I thought you were being too patronizing with the “dork shit” remarks, until I looked up the Wheel of Time and tried to read a basic synopsis. Yeah this is incredibly nerdy in a way that even Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones can’t match. The premise immediately hits you with so many new presuppositions you’re supposed to make. I had to stop and breathe for a minute with all the goofy proper nouns.
Nevertheless, I am a nerdy worldbuilder and will continue to devise goofy ideas for the story. My book will include the plot synopsis of the fictional two-act comic opera that satirizes one of the story’s main political factions and nobody will stop me.
I don't entirely agree with this. A novel, and especially not a science fiction or fantasy novel, is not merely a set of characters performing actions in a vacuum, a novel, at least one worth reading, has place, ambience, and context, and these things inform the characters. The worst thing you can do, really, is to include all the dork shit, but then ignore it when building your characters, and write your characters as modern Americans or Mary Sues or otherwise disconnected from the dork shit. This makes the worldbuilding really jump out as an alien intrusion, as "dork shit". Tolkien's characters, by contrast, aren't separate from the worldbuilding, they are a part of the world and a part of the worldbuilding. Every thought in their heads and every word that comes out of their mouths is informed by the context of their peoples, their societies, and their histories. They are worldbuilding, they speak worldbuilding, they act worldbuilding, but it goes unnoticed as such because there are no seams between the characters and the context. If Tolkien didn't have all that dork shit in the back of his mind when writing Gandalf, he wouldn't be that mysterious, otherworldly, angelic being we know, but a guy in a robe and wizard hat who talks in riddles for no real reason. Even the style of the narration, the deliberately archaic English Tolkien uses, is informed by the lore of the provenance of the Red Book of Westmarch, but flavors the entire story with the ambience of Middle-earth without you actually having to know anything about the Red Book of Westmarch. He reveals a lot more of his worldbuilding in the course of the story than you might think from a first impression, but so much of what seems like character is also worldbuilding, and the characters are infinitely richer and more interesting for it.
Of course, the problem with Tokien's approach as a general approach is that the execution is really, really hard, and most writers will never have the talent Tolkien had in his left nut. Such is life.
Everything you said is exactly my point. Tolkien seamlessly combined all these elements rather than dump lore on you or even hyperfixate on lore and history.
Much of the way he fills out his world is through poetry and song, which demonstrates an entire culture. But it all feels within character.
But I think Tolkien's restraint in Lord of the Rings is partly why so many Tolkien readers struggle with the Silmarillion! The entire trilogy relies on all that deep history and lore, yet we know almost nothing of it from reading the trilogy. Because while it's important in the grand scheme of things, it's not important to the characters at the time. Diving into the lore of the First and Second Ages would have distracted from the story, even if it would have further filled out the world.
I've always preferred all killer no filler stories that only do worldbuilding as part of moving the plot forward. It's kept me off from writing fiction, but this article just might convince me to give it another shot.
Fight scenes have always been my favorites because they don't need a lot of set-up. :)
I've been so hung up on worldbuilding, it completely paralyzed my ability to do any actual writing. Now, thanks to the guidance of some of the fine folks here on Substack, I'm learning to not get hung up on that "dork shit" and I've done more fiction writing in the last 4 months than in the last 4 years.
I once bought a self-published novel from a guy at a community history festival about his many-times-great grandfather's capture by and escape from Native Americans during the French and Indian War. That's how I learned it's also possible to nerd out too much on this when your story is set in the real world. Page after page existed just to allow the author to show off his research, e.g., "John raised his Pennsylvania long rifle to his shoulder and took aim. The 42-inch barrel, hand-crafted in a Philadelphia armory from a special alloy of iron and nickel, had 36 rifled grooves spun down its half-inch diameter..."
I thought you were being too patronizing with the “dork shit” remarks, until I looked up the Wheel of Time and tried to read a basic synopsis. Yeah this is incredibly nerdy in a way that even Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones can’t match. The premise immediately hits you with so many new presuppositions you’re supposed to make. I had to stop and breathe for a minute with all the goofy proper nouns.
Nevertheless, I am a nerdy worldbuilder and will continue to devise goofy ideas for the story. My book will include the plot synopsis of the fictional two-act comic opera that satirizes one of the story’s main political factions and nobody will stop me.
All of that is great! You always just need to be aware of what's for the reader and what's for you.
I don't entirely agree with this. A novel, and especially not a science fiction or fantasy novel, is not merely a set of characters performing actions in a vacuum, a novel, at least one worth reading, has place, ambience, and context, and these things inform the characters. The worst thing you can do, really, is to include all the dork shit, but then ignore it when building your characters, and write your characters as modern Americans or Mary Sues or otherwise disconnected from the dork shit. This makes the worldbuilding really jump out as an alien intrusion, as "dork shit". Tolkien's characters, by contrast, aren't separate from the worldbuilding, they are a part of the world and a part of the worldbuilding. Every thought in their heads and every word that comes out of their mouths is informed by the context of their peoples, their societies, and their histories. They are worldbuilding, they speak worldbuilding, they act worldbuilding, but it goes unnoticed as such because there are no seams between the characters and the context. If Tolkien didn't have all that dork shit in the back of his mind when writing Gandalf, he wouldn't be that mysterious, otherworldly, angelic being we know, but a guy in a robe and wizard hat who talks in riddles for no real reason. Even the style of the narration, the deliberately archaic English Tolkien uses, is informed by the lore of the provenance of the Red Book of Westmarch, but flavors the entire story with the ambience of Middle-earth without you actually having to know anything about the Red Book of Westmarch. He reveals a lot more of his worldbuilding in the course of the story than you might think from a first impression, but so much of what seems like character is also worldbuilding, and the characters are infinitely richer and more interesting for it.
Of course, the problem with Tokien's approach as a general approach is that the execution is really, really hard, and most writers will never have the talent Tolkien had in his left nut. Such is life.
Everything you said is exactly my point. Tolkien seamlessly combined all these elements rather than dump lore on you or even hyperfixate on lore and history.
Much of the way he fills out his world is through poetry and song, which demonstrates an entire culture. But it all feels within character.
But I think Tolkien's restraint in Lord of the Rings is partly why so many Tolkien readers struggle with the Silmarillion! The entire trilogy relies on all that deep history and lore, yet we know almost nothing of it from reading the trilogy. Because while it's important in the grand scheme of things, it's not important to the characters at the time. Diving into the lore of the First and Second Ages would have distracted from the story, even if it would have further filled out the world.
I've always preferred all killer no filler stories that only do worldbuilding as part of moving the plot forward. It's kept me off from writing fiction, but this article just might convince me to give it another shot.
Fight scenes have always been my favorites because they don't need a lot of set-up. :)
May as well give it a shot!
When it one day rises to the top of mind like fat coming to the top of a boil, I will.
I've been so hung up on worldbuilding, it completely paralyzed my ability to do any actual writing. Now, thanks to the guidance of some of the fine folks here on Substack, I'm learning to not get hung up on that "dork shit" and I've done more fiction writing in the last 4 months than in the last 4 years.
That's great!
This is fantastic. 🔥
Terrific Post - Diana Hochman
Thanks!
Whoah.
You and me gonna have words tonight, sir.
Ha! Uh oh
I once bought a self-published novel from a guy at a community history festival about his many-times-great grandfather's capture by and escape from Native Americans during the French and Indian War. That's how I learned it's also possible to nerd out too much on this when your story is set in the real world. Page after page existed just to allow the author to show off his research, e.g., "John raised his Pennsylvania long rifle to his shoulder and took aim. The 42-inch barrel, hand-crafted in a Philadelphia armory from a special alloy of iron and nickel, had 36 rifled grooves spun down its half-inch diameter..."