Fantasy Book Club discussion

Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but a..."

I meant it as a general call. I think Sandra aka Sleo meant her comment as just a prod for the other invited authors in case they missed my question from earlier.

Kernos wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

As would I. I would also like to ask them..."

Hmm . . . I'll have to think more on this, but the author (already mentioned) who leaps immediately to mind is Guy Gavriel Key. He creates utterly believable cultures based on those from our own world, but still completely his own. Plus he's spectacular with language.

I also have to give credit to Robert Jordan for the creation of his world (even though I think he included too many of the details in his books, as I mentioned earlier). It's highly detailed and well thought out overall.

I really liked the desert culture and world Michelle West created for her "Sun Sword" series as well, although its juxtaposition against the more familiar medieval society of her main empire wasn't as smooth as I'd like.

Oh, there are so many good and/or interesting authors and worlds out there . . . *grin*

I prefer authors to supply relevant details only with a few extraneous facts to give a sense of depth. First, I'm reading for the story, not the scenery. I tend to chose fast paced books for that reason. When they wax too poetic, usually get bored.

Second, they often get something wrong. A lack of detail is better than an incorrect one. My imagination can generally fill in any details that I need, but something that is illogical or plain wrong can ruin a story.

Joshua wrote: "Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

Perhaps I'..."


Exactly. I was only inviting the author panel to jump in and respond to what has been said so far. I in no way meant to discourage others from commenting sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for clearing that up, Sandra.

Joshua wrote: "Kernos wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

As would I. I would also..."

Amen to Kay. Somehow he creates totally believable worlds with people I care about with just the right amount of descriptive tapestry to pull me in and make me feel right there.

Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "Thanks for clearing that up, Sandra."

Sorry for not being clear.

Although I write "epic" (medieval) fantasy, I enjoy reading a lot of urban fantasy and paranormal mysteries. In some ways, I agree that it's a little more difficult for urban/paranomral writers to gain suspension of disbelief because we intimately know the modern world. When you're in a historical or quasi-medieval setting, you've got the benefit of some suspension of disbelief by virtue of the fact that the reader has agreed to an alternative world setting. Also, since we've never actually lived in a medieval or other-world setting, the reader can't be more of an expert than the author. That's of course not the case when the book is set in the modern era. If you can't get past your internal filters that say elves don't ride on subways, then the story is dead at the start. For me, urban fantasy works best when it fills in those mysterious cracks and crevices in the real world that make us ask, "what if?"

S. Eric wrote: "Joshua wrote: "S. Eric: You stated that writers of urban fantasy have to spend more time making the magic fit the real world setting, so perhaps it's harder for them to worldbuild than if they bui..."

I would say that if the magic isn't entirely rational, it helps for the book to have a humorous bent. For example, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Undead and Unwed, Callhan's Crosstime Saloon. A humorous setting makes a reade more willing to forgive irreconcileable elements than does a serous or adventure setting.

One writer that does a very believable near-future Vegas setting is Carole Nelson Douglas in her Delilah Street (Dancing with Werewolves) series. All the "real" touchstones are there, but everything's been twisted a half-turn.

Gail wrote: "Although I write "epic" (medieval) fantasy, I enjoy reading a lot of urban fantasy and paranormal mysteries. In some ways, I agree that it's a little more difficult for urban/paranomral writers to..."

There is something very comfortable about that medieval world to me.

I also like fantasy set in the every day world, with a thin veil separating the magical from the 'normal'. It has to really work well, though, or at some point a clunker will throw me out of the story.

Tracy wrote: "I think this topic may be too complicated for me. All I can think of is "I know what I like when I read it". I do know that what tends to get to me, is when there isn't enough. Yes, I can see ho..."

I think after a certain point, this is what it comes down to - a reader's preference. I kind of sway both ways. Some books I love immersing myself and don't mind copious amounts of detail and taking my time to experience the plot. I think there's something to be said for that - and not blowing through a novel with huge margins and space between lines, in MTV fast-cut fashion. Loving a book for literary (sometimes dense), 'old-fashioned' qualities isn't a bad thing. If the language is lovely and it reflects the tone of the book, I think that can be quite good to read.

But for other books, you don't want that. I guess I'm not just one type of reader - or writer. I wrote my fantasy differently from my SF, in a lot of ways. I love reading Chuck Palahniuk as well as Cormac McCarthy (and they write totally differently). As a writer it is a LEETLE BIT frustrating when readers just stick to one way of reading and judge your book on that, instead of thinking sometimes, 'hey, maybe I have to interact with this book in a slightly different way.' That's part of the exploration for me, both as a reader and writer.

But that being said, people's tastes are what they are and not every writer, film, or piece of art is meant to appeal to everybody. I do think being openminded to interact with creativity - whatever form it takes - is only a good thing.

I guess that raises a different issue though...

Joshua wrote: "Kernos wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

As would I. I would also..."

Tad Williams. His Dragonbone Chair series blew me away. I read some of Terry Brooks and then I abandoned him because Tad Williams was doing it better. Sorry! :x

Katharine Kerr's Deverry series. One of my absolute favourites and she was my introduction to Celtic culture. From there I went reading history and took Medieval Literature classes.

Janny already mentioned CJ Cherryh. You cannot talk about worldbuilding without putting her name there (and Janny's too). In both her SF and fantasy, I think she is one of the grand masters of worldbuilding.

George RR Martin's Song of Ice series. Guy Kay, like Joshua mentioned. Totally fell in love with his one-book-epic ability. Not everything needs to take 5+ books to say (even if he has done series too.)

Non-fantasy worldbuilding: Mary Renault. You feel like you're living in Ancient Greece reading her work.

That's just a few off the top of my head...

Gail wrote: "S. Eric wrote: "Joshua wrote: "S. Eric: You stated that writers of urban fantasy have to spend more time making the magic fit the real world setting, so perhaps it's harder for them to worldbuild ..."

Tim Powers, speaking of using fantastical elements in real world modern settings. What a writer he is.

Kernos wrote: "Is 'world-building' a technical term that authors learn about in writing school? Or, is it something we readers use to engage in discussion about our reads? …a serious question.

I'm thinking about..."

Love what you said, Kernos.

World-building to me is in layers, and also utilizes Hemingway's "rule" (I believe it was Hemingway) - that 90% of the story is beneath the surface. The Iceberg Principle.

The reader sees that 10%. But the reader has to FEEL the other 90%. You can look at an iceberg and know that it's a behemoth beneath the water, you get a sense of weight and depth even if all you're seeing is the tip. A good writer is able to make a reader feel 100% of the world with only showing them the necessary bits. How does a writer do this?

A lot of it to me is language. It's being as precise as possible in the language and deciding exactly what you're going to 'show'. Like the great filmmakers who only have 2-2.5 hrs to tell, sometimes, an epic story, it's about choosing the right details, the right scenes, and the right aspects of a character. Characters are essential to world-building. Writers who work on the world but neglect the characters in the world aren't writing the book to its full capacity, IMO.

A writer is the director, producer, production artist/set designer, screenwriter, special FX director and cast all in one. A movie could not be made if any one of those people weren't there and I think writers who approach novels, leaving out one of those roles, tend to write scant books in some way.

Before a movie gets to the screen, there are months of prep (pre-production) that include things like storyboarding, costume fittings, production sketches, script revisions, lighting tests...it goes on and on. This is the scaffolding that every writer has to do. Some of this scaffolding can be made apparent to the reader in the finished product by way of maps and glossaries, etc, but that's really just for fun. You should be able to read a novel and get the depth from it without extra pages, just as you should be able to watch a movie in the theater and get it fully without all the DVD behind the scenes extras. That's just my point of view, anyway. If a reader wants to flip to the map to get an immediate visual of the lay of the land, that's cool. But it shouldn't be absolutely necessary for the story to be full of depth.

So, yes. Layers. Organizing an army. Launching a movie production the size and scale of Avatar. That's what writing a fantasy novel/SF novel is like. It's difficult enough to write about some dude who works at Starbucks in NYC in a novel setting. That still takes skill to tie it all together. But toss in creating worlds and cultures and it's like the scale difference between an indie flick and a behemoth James Cameron production. Same scaffolding to some extent, but on a much grander scale, more things to juggle, more layers.

There's also collaborative world-building:

Feist, Erikson/Esselmont, and Dennis McKiernan come to mind: as examples of authors whose worlds have been shared creations, through an intimate group of gamers.

There's a richness to those authors' works due to the extensive background involved, that moves past one mind, and one sequence of books.

S. Eric wrote: "Joshua wrote: "S. Eric: You stated that writers of urban fantasy have to spend more time making the magic fit the real world setting, so perhaps it's harder for them to worldbuild than if they bui..."

I like the idea that magic isn't necessarily irrational, but just undiscovered. It's mysterious only because we haven't the knowledge enough for it. Take a toaster back to the middle ages and they'd think you were a witch or a god. Somebody smarter than me had said something like magic is just technology we haven't discovered yet...or something like that. I honestly think there's something to that. How writers interpret their magic systems in their worlds can be dependent on if they agree with that notion or not.

Joshua wrote: "OK, so here's a question for the writers on the thread: HOW DO YOU CREATE YOUR WORLD? And for the urban fantasy writers, HOW DO YOU BLEND THE REAL WORLD WITH THE FANTASY? What's the process that..."

I ask constant questions. That's basically it in a nutshell. You have to follow through. If the people have gun technology, what level of gun technology and how does that affect the balance of power in your societies? Who has access to the guns? How are they manufactured? From that, what other kinds of industries are needed to support that one industry of gun production? How then does that effect the overall state of your 'world'? That's just a small example. Ask constant questions. The more you can answer, the more depth your world will have.

Janny wrote: "There's also collaborative world-building:

Feist, Erikson/Esselmont, and Dennis McKiernan come to mind: as examples of authors whose worlds have been shared creations, through an intimate group of..."

That's an interesting point too! I tend to be too controlling to want to do major collaborative world-building in my novels but it would be a cool experiment... has anyone here done this? And could talk about the differences in process doing things collaboratively for a book?

Just poppin' in to say I'm loving the posts/thoughts/discussion. Not a writer, just a reader... which perhaps explains why I find it hard to express what I like and why. The truly good/great writer builds it in so that I only experience it intuitively.

Regarding magic systems as part of the worldbuilding process, and whether they should be irrational or rational . . . I'd have to come down on the side of rational IN CONTEXT. I think your magic system has to "make sense" in the world setting, otherwise it just becomes too powerful and/or unmanageable. This may be the mathematics person in me though. I think the magic has to have rules and it needs to adhere to those rules, even if the rules aren't especially spelled out. In my novels, the characters usually "discover" the magic and experiement with it as the book progresses, so it grows as they grow, etc. However, I think most readers would agree that they can sense the rules beneath the magic, and that it isn't all-powerful, even if I haven't laid down set laws per se. They sense the boundaries of the magic, even though they haven't been explained.

What I think writers really need to think about when it comes to fantasy worldbuilding in particular is exactly how the magic is going to affect the world in general, in non-magical ways. You shouldn't just have a medieval world with magic thrown in. You need to think about how your type of magic is going to affect the growth of the cultures in that world, how it will affect their religions, and how it would affect their day-to-day lives as well.

In my current work-in-progress (aka secrit projekt), the magic is being used on a daily basis by the average person, in their house, in their kitchen, as transportation, etc. Even though the average person can't manipulate the magic him/herself, they're still using it because it's been incorporated into the society.

Good authors, who worldbuild well, will take into account how their magic will affect the everyman in the society, not just the magicians and those in power.

Joshua wrote: "Regarding magic systems as part of the worldbuilding process, and whether they should be irrational or rational . . . I'd have to come down on the side of rational IN CONTEXT. I think your magic s..."

Yep, exactly. The universe is governed by laws. Just because we might not fully understand those laws yet doesn't mean they don't exist or have an order. If there's anything that's true in the universe - and sure you might want to not work like how our universe works, but good luck?! - stuff makes sense if you know about it. So deciding which of your characters knows enough to make sense of the laws will create interesting diversity and conflict if you have magic in your world.

That's basically the tact I took in The Gaslight Dogs. All the characters have different opinions and experiences with the 'magic'...but that doesn't mean they're all 100% right in their opinions. There's an objective truth to the 'magic' in the world, and the perceived differences or understanding are in the interpretations. I did that because I find that to be the case in our world. Just because I don't get complicated math doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't work for someone like Joshua who does know. I apply the same tactic to my 'magic' system.

Karin wrote: "Tracy wrote: "I think this topic may be too complicated for me. All I can think of is "I know what I like when I read it". I do know that what tends to get to me, is when there isn't enough. Yes..."

I think that is why I kind of threw my hands up, so to speak. What I enjoy reading can vary so much, it is hard for me to articulate one "set of rules" to encompass that variety. For every "THIS is what I like", I can think of at least one exception that I liked equally.

I've been in an urban fantasy/paranormal reading mode for a couple of years now. They are usually light, quick reads for me. A big part of why these are working best for me right now is that I'm doing a lot of my reading in short chunks of time. I just don't have the time to get slowly pulled in by the denser, more literary writing. However, I still have plenty of "meatier" books on my shelf for when I do have, or make, the time to sink in and enjoy the slower experience.

Kernos wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Thank you, Stephen. I'd like to hear from Karin and Gail, as Joshua invited the writers on the thread to express their thoughts."

As would I. I would also like to ask them..."

Some of the worlds I enjoy visiting include Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar, David Drake's Isle series, JF Lewis's Void City, Carole Nelson Douglas' post- Millennium Revelation Las Vegas (Dancing with Werewolves, etc.), Anne Rice's New Orleans, CJ Henderson's paranormal take on Brooklyn (Brooklyn Knights), Sherrilyn Kenyon's Dark Hunter New Orleans, Jeri Smith-Ready's WVMP world, David Eddings' stuff, Steven Brust's stuff.,..that's not everything but it's a mix of both epic and urban places I enjoy visiting.

I'm having a hard time pinpointing what exactly I like in my books.

I have to agree on Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar. That's a world I revisit every year. That might not be as much about the world as it is about the characters, but I love the overarching story from prehistory to present in those books.
I did not like Terry Goodkind. I found him far too verbose about trees and mountainscapes. I don't know where his editor was but there were huge chunks that I just ended up skipping and not feeling like I was missing anything.

An interesting example that I feel I have to bring up is the difference between Sanderson's Mistborn: The Final Empire and The Way of Kings. I loved Mistborn and I loved how there weren't any lengthy descriptions. I think it took me almost half the book to realize the sky was covered with ash and they couldn't see stars. I wasn't really bothered by the tardiness of this revelation, mostly it just an "OH, that is so COOL" moment. Whereas I'm having a hard time slogging through The Way of Kings. I'm glad I got it on audiobook because I'm not sure I'd have the stamina to make it through otherwise. I feel like there is a lot of information that is being passed on to me that I'm just completely missing because I can't figure out how it's relevant yet. Maybe that makes me an unsophisticated reader, but that's my opinion.

Kendra wrote: I'm having a hard time slogging through The Way of Kings. I'm glad I got it on audiobook because I'm not sure I'd have the stamina to make it through otherwise. I feel like there is a lot of information that is being passed on to me that I'm just completely missing because I can't figure out how it's relevant yet. Maybe that makes me an unsophisticated reader, but that's my opinion. ..."

I have the same opinion. There's a lot of extraneous stuff in that book. I get that he's making the basis for a ten volume series, but throwing unrelated people, situations, and details at me in the first book isn't the way to set it up IMO. I will forget it by the time the next volume comes out, and may be dead before the last one gets written, :D. And I didn't like it enough to reread it!

Just some general questions.thoughts after reading thru the recent posts.

If a Magic system is completely rational, is it still Magic? Or is its being different from our own reality as we know it, enough to make it Magic? How is Magic different from fictional Science? I guess my answer to these would be somewhere in the "I know it when I see it" realm. But I do not think that really adequate and sense there is something cultural going on, that we've all agreed that this is Magic, that is Science.

I like great descriptive passages. In one sense I read for them. Plot, characters, worlds, cultures are all essential too. But, there is nothing quite like a wonderful descriptive scene, whether a phrase, paragraph or chapter to give me joy or raise my mood. Taking an old classic, LOTR, of all the wonderful things in the book, I think my favorite chapter is "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit". I find it a descriptive feast for the 5 senses and a respite for the story as a whole, as well as the characters and even the reader, like a great intermezzo.

And then there are those rare passages whose sound supersedes meaning. I have found myself reading Arithon's magical passages like this (last night he helped Elaira heal a mangled wrist). Words become musical. Do authors do this purposely or is poesy an epiphenomenon? If the former, I wish they'd do it more often.

And, I agree that description can become boring. There was a series I read, don't remember which, that had many, extensive, long, descriptive battle scenes. It got to the point I'd read the beginning and end of each battle and skip all the pages in between. Boring!

Sometimes I get tired or bored or frankly disgusted with humanity and want to totally get away, like a UFO fan standing on a hill at nite waiting for the aliens to come an take me away. Are there novels, can there be novels that are totally alien, without any interaction with humans or even humanoids? Can an author take me to a place to which I have absolutely no experience or points of reference. Are there such works? There are a number of author who show interactions between alien and human cultures, Cherryh perhaps the grand master, but how about no humans at all?

Concerning my favorite fantasy worlds there are too many, I'd include Valdemar, Pern (It ain't SF until the ruins are discovered on the Southern contingent. I have spoken!), Wraeththu, MIddle Earth, the Riftwar worlds, Athera, Xanth, Ricardo Pinto's world and even Shannara. et al.; I'd include the many historical fantasy worlds I've read including those of Marillier, Gemmell, Renault, Kay, Morgan Llywelyn, Jack Whyte, Stephen Lawhead, Stephen Grundy, Mary Sewart, Harry Harrison's Eden…

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Amen to Kay. Somehow he creates totally believable worlds with people I care about with just the right amount of descriptive tapestry to pull me in and make me feel right there. "

Interesting Kay was brought up. I read the Fionavar Tapestry and Tigana when 1st published and more recently Ysabel. Having been impressed last nite I looked at his Wikipedia page and decided to fill in his missing works, so spent the evening on Amazon (on dialup) looking for affordable hardcovers. I want to read Kay in toto. I expected more works. As I think about the Kay I've read and the descriptions of those books I have not, I think I will consider his works historical fantasy.

Kernos wrote: "Just some general questions.thoughts after reading thru the recent posts.

If a Magic system is completely rational, is it still Magic? Or is its being different from our own reality as we know it..."

Yes, some authors do pay attention to the music and rhythm of the words...it's known, in some circles as 'bardic beat' - Dennis McKiernan would be one of many.

And for the strangest experience of non-referential fiction I've encountered, take a look at Speakers and Kings - a rather unusual book wherein the beings/characters are not physical...had to be a brute to write, and a hard sell, why it's small press. It's an interesting book, though.

I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?

Janny wrote: "Kernos wrote: "Just some general questions.thoughts after reading thru the recent posts.

If a Magic system is completely rational, is it still Magic? Or is its being different from our own realit..."

Speakers and Kings looks intriguing...what a concept! Thanks for pointing that one out.

Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

Building the cultures. That trumps environment by far. I'm still in the process of building cultures and trying to make them distinct and make sense, not just throwing stuff in for the heck of it. Things have to be believable through cultural evolution, that whatever culture I'm creating didn't manifest as-is on the page in that current time, but had to grow out of something. I find reading a LOT of anthropological history helps in this, targeted toward similar cultures in the real world.

An example is my developing aboriginal cultures in The Gaslight Dogs. Not just one, but at least 3, and making them all different or similar for specific reasons, but not exactly the same as the ones people might know or be a part of in our own history. I still feel like I need a lot of work on this too, it never stops. :)

Karin wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

Building the cultures. That trumps environment by ..."

Dare we hope you're working on a sequel?

Karin mentioned the Iceberg Principle. That's so true. I think a lot of fantasy, particularly epic, comes across as unsatisfying due to there being little depth to the backhistory. It's an odd thing, as the reader doesn't necessarily need to read backhistory, but you can often times pick up the fact, as you read an epic, that the writer hasn't bothered to create any backhistory before writing their story.

I would love to get my hands on whatever backhistories writers have written purely for themselves. Tolkien pretty much gave us his when he published The Silmarillion, but I wonder if Robert Jordan ever wrote a backhistory for WOT that was only for his own edification?

I know I personally DO have a huge library of backstory for my world. I have character sheets for all of the major players in the world, notes on religious practices for different sects, political affiliations. Which nobles are cheating with which allies' wife. Most of it will only ever appear as brief references or obscure facts here and there in the series, but I feel it is vital that an author know the world. Without having a clearly defined history for a setting, it becomes easy for the author to pull "god in the machine" tactics to force plots to go a certain way, just changing the norms of the setting as one goes along to suit the story.

When I was writing The Doom Guardian: Chronicles of Cambrea I started with the capital city of Marionhold and then had to decide what the nation around it was like. Then once I had an idea of what the nation of Ebernia was like, I had to determine how its neighbors would have developed. I needed to understand how each country interacted with the other before I started to write. While a lot of my notes don't make it into the novel, they do provide the framework for how characters interact with the protagonists and each other.

I don't think writers of urban fantasy have it easy. In fact, they may have it harder. Because what we all "think" we know about an area is based on our own contact with it. I might think I know wht London is like, but my perception of London is much different than someone who lives there. For the urban fantasy writer, you need to make the setting believable for both those with only a passing familiarity with the locale AND those that know it intimiately. This requires a huge amount of research and ultimately becomes a balancing act.

That's a good point about urban fantasy. I'd never thought about that angle. I guess the difference in this regard between urban and epic is that the urban writer has to go out and research this world (at least, the locations, history and culture, etc., that she's borrowing from it), whereas the epic writer has to create all that stuff from scratch and then use it as research for his book.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Karin wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

Building the cultures. That trumps e..."

I am working on the sequel, I been working on it, just doing it with a little more pointedness lately. Been busy. :/

Re: Christopher

I would really hope writers have at least 50% more material in their own files than what gets put on the page. The research is a lot. I probably don't have as much as some but I do know it's more than what gets shown in the book. I keep a lot of it in my head too though...which is...bad.

Yep. I can't rely on my memory anymore. Age? I started writing an epic, got about 100 pages into it and then realized it was time to stop and write gallons and gallons of backstory and history. No one will ever read any of that except me.

Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

In my world of the Winter Kingdoms, there is the worship of the Sacred Lady--one deity with eight Aspects (faces) and each Aspect has very different personalities. The Aspect you're drawn to as an individual or as a kingdom says a lot about who you are. Some kingdoms permit devotion to more than one Aspect, others require devotion to only one Aspect, and some ban worship of the harsher Aspects. So the religion shapes the culture, world view and choices of each of the kingdoms. Probably thinking that through as it applied to the characters and plot took the most careful thought. Not so much difficult as delicate. I wanted to reflect how much people and their choices are both a product of their environment and yet also influenced by free will.

Karin wrote: "...I find reading a LOT of anthropological history helps in this, targeted toward similar cultures in the real world. ..."

I would think it difficult for a writer to be successful without a good sense of history. I suspect the more one knows about our world, the better able an author to create another.

I think this true of language too—The high art of wordsmithing. In part II of Ships of Merior last night a short phrase occupied me for about half an hour exploring its meaning. Sorry, I don't recall the phrase, but the 1st word was 'lapping', I think. I love when that happens. This is when I wish for an eBook copy so I could search for the word.

Christopher wrote: "Yep. I can't rely on my memory anymore. Age? I started writing an epic, got about 100 pages into it and then realized it was time to stop and write gallons and gallons of backstory and history. No ..."

We all hope you and others save these archives. When you become hugely famous, they will become necessary research tools for future literati.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "How do you like your world-building -

Thick or thin? Enhancement or detraction?

What books had worlds that worked for you, haunted you, made you think, or if you felt the concepts dragged the s..."
I agree with everything that's been said.

I like them Epic-Sized. I don't need Tolkien's detail, but I love, love, love huge cities, citadels, fortresses, castles, keeps, etc. George RR Martin and Scott Lynch come to my pre-coffee brain right now.
And I want maps. My husband sets the book back down if there's no map. I'm not that much of a snob, but I do like them and like to refer back to them. I don't even mind if the rest of the world is unexplored or unseen. In the case of Anderson's Edge of the World book, I think the partial map makes it even more intriging. Daniel Abraham's Long Price series starts with this AMAZING city - but no map. It doesn't wreck the book, but I miss it.

Another world builder I have admired is Greg Keyes. He does not have maps or lots of great cities/fortresses, but I really love his cosmologies and magic systems that are more physical laws. He's done 2 series where being a saint or channeling the powers of gods is about tuning into the right frequency. Get the right one and you two can slice a mountain in half. Sanderson's Mistborn series is another world with understandable manipulation of physical laws that I am really enjoying.

Robin wrote: "...Another world builder I have admired is Greg Keyes...."

He also wrote the best books in the Babylon 5: Saga of Psi Corps and the Star Wars: The New Jedi Order #7 series.

I have yet to read his fantasy. Thanks for the reminder.

Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

I'd have to agree with Karin on the cultures being the hardest to develop. You want them to be distinct and to make sense for that world, and you steal little elements from cultures in this world, but you don't want them to BE the culture from this world . . . it's like a little dance. It has to be precise but you also want it to be fluid and creative at the same time.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Oh mercy, I realize this is a potentially hot subject, and pardon to those who take the Bible literally, but I do believe there is much that is fantasy or metaphor there - the parting of the Red Se..."

Was this supposed to go in the origins of fantasy thread? Or am I missing something?

Joshua wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

I'd have to agree with Karin on the cultures bei..."

Yes, I can imagine that cultures are very hard to develop. And I enjoy innovation and creativity in the cultures I read about. I hate it when they have nonsensical rules that frustrate me and I see no sense for. The best example I can think of is the business of women having a 'safe' hand and having to keep the other one covered and useless in Sanderson's new tome. I found that so annoying and irritating that it really detracted from my ability to enjoy the book. And there were parts that I did enjoy.

Dawn wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Oh mercy, I realize this is a potentially hot subject, and pardon to those who take the Bible literally, but I do believe there is much that is fantasy or metaphor there - t..."

Yep. I goofed. Will move it.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

I'd have to agree with Karin on the..."

One of the things that bothers me about some cultures I've read in books is that there are TOO MANY rules. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman did this in some of their earlier novels, where the culture just felt so constrained by the rules that it didn't feel real. You need rules, but they need to be loose enough to feel real and flexible, like cultures in the real world.

Haven't read any of the Sanderson stuff yet (I know, I know, I'm behind) but if that's just something he does and there's no reason for it (or for how it developed), then I'd be annoyed as well. It can't just be part of the book for "cool" factor. It has to be inherent to the developing culture and the plot.

Joshua wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

I'd have ..."

There's a thread here in this group of Q&A with Sanderson and in it, one person asks about this rule. He does address it and indicates that more will be revealed later, but since book one is 1000 pages, it seems as if there could've been more said about it in this book. It certainly was a big detractor for me. And I may not live long enough to read the rest of the series. :) Only half joking here, as I am getting up there.

It brings up an interesting point, though, as to how one weaves these facets of a culture into the story so that enough is said about the origins of the societal rules to satisfy my need for some rationality without long expositions and explanations.

This particular book, for instance has the beginnings of many threads that are not woven together in this book, but which are obviously (one hopes) going to be followed in later books. My question here is whether some of them should have been introduced at this point at all. How an author chooses to introduce pertinent bits into the story is obviously an important factor, and it must take a whole lot of meticulous planning to bring it off.

QUESTION: What are some 'worlds' that you don't think authors have explored/written enough of?

For example, civilizations beneath the ocean isn't very prolific (compared to civilizations based on this or that culture).

Sarah wrote: "...just don't ask how it's done."

We writer types call that weaving in backstory, and it usually isn't done all that well the first time around in a draft. It requires the other part of your brain that edits and analyzes METICULOUSLY, and most effectively once a complete draft is finished and you can look at the whole. I get very surgical about it at that stage and make sure that I mention certain things at certain times, and a certain AMOUNT of times so hopefully a savvy reader (I don't write to the ones who need hand-holding, just a personal preference) will pick up on the pertinent details.

Having a structure to it - like the Rule of 3 - can help rein in a deep and expansive backstory.

Joshua wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Janny wrote: "I'd love to hear from our panel authors: what aspect of your world building did you find most difficult, and how did you solve it?"

I'd have ..."

You're not alone, I haven't read Sanderson yet either but I don't tend to read genre, to be honest, when I'm writing it, because I don't want to be influenced unconsciously. But I totally agree with you about if details are just in there for 'cool' factor. I prefer things to be more organic than that.

Julie wrote: "I don't think writers of urban fantasy have it easy. In fact, they may have it harder. Because what we all "think" we know about an area is based on our own contact with it. I might think I know wht London is like, but my perception of London is much different than someone who lives there. For the urban fantasy writer, you need to make the setting believable for both those with only a passing familiarity with the locale AND those that know it intimiately. This requires a huge amount of research and ultimately becomes a balancing act."

Yeah I don't think they have it easier per se either. They can cut some corners in some ways though, in that if they say New York City, people automatically have an image in their heads and then it becomes the author's responsibility to paint the image accurately or adapt it for their type of story. A writer who makes up a city that isn't based on anything quickly identifiable can't assume the readers will find immediate correlation to make the transition easier.