All entries for Saturday 16 February 2008

World–building revisited: a riposte to the nerds

Writing about World–builders – from the nerd end of the spectrum from Gas-mask City

Ignoring the philosophy of the question of world-building, I'm interested in the technical aspects. I'm arguing that the approach to world-building in fiction generally needs to avoid an abundance of detail, unless the characters demand it.

Think of sparse writing - the point of Carver, or Chekov, or Seiffert is to construct a net of environmental detail - a version of the real world - that holds together just sufficiently to carry the jelly of the story through to the end. If you stop to think about the actual technique of sentences, what concrete detail you're being given, there are numerous gaps, a flatness, a primitivism in the detail, which the reader does the job of filling. Some even have gaps in the syntax, that still works.

The main aim then is to construct the world the characters need in order to not fall through like bad clipping code in an early 3D FPS. In this way, gaping holes that need to be covered must be. But you don't really need a full blueprint of the Death Star in order to believe that the weak point is REALLY REALLY hard to get to.

"Why the desire for ratified, internally consistent universes?" Tim Franklin asks. I think that's a demand of the reader, one that's had their ego swept aside by the skill of the writer (to paraphrase TS Eliot's 'Tradition and the Individual Talent', as I'm wont to).

The writer's ('story-teller's' would be more accurate) concern is to know their character first, and see how they are in the world. I'm saying this, while also totally aware that China's approach (and I guess MJHarrison's approach) is the opposite - to imagine the world and then locate the characters within it. But you're left with a lot of baggage - reams of description that clog up the story. Sure, it's probably a good enough read if the writer is competent, but it's also indulgent.

If the characters are 'there', the world follows to some extent, even with a minimalist approach. A recent comment a Birmingham film guru made to me was that tests have shown readers will stay glued to a video image no matter how bad the picture is, as long as the sound is top quality. Compare disaster footage on handhelds and mobile phone cameras, where you can clearly hear someone holding the camera expleting.

Similarly, the voice of the character, the narration (the subvocalised soundtrack to the story) is more important (these days? I think it loops back towards oral narrative) than the precision imagery of the world. If the voice is gripping, the hazy shapes of the world don't need to resolve, they just need to give the 'character of place', an atmosphere. I'm sure there are juicy quotes along those lines, but of the top of my head, refer to David Lynch's films, or the atmosphere of 'Dickensian London' as a concept; or as counterexamples, the banal detail and patronising tone of Dan Brown's and JK Rowling's books.

By illustration, Drizzt Do'Urden and Leopold Bloom. The first a fantasy environment totally constructed, that only becomes interesting by virtue of the heroes that inhabit it. The second a real place, Joyce's Dublin, turned unfamiliar, but a believable environment by virtue of the perspective watching it. Both are outsiders to the world's conventions (the point where Lupine and Kindred (or Lycans and Brethren, or whatever they're called in 'Underworld') can exist in the same party) and provide a more interesting view of the world as a result.

One that makes the world a more interesting place for the fan to inhabit after the story ends? I.e. does the fans' desire to create the world in greater detail only come from having seen great stories unfold in those lands?

Backatcha, Tim.

George Ttoouli : 16 Feb 2008 14:34 |  Tags: China Mieville Creative Writing M J Harrison World Building |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Trackbacks (1) |  Report a problem