http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11289765/The-Hobbit-How-the-clomping-foot-of-nerdism-destroyed-Tolkiens-dream-and-the-fantasy-genre.html
>An entire generation of fantasy novels was predicated on the idea that a coherent world was more important than an interesting literary text, and in a society where our consumer habits have increasingly become our identities, there is a ready-made audience for books which reward the archivist reader.
Does he have a point? Is world building largely pointless and unnecessary? Is a story more important than knowing each character's entire bloodline, their family's occupations, and who cleans the toilets in your genre novel's universe?
In scifi and fantasy you have to have a good and original world. In other literature it's pointless.
>>7689443
>Is world building largely pointless and unnecessary
depends on what you do with it
modern fantasy writers have taken the surface trappings of the stuff(genealogies, shit tonne of dates, names, lands and their histories etc) to be the essence of world building. what tolkien did was to create a set of themes and motifs into the history of middle-earth that repeated over and over in different ways, which gave even the smallest story in the universe a place and context within a larger whole.
This is why I stay with the classics. I'll take the Moorcock over Sandersons RPG fiction any day.
You can world build in a non-retarded way, you know. Worldbuilding isn't just "muh bloodlines". A good author can do worldbuilding through the actual narrative.
Lol at all the butthurt and autism in the comments.
>>7689578
>I'll take the moorcock
I'm sure you will
He's trying too hard to be a contrarian badass. The article is written like a fat kid at a college bar trying to prod someone into a fight because he thinks it'll make him a big boy.
>>7689700
Yes
>>7689700
>hurr i can't handle basic vitriol
>2016
>falling for the post modern literature is better meme
>>7689603
But won't the world building then be restricted? At that point, you're only coming up with what's relevant to the story, and neglecting any wider world beyond that scope. The audience will be able to tell you're half assing it.
>>7689723
Leaving certain things unsaid is hardly half-assing it. There's no reason readers can't use their own imaginations to fill in the blanks.
>>7689734
Yes, they can use their imaginations. But with no definitive world building to guide them (the canonical stuff from the author) they run the risk of being wrong.
>>7689737
If the writer is skilled and the reader is clever enough, then the reader will be able to determine the important details, including things left unsaid. Nothing else really matters.
>>7689737
>run the risk of being wrong
Wrong about what?It's fiction,you know.It doesn't actually exist.
>>7689723
I think world building through imagination is better than having to read a bunch of dry appendices to understand wtf they're talking about.
Like in the original Star Wars, the Clone Wars are off handedly mentioned. What are the clone wars? Why did they happen, when did they happen? We don't know, and it doesn't affect the plot, but it gives this idea that there are things out there going on elsewhere, that there's a full world with different stories constantly taking place.
Being "right" or "wrong" doesn't matter when it's a matter of ambiguity.
>>7689754
But George Lucas did have this sprawling saga planned, so the world building felt more real as a result. "The Clone Wars" didn't just refer to some placeholder.
>>7689759
But it would've been better left unsaid, as we'd all seen.
The author can plan shit out, but it's bad writing to autistically over explain shit that's irrelevant to the plot. It can be alluded to for a sense of scale, but unless it's tied into the plot or theme of the work in a fairly meaningful way it's frivolous.
>>7689769
>The author can plan shit out, but it's bad writing to autistically over explain shit that's irrelevant to the plot.
Okay. But should the author autistically over plan things? I always hear that doing so makes the world more believable, even if it doesn't reach the page ("Tolkien invented a language!").
>>7689774
It depends on what the author's going for. If it's an extraneous mood-setting detail, then it doesn't really need to be expanded on, but if it's something central to the work, then the author likely has a lot in mind for it anyway, even if it doesn't seem to feature much at the surface level.
>>7689666
Are they not valid counter arguments?
creating a universe leads to spinoffs, adaptations, video games, etc.
let other people create stories in your world.
we live in an age with potential for infinite saturation and immediate sharing. you don't need to excel in anything substantive because other people can find themselves inspired by your work and make the stories for you. creating a great story might sell a particular book but creating a great universe leads to riches, potentially with nothing more than your approval required. sit back and absorb the praise.
i would rather be the people raking in cash from d&d, wh40k, game of thrones brands than the people making comparative pennies to put pen to paper in these universes.
>>7689554
>even the smallest story in the universe a place and context within a larger whole
couldn't be more accurate
