h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Creating a detailed world helps a story out because:
- you gain consistency
- you create a background that can add depth to a story
- you know more than the readers and can show them that to impress them, and they'll think "Hey, that writer's a really smart guy. This is very realistic."

But it isn't enough. Many people create relatively detailed worlds nowadays, and publishers know this. On the other hand, plot isn't valued as much now. Tolkien got published because he had an original idea--writing from a conculture, or a made-up world--and because he had a great story to tell. His style is frankly crap. Now, you need a good style, an acceptable plot (but they don't seem to be strict about it), and a sufficiently detailed world and characters.

There's also a reason not to create this wonderfully fleshed-out world. I recently finished a novella that takes place in a single city of a single country. All I needed to define clearly was that city and my characters. I had a murky understanding of the rest of the world and a sketch of the history, and I revealed less than half of it. There was no need.

The moral of the story? Think twice before creating a world, and don't expect it to get you instant fame and fortune.

~gareis

Agreed. The *real* worth in a book is rarely the realistic quality of the setting. It's the believability of the characters and the quality of the writing. Creating a believable world only helps if you have good characters (writing style is another realm entirely)... and in any case, a fully fleshed out world's not absolutely necessary. Interesting, movitaved characters are.

Besides, it's not a good idea to create a world and *then* write about people in it. You may end up pigeon-holing yourself.

In the end, however, it's all about what the reader prefers. Some people prefer a heavily fleshed out world with little characterization or plot or originality beyond the world. Some prefer a sketched world with a few specifics but very defined characters, some just want the plot.

That is, an original world might get you published, but that's no guarentee anyone will buy your book.

Oh, and Tolkien is pure and utter crap. "Frodo noticed he was awake. He opened one eye. He looked around, and realized everything had a one-dimensional quality to it. So he opened the other eye and continued looking."

I don't think Tolkien is complete and utter crap. He just had a horrible writing style, and that came from his being absorbed by Anglo-Saxon epics. They're the sort that go on for pages recounting geneologies, like the Norse eddas.

~gareis

Adding this here so as not to have two threads in a row--

You mention languages as a part of creating cultures. How about a link to a guide on language creation, such as www.zompist.com/kit.html ? Some crazy people actually make languages for fun, without having to build up a culture beforehand and I'm one of them. Cultures just don't seem to stick to my languages....

Nah, Tolkien was crap because of his writing style. It's ruined any value the books would have otherwise had for me. Can't even watch the movies.

*has a lot of stuff she could say about culture and language, but none of them are relevant*

You mention "the believability of the characters" as an integral part of a book's success. This would not apply to poetry (with the exception of ballads and epics), correct? I ask because you have completed a work of poetry.

Hi,

I understand what you are both getting at and I appreciate the importance of this kind of debate regarding anything that may attempt to guide writers down a particular path. As I said in the article, you need a pragmatic approach to world creation and it may not be for everyone. I'm am by no means saying skip those other important writing skills such as style or characterisation (that would be stupid), just that the self help books on the market on becoming a writer tend to skip it - and I it as an extremely important aspect of the planning process. If the world (to whatever extent is necessary) is already there and fresh in your mind, it make the writing flow easier. Useful characters tend to be there already, and aspects of your world may inspire other stories. You mention pigeonholing yourself is a bad thing - but if it's the pigeonhole you want to be in then that is absolutly fine. Many great authors create a number of books set in one reality, location etc.

Ho hum, that's my 2 penny's worth.

Tony C

It depends on whether or not the poem is character based. Not only epics and ballads create "characters." The moment a poet begins talking about a "she" or "you" or even an "I," a character is involved. Believability won't necessarily follow the same pattern as it would if the character was in a novel or a short story, but I suppose some of the same elements can be used - the character has to have a reason to be where s/he is, has to follow a kind of logic, etc.

I'm unsure if that makes sense... I don't write much poetry that is character based (as such), so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

I meant pigeonholing in the first book - I doubt it's likely, but it's possible some author-wannabes could create a totally spiffy and intricate world, start writing a book about it, and then come to a point and want (or need) to change something and feel they can't because that would pull everything out of balance. I doubt that'd happen, but one never knows. It's far better to run with a sketch of the world in the first draft, tighten up the world once you're finished with the first draft, then rewrite with that in mind, rather than try to make it all perfect the first time around. World creating, it seems to me, should be an evolutionary process as one writes and rewrites (and rewrites and rewrites and rewrites). I don't think you were suggesting that it shouldn't be... I just wanted to clarify my point.

I both agree and disagree. Yes you shouldn't make the world too detailed (after all you aren't writing a travelguide), but sketching out some details can be beneficial as I understand it.
First you have a guide to potentially intersting places for your characters to go (and they have to go somewhere and do something for there to be a story) and second you have a scale to measure things against.
I mean say a character in your book has to reach the seaside within 2 days, and he has a fast horse there won't be much tension if he can get there that easily, but if you have done some world building and know that he has to navigate a series of valleys which form a maze in order to reach the seaside from where he is (and if there are dangers in the maze of valleys) then you have the potential to make a very exciting point in your story.
Will he get through the maze? What dangers will he face? Will he be in time? You cheat yourself of that potential if you don't do any world building ahead of time.

I respect what you're saying about writing requirements changing since Tolkien's time. But I disagree that having a 'murky' understanding of your fictional world is enough. You may have only had to use half of your research/ideas, but just keeping these details in mind as you write creates a richer more convincingly told story. Because the reader will sense you know your world. Also you will know which details are important and to include, and which are not.