A fascinating read, Mark! Thanks for that. You've now made me imagine the Austen Cinematic Universe, in which all her novels are connected and characters cross over. Thanks for that.
I think you're right about series which emphasise world building and open-endedness being the ones that tend to attract the intense fandom, precisely because they leave room for the imagination in a way that more contained stories do not. Hence conventions, cosplay, fan fiction and so on.
However, I think I disagree with the notion that storytelling and world building are in some way mutually exclusive. I don't see it as a zero sum situation. World building on its own will never be as compelling as world building + a good story (and good characters, and good themes). Star Wars is wildly inconsistent in its quality, but at its core it has great storytelling (even if you only consider the first film). Without that, the world building wouldn't have sparked so many people's imaginations. Lord of the Rings' world building is a critical part of what it's doing, but without a compelling story nobody would have cared.
World building is hugely important to my writing, but it's always, always in service of the story. The worlds of my four novels are all quite distinct, and their design exists precisely to give me a context in which to explore specific themes, give characters compelling motivations, and weave an interesting story.
When you have world building divorced from a decent story you start to get into the territory of 'lore'. That's world building for the sake of world building. It can certainly be fun in a different way, but it's generally not self-sustaining.
Not mutually exclusive, no. As I said, every story requires the construction of a story world, and every legendarium requires stories to animate it. My point is that the story rules are different for the stories that animate legendariums, and the worldbuilding rules are different for story worlds than they are for legendariums. "Compelling" in other words, is different for worldbuilding than it is for storytelling. Both require stories, but they require different things of them.
This is not to say that you can't have a story of literary merit as the animating spirit of a legendarium, but it is difficult and the result is likely to be a compromise. LOTR is a perfect example. It is hard to think of a book with a more mixed literary reputation. I do think there is a great book in there, but I know so many voracious readers who can't stand it. Often they say that they don't like sci-fi and fantasy, but if you inquire you find that there are several such books that they have read and liked. But they are works (like my Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight) that are story forward rather than world forward.
The other interesting thing about LOTR is the number of its admirers who think it needs a severe editing, though they don't all agree on what to cut.
Maybe "literary merit" isn't the right phrase to use here, though. My proposal is that worldbuilding is a distinct form of literature with different rules, different modes of enjoyment, and it would follow that it has distinct forms of merit. It is compelling in its own way to people who are compelled by it, and its animating stories are compelling by their own rules.
But the stories that are reckoned compelling in that world consistently leave me, and many other people, cold. LOTR is something of a bridge between worlds, here, though there are elements of it that don't work as well for people on either sides of the divide.
This is not the only such division in literature. The extended vignette that is the current literary novel is again something quite distinct from what I am calling serious popular fiction. Most of the works of that genre that are reckoned compelling by its advocates leave me cold, though there are occasional exceptions.
I'm happy to allow that there is compelling work in each of these fields for their different audiences, and that there is a distinct form or literary merit that applies in each of them, though I don't, for the time being, have a way to express the difference.
Thanks for the link, Tom. I wasn't aware of the article, but it certainly tracks with what I am talking about. "Studios have finally figured out that once audiences fall in love with fictional worlds, they want to spend lots of time in them." There it is: the preeminent attraction of spending time in a world, as opposed to attraction to an individual story.
My question in response would be, was this desire there in people all along, or did the studios deliberately develop it? Clearly it is easier to monetize a world than a story, so did they actively develop this taste in order to exploit it? Or was it there all along latent and undiscovered? And if so, it that found desire a recent phenomenon, a product of some reaction to the state of the modern world, or has it always been a feature of our psyche?
Mark, I really have to disagree about your assertion that worldbuilding and storytelling are mutually exclusive. Yes, there are elaborate stories which are driven mostly by worldbuilding (cough cough the<i>Song of Ice and Fire</i> aka <i>Game of Thrones</i> series or <i>Wheel of Time</i>). But I would argue that the story arc of <i>Rogue One</i> in the Star Wars universe is one of the classic tragedy sequences--achieving the final goal only through the sacrifice of the primary characters.
I notice that those who disliked <i>Rogue One</i> were those most dedicated to the worldbuilding--those of us interested in story ended up with a great emotional rush at the ending, tragic as it was.
Story is driven by compelling characters that entice the reader or viewer into the unfolding events. Without those compelling characters, it doesn't matter how exciting the story events are or how good the worldbuilding is. If all you have moving through the story are two-dimensional Mary Sues and Gary Stus, then it's a failure as a story. I have a significant problem with a lot of what is considered good literary fiction these days, because I find the characters unconvincing, unappealing, and unrealistic. If a writer makes me utter those fatal words "I don't care what's happening to these people!" then the book gets put down. Forever. And there is just too much in the literary world today that gives me that reaction.
One of the reasons that I have been so drawn into my worlds of the Martinieres is that the two central characters--Gabriel Martiniere and Ruby Barkley--have a number of complexities that can be played out in so many ways. The last book of the main series, <i>The Enduring Legacy</i> (serialized as <i>Repairing the Legacy</i> on Substack) is about Gabe facing up to his mortality, and his passionate desire to correct the destruction that his psychopathic father Philip wreaked.
In my Goddess's Honor series, honestly, I did enough worldbuilding to have the world hold together so that my characters didn't rip it apart in the process of living their stories. That led to some interesting discoveries as I wrote through that world.
Yes, there are writers for whom worldbuilding is a primary focus, and there are readers who love that sort of work. But even in those universes, if you go to Archive of Our Own (the major fanfiction archive), you see fan-written stories that focus on characters set in those worlds, not more elaborate worldbuilding extension. Even in Tolkien and Star Wars fanfics!
Worldbuilding without story and character is boring. You need a balance of all three elements.
But I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive. In fact, I said explicitly that each requires the other.
It is a little difficult to make the point because the word "story" has so many different connotations, but what I am saying is we are seeing a reversal of priorities. Traditionally, stories needed to do some worldbuilding to establish the stage on which to tell the story, but they were story-forward, and the world was not developed any more than was necessary to tell the story.
Now we are increasingly seeing properties which are world-forward, and the story need not be any more developed than it needs to be to animate the world. It can be more developed than that, of course, but it is still not likely to appeal much to people who prefer story-forward work, because what is to them extraneous worldbuilding will bore them.
So yes, I agree the worldbuilding without story and character is boring (though I do know of people who practice it), and that you do need a balance of all three elements. My point is that there are different ways of balancing these elements which appeal to different people. You can be story forward, you can be world forward, or you can be character forward.
For a long time, people have made the distinction between literary fiction and popular fiction by saying that literary fiction is character-oriented and popular fiction is story-oriented. I am really just extending that distinction by noting the substantial body of work today that is world-forward. All three types require all three elements, but the way they mix them is different, and the audiences those mixes appeal to are different.
The balance may have shifted (or may always have leaned more heavily on worldbuilding) in some genres, and sci-fi, fantasy, and historical fiction are especially inclined toward this. Worldbuilding is the media on which stories are grown, and some writers may think a bigger, better, more authentic story can be grown from a richer or purer medium. Sometimes this might be true, as in the case of LOTR, where the mythology needs grounding in its elaborate and detailed world. And I can understand why readers enjoy inhabiting those imagined worlds. I have my own theories about what makes mythology and stories appealing, but often the worldbuilding is an invitation to the mythology--the storytelling--itself. Not everyone wants to invest in a story in an unappealing setting, which is where a lot of "literary" works want to drag us.
But, I agree that worldbuilding can come at the expense or in lieu of story and character. A film could have amazing sets or cinematography, but if there is no plot, or the acting is terrible, I'm not going to sit through it. The temptation in historical fiction seems to be to throw every bit of historical research available into the pot and stir, and sometimes books come out sounding like encyclopedias. I don't need accuracy as much as I want authenticity. A story should _feel_ appropriate to its era without drowning in unnecessary facts and details. I tried to be conscious of this when writing my own historical novels, and despite working with an ancient barbarian world ripe for salacious description, I kept it pretty austere so it didn't distract from my characters. I don't know if I got the balance right, but the best we can do as writers is to create what we enjoy and avoid what we dislike in other literature.
Agreed, it is quite hopeless to try to imitate something you don't like because it happens to be in fashion. And I very much like your distinction between authenticity and accuracy. Authenticity is as much about internal consistency of the story world as it is about fidelity to the historical record.
I'm going to weigh in on this, even though I don't feel I'm qualified to say which came first, the chicken or the egg. I like to write what I think are literary stories...(but that thought only came to me after I wrote a few of them.) I like to put my stories in the past, a past that most of us can recall--a more recent past, I guess you'd have to say. I suppose you could also say there's no need for world-building in those kind of stories...but then, I'd have to disagree. Every story that's written, is of itself, its own world. I guess that's why I adore Alice Munro. When you finish one of her stories, you feel like you've just finished a novel. That's because the worlds she builds in her stories are relatable. As much as I like fantasy, sci-fi, and historical fiction, I don't really write it as often as one would think. I did write one fantasy story, and it has a dragon in it too, but it was an Arthurian tale. I think when you write stories, the reader has his own idea as to what that world looks like--for as much as you have described it, his imagination fills in the rest. It will always be the story that stands front and centre; it will always be the story, and the characters you create. Those, in my opinion, are the "world" in any story. The physical world you create is simply background. STAR WARS is the perfect example of what a setting can be, much the same as the attic for Anne Frank, or the sea and his boat for the Old Man and the Sea. I'm not much for themes, or metaphors, or symbolism, those things slip into my stories unconsciously. I let others look for those things. But if you want, you can see for yourself and tell me if my stories are literary or not...https://benwoestenburg.substack.com
Thanks Mark. Thought provoking as usual. Fair distinction from my angle. I enjoy both world-building and story but the former on screen and the latter in word. Only rarely is this otherwise. Thus, have a thought (psychological hypothesis) to float. Wonder whether the modern tendency towards world-building (apart from the obvious money thing) is directly related to the dizzying and often deleterious complexities of modern life, (imagining Tolkien’s trenches as his catalyst). Something like the frantic and failing search for a longer lasting ether. To my mind, a brilliant story is the opposite: a singular haunting encounter (echoing Eliot) with that verbal reality which is very hard to bear yet closer to being truly alive.
Yes, and other world as retreat. There is, of course, a long tradition of retreat from the world, particularly among Christians. A literary form of retreat makes sense in the same way. Simplicity and time to breath could be seen as common benefits of both.
And what you say about story makes a lot of sense to me. The intensity of the experience is in some ways the exact opposite of retreat, though maybe there is an element in this of needing a retreat in order to endure the intensity that the story brings.
The other thought that this brings to mind is that some works leave you wanting more, but others are so satisfying, so complete, so final, so exhausting and exhilarating at the same time that you are glad to close the cover than breath. A story is satiating. A world just whets your appetite.
Oct 3, 2022·edited Oct 3, 2022Liked by G. M. (Mark) Baker
I grew up mostly reading the classics, but somehow I became someone who loves worldbuilding for its own sake. I'm not sure how that happened, which makes me think this isn't something that was trained into me and is rather a part of my nature. Fantasy is my #1 genre now (although I think its emphasis on worldbuilding is one of many reasons; I love fantasy because it's the meeting point of worldbuilding, escapism, and the old-fashioned ways of life which emphasize bravery, wisdom, and other virtues.)
I also enjoy Harry Potter, but I do so because of the characters, not the worldbuilding. I think the world of Harry Potter is far too asymmetrical and inconsistent. Rowling added new creatures and new spells in each book to suit the needs of the story, rather than developing on what she'd done before. To me, it's charming but hard to mentally extrapolate from or predict, which is the chief joy of worldbuilding.
I think a lot of younger readers enjoy the in-world and real-world communities that develop from good worldbuilding. Every Harry Potter fan I know has placed themselves into one of the Houses (and before you ask, I'm a Ravenclaw). Most of us agonized for quite a while before we came to this decision; it's not made lightly. But it feels good to belong. The Harry Potter fandom is also a real-world community in that it's a conversation starter and a common thread. I hosted a party several years ago where the only thing we had in common was a love for the Elder Scrolls video games, but that was enough for a night of socializing and storytelling among strangers.
In C.S. Lewis' memoir "Surprised by Joy," he talks about a transcendental feeling that hit him while reading Norse mythology. He suddenly felt a rush of emotion and wistfulness, a sense of the existence of something greater than himself; maybe greater than the cosmos. "All Joy reminds. It is never a possession, always a desire for something longer ago or further away or still 'about to be'." This was the chief emotion that led him to Theism and eventually Christianity.
I've come to realize that escapism is one of the main appeals of fiction for me. Once upon a time I resisted this knowledge because I thought it made me irresponsible. Now I feel the opposite; as someone who does believe in something "greater than the cosmos," storytelling is one of the only ways we can remind ourselves that there is more to reality.
I have one last quote (and I apologize for how long this comment has gotten... You asked about worldbuilding and I guess I'm passionate.) These words from Eugene Peterson explain why both Fantasy and Christianity appeal to me so strongly.
"The Bible provides the revelation of a world that has primarily to do with God. It is a huge world, far larger than what we inhabit on our own. We live in sin-cramped conditions, mostly conscious of ourselves – our feelings and frustrations, our desires and ideas, our achievements and discoveries, our failures and hurts. The Bible is deep and wide with God's love and grace, brimming over with surprises of mercy and mystery, peppered with alarming exposés of sin and bulletins of judgment. This is an immense world, and it takes time to adjust to the majesty - we're not used to anything on this scale."
Thank you! I love long comments, especially ones that give me so much to chew on. Much of what I want to say in response will go into the follow-up article. But a couple of lightbulbs for me in this.
* Escapism is about what one is escaping from. To escape from the dreariness of the modern or post modern views of the world is very understandable, even if one agrees with their drab materialism.
* From that point of view, Christianity could be viewed as the greatest legendarium of them all. I think it was Lewis who said that the Christ story is a myth that happens to be true.
I suspect that the materialist suspects fantasy of being a gateway drug to religion and the puritan suspects that it is a gateway drug to paganism.
Yes, though I’d personally draw a distinction between retreat and escapism. And yes, I held The Power And The Glory closed in my hands for a good while after finishing it.
This was a wonderful essay; very thought-provoking. In case it's of any use to you, I came to "Stories all the Way Down" via a Google search for "how to organize a serial novel on Substack." I have enjoyed the two essays I've read so far.
I find myself in agreement on the world building front, although "how" I perceive that gives me a little bit of insight into what "I" really seem to value in story.
For instance, I have the opposite experience to you with LOTR; I like it more each time I read it. Also, I thought Harry Potter became better as you hit books 6 and 7. However, for me, I don't think it's about the world or the world building. I care nothing for magic, elves, or other fantastic creatures. Also, somewhat strangely, it's not about the characters to me either. It's the story (stories) itself. The situations, the building, brick by brick, of the incidents that occur., that appeal to me in fiction. For instance, I suppose that many people would say Lucky Jim is driven by the unique character of Jim. To me, though, it's more about the situations and atmosphere that his character enables than about my feelings for him. Does that make sense? I'm not really sure how to put it into words. It would be nice to be able to spend unhurried time thinking that through systematically.
So, "world" doesn't appeal to me hardly at all. It's much more situation, atmosphere, elegance of language (probably the #1 reason I prefer the King James Version of the Bible), and "psychological" aspects of story, that hold my attention. An example of this would be the sci-fi Solaris (the book; although the Soviet movie version of the book is excellent); I care nothing for space, space travel, or sentient oceans. However, the combination of a confined space, bizarre events, and the psychological impacts on humans is supremely engaging and satisfying to me.
I find myself in agreement with you about world building, although I would probably be less gracious about it than you! The focus on world building offends me somehow, much like the popularity of super hero movies, remakes of movies, and the emphasis on "story" in advertising. Once again, it's hard for me to put my finger on "why" it bothers me. All I can say is that it does.
I think one reason for the recent emphasis on world building, beyond the lure of corporate money, is the advent of self publishing. With the route to success in self publishing predicated on well-known tropes, covers that convey with 100% certainty the genre and type of story, and the (general) necessity for writing in series, artists may / likely find world building an area they can give "free rein" to since their hands are fairly tied story-wise (if they want to sell). In that vein, world building is a creative outlet to artists stymied by the drudgery of writing the same story over and over again.
I hope you do write (or have written) your follow up to this essay, because I'm keenly interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this word building / literature divergence. To that end, I would be interested in a longer correspondence, perhaps by email, if that would be of any interest to you.
In any case, thanks for a thought-provoking essay; I will be subscribing!
Thanks for the comment, Joe. I'm still exploring this whole phenomena of worldbuilding and have a few more things in the works talking about it.
I'm with you on story vs. character. I see a real problem in the current notion that literature is divided into genre, which is plot driven, and literary, which is character driven. Neither of these strike me as sufficient in themselves. Story comes where character grinds against plot. Genre fiction tends to send soldiers to war or pretty girls to courtship, but those characters are made for their plots and slide across them effortlessly. Literary fiction tends to detail characters exhaustively but give them nothing to do, with the result that in order to make them interesting at all it basically has to make them dysfunctional. Neither of these makes a compelling story. A compelling story happens when you take a perfectly sane and normal character and grind them against a plot that they are entirely unsuited to. So, if you want someone to carry a ring of power to Mount Doom in the face of all the armies of darkness, choose a middle class hobbit and his gardener. Then you have a story.
This is a very interesting observation. Personally, I think worldbuilding and the story itself goes hand in hand. It's like the world where we can see traces of God's mysterious and wonderful story of creation and redemption. In Tolkien's works, I find in "The Silmarillion" a story similar to that of our fallen world, beginning with the Creator and the first spirits until the fall and the gradual darkening of the world. Perhaps the rise of worldbuilding as a separate art can be particularly noticed today because of the lack of equally powerful stories that can accompany such worldbuilding. We seem to be more driven today with visuals, special effects and grandiose settings that we forget to weave all these into the stories of characters that inhabit such a world. The internet also plays a role in conditioning our way of thinking that doesn't allow for deeper thought. We subconsciously search for the deeper truths in stories but we content ourselves with building ever expansive worlds, hoping we could find there whatever it is that we lack.
I agree, and this leads me to the thought that in the current environment the range of stories that one is allowed to tell has been so restricted that perhaps worldbuilding is all that authors find safe to do, or readers find safe to read.
A fascinating read, Mark! Thanks for that. You've now made me imagine the Austen Cinematic Universe, in which all her novels are connected and characters cross over. Thanks for that.
I think you're right about series which emphasise world building and open-endedness being the ones that tend to attract the intense fandom, precisely because they leave room for the imagination in a way that more contained stories do not. Hence conventions, cosplay, fan fiction and so on.
However, I think I disagree with the notion that storytelling and world building are in some way mutually exclusive. I don't see it as a zero sum situation. World building on its own will never be as compelling as world building + a good story (and good characters, and good themes). Star Wars is wildly inconsistent in its quality, but at its core it has great storytelling (even if you only consider the first film). Without that, the world building wouldn't have sparked so many people's imaginations. Lord of the Rings' world building is a critical part of what it's doing, but without a compelling story nobody would have cared.
World building is hugely important to my writing, but it's always, always in service of the story. The worlds of my four novels are all quite distinct, and their design exists precisely to give me a context in which to explore specific themes, give characters compelling motivations, and weave an interesting story.
When you have world building divorced from a decent story you start to get into the territory of 'lore'. That's world building for the sake of world building. It can certainly be fun in a different way, but it's generally not self-sustaining.
Here's a few articles I've written on the topic:
https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/try-doing-your-world-building-in-universe
https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/building-a-multiverse
https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/world-building-for-fantasy-stories
Plus some podcast interviews I've done with Kieron Gillen and Ian Nettleton on world building can be found here: https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/amazing-podcasts-with-amazing-writers
Not mutually exclusive, no. As I said, every story requires the construction of a story world, and every legendarium requires stories to animate it. My point is that the story rules are different for the stories that animate legendariums, and the worldbuilding rules are different for story worlds than they are for legendariums. "Compelling" in other words, is different for worldbuilding than it is for storytelling. Both require stories, but they require different things of them.
This is not to say that you can't have a story of literary merit as the animating spirit of a legendarium, but it is difficult and the result is likely to be a compromise. LOTR is a perfect example. It is hard to think of a book with a more mixed literary reputation. I do think there is a great book in there, but I know so many voracious readers who can't stand it. Often they say that they don't like sci-fi and fantasy, but if you inquire you find that there are several such books that they have read and liked. But they are works (like my Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight) that are story forward rather than world forward.
The other interesting thing about LOTR is the number of its admirers who think it needs a severe editing, though they don't all agree on what to cut.
Maybe "literary merit" isn't the right phrase to use here, though. My proposal is that worldbuilding is a distinct form of literature with different rules, different modes of enjoyment, and it would follow that it has distinct forms of merit. It is compelling in its own way to people who are compelled by it, and its animating stories are compelling by their own rules.
But the stories that are reckoned compelling in that world consistently leave me, and many other people, cold. LOTR is something of a bridge between worlds, here, though there are elements of it that don't work as well for people on either sides of the divide.
This is not the only such division in literature. The extended vignette that is the current literary novel is again something quite distinct from what I am calling serious popular fiction. Most of the works of that genre that are reckoned compelling by its advocates leave me cold, though there are occasional exceptions.
I'm happy to allow that there is compelling work in each of these fields for their different audiences, and that there is a distinct form or literary merit that applies in each of them, though I don't, for the time being, have a way to express the difference.
I find it an interesting hypothesis, one that bears some comparison to Adam Mastroianni’s piece that you probably read: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/pop-culture-has-become-an-oligopoly. I’m with you on preferring serious popular fiction over world building, for what it’s worth
Thanks for the link, Tom. I wasn't aware of the article, but it certainly tracks with what I am talking about. "Studios have finally figured out that once audiences fall in love with fictional worlds, they want to spend lots of time in them." There it is: the preeminent attraction of spending time in a world, as opposed to attraction to an individual story.
My question in response would be, was this desire there in people all along, or did the studios deliberately develop it? Clearly it is easier to monetize a world than a story, so did they actively develop this taste in order to exploit it? Or was it there all along latent and undiscovered? And if so, it that found desire a recent phenomenon, a product of some reaction to the state of the modern world, or has it always been a feature of our psyche?
Mark, I really have to disagree about your assertion that worldbuilding and storytelling are mutually exclusive. Yes, there are elaborate stories which are driven mostly by worldbuilding (cough cough the<i>Song of Ice and Fire</i> aka <i>Game of Thrones</i> series or <i>Wheel of Time</i>). But I would argue that the story arc of <i>Rogue One</i> in the Star Wars universe is one of the classic tragedy sequences--achieving the final goal only through the sacrifice of the primary characters.
I notice that those who disliked <i>Rogue One</i> were those most dedicated to the worldbuilding--those of us interested in story ended up with a great emotional rush at the ending, tragic as it was.
Story is driven by compelling characters that entice the reader or viewer into the unfolding events. Without those compelling characters, it doesn't matter how exciting the story events are or how good the worldbuilding is. If all you have moving through the story are two-dimensional Mary Sues and Gary Stus, then it's a failure as a story. I have a significant problem with a lot of what is considered good literary fiction these days, because I find the characters unconvincing, unappealing, and unrealistic. If a writer makes me utter those fatal words "I don't care what's happening to these people!" then the book gets put down. Forever. And there is just too much in the literary world today that gives me that reaction.
One of the reasons that I have been so drawn into my worlds of the Martinieres is that the two central characters--Gabriel Martiniere and Ruby Barkley--have a number of complexities that can be played out in so many ways. The last book of the main series, <i>The Enduring Legacy</i> (serialized as <i>Repairing the Legacy</i> on Substack) is about Gabe facing up to his mortality, and his passionate desire to correct the destruction that his psychopathic father Philip wreaked.
In my Goddess's Honor series, honestly, I did enough worldbuilding to have the world hold together so that my characters didn't rip it apart in the process of living their stories. That led to some interesting discoveries as I wrote through that world.
Yes, there are writers for whom worldbuilding is a primary focus, and there are readers who love that sort of work. But even in those universes, if you go to Archive of Our Own (the major fanfiction archive), you see fan-written stories that focus on characters set in those worlds, not more elaborate worldbuilding extension. Even in Tolkien and Star Wars fanfics!
Worldbuilding without story and character is boring. You need a balance of all three elements.
But I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive. In fact, I said explicitly that each requires the other.
It is a little difficult to make the point because the word "story" has so many different connotations, but what I am saying is we are seeing a reversal of priorities. Traditionally, stories needed to do some worldbuilding to establish the stage on which to tell the story, but they were story-forward, and the world was not developed any more than was necessary to tell the story.
Now we are increasingly seeing properties which are world-forward, and the story need not be any more developed than it needs to be to animate the world. It can be more developed than that, of course, but it is still not likely to appeal much to people who prefer story-forward work, because what is to them extraneous worldbuilding will bore them.
So yes, I agree the worldbuilding without story and character is boring (though I do know of people who practice it), and that you do need a balance of all three elements. My point is that there are different ways of balancing these elements which appeal to different people. You can be story forward, you can be world forward, or you can be character forward.
For a long time, people have made the distinction between literary fiction and popular fiction by saying that literary fiction is character-oriented and popular fiction is story-oriented. I am really just extending that distinction by noting the substantial body of work today that is world-forward. All three types require all three elements, but the way they mix them is different, and the audiences those mixes appeal to are different.
The balance may have shifted (or may always have leaned more heavily on worldbuilding) in some genres, and sci-fi, fantasy, and historical fiction are especially inclined toward this. Worldbuilding is the media on which stories are grown, and some writers may think a bigger, better, more authentic story can be grown from a richer or purer medium. Sometimes this might be true, as in the case of LOTR, where the mythology needs grounding in its elaborate and detailed world. And I can understand why readers enjoy inhabiting those imagined worlds. I have my own theories about what makes mythology and stories appealing, but often the worldbuilding is an invitation to the mythology--the storytelling--itself. Not everyone wants to invest in a story in an unappealing setting, which is where a lot of "literary" works want to drag us.
But, I agree that worldbuilding can come at the expense or in lieu of story and character. A film could have amazing sets or cinematography, but if there is no plot, or the acting is terrible, I'm not going to sit through it. The temptation in historical fiction seems to be to throw every bit of historical research available into the pot and stir, and sometimes books come out sounding like encyclopedias. I don't need accuracy as much as I want authenticity. A story should _feel_ appropriate to its era without drowning in unnecessary facts and details. I tried to be conscious of this when writing my own historical novels, and despite working with an ancient barbarian world ripe for salacious description, I kept it pretty austere so it didn't distract from my characters. I don't know if I got the balance right, but the best we can do as writers is to create what we enjoy and avoid what we dislike in other literature.
Agreed, it is quite hopeless to try to imitate something you don't like because it happens to be in fashion. And I very much like your distinction between authenticity and accuracy. Authenticity is as much about internal consistency of the story world as it is about fidelity to the historical record.
I'm going to weigh in on this, even though I don't feel I'm qualified to say which came first, the chicken or the egg. I like to write what I think are literary stories...(but that thought only came to me after I wrote a few of them.) I like to put my stories in the past, a past that most of us can recall--a more recent past, I guess you'd have to say. I suppose you could also say there's no need for world-building in those kind of stories...but then, I'd have to disagree. Every story that's written, is of itself, its own world. I guess that's why I adore Alice Munro. When you finish one of her stories, you feel like you've just finished a novel. That's because the worlds she builds in her stories are relatable. As much as I like fantasy, sci-fi, and historical fiction, I don't really write it as often as one would think. I did write one fantasy story, and it has a dragon in it too, but it was an Arthurian tale. I think when you write stories, the reader has his own idea as to what that world looks like--for as much as you have described it, his imagination fills in the rest. It will always be the story that stands front and centre; it will always be the story, and the characters you create. Those, in my opinion, are the "world" in any story. The physical world you create is simply background. STAR WARS is the perfect example of what a setting can be, much the same as the attic for Anne Frank, or the sea and his boat for the Old Man and the Sea. I'm not much for themes, or metaphors, or symbolism, those things slip into my stories unconsciously. I let others look for those things. But if you want, you can see for yourself and tell me if my stories are literary or not...https://benwoestenburg.substack.com
Thanks Mark. Thought provoking as usual. Fair distinction from my angle. I enjoy both world-building and story but the former on screen and the latter in word. Only rarely is this otherwise. Thus, have a thought (psychological hypothesis) to float. Wonder whether the modern tendency towards world-building (apart from the obvious money thing) is directly related to the dizzying and often deleterious complexities of modern life, (imagining Tolkien’s trenches as his catalyst). Something like the frantic and failing search for a longer lasting ether. To my mind, a brilliant story is the opposite: a singular haunting encounter (echoing Eliot) with that verbal reality which is very hard to bear yet closer to being truly alive.
Yes, and other world as retreat. There is, of course, a long tradition of retreat from the world, particularly among Christians. A literary form of retreat makes sense in the same way. Simplicity and time to breath could be seen as common benefits of both.
And what you say about story makes a lot of sense to me. The intensity of the experience is in some ways the exact opposite of retreat, though maybe there is an element in this of needing a retreat in order to endure the intensity that the story brings.
The other thought that this brings to mind is that some works leave you wanting more, but others are so satisfying, so complete, so final, so exhausting and exhilarating at the same time that you are glad to close the cover than breath. A story is satiating. A world just whets your appetite.
Mark, thanks for this essay. You sum up the world building / story telling dichotomy very well and I look forward to your follow up.
I grew up mostly reading the classics, but somehow I became someone who loves worldbuilding for its own sake. I'm not sure how that happened, which makes me think this isn't something that was trained into me and is rather a part of my nature. Fantasy is my #1 genre now (although I think its emphasis on worldbuilding is one of many reasons; I love fantasy because it's the meeting point of worldbuilding, escapism, and the old-fashioned ways of life which emphasize bravery, wisdom, and other virtues.)
I also enjoy Harry Potter, but I do so because of the characters, not the worldbuilding. I think the world of Harry Potter is far too asymmetrical and inconsistent. Rowling added new creatures and new spells in each book to suit the needs of the story, rather than developing on what she'd done before. To me, it's charming but hard to mentally extrapolate from or predict, which is the chief joy of worldbuilding.
I think a lot of younger readers enjoy the in-world and real-world communities that develop from good worldbuilding. Every Harry Potter fan I know has placed themselves into one of the Houses (and before you ask, I'm a Ravenclaw). Most of us agonized for quite a while before we came to this decision; it's not made lightly. But it feels good to belong. The Harry Potter fandom is also a real-world community in that it's a conversation starter and a common thread. I hosted a party several years ago where the only thing we had in common was a love for the Elder Scrolls video games, but that was enough for a night of socializing and storytelling among strangers.
In C.S. Lewis' memoir "Surprised by Joy," he talks about a transcendental feeling that hit him while reading Norse mythology. He suddenly felt a rush of emotion and wistfulness, a sense of the existence of something greater than himself; maybe greater than the cosmos. "All Joy reminds. It is never a possession, always a desire for something longer ago or further away or still 'about to be'." This was the chief emotion that led him to Theism and eventually Christianity.
I've come to realize that escapism is one of the main appeals of fiction for me. Once upon a time I resisted this knowledge because I thought it made me irresponsible. Now I feel the opposite; as someone who does believe in something "greater than the cosmos," storytelling is one of the only ways we can remind ourselves that there is more to reality.
I have one last quote (and I apologize for how long this comment has gotten... You asked about worldbuilding and I guess I'm passionate.) These words from Eugene Peterson explain why both Fantasy and Christianity appeal to me so strongly.
"The Bible provides the revelation of a world that has primarily to do with God. It is a huge world, far larger than what we inhabit on our own. We live in sin-cramped conditions, mostly conscious of ourselves – our feelings and frustrations, our desires and ideas, our achievements and discoveries, our failures and hurts. The Bible is deep and wide with God's love and grace, brimming over with surprises of mercy and mystery, peppered with alarming exposés of sin and bulletins of judgment. This is an immense world, and it takes time to adjust to the majesty - we're not used to anything on this scale."
Thank you! I love long comments, especially ones that give me so much to chew on. Much of what I want to say in response will go into the follow-up article. But a couple of lightbulbs for me in this.
* Escapism is about what one is escaping from. To escape from the dreariness of the modern or post modern views of the world is very understandable, even if one agrees with their drab materialism.
* From that point of view, Christianity could be viewed as the greatest legendarium of them all. I think it was Lewis who said that the Christ story is a myth that happens to be true.
I suspect that the materialist suspects fantasy of being a gateway drug to religion and the puritan suspects that it is a gateway drug to paganism.
They could both be right.
Yes, though I’d personally draw a distinction between retreat and escapism. And yes, I held The Power And The Glory closed in my hands for a good while after finishing it.
Oh yes, The Power and the Glory is definitely one of those books.
This was a wonderful essay; very thought-provoking. In case it's of any use to you, I came to "Stories all the Way Down" via a Google search for "how to organize a serial novel on Substack." I have enjoyed the two essays I've read so far.
I find myself in agreement on the world building front, although "how" I perceive that gives me a little bit of insight into what "I" really seem to value in story.
For instance, I have the opposite experience to you with LOTR; I like it more each time I read it. Also, I thought Harry Potter became better as you hit books 6 and 7. However, for me, I don't think it's about the world or the world building. I care nothing for magic, elves, or other fantastic creatures. Also, somewhat strangely, it's not about the characters to me either. It's the story (stories) itself. The situations, the building, brick by brick, of the incidents that occur., that appeal to me in fiction. For instance, I suppose that many people would say Lucky Jim is driven by the unique character of Jim. To me, though, it's more about the situations and atmosphere that his character enables than about my feelings for him. Does that make sense? I'm not really sure how to put it into words. It would be nice to be able to spend unhurried time thinking that through systematically.
So, "world" doesn't appeal to me hardly at all. It's much more situation, atmosphere, elegance of language (probably the #1 reason I prefer the King James Version of the Bible), and "psychological" aspects of story, that hold my attention. An example of this would be the sci-fi Solaris (the book; although the Soviet movie version of the book is excellent); I care nothing for space, space travel, or sentient oceans. However, the combination of a confined space, bizarre events, and the psychological impacts on humans is supremely engaging and satisfying to me.
I find myself in agreement with you about world building, although I would probably be less gracious about it than you! The focus on world building offends me somehow, much like the popularity of super hero movies, remakes of movies, and the emphasis on "story" in advertising. Once again, it's hard for me to put my finger on "why" it bothers me. All I can say is that it does.
I think one reason for the recent emphasis on world building, beyond the lure of corporate money, is the advent of self publishing. With the route to success in self publishing predicated on well-known tropes, covers that convey with 100% certainty the genre and type of story, and the (general) necessity for writing in series, artists may / likely find world building an area they can give "free rein" to since their hands are fairly tied story-wise (if they want to sell). In that vein, world building is a creative outlet to artists stymied by the drudgery of writing the same story over and over again.
I hope you do write (or have written) your follow up to this essay, because I'm keenly interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this word building / literature divergence. To that end, I would be interested in a longer correspondence, perhaps by email, if that would be of any interest to you.
In any case, thanks for a thought-provoking essay; I will be subscribing!
Joe
Thanks for the comment, Joe. I'm still exploring this whole phenomena of worldbuilding and have a few more things in the works talking about it.
I'm with you on story vs. character. I see a real problem in the current notion that literature is divided into genre, which is plot driven, and literary, which is character driven. Neither of these strike me as sufficient in themselves. Story comes where character grinds against plot. Genre fiction tends to send soldiers to war or pretty girls to courtship, but those characters are made for their plots and slide across them effortlessly. Literary fiction tends to detail characters exhaustively but give them nothing to do, with the result that in order to make them interesting at all it basically has to make them dysfunctional. Neither of these makes a compelling story. A compelling story happens when you take a perfectly sane and normal character and grind them against a plot that they are entirely unsuited to. So, if you want someone to carry a ring of power to Mount Doom in the face of all the armies of darkness, choose a middle class hobbit and his gardener. Then you have a story.
This is a very interesting observation. Personally, I think worldbuilding and the story itself goes hand in hand. It's like the world where we can see traces of God's mysterious and wonderful story of creation and redemption. In Tolkien's works, I find in "The Silmarillion" a story similar to that of our fallen world, beginning with the Creator and the first spirits until the fall and the gradual darkening of the world. Perhaps the rise of worldbuilding as a separate art can be particularly noticed today because of the lack of equally powerful stories that can accompany such worldbuilding. We seem to be more driven today with visuals, special effects and grandiose settings that we forget to weave all these into the stories of characters that inhabit such a world. The internet also plays a role in conditioning our way of thinking that doesn't allow for deeper thought. We subconsciously search for the deeper truths in stories but we content ourselves with building ever expansive worlds, hoping we could find there whatever it is that we lack.
I agree, and this leads me to the thought that in the current environment the range of stories that one is allowed to tell has been so restricted that perhaps worldbuilding is all that authors find safe to do, or readers find safe to read.