Sanderson 2013.2 - General World building

[@Stitchpuppy01]

Eventually I'm going to stop watching these lectures and actually write my book.

[@zmunk]

lol, easier said than done, turns out.

[@iamcleaver6854]

Don't remind me of that!

[@alantori]

LoL

[@StarlasAiko]

Watch them all, then go back to start of the series and work on your book through the topics one at a time, writing down your ideas and outline while listening to the tools and methods. At the end of the rerun, you should have enough already done to finish your book.

[@appledough3843]

Stitchpuppy01 How's your book going?

[@PeckerComics]

I'm at BYU-I and randomly came across these while avoiding my homework. Can't wait to watch the rest. It's like another elective

[@scottanastasi2527]

Huge props to the amazing interpreter/actress in the corner.

[@vaiyt]

That high learning curve is the Final Fantasy style of storytelling. Throw you in an unfamiliar situation full of unfamiliar terms and hook you in with the promise of eventually understanding it all.

[@zmunk]

Yes, indeed! The trick is keeping the reader engaged while they climb the curve. Final Fantasy is usually pretty good with that, though it may be easier in a visual format.

[@pippaschroeder4388]

I like how he doesn't present his advice as hard fast rules but rather as tools

[@PreviouslyDelicious]

"World building disease is where you sit and build your world for 17 years" I feel called out... it's been 20ish but at least I have the footnotes and half a novel done on one part of my now 2k years of history/world building....

[@semperludens9241]

Brandon Sanderson: professional writer Also Brandon Sanderson: 1:10:00

[@rashmika9742]

I'm here because of Hide and Create. :) I'm so glad these videos are available: thank you for uploading! He has such an interesting and balanced perspective.

[@sebastianwinters9864]

Bless the sign language girl. I was surprised to see a translator and it was very cool.

[@bonbonpony]

You know what would be cool? If someone constructed a visual-pictographic representation of the sign language that could be automatically "subtitled" into videos from sound :>

[@claysk350]

@@bonbonpony Maybe if there was some kind of translator who turned empathy into furry porn you'd understand?

[@bonbonpony]

@@claysk350 Wut? o.O

[@colorblockpoprocks6973]

such huge props to the sit-in interpreter. for a second i thought she was talking (well, disrupting. she's certainly talking lol) and then I noticed the hand motions and I was like "ooohh that's not a student" lmao

[@Mikeztarp]

Definite improvement on the students audio. :)

[@TheAndroidNextDoor]

For world building, there's a great youtube channel called Artifexian which specializes in this stuff. He goes over things for stars, planets, orbits, moons, day/night cycles, basically all the physical aspects of world building and even a bit for designing a language is there on his channel. Each video even has a little bit of simple math for getting everything just right.

[@Bazonkaz]

Thanks for the recommendation friend

[@amehak1922]

The Android Next Door I love arefaxian, very informative and detailed

[@TheOnceAndFutureKing]

Also "Hello Future Me."

[@viktorzenelaj9385]

love his videos, really helped me get wind currents and tectonic shift down

[@bonbonpony]

@@amehak1922 Too bad that in the vast space of the Internet there's only so few people doing that, while at the same time there's literally millions of stupid cat videos :q

[@bonbonpony]

01:15:00 Is there a recording of this panel somewhere? I'm intrigued. I would like to watch it. 01:25:55 I would say: "Explain the rules clearly before you use them to pull out your major move." It's like explaining how the chess pieces can move before you present your mind-blowing check-mate. Because in this way everyone is like: "Oh, that's awesome how you used those moves I know in a way I would never come up with, but I _could_ come up with that too, and it all makes sense now!" But if you pull out a trick without any previous setup or explanation of its mechanics, then it would feel like _deus ex machina_ or just a cheap cop-out that has been shoehorned there just to escape the corner you wrote yourself into :q Some afterthought solution instead of part of a grand master plan.

[@kittenloveer1625]

Great way to explain it!

[@johnny2552]

Thank you for the notes! That is perfect!

[@Talonos2]

I loved this class. I miss college. :(

[@yohei72]

I'm not entirely buying Brandon's point (around 1:05:50 and after) about how the hypothetical novel that is conventional for most of the way and then subverts genre conventions in the final third will leave you stranded between two audiences. He seems to imply that "people who enjoy conventional [genre]" and "people who enjoy subversive [genre]" are two different groups with little or no overlap. I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who enjoy both, assuming both are done well. I'm one of them, and I'd be very happy to see a well-done genre work that pulls the rug out from under my expectations at a later point. I'm sure there are plenty of people who dislike that also, and it's certainly taking a risk. But don't we want authors to take risks sometimes?

[@2ndmushroom788]

This is a bit of an old comment but I think you make an valid point, and I would think the overlap would be considerable between the two audiences. A book that does what he describes maybe could work well, but I think the execution would be difficult. I think that if the author builds expectations of "generic fantasy good guys win" too strongly, and then subverts it without any effective foreshadowing etc., then it would indeed be pretty unsatisfying to read.

[@tonoornottono]

it’s just a matter of promises at the end of the day. a reader could definitely feel blindsided after being promised one story and given another. you would really have to indicate the later subversion early on in the story in some subtle way. it would just be very difficult without blowing your load early.

[@CopelandMeister]

I had no idea Rich Evans was so knowledgable about fiction.

[@graceespiritu5400]

I never thought about that Aragorn plot issue. For a viewer I think it's quite awesome. My guess is, maybe, Aragorn wasn't sure if he will be able to convince the ghosts. What if he didn't?! 😅 And the sword was only given in the camp. He even left without saying his plans to anyone. That's where the setup felt a little off and weak . They could've done better. Their enemy also is time and they are outnumbered. Besides, the King already decided the most noble way to do, to come to the aid of Aragorn's Kingdom, Gondor, just like what Aragorn did for King Theoden's Kingdom. Just my thoughts. Anyway, Mr. Sanderson has a point there. Love your videos and lectures and also Mistborn!!!❤❤❤

[@miketacos9034]

tbh that Food Magic setting sounds awesome. Has anyone written it yet?

[@DadBodSwagGod]

I think I figured out who he's talking about The Dark Hills Divide by Patrick Carman I might have to read it just to make sure there's a twist like that in there. Based on the description of it taking place in a walled city and talking about an unnamed evil outside of it, I can practically smell it being a prison or whatever

[@helium73]

"getting engaged". Yeah I wish. Maybe that's why I'm so prolific.

[@Nodsaibot]

An accomplished writer with bad grammar and cant spell, this give me hope!

[@kt2666]

Dont be a hater

[@Nodsaibot]

@@kt2666 are you a moron incapable of understanding humor? :p lol

[@kt2666]

@@Nodsaibot Lol, sorry your sarcasm did miss me!

[@StarlasAiko]

If I remember correctly, the ghosts in the book were only serving to prevent the orcs getting reinforcements from the Dunlanders. They never took the ghosts to Minas Tirith.

[@devinreese1109]

He sometimes mischaracterizes tolkien. He stated that Tolkien didnt have a system to his magic which is true....but also not. Gandalf and elrond and galadriel were simply high level characters. Magic systems that are very detailed come out of d and d. Tolkien was working from scratch and he was coming out of the magic is mythic thing. But it actually has rules. Gandalf uses fire magic often sicne he has the fire ring. Its just not a very cut and dry complicated d and d or magic the gathering system .

[@LindrosPetri]

The problem with the magic in Tolkiens work is that the system is not presented anywhere and people must interpret what they know about the lore and construct it themselves. The other possibility is that there is no system for magic that governs the macro (or fundamental) level.

[@devinreese1109]

@@LindrosPetri Why is it a "problem?" Tolkien didnt WANT to present his lore. He was deriving his ideas and consciously inspired by myths where there isn't a magic "system." He never wanted to provide even his lore. If you listen to him. He was ambivalent about it. It took the "magic" out of magic, it was supposed to have wonder. It's not a "problem." Thats what the author intended. Theres no magic system in myths or fairytales, which is what he WAS EVOKING. The spiritual/mythic qualities of magic he was aiming at dont have a system, that would RUIN it.

[@LindrosPetri]

@@devinreese1109 I meant that it is a problem for those who want to know how and why magic works in Tolkiens universe. As I said, there is the possibility that there isn't a regulated system but just stuff derived from myths. In other words, we are saying the same thing, hehehe

[@devinreese1109]

@@LindrosPetri Its not a question Tolkien WANTED you to ask. He wanted you to sit back and wonder, like religious miracles.

[@TheHazeKiller]

"Maybe you've heard of Steven Erickson." Yup.

[@sanityone649]

Thanks...very informative.

[@howardkoor2796]

Master Class

[@darthkillhoon]

Alternate history also needs a lot of world building

[@howardkoor2796]

Sensational insight

[@sailyn8818]

Anyone else come to get ideas on how to be a better DM for DnD?

[@JupiterTheWizard]

yep, lol

[@bowling007us]

whats an auditor?

[@tokyodove]

i think he meant to say editor

[@billyalarie929]

"pat rothfuss.... it worked for him, didn't it?" well. that didn't age well.

[@MrWesford]

And things like that

[@vll16b]

next year this class will be in an arena haha

[@swaminathanganesan7952]

this is great.

[@WillWrite1]

satisfactorily

[@devinreese1109]

Well get to cultural....2 seconds later....lets do cultural.

[@devinreese1109]

Omniscient.

[@miguelbranquinho7235]

I didnt know Chris Evans wrote epic fantasy!

[@twns1076]

Miguel Branquinho What?

[@Everest314]

Erm, I respect his opinion, but when he said that GRRM's books are too brutal for him, I had to remember how in Mistborn they stab metal spikes through several innocent peoples hearts into the body of another person lying underneath, incl. into their eyes and all the way through their heads - to make Inquisitors that hunt down and kill people who don't like their oppressive tyrant ... :D

[@zmunk]

lol, good point. Bridge runs were about as intense, too, IMO.

[@Everest314]

Yes, the bridge runs too. Although in TWOK that was only one part of the story/setting while the rest wasn't all that dark. But I don't remember either that well. Might be time for a reread. With the Stormlight Archive, I'll wait until that first 5-book cycle is finished though (read TWOK when it was still the only one, was a bit disappointing to have to lay down the series at that point ...).

[@1mataleo1]

I think he is referring to the sexual content rather than to the violence. Regardless, I think it is ridiculous for an adult to be offended by something like that. He said himself that GRRM is a great writer. It isn’t like GRRM puts sex in his book for shock value, it is there to make the setting and characters more realistic; After all, it is Gritty fantasy. Besides, he is teaching a writing class, so some of the students may want to write in that genre. I think Brandon is a great guy and an excellent writer; he spends more of his time helping aspiring writers than any other author I have ever seen, and I greatly appreciate it, so I hope people don’t take what I said as me criticizing him. This is just my opinion. To each his own

[@jlinus7251]

1mataleo1 I think some people just can't read sexual violence without feeling queasy. I personally can't and I'm an adult too. It's not that uncommon

[@Jeneric81]

@@1mataleo1 You have to remember he's a mormon teaching in a mormon school.

[@LosTresPollos7]

I would feel pretty cheated if I paid good money for this class when I could've watch it on youtube for free.

[@yessir.7937]

Well, watching this online isn't gonna give you a diploma or the ability to ask question and have your work be checked. But if you are an American you are being robbed during your education, yes.

[@Skatelifefool]

Writing seems more lofty after watching this one. Too many mistakes to make.

[@devinreese1109]

Hey guys and Sanderson. Check out my Siberia series if you like sci fi. Its pretty awesome. Later.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

The thing about "magic", is that magic means something happening that cannot actually happen. If you can explain why magic happened, or how it happened, it isn't "magic", it's just how the world works. Physics, essentially. Trying to build a system of rules for magic makes it not magic, strictly speaking, because you're basically explaining how it can happen. I'm partial to having multiple magic systems, where the central one has rules, and the others are soft. Whatever magic the protagonist[s] uses should be a hard magic system. The protagonist should not be in control of a soft magic system, because then he/she can solve problems in an unpredictable way. However, soft magic can be used to help produce the scenarios that the protagonist must navigate, and to introduce that sense of wonder for effect.

[@bonbonpony]

Not really. Magic is precisely science that cannot be explained _yet_ , not something than will _never_ be explained or _impossible_ to explain (that's witchcraft / skulduggery :q ). It doesn't mean that in your story you have to explain magic in every detail with scientific precision - it only means that you have to set up at least _some_ rules for how it operates, so that it would at least _make sense_ :q That is, so that it were _believable_ ;) If magic were totally unpredictable and unexplainable, there wouldn't be magic schools, one wouldn't be able to learn magic and become magician, and magic wouldn't make any sense, which means that it couldn't actually be possible. Magicians study magic and use it in a controlled way precisely because it _has_ rules that they could learn and master, even if there's a lot about magic that they still don't know and cannot explain. It's like with science that you know enough about to be dangerous but not enough yet to understand how it works.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

@@bonbonpony And when science can explain it, you mean it would remain magic, rather than just becoming science? That's the thing: We used to think things were "magic" until we understood them. At that point, we stopped calling it "magic" and just called it "nature". And now, we're learnt from this mistake, and we're stopped calling things "magic" just because we don't understand that thing. We understand that things we don't understand are still natural things. ---"It doesn't mean that in your story you have to explain magic in every detail with scientific precision " Yeah, I agree. I'm personally finding the balance hard to achieve, though. You wan tot leave it a mystery, but without making it so that the reader feels "cheated". The thing is that magic, in the context of reality, is nonsensical. However, in a story we set aside that problem and pretend that we can make sense of it. But if we make too much sense of it, it becomes science fiction instead of fantasy, if you get what I mean.

[@jakehopkins6989]

@@antiHUMANDesigns A hard magic system is still a magic system, and a magic system is still magic. Just because something's a hard magic system, doesn't mean there are logical reasons for why it occurs, it just means there are rules it has to follow.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

@@jakehopkins6989 "Magic" is something that cannot be explained. In reality, if something happened that we know cannot happen, then it is "magic". There is no explanation for how something can happen that cannot happen. And if it can happen, then it's just nature, not magic. If you can explain it, then it's not really magic anymore, it's some form of science.

[@typhoonzebra]

It's still called a magic system because from our perspective, it's magic, in that it's impossible. Same way we call a character someone else "right hand" even if that's not an idiom in their language, it is one in ours.

[@madcircle7311]

56th yay

[@TheClassicWorld]

The problem is his own work is pretty setting/character heavy, which becomes nonsense compared to something like The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because Plot is the most important, not Character. Aristotle taught us this. (Also because Tolkien was so bloody good.) What tends to happen with this whole 'Character' is the most important thing is it becomes 'character-drama', which is another way of saying, 'character, drama, and conflict for the sake of character, drama, and conflict'. It quickly becomes 'Character, Character, Character, Setting, and Plot'. This is why The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are so great. It's not character nonsense. It's epic. It's Plot. Why are they loved by everybody across the globe? Because of these facts which make it what? Which make it universal fantasy. Are Hunger Games and Twilight universal fantasy, are they epics? Not really. Do you honestly believe that Character is what makes Harry Potter what it is? Or is this just superficial and there's something deeper? Do you really care about Harry Potter (the character)? Or is the truth you care about these two things: yourself (the truth found, the reflection) and the Plot [world/story/actions]. I think you will find, upon investigation, the latter is the truth. You don't want to be Harry Potter, you want to be in Hogwarts [Plot/world]. The truth is, you don't relate to Harry, you relate to the idea of his actions being within yourself (such as bravery). It's a crude, ape-like thing, really, once you get down to it. But, we're mere humans, after all. Now, let's keep in mind, this sounds like I am saying 'Character is most important', which is why, still, Character (the characters themselves) are important, so important, in fact, Aristotle put Character as being the second most important element of drama. I will repeat that. Character is the second most important element of drama. The first most important element of drama? Plot. Note: he also remarks that Character is found not in words, not in thoughts -- but in actions. This shift makes the difference between Star Wars and Hunger Games, in many ways. Although, they are also different things, made for different needs, and countless people love The Hunger Games novels and movies (I, myself, only think the first two Hunger Games movies are good). You can find people that have clearly put Plot first and have more balanced Character, such as Pullman and Rowling and Tolkien and Lucas. But, I don't know, we're living in a crazy world and in America even more so. Everything is about drama and Character. The biggest shows ever in England and America are reality-tv and Game of 'murderous kings and rape' Thrones. Rape and fake housewives don't sound like the most moral/intelligent things to be watching in the 21st century. Let's look at the latter plot of Romeo and Juliet: Romeo kills Juliet's cousin [which directly leads to] Juliet is sad and her father tries to force her to marry Paris [which directly leads to] Juliet avoids marrying Paris, by taking a sleeping potion so everybody will think she's dead [which directly leads to] Romeo finds Juliet [which directly leads to] and thinking she's dead [which directly leads to] he kills himself [which directly leads to] Juliet wakes [which directly leads to] and finds Romeo's dead body [which directly leads to] and then kills herself. Let me tell you, that's a bloody great plot. That is the definition of Plot. Nobody cares about who the hell Romeo is -- he could have been anybody -- and thus, it has little to do with Character. Plot first, Character second.

[@zmunk]

You make a valid point, but I think you should zoom out a bit. The only reason people read is to get an emotional payoff. It could be awe, and it might come from the incredible setting. It could be fear and pain and happiness, and it might come from bonding with a character and sharing their experiences. It could be amazement, and it might come from the moment when a dozen unnoticed hints come together as the plot twists brilliantly to the side. The way I see it, plot, setting, and character are tools to help you deliver a payoff, not the payoff in and of themselves. Different books certainly emphasize different tools for the job, depending on the type of payoff they want to deliver (and thus, the target audience), but all three are valid tools on their own or in combination, and all three have ready audiences. My 2 cents, anyway.

[@TheClassicWorld]

You mean most people? And this may be a problem, or at least, is able to become 'the problem'. I don't read for 'emotional payoff'. Almost everything I read, novels or books, or just the internet as a whole, I read for educational or intellectual purposes (the former being information/data, and the latter being either moral, philosophical, scientific, or otherwise, thus collectively leading to 'wisdom' or 'knowledge'). Note: I am emotional about such things and of such things, but it's slightly different to being emotional about the emotions or about characters, as seems to be the case for most people and what you are talking about here. Maybe this is why I hate Character, in a way (and in turn why I really hate reality-TV, Game of Thrones, Twilight, and almost everything else in the modern world (but not really, of course)). I see what you mean, indeed, but do you see what I mean here? (Most likely what I'm saying is just nonsense due to the limits of language -- well, the limit of my language, anyway.)

[@Turambar_499]

Warhammer Workshop not sure how you can hold up Tolkien as an example of plot over character when his other famous book is The Hobbit. It's not remembered for the plot, which is fairly one-dimensional and wanders haphazardly from one random encounter to the next. It's Bilbo's feeling out of place, his personal growth, and the unique characterizations of his companions that make the story so beloved. For Star Wars as well, really, and particularly the original trilogy. The setting is superficial (empire bad, rebels good) and the reasoning behind the plot isn't particularly important (a SECOND death star?). But Luke follows the archetypal Hero's journey, and the characters have personalities that resonate with people more than laser death rays and alien monsters

[@colorblockpoprocks6973]

found the contrarian

[@audiobookemperor]

Just have to say, the prequels are the obly reason SW ever had a world built in the first place. TOT is sloppy 70s garbage. Not a masterpiece by an means. Just bc its revolutionary doesnt mean its a good movie. Rant over.

[@crayjonz2555]

I’ll take information dump over long rambling narrative that leaves me confused and annoyed.

[@twns1076]

Cray Jonz Exactly the point he’s making though... the story should bring about the information naturally, and it should have clear ways to give the reader the info they need. You shouldn’t just drop all the info and then go along with the story. That takes out the fun.

[@Zegdel]

Food culture and Religion...he should visit Jewland :)

[@nevkirkpatrick7819]

I bet it stinks in there

[@zacharywood9416]

nev kirkpatrick that’s a really specific thing to pretend to think 🤔 you know it just smells like whatever cleaner they used to clean the room the night before and probably dry erase marker if you’re close enough to the board 🧐

[@iamcleaver6854]

Brandon Sanderson is great, but his books feel like Game of Thrones for kids. George Martin is truly adult books.

[@Zegdel]

he says in this lecture, GRRM is too much for him :)

[@iamcleaver6854]

What is this is supposed to mean? He thinks they are too similar?

[@c.c.frodin1987]

No. Too grim/dark for his taste, that's all. :)

[@neltymind]

I have never read any on Sanderson's books (but I'll probably change that in the future) and read all song of ice and fire books so I can't really say much about where Sanderson's books are on the lighthearted - gritty scale. Some things about your statement I have slight problems with, though: * The obvious - There are no Game of Thrones books. That's a tv show. * Just because a book does fade outs on very brutal or pornographic things it's not less mature * This isn't about Sanderson's books at all. It's a course on how to write. And I think it delivers.

[@TheClassicWorld]

That's because they put Character first, not Plot, and clearly are not as serious as somebody like Tolkien. There's a reason Harry Potter and Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings are great, and Twilight, Hunger Games, Sanderson, and Game of Thrones are not great. Plot. Plot. Plot. Balance. Aristotle taught that Plot is the most important. This is a general truth of drama he discovered, 2,000 years ago. Who mastered this? Shakespeare. Let's look at the latter plot of Romeo and Juliet: Romeo kills Juliet's cousin [which directly leads to] Juliet is sad [which directly leads to] and her father tries to force her to marry Paris [which directly leads to] Juliet avoids marrying Paris by taking a sleeping potion so everybody will think she's dead [which directly leads to] Romeo finds Juliet [which directly leads to] and thinking she's dead [which directly leads to] he kills himself [which directly leads to] Juliet wakes [which directly leads to] and finds Romeo's dead body [which directly leads to] and then kills herself. Let me tell you, that's a bloody great plot. That is the definition of Plot. Nobody cares about who the hell Romeo is -- he could have been anybody -- and thus, it has little to do with Character. Plot first, Character second.

[@xablep8849]

55:00