Friday, March 8, 2013

World Building

All fiction genres share the same building blocks. They must have protagonists, antagonists, a goal, conflict, and themes. Only science fiction and fantasy add a step to these elements: world building.

In my experience, shoddy world building is the second most common cause of poor storytelling right behind underdeveloped characters. Some people harbor a naive view of world crafting in which rewinding time to the bronze age and introducing dragons suffices to ground a fantasy setting.

Much like writing believable characters, solid world building takes finesse. If the structures and rules of your secondary world depart too far from the reader's experience of the primary world, you risk breaking his suspension of disbelief.

On the other hand, an effective fantasy world must be able to foster and maintain escapism. Offering the reader vicarious adventure beyond the confines of reality is the whole point of speculative fiction. So the setting has to include at least one major exotic element: magic, geocentric cosmology, androids, FTL travel, etc.

Creating a sound secondary world is a tightrope act. Lean too far one way, and the audience can't relate. Lean too far the other way, and the setting becomes too dull to hold their attention. The best way to avoid both extremes is to lay a foundation of internal consistency.

Figure out how your secondary world most differs from the primary world. Is your world separated from ours in time? Is it another planet in the same universe? Is it in another cosmos altogether?

The answers will indicate how much your world's rules may differ from those of the primary world. (For example, since my fantasy setting is located in another universe I avoid using words derived from earthly people, places, and events.) Once you've set these standards, don't deviate from them unless the change results from natural story developments. Much like symbolism, world building is most effective when readers don't consciously see it.

That's my approach to world building. What are your picks for best/worst designed sci fi/fantasy worlds?

6 comments:

Kuroi Kaze said...

More people should be checking this out because I consider you an expert world-builder. I always liked Robert Jordan, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Philip K. Dick, and Terry Pratchett for making me invest in their setting.

Brian Niemeier said...

You honor me, sir. I second your list of excellent world builders and would add Patrick Rothfuss, at least for his magic and monetary systems.

Ben Hausam said...

Kaze has a pretty decent short list.
I've always found that part of what makes or breaks a secondary world for me are economics. A world where everyone is a soldier or scientist (Tolkien and Star Trek I'm looking at you), wouldn't last until their next meal. I need a certain acknowledgement of the practical, which isn't to say that I require an exhaustive explanation of how a potato crop makes it from field to market, just that a nod to the fact that it does.
So I don't have any problem with the Guild, because a group that has monopolized interplanetary travel would have acquired a lot of wealth and power. Then in order to maintain their grip on wealth and power would have developed a force to discourage competition.

Brian Niemeier said...

Excellent point on economics, Ben. That's one thing I like about The Name of the Wind.
Though I agree with you on principle, I think that replicators lampshade Star Trek's monolithic society pretty well. People in a post-scarcity world don't have to worry about their next meal.
I actually see Tolkien as handling economics quite well. He even shows what happens when nations with widely varying levels of economic development interact--especially Rohan (early feudalism), Gondor (high medieval commerce), and Mordor (slave-based plantation system).
The Shire is the best example of Tolkien's economic views. It's pure Chestertonian distributism (sole proprietorships with government limited to one cop and a post office).
I'm glad that the Guild's economic M.O. comes through in my book. Even they're diversified though. The Steersmen, Shipwrights, and Transessists produce profitable goods/services. Customs inspectors deter trade violations, and enforcers protect Guild IPs.

Ben Hausam said...

It's been a long time since I've read Lord of the Rings, so I'll admit a certain ignorance. Star Trek however only used the near magical replicator when it suited them, as soon as they Dilithium Crystals or what have you. Which gets us back to what your post was about, internal consistency. I can believe a replicator that can replicate
anything, I have a hard time with something that stops working as soon as it's inconvenient.

Good world building should prevent characters from suddenly being unable to magic/science something. If as an author you need your character to not magic/science something you need to have laid the groundwork well in advance of it happening. So if your magic/science doesn't work in the presence of a depiction of Santa Claus, it should be mentioned and dealt with in a conflict well before your climax where your villain shows up garbed as Santa.

Brian Niemeier said...

Yeah. I think your Star Trek argument makes sense. One cause of TNG's occasional inconsistency was that most episode scripts were submitted by individual freelance writers instead of being developed by a central writing team.

Post a Comment