Worldbuilding -- the good, the bad, and the ugly

[hildea]

I read a lot of fantasy and science fiction, and one of the things I like is seeing new worlds imagined. I like not just the large, sweeping changes, but the small details that just fit into place.

In The Angel of Crows by Katherine Addison (also writes as Sarah Monette), vampires, werewolves, and angels exist and are a part of society. The protagonist is a doctor (this is a Sherlock Holmes retelling):

“Fool,” I said savagely to myself and tried to turn my attention to an article in The Lancet about the comparative pathology of werewolf bites and vampire bites, but with only middling success.

It's a small thing, but it just felt right -- of course the Lancet has articles about supernatural injuries.

Sometimes, there's also some detail that just doesn't fit, some implication that the author missed or didn't see the same way, but to me makes the world feel not quite right. Often I don't notice it as I'm reading, but see it on a reread or when thinking back about the book. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad book, of course -- lots of books have minor flaws.

Example: In the Harry Potter books, there's a magical map which was created by some school children. It shows the location of everyone in the school, and they use it to avoid teachers when breaking curfew. The school is also plagued with mysterious deaths and other disasters a lot of the time, and if the headmaster had one of these maps, he'd be able to solve these mysteries (and thus remove the main driver of the book's plot) in chapter 2. That's just one example of how the use of magic just doesn't make sense in that world.

Do you have examples of good or bad worldbuilding? It doesn't have to be only from speculative fiction (fantasy, SF, and that family), it can also be from realistic fiction if you think it fits.

[gmw]

"Worldbuilding" is one of the things that always worries me when I read of it in review. Like all writing tricks, world-building should be invisible - just like building tension and emotional responses. When we read a novel we are being manipulated, but if we notice it happening then it's a fail (all in my most humble of opinions, of course ). So when a reviewer notices worldbuilding enough to comment about it, I worry.

Nothing is perfect, what matters is whether it works while you read it, and this will vary from reader to reader.

The most memorable, relatively recent, failure for me was Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer. Now I know this series works for some, so it's probably just an authorial voice thing, but for me this was so obviously contrived that I never lost the feeling that I was being manipulated by the author - at times I felt downright pushed around!

Whereas for me Harry Potter worked. I think it cheated, but it worked. It cheated by starting out so obviously as a children's story. The seemingly outlandish clothes and names, and the inherent contradictions, were perfectly acceptable for a kids' story and so I went along with it. But somewhere along the line everything grew up, but by then the outlandish parts were all part of my new reality and so it continued to work. For this reader at least, nothing was "built", it's just the way it was.

Another that worked perfectly for me was The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern.

[issybird]

I don’t read much speculative fiction, but this is an engaging topic. My first reaction is a general one; I like to know that the author has thought out a consistent world, but I strongly dislike info dumps to bring the reader up to speed. Your example of the Lancet article is a perfect example of the right way to handle things.

One example of bad world building that’s stayed with me is in Jack Finney’s Time and Again.. I didn’t mind a few liberties with New York history. Egregious, however, was the denouement in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, which involved travel through time and space, which contradicted everything that had happened up until then. But the author obviously couldn’t resist the historical fact of the display of the torch in Madison Square; so many errors come from things the author couldn’t resist.

There were far too many inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books for me to think them good; the overarching issue as with the map example is the way in later books a magical device or power was invented that would have entirely negated earlier events if it had been employed. But they were very readable for all that, until the last book where it was really impossible to tie up all the loose ends in a way that made sense.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

"Worldbuilding" is one of the things that always worries me when I read of it in review. Like all writing tricks, world-building should be invisible - just like building tension and emotional responses. When we read a novel we are being manipulated, but if we notice it happening then it's a fail (all in my most humble of opinions, of course ). So when a reviewer notices worldbuilding enough to comment about it, I worry.

Same here. I'm not really a fan of world-building where the world is treated like another character. Especially if it's painstakingly documented with infodumps or "taught" to me by characters.

I much prefer "World Hinting" to brick-by-brick, architectural World Building. I prefer to do the heavy lifting in that regard (doing my own world-building from the hints given).

Same with detailed magic "systems." I'm looking for wonder, not lessons (I'm looking specifically at Sanderson's "Allomancy" system, here).

So yes, when I see fantastic "World Building" being touted in reviews, that usually means it going to be the heavy-handed kind that I don't appreciate. So it still helps me in deciding which books to read. Just not in the way the reviewer (or possibly the author and/or publisher) intends.

[hildea]

When I say "worldbuilding" I think of the author's creation of the world, what they decide about how the world is and how it works. How they then describe that world can be heavy handed with lots of info dumps, or subtle and gradual, "world hinting".

The lack of info dumps was part of what I liked about The Angel of the Crows: We learn about the world gradually, and figuring it out is as much of a mystery as the crime mysteries our protagonists are investigating.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by hildea

The lack of info dumps was part of what I liked about The Angel of the Crows: We learn about the world gradually, and figuring it out is as much of a mystery as the crime mysteries our protagonists are investigating.

That type of world-building would probably be right up my alley (and I have read some of--and enjoyed--Addison's work). I much prefer being tossed into someone's world, and needing to find my own bearings. It should be a team effort (for me to enjoy it anyway). Not a one-sided affair with the author doing all the work.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I much prefer being tossed into someone's world, and needing to find my own bearings.

Hm, trying to think of more books like that:

Tasha Suri: The Jasmine Throne

Someone important must have been killed in the night.

Priya was sure of it the minute she heard the thud of hooves on the road behind her. She stepped to the roadside as a group of guards clad in Parijati white and gold raced past her on their horses, their sabers clinking against their embossed belts. She drew her pallu over her face—partly because they would expect such a gesture of respect from a common woman, and partly to avoid the risk that one of them would recognize her—and watched them through the gap between her fingers and the cloth.

Ann Leckie: The Raven Tower

I first saw you when you rode out of the forest, past the cluster of tall, bulge-eyed offering stakes that mark the edges of the forest, your horse at a walk. You rode beside Mawat, himself a familiar sight to me: tall, broad-shouldered, long hair in dozens of braids pulled back in a broad ring, feathers worked in repoussé on gold, his dark gray cloak lined with blue silk.

(It takes quite some time before we understand who "I" is.)

Justina Ireland: Dread Nation
It starts with a prologue "In Which I Am Born and Someone Tries to Murder Me", and the prologue ends with:

And I suppose I might have grown up better, might have become a proper house girl or even taken Aunt Aggie’s place as House Negro. I might have been a good girl if it had been in the cards. But all of that was dashed to hell two days after I was born, when the dead rose up and started to walk on a battlefield in a small town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg.

...and then the story starts seventeen years later.

Does anyone else have suggestions for books like that?

[JSWolf]

There is China Miéville's The City & the City where the world is a character. It's very well done.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by hildea

When I say "worldbuilding" I think of the author's creation of the world, what they decide about how the world is and how it works. How they then describe that world can be heavy handed with lots of info dumps, or subtle and gradual, "world hinting".

The lack of info dumps was part of what I liked about The Angel of the Crows: We learn about the world gradually, and figuring it out is as much of a mystery as the crime mysteries our protagonists are investigating.

It seems to me that world-hinting is what all authors think they are doing, but some are more successful than others. When I see the reader commenting about "world-building" it's like they are talking about sentence structure or the cliff-hanger chapter ends or other formal writing techniques. What I want to see is the reader telling me that the world felt real to them; if they can see the construction then something has gone wrong.

Often world-hints, like the one you offer in the OP, get rather heavy handed. Instead of the subtlety of a medical journal "of course" carrying medical information relevant to the world, we might have the protagonist reading from the medical journal to inform the the reader - which is all very well if the context supports it, but ofttimes it's just another info dump. Similar issues arise in mystery stories where an out of place info-dump calls itself out as "look at me, I am a key to the mystery!"

And sometimes getting thrown in the deep end leaves me floundering. There has to be something to grab onto or you risk drowning.

The fantasy series Kira Chronicles by K.S. Nikakis (the first book is called The Whisper of Leaves - I'm a sucker for evocative titles), was very much an in-the-deep-end fantasy and it took so long for me to get comfortable there that I felt I needed a break after that first book ... but then the series hit publisher/availability problems and I've never made it back.

In contrast the Malykant Mysteries by Charlotte E. English, a series of fantasy novellas, is deep-end story where I thought the world felt real (dark and dismal, but almost tangible). Each novella added to my knowledge of the world but never did I feel dumped on or manipulated. I tired of the stories, too much alike, not enough growth, but the world I thought was fascinating.

Mark Lawence's series Book of the Ancestor also put me in a world that had me convinced almost right from the start, and yet I'm hard pressed to describe why it worked - although the occasional touch of science-fiction I found tantalising. I so much wanted to learn more about the world but he turned me off in other ways so I gave up early in the second book.

One that failed dismally for me was Cory Doctorow in Walkaway. Here, under the pretence of characters idly talking, we get the current world order explained to us. And besides the blatant politicising, most of what he was presenting was already obvious from the context, I didn't need the characters patronising me by explaining it in detail. This was a DNF, so maybe it got better.

Whereas I found complete success in The Binding by Bridget Collins. The world grows and changes shape around you so subtly that at first you don't notice it happening, but it gets faster and more dramatic as you sink further in.

[gmw]

As I look back at the list I posted above I notice that I can be much more explicit about the failures than the successes. This, for me at least, is quite common. Give me a boring book and I'll pick it to pieces, giving you every little nit and grit that explains what went wrong, but give me something I enjoy and I simply don't notice the flaws.

And all books have flaws, fantasy in particular perhaps. I haven't yet met a paranormal creature story without glaring consistency issues - did none of these people study physics? And fantasy quests run into all sorts of trouble: The Lord of the Rings could have been over very quickly with the help of the eagles who end up coming to the rescue, a thousand pages later, anyway.

On the other hand, many apparent flaws in fantasy realms also have potential explanations. Just because the reader, after a few minutes of thought, did not come up with an explanation is not proof it does not exist, or that an explanation is truly inconceivable. So if we imagine an explanation exists, or give the author the benefit of the doubt, it is arguable that there are very good reasons why the author should not get side-tracked explaining away every possible criticism.

Obviously there is a limit to how much benefit of the doubt any of us are going to extend an author, but considering the sort of fiction we are reading I think it's appropriate to offer some.

[Bookstooge]

When it comes to world building, I much prefer it if the author lets me alone and gives me just enough for my own imagination to run rampant. If it's not necessary to the story, excise it. It's good work for my brain to cogitate and churn...

[Luffy]

I have absolutely no clear idea what good worldbuilding is and whether it helps me like the book better.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by issybird

One example of bad world building that’s stayed with me is in Jack Finney’s Time and Again.. I didn’t mind a few liberties with New York history. Egregious, however, was the denouement in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, which involved travel through time and space, which contradicted everything that had happened up until then. But the author obviously couldn’t resist the historical fact of the display of the torch in Madison Square; so many errors come from things the author couldn’t resist.

I haven't read that book, but I've read some books where the author seem to go out of their way to demonstrate how clever they are or how much research they've done -- and that is annoying.

There were far too many inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books for me to think them good; the overarching issue as with the map example is the way in later books a magical device or power was invented that would have entirely negated earlier events if it had been employed. But they were very readable for all that, until the last book where it was really impossible to tie up all the loose ends in a way that made sense.

The only way those books come even close to making sense to me is if Dumbledore's actions come out of a long term plan to indoctrinate Harry into becoming a willing child kamikaze soldier

Originally Posted by gmw

As I look back at the list I posted above I notice that I can be much more explicit about the failures than the successes. This, for me at least, is quite common. Give me a boring book and I'll pick it to pieces, giving you every little nit and grit that explains what went wrong, but give me something I enjoy and I simply don't notice the flaws.

In one of Elisabeth Moon's science fiction books, a huge military ship with 5000 crew is hijacked by thirty soldiers, just so that our heroine can save everybody by herself But the book is enjoyable, so I'll forgive her that absurdity.

I reread a lot. Often I'll read through fast at first, to find out what happens next, and later, when thinking about the book or re-reading I'll notice neat aspects of the world (or sometimes glaring flaws or outright nastiness that I didn't catch the first time).

Obviously there is a limit to how much benefit of the doubt any of us are going to extend an author, but considering the sort of fiction we are reading I think it's appropriate to offer some.

Absolutely, but some camels are easier to swallow than others. There's a quote by Chesterton:

It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.

(From an article by KJ Charles about suspending disbelief.)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by hildea

[...] The only way those books come even close to making sense to me is if Dumbledore's actions come out of a long term plan to indoctrinate Harry into becoming a willing child kamikaze soldier [...]

To understand Dumbledore's actions you have to understand that the boy who lived was, effectively, already dead. It was the potential religious interpretation for the sacrifice that I found most disturbing. But only later, and then I started to feel a bit like I'd just read a C.S. Lewis story. Saying more is probably not appropriate to this part of the forum.

I enjoyed the books regardless, and enjoy revisiting them from time to time.

That quote you gave from Chesterton, I think there is some sort of corollary to that, that some things work while you're in the story that are obviously absurd once you are out again ... a bit like your example from Elizabeth Moon. I find a lot of stories for younger readers are like that, and yet I generally enjoy reading them very much.

I re-read a lot too, and as long as the story is able to pull me back in, the absurdities generally work just as well as they did the first time. (Not always, there are some books I find don't stand re-reading.)

[kyrilson]

I prefer worldbuilding that is not overly pushy. I don't want to have my hand held. I'd rather get hints and fill in the blanks myself. Further reading of the story/books should fill in more of the world, etc. Steven Erikson's Malazan series is a prime example of this. The reader is dumped right the middle of an ongoing story with very little context and Erikson trusts the reader to keep up.