[write what you -have to- know, and/or: world-building (is not) for dummies]

[reenka]

I think being so well-versed in fanfic and coming back suddenly to tons of (well-done) epic fantasy books, it's really been brought home to me just how bloody hard world-building really is, at least for me, because I loathe thinking on group scale rather than about inviduals. It's funny, on some level, because that's what I used to do back when I wrote lots of high fantasy stuff from ages 16-20 or thereabouts-- largely ignore characterization (or just do it sloppily & off-the-cuff) and make stuff up about the world. See, but 'making stuff up' and creating society outlines and weird theologies and odd customs-- I can do that, but I don't think that's what (good) world-building is really about. World-building really rests on group characterization-- because the people largely determine the world. You can't have one without the other. Gah.

I've been turning a halfway-studious eye on Flewelling's 'Luck in the Shadows', and I think-- I think the difficult part is not to make up weirdass environments for the pretty characters to 'play' in, but to always think of the human reasons and the human consequences for every societal or magical thingamabob you come up with-- now that's really hard. It's like... a society, all its ills and benefits, comes from a historical basis, so in order to understand your 'central' society (made-up or just any that's not currently 'yours', time-wise), you have to understand its allies, bordering nations, and of course its enemies. Further, you have to have some idea of what social forces drive it (for subtly different 'issues' drive every society, much as they naturally have in common, depending on the people's ethnic background and the natural resources, etc). Lastly, you have to remember there is always internal as well as external conflict, and all societies have to be non-homogenous-- ie, either naturally diverse or unnaturally stifled.

This seems a task less for unbridled imagination and more just-- for very step-by-step, rigorously logical thinking, and imagining myself doing that sort of makes me a bit green around the gills. Basically, even if I don't have a cast of at least 50 in a high fantasy (or any other-world) novel, I'd have to keep many, many more characters (and groups!) than that in mind, all in the background motivating the say, modestly interconnected group of dozen people I actually write about. And if you're thinking 'just a dozen??' then realize I'm thinking 'OMG A DOZEN WOULD BE 6 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE I GENERALLY HOLD IN MY HEAD AT ANY ONE TIME'.
    In other words... I'm generally proud when I remember to put in something about Draco's dad in a fic. ^^;;; Although... to give myself -some- credit, I'd say that the more I write in a story-- in my latest H/D novella, anyway-- the more the characters naturally multiply without much volition; they just sort of seem to 'fit in' where there appears an 'empty spot' that suits that sort of person. So perhaps it's not all conscious logical step-by-step analysis. One can hope that sometimes it's a bit like a puzzle-- gets easier to 'see' the pieces the closer to done it is. And perhaps... perhaps societies are also built by something like a 'fractal' method, the way individuals are-- you start out with something small and simple & complexify outward according to certain basic directional 'arrows' you can follow. Or something. Though it's still really intimidating to look at the 'finished product', looking outward-in, rather than working outward from the inside. Le sigh.


It's not only people & groups interacting, though; years (decades! centuries!) of tiny little knotted threads of conflict and cooperation in human motivation create the tapestry of non-sentient aspects of a society as well-- like the laws, the philosophies, the architecture, the social hierarchy & power-structures; my god... even the language-use (slang) and the type of English you'd use for different sectors would have to shift. Even if this is just a foreign culture and not a made-up one, you have to know all this stuff, which seems about as effort-heavy as making it up (since it seems like if you know enough societies in this amount of depth, I suppose it's not so hard to mix-and-match and make stuff up).

Actually, this feeling of 'I have to know a lot more than I do' is why I feel sooo skittish about writing fanfic in any 'verse (or country!) I'm not naturally familiar with-- that isn't clear. I can't write any fic set in Japan (god no!) or Buffy's California 'cause I'm not familiar enough with it-- but I can write Harry's Wizarding Britain (loosely!) because a) it's not a coherent and densely worked-out enough of an 'other-world' and so has a larger-than-usual margin of error; b) I probably have studied Britain the most of any foreign country ever, so I feel I have at least 70% of the stuff I'd need to know if not in my head then easily acquired; c) any kind of school in any kind of society remains my 'home base'.

I think 80% of the reason I don't write other fandoms is that I'm so aware-- so aware-- that this isn't my culture (like, for either SGA, which I'm mostly unfamiliar with or Star Trek-- my most familiar sci-fi show-- I'd say military-science anything is just-- is totally alien to me even if I've watched similar shows before), and I feel totally lost.
    Like, I feel I could imitate the characters and predict their reactions in familiar-enough situations easily enough, but... the scope of any fic I write would be deeply limited (to basically talking heads in a room). It's like, I'd need to really study everything to do with Star Trek and answer any questions I'd have left to my own satisfaction and create graphs and charts and appendixes before I could write a 'serious' story in it. And I've read/watched a huge part of canon in this fandom already! I really don't know how people manage to write long, in-depth fanfics with adventure plots without huge amounts of research. Maybe they're just more technically-minded and/or have different experiences than me to prepare them.

Anyway, I'm pretty aghast at everything I'll have to do (ie, write 3 books of reference for every book I write) if/when I write other-world fantasy/sci-fi myself. And 'other-world' would include historical novels, future-Earth novels, and anything set in a foreign culture or even a foreign social circle in -this- one, to a lesser extent. To make all this more depressing is the fact that I'm not that interested in my own subculture (whatever that might be), at least on an inspiration level. I don't want to write 'what I know'-- like, college-age computer/fantasy/etc geeks in love?-- and I'm overwhelmed by the demands of writing what I don't know. Gah. And of course, of course I can't lower my own standards... so if/when I write an other-world novel, it'll have to hold together tightly or I'll just scrap it. -.-;;;
~~

It's no news to anyone that knows me, but...I really suck with people, man. Ack. I 'forget' to give the pizza-guy his tip and he says in this soft voice, 'next time, don't say you'll give a cash tip on the phone if you won't' and I'm like 'oh, gimme sec' and by the time I come back with the change (having left the door open!) he's gone! I even went outside after him in my thin shirt & pajama bottoms, but he was gone! GAH! So now I'm painfully, painfully guilty and I feel awful (it's the soft voice!!) and mourning my pizza, since now I won't have the guts to call them ever again -.-;; *facepalm* I'M SUCH A MOOOOROONNNNnnnn... ><;;; graaargh. Being softly chastised by a nice person is MUCH WORSE than being told off by an asshole. WAH.

Comments

[cellia.livejournal.com]

I really don't know how people manage to write long, in-depth fanfics with adventure plots without huge amounts of research.

Many writers do do huge amounts of research. Some actually find this fun as it involves reading and learning.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I know (though -most- don't research for your average Japanese manga-based fanfic, I'm guessing... er... from the evidence at hand) ^^;;;; Er. It wouldn't be the learning & reading that would bother me (er?)-- it would be more... holding it in my head as I write. I dunno if this makes sense, but most of this was just me whining 'cause of the way I write, any sort of plot or thought-out structure tends to kill any um, sense of creativity. I come up with a plot/structure/idea, and then that in itself is enough. The other thing is that holding-many-things-in-your-head-at-once, or perhaps just holding groups/group-motivations and circumstances and several individuals and the whole society also in your head as you create more motivations/individual threads which will then have repercussions in all sorts of ways and subtly change things possibly 50 years down the line.... er.

Anyway, it's not about research, really, it's sort of a deeper understanding/connection which is connecting research/historical threads (possibly created yourself!) with creative chaos, linking individuals with groups and making groups -of- individuals. Anyway, I wasn't accusing people of not doing research(?)-- though I doubt most people do, obviously some do it very well-- but I'm good at both writing creatively and reading in-depth, but 'writing in-depth' is something else again. If that makes sense. And obviously some people are good at it (I wasn't denying-- the evidence is in the books I read!)-- I'm just... not. ^^;

[cellia.livejournal.com]

I think you totally could do it though! Ok, not that I have a deep understanding of writing... but... uh... Maybe just doing things a little at a time (like building up layers in a watercolor)? I was reminded of ivy's recent post on writing as I was reading this. What do you think of her strategy?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oooh, that post really is helpful-- the idea of separate, uh, mental 'areas' and building layer-by-layer both help. Hm. I think looking at the 'final product' is just intimidating for me, 'cause I read and go 'oh my GAHD, how is she coming up with ALL THIS DETAIL OMGWTFWTFWTF'. -.- It might be even more helpful to see one of these historically-heavy books broken down backwards (from the end result and backwards, like a painting you deconstruct). I understanding it forwards (from several start-points arrowing & growing/accumulating in several directions, as I tried to say in the post)-- but I lose track of that when I see things finished.

If I try, I -guess- I could sort of deconstruct it in my head, but it's still a huge amount of work. And you know... it's not that I don't like reading -or- writing -or- studying all in itself, but the more 'work' any task is, the more I'm like 'there's NO WAY I'll ever do THAT MUCH WORK without SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTING', ahahah...ha... -.-

I really can't keep multiple characters in my head at once. I can keep parts of them in my head, but not every piece of them, not all the time. Not every moment of a character, over months, over years; not his backstory and his future all at once, along with his particular reaction in the time and place of a particular scene. For me, it's all uncertain until I write it down (and even sometimes uncertain after that).

HA! AT LEAST I AM NOT ALONE!! *shakes puny fist* Okay, so it's... not so bad, then... okay..... *laughs*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

In general, I think my experience is limited 'cause I've never gone far enough into just writing a novel; any novel. It's frustrating 'cause I can go like crazy for a month and a half and then I hit a roadblock and get stymied for the next 4 months and then I don't have the momentum and things take a long time. So I never developed a 'method', even though I sort of naturally enjoy all the things she mentioned-- like a 'meta space' (talking with someone about the fic and brainstorming really helps), and the alternate scenes and the notes-- I just think the process of successfully orchestrating all these elements has never snapped into place for me, and I sort of muddle about trying to do a little here and a little there, and mostly overwhelmed by everything that's in my head that I feel hard-put to express, I suppose.

Though I wonder if separating all these processes works for me or if I should consider that more-- I think it would involve taking my writing a lot more seriously, 'cause presently I just scribble whatever it is off the cuff-- whether a random scene or just notes. Orchestrating all 4 areas or however many, knowing what 'should' go where... that's the true difficulty (for me at least).

[cellia.livejournal.com]

*cheers you on*

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I know what you're talking about - I started writing a fantasy story a couple of years ago, having planned the kind of things I usually plan for a fanfic, but I stopped after a couple of pages going, "No, wait, I have to figure out how this works first!" So then I started thinking about the world, the names of towns and countries, subcultures, marital customs, religion, different types of magic, technology... you name it. I'm still thinking.

I don't like the "let's do everything Tolkien did" crowd, but I'm starting to understand them.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I wonder if it really -is- inspired by Tolkien or it's just a natural way to seriously develop an other-world story (I mean, what -else- are you going to do, if you're going to go in-depth?) I do think Ivy's recent post (http://ivyblossom.livejournal.com/451168.html) was spot on in terms of... it's probably a good idea to have several processes going on at the same time-- like, not 'knowing everything' and -then- writing, but kind of figuring it out and messily constructing everything in several directions. Though then you're faced with a lot of editing :>

...though I still fail to see why must every bath-house they come to be described. WHY. :(

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I wonder if it really -is- inspired by Tolkien or it's just a natural way to seriously develop an other-world story (I mean, what -else- are you going to do, if you're going to go in-depth?)

Oh, I didn't mean in terms of developing your own maps and languages and whatnot. I meant that a lot of fantasy writers choose the same basic version of otherworld, vaguely medieval with kings and wizards and all that. Which is how Diana Wynne Jones got material for her "Tough Guide to Fantasyland."

I do think Ivy's recent post was spot on in terms of... it's probably a good idea to have several processes going on at the same time-- like, not 'knowing everything' and -then- writing, but kind of figuring it out and messily constructing everything in several directions. Though then you're faced with a lot of editing :>

Yeah - I'm lazy when it comes to editing. :-) I don't insist on knowing everything in advance - usually, I'm a pretty improvising kind of writer - but I find that for me, knowing the *world* in advance is actually more useful than knowing the *plot* in advance.

[elfbystarlight.livejournal.com]

This is just my experience, but... most of that details *comes* from the characters, for me. I mean, the characters turn up as themselves and tell their story, and I'm left to wonder... okay, why did they do that? If they did that, then it must mean that this happened, and okay, if that was four hundred years ago then in the intervening time this must have happened, and he can't go to whereever because of this, and he was wearing this because... and it all builds on itself without deliberately constructing it. And you end up with all sorts of substories that you don't need to actually tell, because they're not related to the main story, but they broaden *your* understanding of things and that comes across.

In my experience, reading pro-fantasy, it's usually fairly easy to tell which worlds evolved organically and which were deliberately constructed, as the latter are usually a) simple b) boring and c) unbelieveable. (Caveat - to me, at least). The nightrunner books, for example - it seemed pretty clear to me, upon reading, that the world had percolated in the author's brain for some time and developed into more than just what was necessary for the story; and reading what she's later said about it, that's exactly what it did.

You do have to either be very organised or have a good memory. And make notes, because no matter how good your memory is, you'll forget something just when you need it. But I think that process is something that comes organically to a lot of people and is really hard to... fake, I guess, if it doesn't (though profic shows that a lot of people do approach it mechanically and they certainly sell well enough, so maybe some people prefer to read that kind of world?)

I know I'd be doing all that even if I never wrote anything down, because that's what my brain does. I can use it or not, make something of it or simply enjoy it as a kind of internal travelogue/soap opera (and heaven know I've done both before).

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

For anime/manga fanfic, I don't think you need to worry about Japanese social realism. Plz, most anime itself is nowhere near, and if you see how manga writers portray real places and time periods? They don't seem concerned at all.

BTW, if you're interested in writing fantasy, you might try checking out limyaael's essays/rants on worldbuilding. They're written from a writing perspective. She used to have a webpage, but I'm getting a MYSQL error on it...

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

I think the difficult part is not to make up weirdass environments for the pretty characters to 'play' in, but to always think of the human reasons and the human consequences for every societal or magical thingamabob you come up with--

Word, word, a thousand times word. That, I think, is what makes the difference between authors like George R. R. Martin, who's Song of Ice and Fire series has economics and politics and religion and folklore built into its structure, and your average D&D rip-off fantasy. Worldbuilding writers like Martin and Tolkien are telling the reader a story about an entire world, while plot-driven writers like Rowling are telling a story about one or two people. For Tolkien, Middle Earth came first, and Frodo and Bilbo grew out of it. For Rowling, Harry comes first, and the Wizarding World is built around him. And if the reader is sufficiently interested in what's happening to Hary, then s/he isn't going to care that the Wizarding World appears to have no literature, or theater, or art other than portraiture, or international politics, and that the Death Eaters don't seem to have any motivation beyond being ev0l...

For fanfic writers, some of the worldbuilding work is already done for you (how much depends on the level of detail the original author built in), but when doing your own original work, you're pretty much starting from scratch. Even historical fiction, which, like fanfic, comes with it's own built in "canon," requires loads of research if you want to avoid being, say, Amanda Quick, who's "regency romances" bear so little resemblance to the actual 19th century that they might as well be set on the moon.

I do do some research for fic, but I freely admit to doing a half-asssed job of it (though I realise that what's "lazy, half-assed research" to a History major is probably "OMG way too much work for something I'm doing for fun" to a lot of other fans). I always have this feeling that I ought to be doing enough in-depth historical and sociological research to write a thesis on the background culture of my fic/novel/whatever, that I ought to understand the culture and the forces that shape all the chatacers and their society inside and out, but I usually just do enough to try and avoid making any obvious mistakes (like, say, having Dudley get a Playstation for his birthday in 1993).

In fandom, a little bit of research often goes a long way, especially when you're up against writers who apparently don't even bother to go as far as looking something up in Google. Some writers do put in a lot of research (and in historical fandoms like PotC, the presence or absence of it really shows), and some write the equivalent of a 1930s pulp film--anachronisms galore, and just enough period detail to seem exotic. A good writer can make either of the above work--a bad one has pages of mind-numbing infodumps, or settings that are so two-dimensional, they might as well be cardboard.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, poor you with the pizza guy! I am cringing for you in sympathy! Ack!

Also word to everything else. I'm so intimidated by world-building also because I feel so retarded about life in general. I don't think I have the slightest idea how worlds really work-even my own! There are things I kind of get but I don't know how people come up with these complicated systems. I'm doing something now where I figure I really need to come up with this character's backstory in terms of his world and...that means coming up with a world and it makes me realize how claustrophobic the thing is now.

[mgsmurf.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom.

Sure you're not the first person to be faced with the damn writing would be hard thoughts. My I have yet to finish a novel because I know with my writing style it'd take me 3 times longer to revise it into something that would hold together than to write, and I'm really not sure how able I'd be at holding that those details together while revising.

World building, I cast such a big picture brief eye on it, that I tend to only think up details if they're needed. As long as I know the how and why to the world's differences from now, I let the details flow as that logic would depict while writing, although then yes there'd be a slew of clean up with a novel afterwards instead of before. Also I write almost all science fiction. At least then I'm only extrapolating from now, and I know now, I'm living in it.

Lastly, isn't especially fantasy, but science fiction as well, about making up something completely different and altered than what anyone knows? If I wanted to write about my life I'd write mainstream fiction.

And good luck with that other-world novel whenever you do get around to writing it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, yeah-- I mean, theoretically, I know that I can play fast and loose easily enough, but it's more to do with a sense of comfort, I guess? Like, details about social -customs- (how do you act with different types of people) and politeness stuff, the geographic locations and orientation, little things like -exactly- how does a school schedule work and what kind of food do you eat and what does it mean when one's house is 'traditional' looking and so on. Sort of like a skewed mirror having its own consistency-- the way US sitcoms and even cartoons still seem... 'American' even if they're not -realistic-. I dunno, it's just intimidating to me, not for any rational reason, probably.

I did friend limyaael at one point!... but then I'm still not at the point where I'm seriously approaching writing it, just coming back to reading :> And when I read it with a writing perspective I just get jittery right now :> Though any good writing makes me jittery when I try to imagine having to write like that ^^;;;;

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, exactly! It's that I don't even know how my -own- world works, maaaaan. I'm really not used to sitting there and going ".... ....am I just -stupid- or do I just not watch the news enough and follow intrigues or -what-??!" -.- Societies are scawy. :( Any society is just so complex my mind sort of runs away and hides, quivering-- though the real issue is that I feel you have to think a bit differently to 'see' it-- like, leave off the individual perspective, or see the individual differently. If you keep seeing it from an individual eye-view, you're going to feel stupid (or possibly ganged-up on), I feel. This is sort of scary to me, ahahah.

Actually, I sort of 'get' how the world works as I read, right-- I mean, I have pretty high reading comprehension (I so tell myself), but then it's like, 'Quiz time! Now do it yourself!' and I just cringe. Although I suppose the option always exists to just... do it badly. But somehow, to me that isn't an option. *groan*

I actually have a world kind of sitting in my head lately, and the more I think of all the stuff I'd have to do before actually writing seriously, the more I get twitchy. On the bright side, I'd probably -like- it more than JKR's world, all things being as they are :D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh... yeah, I make no claim to originality, though I like to think at least I think about it beyond 'woe, hardship' & that counts for something. It's not -writing- that's hard so much as thinking systematically (to me) and following many threads at one time and so on (which doesn't really become necessary until one writes novels, no matter what the genre). Though reading Peter S. Beagle's short stories, the ones set in the same other-world... that must've taken a lot of behind-the-scenes work as well.

Theoretically, it'd probably help to write things down-- like, have notebooks full of reference or use one of the newer 'plotting' programs or something... I agree with whoever said above that it's a lot easier to write once you've got the world settled in your head anyway, even if the plot's still loose.

I think... it all depends on what you want from the story, what you're trying to tell. It's easy enough to 'just extrapolate' fast-and-loose from now or use some other time-period you're familiar with, but it all depends how much you care about your characters-- their validity both individually and in their settings. To me, even if I'm writing a plot or idea-based story, it's of manifest importance to interpret the idea using 'human' consequences & motivations to filter it. That's probably because I see -every- story as being basically driven by characterization, ideally, even if it's not written that way, because in real life, in any reality I know of (and given all fiction attempts to comment upon reality in some way)-- all of it is 'about' us by default. But that's a whole, um, philosophical stance.....

And of course, I wasn't denying that fantasy/sci-fi is about 'making up something completely different'-- it's just, it has to have inner consistency, and that means creating interconnections and using known parameters (like 'how do they eat' and 'how do they live' and 'what kind of religion do they have', 'what are their marital/mating rituals', etc). I would say, I guess, that no matter how different a society, if it contains sentient humanoids you could apply anthropological principles to understand it. So of course you're not writing about your life at that point, but you're still writing about people, which means they function in certain ways... some pretty complicated ways, ahaha.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh, I hadn't realized this rift between fantasy-types so clearly before, thank you! Now I know why I actually stay away from most epic fantasy, ahahaha. Well, the cookie-cutter plot-centricness but also-- also the way everyone and their brother seems to overfocus either on the politics (why am I reading political fiction when it says 'fantasy'? I hate politics!!) or the military-whatever as their way of writing about 'society'. My recent foray into Bujold and Flewelling made me rethink the bit about politics having to be boring, 'cause like, if you indeed treat them like people and not offices and intrigues-for-the-sake-of-intrigues (I dunno if that makes sense, but that's the feeling I get from stuff like 'Kushiel's Dart'). And it also really helps if the individual people aren't swallowed by the world and infodumpy description of every little thing (the way I felt trying to read Tolkien) but rather supported by it.

...Sometimes it gets to that 'too much, too much, heeeelp!' point even with writers I really enjoy and think get it 'right', like with the Nightrunner series. I mean. Whyyyyyy is every time they go to a bath-house on the road described? Why does every meal being written about get its own menu? Whyyyy is every house they come to described? That sort of thing. I really... I mean, at some point I pass intimidated-by-the-detail and get to just 'rather skeptical at the excess, thanks'. Possibly this is just that some people/writers care about their every meal and bath and such, and I don't. Maybe it's just that they're more earthy/practical people and I must allow them their need to dwell on these happy things (is that like writing pr0n scenes is for me??!) Though a part of me wonders if people will think no bathing occurs if I just avoided describing it (like people joke about Harry having never bathed in Order of the Phoenix 'cause no mention is made).

I think I just couldn't rest if I was writing a longfic set in a vaguely unfamiliar setting without knowing lots of extras, fanfic or no-- though I get really lazy with short things and barely describe anything of where the characters are at, to the point where I just set fic after fic in nondescript classrooms, corridors, 'the Great Hall' or just 'outside', 'next to the trees', ahahaha. It's also great 'cause I can have 'em talk while they're flying about on brooms. Or in bed. It's great to be lazy :D But I'm definitely either one extreme or the other, myself.

I probably tend to know just enough to realize I -should- be doing a lot more work than I'm doing, and so avoid writing crap by... er... not writing much. *cough* :>

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I do agree with you to an extent (ie, detail coming from characters), but, well-- that's a lot of characters (making up a society) and a lot of past characters (making up a history), and a lot of different threads of characters interacting (making my head spin trying to keep them all in the air). Like... the thing that intimidates me isn't the one character and their story, but the way that story intersects and interacts with like, at least 10 or maybe 20 other (minor) stories, and the way their grandparents stories have influences their stories, and the way their grandmother's uncle upset this one guy on a ship once and then 53 years later the vengeful thrice-removed cousin comes back to claim their honor except he gets waylaid on the market by a childhood friend of a mutual relation who was told to rob him to test his... (I dunno, but you see what I mean, right? complications!! inter-relationships! complicated histories making up a social group or an intersection of social groups within a larger group that makes up that segment of the overall society, etc!)

Anyway, this just seems very overwhelming to me personally, with my-- er-- limited comfort with group dynamics and also limited comfort when dealing with idea-based systems. 'Cause people's actions are also determined by their social/financial standing, nationality, religion, the overall climate of the country at the time, etc. But! Yes-- that's a great point about organic vs. cookie-cutter-structured social systems-- it's pretty easy to tell once you get the eye for it or think about it a bit, yeah. Ideally, though, there's probably some sort of balance between natural outgrowth and eventual structure-- because the society you're creating itself depends on both organic growth and imposed structures, and some things just logically follow as well (like, 'because the sewers are built in such-and-such a way, the house standing at this juncture of the city would have such-and-such situation with a secret passage going in this-or-that direction'). I think there'd be a lot of logical follow-through on organically conceived outlines in the most well-wrought worlds-- and it just sort of overwhelms me even thinking about it too much :>

Like, partly it's that I don't think some of these details would come naturally to me ('cause like, say, I don't know a lot about cows and their care, so if you asked me 'how do you kill a cow' or 'do did you upkeep roads before the Industrial age' or 'what are some different materials to use for paper'-- all this I'd need to even think of before I researched it, and it's just... a lot). But. It helps that there's intuition involved, definitely :>

[elfbystarlight.livejournal.com]

Being aware of the bits you don't know is really important! A lot of it can be cleared up with relatively little research - you don't have to know how to kill a cow, you just have to leave structural space for people to be killing cows if you want your character to have a steak dinner sometimes. Uunless the story depends on cow-killing, of course. Sometimes, it becomes very obvious that an author knows a lot in general and completely failed to consider one aspect - Tolkien's square mountains, bless him, or far too many fantasy authors who assume horses run a lot like cars (you get on, you tell it to go faster and it'll go all day until you tell it to stop, whereupon you put it in a stable and leave it there til the next journey three weeks later. Ahem.) and so on. Likewise, a lot of the small details will take care of themselves with about as much thought as you've given them - if they use paper, make sure they have access to the type of land that plant material is grown on, and show some kind if merchantile system so they can buy/trade for the damns stuff, but you don't need a treatise on papermaking though the ages.

And if you want to, there's the time-honoured process of finding a real (or historical) society that presumeably sorted all that out for themselves, doing a little research on it, and adapting that to your needs. :D In all honesty, especially when you're writing fantasy, historical familiarity with specific cultures is far more likely to yield a plausible world than making it up wholesale. But you don't have to be very rigid - the Romans had sewers and flush toilets and underfloor heating, for exaple, so you can plausibly give those to any society of similar scientific understanding.

Then again, there *are* things you won't think of, no matter how you try, which is why it's good to run it by other readers before letting it out into the wild, so they can say things like 'but how does he pay for the housekeeper if he has no income for six months here?' and 'so if there's no organised school system, why it it taken for granted that everyone can do calculus?' etc, most of which can be cleared up with only a few lines if *you* know the mechanism behind them. Or, dragging a quote from the ever-brilliant scott_lynch on his upcoming novel:

The cool thing about *this* map is that I finally remembered to insert a canal with a series of locks, so that the poor people of Camorr would no longer ram their barges fruitlessly and fatally into a 60-foot waterfall when trying to haul stuff upriver. For I am a benevolent god. Mostly.

Would that have occured to me? Probably not. I don't know anything about canals. *Now* you can be sure I'll be paying attention to it [g]

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think most of it is just getting myself to think of things in terms of groups or systems at all-- I think once I got in the (somewhat less than terrifying but more than just irritating) habit, things would fall into place. I also think the 'things I don't know' often seem to amount to 95% of everything I need to know, since even in short stories, I barely ever start with an outline or even an idea of where I want to go beyond 'well, this is a nice place to start'. And then sometimes I do know where I'm going and that makes it completely pointless to go there, since I've already been there... so to speak. I'm a winner at being self-defeating, I guess :>

But yes, it probably does help to have 'advisors' and 'readers-over' and stuff. I think it's like, even if I research and know stuff about the society in some historical detail, it won't necessarily grant me comfortability in juggling all the different elements of 'how things work' in (smaller or larger-scale) societies-- to paraphrase sistermagpie above somewhat, I too don't feel like I know how my -own- 'world' really works, much as I know all sorts of facts about it. I think there's a certain... knack at seeing things from a systems-based group perspective-- sort of pulling back and taking the telescopic rather than microscopic view of things (is part of the difficulty). Otherwise you'd know lots of mechanics without knowing the rightful 'big-picture' view of the places to plug them in.

A 'human' example would be me reading Flewelling's second Nightrunners book and balking at having a chapter describing the two heroes' night in a whorehouse. I mean, I can see how it advances both their relationship and the plot in -retrospect-, but my mind would naturally shy away from writing something like that because of a heavy built-in preference not to have my main characters 'cheat' on one another, whether or not (ha!) they've yet started their actual relationship. I was actually sitting there fighting with myself, trying to take the 'telescopic' long-eye-view, but my instincts kept tripping me up and I just kept telling myself 'BUT THIS IS SO MEAN'. And it wasn't even angsty or graphic or anything; it's just an example as to how one would avoid thinking about things that aren't comfortable in terms of creating the right interactions to move things along. Maybe I should just disengage myself from the characters in question (my own, then!) as I write, but I don't think this writer did that herself, so... I'm just a wuss. But I'm still bitter about the whorehouse. Very childishly bitter-- and in a similar way, I just shy away from thinking about other necessary 'systems-building' stuff unless its totally theoretical and factual. I mean, it's all in the application, isn't it?

...Possibly this is just solved with practice, and I admit it -is- easier to manage to objectively write 'distasteful' things once I get in the spirit rather than passively reading them, -especially- 'in the spirit'. Anyway, I'm just trying to say that the barrier is really a type of thought or approach rather than handling information itself :>

[elfbystarlight.livejournal.com]

[nod] I think I see what you're saying. It is best to work within your own thought patterns, even if you push them a lot (which I advise on principle [g]). Something it might be worth considering is that just because you like reading, say, the Nightrunner books, it doesn't mean you have to write those kinds of books, where the worldbuilding is a major part of it. A lot of stories do focus a lot more on the characters than the surrounding world - you can leave an awful lot alluded to rather than explicit, which means you can live without the greater understanding of it. As you say, any random individual *won't* know an awful lot about things that are out of their frame of reference.

That's a really interesting point you have with that Nightrunner scene, by the way. I don't think it's ever occured to me to see that as cheating, emotionally or otherwise, on what S+A have/might have/will have. That for me wouldn't be an uncomfortable thing that nevertheless moves the plot along. Which makes me think that in most cases, you can probably find something that you *are* comfortable writing about that would have the same effect as a difficult scene.

(I do think writers should push themselves - but on the other hand, writing things you despise writing about rarely produces your best work. Possibly some kind of deconditioning process? :D)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I really do wonder about this! That stuff about not having to write it just 'cause I like it-- that really struck me, haha. The problem is probably that I naturally write stuff that alludes lots and has mountains of things hinted at (I'm a pro at hinting at stuff I don't mean to hint at), but-- I also totally agree one should stretch oneself! So I read Flewelling with a sort of consternation and a bit of aw, because even if I don't wanna write books -exactly- like that, I need some of that (organizing? systemizing?) medicine. Or something. Heh. I could never actually start thinking in a totally alien or rigidly structured way so that's not a danger, probably-- but it's hard to know how to approach changing my thinking just enough to allow my innate vision to solidify without losing the pleasure I get from doing what comes natural (ie, avoiding those icky groups & social systems by any means necessary!!) :D

I'm actually writing this to avoid reading more 'cause I'm still(!) disturbed after the whorehouse chapter, and I'm not sure why either. I was okay with the minor 'indiscretions' (heh) before, but as soon as S. admitted to himself he was in love, that's it-- emotional lock-down. I think a lot of it is just me being slightly resentful (even though I'm still understanding!) of what's basically his nature, and a lot of 'normal' guys' nature. I mean, Alec is the most 'traditional' sort and even he...! Hah. So that sort of freaked me out a bit too, but he's a sixteen year-old boy, I'm being too harsh (I know!) but. Actually, I'm just being a totally unforgivable romantic, going counter to the character's own form of romanticism and emotional make-up. I mean, obviously, for -Seregil-, there's no emotional import to whatever he does within the whorehouses, and -he- was even jealous where Alec wasn't, and I should applaud the realism and him remaining in-character, but. Since I've grown so attached to them, I get a little too wound up when they act in ways I disapprove of. Alas. Actually, I felt a sliver of that with the queens putting traitors' heads on spikes ('but that's not nice! they should have a revolution!!' ahahah).

I agree you can probably achieve the same effect through different methods, though. When I feel I'm just being stubborn or squeamish, and when I admire another writer's work a lot, it's hard to still say 'well, I don't need to change'. Which is probably good, if I can get over it being vaguely alarming, heh.

[mgsmurf.livejournal.com]

It is interesting it's the thinking on systematics for you that hangs you up, that I wouldn't say is usual. Although if you ever wrote out books of info to fleshed out a world, I bet your handle on it would be much stronger than many other writers because you need all that detail. Besides, in fantasy you can write series with that world once you get it going, so the 3 books of background to make several books of a series would equal out in the long run.

It's easy enough to 'just extrapolate' fast-and-loose from now or use some other time-period you're familiar with, but it all depends how much you care about your characters-- their validity both individually and in their settings.

Oh the fast and loose must still be based on how real people, real world, created world and the rest work. If things aren't based in the writer's and more importantly the reader's sense of reality they always fail and usually come off as amature or silly. Me and my own thinking being rather firmly planted in reality is one reason why I think I have an problem writing most fantasy. Yes, it's just as based on reality, but adding magic is too outside my rooting for me to get a logical grasp of things so I can handle writing the world. Now you give me magic technology where I can reason around how lost technology made the magic happen, and a fantasy world makes sense again.

Lastly, yes, the lack of inner consistency is one thing that's likely most able to make fantasy/SF fail. There have to be rules, they have to followed, and the reader will pick up if you're not following them.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

BTW, I asked her, and she gave me the link to a new page. http://coyotecult.com/communities/sfandf_critters/references/limyaael.php

But I think those details aren't really necessary, or a lot of them are easily accessible with a few minutes of googling. Besides, shouldn't the manga tell you the answer for "how so and so interacts w/ different sorts of people?"

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the thing I realized-- with the googling thing, which makes sense of course-- is that to me, it's a question of asking the -right questions-. You have to know when to pause and wonder 'oh, so what would be the right societal custom for this occasion' or 'what would this sort of environment look like' or what have you. That's what I meant about the systemic long-eye view being difficult-- I mean, I never meant to imply the facts themselves, the details and specifics were what intimidated me with it all. That is, of course, either smudgeable or easily found out. But a true in-depth knowledge of the culture lets you know what you -don't- know in a natural way, if that makes sense. You can sense the holes because the other areas of expertise are there. At least, that's how it works with me.

You're right that the manga should tell you most of what you need to know, especially if you're going to stay within its environment. I think this concern about getting things wrong is mostly 'cause somehow related to my real-life reticence about unfamiliar social structures, probably.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Here (belatedly) via metafandom. See, I don't find world-building that difficult in fanfic or original fic, and I love research (half my unread books were bought in secondhand shops because they might just be useful for researching a story *one day*).

I tend to start with a concept, and build from there, writing a bit, researching when I'm stuck, editing if my research (or my beta) tells me that what happened earlier doesn't mesh with how things are. Starting points for a world are things like 'what if Oxford was home to a bunch of extinct and mythical beasties, but most people ignored that?', 'what if Blakes 7 ran for 20 years, while Eastenders never happened?' 'what if New Aeon Books in Manchester had been run by Buffyverse characters instead of cavalorn and the gang?'. The question point and my initial main characters -- a bunch of dons and students, actors and their families, Lorne and Ethan in the respective examples -- shape the world, and the writing/research I need to do.

I must admit that I tend to write more when I've got people to bounce my ideas off -- my betas, my F'List, members of specific communities, people I actually talk to in the real world -- but I can't imagine writing anything without some kind of research, even if it's just rewatching specific episodes of a source medium, or snippets of a film scene that relates to the scene I'm trying to write. And my current WiP feels much more solid since I walked around Muswell Hill and Highgate and realised that those are two areas of London where my main characters live/lived at various points of their relationship.

Don't know if any of that helps, but I hope it does.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

See, I too love research (though generally I don't do it for fic because basically I do next to no work for fics and am awfully lazy & never finish longfics)-- and I love asking 'what ifs' and think that if/when I wrote a 'serious' longfic/novel, I'd start with that, of course, but it's just a question of -method- from then on, I think. Like, left to my own devices, the questions I think to ask, the places I'd -want- to go would be limited by preference.

My sheer lack of interest in some technical aspects (as opposed to others, which I'd of course research) would hobble me the most; the problem I was talking about was more about thinking in a wide/social scope sort of way. I never meant to imply I'm not a curious or exploratory or imaginative writer or person or what have you; only that I'm staggered at all the avenues I really should follow that wouldn't appeal not because they're 'what if' but because they're very much a question of logistics instead-- not 'how does this one factor affect others and work naturally' but 'how do all these factors work together over some period of time'. And that is more a question of mental discipline than research by far; not just synthesis, which is fun, but the constant checking of results both against each other (social subsystem against subsystem) but against their human consequences (to determine how the characters would act/interact).

It's not (precisely) that just doing it is hard; it's that doing it well enough to satisfy me is hard. I'm ace with 'what ifs'; the point isn't the ask the question or even to provide an answer, because I can do that without breaking much of a sweat, and the asking's easy-shmeasy. The point is, ideally, constantly checking any event against its context and multiple human consequences-- not just one, and not in a single individual, and not just one single time but maybe only effective 24 or 240 years down the line. It's that sort of tactical projection that's hard for me, at least.

Still, it depends what kind of book you're writing, what kind of world you're building, etc. If it's not an epic fantasy with a huge secondary world and a large cast of characters, generally this sort of thing doesn't intimidate or overwhelm me-- but I was specifically talking about epic fantasy :>

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

I think that kind of world-building is relevant to any world that isn't ours, and can be where long series about the same central protagonist fall down. Change one thing and it affects everything else, creating yet more changes.

For instance, if a space-opera is watched by 20 million people three times a week or more, how does this change the balance of people attending conventions for that show? Do you get different fans going to conventions and/or writing fanfic to the ones that read all about the actors in the tabloids? It doesn't equate exactly to any of the big fandoms out there, because none of them have been going that long (other than Dr Who, which pre the new series had a different style of fanbase altogether in the UK at least).

I don't think epic fantasy is that scarily different, other than the fact that a lot of it is done badly or follows conventions blindly. Start by deciding on what region and period is most equivalent and then chart the differences between that and your invented world. Make sure the statistics fit re how many people, how many crops/animals, how big an area, and work from there. I'm going to have to do all that again in my contemporary fantasy universe when I move beyond the first book, because there's a fine balance between a population being large enough to sustain itself, but small enough for the public to keep overlooking it (whether we're talking about beings of human-level intelligence, small flying reptiles or anything in between).