First let me point out that this is NOT a subject exclusive to Science Fiction, which people sometimes think. Poor worldbuilding can ruin a good Fantasy. In a recent email, Dave Farland mentioned a fantasy in which the author had the mountains spell out DEATH as a good example of truly bad planet building. That is likely to lose all credibility with me anyway and I'm a long way from having a scientific bent.

Spaceman mentioned World-Building as a good reference for planetbuilding and from the reviews I've read, I think I'm going to pick it up.

Truthfully, I dislike worldbuilding. It seems like pure drudgery to me, BUT I also want a good world.

I suppose my questions are: Is there any relatively painless way to do this process? Or somewhat non-painful way? How do you keep up with your worldbuilding facts? SFWA has an extensive worldbuilding sheet. Do most of you just fill out something like this? Or go about it in a more organized way? And are there any other really good references/books on the subject?

Anything that will help out those of us who don't feel that good at it? Or just something you want to share/discuss on the subject?

I don't think world-building is painful. Of course, I'm willing to waste worlds (and words) to experiment. With my recent WOTF entry, I completely tore it down after the first draft--as anyone in that Hatrack Group can tell you--and rebuilt it from the ground up. And I had done a considerable bit of thinking about that world. (In fact, I'm considering expanding it into a novel, now. I kind of like the place.) The milieu became a minor character.

Is there a painless way? I can't answer that since world building has always been fun for me. I'm almost constantly teasing out some part of my world, whether I'm doing the dishes, stuck in traffic, or writing. Whatever I do or think in this world I try to think of how folks in my other world would do it, or if they would even encounter the problem at all, and if not, why not, and what other problems they would occur as a result of that. And so on. I draw maps, costumes, animals, scenes, landscapes, anything that might trigger and deepen my process.

I've already elaborated on my method for history building. For the rest of the stuff, I try to write it all down in the files I've mentioned earlier, but besides the initial world building, it's almost too tedious and difficult to keep up with my ideas. Mostly I carry it around in my head and conjure it as I write.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited January 11, 2008).]

Edited to add:
In many ways, world-building is why I write fantasy. As I see it, characters and the world go hand in hand, and one cannot really exist without the other.

Yes, annepin, I am making a distinction between world-building and planet-building. They are related and obviously planet-building can be and probably is a part of world-building. But they involve different things. If worldbuilding can be a bit tedious (for me), planet-building and thinking about things like climatology and tectonic plates and orbits and formulae gives me a severe migraine.

Annepin, I think you are looking at a basic difference. I don't enjoy world-building. It seems like a lot of work that I am forced to go through to get to the part that I do like which is the character building and story telling part. And that's probably why I tend to harp on the subject a bit.

In my worldbuilding I find it makes things flow easier if I have a creation myth. Whether 'true' or not and whether it involves gods or not varies, but there is always some story on how the place was created. (I just went over a really good one in my geology class, gravity and particles and a big bang of some sort, not in that order of course.)

I find it also helps to draw a map, it's not pretty but it does the job.

I've put my other suggestions in the other thread, I'm not in the mood to transliterate them. (I don't care if transliterate is the wrong word I like saying it.)

I don't mean to demand that people re-post what they've already said. But if anyone wants to add something that they haven't already said or someone who hasn't jumped on this subject wants to, please do.

Well, the methodology I used last time: I used one of Lazette Gifford's books as a kind of guide to try to get a handle on this. But it just didn't work very well for me. Her method was good on things like integrating the environment but weak on history. I think I'll give some of Holly Lisle's ideas a try.

Why I have so much trouble? Well, consider that it wasn't until I was 3/4 of the way through my last novel before it even occurred to me that I needed to know why the murdered clan had been so loyal to the king or why there were so few of them. So maybe it's just that I'm not thinking of everything I need to know.

I realize that part of my problem is the difference between you and me--that I don't enjoy world-building. I am impatient to get to the good part which for me is the characterization and storytelling. So I suspect I don't give it as much thought as I should until I realize that my novel needs more scope.

Edit: And yes, I may well be expecting a lot. I'm a perfectionist at times.

Maybe you should call it "history building" instead of "world building" and approach it through the characters you enjoy creating? Would it be enough to explore their motivations by delving into their histories?

After all, you don't need the whole world (which I imagine is one reason why the SFWA method doesn't suit you), you only need the bits that are relevant to the plot and the characters.

(I'm reminded of this drive-by shooting spree a few years back...when they brought the guy down, it turned out he was trying to draw a "smiley face" pattern across the United States. He got one eye done, then the other, then was in the corner of the mouth when they caught him...)

If you've got something that could do this, they might do it---and all you'd have to do is supply a motive for doing it...

*****

A well-built world is something I enjoy when I run across it, in SF or fantasy---in Tolkien's world, I enjoy riding on the surface (reading "The Lord of the Rings") or diving into the deep places (reading the various posthumous books collecting his legends and notes and rough drafts).

I've tried my hand at it---for, oh, about fifteen years, almost every SF story I wrote came from a common background---though the details changed and evolved, as nothing was ever published so I didn't have to be consistent. I had (and still have) a great deal of notes about what took place and who's who and what's what and where-does-it-all-take-place. Besides, why develop a complex background and use it for just one short story?

I, like JeanneT, fall into the latter group. I find Lord of the Rings somewhat dull. On the other hand, I keep coming back to it because there is a great story hidden under all the fluff. (You understand I'm speaking from a purely subjective viewpoint.) The thing is that, for me at least, Tolkien's world is incredibly rich and detailed, but not particularly interesting. The complexity and richness of a world never interest me in themselves; they only interest me to the extent that they are somehow cool.

All right. Now that y'all know what my perspective is, what can I say that's actually on topic? There are two reasons to engage in world-building: 1) because you love it, and to entertain all the rest of the milieu-lovers, and 2) because, even though it bores you out of your skull, you want to add a sense of verisimilitude to your story.

Those in the first category just plunge in and extrapolate wildly. Those in the second category would prefer a method, something that they can just slog through and get it out of the way. Unfortunately, I don't think there is one, other than to do what the milieu-lovers do: plunge in and extrapolate. Notice, however, that I left out the word "wildly". That's the only difference.

In other words, start with the characters and the story. Already, without having a firm idea of either of those things, you've got to answer a few world-building things, like "what's the climate?" If different parts of you story would be better with different climates, you have to decide whether it's a seasonal thing or they're traveling over long distances or going up and down a mountain or some other reason. Etc. But you can do everything you need to simply by making sure everything makes sense. (You DO have to remember to ask questions--anytime there is an unexplained fact, you should make sure YOU know the explanation even if it isn't relevant to the reading material.)

I don't, however, recommend stopping at the bare bones of "making sense." Hateful though it may be, I'd recommend taking the extrapolation a bit further: "If I do that, what would the other effects be?" Actually, you HAVE to ask this question to make sure you don't do something stupid, but I mean even beyond that. You want to have at least a few extraneous side effects of the aspects of the world you HAD to build, just to convince people that there's more to this world than the bare bones. Those few things hint at a wealth of background that, mercifully, you don't actually have to create.

One other note: I think this may have been mentioned on the other thread, but I'm not sure. I looked at the SFWA list and it doesn't seem AT ALL to me to be a method, or a big long list that you're supposed to fill in completely. In fact, it says explicitly that it isn't. I would suggest that you might find it VERY useful in the following way: Just look down the list, skimming through the questions, until you hit one that makes you say: "Hmm, I hadn't even THOUGHT of that aspect. That could explain why. . . ." or ". . . that would mean that. . . ." or ". . . But it can't matter at all to my story." If the last, of course, you'll probably just skip it (though you might explore it a bit for the sense of verisimilitude). With either of the others, it's worth taking the thought and expanding on it. If you expand on only four or five questions from the entire list, you might have enough worldbuilding background to be satisfactory.

Edit:

quote:

---

You want to have at least a few extraneous side effects of the aspects of the world you HAD to build, just to convince people that there's more to this world than the bare bones.

---

Your post is pretty spot on about the difference in the two groups. As you say, you and I fall into the second. It is drudgery for me but drudgery that MUST be done.

And I think that you're right that I am looking for some way to expedite the whole process which probably doesn't exist. Or at least a way for me to be sure 3/4 of the way through that I hadn't missed a fairly important question which I'm likely to just because it's something I try to get through as quickly as possible.

I will try using the SFWA questions as you suggest and hopefully with a history timeline (moans and groans at the very thought) I'll have the feeling of verisimilitude that I am looking for.

As for how I world build, I read a lot of history texts for my "real" job. As research for my current novel, I was reading a textbook on world trade throughout the ages. In it, there was a section about an African tribe where blacksmiths were considered outcasts. They were both revered for what they created and feared because they defied the spirits of the iron and the spirits of the wood (used for their fires). Because the smiths were outcasts, they weren't bound to any one tribe and were able to move from tribe to tribe trading things beyond their blacksmithing. They became the first trading in their area.

From this, I added by my list of worldbuilding questions:
I) Is any main character in this story an outcast in this society? If yes, then why is he an outcast? His job type (dirty work or iron working or whatever) or his social status (he was born to outcasts and so must remain an outcast) or some action on his part (broke the code of honor)?

And from these questions alone, my mind starts filling in a large amount of culture. If the character is outcast because she broke the code of honor, what is that code? What does this society value most--honesty, hard work, skill in battle, life, loyalty? Say it's loyalty. All right, one of my main characters is an outcast because her husband should have her complete loyalty and respect, but when he ordered her to expose (kill) their newborn baby girl because she's a girl, she ran away with her baby to save its life. But now she is shamed and an outcast. The only way for her to survive is to sell her body (if so, how does she prevent another pregnancy or contracting diseases) or to create some radical new job for herself. Maybe she has a little magic--not much, but most people have none. She sells charms that help prevent pregnancy or ease birth. Or maybe she doesn't have magic, but she pretends she does. What will she do when she's finally found out? Perhaps magic is considered blasphemy by the local priests. She's found out by them, dragged out to be stoned, and now has to prove that she really isn't a witch. How does one proof this in her society? She has to survive, so that needs to be taken into account. If she survives, how will her customers react to learning the truth? Now what will she do? Maybe my main heroine comes along at this point and offers to take her to a new city. The story itself doesn't contain this woman's full history, but it creates a problem for our heroine when an assassin sent by the husband shows up on night. Or the king refuses to listen to her urgent message because she's in the company of an outcast. And so on.

So many possible stories, and so little time to tell them...

I generally do come up with the plot to the story first. However, as I learn the society that the characters live in, I allow the story to change to incorporate these influences. A number of the obstacles my heroine encounters are due to this type of worldbuilding. I'm not sure how, after the novel is finished, you could go back and add worldbuilding without a thorough re-write.

quote:

---

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that someone who hates worldbuilding would choose to place their characters in a completely made-up world rather than a "real world with fantasy elements."

---

I have a hard time wrapping MY mind around the fact that someone would want to write a story that wasn't based around storytelling. Why bother with the huge work of writing a novel if all you wanted to do was make up a world and you don't care about storytelling?

None of my stories would work in a "real world with fantasy elements". That's not where the story is or what the characters are like. I make up a world to suit my characters and not the other way around.

Would you care to tell me how I put my female warrior fighting a demon army in medieval Europe? Not.

NOR did I say that I write the story then make up the world. I do know the characters first though--then I figure out the world that they fit in. I think I already said that.

Edit: Who said I didn't take societal consideration into my stories or do it AFTER I finish the story for heaven's sake? A NUMBER OF TIMES in this thread I have emphasized that worldbuilding is essential. WHY else would I be making threads on the subject?

I said I don't LIKE worldbuilding NOT that I don't do it. I said that my worldbuilding isn't as good as I would like--probably because I consider it pure drudgery. There are plenty of OTHER things to like about fantasy other than worldbuilding.

I love my characters and my stories (yeah, sounds egotistical but there ya go) and they don't live in the "real world".

quote:

---

I have a hard time wrapping MY mind around the fact that someone would want to write a story that wasn't based around storytelling.

---

*blink* But it is all about storytelling. With me, the stories simply grow out of the culture and environment instead of being imposed upon it. Or instead of the culture being built around the character. Or whatever it is other writers do.

I say, "Huh, if a person lived in a culture that's a cross between this real culture and that real culture, and if she wanted something that isn't easy to get or natural for that culture, then what would happen?" And I find that there's a story there I want to tell.

As I said, my style of writing is probably based on the fact I research so much about history for my "real" job. I suppose if you primarily studied people instead of history, it might seem more natural to go about it from the other direction.

Um, by the way, you might want to read my post again. I never said that you weren't trying to do world building in your stories. In fact, I was trying to help you by explaining in detail how I did it in hopes of inspiring an "ah-ha! Maybe that's something that might help" moment. After all, you did originally ask:

quote:

---

Truthfully, I dislike worldbuilding. It seems like pure drudgery to me, BUT I also want a good world.

I suppose my questions are: Is there any relatively painless way to do this process? ....How do you keep up with your worldbuilding facts?... Anything that will help out those of us who don't feel that good at it?

---

So I told you how I did it.

quote:

---

Would you care to tell me how I put my female warrior fighting a demon army in medieval Europe?

---

I believe that's called alternate history fantasy. Other fantasy writers have written books like this. I always assumed it was because they didn't want to bother building a new culture and world and just wanted to get on with telling their story. Perhaps I was wrong.

quote:

---

Who said I didn't take societal consideration into my stories or do it AFTER I finish the story for heaven's sake?

---

Um, I thought you said in this or a previous thread that you felt you hadn't built in a history about why your heroine's tribe was so loyal to the king and, after the story was done, you decided to go back and add that history. If I remember that incorrectly, then I apologize. In any case, whoever is doing that, I think it's a great thing to figure out and add in. However, unless it's still a rough draft, I would think it difficult to add this in without it feeling tacked on. I'm assuming the heroine's current story actions would be heavily influenced by her tribe's past loyalty.

*smack forehead* It just occurred to me, the writer probably wrote with the loyalty influence in mind, but simply never thought out why the tribe was so loyal. In that case, it wouldn't make as big a difference when this history was created.

quote:

---

With me, the stories simply grow out of the culture and environment instead of being imposed upon it. Or instead of the culture being built around the character.

---

That's why Tolkien was so brilliant, in my opinion. His characters and world were so closely tied. It's not at all gratuitous world building, or world building simply to create an interesting world. The characters and situations simply would not have happened if it weren't for the world and history he created. The stories that resonate most with me are the ones that have this quality. I think one can achieve this from a variety of different strategies, however. What matters is the end result.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited January 13, 2008).]

Attitude Towards Age
Concept of Fate and Destiny
View of Human Nature
Attitude Towards Change
Attitude Towards Taking Risks
Concept of Suffering and Misfortune
Source of Self Esteem / Self Worth
Concept of Equality
Attitude Towards Formality
Degree of Realism
Attitude Towards Doing
View of the Natural World
Concept of Time