Middle Earth and The Perils of Worldbuilding

MY BOOK OF ESSAYS IS OUT NOW!
AMAZON: amzn.to/3dk14yu
EVERYWHERE ELSE: bit.ly/3qJEbHT
. PATREON: www.patreon.com/nerdwriter?ty=h
As always, I'M IN COMMENTS, but you can also discuss this video (or anything else) with me here: thenerdwriter.tumblr.com/ask
TWITTER: / theenerdwriter
Read M. John Harrison's essays/posts on worldbuilding here: web.archive.org/web/2008041018...
And BUY ALL OF HIS FICTION HERE: www.amazon.com/M.-John-Harriso...
STUFF:
If you made it this far in the description, you can read the first chapter of my new novel-in-progess here: / false-patterns
To buy my first novel, Big City: gumroad.com/l/rqDD
To listen to my first album, New Disguises: strumstick.bandcamp.com/

[@RansomSmith]

I think you've got it exactly backwards. The reason we love worldbuilt fiction is the way it engages and activates us, destroying the mental and artistic passivity that you caution against. An attractive constructed world inspires fanfiction: the reader immediately turns around and becomes a writer. Moves beyond interpreting the text, into expanding it. That doesn't mean political worldbuilding isn't dangerous. The danger is not in some engendered passivity, but in its power to inspire active complicity in some unworthy cause.

[@AspelShuyin]

As an aspiring writer--and worldbuilder--I can't really say that I agree. Quite the opposite, in fact. I feel that if anything the nature of worldbuilding is a positive one, and even an active one for the reader. After all, you mentioned yourself how you'd go *actively* search for answers not found in the text. When you're watching Game of Thrones and you go to find one of the Wikis to learn someone's backstory that's only hinted, you're not being a passive reader, you're being active. You're no longer a viewer, watching scenes unfold in your mind, you're a researcher, finding these things out and exploring extratextual sources, learning about things the author said in interviews or short stories or other works. More than that, I feel draw the opposite conclusion that you do. It's not the fictional worldbuilding that primes us for real worldbuilding of Coca-Cola or L'Oreal or politics. It's the real world that primes us for fictional worldbuilding because we want somewhere to escape our world that feels just as real. And that gets into the whole "is escapism healthy" argument, but at the same time these arguments about worldbuilding could be easily extended to *any* form of fiction. Is there anything inherently perilous in fiction? M. John Harrison says it derisively, and goes out of his way to avoid worldbuilding (although any text will invariably have worldbuilding, even if it's inconsistent), but I don't see that as a problem. I want to survey a world that isn't there. I want to go on a vacation to a place that doesn't exist. After all, that's what reading--what fiction--is. I play video games, watch movies, read books, play tabletop, et cetera for the same reason I went to DC, and gave everyone I met a different name while I was there. I explore fiction for the same reason I explore Wikipedia. And I like worldbuilding--both as an aspiring writer and an audience of various texts--for the same reason I like food with filling taste and palatable texture. Meat is good.

[@ElBlargho]

+Rory Walker It feels like the Nerd Writer's gripe is more about readers needlessly obsessing over the "clockwork" world, more than the actual act of worldbuilding. I can't say I fully understand the point he was trying to make here. Fantasy authors shouldn't feel like they have to build perfectly consistent worlds? Don't miss the forest for the trees where secondary worlds are concerned? L'Oreal is an insidious evil empire? The more I write the more I see worldbuilding as a necessary evil for fantasy plots to matter within an expansive context. The moment the stakes go beyond somebody's front door, it becomes a necessity to figure out how everything works outside that door. And so on for the city limits, the realm's laser barriers, the celestial sphere or what have you. Without an established world-construct for the characters to care about (however unreliable or chaotic), the stakes of your story can only go as far as inter-personal. I feel the pitfall of worldbuilding when trying to tell a story is to indulge in it for its own sake. Work it out inside your head as much as you like, but only show the world through the characters' experiences when taste and texture are needed. Or I guess you could write The Wheel of Time and dwell upon how many colored pins a certain military coat should display...

[@AspelShuyin]

Iunno, it felt to me like it was more a thing about "escapism is bad". That's the impression I got, at least. I mean, I feel that worldbuilding in and of itself is a great hobby, and a useful skill for a writer. Even if you don't write in a world, creating a fictional setting is just... it's hard to describe. "Playing God" feels so egotistical and arrogant. It's more like being a gardener for something great (unless you suck at it)

[@ElleRoni]

+Rory Walker Themes are more important in fiction than 'virtual reality immersion' in a secondary world. That's about it. Secondary world's aren't real places, they're reflections of reality.

[@AspelShuyin]

"Theme" is in many cases the least important part of fiction. Plot is the most important of all, and plot is the footprints left in the snow after the characters have run by on their way to incredible destinations. Setting is an incredibly important part of that, and a well done setting--as a fictional world should be--is practically a character in it's own right. Secondary worlds are real places because we make them real. To say that the narcissistic fantasy represented by L'Oreal, or the 'worldbuilding' of politics is related to fictional worldbuilding like Tolkien or Warcraft or Star Wars is ridiculous. It borders on the nonsensical. ALL fiction exists in created fictional worlds. And all fiction is not harmful by it's nature. The worldbuilding of Tolkien is no more harmful than the worldbuilding of Friends or Seinfeld or Two Broke Girls (I'm honestly blanking on fictional novels that take place in the modern world). In fact, you could say that those fictions that take place in the modern world are MORE harmful because they present a skewed and misleading portrayal of how the world works. Fiction is amoral. It can be positive, it can be negative. But comparing worldbuilding to Fox News is baseless and silly. I love this channel, but I've never disagreed with one of these vlogs more.

[@ElleRoni]

Rory Walker Your avatar gets me all hot and bothered.

[@Canadian_Princess]

I strongly disagree with your idea that world building encourages passivity and a lack of challenge. World building provides both reader and writer with an active engagement. An especially talented writer will use world building, not as a metaphor, but as a place filled with its own history, such as Tolkein. This requires then, an effort of understanding from both parties.

[@toddschriver9924]

Maybe, it sure seems like fans of built worlds get pretty wrapped up and defensive about canon vs non-canon and getting the "facts" right. In many cases this sucks all of the readers (or watchers) imagination away and replaces it with a model and a dogma. Game of Thrones was more interesting to me before a bunch of people started to build up a right/wrong interpretation of it.

[@LadyArtemis2012]

+T Kent, I think one of the things Don Ventura might consider an example of his point is The Force. Throughout the 70's and 80's no one knew how this power worked, it was just a universal pull that connected all living things. People's imaginations ran wild with all of the different things this could mean and how it could be applied. Then, in the 90's, we got the prequels and the idea of Midichlorians. Suddenly, we know a lot more about the Force and how it works as well as why some people seem to have a stronger connection to it than others.This is world building. Yet, it infuriated people. So many fans had grown up with their own imaginations filling in the details of how the Force worked and living fantasies of one day being Jedi themselves. Now, everything they had imagined was wrong. There was a right answer where previously there had simply been the unknown. The point I'm trying to add to is that world building can be amazing when it is done effectively. Sometimes, however, it does far more harm than good and actually limits the world rather than defining it.

[@malcolmwright5793]

Strong, active worldbuilding can actually encourage engagement if done well, because it forms a culture of fandom around that thing. People learning and trading in fictional languages is a really good example. Talking with a friend in Sindarin doesn't remove me from the experience, but encourages my active participation in it. When worldbuilding is done badly the results speak for themselves, you create an ugly experience.

[@RenegadeShepTheSpacer]

Exactly. Only an author or a well-read fan will understand this.

[@Canadian_Princess]

Well said!

[@IllesDobnerOfficial]

John, I love your work but this video is based on a false premise. Worldbuilding is to a significant degree about creating an environment in which conscious suspension of disbelief can take place. The fact that a world is near perfectly constructed helps many readers (myself included) focus on the message/meaning. If I'm constantly distracted by my disbelief in what I read, it won't speak to me, there won't be a cathartic experience. If, however, I'm so lost in the book that for a few days, it's real to me, I can think about the decisions of the characters, their moral dilemmas, etc. in a meaningful way. I can think about what the author implies about life, death, religion, politics, etc. We build worlds of make belief not just to escape from but also to help make sense of our world. We are worldbuilders, have always been. We dream things, we plan, we make them reality. Yes, the world we inhabit is a built world, and we've built some great and some terrible things. But without this ability, we never would have stepped on the moon. We'd still be chasing down antelopes on foot. Imagining things that aren't real to a minute detail is just part and parcel of what makes humans great. I'm sure you know this, but then... why the video?

[@stevepittman3770]

Your comment made me realize what it is exactly about worldbuilding that appeals so much to me. A story without history happens in an instant and is over, nothing left but words on the page. Thinking about it afterward you can maybe gain a small insight here or there, but it's self-contained. Some things happened to some characters, the end. A story set in a developed, history-bound world exposes a complex machinery with which one can engage the story and the characters. One can manipulate the levers and knobs and gain a depth of understanding, not just of the world, but of motivations and perspectives, of meaning and context. To use the example of Song of Ice and Fire, what does the change in the character of Jaime Lannister tell you about him without knowing what circumstances made him who he was before? A story can tell you some of this, but a world can provide both the impetus and the means to a broader perspective. Ultimately I think Harrison is right about the potential dangers of worldbuilding and being aware is never a bad thing, but it's not all slippery slope.

[@VirtualAdept777]

[@denizsarkaya5410]

But then, why not just use the real world as a setting in a novel? Why bother with fantasy, if the only goal is to make readers focus on the message? Well, I believe, worldbuilding is much more than that. It is more about imagination and creativity. It is a beautiful literary escape from reality. Maybe even, for some writers it is only about the mere act of constructing a perfect world. Words give (good) writers the power of creating anything (that most of the time is impossible in real world), just like what programmers do with code writing. Artists strive to create. Well, at least that's what I think.

[@phoenixfiles]

Deniz Sarıkaya I'm an avid world-builder and have several novels planned in a secondary world. I did this for two reasons. 1. I love fantasy and world-building is fun. 2. I get thrown out of a narrative when I encounter inconsistent world-building. 3. To remove the labelling barriers caused by highly charged words in certain aspects of society, culture, religion, and other topics that end up covered in my writing.

[@michaelt.5672]

Deniz Sarıkaya In my experience, worldbuilding is a result of a large-scale story. That is regardless of wether it's phantasy or not. Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising is a great example of that; It's set during the cold war, but since it depicts a non-nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and Nato, it involves an awful lot of the political world stage and various military forces. And since all of that is fictionalised, setting up that situation is, effectively, world building, even if the things described have a resemblence to reality. You only get around world-building by sticking to small-scale stories. I think this is the reason why Tolkien rejected the notion that his books were escapism. He didn't see them as an escape from reality, but as a vessel to transport themes and messages.

[@jamesgeorge7579]

I respectfully disagree that the popularity of world building is creating passivity, I think it actually encourages people to create their own stories. Do you have any idea how many times I've run into people both online and in real life who were constructing their own little worlds, people are constantly creating whole histories and civilizations, letting their imaginations run wild. I've always been a lover of history, the stories have always fascinated me, and to have whole in depth worlds being a dime a dozen online, I can relieve the feeling of reading history for the first time almost every day.

[@Kntrytnt]

I agree. I've always loved reading, ever since I could, but I never cared for writing, always seemed like too much work, it wasn't until I met this shy girl in my high school graduating class, she had been writing for over a decade at 18, I was pretty impressed, so I asked to read some of her work. She didn't have a book written, but she did have a world created. An amazing world, full of countries and beasts and philosophies and powers. Her world blew me away. I had never seen something so in depth. It absolutely inspired me to write my own world, now I have five, very in depth worlds, and I'm meeting with a publisher in January to try and publish my first book. World building can absolutely inspire others to write and create their own worlds.

[@drakor98]

I love worldbuilding, perhaps more than writing a story by itself. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who just worldbuilds for fun. Haha.

[@patricklemire9278]

And all of that Star Trek, Star Wars, etc etc fan fiction. Passive people have always been passive, it's not art making them so.

[@georgevelis4651]

Kntrytnt how is the book called?

[@edupunknoob]

@@patricklemire9278 fan fiction is the act of joint mutiversed world building

[@teddyberserker]

I certainly agree that political worldbuilding is quite sinister. However, it's a slippery slope to blame fantasy worldbuilding on its political arch nemesis. Tolkien spoke of "sub-creation" as an imperative, and his contemporary Lewis added as a worship. By design many of us altruistically feel drawn to worldbuild.

[@Keaggan]

Taylor Frymier it's not a slippery slope it's downright moronic. If you let fiction inform reality then you have sense of truth. Without truth you believe false constructs and thus are easily controlled. #BuyPepsi

[@bolerie]

I think the problem with worldbuilding is how it is presented. Often times it is seen as very factual: this guy did this thing at this time in this place for this reason. But actual history is not like that. It is full of things unknown, uncredited stories, myths and legends. For the longest time the Trojan war was seen as a factual event, then in the 1800's no one believed in it until the ruins of Troy were rediscovered and history had to be rewritten all over again. I find it strange how many of the middle ages-like fantasy worlds seems to know everything about their history, how their gods seem to be not just myths, but actual agents. I would find it much more satisfying if the worldbuilding was filled with conflicting stories, of ruins of unknown civilizations. And it would teach is an important lesson too: you can't always trust the stories you are told, because for every story there are a million conflicting ones.

[@abdallamahmoud610]

Totally agree with you

[@Tide2375]

Often times, you're right. This factual presentation of exposition is like a confirmation that readers will be able to follow the narrative. Brandon Sanderson doesn't do this, which is why I've gravitated to him, I think. Speculation is fun. Making assumptions and wondering about certain things is really really run.

[@Tide2375]

+Ben Salis *fun

[@orangeninja8022]

+Ben Salis I one hundred percent agree!! Brandon Sanderson is my favorite author of all time, and half the reason is because speculating about where the story is going to go is so entertaining; it's almost like you're genuinely exploring a new world rather than just reading.

[@timfalkenberg6879]

I think that's a huge part of why Tolkien's Middle-earth is one of the most compelling pieces of so-called world building. I'm reading Unfinished Tales right now, and both it and The Silmarillion treat themselves as recordings of the legends of Middle-earth. They're not necessarily history set in stone - they're oral tellings of ages gone by, and those stories have personal effects and implications to the characters in any present story.

[@ze_rubenator]

I think world building is so popular for two reasons, at least from my perspective: 1. As a reader, it's very nice to be able to leave this world and enter a new one. This is especially beautifully done in Narnia and Harry Potter, where this kind of literally happens. It's a nice relief from our real lives, and let's be honest, who doesn't wish they could go to Hogwarts? 2. As a writer, it frees you from the shackles of history and modern society. You can invent whatever you like, introduce any kind of conflict, without adhering to anything preexisting. George R. R. Marin is a genius in this regard, because he's basically made a "best of British history" but with magic and dragons. What's better than that?

[@JoshForeman]

I think you're ironically missing the point that worldbuilding stories are usually the exact method that artists use to undo the worldbuilding of corporate, religious, and other institutions. Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica are prime examples of using a world-build setting to interrogate social norms.

[@Thomazmllm]

Thank you! Thank you for this needed comment He cite's Terry Pratchett, and dont seems to understand the irony

[@andreascovano7742]

not necesseraly, sometimes, it's to provide wonder, everything doesn't have to posses some deeper meaning, it can be a beutiful thing on it's own

[@PierzStyx]

I think you cite example of the exception to his argument. BSG was an intense effort by Ronald D. Moore to explore religion, evolution, and humanity using the skeleton of the original show, which itself was a sci-fi attempt to explore those same themes as they emerged from Glen Larson's faith. It was something Moore also did on Star Trek Deep Space Nine with the Bajoran faith and Sisko being the Emissary. But those are exceptions. Most "world building" has nothing to do with that. Most world building is merely the attempt to make a buck off an already existing world -such as the original Star Wars Expanded Universe was- or the attempt to squeeze it for every cent possible- as most Star Trek novels are. Star Trek itself is far from exempt from this as a show- especially TOS with its endless parade of Nazi planets, gangster planets, African planets, etc.

[@reisswilliams286]

There is the reason an author creates a world, which could vary greatly, and there is the reason the reader becomes overly obsessed with series after series of fantasy novels. Living in a world, even if it is only in our minds, that is more fantastic than our own is a wonderful escape from the monotonous tone of their own lives. That is the danger of fantasy literature. I have seen people fall into this, where our own lives become shadows of the world's they dream of.

[@TheStarBlack]

Humans evolved to explore new lands and create new societies. For hundreds of thousands of years we had an entire planet of wilderness to explore. Now there is little left to explore- what is left is owned, managed and controlled. We basically have nowhere left to freely explore and settle as we wish. I think that may be part of why we love inventing and exploring fictional worlds.

[@GazpachoMacho]

I think you're missing the point behind world building...

[@TwoPointDuck]

Well the point doesn't matter. The effect is what he talks about.

[@GazpachoMacho]

TwoPointDuck Maybe the effect on him and some others. (you know who you are) But not on the rest of us... (we know who we are)

[@TwoPointDuck]

Well, ads do world building. And so companies like Coca Cola and Marlboro can have a big influence in your life, using worldbuilding. What nerdwriter points out is that the world building in movies etc is meant harmlessly, but that it can cause us to be more manipulated by world building by companies or individuals that we don't want to be manipulated by. For example Santa Claus is part of the world building of coca cola. Looking cool, is/was part of the world building of cigarette companies, etc etc.

[@myrfaen2717]

You're looking at a symptom of language as if it were the problem. It is impossible to, as a human being, see the all world for what it is. We fill in the blanks with our personal abstractions, biases, prejudices, and perceptions. World Building didn't create that problem. That's just the "human condition."

[@CelesteSinger1]

GazpachoMacho Agree. What the hell was this guy's point? Lmao

[@stuckupcurlyguy]

But Tolkien disparaged allegory. He really sought to write a fictional "history", not a metaphor. I think you are incorrect in this respect.

[@arminengaming]

It is frequently mistaken that he was trying to create a metaphor for Europe, as that's what many books at that time were doing, and so frequently were doing terribly. You are correct in this, as he in many letters and articles stated he was not trying to create any metaphor, and that people were completely misunderstanding his goals with the series. However it is undeniable that there are some metaphors in the book relating to Europe, such as the difference between Gondor and Rohan. He was creating a world that was still grounded in the reality of human nature and nature itself, so while The Lord of the Rings was an attempt at myth-making, it also had some unconscious allusions to real life in it.

[@meetalhoomeez]

yea I was thinking the same think. Tolkien makes it quite clear that he was trying his best to not use allegory.

[@Doomsterlobster]

I have not read all his commentary on the topic, but we must remember he was a literary scholar/philologist. His use of "allegory" is specific and deliberate, not a broad statement to the effect that "My work has no interpretation or real world parallel." He says that he did aim for applicability, and the difference lies chiefly in the reader's freedom to apply the work. An allegory is a coherent, closed meaning dictated by the author. I don't think he was entirely sincere in his dislike for allegory, though. He may not have wanted to write an allegory, but he was a medievalist and the medieval literature he spent his life with was full of allegory. And, given that the chief model for his personal style is medieval literature, of course it invites mythical interpretation. The point is primarily that he did not have a single "lesson" he wanted to teach through an allegorical story, I think. (And then, we must also remember to be skeptical of anything authors claim about their intent!)

[@adamderrick3692]

I agree with Olli. Also, I would distinguish between metaphor which is broad and used in all texts fictional or not, and allegory which is, again, closed. If Tolkien's world and books had no connections or relevance to our lives, it wouldn't be the powerful piece of storytelling it has proven to be. Tolkein's use of metaphor, creating touchstones in his fictional history that we can relate to and interact with, is a necessary piece of his work.

[@arthurdent6256]

Did he not direct those comments towards those attempting to find biblical allegory in his works?

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

I worldbuild as a hobby (I'm not an author or trying to write a fantasy novel, its a purely personal creative and intellectual exercise). I find this a slightly bizarre way to look at it. For me, its about trying to make my world as realistic as possible, in both a natural and human way. And, in the process, to understand why _our_ world is as it is. The term 'building' is very apt because once you try to go for realism, you have to go from the ground up, as it were. For example, plate tectonics (past and present) effect the positioning of continents, which effects the positioning of mountains and (along with latitude) water currents, this effects climate in a dramatic way as well as river layout. Then once you move onto human topics you have to consider which civilisations exist, how have they changed and interacted over time, what languages do they speak (how are those languages related), religion...etc. You also have to work out population densities, technological advancement and, quite broadly, how people _think_. It's unending, but always rooted in causality. In my own world, I also play around with things like astronomy (which is basically galaxy-building) and evolutionary history. My world also lacks large-scale recoverable fossil fuel desposits (no Carboniferous...etc) which has an impact as well. The amazing thing about world building is that is really gets you to ask deep questions about why the world is the way it is and in a structured, objective way. If you do it right, its about 70% research 30% informed imagination. When it comes to worldbuilding in fiction, I have to disagree with the Nerdwriter1 on this one. The forces which have shaped our world to be as it is (revolution, development, climate...etc) are forces which would have had a role in _any_ world with humans living on it. What happened in our history due to circumstance, and what happened due to the underlying nature of how the universe and humanity works? A well-built world can tackle these questions. I dislike worlds like Middle-Earth because they are too contrived and too moralised, for me anyway, in the urge to make a point and have meaning. That gets in the way of realism, as reality has no objective meaning. Personally, I prefer the method of GRRM, where the the world is more-or-less realistic and commentaries are made through the experiences of characters.

[@TheBespectacledN00b]

+Merry Machiavelli Also, science fiction worldbuilding to some extent will be more as you have described than fantasy, if it is of the kind that takes theoretical science and emerging technology and extrapolates the trend.

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

TheBespectacledN00b Yes, that's true. Sci-fi can be a brilliant way to explore the course future human development will take and how that may effect societies, with both of those questions really being questions of world-building (or should I say universe-building?). However, fantasy world building is also interesting as a more reflective look at how humans have gotten to this point. In some ways, fantasy world building can be even better because you often can compare and contrast events and groups in the fictional world to our own history and present, to try and find patterns.

[@J0YKi11]

+Merry Machiavelli Even more than that, I think it gives readers and communities (and I think communities are something that need to be considered when discussing art now; it is no longer an individual experience necessarily) a framework with which to have meaningful discussions. For instance, he talks about taking away the transaction of the reader imagining certain details. I would argue that removing these details puts more clearly into focus the characters and themes. And by making it as real as our world, we can discuss issues in the fictional world as we do issues in our own. I'm very invested in the universe of Halo, and I think the world building there is fantastic. Every now and then in forums and subreddits, there's a discussion about whether ONI (a combination of the CIA, the NSA, and FBI all wrapped up into one superagency) is moral or not. Likewise with Dr. Halsey, a Mengelian genius who was responsible for atrocities that ended up saving the human race. Not only are these issues relevant to today's society and the real world, these discussions, I'd argue, would not be possible without the context of a fully constructed world with an established timeline, history, characters, and lore. In short, worldbuilding isn't so much "perilous", it's a shift in what the transaction is. It's a shift from a transaction between the author and the reader to the author facilitating transactions between readers. And that's something powerful.

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

Steven Tricanowicz I agree completely. One of the hallmarks of a well-constructed, realistic universe is moral complexity, from the level of the individual right up to entire civilisations. Discussing that moral complexity with others who have a similar grounding in the universe to you can lead to really interesting conversations about what I can best describe as _applied_ morality. As in, it's easy enough to talk about what is right and wrong in abstract, but when you are dealing with 'real' people and 'real' events everything tends to get messy. It's very difficult to get measured, relatively objective discussions about this kind of thing when talking about real world phenomena. Discussing the legacy of Mao Zedong or Margaret Thatcher or Colonialism or even US foreign policy tends very quickly to dissolve into tribalism based on individuals personal backgrounds. With fictional universes, everyone starts on relatively even ground. Even if people feel an affinity for a particular aspect of the fictional universe in question, they aren't obliged to have a stance based on real-world nationality, ethnicity, religion...etc. I find that refreshingly freeing.

[@jameskoh802]

+Merry Machiavelli I think his point wasn't that world building is bad. Like you said, it is a good exercise in thinking about our own world. I think the argument was that passively escaping into a fake world, rather than actively engaging with the symbolism and the construction of that world, is dangerous because you lose site of what world building is good for in the first place, the good that you described.

[@EternityinOurHearts316]

Narnia isn't a world-building fantasy. Lewis' lack of word-building didn't make Tolkien a fan of his friend's work.

[@houston-coley]

+digifreak10101 agreed. That's why despite good characters and a great idea for an allegory it will never be as good as LOTR because Lewis is all about creating the allegory, not the world it exists in.

[@EternityinOurHearts316]

Actually C.S. Lewis said Narnia is not an allegory. I prefer the Narnia books because they're better stories. I prefer the LotR movies because they're executed much better.

[@ZerogunRivale]

+digifreak10101 Actually, Lewis did say it was allegory, just not direct allegory. There are different kinds of allegory, and Lewis said he didn't want one in which everything was 1:1 with what he was making an allegory of (in this case, Christianity). He instead wanted to express allegory of the beliefs and ideas through the telling of a story rather than through world building. I love both Narnia and LOTR, but it's wrong to compare the two ever since both operate and function so differently. LOTR is about world building and then having a journey through said world. All of the most important elements are based on ancient items (the ring), stories, locations, and artifacts which characters spend a great deal of time interacting with. There is very subtle, hidden allegory in LOTR and much if it is within the world building. The reason the Hobbits get 12 pages of description is because their demeanor explains just why Frodo and Bilbo have been able to resist the one ring for so long. There are a few books which go more into detail about this. Narnia, however, creates enough of a world, but doesn't lay its focus on world building anywhere near Tolkien did. Lewis focuses on more on using that world as a backdrop to tell a story in that's usually a bit more character driven in nature. The world is still very important, but the importance here lied in the sweeping story that was happening, and the events that were creating a new history in that world. The allegory lay within the very events being created by character interaction and character action.

[@EternityinOurHearts316]

ZerogunRivale Agreed.

[@TheSpecialJ11]

+digifreak10101 I still think it's funny how Tolkien and Lewis were such good friends but disagreed on so many literary techniques. World building to create meaning versus character building to create meaning. Staying true to one line of mythology versus a mashup of many mythologies.

[@JSTama]

every story, which happens outside the rules and known spaces of our own universe, are building worlds. even those that happen within. it's impossible to tell a story of fiction and strip it away of the world it takes place in. even if everything is unconnected, we as humans will try to see patterns. searching to stablish an understandable world with rules.

[@gabrielblack5805]

THANK YOU! This person understands the way people work.

[@GazpachoMacho]

I second that. I really don't get why this guy is knocking Tolken for doing what a fantasy writer is supposed to do. There is no other way really.

[@macstrong1284]

That's what he's saying. World-building does that pattern-building and displaying for us, taking away the opportunity to see them ourselves, which as you said, is something we do quite well without a hand to guide us.

[@AlexIncarnate911]

Yeah we did such a great job in understanding our world, historically....

[@myrfaen2717]

But it's not even true. In fact it's impossible for an author to be a complete authority on their own work. I bet they get asked questions they cannot answer ALL the time.

[@lisazoria2709]

Although I appreciate your thought provoking and unique take on the subject, I don't quite agree. I wouldn't be so quick to equate the deceptive brand of "world building" sold to us by advertisers and politicians with the fictional world building done by writers. Although both are technically 'fantasy' in their own right, they are (usually) created with completely different, if not opposite intentions. I doubt most authors who attempt to world build endeavor to create such rich landscapes just so readers can be passive admirers. Properly done world building should not only create a sense of "realism" (despite the fantastic elements), but it should also inspire a sense of wonder and curiosity within readers. There's always a sense that there's more and it's up to the readers to fill those gaps with their own imagination, if that's not active engagement, I don't know what is. I know not every fantasy is written with the same authorial intent, but following the tradition of Tolkien and J.K. Rowling, etc. the world building phenomenon can hardly be said to have the same mentally stifling effects of a politician's "because-I-said-so" brand of fantasy.

[@bobpolo2964]

Fiction writer here: i'm trying to find the words because you're right to a certain degree about world building and political propaganda being distinct from one another, but they're comparable in other ways you should consider. For instance, when I'm writing a script, I weave specific details into my work that are drawn from everyday reality for the intended purpose of provoking a sensory or emotional connection from a viewer or reader. That's a clear form of manipulation because, although these details may seem real, they're still located within a work of fiction, rendering them false and unreachable. The same can be said for a politician's campaign where they use specific words with recognizable connotations that appeal to the inherent values of a voter. It's all manipulation. One medium is used for entertainment and sometimes enlightenment, the other for, well...

[@lisazoria2709]

bob polo Yes, as a fellow (aspiring) writer, I'm aware of the many methods writers and storytellers use to inspire emotions and suggest themes and ideas to readers. And you're right, it IS manipulation. I'd go so far as to say much of fiction is a kind of poetic propaganda. I didn't mean sound like I was denying or arguing that fact. Yet, as you mentioned, they're used to different effect. I only meant to highlight how the intent behind the two kinds of manipulation tends to result in vastly different and opposing mindsets. One is meant to open the mind, the other is meant to close it. 

[@bobpolo2964]

Lisa Galarza what medium are you aspiring to write in?

[@lisazoria2709]

bob polo Screenplays and maybe some novels.

[@bobpolo2964]

Lisa Galarza that's cool, I finished my first script a few months ago

[@NameLess-bm8jp]

The conclusion, "a strain of passivity in people that world building fiction seems to at best reflect and at worst encourage", is problematic and relates directly back to the initial idea that world building fiction is passive. World building is the author's creation of the imaginary physical and metaphysical space for a work of fiction, and-as mentioned in the video-all fiction participates in this. And as recognized in the video, the act of reading is an active endeavour. The reader must translate the text from signed to signifier without additional information than the book, or books, themselves (Wikis are a collection of information from the 'canon' or published works-fan fiction is a beast of its own). World building fiction, if anything, encourages active participation by changing the space from what the reader recognizes as their 'norm'. Even common contemporary ideas can be othered by a different setting. Where powerful world building fiction excels is when the reader is challenged by the ideas of the fiction presented that are purposefully or accidentally different from their own. Kameron Hurley, N.K. Jemisin, Ken Liu and Max Gladstone world build to challenge their readers with their narratives and their settings. Hurley confronts gender and sex, Jemisin and Liu use different foundational narratives to build their own, and Gladstone turns the financial crisis of 2008 into a conflict between magical capitalist lawyers against nation-state gods. Viriconium participates in world building to deconstruct it just as much as traditional world building fiction. By refusing any certain nameable space, Harrison creates liminal spaces for his fiction. There is a fluid coherency to the work created from the rejection of the Tolkienesque world building. Patterns are rife in Viriconium and establish their own consistency where other consistencies are denied. Spenser's Faerie Queene & Joyce's Finnigan's Wake have this type of world building as well, though I would argue that Joyce even removes the literal story Harrison prizes to deal wholly with a metaphorical story composed solely of the internal patterns he creates that resist their external meanings. The final point about 'reality building' is too broad and troublesome. Alluding that 'passive' world building fiction is equateable to the evangelical spreading of political doctrine in the USA or corporate branding opens up all avenues of communication and expression. Are naturalist paintings 'active' or do they create passivity because naturalism attempts to capture the world as it is seen 'naturally'? Does rap create passivity because it attempts to express the reality of social issues for marginalized americans? This conversation is a smaller part of how capitalism valourizes subcultural movements, but world building fiction cannot be conflated to the level that comic books or video games are to criminal violence.

[@dr_rune]

Excellent comment. If you would, please read my own comment on this video and tell me what you think. Lengthy hours of discussion could be made out of this subject, and no single definitive conclusion would ever be reached, I believe. We need fiction like we need air or food or sleep, whether we consciously accept it or not. While I was watching this video, I couldn't stop thinking of my favorite writer, an Argentinian named Jorge Luis Borges. His fictions delve in many aspects of reality and the way we perceive it, and they're fascinating like few others, because they're constructed from a very powerful need to grasp enigma, and through methods very close to the approaches of science. If you've not read him, I recommend him. D.R.

[@squamish4244]

+Wil Patrick I get the feeling he is not really that knowledgeable about fantasy and (good) worldbuilding's immense possibilities. He only references a few works and apparently doesn't know, or fails to mention, that Tolkien himself addressed this very subject and its associated criticisms in a lecture entitled "On Fairy Stories".

[@NameLess-bm8jp]

+valinor100 Tolkien's concept of Perspective from On Fairy Stories definitely applies here, and inspired part of my response. I think Perspective applies a sort of activity that opposes the passivity applied to it during the video. While at first glance Tolkien's defence of escapism could supply ample ammunition for a passivity argument, due to the metaphor used, all un-present-experiential thought (thinking about anything other than one's current physical existence) would be considered escapism, which is too broad by far--but presents an interesting problem for this video to face because then "Middle Earth and the Perils of Worldbuilding" manufactures the same passivity it criticizes. Though in the case of Tolkien, I am still skeptical of eucatastrophe in fantasy due to both the practice and philosophy behind it. While I agree with the general idea that fantasy has a tradition of a "happy ending" there are works that deny the eu- Tolkien proposes, such as Beyond Redemption by Michael Fletcher. Perhaps that is due to the sheer size of the genre bringing about possibilities Tolkien couldn't have envisioned.

[@squamish4244]

Wil Patrick Lol "un-present-experiential thought," good phrase. As per the idea of the eucatastrophe, certainly fantasy does not have to have it in order to work. Hell, even Tolkien loved tragedy and wrote The Children of Hurin, a grim tale of an evil entity so powerful and depraved he destroys an entire family out of spite. He binds the father to a chair and makes him watch the whole thing for 28 years. That is some seriously messed-up shit. Although, in the long term, the informed reader knows this evil will be utterly destroyed eventually. Tolkien's writing was infused with his Catholic faith, the belief in an afterlife, and the crucifixion and resurrection. Also with his experiences in WW1, a perspective few modern fantasy authors can bring to the table (another reason I criticize the term 'escapism' as applying to Tolkien, in the context of people who believe he was naive about humanity). It is interesting that Robert Jordan also went for the eucatastrophe in The Wheel of Time, and he was a Vietnam War veteran. The experience of war does many things to someone's worldview, but one thing it *can* do is to strengthen one's faith in an essential core of goodness in people or the world. Or it can turn you into Kurt Vonnegut. Personally, I don't mind if fantasy doesn't have a happy ending. I see the great creativity evident in the 'dark and gritty' genre of fantasy and authors such as Joe Abercrombie. Although I think the market has become saturated by works in that genre just as it did in traditional fantasy after Tolkien. I would prefer a happy ending if it is done right, which is no small thing. I have a soft spot for the eucatastrophe because it is what I want for my own life, and because fantasy that does it well, like Tolkien or Star Wars (yeah, I went there, but I think ROTJ does this well if you ignore the Ewoks), has helped me in my not-very-happy life so far. I'm also informed by my Buddhist 'faith' (call it a faith informed by evidence) that the eucatastrophe is possible - they just call it enlightenment in Buddhism. I guess what all this means is that the stories we encounter can't be separated from what we bring to the table. I think, judging by this guy's other videos, that he is bringing a somewhat pessimistic side of his personality to his analysis of film, as he seems to unduly focus on cynical interpretations of various themes - unless he is just following the cynical or fatalistic tradition some critics think true critical analysis of art necessitates, I don't know.

[@DracoMhuuh]

I think that there is an aspect that wasn't really tackled. The aspect fo why these worlds attract. More specifically, why people urge to know more about the worlds. I myself am a big fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, precisely due to the worldbuilding. I want to know more about the mythology, the culture, the social structures. And I want to look at how they differ from the real world. One cannot look at something else without comparing to the known. And in a sense this means that by creating a particular world you are addressing issues in your real world or prompting readers/watchers to think about their real world and the intricacies that make it what it is.

[@LaitoChen]

This confused the heck out of me. What exactly is wrong with world building?!?!

[@MertSu66]

+MuaBezGlave i loved awakening, but it was full of "coincidences" and very fixable annoying details, lşke why wasnt that desert planet not called tatooine for instance

[@milesrout]

+MuaBezGlave The new Star Wars movie was full of plot holes on its own, even without considering the previous films.

[@NoktynGaming]

+Mert Su In a universe where the force is palpable there are no coincidences, if you chose to accept that it makes the story and universe its being told in even more amazing. I'm not saying there aren't holes I'm just saying the deus ex machina is subtle, but explainable and reasonably acceptable.

[@malcomchase9777]

+MuaBezGlave I get that with comic books, but I'm on the side of the "purists" and here is why. Also, I haven't watched Star Wars. If I pick up a Batman comic, I want Batman in it. If "Batman" doesn't mean anything, if "Batman" can be any character they want, then the title doesn't mean anything. If Batman doesn't fit the story they are tying to tell, then they shouldn't use him. We live in a era of reboots and remakes because those make money only using a name. We should call them out on that.

[@LordAJ12345]

+MuaBezGlave I agree with many points when it comes to Star Wars, but I feel like this is not applicable to other works such as LotR where it was all about the world for Tolkien. Without the world, this trilogy would have been nowhere as impactful as it was.

[@Wkumar07]

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with the ideas presented here. To assume that readers are merely passive (I believe he used this word to replace the offensive term "lazy") when it comes to fictious worlds is an egregious mistake. If anything, a deep world created by a writer shows time and care and assumes that his or her readers care about such details because they care about the characters and conflicts that inhabit them. Most fiction, in my opinion, makes the opposite mistake by creating worlds that are shallow and paper thin at best. In other words, they act more like wooden stages where actors perform instead of a living, breathing space where characters live.

[@dakota9650]

I don't buy this for a second. I find world building to be beneficial to stories and making me hunger for more. I think they make the stories better since you have your setting, locations, etc. already made that you use while you write. You can always add to it later, but I just think world building is great.

[@michaeldawson1194]

James NotTelling He's not saying world building is bad. He's examining the implications and the different schools of thought on the subject. You should come away from the video equipped to form your own opinion

[@squamish4244]

+Flynn Gumshoe Yes, but he seems to lean towards the pessimistic, and it seems many of his videos have a pessimistic slant. He could probably pick holes in The Princess Bride for this or that failure or tendency towards romanticism or whatever.

[@peterjoyfilms]

Much as I love Nerdwriter, I disagree entirely with the point this video is making.

[@JohnNobody_]

If possible Please explain your point.

[@alexj136]

I'm afraid I disagree with your thesis here, +Nerdwriter1. 4:47 - "The worldbuilding of fiction only greases the wheels for its much more insidious and terrifying cousin: political worldbuilding" Rather than grease the wheels for political worldbuilding, I think literary worldbuilding can highlight to us the fiction presented to us by politicians, allowing us to pull back the curtain they present to us and look at reality objectively.

[@calmcloudlesssky3443]

Sad thing is, I think he might be pooh-poohing the idea of objective reality as a whole. LOADS of postmodern language in this one.

[@abloshow91]

3 yeara later sobi dontvknow of you'll see this butva great helper to your argument is 1984 and animal farm. They look like our world but they are not they are a mirror version slightly exaggerated.

[@bimaculoides]

I disagree. You say that attempts to understand the world around a story cheapen the book and the act of reading itself, in reference to analysis of subtext. However, for many, the setting of a story is as important to understand as the characters themselves. Creating a sense of place ultimately makes the story more immersive, not less (Plus, maps are fun). You seem to champion Viriconium (which, I will say, I know nothing of beyond this video) as somehow better for resisting consistency. Now, you are free to enjoy confusing yourself, but don't pretend as if the rest of us are lesser for enjoying Tolkein's world and maps of it.

[@gogolgullu]

although there is a series that allows you to enjoy a world and confuse yourself at the same time: Malazan Book of the Fallen

[@Cal6009]

What areyou talking about, we can't have GoT or a conglomerate will take over by bewitching our minds with fiction? That sounds like the idiots who thought D&D was going to drive kids crazy. There is a difference between fiction fiction and nonfiction fiction. Also that Harrison guy just sounds pretentious.

[@lazerbeam134]

Do you honestly believe that capital interests and the political powers that be don't create fictional, mythical narratives to control your choices and entire perspective of reality? That the news stories that broadcast 24 hours daily, the advertisements that are ubiquitous, the history we are taught in school...none of it is cultivated and curated to be propaganda? What a grand and intoxicating innocence!

[@headcanon6408]

Fredric Wertham has entered the chat

[@malcomchase9777]

What did Viriconium get out of inconsistent characters? That's the question. Maybe making a big, consistent world is not important to all authors. But purposefully confusing your readers? What's the point? That's making a statement instead of telling a story.

[@MandaloresUltimate]

World building is a necessity to create rich worlds. If your characters seem to have no existence beyond the narrative, they often lack substance and proper motive. A world or universe is the perfect back drop and the more rich it is, the better it helps a story seem relatable. We live in complex world; one so complex no book could hope write it down in a realistic fashion. Fantasy worlds are no different if you want people to relate to them. If knowing things exist outside the narrative a story is telling you distracts you, you are a terrible reader or are reading a terrible book.

[@stephenfulford6227]

Have you ever read Tolkien's transcribed lecture on fairy-stories. It's quite profound and I think does a brilliant job convincing me of the very opposite of this video's remarks. Tolkien's work is not a metaphor or allegory for anything. That's not why he wrote it. I would really encourage everyone interested in fiction, especially secondary worlds, to read this transcription.

[@RowieSundog]

It's an interesting argument, but here's my take on worldbuilding as an author: it's fucking fun. Creating an entire world, all the people in it, all that--it is so enjoyable, that's why authors do it, and readers get a secondary high from reading it.

[@GideonGleeful95]

Agreed. Far from not letting us come up with our own interpretations because we have the facts, worldbuilding is fun because it gives the reader a sense that there is a living, breathing world out there. Not all the facts will be filled in, there's not enough time for that. However it gives the reader a sense that there isn't just a blank nothing beyond their page, and in the gaps that are there, there are other stories to be told. Creating and exploring worlds is done for the same enjoyment that people have when they go out and research history, because it's interesting.

[@sylla_headhunter4725]

I love it. It's so much more fun thinking about politics, different races and their take on the world and each other. Obviously you can't tell your whole story or the whole story of one world but you can give people examples. Inspire them, even. I mean, just look at Tolkien. He may not have been the greatest writer in our entire history (don't kill me. PLease xD) but he was an excellent world builder. People wanted to know MORE. They asked for more. They wrote things themselves. Tolkien's world has inspired so many people and that's what I love about different worlds~

[@kyzanhyuri5356]

What that made no sense, world building even in the way you described it is a active process of trying to formulate and keep together all the variables in a piece of writing. This can only help create a population that is more aware and less prone to the dangerous ideas being spouted by those trying to exploit the masses, because those exploitations and crookery would need to be understood for more accurate world building.

[@montyhedstrom1356]

I disagree...and I think Professor Tolkien would have as well. If you want to talk about negative stuff with modern audiences thinking less crtitically and being passive that's fine..or if you want to talk about politicians fabricating their own narratives also fine...talk about that. You shouldn't equate any of that with creative world-building in terms of fiction. This makes little sense.

[@morqwal]

M. John Harrison's take on world building reminds me of Lewis Carroll. Alice cannot return to Wonderland. It is a dream, and it changes even as she as there. Like a dream, there are some continuous motifs, such as the Mad Hatter and March Hare, but they do not return in the same incarnation. It is the duo of a man and a hare that returns, not the specifics of the Tea Party or Unbirthdays. Likewise, the various Queens come back, but also morph and never return in their previous form. One turns into a sheep knitting her wool, right in front of Alice, and it is not taken as a transformation in a solid world; it is written as a shift in perception, barely noticed, just as morphing and shifting in a real dream is rarely acknowledged by the dreamer. There is no Wonderland to return to, other than Alice entering a realm that shifts continuously. She cannot revisit anyone or anything. It will not be there. The characters describe are brief in their existence. But the power of their stories is just as moving as near any more permanent setting. My evidence is that we are still reading the Alice books today. The brevity and fluidity of Wonderland is a hallmark to anit-world building. They only constant is change, and perhaps the absurd. Other than that, if Carroll had written more of Alice and her adventures (Through the Looking Glass) then we would see a continuation to the changes of a fragile and psycho-centric landscape that exists only as it currently is and never will be again.

[@MrMortull]

Or you could just read the fiction, nerd out about the extra fluff material and treat politics and advertising with all due skepticism and contempt rather than trying to draw parallels between the real and the unreal which mean precisely nothing to a rational mind. Just a thought.

[@pedrosantos6183]

He meant that passivity interpreting fiction parallels passivity interpreting fiction

[@KendrixTermina]

I've never seen anyone treat this as a negative so I guess it was interesting & worthwhile to question it, because everything should be, but I don't agree at all. Maybe it's because I see art more as a communication than a "game" but I don't think there's any "spoonfed perception" involved at all. It's just a ~widening of scope~. It's not a secondary source telling you how to interpret things; It's showing you more of the first thing, because you're curious. You can still very much form your own opinion about the wiorld being presented, as people commonly do, you'll often find affectionados arguing about wether a world or system portrayed as good or evil actually is. And you're still invited to add further tidbits, if anything it gives your imagination more to work with and makes it possible to picture what everyday life is. Also, there are different approaches in writers; Some are more architect-like & plan out the entire world, some do more "scene based" work & have an idea of what they want to happen and don't consider anything beyond what we see on screen; Just like some plan out the plot & others let it grow organically. Keeping things intentionally vague, mysterious, abstract or incoherent is its own kind of windowdressing or perception directing, it calls your attention to things. Immersivenes makes the experience fun (not everything has to have a point or becomes inherently suspect for not having one; a lot of art is its own point.) & a complex past allows to tell complicated stories; As such they can actually make the stories more able to accurately comment on realities. A good example is the Warcraft universe - It started out as a simple good vs. evil "alien invaders" narrative but has had so many wars & complexities that it can now portray political complexities and multiple perspectives taking place in that world. The real world does have backstories & background facts. The real world is broader than just the story & life of the "main characters". This is important in today's globalized world where we are connected to large, complex networks vaster than ourselves. We should care exactly how things work & how other parts of the world look like. We expect logical consistency & continuity. And I don't see a connection to political narratives at all other than simple ficticiousness. Political narratives are made to present black & white PoVs; Fleshing out fictional settings actually tends to add complexity to them.

[@ToxicNeon]

I disagree; I am in no way a passive reader or watcher in these cases. How the hell can I be when I am *actively* looking for information? I actually think it primes to be better scrutinize the world around us. Through my learning how to research fiction worlds, I have a better idea on how to do my research on politics and world issues. I am in no way a passive citizen. This idea is absolutely flawed. And I don't generally miss the the trees for the forest with regards to a work of art's message, I rather think that world building can enhance it. And I might I just add, why does a piece of work even have to have a message? Sure, it's nice, but it doesn't have to have one built in. There is nothing harmful in enjoying something for its own sake. Learning to understand a fantasy world I think is rather beneficial in helping us understand our own world.

[@TheJuanchito13]

I agree wholeheartedly, Sir.

[@TheJuanchito13]

Correction; Ma'am.

[@ToxicNeon]

+Juan Mora hehe I identify as female, but I do not mind "sir" ^.^

[@guisouzadias]

I agree.

[@AdrianBaboiStroe]

Yes, thank you, Samantha. While (brilliant) artists give birth to wonders, critics need to use patterns of criticism to fit them in. No wonder (!) they are wrong sometimes (to use an euphemism). I disagree with the opinion in this particular video and, at the same time, I understand where it comes from - one strain of critical interpretation that cannot "fit" it. What Tolkien does is propose a much more complex literary enterprise that does not fit the patterns and cliche of world-building interpretation we are accustomed to in recent criticism regarding fantasy worlds and world-building. This is not a mainstream fantasy world and it may be that the world-building is the key here. Dare I also say that, while J.K. Rowling's world of fiction may be similar in many formal aspects (and it is brilliant), it did start from a very different point/purpose/writing intent. It may also be why Tolkien's work was so difficult to bring to the wide screen by the new filmmakers (to my humble opinion, the movies don't even come close to the books, although I like many things about them). If you want to read and interpret Tolkien, you have to thoroughly research the AUTHOR and where he comes from, ALL the appendix and additional work around the novels - like a history lover. Most importantly, though, as Samantha is pointing out, let yourself enjoy the good literature (fight the little rational devil that prompts you to do the autopsy while giving the body a first reading).

[@fobusas]

Worldbuilding is so popular because humans are natural explorers. And since Earth has been mostly explored (easily accessible places anyways) and we are born too early to explore the galaxy, the next best thing to scratch that itch is to explore fictional worlds.

[@DeyaViews]

I may have misunderstood (or the message conveyed badly), but why is this anti-constructedness that the Viriconium series presents a good thing? With names and events changing between novels, without knowing that they do, it becomes impossible to see connections between the events of one novel and another. There is no perceptible continuity. Foreshadowing is completely absent outside of being completely contained within a single novel, and things cannot clearly reference things that happened in previous novels, because everything is different in the one you're reading at that time.

[@andymac4883]

I have to agree, I don't see why Viriconium's philosophy is supposed to be preferable. Hell, the very idea of a series that actively seeks to remove the concept of meaningful continuity seems unbelievably pretentious to me, as though the author is seeking more to make his own personal statement than to craft an enjoyable story. Perhaps I only feel that way because I'm a great lover of continuity, but far from feeling passive when a series works to create an autonomous world (as Nerdwriter puts it) I feel more passive when no such attempt is made. As though I'm being told to just sit back and accept what I'm being given without questioning it. And when people are actively seeking to fill in the gaps, to collate information, draw conclusions and extrapolations from the world building they've already been given, how can they be passive readers? And more than that, while I know that fiction is by its very nature made up, lack of continuity tends to destroy my suspension of disbelief and sense of immersion. If things are going to change so from book to book, then why should I grow attached to characters who aren't the same people as they were when this constructed reality started? Why should events move me? Put briefly, why should I care about the author's story?

[@pedrosantos6183]

Because that Just doesnt matter, what i really matters is the characters and their struggle, the world os meaningless

[@RansomSmith]

I haven't read anything Viriconium, but this description of anticonstructedness reminds me of Nabokov's "Invitation to a Beheading". It's pretty short. Worth a read if you're interested in this stuff.

[@Nerdwriter1]

Ransom Smith I'll check out Invitation if you check out Viriconium. Deal?

[@RansomSmith]

Nerdwriter1 =) I've put it on my Amazon list.

[@Nerdwriter1]

Ransom Smith You've made my night. *heads to amazon

[@SuperFish240]

I love the comment sections on these videos. So much better than any of the other channels I watch.

[@lifenoggin]

Thanks for the shout out!!!!!

[@Nerdwriter1]

Life Noggin Thanks for the help!!!

[@AmbroseReed]

Life Noggin The animations were fantastic!

[@the1andonlytitch]

+Life Noggin Amazing work man

[@melon7514]

Oh hey

[@RevenantRising]

This resonated a lot with me. I have for nearly 10 years worked at an epic fantasy story with a world and characters that very nearly feels real to me. Questioning events from the eyes of various characters and seeing in-story events as affecting thousands of literally untold lives. But because of my love of worldbuilding, I have never completed this story. It has changed, evolved, and mutated to being much better than the day before, but I have tragically never moved beyond the minutia of my own creation. In fact, I have become a slave to rendering an entire world - with its entire history and entire genealogies of characters - in picture-perfect realism. And because of that, even after writing hundreds of pages, it is likely no one else will be able to love the story that I have become so attached to. Brandon Sanderson gave some amazing advice about worldbuilding, which he called it a disease. That a world is there help a plot move forth, not to become a terrarium of cool ideas where they whither and die. It's been an uphill battle for me to break this cathartic habit, but I have slowly gained more appreciation for this problem and have changed my writing accordingly.

[@therisingtithes]

This made me think of a thing: why don't we care very much about the margins of our own world as much as we do about those of fictional worlds? There are lots of peculiar histories, strange geographies, and out-there social norms right here. A cursory glance at any internet listicle about obscure US state laws would be a tip of the iceberg. But... do we explore that often? I feel like we get so wrapped up in the notion that built worlds are new - that they came out of someone's head, that they may exist as a response to our own - that we don't really notice that we're not done responding to our own, and in some places haven't.

[@Nerdwriter1]

Brandon O'Brien That's a wonderful thought. I think the obsession with built worlds has to do with a desire to reinforce a very anthropomorphized, narcissistic view of things. In built worlds, unlike our own, man truly does sit at the center of everything.

[@therisingtithes]

An(other) attempt to make the world adapt to us, instead of adapting to the world? (Which makes fanfiction even more fascinating now...)

[@dr_rune]

I loved this video, man. I'll watch everything you have done. Allow me to contribute with a bit of my own experience and thoughts on the matter. First, Worldbuilding is an aspect and sub-phenomenon of Storytelling, and Storytelling is almost certainly unique to our species. No other animal or plant on this planet creates stories. Second, we live in a reality that is as much a product of objectivity as it is a result of our personal subjective perception. In fact, I do believe that most of our reality actively depends on our subjective platform, not any objective "truth". We apply our views the way a painter applies a specific palette to their painting, and we change the hues and balances according to our interests and needs. Worldbuilding is the utmost expression of that subjectivity. We not only seek to interpret the reality that we see everyday: we want to create our own, distinct realities, with rules and concepts of their own. The simplest form of this capacity, this aspect of Storytelling is the re-interpretation of History as we know it, introducing dramas and events that are not recorded in any serious encyclopaedia, but serve to fill the gaps left by the inaccuracies or falacies of the historical process and its study. Some powerful events of this form of worldbuilding are The Metaplot from White Wolf's Vampire The Masquerade Roleplaying Game, or novels like P. K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle and Dumas' The Three Musketeers, amongst many, many other works of fiction that use an assortment of verifiable contexts and events in the world's past or present, to tell a compelling fantasy. Now, I understand that your uneasiness with worldbuilding may stem from its ability to replace real stimulus, its capacity to so completely and utterly transport the audiences and readers to other places with their own history, their own rules and their own dilemmas, when we have so many real world conundrums to study and solve, but keep in mind that Storytelling is as old as painting and spoken language. Worldbuilding's been there since humanity is humanity. You can see tremendous examples of worldbuilding, which actually function as the basis for relatively recent fictions like Tolkien's Middle Earth, in ancient cosmologies and mythologies. The ancients no only created whole worlds with their powers and laws, but they even applied their vision to this world, thereby creating a powerful filter through which their reality could be surmised and experienced. Everything has its pros and cons, and I am certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Storytelling, and its sub-phenomenon of Worldbuilding have been the single most vital capacities that have allowed us to be where we are right now, with all the wars, the pain, the illusions, the love and the wisdom or lack thereof that our present situation entails. Also, you don't talk about the fact that, often in history, fictional worlds with fictional events and characters, have helped humanity to more clearly understand and grasp their real surroundings. This is something that has been seen time and again and that we will keep seeing. Imagination has a tremendous power and plays a substantial role in our condition and evolution both as individuals and as a civilization. One observation that I will make, though... don't use a single source of quotes or information in the presentations. Harrison is indeed an important figure, but his vision is neither automatically correct nor the only one on this matter, and you should be careful with that, because it may make the analysis seem biased and contentious. Sorry for the length of this message. I was really inspired to write something back. D.R.

[@euthydemos]

+Hasfast Not only is the video content exceptional, but that is one of the most cogent comments I have ever read on youtube. I see that you mentioned Borges in another comment and I was thinking of him as well, particularly Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, a manifest example of World Building. Borges' protagonist in that story has a similar concern, namely that the world as we know it, 'objectively' is being conquered and transformed by exposure to another world, the world of Tlon, with its unique geography, history, literature, "its algebra and fire." The protagonist is ultimately a conservative who thinks that the Tlon world is being built at the expense of our own and that some day all that is 'us' will disappear. But I have always felt that this is a mistake. Creating (or discovering) new worlds gives all of our cultural "furniture" a remake, even if simply by placing it in a new context, a comparative one, one of relation to the new. For example, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings can be viewed as an Englishman's fantastical response to the rise of the Nazis in Europe. There are certainly parallels there if you look for them. Rather than losing our world, world-building can help us to know it better by seeing it reflected in a new light. People engaged in this synthesis and dialogue are far from passive. They must actively seek to find those parallels by knowing their own history and their own stories better. Daniel Quinn talks a lot about the myths of Mother Culture, the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and what we are doing. These are stories we all know, but do not remeber being taught. Mother Culture whispers them in our ear. Examining these myths (fundamental and unexamined assumptions, like the myth that perpetual economic growth is good or even possible, or that all civiliations before ours collapsed, but ours is different and permanent) more explicitly and placing them in dialogue with Tolkien's or Martin's worlds might help us to see ourselves in a clearer light. Last thoughts: I have thought it funny while watching the Jackson LOTR films that most people identify "us" with the heroes of the fellowship and the world of men, but in truth, "we", i.e. modern global capitalism, are clearly the forest-leveling, industrializing, orcs destroying all in their path to subsume difference into one homogeneous global culture in the service of an abstract force. How are the orcs any different from the Company men in Avatar, bulldozing the sacred trees?

[@dr_rune]

+euthydemos tremendous depth and insight, man. This might seem, with all due respect, the exchange of two guys petting each other on the back in mutual acknowledgement of intelligence, but we should identify and care for our own, shouldn't we? Hehehe. This is the first time that I see that analysis about Tolkien's world, but I must agree that it is both compelling and ringing true. The difference I'd note is that, while our civilization most closely resembles the brute squandering of Orcs (not surprising, considering that Tolkien obviously placed the blames of wars on Industry and capital), we're still inspired by the heroes, even if we are farther from them than from the Enemy. That's something that Orcs couldn't possibly do. The tale you mentioned from Borges is one of my favourite stories. Along with The Circular Ruins, The Aleph, The Immortal and The Garden of Forking Paths, and many other minor tales, it delves in detail in the workings of our imagination and how we remake the world with our shaping capacity. The narrator (an almost surely satirical and self-critical version of Borges himself), while pondering the strangeness of Tlon and the mystical fear that its creation makes him feel, is somehow far more concerned with Tlon's reality and veracity than with those of the real world, in a way already bringing it to being despite his rejection of it, much like Feanor allowed Melkor to trick and eventually harm him by refusing to delve into the mind of the Enemy (in contrast with his tremendous intelligence and skill) and communicating what he saw to the Valar for petty, infantile scorn, all of this despite the fact that he knew Melkor to be perverse and deceitful and therefore, not trustworthy. That's how we let our minds be boggled by politics and religion, I guess. Their premises and foundations might perhaps feel wrong to us if we really see them, but in accepting that the fiction that they represent is an admissible part of life, we birth them into the world. Ironically, our very spite for them might contribute to their continued existence in a way hehehehe. D.R.

[@NameLess-bm8jp]

+Hasfast I would be careful about defining humans as animals that create stories because, due to age or being differently-abled, not all humans can tell them or get to tell them. Your point about the breadth of Worldbuilding (expanding to mythologies and histories) creates quite the problem for the video. Since @Nerdwriter1 conflates political stories with fantasy stories, the entire landscape of storytelling becomes passive and this is not addressed. Harrison could be the single source for the video if there was any critical engagement. Agreeing with another writer is only useful to define a previously established position, but that position is only marginally explored. Harrison is an anarchist, which framed his thoughts about monolithic worlds and the role the author plays-but in a discussion about politics, where this is highly relevant, it is never brought up. Introducing Tolkien or Martin's own thoughts on worldbuilding, since they are used as examples, would have provided more perspective.

[@dr_rune]

Wil Patrick Thanks for your comment. As for my definition, I don't see why I should be careful with it. All humans are animals, and all humans create and tell stories; they don't need to be poems, movies, books of fiction or vast mythologies, they could simply me memories or everyday ideas. Most notably, all humans are able to connect with stories. Politics and religion are based on stories too. D.R.

[@NameLess-bm8jp]

+Hasfast But, as I mentioned, not all humans can create or tell stories either due to age (being too young to create or tell a story) or they are differently-abled (a severe intellectual disability). Conveying meaning, through communicating ideas, or possessing memories cannot distinguish human beings from other animals because many animals react as if they possess memories (brain scans show this as well) and all communication between animals is an attempt to gain meaning. Narrative is important to human culture, but not all humans participate in it.

[@richgarc84]

So glad you mentioned Viriconium! I remember hearing about this book and thinking the way Harris built his world was interesting, but I couldn't remember the name of the book. I've been trying to find out what book this was for over a year!

[@sessurea4331]

Not a strong argument. You offer no evidence to connect world building with passivity other than a vague conceptual parallel. In reality, our fascination with world building challenges us to explore every nuance of a world, to understand its cultures and conflicts. Whether that trains people to similarly analyze real life, I can't say. Without empirical evidence, broad arguments about how world building affects perceptions of real life are vague and overly speculative.

[@sessurea4331]

Furthermore, while world building can be used metaphorically, there's value to pure world building for world building's sake. The philosophical qualities we associate with high art, great literature, etc. aren't the end-all for art. There are many ways to appreciate storytelling; we needn't limit ourselves to narrow conceptions of value in art. The thrill of discovery, the joy of living a new life in a new world-- those are valuable independent of a world's metaphorical qualities.

[@jordendarrett1725]

Best comment right here

[@Jicko1560]

the more I watch video on this channel the more I feel like those videos are just bad.I feel as tho he tries to use pretty word that make his narrative seems well, but without any depth to it. It lack explanation, facts and clearness. I've also seen many people complaining about the truthfulness of the fact which add to the bitter feeling felt at the end of the video. I don't feel like I've learned anything but only that an emotion has been emphasized.

[@ador7572]

Not on all his videos, but I do agree he tends to use very flowery words.

[@Herosoyyo2]

No offense but your english kinda sucks so I doubt you're the most suitable person to make such judgements. I've only watched a couple of these but it seems obvious to me that their main objective isn't to educate, but to present and dissect an interesting opinion in the hopes of sparking some reflection and discussion.

[@LordMonbodo]

Well perhaps you would acknowledge someone with better grammar who agrees with him? I've been watching Nerdwriter's videos and while he does have some things to say, he doesn't have very many. I can't help but feel that I haven't really gained anything after viewing them. He has a lot polish and presentation in these videos but his content just can't stack up to Every Frame a Painting or Errant Signal.

[@Herosoyyo2]

I'll check those out too.

[@Jicko1560]

Sorry english is not my first language and I always had issue with grammar, but it doesn't change my understanding of his videos

[@ohkishowhey9729]

I think a lot of the comments miss the point of the video. The main argument of the video is that readers should create their own interpretations when reading fiction, and shouldn't passively accept other people's interpretations of the story. By interpretation, I dont just mean the theme of the story, I mean everything from backstory to geography to history to how the characters looked like. You should imagine it for yourself; dont let other people imagine it for you!

[@tammy1001]

Exactly. Hunting down wikis online to find more background details doesn't make you active in the sense NW is talking about. It's more like a hunger to be told what to think. If you are a passive reader you have no choice but to obsessively seek out someone else's detailed explanations in place of your own.

[@Horatio787]

I had no idea that that's what he was saying. I heard a bunch of big sounding words and no actual thesis statement about what he was trying to show with his examples.

[@ineffablemars]

I see people doing this a lot with the podcast "Welcome to Nightvale", people will make fanart and it's never how I imagined the series, so I just ignore it. But I do find myself searching more about LOTR and middle earth. It always irked me that We don't know what the entirety of Arda looks like. And I'm just not that good at imagining geography.

[@CrimsonTide001]

Yes... and no. I've read all the LOTR and the Silmarillion, I've also watched the movies. TBH I like the movies more than the books; and not because movies are 'easier' or 'simpler'. Take the hobbit for example. I'm not a fashion expert by any stretch, and certainly not a medieval one, so when I read the books I would never picture the intricacy of the costumes that they wear. From the different types of buttons, to all sort of various cloths, to cuts, to styles, my imagination (when it comes to fashion) would never be as vivid or detailed. The picture in my head (from Tolkien's text) was some small men in dirty brown and green. But with one picture I can be presented with something that far exceeds what my imagination could do with even 1000 pages of text. And its not for lack of imagination. If you're an expert in fashion, than you aren't in architecture, or music, or landscaping, or... you get the idea. A movie brings together the imaginations of many different people with wildly differing expertise. You get the benefit of the experience and insight that you can't get in a book. Now that isn't to say there aren't good or bad movies or books, or they don't have their strengths or weaknesses. But world building, and alternate forms of media, allow stories to do things that just aren't possible with a book.

[@niello5944]

"Interpretations of the story" are often about the plot and the characters though? I don't see how worldbuilding, which pertains to the settings, has anything to do with it.

[@squamish4244]

This is one reason why I admire what Neil Gaiman does. He takes the world we know and then tweaks it just enough that it becomes strange and unfamiliar, but because it still feels like our world the story becomes very effective.

[@JerekBilbar]

Yeah okay the last two minutes make no sense

[@Theomite]

World-building matters because the real world sucks and at least invented worlds tend to not be boring or hopeless.

[@zaeche]

A quick preface before I really sink into my comment: interesting video--it was a good engager, and a great place to start asking questions about worldbuilding. I might ramble and meander a little, but please, bear with me. As a writer, I think one of the principal dangers one can fall into /is/ worldbuilding. You can do too much, or too little - and in some cases - never enough. It takes time away from the telling of the actual story--you know, the 'Thing-That-Matters'. Do it well, and you get something that will feel real, something that always exists just beyond the edges of your mind. Do it poorly and it becomes an obstacle to the story. With that in mind, I was surprised by how strongly opposed I felt to what Harrison was saying (or rather, has said). Yes, some stories exist solely for the worlds they inhabit. I'm going to assume (quite boldly, and pretty much incorrectly) he doesn't find much worth in stories like that because by definition such worlds exist only 'in one's head'. The Lord of the Rings is a book Tolkein wrote /for/ the world and languages he created. He presented the world and languages to the reader by means of a story. Then there are other stories that do fit Harrison's description. 'Les Miserables' - one of my absolute favourites - is about the struggle, love, redemption, conflict etc of both one man and a whole nation. The only worldbuilding Hugo permitted was that the story was set in France during the revolution. The Earthsea Quintet (which I'm currently reading) falls into a kind of middleground where the author does as much as she feels necessary to balance the scales. We follow Ged on his journey, and in watching him grow we also see the world grow and change. To end my bit, I'm going to leave a tumble of quotes I've taken and saved from the Twitter of (the real?) Miyazaki (the director for the Souls' series and Bloodborne). Regardless of who wrote them, the words perfectly captured and described what I've felt about worldbuilding--it was a fantastic 'Eureka!' moment. 'The greatest tool for narrative is the world for it to exist in.' - Hidetaka Miyazaki 'A well designed world could tell it's story in silence.' - Hidetaka Miyazaki

[@zaeche]

Zaeche I should add Miyazaki geared those quotes towards worldbuilding for a more visual medium than books (to be specific, games) and so it might not hold up when thinking in terms of words and punctuation. It's the meaning - the idea - behind them that I think is important. Give it a try: close your eyes and imagine yourself in the world you created, perhaps in the middle of some conflict or some major/minor event. What happens? It's quite a fun exercise (especially if you're a fellow daydreamer) and a very insightful one.

[@ThousandsOfOwls]

Ah amazing I found your channel yesterday and just stumbled upon this video today. I'm writing my university dissertation on world building and this and the essays in the description have been really helpful, thank you so much for these wonderful videos!

[@TheStrangeanimal]

Your videos are the best! Always really interesting topics that don't get talked about often.

[@WalterLiddy]

I've been saying it for years - the irony of these stories is that they are intended to inspire curiosity and the urge to explore. The protagonists of LOTR and Star Wars are characters for whom the greater vistas outside their normal experience become accessible, and they learn and grow as they discover those broader worlds. The irony, I say is that in almost all cases, instead of readers/viewers being inspired to explore and grow and learn, they are inspired to reside in these artificial stories, learning only what is non-applicable to real-world living. Nerds are a dangerous bunch. Their impulse to 'fill in the blanks' of mythos which were products unintended to ever form a perfect, integrated picture doesn't just lead to fights about whether balrogs have wings - it's the same impulse that leads to religious wars over slight differences in accepted dogma, where one camp entrenches against another on some matter not resolved in the material of the work.

[@KSMohoganyWizard1869]

+WalterLiddy I don't think its as grim as all that, and I think there is most certainly more in play. I also think its also important to remember that these things are never one sided either. In the video, when he talks about crafting a political narrative, he shows all conservatives. Progressives, liberals, moderates, and fundamentalists all do this too. Atheists lash out at religious people and religious people do the same. It is somewhat a part of human nature, but I don't think all or even most people are inclined to start a holy war. BTW sorry for the necro

[@malcomchase9777]

+WalterLiddy The alternative is to let stories end. Either we never see a character/place/time period again, or they have to be consistent. We get invested in things, and the author can work with it, telling stories that draw from the previous ones, or abuse our love for their work and just slap the name on unconnected or half-baked stories.

[@PauLtus_B]

Without wanting to make immediate judgement I have to say Harrison's idea of worldbuilding could as well be a pretentious excuse to be more lazy.

[@Oxibaras]

Absolutely incredible concepts and content. You are a gift to the world young lad, you deserve as much success as you want, these are truly insightful and wonderfully crafted conclusions

[@felixmorgenstern2875]

Very good video, Nerdwriter! Thanks a lot for making and sharing! And I have to say you have a great community. The comments below this video were all as interesting and thought-provoking as the video itself.

[@snowblind9290]

So is the possible danger of world-building that, the reader is unable to come to their own conclusions? Or that their perspective is not being challenged? Is it that the reader is being pushed to think in a manner that suits the author's intentions? I'm sorry but it's a bit hard for me to understand.

[@samdibella4606]

Question: How can detracting from the act of reading itself be a downside? When it comes to non-fiction books I don't want the 'constructed' nature of the text to always be popping up and reminding me that it's there. I want to learn the book's content and ignoring the fact that I'm staring at a piece of paper is an immensely important part of that. Essentially, I feel like a lot of non-fiction, or just representative, media can easily be characterized as problematic for the same reasons you brought up here w.r.t. world building.

[@georgwitting7865]

@nerdwriter1 - one great example of worldbuilding that might have deserved mentioning here is Bas-Lag and the great city of New Crobuzon from the novels by China Miéville. What is intriguing about it is the complexity of the society he builds, going far beyond the proto-medieval world of Tolkien and introducing so many more layers.

[@houston-coley]

Just discovered this channel and I can't believe how intelligent it is! Fantastic!

[@ThePCguy17]

As a person who is currently struggling to figure out exactly what I even want to do with my life, I must say I agree. One of my biggest problems is that there's always a place I can escape to, always a way to escape thinking about or doing something about reality, and this is a lot of the cause. People have created a place, many places where I don't have to do anything but look around, and looking around them is quite fun. Well now I feel great about myself...although I basically knew this already. I just hadn't gotten into the cause of the cause of my laziness.

[@sibhoshe611]

Love the videos so excited about your coming content keep it coming your pumping out quality videos. Any chance you could delve into psychology abit more just wondering?

[@fartin3652]

I just wanna say that I love your videos! Also your video on The Wolf of Wall Street helped me get an A+ on a philosophy paper I had to write, so thanks for that, too.

[@sal25sal]

You're scratching at the treasure brother. You're on a roll I can feel it when I watch and listen. I found this station a few years ago and love your hunger for articulating our world. Keep it going and thank you.

[@phxtonash]

A super great book to read is The Name of the Wind.

[@levistack7317]

The perils of world building run way deeper than Hollywood's monetary attempt to fill the gaps in our fantasy visions. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit for his kids ... half a decade later he was finishing Lord of the Rings (a mere sequel). Fast forward two decades and he's painstakingly remapping the route from Weathertop to Rivendell while trying to account for weather patterns and topography that will melt seamlessly into his canon... I've written some books. World building's as addictive as drugs. You should make a PSA video next.

[@popculture70]

This is definitely one of the best channels on KZbin. Always fascinating. Cheers!

[@user-xe9uh9wx3v]

Every time I watch your videos, I just get these goosebumps by your insight. Thanks for your good and mindful videos!!

[@RillJit]

Interesting, I'd never fully considered the split between the world building a text might do, and the 'other stuff', being the thoughts and emotions it invokes. I'm not sure the former detracts from the latter though, in fact a deeper immersion in the world of the text could even serve to make the messages it's trying to convey more powerful.

[@phillo12]

Someone with a One Piece profile pick had to come to the defense of world building. I love it for its world building. Its a good contrast to a lot of other built worlds.

[@LissettePadilla1]

You rock my world.

[@Nerdwriter1]

Lissette Padilla Who the hell is this?

[@colonelweird]

+Lissette Padilla Hey, I just saw you on TYT! (PS He rocks my world too.)

[@LissettePadilla1]

***** Nice! I love when worlds collide ;)

[@grantio44]

+Nerdwriter1 She appears to be someone who used a pun to express they're affection for you and your work (sentiments I share). Apparently, she's also a young turk, poor girl. Hope you guys can get rid of Erdogan!

[@xchargerOUx]

You need more viewers! Love the channel, keep it up!

[@hernanassali9026]

I've been in love with this channel for some time now, but I hadn't seen this video. I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan and I really appreciate and agree with what you explain in this video. Once again, thank you for this, keep the great work!!

[@DutchDread]

I disagree with the case that the need for world building reflects some sort of passive tendency in the thinking of the reader. I think it's the other way around. What is great about the kind of world building done by for instance Tolkien is that the mind actively begins filling in the holes, it creates a desire for a resolution of this active engagement in the system. The trick is to make sure there are always enough holes, every discovery should envoke more questions so that the active fantasy has to continue wondering. That's why the force is brilliant, it creates an explanation for magic without explaining anything. This is why midichlorians are so horrible, because it solidified an explanation that we didn't really want, it removed all the mystery and magic. From how you explain Harrisons books I feel like they don't promote active engagement, when there is no glue holding it all together there is no reason to see it as anything beyond a collection of words.

[@saeedbaig4249]

So... can some1 explain to me (in English) just what exactly the "perils of world building" he mentioned in the video are? (aside from the "political" world building)

[@amorshed]

This is the best video I have seen from you so far. Thank you.

[@DaniEIdiomas]

This is the third video from which I am taking notes for writing. I'll hit subscribe :) and thank you for your research and thoughts

[@dennisreynolds1341]

You should read A Song of Ice and Fire if you haven't already. Season 4 and 5 has lacked what season 1 to 3 achieved so well. Cinematography has stopped telling stories, the blocking has turned into what the Star Wars prequels were - to quote Mr Plinkett - "Walking and talking. Sitting and talking." And then plot driving the characters forward, when it should be characters driving the plot forward. So basically from that, the characters will break out of character if the plot demands it or if they want shock value and twitter to tweet about the latest crazy shit happening. The books don't make the same mistakes.

[@squamish4244]

+Dennis Reynolds Fantasy is essentially plot-driven, even A Song of Ice and Fire. I would also argue that Books 4 & 5 contain an awful lot of walking and talking and sitting and talking that was trimmed from the show.

[@joesomenumbers]

+valinor The ASOIF wiki is almost as bad as Wookiepedia tho

[@blablabubles]

Tolkien would have disagreed with much of this.

[@scottk1525]

"...it exists despite your reading about it." That was a beautiful line. Well done.

[@amrhany3334]

So I held a presentation on Worldbuilding in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley last year. Basically on the tools Huxley uses to describe the culture and history of his world, identifying them and highlighting their function on a thematic level. Really wish I'd see this video back then, because Huxley seems to resist the dangers you describe by keeping his new world intimately connect to ours. Maybe that's just an inherent quality of dystopic fiction, but Huxley manages to make his message ridiculously clear and hems any attempt at focusing too hard on his weird new world itself, despite it being in the center of every story line (during the last three chapters especially). He really makes his carefully constructed world's function as a metaphor obvious without sacrificing any linguistic or stylistic subtlety. The intricacy you describe as a danger becomes Huxley's strongest asset.

[@ChadEichhorn]

I love how complexly you analyze and answer unasked but fascinating questions. You remain my favorite channel and will be the first that I sponsor once I have a steady income.

[@okuno54]

... Wait, how are Game of Thrones and Coke supposed to be world building at anywhere near the same level? GoT: intensely detailed, internally coherent, world that lends a sense of reality that engages with the reader, furthering the act of story. Coke: intensely vague intimation of a feeling without any story, setting, or character, priming the advertising for an unconscious insertion of the id. For that matter, Dune vs. LotR: Dune does all its "world-building" with words on a page in a story; LotR has the world shovelled at at wholesale in the Silmarillion. And if LotR is harmful for its world building, shouldn't the kind of mythology is was modelled after also be? I recently subbed because you tend to raise interesting questions that go beyond the video, but this video only raises questions about what you're even trying to say.

[@shoenjumpman5]

Great video. Thank's for posting!

[@Nerdwriter1]

Josh Baber Cheers, Josh!!

[@blahlool]

Man, thx for this. It totally reinvigorates me for the sci-fi novel ive been trying to write. I was stagnating, but this principle of "challenging the reader" really acts as an inspiration.

[@Nerdwriter1]

DongerLady ToTen KEEP WRITING!!! I'm also working on a new sci-fi novel. If you're interested in taking a look at the first couple chapters, you can go here: medium.com/@TheeNerdwriter/false-patterns-cdf00baaf279

[@thevincebros545]

your videos = say really simple shit in the most complex way possible.

[@erejnion]

It's much easier to write a novel about how governments are forced to keep the banks alive as a fantasy than as not a fantasy. Worldbuilding is often used to simplify a problem, as in actual reality this problem is obfuscated by its own context, and by the inability of the reader to unlearn all the context he's learned for the real people that the real problem involves.

[@ObeseGuineaPigs]

This is best stuff I've seen on KZbin in so long. I'm crying. Ooooh!

[@misterkelly224]

This was awesome! Thank you for this.

[@mortified0]

Normally I enjoy your videos, and agree with what you're getting at, but I vehemently, violently disagree here. Every fiber of my being rejects it.

[@mortarpestle.4267]

You very verbosely emphasized that statement ;)

[@TeshnosFire]

Malazan book of the fallen.

[@gogolgullu]

glad to see this

[@markymark1256]

I just went to Universal Studios with my family and thought about these ideas of world building. Thanks for the video, it was great!

[@RustyClantonOfficial]

I've found few creators whose content I enjoy more than yours. Keep doing this, brother.

[@nukite303]

Encouraging passivity in readers is an interesting criticism to lob at world-building, one that contradicts my own experience. The kind of people who really love and invest in fictional worlds are anything but passive. The fantasy or sci fi mega-fan tends to very active in pursuing information about their fictional "homeworld," hence the market for companion texts, encyclopaedias, wikis and endless prequels and spinoffs of varying quality. It doesn't matter to them too much if it's GOOD, as long as it's MORE, and in the opinion of the world's creator, "TRUE". (Cf. the calamitous fear about whether TV writers can inherit George RR Martin's universe and get it right.) My criticism of becoming too dragonishly devoted to hoarding facts about fictional worlds is that it discourages engagement with the one we're actually living in.

[@andybiar9865]

These are the most thoughtful and not trolling KZbin comments I have ever read. Cheers to all involved.

[@pacoval4577]

I kept thinking about Glen Cook's Black Company series. There is a world there, but due to the fog of war and the conflicts/struggles of the characters, it stays in the background and doesn't distract you from the story.

[@EpicBandicoot]

Wow. This is the best video in this channel, in my opinion. It's so eye opening!

[@Palmer9297]

You seem like an intelligent guy and I enjoy your videos but I can't help but have at least one major disagreement with each of your videos that I've watched. How you see game of thrones as a passive story, I honestly cannot understand. There is endless speculation, fantastic examples of politics and power dynamics, deep characters with realistic motives and realistic emotions who play powerful roles, and there is a large amount of literary devices throughout the text.. I am honestly not sure how you got to your conclusion that this is passive, I have found it be one of the most engaging series that I have ever read.

[@mr.x6313]

Viriconium sounds terrible. Like, seriously, that's not just bad world-building, that's terrible continuity.

[@summbuddie9120]

Patrick Trujillo its also insanely dull.

[@Dan-et9lr]

Finally, someone who makes good, fascinating content that I can learn from.

[@omegarift]

THIS ONE WAS GOOOD! dude idk why u dont use ur face as much anymore. Your expressions really bring your words together. Especially in a video on this topic. Keep going dude.