Avoiding World Building

rwm4768 said:

First-person vs third-person has little to do with it. Some of the worst infodumps I've ever seen have been in first-person. It depends on the skill of the writer to weave that material into the narrative, not on what POV the writer chooses.

Click to expand...

This. First person narrators can put omniscient ones to shame when it comes to long asides about something that happened when the pov character was a wee lad or lass, or about the history or the Land of Thrundok or whatever. After all, with some styles of first person, the character is supposed to be reminiscing about something that happened long ago, and they have plenty of knowledge they can relate that is external to the story's here and now.

It can actually be easier to slip into excessive exposition in this pov than in limited third, when you're striving to create the illusion that there is no narrator who is removed from the story's here and now.

"Now at that time, I had no idea that the Queen of the Realm was on her third husband, and the previous two had not died as everyone supposed, but were in fact chained in the royal kennels..."

You really couldn't do something like this in limited third.

Having said this, I like a well-executed first person story. I've run across a fair number of first person fantasy novels in recent years. But every approach to pov has its challenges.

Thomas Vail said:

Save that I've seen writers use the fact we're in the character's head and hearing all their thoughts to provide massive info dumps.

Click to expand...

Nothing about first-person narrative POV requires massive info dumps.

caw

Nothing about third requires info dumps either, but they still turn up. I could info dump all day in first -- I'd just imitate the pub bore.

An info dump is as easy to achieve in either POV. The trick is not the POV, but as said upthread, what you do with it.

SampleGuy said:

Can a writer make a good story without adding a lot of back stories to the setting? Let's say you only know about your characters and you only want the plot to focus on them without detailing their setting. Even if the setting is interesting, how far can a story become good based on that level?

Click to expand...

In answer to your first question, YES. If I understand your second question — and I'm not sure that I do — the answer is: It depends. And partly it depends on who is reading the story. A lot of people, especially SFF readers, love heavy world building. Some don't. When the topic of setting comes up, I always think of Across the Face of the World, by Russell Kirkpatrick. It is one of the few books I simply could not finish. A mining operation was required to dig out the little bits of story buried in the volumes of scenery description. It bored me to yawns. Others loved it.

Peter V. Brett, Brent Weeks, Joe Abercrombie, their writing doesn't bog down in pages and pages of setting or backstory. Love 'em. I've noticed a load of comments on AW about G.R.R.M.'s world building being too much. Funny, I never saw it that way. So, maybe it is in how it's done.

You, the writer, can make your world as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. Just please don't waste years mapping, deciding where the sun sets, how the inhabitants count, produce children, and make edibles when you could be writing your book.

rwm4768 said:

I don't think what you want is no worldbuilding. What you want is to build the world as it becomes relevant to the story (if I've judged correctly). I actually tend to do this. I start out with a few basics to get a framework for the story. Then I figure out a lot of the details as I go. This can mean a little more work come revision time, but I find that worldbuilding as I go can result in more interesting worlds because I'm not just going through a worldbuilding checklist.

Some of my coolest ideas don't come to me until I've started writing.

Click to expand...

YES.

I think the it's easier to make information interesting in 1st POV though. If I care about the character, I may listen to them bitch about this politician they don't like, whereas if I was just told about the politician, it would have to be more relevant to not be boring. I think it has something to do with the emotion and the ability to attach conflict to internal thoughts.

I mean, I wouldn't read about it for pages, but a paragraph? As long as it makes sense for the MC to be thinking about the politician? Especially if I like the character and their voice is entertaining? Sure.

_Sian_ said:

I think the it's easier to make information interesting in 1st POV though. If I care about the character, I may listen to them bitch about this politician they don't like, whereas if I was just told about the politician, it would have to be more relevant to not be boring. I think it has something to do with the emotion and the ability to attach conflict to internal thoughts.

I mean, I wouldn't read about it for pages, but a paragraph? As long as it makes sense for the MC to be thinking about the politician? Especially if I like the character and their voice is entertaining? Sure.

Click to expand...

You can also do the same thing in third-person, though. Just look at Joe Abercrombie. He gets deep into his character's voices, almost like he's writing them in first instead of third.

A story can be good without a lot of backstory. You don't need to go to LOTR level world building to have a good story. A lot of people build some basic setting and then world build on the fly.

Another strategy if you're having difficulty world building is to let your characters do it for you. Characters have to come from somewhere in the world. Why does your peasant farmer farm? Is he from a history of farmers? How's business? Is there a lot of competition from other farmers? Does the weather treat his crops good or does his family struggle every year to make ends meet? How about your knight? Why is he a knight? Who does he serve? And so on and so forth.

I've always preferred it when world-building is done subtly. It doesn't matter what voice you use, you can clog up the narration with an info dump. Stories where a natural feeling voice is used, where people, events, and things are mentioned, but the context is obvious to the characters and so no infodump, in fact, no further information is immediately dropped about that.

*conversations from a gun show*
"That's an old gun. What is it?"
"Colt 1911. My great-grandfather bought it before going to Europe in WW1."
"Still work?"
"Oh yeah, doesn't have many original parts left, since my grandpa used it as his service piece in WW2, my dad took it with him when he got drafted into 'Nam, and my sister carried it with her when she was a contractor in Iraq three years ago."
"How'd you get it?"
"She gave it to me when she got home and found out I was being deployed to the front lines of the cable news network wars."

There are so many references in there that could be info-dumped for whatever reason, but would make for a very unnatural conversation. Replace all those specific references with whatever fictional setting equivalent you want and it sounds like people talking about things in context to their lives.

Of course, you have to watch out for the opposite problem where people drop too many names, events, places, and it becomes one big morass of under-explained overload. There's a line to walk.

Personally I find it easier to create the story first, the characters etc, and only have a vague sense of my world, and then as I'm writing (or mainly as I'm rewriting) I add bits and pieces in as the world comes to life in my mind. I have a few main points that I need for my story (such as history of the place that has an effect on the plot), but anything that doesn't directly affect the plot I add in post-production.
By that point you'll probably have a really good idea of what the world is like anyway because you'll have spent so much time in it with your characters, and you know which parts matter and which don't so much (i.e. which parts you want to pay more attention to)

Speaking as reader, don't build your world in front of me. Build your story. Use your characters and what they do to show me the world they inhabit. Even then, I'm a hell of a lot more interested in your characters and what they do than in the world they inhabit. Even Tolkien's sanctified epic is more about Bilbo and Frodo and Samwise and Gandalf and Gollum and Saruman etc., and in what they do, than it is about the world they inhabit.

caw

I just learned a new (made up) word the other day. Incluing (coined by Jo Walton).

Incluing is the process of scattering information seamlessly through the text, as opposed to stopping the story to impart the information.

Click to expand...

Sounds like what we're talking about here.

Roxxsmom said:

Incluing (coined by Jo Walton).

Click to expand...

Strange the wiki page used to say it was a lot older than that....Could be wrong though!

ETA: A quick search reveals it was being bandied about on AW a fair while ago, and I'm certain wiki stated another source for it back then. EETA Not that's wiki's like the fount of all knowledge! Just seems odd.

I believe she says she started using the term long before that blog entry, even before the web existed (don't know how old Jo Walton is, but she's been publishing a while, so I assume she hasn't been 15 for an even longer while). There was a stink a while back about taking it off wikipedia, because it wasn't a "real" word, but just something a few geeks used. But it looks like it's still there.

I don't know if she really invented it or not, but the sources I found claim she did.

I'm sure you're right

It's just -- you know the discombobulation you get when you thought something was true and it turns out something else is?

That.