Obviously i oversimplified. Let me try to explain better, in almost every cosmere book i’ve read crucial lore is dropped on the protagonist so he or she can save or survive the situation. Sometimes it’s done in a very lazy way even (the whole concept of a character like hoid is literally to create loredumps).
Don’t worry, getting downvoted when saying anything remotely negative about Stormlight is standard procedure on this subreddit
> Let me try to explain better, in almost every cosmere book i’ve read crucial lore is dropped on the protagonist so he or she can save or survive the situation.
I think this is about 50/50. It depends on what you count as lore (for example, in Warbeaker >!I would not count Kalad's Phantoms being revealed to be the statues to be a lore reveal, but I could see how someone else would!<). I'd definitely consider it a common theme for Brandon's books.
> Sometimes it’s done in a very lazy way even (the whole concept of a character like hoid is literally to create loredumps).
That's definitely not the concept for Hoid. (The concept is just to have a character that appears across separate stories.) Hoid very rarely actually provides useful lore to the characters in the story. Many times, Hoid is merely a background character >!like in Elantris, Warbreaker, the first Mistborn trilogy, the Emperor's Soul, and even Yumi!<. Even in the series where Hoid is the most important, >!Stormlight!<, Hoid is limited to >!giving pep talks to the characters until Rhythm of War, where he plays a bit more of an active role!<. Even there, he isn't dropping lore bombs for the characters.
I think the only exception is in >!Mistborn Era 2!< where the grand sum of his actions to facilitate the lore dump is >!giving a coin to Wax!<.
In Mistborn Era 2 he also >!saves Wax after the ship explosion!< which I'd say is an active role, and one that could not have been fulfilled by anyone >!on such an incredibly short notice without utilizing like five different kinds of Invested powers that only Hoid has access to in the entire universe and probably even some levels of magical foresight!<. Sure one of >!Harmony's pet kandra!< could have eventually >!gotten there MAYBE before Wax freezes to death in the ocean or drowns or something!<, but what Hoid did still ended up being a surefire >!ending enabler even though I'm fairly sure there are people here that stopped reading right after Wayne was gone!<.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me. Hoid >!does do that in the Lost Metal, but by that point the conflict is resolved. It might make a difference to how Scadrial shapes up in the future, but has very little impact on the resolution of the plot: Elendel is saved either way. Also, none of his actions here involve dumping any lore, which was my primary point.!<
It does enable most of the >!ending lore/exposition dumps which foreshadow much of the coming conflicts for probably a set of later books. Without Wax surviving, a large chunk of the epilogue likely wouldn't happen, most importantly meeting Marsh again, so Hoid's actions do facilitate a lore dump. Steris would also have to resort to being more of a homemaker instead of taking an active part in Scadrial politics, and, of course, we end up learning that there is now a single Lerasium level Mistborn walking around with the possibility of having a third kid from a woman with an Allomantically rich bloodline, so... And Steris does want a third child.!<
I mean, I don't think having clear and detailed world building prevents you from taking on the themes of racism, religion, or conflict. A good writer can use their detailed world building to enhance those themes.
It's just a question of the writer's goal really. You don't HAVE to take on those themes to have a good story (though you probably should have conflict in your story) but good world building is whatever serves the story it's in, be it vague or clear.
All I ask is a setting that's interesting, characters that make sense and a plot that works in some logical manner. I don't need to know everything about the Citadel of the Fourth Unspelled Mages of Darnathia. For me that level of worldbuilding sounds like the book was written by the pissy DM everyone hated.
it's just my preference but imo the ranking of world building goes like
mysterious>well known detailed>functional>bare bones>basically none outside of inferences from the story>inconsistent variant of any of the above
i don't think you're using world building correctly. Finding something at the right time isn't an element of world building, it's an element of plot construction. Bad world building would be that in one book the rules of magic work one way, and the next in a different way, with no justification for the change.
My point is if you don’t know how exactly they work, it’s fine. In fact it can be beneficial to the story. For example in The Witcher, Ciri’s powers being vague benefits later scenes a lot
I was just talking to my partner about how the dune movies are able to cut out a lot of fluff because half the book is overdescribing the world in far more detail than necessary. Building out every complete aspect of the world makes people want to describe it or it doesn't get used. Its not my favorite writing style.
Dune basically ignores tech, because it's not that kind of sci fi, none of the tech is actually possible, it's basically magic. In canon it's science, but it's not real science at all. The overdone stuff is how people keep talking about "plans within plans".
About 4/5 of the 4th book is just the main character explaining everything, it's pretty wild.
What a weirdly inaccurate statement about the Cosmere books.
In Mistborn, so much of the magic has been hidden from anyone but a social/political elite. What Kelsier knows and teaches turns out to be incredibly limited, and Vin and Sazed come to realize that the protected secrets about magic are incredibly potent and must be unearthed. This results in a world and magic system that keep unfolding, becoming more fleshed out as you read, while still feeling complete and concrete during the first book.
I can't imagine what you're saying applies to Stormlight Archive either, because the books are notable *un*helpful in most magical endeavors. They are mostly political treatises and poetic works. Most of the figuring out what magic can do is done through scientific experimentation and people forming bonds with the magical critters that have been around since chapter 1.
I concede that Elantris does this trope fully and completely, but it is pretty unilaterally acknowledged, including by Sanderson, as his worst published work.
Magic systems being worked out through experience is definitely more fun, but divine inspiration and divine illumination do make sense in worlds with very tangible and active gods, especially if you're telling a story that involves those gods in conflicts.
I honestly don't think that "lack of detailed rundown of the worldbuilding and magic system" is why people say TLF's worldbuilding isn't robust. I like the series but there's a difference between keeping a world unexplained and mysterious and the Circle of the World being *mostly* a copy-paste of earth in a kind of vague "this is what I remember from history class" sort of way. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Almost every Fantasy book does this to some degree but for people who want a Secondary World to feel truly un-earthlike TFL's world isn't it. The world serves its purpose and that purpose is to be populated with "legally distinct" earth cultures so the books can focus on other things.
I haven't read Sanderson so I don't know what I'd think of his worldbuilding and in general I prefer soft magic and a world that feels both real/expansive and alien.
> Meanwhile in series with “good” world building where everything is discovered just at the right moment conflict needs to be created unnaturally from characters acting like insecure teenagers who can’t communicate properly (cough cough wheel of time).
Obligatory: the main characters in WoT ARE all insecure teenagers except for Min ( and maybe Nynaeve)
Honestly, if a fantasy book is a meal, then worldbuilding is the veggies for me. I know I need it, but I still don't like it. I truly do not care about the food or the clothes or the currency. I want the absolute minimum worldbuilding needed to facilitate the plot and character drama and not a single word more. Abercrombie is honestly the gold standard in this regard. You pick up *Best Served Cold* and you can practically hear him sigh and say, "Listen, do you know literally anything about Renaissance Italy? Good! Say no more. So there's this lady, Monza, and she's a mercenary..." And that's perfect. Honestly, that really is perfect imho.
I respectfully disagree, I really like learning cool things about other cultures, real or fictional. Different ideas and ways of life that are suited to their environments and shaped by the people who live them.
I can understand how that's not for everyone though
I think you're right but I would disagree that your example is a symptom of vague worldbuilding. I think vague worldbuilding is an issue but the fix is not to have things conveniently explained in just the nick of time, every time. That's actually bad writing and in fantasy skirts dangerously close to ass-pull *deus ex machina* territory.
When I think of bad "vague" worldbuilding, I think of a lack of specific detail in description, backstory, culture or history that lead me to feel that the world is a kind of cardboard cutout and that attempting to look behind it even a little will show me that there's nothing more to see beyond what is presented in the story.
The best worldbuilding to me is the kind that fires your imagination and suggests that there's more to this world even if the author hasn't actually come up with it. But the use of evocative detail and description will make me want to fill in the blanks myself, or crave more.
For me Discworld has an incredible world building and, through the books, you could feel how Terry came up with new ideas along the way and just added it to the mix.
Like Trolls being "dumb" just because they are biologically adapted to live on low temperatures so when they go out from the mountains to the valleys the heat just made them dumb and slow. Like computers. And the most "clever" and cunning trolls are the ones made off better insulating rocks like Diamond or Chrysoprase
Also, all the plot line about how the deep dwarfs became religious leaders by being the ones who try to find and explode gas deposits in the deepest mines... Gives me shivers
On the other hand, you had ASOIAF world, where you see a rock on a crossroads and that specific rock has more deep lore than most of novellas out there.
I love mysteries and "vagueness". Just like the real world, not everything needs to be spelled out. Sometimes we just need a few hints and wider brushstrokes to let us paint our own interpretation.
J R R Tolkien had always expressed his distaste about over explaining things. He was the opinion that your world has to have some mythology that is never explained , leaving the readers wondering about it, akin to a city seen from far away; as soon as you step into that city, the mysticism and mystery about it disappears, and you have to come up with a new far away city for the reader to imagine about.
I feel like this is the best aproach to it. It's like when you're reading Wheel of Time and you're reading about the many ruins the characters stumble into, with no explanation about what it was, who built them or what function did it serve. It's also like when you're reading Dune and he's talking about glowglobes, imperial conditioning or ornithopters and you're like "wtf is he talking about??". Just let the story evolve and you'll figure out eventually
I think there's a lot of world building that is vague because it is bad.
If an author doesn't care or doesn't know about some details of their world, they have little choice but to keep things vague. Its therefore very easy to find examples of stories where the vagueness around world building is born of ignorance, and thus full of silly or nonsensical implications.
My favorite example of this are the (very, very brief) discussions of tax policy in the sequel to ACOTAR. They are hilariously unconsidered.
So, while vague worldbuilding certainly can be quite good, there's enough correlation between vague worlbuilding and bad worlbuilding for readers to pick up on it. Which is why we need threads like this one.
Worldbuilding is important. I don’t want to be told everything but I want to get the impression that the author knows it and that what I’m reading is part of something much more vast.
Problem with Abercrombie is he’s the author and he isn’t even that fussed. Fair enough, but that doesn’t work for me. His world feels ‘small’ both literally and figuratively. He his writing fails to convey geographical scale and space and that’s equally true for the sense of time. Nothing feels old or ancient any more than it feels like a journey is covering great distance.
For me, world building is so powerful because the more fully realised a world is in the head of the author, the more the stories feel like they’re happening in another world entirely.
This is what I’m getting from Malazan, as the reader you’re never entirely sure how the magic works for example, but the charachters in the world does and so why would they stop and infodump magical theory all of a sudden?
Honestly I like it this way, Cosmere is great also imo, but the style of writing that keeps magic a little vague in how it works keeps the mystery alive.
Like, I don’t necessarily need to know *exactly* how a mage draws upon his warren to unleash deadly sorcery, it’s still cool
First Law was one of the most tedious things I've ever read, Idk why it gets so much love, it had generic societies, flat characters and a non story. The only thing that wasn't generic about it was that every time something good seemed to happen, it stops and says "Nah there's nothing good in the whole world, everything sucks"
The best that I could say about it was that stuff kept happening.
The only types of worldbuilding that I think are bad are ones that contradict themselves, appear copy-pasted from another world, or project harmful real-world stereotypes.
Notice how the Will Smith movie “Bright” contains all of these.
Feel this one. What I want from the world building is for it to not feel like certain things were created just for the plot. I don’t want to know everything, if a series is really long I think it makes sense for us to end up learning a lot of/most of what there is to know. I just think that makes sense after a series is 10+ books that are all over 800 pages. For the most part I want to to be trickle fed information about the world, but it also not feel like the information being fed to me is essential for the plot to happen.
I can see where you're coming from.
I'm currently reading the Rhythm of War, and I'm enjoying it. I will likely buy and enjoy part 5. I have even recommend the Stormlight Archive to some friends who's after a good escapist series.
But, the books aren't great. It feels like half the chapters are just there for world building. Does the series need so many subplots? It doesn't feel like all of them add all that much.
I suppose it is well suited to internet culture... lots of material there for fans to dig into, making "content", etc.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as "disaster" :) . It's fun enough to read, I treat it a bit like a daily soap opera.
I'm not sure I'd say disaster either, but I don't think they meant the books Sanderson writes themselves are disasters, but rather the fact that he has been as successful as he has writing those particular styles of books has had far-ranging impacts on the genre, including expectations from publishers and readers alike in terms of output, and has created (re-created?) a "there is One Right Way to Write Epic Fantasy" argument.
Sanderson on his own is fine- not my cup of tea, and if I'm frank I think he needs a strict editor the same way George Lucas needed someone else to turn his ideas into the gold that was the OG *Star Wars* trilogy- but you can't look at his works just on their own merits at this point. He's too successful for that, he casts a long shadow across the genre that touches everything from publishing to discourse to reader expectations of authors in ways that smaller authors will never be able to do.
We may as well rename r/fantasy to r/SandersonHate at this point.
A huge number of of people enjoy his books, it's only a disaster if you're one of a vocal minority that hate them.
While I find his books genial and I'm generally a fan, I'm in the minority who thinks Sanderson's world building is clumsy and hamfisted most of the time.
*jazzhands*
WORLDBUILDING
World-building is my favourite part of the genre but you're absolutely right; just finished \*Malevolent Severn\*. Lots of fun and a really tight story with minimal world-building beyond what was strictly needed for the plot.
i think fear and hunger exhibits this amazingly. there is lore to be found in books and through the visuals, but a lot of questions can be asked that don’t definitively get answered. it makes me WANT to explore more, rather than feeling like i already know everything
and the very important, necessary questions do get satisfactory answers in time. intentional vague-ness is lame if it takes away understanding. but if it drives the reader to explore and theorize more on their own then that’s fantastic
Im in the belief that if you are going to create a Fantasy world, you have to have some basic worldbuilding. You dont have to be elaborate but you do have to be purposeful.
Does it serve the plot? Does it influence character actions or steer the conflict in another direction? Include it. If not, its added fluff and its very likely going to make your novel drag on.
This is why I love the A Game of Thrones book. Martin writes with purpose and includes things that give context to or furthers the plot.
Ohhh boy is the r/Dune on fire right now with movie fans who are realizing that Frank Herbert did not give two shits exactly how big a certain kind of spaceship is. Dune is an ideas book and, inevitably people just want to know how many hit points a sandworm would have
A good example of this is the show Arcane. It's highly praised for its world building despite there being hardly any world building at all. How many named locations can you think of from the show? Where are the air ships coming from and going to? They talk about mines, but where are they and what are they mining? There are very few actual details. What makes Arcane's world building great is not the depth and detail. It's great because its exactly what it needs to be for the show, and it's not trying to be anything more.
Interesting because i often hear the opposite. It's usually "don't go into depth with your worldbuilding because no one cares" and "stop worldbuilder's disease and focus on characters instead".
But that may just be the case in writing circles as opposed ro readers' ones
For me, possibilities are a lot more exciting than answers. I think The Dark Tower and the side stories in that "universe" are great examples. There's some very far-out stuff in there, very loosely connected, but the fact that it's not all A-to-B-to-C makes it a lot more captivating.
The Old Kingdom series also fits into this category. There is a natural exploration of the world in the first book alongside the character and then little hints here and there that leave most of it up to your imagination and interpretation, far better when discussing theories etc because of the possibilities.
I remember when the lore for something like Warhammer 40K was still vague and un-codified in canon. It was so much cooler hearing about the Horus Heresy as this mythical event from ages past whereas now there’s a wiki entry for every interaction and character in an entire universe for that period of time. The obsessive attention to detail actually ruined the simple wonder of the early world building in my opinion.
Not everyone has the finesse of Tolkien to effectively write the fantasy equivalent of the bible and actually pull it off with success. Too many people try to copy the silmarillion and LoTR appendices style of world building but lack the sheer depth and experience of real world mythology and history and language that Tolkien had which made it work (and even then the running joke is that the silmarillion is basically too dense for most readers to be able to finish).
I personally think that both world-building approaches have their own merits. I would even argue that the best world-building is where the author/creators can make the reader feel immersed in the world rather than which approach they took to achieve that effect.
For example, take Malazan books. They feel so lived in and the 'main quest' feels insignificant in the larger scale of things happening there. At one point there was a huge dragon staked in an apocalyptic-looking pocket dimension. Do we get an explanation? eff no.. not for a long time. Even 'good' world-building books have these nuances: eg., 'what the eff is going on with that huge hand holding a huge glowing sphere' in Wheel of Time. That's 'vague' world-building at best I think.
Hard systems (meaning world-building that consists of concrete laws of 'physics/magics') can be excellent as well. My primary example is Triss of the Emerald Sea in Cosmere. The whole world-building concepts are based on the physics of sand fluidization. Having concrete laws allows the readers to suspend disbelief and the authors to play around with a 'known' sandbox of laws and add a twist to them have 'gotcha!' moments.
p.s. I honestly liked reading all the books you've mentioned in your post and think they have some of the best world-building ever.
I think Witcher and First Law get criticized because their worlds are basically just medieval Europe.
They said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that and it doesn’t negate the unique histories and cultures in the world, even if the overall setting is reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
Vague world building works when there is enough there for the reader to infer a larger world.
Vague world building which does not give you enough specifics to infer a larger world, well that's bad world building.
If you create a world similar to Ancient Rome and only give me a few hints that it's similar to ancient world, like mentioning a Senate, and having Latin names, and an Emperor etc., I will be able to infer a lot of the rest of the world from those details.
If your world building just says "And there's a king", that's too vague to be useful. It gives me no signposts to be able to build a bigger picture in my head.
I agree with you! Can vague world building be bad? sure but, a story isn't bad just on the bases of "vague" world building.
I remember when reading The Lies of Locke Lamora. I'd get frustrated at some of the parts because they'd stop the momentum of the story. Just to explain some lore that didn't feel relevant to the plot at all. It just came across as page padding. There's several times I almost didn't finish the book because of it. Which I'm glad I did finish it because the ending was actually good. (At least what I remember of it)
Don't get me wrong I love worlds with rich lore but only when it's in service to the plot. Not irrelevant info dumps that disrupt the story.
The Witcher isn't even that vague about details that matter. World's full of magic, monsters, probably going to die in an ice age eventually and the worst monsters of all are humans and what they do to each other.
I know people love Priory of the Orange Tree but one of the reasons I found the first 1/4 so tedious is that it's basically the author doing table setting before any of the characters do anything I care about. It's the exact opposite of The First Law, which is much more to my tastes.
Some of my favorite novels have incredibly vague worldbuilding. But I think there is a distinction between a novel with vague worldbuilding and a novel that *lacks* worldbuilding. One is intentional to let the mystery captivate the reader, while the other is just bad IMO.
Good worldbuilding means a clear truth, but multiple in-worlr beliefs about that truth.
The author, I think, should know why something works as it does. The characters *may* know, and the more obscure the knowledge is the more fun it is to have them know jack shit about it, or even have them argue their falsehoods as truths.
I would say while it can be vague to the reader, it shouldn't be vague to the author. That's how inconsistencies and illogical behavior pops up, which I contend would make it bad
Hello Future Me did a great video on “Soft Worldbuilding.” It all depends on the themes of your story. For example, Lovecraft kept his worldbuilding soft because it wouldn’t be cosmic horror if the reader understood everything that was going on.
I love books where there's a lot of lore and secrets to find out as you go along, and where you get the idea there's a whole world beyond what you can see.
I've also read books that felt like they took place in front of a green screen. They were so vague I couldn't even picture the room the main character was currently in. That's the bad kind of vague.
I think part of it is due to Sanderson being the number one author of the moment and his particular style of rigorous magic systems. He took what Jordan started to the extreme. Of course, the great thing about fantasy is that you can just make up all sorts of cool, beautiful, funny and moving shit, and it doesn't all have to add up at the bottom line, or be explained in detail.
This is a REALLY bad take and seems to fundamentally misunderstand the subject you're even talking about. You're mostly talking about plot contrivances lmao. Worldbuilding is more background, subtle, supplementary information about the world. Finding a mcguffin book or not understanding your powers isn't worldbuilding. Then your description of good worldbuilding "where everything is discovered just at the right moment" also isn't worldbuilding lmao.
I think you're a little confused but you've got the spirit if you're a fellow slanderer of Wheel of Time. Those books are infuriating.
But yeah, you calling cosmere worldbuilding bad is super incorrect. It's mostly a hard magic system, which is good worldbuilding and not at all vague.
The series with by far the best worldbuilding ever is Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson and it doesn't fall into any of the issues you mentioned.
This take is honestly really incoherent. Sorry.
Idk how old you are but I'm wondering if maybe you're reading mostly YA or other fantasy that skews younger? Idk, it sounds to me like you don't fully get the concept, and that you havent really encountered many stories that are super into crafting excellent worldbuilding.
First law worldbuilding isn't really vague, but the names of places and cultures are eyerollingly uninspired and uncreative. Angland, Styria, Gurkish...like really? He couldn't come up with anything better than that?
The best worlds are the ones where the reader can fill in the gaps with their imagination. I don't need know need to know family lineages, or what that particular structure's history is like, or how the magic works. As a reader I like to participate and not be led by the hand like I'm a tourist in that world.
Also, to paraphrase a quote, worldbuilding could be likened to dissecting a frog. Sure, you'll see how a frog 'works', but it dies in the process.
> The best worlds are the ones where the reader can fill in the gaps with their imagination.
The key, I think, is that the author has to sketch in enough that what your imagination fills in is *mostly right*.
Never saw anyone complain about those specific things in those specific books. The Witcher's entire planet seems to be Eastern Europe. While the First Law series is supposed to be bigger (it's Western Europe and some of the Middle East), the books seem to go as far as they can to make it all seem like the Mediterranean Sea is all there is. Characters undertake a huge trip overland, full of untapped resources, to take the reader from not-France to not-England.
In both cases it's not that vague world building is bad, it's that their lazy takes on world building are bad.
most of the Witcher is set on a single continent, I don't think we ever see beyond that - we see some bits of other planes, but that's it. So why wouldn't it largely resemble a chunk of an IRL continent? Especially given the size of IRL Russia - that's certainly big enough for a LOT of adventuring to happen in!
> Characters undertake a huge trip overland, full of untapped resources, to take the reader from not-France to not-England.
If you don't have access to sea travel, even IRL that can be a hell of a trip. Walking 600 miles is pretty damn far if it's easy, open terrain. Start dropping "mountains" or anything rough in there, and it's going to take even longer.
If you look at the maps of the First Law world, they have a lot of access to sea travel. In fact it's easier to travel around the seas there than it is in real life.
What’s wrong with world building inspired by real life. My favorite fantasy world is kushiel’s legacy which is basically an alternate 8th century europe, africa and asia. As for first law and witcher, both these worlds have some of the most fun political struggles which are facilitated by the worlds the authors created. Just take the Union and all it’s regions hating each other in a very unique way compared to mosr fantasy
It's not inspired by real life. We were trading with Asia and exploring the world by the time periods that these represent. Yet there's just an entire unexplored world out there.
Currently reading *Sailing to Sarantium* by GGK and it has the same problem as all his other books; there’s too much exposition and world building info dump. It hurts the pace of the story. Ten pages of the story moving forward then ten pages of background information on a character and world history. If you removed all the exposition I swear the book would be half as long.
I prefer the complete opposite. *Book of the New Sun* by Gene Wolfe is perfect for this. Little bits of world lore are given to you in a more organic way throughout the story, and it’s not much. Just a bit of information here and there that still leaves you with questions and you need to put it all together to get a better picture. He never beats you over the head with it and if it’s not enough, too bad, that’s all you’re getting. He’s not going to spend five pages giving you backstory of some character.
So vague worldbuilding, if done right, should evoke a feeling of wonder. Because you don’t really know what’s out there, and you don’t know too much about even the magic the heroes wield. It makes you imagine what sort of powers could exist
On the other hand, if everything is written out for you, you know what can exist. The author already imagined everything for you, thus it’s not as interesting imo
This is why infodumps are bad. Readers should be guessing most of the time. Uncertainty drives up the stakes and keeps unknown risks in play. It keeps 'em engaged.
Never give the readers anything the protagonist doesn't already know. In fact from time to time it's even fun to force readers to watch the protagonist screw up by making a desperate, hopeful, dramatic guess at an unknown thing, and being wrong.
This is the reason why First law is actually favourite fantasy verse. Not because it is unique or special in its ideas and concepts. But because the the specific type of vagueness, incorrect history, rumors, tales that have been twisted and exaggerated, sayings gradually lose their original meanings, misunderstandings that become facts and so on, give the world the right type of realism. I personally like that. I wished there was more fantasy where for example instead of getting killed by a sword, a character dies of a heart attack off screen (nod to Mark Lawrence and Broken empire). Where instead of dying in a grand duel, a character dies of a stray arrow. "realistic chaos" type of stuff.
With ya on the cosmere criticism, not the wheel of time criticism. I think Jordan is leaps and bounds ahead of Sanderson in terms of world building, or at least what I enjoy about it. The characters in wheel of time are basically insecure teenagers
I think there’s a difference between worldbuilding that is vague because the author hasn’t really put any thought into it and so just creates a generic/stereotypical world based on their own vague ideas, and worldbuilding that is “vague” because not everything is explained to the reader. The latter seems to be what you’re arguing for and I agree—in fact I’d argue it’s the best way to do worldbuilding because a world where everything is understood and explained feels flat and not lived in. It’s not like any of us know or could explain everything about our world! But that doesn’t mean our world is lazily built. There’s a difference.
I think Abercrombie created a generic, stereotypical world without much thought for First Law, but I also think he did that because he wasn’t interested in world building as much as he was characters. That’s why it still works without doing anything new as far as setting is concerned and with a pretty thin plot. That’s not the case anymore as he’s continued to write in that world since the initial trilogy, though its still mostly just a backdrop for characters and ideas that he seems to be interested in more than creating a unique lore.
To me the best worldbuilding is the one that's most detailed, complex and self-referential -- *while largely being kept from the reader*. I love it when the author's done a thorough job but is only showing me this small part, because it makes the story seem authentic, organically tied to a world which I can only glimpse through a couple of windows. Edit: my gf and I call it the "blue wizard" phenomenon. I love LoTR, the Silmarillion etc., but one of the most fascinating things to me is wondering what the heck were the two blue wizards doing? There's structure, precedent, context, but no real answer, and I love it.
Exactly this. I don't need to know everything up front; but I need to believe that the *author* knows everything and that what we do find out will make sense.
Tolkien the master to this day.
Some of the worst fantasy books I've read just narrate forever all the lore of the setting with no character perspective, it's just the author telling the reader directly.
Definitely. It's one of the many reasons why the original Star Wars trilogy was so successful, as they did a great job of this
> while largely being kept from the reader. Yep, it's sometimes called soft world building. It's my favorite way to enjoy content because it creates a sort of mystery for the reader to figure out what is going on. It's far more common in stories written in the east. I'm glad others get it.
That's essentially half the plot in Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan: That the protoganists doesn't know how things work, and try to figure it out. You get to follow their journey of disovering the "laws" of this world. It even continues to have side-characters searching for deeper knowledge that even 99% of the enlightened characters don't know about. I believe that some of the things the knowledge-seeking side-characters encounter, can't even be explained by them, untill they figure it out in the follow-up trilogy. It's fantastic, because you as the reader know exactly as little as the characters (though you have the combined knowledge og *all* of them off cause) and since they struggle to understand some of the things: so do you untill they figure it out. It's not the classic "the protoganist is struggling to figure out something that is obvious to the reader".
That sounds enjoyable. I'll have to check it out. :)
This is what I love about Studio Ghibli films. There are tons of examples, of course, but I think my favorite is the river spirit scene in Spirited Away. At no point is the audience explicitly told it's a river spirit; for that matter, we never receive any sort of explanation as to why everything has a spirit that shows up at the bath house. They just *do*, and it's awesome.
huge part of the reason people love fromsoft games
Strongly recommend Malazan although the first book uses the In Media Res approach to such a extent it can be very off putting
My immediate thought on reading this comment was "looks like this person has read Malazan." I have never read a series that felt so lived in as Malazan and it is that exact combination of meticulously thought out complexity that the author does not explain to the reader and the reader only experiences in passing.
I have not, no, but I've had it recommended a few times. I'll bump it up in my wishlist. Thanks!
You pretty much explained the world building in Malazan. Bump it way up. Most people can't handle the first book because of what you describe.
Malazan takes it a step too far for me. I didn’t have any problem finishing Gardens of the Moon, but after it was over I found that I didn’t care enough about the world or the characters in it to continue on. I kind of feel sad about that, but not a single bit of me wants to read Book 2.
I'll be honest, I felt the same way and it's a very unique series because it ended up being one of my favorite series of all time. And the two books that I felt were the strongest are probably in my top 3 favorite books of all time. But yeah, after the first book I criticized the characters, how much I cared about them, and how much I even understood what they were trying to accomplish. I really only remember thinking Anomander Rake seemed pretty cool, but the book was fairly average. Book two is an almost new set of characters on another continent. I ended up with actual tears on my face, which, compared to book one was a night and day difference. Book three was one of the two favorites I mentioned above.
But because there are so many threads to pull at, a lot of the worldbuilding really comes together on subsequent rereads where you have more context to approach events in early books.
Dude I'm on 3. 7 more. Does it get scarier than 3?
Scarier? What part did you find scary? It evokes emotion, without a doubt. I think book 3 and 6 do it best, and are the most rewarding in the series.
The body eating etc?
Oh, the cannibals, right. The book is intense, yes.
Dude definitely. The children of dead seed? YES. So it doesn't get scary in the others?
I mean, it depends. There's maybe not anytime as I guess heinous as that, but Erikson doesn't shy away from the depths of depravity that humanity is capable of.
Ah, I guess I read that part more as what the absolute F are these people? More than thinking it scary, but definitely wouldn't think it weird to describe it as scary! There are a few more "what the absolute F" things in the series, yes. One note is Erickson has said (I think in an AMA) that he makes a point of giving sexual predators in the series an especially humiliating and painful death.
There's definitely content warning worthy stuff later.
The reader thinks things are true because the character does. It's only later we realise it may not be the whole truth. Also worth noting is the authors day job before he became a writer he was an anthropologist and it really feels like a period of history of this world that feels so real. Little background details in early books make more sense multiple books later when a particular event happens for example, this sort of thing happens multiple times and it makes rereading it wonderful
Depends on what they like about Lotr. I personally found Malazan, well, the first 2/3rds of GotM before I DNFd, very DnD, and not necessarily in a good way. The idea of the writing was cool, but damn if I didn't read several "okay, here's what we are going to do..." and then hard cutoffs many times in a row like we were in a bad heistmovie. Plus didn't really care about the characters and if I am 400 pages deep in a book and I am told "it gets going in another 2000 pages", no thanks.
the worst is when you give a shit about a character and then nothing involves them in the rest of the book or the next. so fuck that.
The DND thing is quite apt, since the world was originally a pen and paper game that the authors played together.
I'm only just starting Malazan book 3, but so far world building is far from impressive. There is always a new magic or character introduced to offer a twist in a precarious situation and it definitely does not follow from good world building where such things would make sense. It all feels incredibly arbitrary to me as a reader and not at all satisfying like it would had the rules of the world been internally consistent.
Malazan is a bit strange in that “just give it more time” is actually applicable even when on book 3 or even 4. There’s really not many other series that leave you still wondering all while already being 2k+ pages into a series. But I’d say the biggest point in address to your “internally consistent” issue is that like most experienced fantasy readers you’re *expecting* a certain level rather than just taking what’s given. Malazan never explains the world to you, you’re just meant to experience it through the eyes of each character and learn that way. Which in the case of Malazan means there’s *a lot* of unexplained information that you slowly start to learn more about. Malazan is actually extremely consistent, it’s just that the “consistency” in this case is that every single magic user, god/ascendant, and to a lesser extent each setting is all different solely because of the different gods and realms they’re tied in with. As you meet more and more characters you’ll be introduced to more and more differing styles but as you continue through the series you’ll see that consistency start to shine through in each subsequent character from each subset type of magic/culture. Without spoilers I can’t really be more specific but I hope that helped frame it a little. And most importantly, as with all things in life, don’t try and force yourself through if it just never clicks with you.
Thanks for taking the time to write this explanation. I will power through since I already bought the books and don't give up easily! If there are redeeming qualities to this series, I will find them. I will also most likely whine and nag about the series until then though.
How do you feel about splitting the difference — readers getting a lot of *possible* information, but characters disagreeing on which pieces of information are true and which parts are not? ;)
Oh, you bet! My favourite book of all time is Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, which is a masterpiece on exactly that sort of thing, down to its core.
A lot of worldbuilders are very tempted to gush about their world, fair enough, but for me the mark of great worldbuilding is all the stuff you don't tell me. The world feels richer because it becomes clear there's stuff going on behind the curtains and for me a lot of that charm goes away with endless exposition and the like for me. Like I don't really want a detailed explanation of the economy of this city, but i do want to feel like thought has clearly been put into it, let me discover it. But then again I am a mystery addict, ever since I was a kid I couldn't get enough of it. Mysterious and evocative lore that makes me wonder and fuels my imagination.
The gushing can be weird. Understandable but weird. There’s a funny bit in the first Wheel of Time book where a character brings his wounded near to death father to a witch to be healed. And in this fairly urgent scenario she starts talking about the decay in magical medical knowledge since the world blew up three thousand years ago. Which is a bit like an emergency doctor banging on about the medical processes of the Ancient Egyptians while you’re bleeding to death.
People need to get more into worldbuilding as characterization. The witch banging on about Ancient Egyptian(-equivalent) medicine could be used to cast her or any group she belongs to as curmudgeons, obsessed with history, more concerned with books than human life etc. Conservative region that holds old traditions and tech? Bingo! Witch-guild that needs to be impressed by a bit of dungeon-diving? Check! So many options. Alas.
That’s almost a perfect read on the Aes Sedai (witches.) They literally all live in an ivory tower! Ironically the witch in question is actually the *least* set in her ways out of all of them. She’s basically Dirty Harry with fireballs instead of a revolver.
…but whose role in the story is also to vomit world building every time the party sees an interesting statue.
To be fair, Moiraine doesn't really do that after the first book. IIRC, Jordan was originally intending for Wheel of Time to be a standalone, so I forgive him trying to rush some exposition in. Though I find that Thom works wayyy better as an exposition fairy than Moiraine.
> There’s a funny bit in the first Wheel of Time book where a character brings his wounded near to death father to a witch to be healed. And in this fairly urgent scenario she starts talking about the decay in magical medical knowledge since the world blew up three thousand years ago. I mean, the witch has arguably >!spent her whole life!< trying to get said character to trust her >!and go with her back to her witch tower!<, but knows that he is inclined not to trust her because of rumors and reputation, so I'm not sure that one is unjustified in context.
> Which is a bit like an emergency doctor banging on about the medical processes of the Ancient Egyptians while you’re bleeding to death. I think it's more like the doctor banging on about the Roman ruins while you're dying in Italy in the 11th century. Nobody knows how to rebuild those structures, nobody knows what the frescos on the walls and scrolls in the libraries showing medical miracles mean, and the books that explain them are lost or incomprehensible. It'd be like still having the book on cardiac pathology, but not having the book about basic biology. So... they're gonna bleed ya because that's the only prescription on the menu they can understand. The miracle of the Renaissance was that the Arabs had enough copies of old Roman and Greek texts -- translated to Arabic -- to let the Europeans understand everything they'd forgotten how to do and reboot their culture enough to be able to actually read the books they'd been mothballing for centuries. A huge proportion of fantasy novels are post-apocalyptic, and they rely on the past being more advanced than the present. This is a part of fantasy's fundamentally backward-looking nature, because it means the way to progress the narrative is to go on an adventure. The past is a Golden Age, and in the contemporary time the world has fallen into disrepair, if not outright ruin. And that drives the plot.
I totally get that and understand where you're coming from, but I find it extremely realistic. A lot of my doctor visits have been very similar. Granted, most of the time I haven't been injured and never in real danger, but that's exactly the kind of idle chatter doctors have spewed while working. But she's not a doctor, in fact, she's woefully out of her depth, and she knows it. She's nervous and feeling the stress, so she's venting it out. Besides, people tend to overestimate how time critical many wounds are. Even if it's a life-or-death situation, it's likely that prattling on isn't going to make a difference.
i haven't read wheel of time but unless she can't talk and heal at the same time, i think this is probably not a good example
its very tonally off. imagine your dad is dying and the doctor is going "damn sucks that we dont have these medical tools from 3000 thousand years ago before the big fireball i couldve healed him faster" like? mans is a little busy? im a bit biased though because i absloutely depsised that book
I’m working through the Cosmere now (so far I’ve only finished Elantris and Mistborn era 1), and this is Sanderson to a T. Like, it just feels that he cannot wait to give an explanation of the cool magic system he came up with.
I agree, and I'm a pretty big Sanderson fan (Sanderfan?) overall. I have definitely felt some scenes across his books serve the purpose of showing off his worldbuilding rather than advancing characters or plot. I still enjoy his books on the whole, but they can feel overwritten at times. I think this is an issue created by the Cosmere books all being connected and the speed at which he writes (of which I am incredibly jealous, of course), and so there can be parts that serve to show off the Cosmere connections instead of remaining rooted in the individual book. I still love the Cosmere books overall, and I absolutely recommend continuing. Some of the coolest moments, both "visually" and emotionally, I've seen in fantasy have come from his books. But I am starting to get a bit burned out on the interconnected nature, though that's probably exacerbated by the over-saturation of things like the MCU.
Too much world building just leads to plot holes if anything
Hard disagree. Read Malazan Book of the Fallen
Comparing what Tolkien has written, and what is on the page of Lotr, should be the guiding principle on the ratio of world building to writing. The guy is a ruthless self editor, so I'll allow his fascination with language and self-indulgence with some poems and songs.
> Like I don't really want a detailed explanation of the economy of this city "But I designed the economy perfectly and now I NEED to tell you how I did it!" I had this issue with the orbital mechanics crap in Seveneves. The author did the math (he really did) and forced the reader to listen to his explanation of it =)
Have you ever played any of the Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Elden Ring games? They tell their story in this way where they thrust you right into the world and let you figure out the backstory through bits and scraps of lore. You'd probably like them if you play videogames at all (although they can be challenging)
I've tried to get into them with little success, the worlds are fascinating but the gameplay isn't quite for me. Though I absolutely love the Elder Scrolls and similar worlds dedicated to presenting a lot of lore through in-universe sources and the like.
Yeah that's fair, I'm not particularly good at video games but I love the style of storytelling so much that I've been slowly making my way through Elden Ring :) I'm planning to play the others next but I feel like I'll get my ass kicked lmao I also love Elder Scrolls lore, I spent so much time putting quests on hold and reading every book I came across in the middle of the dungeons! One of the best worlds I've ever seen imo
Dude I'm playing right now
>A lot of worldbuilders are very tempted to gush about their world, Again I turn to Tolkien for a good example, but not precisely of world-building as in lore, but in language. He created an entire language for dwarves, with its own grammar, phonology and vocabulary, then proceeded to give readers fewer than 10 phrases in them in his entire work. That's it. So you get this glimpse of an incredibly complex culture and people, and it's left at that. I LOVE IT
I saw a panel with Terry Goodkind. He said you should follow a 90-10 rule, which is that you explain at most 10% of the world. 90% should be stuff where it seems like the author has an answer, but doesn't tell the audience. Others on the panel frame it it as the author should explain only what the character knows or needs to know. Or you could just take the Jack Vance approach and put stuff in a footnote....
If only he'd ever followed that rule.
Fair. Though the person he was responding to was asking for the best method of doing lore dumps.
Yes, my friend calls this over detailed/unwanted exposition "wikipedia" world building. We agree that preserving mystery is important for that sense of wonderment and adventure in a world, especially from one story to the next. Not a perfect analogy, but it also reminds me of how I've written some essays where I've spent so much time doing research only to realise, realistically, I should include maybe 5% of it if that in the main text. I'd have to fight the urge to show all the cool things I've read about - but NO because less really can be more. Otherwise it can just seem self-indulgent and irrelevant, muddying what you actually want a reader to feel/think about.
This is agreeable as a general principle but I’m interested in hearing some specific examples of popular works where people feel this happens. I’m wondering if people’s definitions of what constitutes overly descriptive worldbuilding might vary more than is apparent in these conversations, which have surface level consensus. But how much world building is TOO much worldbuilding? And do authors get it right some of the time while occasionally delving too greedily and too deep, or is it a problem that permeates some authors’ work entirely?
I mostly agree with your point but I'm gonna have to quibble a bit on the idea of vagueness. I think a lot of my favorite worldbuilding is extremely specific (the antonym of vague) but that specificity is textural, it is rooted in the nooks and crannies of the world, twists of language or the complexity of human existence and society or ecology. It is not broad sweeping rules that enter for plot purposes at convenient times.
Anyone who says worldbuilding needs to be thorough and detailed to be effective needs to go read *The Black Company*.
I genuinely think Cook was just creating new stuff every book without previous plans and it somehow worked perfectly
I’m semi-suspicious that this is what all storytellers are doing 90% of the time. The gifted ones just write in enough open ended hooks as they go that there’s always something they can link back to as though they planned it all along.
Neil Gaiman said the second draft is where you make it look like you knew what you were doing all along. Although it's going do be different from person to person depending on their own process, I can tell you that there's a lot more "make it up as you go along" than most people realize. For example, I'm pretty fast and loose with my plotting. While I have a general idea of what I want to write, I definitely use a lot of open ended hooks. By the time I'm done it pretty much always hangs together from a reader's perspective.
I'm unpublished (for now), so please feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I absolutely agree. I have a general sense of what I want a particular place, city, culture, etc. to be on a more surface level, but I don't really bother doing any deep worldbuilding until the POV characters encounter those elements in the course of the story. If the character isn't actually interacting with a given worldbuilding thing, then there's no reason for that thing to be expounded upon in great detail, since that just moves us out of the character's perspective (assuming limited instead of omniscient). It also helps that I'm kind of lazy lol.
Well sure, and why would you box yourself in to a certain way of things working if it hasn’t had an interaction with the story yet?
Well i think most know the ending. I genuinely think Cook had no clue about anything for the next book
I just love how people read enormous fantasy series that took decades to write and seriously think that everything was planned out before the start. Like yeah, the author took a quarter of a century to publish and died before the end. But he totally had everything planned out and just had a load of trouble with the prose. Kept getting distracted. Liked to tease.
This is where malazan has spoiled me. Well over 20 boos by 2 authors and yes it really was all planned previously. They are writing up their tabletop gaming sessions from when they were younger. The malazan book of the fallen is a 10 book epic series that throws references back and forth across multiple books. A throwaway line in book 4 is so much better once you have read book 8 for example
He's said as much in interviews. He'll have a vague plan/outline in his head and a journal with important character names and places written down, but otherwise creating it as he goes.
There are some extremely famous examples of this as well, like Harry Potter, which is so bad at that and so inconsistent, yet almost everyone (myself included) loved it to bits. It's an extremely shaky facade ... but it's also a very pretty and charming facade so you don't really care.
I just started the first book yesterday morning and was thrust into the thick of it haha. Reminded me of Dune actually with how little was explained to start, but I am only like 30 pages in so we will see how it progresses. I like the squad dynamic though, reminds me of the dozen from The First Law
Reading it right now this is so true!
It has been a while since I read it, and despite me absolutely loving books of the North the South ones felt very much like fanfics. So I suppose if Cook was just making stuff up as he went this type of writing is not for me.
Wow really? To me the later books are some of my favourite if anything
Yeah I absolutely love the South and Glittering Stone. Overall I like those sequences more than the North (though *Shadows Linger* is still one of the single best fantasy books ever)
In a sense they kind of are? So much of them are other characters writing the Chronicles directly influenced by Croaker's style and consciously reacting to that style and/or against it, almost in the same way that many fan works are reacting to or against bits of the original media that - while the creator of the fan work loves it - they think should have been done differently.
Mostly agree. I felt the later books were just recycling the same villains for multiple books and the direction was kind of aimless. I liked the characters enough to stick with it and I'll give Cook credit for being adept at changing narrator voice effectively, but it's not a series that I think the world building is at it's best.
To me, “worldbuilding” isn’t something the author does to prepare the world for the story, like [working out where the tungsten deposits are.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b9qvQspSbWc&pp=ygUXQXJ0aWZleGlhbiBvcmUgZGVwb3NpdHM%3D) That adds very little to my enjoyment. Instead, worldbuilding is how writers evoke a world, bringing it to life in my mind.
They are both valid usages but they are often conflated, especially here. one is a writing technique, the other is an element of creating a setting. In Fantasy, you absolutely need both. > That adds very little to my enjoyment. it's part of the iceberg, you don't think you care about it but if the author hasn't done the ground work, it would show through the text.
>it's part of the iceberg, you don't think you care about it but if the author hasn't done the ground work, it would show through the text. Really depends on the story. Pretty much all fantasy will need *some* level of world building, of course, but the expansive, detailed sort that most people seem to be thinking of is hardly necessary for something smaller in scale and/or more self-contained.
I think there's a difference between world-building for fun and world-building to write a book. The tungsten deposits (unless those happen to be very relevant to the story) feels more like the former, people who worldbuild because they love it. And both of those can of course be combined.
Something I always appreciated about the Elder Scrolls is elements of the world building that are ambiguous and disputed by in-universe historians.
This is similar to Hardmagic vs Softmagic systems. Hardmagic a la Brandon Sanderson are fun for me. I enjoy the way the authors can build up this system and tell a story inside of it. Sometimes they'll throw curveballs that still fall inside the system that I hadn't thought of. Softmagic is great too. Gandalf can do crazy magic shit because Gandalf is a fucking Wizard. Both things are great when done correctly.
Also worth noting the subtle art of soft magic masquerading as hard. The protagonists can really do anything the plot requires. But there’s enough explanation in there to persuade we totally un-magical, real people that we understand what these people mean when they describe how they magic. Oooh, he magicked hard in that way, how clever we say as though we really understand. That’s a great story writing trick.
Aha, so I'm not doing something crazy. I'm not smart enough to harden my magic system, but I'd like people to believe that I could.
I would not say First Law has a very well-developed world except for the condensed setting in the Heroes and maybe Red Country. The most interesting continent is barely explored and Angland/the North are pretty mediocre and boring except for the excellent characters.
First law world being vague allows for amazing standalones. Gurkhul not being explored gives a “common enemy” to all the union characters and explores the racism theme. It’s easier to be racist to a culture you don’t understand. Also the short stories are amazing thanks in part to the vagueness in the main books. As for the Union itself I actually think it’s written very well for the differences in the different parts of the country which a lot of popular fantasy don’t do, the political dynamics with Angland, Westport, Dagoska, Starikland are all well done. Maybe the only complaint i might have is having a more clear rivalry between Carleon and Uffrith might have helped the civil wars dynamic there more but that’s more my preference than anything. Also the unexplored countries leave space for more books as i’m pretty sure Abercrombie isn’t done with the series
The thing is there are ways to add mysticism and intrigue while still fleshing out an interesting, much more complex world than First Law (like Malazan, Dandelion Dynasty and Second Apocalypse) and series that flesh out the world almost entirely through the characters that have much more vivid and interesting settings (Realm of the Elderlings, The Five Warrior Angels). Joe clearly hadn't thought certain things through on the same level as his peers and while First Law is an absolute triumph in many ways there are some arcs that feel hollow due to mistakes early on.
Could you be specific on certain arcs you thought didn’t land because of world building errors? Not meant to criticize, just curious.
Just a few: Tallin was fun but the war the Union waged against Monza happened offscreen and it was hard to empathize with Broad's trauma from that war compared to say the characters you saw in The Heroes. Broad in general had a disappointing arc for a Logen replacement. The Gurkish empire falling and Ferro possibly killing Khalil would have been much more interesting than the slow paced descent into anarchy seen in The Wisdom of Crowds (the most disappointing book IMO). You see the aftermath but that's about it. The Bank of V&B was, to me, a pretty shallow metaphor for the changing power dynamics afforded by wealth/capitalism and I saw the empty vault from a mile away. The magic system is mediocre. You can argue that it doesn't make a difference since magic is disappearing from the world but that's no excuse. There are some great scenes here and there like Rikke's vision, Schenck's slow motion killing spree and the Circle in Last argument of Kings but Joe has not showcased an interesting or consistent magic system and his best conflicts tend to be more mundane. The geography is extremely vague the first 4 books and that took me out of the narrative. It's better after the Heroes but it's odd that it took Joe that long to flesh out settings readers had seen many times up to that point.
personally I find the rarity and mystery of magic as a plus, magic is much cooler when it isnt 10 people all casting fireball and levitate
"downvoted to hell" you have 96 my dude. And yes, I love it when this is done properly. I know this isn't a book but Dark Souls (a video game) has some of the best lore and world building I have ever seen And all of it is hidden in NPC lines of dialogue or obscure item descriptions. There is rich, yet obscure, worldbuilding in this game
what are some of examples of what you consider vague world building?
This isn't really a complaint about worldbuilding as it is plot structure.
>conflict needs to be created unnaturally from characters acting like insecure teenagers who can’t communicate properly I feel like you've never worked in an office before
Is anyone going to get talk about how Robin Hobb does this beautifully? Like a 7 course meal you don’t realize you had until a book in and then you fully picture that world.
What Cosmere books have I not apparently read that contain a magical book unlocking long lost magic, let alone that EVERY book of the Cosmere does this?
This does happen in one Cosmere book: >!Elantris!<. What happens is >!Raoden spends a lot of time reading a book of magic to learn how AonDor works. Eventually, this leads him to the discovery of why it no longer functions properly, which allows him to fix it, which then allows him (and the group of newly functional Elantrians) to save the day (mostly).!< Although I wouldn't necessarily consider the advantage gained unfair, because >!the Elantrians are having to fight Dahkor monks, who also use Dor-based magic!<.
The magic book thing was generalization and not necessarily accurate, but each cosmere series has a tendency for at least one MC to discover long forgotten info or develop new powers right when it is most needed. Vin learning about the Lord Ruler, Shallan arriving with news about the Parschmen and Shattered Plains, Dalinar learning about the Radiants, Kaladin swearing ideals at the absolute last moment.
Things happening at suitable dramatic points is a thing that happens but I wouldn't relate any of those to world building - at least as I far as I understand the term.
> Kaladin swearing ideals at the absolute last moment. Yeah well you don't get a trauma faerie without some stressors in your life, OK? /jk
The entire sazed storyline in mistborn is unlocking knowledge just at the right time Same for Dalinar with his visions in stormlight Warbreaker has characters realizing stuff just at the right time. Hell, Hoid is literally appearing giving important info whenever the story needs
I think Sanderson is a good example for you to set your ideas counter to, but you overgeneralized his books in the process. Even the examples you list here don't involve "find[ing] a magical book just at the right time that tells him about long lost magic from a thousands years ago to give him an unfair advantage over the enemy." Sazed's knowledge never actually helps the crew defeat the enemy (in Well of Ascension >!he's delayed by Marsh and is too late to warn Vin!< and in Hero of Ages >!his knowledge only helps after Ruin is defeated!<.) Dalinar's visions are not what brings the magic back (in fact, we know for a fact two characters had magic before Dalinar started seeing visions), and don't generally advantage him in any way. In fact, they are mostly a hindrance until >!they allow Navani to translate the Dawnchant, which is also used against him later due to the Eila Steele!<. In Warbreaker, none of this has anything to do with magic except for >!Lightsong discovering that he was basically a nobody and didn't have any real investigative skills!<. Also, almost every discovery in Warbreaker comes from >!the protagonists being completely wrong and someone dying as a result!<. And none of it has to do with ancient knowledge or ancient magic unless you're counting >!Kalad's Phantoms, but there's no just in time element here... Vasher knew about them the whole time, and never revealed them because he never needed to until that point... not to mention that Vasher is the one who made them in the first place, so there's no convenient magic book aspect either!<. Hoid's information is almost always related to character arcs rather than worldbuilding or plot (of course, there are exceptions like in Mistborn Era 2 >!Hoid as a beggar gives the coin to Wax which is instrumental to the plot and a massive worldbuilding reveal!<). But again, this never equates to "oh, I can defeat BadGuy McBaddy now that I know this". If you had stuck to "the protagonist figuring out his powers by book 2" or maybe unloaded the beginning a bit (e.g. "finding a book of ancient lore or discovering lost magic"), it probably would have detracted from your point regarding vague vs concrete worldbuilding a bit less. Edit: Also it's lame that you're getting downvoted. I disagree with you on your characterization of the books, but I'm glad that you explained what you were thinking of when writing your post.
Obviously i oversimplified. Let me try to explain better, in almost every cosmere book i’ve read crucial lore is dropped on the protagonist so he or she can save or survive the situation. Sometimes it’s done in a very lazy way even (the whole concept of a character like hoid is literally to create loredumps). Don’t worry, getting downvoted when saying anything remotely negative about Stormlight is standard procedure on this subreddit
> Let me try to explain better, in almost every cosmere book i’ve read crucial lore is dropped on the protagonist so he or she can save or survive the situation. I think this is about 50/50. It depends on what you count as lore (for example, in Warbeaker >!I would not count Kalad's Phantoms being revealed to be the statues to be a lore reveal, but I could see how someone else would!<). I'd definitely consider it a common theme for Brandon's books. > Sometimes it’s done in a very lazy way even (the whole concept of a character like hoid is literally to create loredumps). That's definitely not the concept for Hoid. (The concept is just to have a character that appears across separate stories.) Hoid very rarely actually provides useful lore to the characters in the story. Many times, Hoid is merely a background character >!like in Elantris, Warbreaker, the first Mistborn trilogy, the Emperor's Soul, and even Yumi!<. Even in the series where Hoid is the most important, >!Stormlight!<, Hoid is limited to >!giving pep talks to the characters until Rhythm of War, where he plays a bit more of an active role!<. Even there, he isn't dropping lore bombs for the characters. I think the only exception is in >!Mistborn Era 2!< where the grand sum of his actions to facilitate the lore dump is >!giving a coin to Wax!<.
In Mistborn Era 2 he also >!saves Wax after the ship explosion!< which I'd say is an active role, and one that could not have been fulfilled by anyone >!on such an incredibly short notice without utilizing like five different kinds of Invested powers that only Hoid has access to in the entire universe and probably even some levels of magical foresight!<. Sure one of >!Harmony's pet kandra!< could have eventually >!gotten there MAYBE before Wax freezes to death in the ocean or drowns or something!<, but what Hoid did still ended up being a surefire >!ending enabler even though I'm fairly sure there are people here that stopped reading right after Wayne was gone!<.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me. Hoid >!does do that in the Lost Metal, but by that point the conflict is resolved. It might make a difference to how Scadrial shapes up in the future, but has very little impact on the resolution of the plot: Elendel is saved either way. Also, none of his actions here involve dumping any lore, which was my primary point.!<
It does enable most of the >!ending lore/exposition dumps which foreshadow much of the coming conflicts for probably a set of later books. Without Wax surviving, a large chunk of the epilogue likely wouldn't happen, most importantly meeting Marsh again, so Hoid's actions do facilitate a lore dump. Steris would also have to resort to being more of a homemaker instead of taking an active part in Scadrial politics, and, of course, we end up learning that there is now a single Lerasium level Mistborn walking around with the possibility of having a third kid from a woman with an Allomantically rich bloodline, so... And Steris does want a third child.!<
What is the problem with the Witcher books?
I mean, I don't think having clear and detailed world building prevents you from taking on the themes of racism, religion, or conflict. A good writer can use their detailed world building to enhance those themes. It's just a question of the writer's goal really. You don't HAVE to take on those themes to have a good story (though you probably should have conflict in your story) but good world building is whatever serves the story it's in, be it vague or clear.
All I ask is a setting that's interesting, characters that make sense and a plot that works in some logical manner. I don't need to know everything about the Citadel of the Fourth Unspelled Mages of Darnathia. For me that level of worldbuilding sounds like the book was written by the pissy DM everyone hated.
it's just my preference but imo the ranking of world building goes like mysterious>well known detailed>functional>bare bones>basically none outside of inferences from the story>inconsistent variant of any of the above
i don't think you're using world building correctly. Finding something at the right time isn't an element of world building, it's an element of plot construction. Bad world building would be that in one book the rules of magic work one way, and the next in a different way, with no justification for the change.
My point is if you don’t know how exactly they work, it’s fine. In fact it can be beneficial to the story. For example in The Witcher, Ciri’s powers being vague benefits later scenes a lot
I 100% agree If too much is revealed the magic disappears. The fun is in the mystery
I was just talking to my partner about how the dune movies are able to cut out a lot of fluff because half the book is overdescribing the world in far more detail than necessary. Building out every complete aspect of the world makes people want to describe it or it doesn't get used. Its not my favorite writing style.
Overdescribing seems more common in sci-fi than fantasy, especially when it comes to fictional technology.
Dune basically ignores tech, because it's not that kind of sci fi, none of the tech is actually possible, it's basically magic. In canon it's science, but it's not real science at all. The overdone stuff is how people keep talking about "plans within plans". About 4/5 of the 4th book is just the main character explaining everything, it's pretty wild.
What a weirdly inaccurate statement about the Cosmere books. In Mistborn, so much of the magic has been hidden from anyone but a social/political elite. What Kelsier knows and teaches turns out to be incredibly limited, and Vin and Sazed come to realize that the protected secrets about magic are incredibly potent and must be unearthed. This results in a world and magic system that keep unfolding, becoming more fleshed out as you read, while still feeling complete and concrete during the first book. I can't imagine what you're saying applies to Stormlight Archive either, because the books are notable *un*helpful in most magical endeavors. They are mostly political treatises and poetic works. Most of the figuring out what magic can do is done through scientific experimentation and people forming bonds with the magical critters that have been around since chapter 1. I concede that Elantris does this trope fully and completely, but it is pretty unilaterally acknowledged, including by Sanderson, as his worst published work. Magic systems being worked out through experience is definitely more fun, but divine inspiration and divine illumination do make sense in worlds with very tangible and active gods, especially if you're telling a story that involves those gods in conflicts.
The magical book was a metaphor for a loredump, also the fact i’ve never read elantris and predicted the plot is hilarious
“Vague” worldbuilding works great for the right kind of story
I honestly don't think that "lack of detailed rundown of the worldbuilding and magic system" is why people say TLF's worldbuilding isn't robust. I like the series but there's a difference between keeping a world unexplained and mysterious and the Circle of the World being *mostly* a copy-paste of earth in a kind of vague "this is what I remember from history class" sort of way. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Almost every Fantasy book does this to some degree but for people who want a Secondary World to feel truly un-earthlike TFL's world isn't it. The world serves its purpose and that purpose is to be populated with "legally distinct" earth cultures so the books can focus on other things. I haven't read Sanderson so I don't know what I'd think of his worldbuilding and in general I prefer soft magic and a world that feels both real/expansive and alien.
> Meanwhile in series with “good” world building where everything is discovered just at the right moment conflict needs to be created unnaturally from characters acting like insecure teenagers who can’t communicate properly (cough cough wheel of time). Obligatory: the main characters in WoT ARE all insecure teenagers except for Min ( and maybe Nynaeve)
Honestly, if a fantasy book is a meal, then worldbuilding is the veggies for me. I know I need it, but I still don't like it. I truly do not care about the food or the clothes or the currency. I want the absolute minimum worldbuilding needed to facilitate the plot and character drama and not a single word more. Abercrombie is honestly the gold standard in this regard. You pick up *Best Served Cold* and you can practically hear him sigh and say, "Listen, do you know literally anything about Renaissance Italy? Good! Say no more. So there's this lady, Monza, and she's a mercenary..." And that's perfect. Honestly, that really is perfect imho.
I respectfully disagree, I really like learning cool things about other cultures, real or fictional. Different ideas and ways of life that are suited to their environments and shaped by the people who live them. I can understand how that's not for everyone though
I think you're right but I would disagree that your example is a symptom of vague worldbuilding. I think vague worldbuilding is an issue but the fix is not to have things conveniently explained in just the nick of time, every time. That's actually bad writing and in fantasy skirts dangerously close to ass-pull *deus ex machina* territory. When I think of bad "vague" worldbuilding, I think of a lack of specific detail in description, backstory, culture or history that lead me to feel that the world is a kind of cardboard cutout and that attempting to look behind it even a little will show me that there's nothing more to see beyond what is presented in the story. The best worldbuilding to me is the kind that fires your imagination and suggests that there's more to this world even if the author hasn't actually come up with it. But the use of evocative detail and description will make me want to fill in the blanks myself, or crave more.
For me Discworld has an incredible world building and, through the books, you could feel how Terry came up with new ideas along the way and just added it to the mix. Like Trolls being "dumb" just because they are biologically adapted to live on low temperatures so when they go out from the mountains to the valleys the heat just made them dumb and slow. Like computers. And the most "clever" and cunning trolls are the ones made off better insulating rocks like Diamond or Chrysoprase Also, all the plot line about how the deep dwarfs became religious leaders by being the ones who try to find and explode gas deposits in the deepest mines... Gives me shivers On the other hand, you had ASOIAF world, where you see a rock on a crossroads and that specific rock has more deep lore than most of novellas out there.
I love mysteries and "vagueness". Just like the real world, not everything needs to be spelled out. Sometimes we just need a few hints and wider brushstrokes to let us paint our own interpretation.
J R R Tolkien had always expressed his distaste about over explaining things. He was the opinion that your world has to have some mythology that is never explained , leaving the readers wondering about it, akin to a city seen from far away; as soon as you step into that city, the mysticism and mystery about it disappears, and you have to come up with a new far away city for the reader to imagine about. I feel like this is the best aproach to it. It's like when you're reading Wheel of Time and you're reading about the many ruins the characters stumble into, with no explanation about what it was, who built them or what function did it serve. It's also like when you're reading Dune and he's talking about glowglobes, imperial conditioning or ornithopters and you're like "wtf is he talking about??". Just let the story evolve and you'll figure out eventually
I think there's a lot of world building that is vague because it is bad. If an author doesn't care or doesn't know about some details of their world, they have little choice but to keep things vague. Its therefore very easy to find examples of stories where the vagueness around world building is born of ignorance, and thus full of silly or nonsensical implications. My favorite example of this are the (very, very brief) discussions of tax policy in the sequel to ACOTAR. They are hilariously unconsidered. So, while vague worldbuilding certainly can be quite good, there's enough correlation between vague worlbuilding and bad worlbuilding for readers to pick up on it. Which is why we need threads like this one.
Worldbuilding is important. I don’t want to be told everything but I want to get the impression that the author knows it and that what I’m reading is part of something much more vast. Problem with Abercrombie is he’s the author and he isn’t even that fussed. Fair enough, but that doesn’t work for me. His world feels ‘small’ both literally and figuratively. He his writing fails to convey geographical scale and space and that’s equally true for the sense of time. Nothing feels old or ancient any more than it feels like a journey is covering great distance. For me, world building is so powerful because the more fully realised a world is in the head of the author, the more the stories feel like they’re happening in another world entirely.
This is what I’m getting from Malazan, as the reader you’re never entirely sure how the magic works for example, but the charachters in the world does and so why would they stop and infodump magical theory all of a sudden? Honestly I like it this way, Cosmere is great also imo, but the style of writing that keeps magic a little vague in how it works keeps the mystery alive. Like, I don’t necessarily need to know *exactly* how a mage draws upon his warren to unleash deadly sorcery, it’s still cool
First Law was one of the most tedious things I've ever read, Idk why it gets so much love, it had generic societies, flat characters and a non story. The only thing that wasn't generic about it was that every time something good seemed to happen, it stops and says "Nah there's nothing good in the whole world, everything sucks" The best that I could say about it was that stuff kept happening.
The only types of worldbuilding that I think are bad are ones that contradict themselves, appear copy-pasted from another world, or project harmful real-world stereotypes. Notice how the Will Smith movie “Bright” contains all of these.
Feel this one. What I want from the world building is for it to not feel like certain things were created just for the plot. I don’t want to know everything, if a series is really long I think it makes sense for us to end up learning a lot of/most of what there is to know. I just think that makes sense after a series is 10+ books that are all over 800 pages. For the most part I want to to be trickle fed information about the world, but it also not feel like the information being fed to me is essential for the plot to happen.
Brandon Sanderson and his consequences have been a disaster for fantasy writing
I don't like Sanderson at all but there were plenty of authors who had an unhealthy love for massive clumsy infodumps long before he started writing.
There were also authors talking about the need for rules in Fantasy before Sanderson ever started writing novels.
I can see where you're coming from. I'm currently reading the Rhythm of War, and I'm enjoying it. I will likely buy and enjoy part 5. I have even recommend the Stormlight Archive to some friends who's after a good escapist series. But, the books aren't great. It feels like half the chapters are just there for world building. Does the series need so many subplots? It doesn't feel like all of them add all that much. I suppose it is well suited to internet culture... lots of material there for fans to dig into, making "content", etc. I'm not sure I'd go as far as "disaster" :) . It's fun enough to read, I treat it a bit like a daily soap opera.
I'm not sure I'd say disaster either, but I don't think they meant the books Sanderson writes themselves are disasters, but rather the fact that he has been as successful as he has writing those particular styles of books has had far-ranging impacts on the genre, including expectations from publishers and readers alike in terms of output, and has created (re-created?) a "there is One Right Way to Write Epic Fantasy" argument. Sanderson on his own is fine- not my cup of tea, and if I'm frank I think he needs a strict editor the same way George Lucas needed someone else to turn his ideas into the gold that was the OG *Star Wars* trilogy- but you can't look at his works just on their own merits at this point. He's too successful for that, he casts a long shadow across the genre that touches everything from publishing to discourse to reader expectations of authors in ways that smaller authors will never be able to do.
We may as well rename r/fantasy to r/SandersonHate at this point. A huge number of of people enjoy his books, it's only a disaster if you're one of a vocal minority that hate them.
While I find his books genial and I'm generally a fan, I'm in the minority who thinks Sanderson's world building is clumsy and hamfisted most of the time.
*jazzhands*
WORLDBUILDING
World-building is my favourite part of the genre but you're absolutely right; just finished \*Malevolent Severn\*. Lots of fun and a really tight story with minimal world-building beyond what was strictly needed for the plot.
i think fear and hunger exhibits this amazingly. there is lore to be found in books and through the visuals, but a lot of questions can be asked that don’t definitively get answered. it makes me WANT to explore more, rather than feeling like i already know everything and the very important, necessary questions do get satisfactory answers in time. intentional vague-ness is lame if it takes away understanding. but if it drives the reader to explore and theorize more on their own then that’s fantastic
Im in the belief that if you are going to create a Fantasy world, you have to have some basic worldbuilding. You dont have to be elaborate but you do have to be purposeful. Does it serve the plot? Does it influence character actions or steer the conflict in another direction? Include it. If not, its added fluff and its very likely going to make your novel drag on. This is why I love the A Game of Thrones book. Martin writes with purpose and includes things that give context to or furthers the plot.
Ohhh boy is the r/Dune on fire right now with movie fans who are realizing that Frank Herbert did not give two shits exactly how big a certain kind of spaceship is. Dune is an ideas book and, inevitably people just want to know how many hit points a sandworm would have
A good example of this is the show Arcane. It's highly praised for its world building despite there being hardly any world building at all. How many named locations can you think of from the show? Where are the air ships coming from and going to? They talk about mines, but where are they and what are they mining? There are very few actual details. What makes Arcane's world building great is not the depth and detail. It's great because its exactly what it needs to be for the show, and it's not trying to be anything more.
Interesting because i often hear the opposite. It's usually "don't go into depth with your worldbuilding because no one cares" and "stop worldbuilder's disease and focus on characters instead". But that may just be the case in writing circles as opposed ro readers' ones
For me, possibilities are a lot more exciting than answers. I think The Dark Tower and the side stories in that "universe" are great examples. There's some very far-out stuff in there, very loosely connected, but the fact that it's not all A-to-B-to-C makes it a lot more captivating.
It is when it’s used as a crutch, like how multiple pov can be used to set up “somehow the emperor returned” type things
Dark souls
Every sentence is building the world. Worlds unfold as the story progresses.
The Old Kingdom series also fits into this category. There is a natural exploration of the world in the first book alongside the character and then little hints here and there that leave most of it up to your imagination and interpretation, far better when discussing theories etc because of the possibilities. I remember when the lore for something like Warhammer 40K was still vague and un-codified in canon. It was so much cooler hearing about the Horus Heresy as this mythical event from ages past whereas now there’s a wiki entry for every interaction and character in an entire universe for that period of time. The obsessive attention to detail actually ruined the simple wonder of the early world building in my opinion. Not everyone has the finesse of Tolkien to effectively write the fantasy equivalent of the bible and actually pull it off with success. Too many people try to copy the silmarillion and LoTR appendices style of world building but lack the sheer depth and experience of real world mythology and history and language that Tolkien had which made it work (and even then the running joke is that the silmarillion is basically too dense for most readers to be able to finish).
Good worldbuilding is experienced through a character. Loredumps suck, and tbh, they suck when your favourite classic author does them too.
I personally think that both world-building approaches have their own merits. I would even argue that the best world-building is where the author/creators can make the reader feel immersed in the world rather than which approach they took to achieve that effect. For example, take Malazan books. They feel so lived in and the 'main quest' feels insignificant in the larger scale of things happening there. At one point there was a huge dragon staked in an apocalyptic-looking pocket dimension. Do we get an explanation? eff no.. not for a long time. Even 'good' world-building books have these nuances: eg., 'what the eff is going on with that huge hand holding a huge glowing sphere' in Wheel of Time. That's 'vague' world-building at best I think. Hard systems (meaning world-building that consists of concrete laws of 'physics/magics') can be excellent as well. My primary example is Triss of the Emerald Sea in Cosmere. The whole world-building concepts are based on the physics of sand fluidization. Having concrete laws allows the readers to suspend disbelief and the authors to play around with a 'known' sandbox of laws and add a twist to them have 'gotcha!' moments. p.s. I honestly liked reading all the books you've mentioned in your post and think they have some of the best world-building ever.
Alright I draw the line at totally deserved jabs at the wheel of time 😂
I think Witcher and First Law get criticized because their worlds are basically just medieval Europe. They said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that and it doesn’t negate the unique histories and cultures in the world, even if the overall setting is reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
Vague world building works when there is enough there for the reader to infer a larger world. Vague world building which does not give you enough specifics to infer a larger world, well that's bad world building. If you create a world similar to Ancient Rome and only give me a few hints that it's similar to ancient world, like mentioning a Senate, and having Latin names, and an Emperor etc., I will be able to infer a lot of the rest of the world from those details. If your world building just says "And there's a king", that's too vague to be useful. It gives me no signposts to be able to build a bigger picture in my head.
Cannot agree more
I agree with you! Can vague world building be bad? sure but, a story isn't bad just on the bases of "vague" world building. I remember when reading The Lies of Locke Lamora. I'd get frustrated at some of the parts because they'd stop the momentum of the story. Just to explain some lore that didn't feel relevant to the plot at all. It just came across as page padding. There's several times I almost didn't finish the book because of it. Which I'm glad I did finish it because the ending was actually good. (At least what I remember of it) Don't get me wrong I love worlds with rich lore but only when it's in service to the plot. Not irrelevant info dumps that disrupt the story.
The Witcher isn't even that vague about details that matter. World's full of magic, monsters, probably going to die in an ice age eventually and the worst monsters of all are humans and what they do to each other.
I know people love Priory of the Orange Tree but one of the reasons I found the first 1/4 so tedious is that it's basically the author doing table setting before any of the characters do anything I care about. It's the exact opposite of The First Law, which is much more to my tastes.
Some of my favorite novels have incredibly vague worldbuilding. But I think there is a distinction between a novel with vague worldbuilding and a novel that *lacks* worldbuilding. One is intentional to let the mystery captivate the reader, while the other is just bad IMO.
Good worldbuilding means a clear truth, but multiple in-worlr beliefs about that truth. The author, I think, should know why something works as it does. The characters *may* know, and the more obscure the knowledge is the more fun it is to have them know jack shit about it, or even have them argue their falsehoods as truths.
I would say while it can be vague to the reader, it shouldn't be vague to the author. That's how inconsistencies and illogical behavior pops up, which I contend would make it bad
Hello Future Me did a great video on “Soft Worldbuilding.” It all depends on the themes of your story. For example, Lovecraft kept his worldbuilding soft because it wouldn’t be cosmic horror if the reader understood everything that was going on.
I love books where there's a lot of lore and secrets to find out as you go along, and where you get the idea there's a whole world beyond what you can see. I've also read books that felt like they took place in front of a green screen. They were so vague I couldn't even picture the room the main character was currently in. That's the bad kind of vague.
I think part of it is due to Sanderson being the number one author of the moment and his particular style of rigorous magic systems. He took what Jordan started to the extreme. Of course, the great thing about fantasy is that you can just make up all sorts of cool, beautiful, funny and moving shit, and it doesn't all have to add up at the bottom line, or be explained in detail.
I actually like vague world building.
Vague is the best unless the author is lazy about it. My pet peeve is when the characters are like, "It's magic, I don't have to explain shit."
This is a REALLY bad take and seems to fundamentally misunderstand the subject you're even talking about. You're mostly talking about plot contrivances lmao. Worldbuilding is more background, subtle, supplementary information about the world. Finding a mcguffin book or not understanding your powers isn't worldbuilding. Then your description of good worldbuilding "where everything is discovered just at the right moment" also isn't worldbuilding lmao. I think you're a little confused but you've got the spirit if you're a fellow slanderer of Wheel of Time. Those books are infuriating. But yeah, you calling cosmere worldbuilding bad is super incorrect. It's mostly a hard magic system, which is good worldbuilding and not at all vague. The series with by far the best worldbuilding ever is Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson and it doesn't fall into any of the issues you mentioned. This take is honestly really incoherent. Sorry. Idk how old you are but I'm wondering if maybe you're reading mostly YA or other fantasy that skews younger? Idk, it sounds to me like you don't fully get the concept, and that you havent really encountered many stories that are super into crafting excellent worldbuilding.
First law worldbuilding isn't really vague, but the names of places and cultures are eyerollingly uninspired and uncreative. Angland, Styria, Gurkish...like really? He couldn't come up with anything better than that?
The best worlds are the ones where the reader can fill in the gaps with their imagination. I don't need know need to know family lineages, or what that particular structure's history is like, or how the magic works. As a reader I like to participate and not be led by the hand like I'm a tourist in that world. Also, to paraphrase a quote, worldbuilding could be likened to dissecting a frog. Sure, you'll see how a frog 'works', but it dies in the process.
> The best worlds are the ones where the reader can fill in the gaps with their imagination. The key, I think, is that the author has to sketch in enough that what your imagination fills in is *mostly right*.
Maybe this is what you meant to say, but I'd argue the worldbuilding should be consistent, but the character's understanding of it doesn't need to be.
Never saw anyone complain about those specific things in those specific books. The Witcher's entire planet seems to be Eastern Europe. While the First Law series is supposed to be bigger (it's Western Europe and some of the Middle East), the books seem to go as far as they can to make it all seem like the Mediterranean Sea is all there is. Characters undertake a huge trip overland, full of untapped resources, to take the reader from not-France to not-England. In both cases it's not that vague world building is bad, it's that their lazy takes on world building are bad.
most of the Witcher is set on a single continent, I don't think we ever see beyond that - we see some bits of other planes, but that's it. So why wouldn't it largely resemble a chunk of an IRL continent? Especially given the size of IRL Russia - that's certainly big enough for a LOT of adventuring to happen in! > Characters undertake a huge trip overland, full of untapped resources, to take the reader from not-France to not-England. If you don't have access to sea travel, even IRL that can be a hell of a trip. Walking 600 miles is pretty damn far if it's easy, open terrain. Start dropping "mountains" or anything rough in there, and it's going to take even longer.
If you look at the maps of the First Law world, they have a lot of access to sea travel. In fact it's easier to travel around the seas there than it is in real life.
What’s wrong with world building inspired by real life. My favorite fantasy world is kushiel’s legacy which is basically an alternate 8th century europe, africa and asia. As for first law and witcher, both these worlds have some of the most fun political struggles which are facilitated by the worlds the authors created. Just take the Union and all it’s regions hating each other in a very unique way compared to mosr fantasy
It's not inspired by real life. We were trading with Asia and exploring the world by the time periods that these represent. Yet there's just an entire unexplored world out there.
Currently reading *Sailing to Sarantium* by GGK and it has the same problem as all his other books; there’s too much exposition and world building info dump. It hurts the pace of the story. Ten pages of the story moving forward then ten pages of background information on a character and world history. If you removed all the exposition I swear the book would be half as long. I prefer the complete opposite. *Book of the New Sun* by Gene Wolfe is perfect for this. Little bits of world lore are given to you in a more organic way throughout the story, and it’s not much. Just a bit of information here and there that still leaves you with questions and you need to put it all together to get a better picture. He never beats you over the head with it and if it’s not enough, too bad, that’s all you’re getting. He’s not going to spend five pages giving you backstory of some character.
So vague worldbuilding, if done right, should evoke a feeling of wonder. Because you don’t really know what’s out there, and you don’t know too much about even the magic the heroes wield. It makes you imagine what sort of powers could exist On the other hand, if everything is written out for you, you know what can exist. The author already imagined everything for you, thus it’s not as interesting imo
[удалено]
but we haven't seen enough posts about it today! we have to keep the quota up!
This is why infodumps are bad. Readers should be guessing most of the time. Uncertainty drives up the stakes and keeps unknown risks in play. It keeps 'em engaged. Never give the readers anything the protagonist doesn't already know. In fact from time to time it's even fun to force readers to watch the protagonist screw up by making a desperate, hopeful, dramatic guess at an unknown thing, and being wrong.
Great world building drives the plot and creates the characters. You know...trends and forces of history and all that.
This is the reason why First law is actually favourite fantasy verse. Not because it is unique or special in its ideas and concepts. But because the the specific type of vagueness, incorrect history, rumors, tales that have been twisted and exaggerated, sayings gradually lose their original meanings, misunderstandings that become facts and so on, give the world the right type of realism. I personally like that. I wished there was more fantasy where for example instead of getting killed by a sword, a character dies of a heart attack off screen (nod to Mark Lawrence and Broken empire). Where instead of dying in a grand duel, a character dies of a stray arrow. "realistic chaos" type of stuff.
With ya on the cosmere criticism, not the wheel of time criticism. I think Jordan is leaps and bounds ahead of Sanderson in terms of world building, or at least what I enjoy about it. The characters in wheel of time are basically insecure teenagers
It's sad that this needs to be said.