Worldbuilding -- Awesome or Awful?
Reading BoingBoing, I came across this quote from M. John Harrison about worldbuilding:
Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.
Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading). Worldbuilding numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain, because it believes that it has to do everything around here if anything is going to get done.
Above all, worldbuilding is not technically necessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there. It isn’t possible, & if it was the results wouldn’t be readable: they would constitute not a book but the biggest library ever built, a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study. This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.
On one hand, I think I get what he's saying. For the sake of fiction, worldbuilding isn't necessarily the point. Some folks read for well-developed worlds, but that's not the only point. The prose should gesture towards a world that's rich and fully developed without having to de-rail the narrative. Some worlds are so rich, they're overripe, they're burdened by the weight of their worldbuilding. Stories like that, you get three paragraphs in and are buried byCapitalized Placenames and Prominent People of the Intricately Developed World. I can understand Harrison railing against this writing approach.
On the other hand, some people do read for the world, they soak up setting details like sponges and squee over specifications of weaponry and fictional histories of worlds. And as writers, we have those people to please as well as or instead of anyone else. Firefly is loaded with worldbuilding detail, in what seems like every other line.
Ooh, I finally figured it out -- worldbuilding should be done by the reader as they experience the narrative as much as or more than the writer as they put the story to pen. Let the reader/audience take joy from assembling the short bits that gesture towards a richer world, so that they can write fanfic in that world, run role-playing games in your setting or buy the movie option. :)
Therefore -- I won't stop doing worldbuilding just because M. John Harrison, a writer I respect, says to, but I will think about what the intent of the worldbuilding is, I'll ponder the balance of self-serving 'lookit the neat stuff!' that could be engaging to some readers and the baseline important material like character development and plot.
Other responses to Harrison's implications that worldbuilding-prone folks are scary? Makes me wonder if he ever played RPGs--maybe he did and his GM was the "Here's 300 pages of setting material to read before you make your character" type.
Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.
Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading). Worldbuilding numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain, because it believes that it has to do everything around here if anything is going to get done.
Above all, worldbuilding is not technically necessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there. It isn’t possible, & if it was the results wouldn’t be readable: they would constitute not a book but the biggest library ever built, a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study. This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.
On one hand, I think I get what he's saying. For the sake of fiction, worldbuilding isn't necessarily the point. Some folks read for well-developed worlds, but that's not the only point. The prose should gesture towards a world that's rich and fully developed without having to de-rail the narrative. Some worlds are so rich, they're overripe, they're burdened by the weight of their worldbuilding. Stories like that, you get three paragraphs in and are buried byCapitalized Placenames and Prominent People of the Intricately Developed World. I can understand Harrison railing against this writing approach.
On the other hand, some people do read for the world, they soak up setting details like sponges and squee over specifications of weaponry and fictional histories of worlds. And as writers, we have those people to please as well as or instead of anyone else. Firefly is loaded with worldbuilding detail, in what seems like every other line.
Ooh, I finally figured it out -- worldbuilding should be done by the reader as they experience the narrative as much as or more than the writer as they put the story to pen. Let the reader/audience take joy from assembling the short bits that gesture towards a richer world, so that they can write fanfic in that world, run role-playing games in your setting or buy the movie option. :)
Therefore -- I won't stop doing worldbuilding just because M. John Harrison, a writer I respect, says to, but I will think about what the intent of the worldbuilding is, I'll ponder the balance of self-serving 'lookit the neat stuff!' that could be engaging to some readers and the baseline important material like character development and plot.
Other responses to Harrison's implications that worldbuilding-prone folks are scary? Makes me wonder if he ever played RPGs--maybe he did and his GM was the "Here's 300 pages of setting material to read before you make your character" type.