The Purpose Of Fiction Worldbuilding....

[Spacescifi]

 

The purpose of any fictional worlbuilding is to provide a social context for the characters that exist.  It is the foundation that provides what, why, where, and who.

Unless one is writing totally realistic scifi, then the author only needs to know what social context he wants the characters to exist in and go from there.

What if's can be answered handily by scifi, the how we get there? Not really...since if we knew it would be reality.

So if all one is writing is a what if story, they can extrapolate the entire setting a lot easier by deciding the social context first and building around that.

 

You may add to this what you know.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Spacescifi

[KSK]

That's a purpose for worldbuilding but, in my opinion anyway, it's far from the only one.  Another two that immediately come to mind are consistency and immersion.

Consider the kinds of 'how would this fictional technology work' questions that you're fond of asking. That's worldbuilding and it serves to place limits on what that technology can do. In turn, knowing what that technology can and can't do, helps to provide consistency to any stories written around that technology.

Immersion is the finer detail of worldbuilding that fleshes out that world and draws you into the story.  One example I can think of is the Subnautica computer game (since I happen to be playing the sequel at the moment  ). The social context is simple (working Joe in an ultra-capitalist spacefaring society survives a crash landing and finds himself alone on an alien water world).   But that social context is only sketched out in very general terms. The fine detail: the descriptions of all the various sea life you encounter and  the technologies and tools you have at your disposal, are mostly incidental to that social context but play a huge part in drawing you into the game and the world it depicts.  I'm also struggling to imagine how deciding on the social context for Subnautica would make it any easier or harder to come up with the fine details of its sea life. Maybe that's just me.

Social context, consistency and immersion don't necessarily go together either. Consider the space opera genre. There will be some kind of social context, there will usually be a lot of setting detail that adds to the immersion, but consistency usually takes a back seat to 'rule of cool' and 'needs of plot'. 

Your points about knowing the social context and building around that also reminds me of another discussion I got into where one person asserted that all you need to write a story is to understand your characters and how they react to things. To which my reply was that I don't necessarily know how my characters will react to a situation until they find themselves in it. 

Sure, if knowing the social context gives you a hook to build the rest of the story on, that's great! But there are other hooks one can use as well, so I'd be wary about stating that the author only needs to know what social context he wants the characters to exist in.  In my own case, it sort of worked the other way around.  It was only once I'd figured out part of the worldbuilding (specifically some key historical events in that world) that I could build a social context for my characters to live in. I didn't start with that social context and use it to build the world. 

There's also the (rather overblown to my mind) distinction between 'plotters', that is authors who plan their work out meticulously in advance and 'pantsers', that is authors who don't do much (or any) planning and so write 'by the seat of their pants'. In other words they make it all up as they go along and then rely on editing to pull everything together into a coherent whole. In which case, social context and worldbuilding (or so I imagine) arise organically as the story unfolds, rather than being premeditated.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by KSK

[Spacescifi]

5 hours ago, KSK said:

That's a purpose for worldbuilding but, in my opinion anyway, it's far from the only one.  Another two that immediately come to mind are consistency and immersion.

Consider the kinds of 'how would this fictional technology work' questions that you're fond of asking. That's worldbuilding and it serves to place limits on what that technology can do. In turn, knowing what that technology can and can't do, helps to provide consistency to any stories written around that technology.

Immersion is the finer detail of worldbuilding that fleshes out that world and draws you into the story.  One example I can think of is the Subnautica computer game (since I happen to be playing the sequel at the moment  ). The social context is simple (working Joe in an ultra-capitalist spacefaring society survives a crash landing and finds himself alone on an alien water world).   But that social context is only sketched out in very general terms. The fine detail: the descriptions of all the various sea life you encounter and  the technologies and tools you have at your disposal, are mostly incidental to that social context but play a huge part in drawing you into the game and the world it depicts.  I'm also struggling to imagine how deciding on the social context for Subnautica would make it any easier or harder to come up with the fine details of its sea life. Maybe that's just me.

Social context, consistency and immersion don't necessarily go together either. Consider the space opera genre. There will be some kind of social context, there will usually be a lot of setting detail that adds to the immersion, but consistency usually takes a back seat to 'rule of cool' and 'needs of plot'. 

Your points about knowing the social context and building around that also reminds me of another discussion I got into where one person asserted that all you need to write a story is to understand your characters and how they react to things. To which my reply was that I don't necessarily know how my characters will react to a situation until they find themselves in it. 

Sure, if knowing the social context gives you a hook to build the rest of the story on, that's great! But there are other hooks one can use as well, so I'd be wary about stating that the author only needs to know what social context he wants the characters to exist in.  In my own case, it sort of worked the other way around.  It was only once I'd figured out part of the worldbuilding (specifically some key historical events in that world) that I could build a social context for my characters to live in. I didn't start with that social context and use it to build the world. 

There's also the (rather overblown to my mind) distinction between 'plotters', that is authors who plan their work out meticulously in advance and 'pantsers', that is authors who don't do much (or any) planning and so write 'by the seat of their pants'. In other words they make it all up as they go along and then rely on editing to pull everything together into a coherent whole. In which case, social context and worldbuilding (or so I imagine) arise organically as the story unfolds, rather than being premeditated.

 

 

A game is a medium that does rely on social aspects usually as much as writing does. Except for those games with writing (visual novels).

How something works barely even matters unless it is critical to establishing plot, what is and is not possible.

 

[YNM]

34 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Except for those games with writing (visual novels).

Honestly apart from FPS and sandbox nearly all game does to an extent...

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

A game is a medium that does rely on social aspects usually as much as writing does. Except for those games with writing (visual novels).

How something works barely even matters unless it is critical to establishing plot, what is and is not possible.

Okay, let me give you a thought experiment.  I present you with three first pages for a book. In each case, the leader of a country steps off their private aircraft and they, along with their entourage are escorted to a significant building in their capital city. Therefore, in each case, the social context remains much the same.

• On the first page, the aircraft is a lighter-than-air airship, and the leader and their entourage travel by horse drawn coach.
• On the second page, the aircraft is a modern jet airliner and the leader and their entourage travel by limousine.
• On the third page, the aircraft is a point-to-point suborbital rocketship and the leader and their entourage travel by hovercar.

How do each of those first pages affect your first impression of that book?  What sort of expectations do they give you about the world that book is set in? The fine details of how those three aircraft work may or may not be important to the plot but I would argue that the general details of how they work are important parts of the  worldbuilding and setting the scene for the rest of the story.

Taking another, more concrete example, consider the Ketty Jay series by Chris Wooding. The stories are set in a world in which aircraft are lighter than air yet propelled by 'prothane thrusters' which I've always assumed to be a kind of jet engine. Aerodynamics isn't much of a factor for a lumbering freighter but is definitely a factor for the far more nimble fighter craft.

Exactly how the aircraft work is never quite explained and is almost irrelevant to the plot. There are a number of scenes which would need to be rewritten to work well with conventional aircraft but the import of those scenes could remain the same. Certainly the main characters and the ways they interact wouldn't need to change.

But... the odd blend of technologies that go into those aircraft is hugely important for setting the tone and feel of those stories. In short, they're a key part of the worldbuilding and what makes those stories so distinctive.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by KSK

[kerbiloid]

33 minutes ago, KSK said:

• On the first page, the aircraft is a lighter-than-air airship, and the leader and their entourage travel by horse drawn coach.
• On the second page, the aircraft is a modern jet airliner and the leader and their entourage travel by limousine.
• On the third page, the aircraft is a point-to-point suborbital rocketship and the leader and their entourage travel by hovercar.

Firefly.

[KSK]

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Firefly.

Exactly!  I was going to mention Firefly in my last post but decided against it in the end. But yeah, that opening sequence and its juxtaposition of scifi spacecraft, Wild West imagery and sort-of present day guerilla warfare, really grabs the attention and sets the scene for the show. 

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Okay, let me give you a thought experiment.  I present you with three first pages for a book. In each case, the leader of a country steps off their private aircraft and they, along with their entourage are escorted to a significant building in their capital city. Therefore, in each case, the social context remains much the same.

• On the first page, the aircraft is a lighter-than-air airship, and the leader and their entourage travel by horse drawn coach.
• On the second page, the aircraft is a modern jet airliner and the leader and their entourage travel by limousine.
• On the third page, the aircraft is a point-to-point suborbital rocketship and the leader and their entourage travel by hovercar.

How do each of those first pages affect your first impression of that book?  What sort of expectations do they give you about the world that book is set in? The fine details of how those three aircraft work may or may not be important to the plot but I would argue that the general details of how they work are important parts of the  worldbuilding and setting the scene for the rest of the story.

Taking another, more concrete example, consider the Ketty Jay series by Chris Wooding. The stories are set in a world in which aircraft are lighter than air yet propelled by 'prothane thrusters' which I've always assumed to be a kind of jet engine. Aerodynamics isn't much of a factor for a lumbering freighter but is definitely a factor for the far more nimble fighter craft.

Exactly how the aircraft work is never quite explained and is almost irrelevant to the plot. There are a number of scenes which would need to be rewritten to work well with conventional aircraft but the import of those scenes could remain the same. Certainly the main characters and the ways they interact wouldn't need to change.

But... the odd blend of technologies that go into those aircraft is hugely important for setting the tone and feel of those stories. In short, they're a key part of the worldbuilding and what makes those stories so distinctive.

 

 

Yes...I know well what tech used changes the setting.

Tech changing the setting is something I kind of take for granted.

I think to take that to it's fullest extent.

Example. High thrust virtually (not totally) no propellant lost constant acceleration.

What can you do?

Space track racing. Can thrust pieces of track into space, assemble them, and race across them with magnetic bodied rocket cars with tires....and less efficient IRL rocket engines using any chem mix you want. Even fluorine if it gives an edge. Just be careful not to fly off the track, that disqualifies you.

[SOXBLOX]

Worldbuilding is about the setting. The setting is the universe the story exists in. So anything you can conceive within that universe is worldbuilding.

As for what place to begin working from, there's no correct answer. I start with a map, and add interesting locations. A good harbor, strategic mountain pass, a sea, or whatever. Or, for space, the general population and resource distribution, and the "terrain" of the star system or galactic arm or whatever. This gives me ideas for the political situations and such. That approach is good for an epic saga of international proportions, but maybe not so good for a story set in one small location.

Rear Window's worldbuilding consisted of a single apartment complex. Dostoyevsky forgot what time of day he had said it was in Brothers Karamazov. But both of these works are classics, so obviously worldbuilding doesn't make the story. It can really set it apart, though, when it has a distinct flavor. Firefly is a perfect example!

So, really effective worldbuilding both supports and creates the story. Your choice of tech level depends on whether you want a fantasy adventure, life in 1890's America, or Star Trek. But elements of your worldbuilding can influence your story, like geography instigating a war, or ideological clashes.

That's my take, but then again, I'm not an author. I just do this for the fun of it.

Edited May 18, 2021 by SOXBLOX
Removed whitespace.

[Mukita12]

Some (included myself) thinks that World building is an important layer to a story after internal conflict and external conflict.

Think about it, There's more to world building than meets the eye, even i who considered myself to be a world builder still don't know what are the exact definition of it

World Building serves a layer, it create some sort of this uniqueness for the story. Harry Potter can't be harry potter without its magical fantasy charm thanks to its world building. Without it, it'll be a standard mystery with no depth.

The same goes for any story that includes a heavy world building.