Middle Earth and The Perils of Worldbuilding

[RansomSmith]

I think you've got it exactly backwards. The reason we love worldbuilt fiction is the way it engages and activates us, destroying the mental and artistic passivity that you caution against. An attractive constructed world inspires fanfiction: the reader immediately turns around and becomes a writer. Moves beyond interpreting the text, into expanding it.

That doesn't mean political worldbuilding isn't dangerous. The danger is not in some engendered passivity, but in its power to inspire active complicity in some unworthy cause.

[AspelShuyin]

As an aspiring writer--and worldbuilder--I can't really say that I agree. Quite the opposite, in fact. I feel that if anything the nature of worldbuilding is a positive one, and even an active one for the reader. After all, you mentioned yourself how you'd go *actively* search for answers not found in the text. When you're watching Game of Thrones and you go to find one of the Wikis to learn someone's backstory that's only hinted, you're not being a passive reader, you're being active. You're no longer a viewer, watching scenes unfold in your mind, you're a researcher, finding these things out and exploring extratextual sources, learning about things the author said in interviews or short stories or other works.

More than that, I feel draw the opposite conclusion that you do. It's not the fictional worldbuilding that primes us for real worldbuilding of Coca-Cola or L'Oreal or politics. It's the real world that primes us for fictional worldbuilding because we want somewhere to escape our world that feels just as real. And that gets into the whole "is escapism healthy" argument, but at the same time these arguments about worldbuilding could be easily extended to *any* form of fiction. Is there anything inherently perilous in fiction?

M. John Harrison says it derisively, and goes out of his way to avoid worldbuilding (although any text will invariably have worldbuilding, even if it's inconsistent), but I don't see that as a problem. I want to survey a world that isn't there. I want to go on a vacation to a place that doesn't exist. After all, that's what reading--what fiction--is. I play video games, watch movies, read books, play tabletop, et cetera for the same reason I went to DC, and gave everyone I met a different name while I was there. I explore fiction for the same reason I explore Wikipedia.

And I like worldbuilding--both as an aspiring writer and an audience of various texts--for the same reason I like food with filling taste and palatable texture. Meat is good.

[IllesDobnerOfficial]

John, I love your work but this video is based on a false premise. Worldbuilding is to a significant degree about creating an environment in which conscious suspension of disbelief can take place. The fact that a world is near perfectly constructed helps many readers (myself included) focus on the message/meaning. If I'm constantly distracted by my disbelief in what I read, it won't speak to me, there won't be a cathartic experience. If, however, I'm so lost in the book that for a few days, it's real to me, I can think about the decisions of the characters, their moral dilemmas, etc. in a meaningful way. I can think about what the author implies about life, death, religion, politics, etc. We build worlds of make belief not just to escape from but also to help make sense of our world. We are worldbuilders, have always been. We dream things, we plan, we make them reality. Yes, the world we inhabit is a built world, and we've built some great and some terrible things. But without this ability, we never would have stepped on the moon. We'd still be chasing down antelopes on foot. Imagining things that aren't real to a minute detail is just part and parcel of what makes humans great. I'm sure you know this, but then... why the video?

[Canadian_Princess]

I strongly disagree with your idea that world building encourages passivity and a lack of challenge. World building provides both reader and writer with an active engagement. An especially talented writer will use world building, not as a metaphor, but as a place filled with its own history, such as Tolkein. This requires then, an effort of understanding from both parties.

[jamesgeorge]

I respectfully disagree that the popularity of world building is creating passivity, I think it actually encourages people to create their own stories. Do you have any idea how many times I've run into people both online and in real life who were constructing their own little worlds, people are constantly creating whole histories and civilizations, letting their imaginations run wild. I've always been a lover of history, the stories have always fascinated me, and to have whole in depth worlds being a dime a dozen online, I can relieve the feeling of reading history for the first time almost every day.

[teddyberserker]

I certainly agree that political worldbuilding is quite sinister. However, it's a slippery slope to blame fantasy worldbuilding on its political arch nemesis. Tolkien spoke of "sub-creation" as an imperative, and his contemporary Lewis added as a worship. By design many of us altruistically feel drawn to worldbuild.

[ze_rubenator]

I think world building is so popular for two reasons, at least from my perspective:

1. As a reader, it's very nice to be able to leave this world and enter a new one. This is especially beautifully done in Narnia and Harry Potter, where this kind of literally happens. It's a nice relief from our real lives, and let's be honest, who doesn't wish they could go to Hogwarts?

2. As a writer, it frees you from the shackles of history and modern society. You can invent whatever you like, introduce any kind of conflict, without adhering to anything preexisting. George R. R. Marin is a genius in this regard, because he's basically made a "best of British history" but with magic and dragons. What's better than that?

[JoshForeman]

I think you're ironically missing the point that worldbuilding stories are usually the exact method that artists use to undo the worldbuilding of corporate, religious, and other institutions. Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica are prime examples of using a world-build setting to interrogate social norms.

[merrymachiavelli]

I worldbuild as a hobby (I'm not an author or trying to write a fantasy novel, its a purely personal creative and intellectual exercise). I find this a slightly bizarre way to look at it.

For me, its about trying to make my world as realistic as possible, in both a natural and human way. And, in the process, to understand why _our_ world is as it is. The term 'building' is very apt because once you try to go for realism, you have to go from the ground up, as it were.

For example, plate tectonics (past and present) effect the positioning of continents, which effects the positioning of mountains and (along with latitude) water currents, this effects climate in a dramatic way as well as river layout.

Then once you move onto human topics you have to consider which civilisations exist, how have they changed and interacted over time, what languages do they speak (how are those languages related), religion...etc. You also have to work out population densities, technological advancement and, quite broadly, how people _think_. It's unending, but always rooted in causality.

In my own world, I also play around with things like astronomy (which is basically galaxy-building) and evolutionary history. My world also lacks large-scale recoverable fossil fuel desposits (no Carboniferous...etc) which has an impact as well.

The amazing thing about world building is that is really gets you to ask deep questions about why the world is the way it is and in a structured, objective way. If you do it right, its about 70% research 30% informed imagination.

When it comes to worldbuilding in fiction, I have to disagree with the Nerdwriter1 on this one. The forces which have shaped our world to be as it is (revolution, development, climate...etc) are forces which would have had a role in _any_ world with humans living on it. What happened in our history due to circumstance, and what happened due to the underlying nature of how the universe and humanity works? A well-built world can tackle these questions.

I dislike worlds like Middle-Earth because they are too contrived and too moralised, for me anyway, in the urge to make a point and have meaning. That gets in the way of realism, as reality has no objective meaning. Personally, I prefer the method of GRRM, where the the world is more-or-less realistic and commentaries are made through the experiences of characters.

[bolerie]

I think the problem with worldbuilding is how it is presented. Often times it is seen as very factual: this guy did this thing at this time in this place for this reason. But actual history is not like that. It is full of things unknown, uncredited stories, myths and legends. For the longest time the Trojan war was seen as a factual event, then in the 1800's no one believed in it until the ruins of Troy were rediscovered and history had to be rewritten all over again. I find it strange how many of the middle ages-like fantasy worlds seems to know everything about their history, how their gods seem to be not just myths, but actual agents. I would find it much more satisfying if the worldbuilding was filled with conflicting stories, of ruins of unknown civilizations. And it would teach is an important lesson too: you can't always trust the stories you are told, because for every story there are a million conflicting ones.

[stuckupcurlyguy]

But Tolkien disparaged allegory. He really sought to write a fictional "history", not a metaphor. I think you are incorrect in this respect.

[JSTama]

every story, which happens outside the rules and known spaces of our own universe, are building worlds. even those that happen within. it's impossible to tell a story of fiction and strip it away of the world it takes place in. even if everything is unconnected, we as humans will try to see patterns. searching to stablish an understandable world with rules.

[NameLess-bmjp]

The conclusion, "a strain of passivity in people that world building fiction seems to at best reflect and at worst encourage", is problematic and relates directly back to the initial idea that world building fiction is passive. World building is the author's creation of the imaginary physical and metaphysical space for a work of fiction, and—as mentioned in the video—all fiction participates in this. And as recognized in the video, the act of reading is an active endeavour. The reader must translate the text from signed to signifier without additional information than the book, or books, themselves (Wikis are a collection of information from the 'canon' or published works—fan fiction is a beast of its own). World building fiction, if anything, encourages active participation by changing the space from what the reader recognizes as their 'norm'. Even common contemporary ideas can be othered by a different setting.

Where powerful world building fiction excels is when the reader is challenged by the ideas of the fiction presented that are purposefully or accidentally different from their own. Kameron Hurley, N.K. Jemisin, Ken Liu and Max Gladstone world build to challenge their readers with their narratives and their settings.  Hurley confronts gender and sex, Jemisin and Liu use different foundational narratives to build their own, and Gladstone turns the financial crisis of 2008 into a conflict between magical capitalist lawyers against nation-state gods.

Viriconium participates in world building to deconstruct it just as much as traditional world building fiction. By refusing any certain nameable space, Harrison creates liminal spaces for his fiction. There is a fluid coherency to the work created from the rejection of the Tolkienesque world building. Patterns are rife in Viriconium and establish their own consistency where other consistencies are denied. Spenser's Faerie Queene & Joyce's Finnigan's Wake have this type of world building as well, though I would argue that Joyce even removes the literal story Harrison prizes to deal wholly with a metaphorical story composed solely of the internal patterns he creates that resist their external meanings.

The final point about 'reality building' is too broad and troublesome. Alluding that 'passive' world building fiction is equateable to the evangelical spreading of political doctrine in the USA or corporate branding opens up all avenues of communication and expression. Are naturalist paintings 'active' or do they create passivity because naturalism attempts to capture the world as it is seen 'naturally'? Does rap create passivity because it attempts to express the reality of social issues for marginalized americans? This conversation is a smaller part of how capitalism valourizes subcultural movements, but world building fiction cannot be conflated to the level that comic books or video games are to criminal violence.

[GazpachoMacho]

I think you're missing the point behind world building...

[DracoMhuuh]

I think that there is an aspect that wasn't really tackled. The aspect fo why these worlds attract. More specifically, why people urge to know more about the worlds.

I myself am a big fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, precisely due to the worldbuilding. I want to know more about the mythology, the culture, the social structures. And I want to look at how they differ from the real world. One cannot look at something else without comparing to the known. And in a sense this means that by creating a particular world you are addressing issues in your real world or prompting readers/watchers to think about their real world and the intricacies that make it what it is.

[georgwitting]

@nerdwriter1 - one great example of worldbuilding that might have deserved mentioning here is Bas-Lag and the great city of New Crobuzon from the novels by China Miéville. What is intriguing about it is the complexity of the society he builds, going far beyond the proto-medieval world of Tolkien and introducing so many more layers.

[lisazoria]

Although I appreciate your thought provoking and unique take on the subject, I don't quite agree. I wouldn't be so quick to equate the deceptive brand of "world building" sold to us by advertisers and politicians with the fictional world building done by writers. Although both are technically 'fantasy' in their own right, they are (usually) created with completely different, if not opposite intentions.

I doubt most authors who attempt to world build endeavor to create such rich landscapes just so readers can be passive admirers. Properly done world building should not only create a sense of "realism" (despite the fantastic elements), but it should also inspire a sense of wonder and curiosity within readers. There's always a sense that there's more and it's up to the readers to fill those gaps with their own imagination, if that's not active engagement, I don't know what is.

I know not every fantasy is written with the same authorial intent, but following the tradition of Tolkien and J.K. Rowling, etc. the world building phenomenon can hardly be said to have the same mentally stifling effects of a politician's "because-I-said-so" brand of fantasy.

[MandaloresUltimate]

World building is a necessity to create rich worlds. If your characters seem to have no existence beyond the narrative, they often lack substance and proper motive. A world or universe is the perfect back drop and the more rich it is, the better it helps a story seem relatable. We live in complex world; one so complex no book could hope write it down in a realistic fashion. Fantasy worlds are no different if you want people to relate to them. If knowing things exist outside the narrative a story is telling you distracts you, you are a terrible reader or are reading a terrible book.

[dakota]

I don't buy this for a second. I find world building to be beneficial to stories and making me hunger for more. I think they make the stories better since you have your setting, locations, etc. already made that you use while you write. You can always add to it later, but I just think world building is great.

[stephenfulford]

Have you ever read Tolkien's transcribed lecture on fairy-stories. It's quite profound and I think does a brilliant job convincing me of the very opposite of this video's remarks. Tolkien's work is not a metaphor or allegory for anything. That's not why he wrote it. I would really encourage everyone interested in fiction, especially secondary worlds, to read this transcription.