World building camps

BOMB 2023-09-17 11:43:03 UTC #1

So I've been thinking about world building lately. I've read books written by war vets capable of telling detailed combat scenes. And I've read books by people who write about dragons and magic.

I find both to be compelling, but it interests me how one person's story is great because of how close to real it can get while the other is great because of how far from reality it manages to be.

I think I'd break the two down into two different world building camps.

1.
Creates a world unique and unlike our own but will use elements from our world to make it feel possible.

2.
Creates a world as close to our own and may or may not introduce something unique to it.

I'm probably diluting these ideas quite a bit. But what kind of world building do you prefer to do. The kind where you make something odd or crazy then worry about making it believable or ground later. Or the kind that tries to make something that could fit into our world right from the jump.

I personally take the first approach. Often I'll have concepts and ideas that are way out there, and I use details from real life to make them seem less far fetched. A lot of times it almost feels like a mind puzzle. I have the solution, but I have to work backwards a bit to make things add enough to believe.

cherrystark 2023-09-17 14:42:22 UTC #2

I think good worldbuilding, no matter the camp a story falls into, should feel as natural as possible. For example, Lemony Snicket's work or the Mysterious Benedict Society. The stories are peculiar enough to be unique and interesting, and perfectly straddle the line between a unique world and a world like our own. I started watching the One Piece live action and it's also another great example of natural worldbuilding. For a total noob to the series, I didn't need a detailed breakdown of all the characters' backgrounds and a detailed analysis of the world to understand what was going on. I could sit back and enjoy.

I noticed, and granted this is just my opinion, but with bad worldbuilding, it basically creates two entirely new camps. 1. They're Lazy or They're Writing Fast Fiction 2. Ego. I've seen these both in the fantasy genre. The writer either needs to get the story done quickly so they forgo worldbuilding and rely on pre-established genre conventions (fated mates) or they're writing a "serious" fantasy and get so caught up in making a complicated world that they neglect the day-to-day points of worldbuilding or create a scenario where a girl has to marry one of her biological brothers (I saw this one happen, cringe.)

BoomerZ 2023-09-17 14:59:54 UTC #3

I really think world building is just a buzzword now. I also see it as a way for writers to hide bad plots. A world is just a setting. No matter how detailed, fantastic, or weird it is, it really doesn't matter. You can have a good story happen in one room. (12 Angry Men). Lord of the Rings is not fantastic because of it's world, its fantastic for its story. You could retell that story in the Roman Empire, or on strange planets far in the future. The story carries the narrative. In the last decade everyone has been caught up in the worlds of stories, meanwhile very few people even remember the plots as they are dumb. Harry Potter falls into this category. The plots are simplistic, as they are made for children, but everyone loves the world. The problem is the more your break down the plots, they make no sense and only happen because the writer wants them to happen. They aren't natural progressing. I

Ordinaryaverageguy 2023-09-17 21:46:31 UTC #4

Amen. Some great fiction gives only hints at a few aspects of the world in which it takes place. Sometimes that's because the world is, for lack of a better word, mundane. Other times, it's a fantastically different world (e.g., medieval or sci-fi future) but it's only a tangent to the real story which is about people (or intelligent beings) and heart.

cherrystark 2023-09-17 22:48:42 UTC #5

That's why I call it "ego". It seems like a lot of writers would rather have the brownie points for being able to write an overly complicated world than a good story or even a story that people can understand.

TheLemmaLlama 2023-09-19 01:24:48 UTC #6

I like wild, far-from-reality worldbuilding, but my approach is different from yours; I start with some real life concept and extrapolate the hell out of it XD So instead of starting 'way out there' and making it seem less far-fetched, I first start close to home and then push it further and further

If anything, doesn't that demonstrate that world does matter? Would Harry Potter be so well-known if it's the same story in a mundane setting?

DiegoPalacios 2023-09-19 14:43:55 UTC #7

It depends of the story, what matters in the end is to get readers interested and attached to the world in which the story happens.

Which level of realism will work depends of the tone and kind of story one is telling.

Solid world building can definitively enrich a story, but it also needs an interesting story to tell in said world.

BOMB 2023-09-20 07:47:17 UTC #8

I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I can't disagree that in many cases some writers use their worlds to hide behind (worst turn a fiction book into a fictional history book). But I think world building when done right is a critical thing in a story. I feel it should be interwoven so deep that the story that takes place in it wouldn't work in another world. The world should greatly affect the story, and if it doesn't its probably flat. That being said, the world shouldn't be the story itself.

For example how you said a good story can happen in a single room, you're completely right, but that story has to utilize and keep in mind that it exists only in that room. Ot doesn't need to give me a history of the color paint on the walls, but characters shouldn't be aloof to where they are.

Stories should acknowledge their world otherwise things will feel interchangeable and stock.