[aeneas]

Although I personally have only scratched the surface of MBotF (I am currently reading MOI), there is one aspect of the series that I've been dying to talk about. "World building" and SE have been mentioned in the same sentence by reviewers more than once- no mystery as to why that is. But world building, I find, is sort of a moving target in terms of how it can be defined.

It seems that my intuitive definition of the term "world building" might be "the concept and/or process of conceptualization on a massive scale" (considering how a world is not just written/or captured within a narrative but also is conjured within the mind of the reader). As opposed to a linear and pragmatic narrative, a narrative featuring world building almost takes the guise of a sandbox- as if a sandbox is created by a narrative, yet, the narrative remains within the sandbox at the same time. I'm not crazy about the term "sandbox" as it pertains to a narrative- because a sandbox, despite its attributes of being limitless, aren't necessary limitless in the same way the world of a narrative could be (limits within a narrative are a whole different conversation). But as the term "sandbox" pertains to MBotF (or, arguably, any narrative for that matter), I'd say it's not much of a stand-in for the concept of world building due to the fact that MBoTF is not only a (unlimited)narrative, but also, there are still forthcoming narratives that shall take place in Wu.

Fantasy, one could argue, goes hand and hand with world building. Particularly the more grandiose fantasy narratives in which there is more to world-building than casting "a river here and mountain there" (this landscape stuff need not take place only in fantasy though) along with "elves in the east, dwarves in the west" (which is more quintessential and tradition of the sword and sorcery genre). MBoTF is doing something else which positively discombobulates the way I've perceived feats of world building in the past. Mind you, world building is something that I've been drawn to before discovering the series.

So why is it that I feel different about MBotF's "built world" than I do for built worlds found in other narratives (in the fantasy genre)? I have this weird feeling that it's got something to do with MBotF's origin in D&D campaigns- it is as if that observation can somehow modify the kind of narrative it is now. The idea of a narrative in general being limitless is an interesting question, especially when considering how the act of reading completes a narrative after the text has been produces by way of writing (again, arguable). But with world building, especially world's featuring hundreds of thousands of years of relevant history, original races, a complex systems of magic - limits in narrative come in to question more than ever.

I do feel like the length of MBotF influences the perceived magnitude of Wu- especially while reading GotM (it's a sublime feeling, like standing before a mountain,when reading the first installment and realizing how much text/world stands before you).

This post has been edited by aeneas: 20 December 2014 - 05:20 AM

[The Hust Legion]

well. i had to read that a few times to try and wrap my head around it. pardon me. but its an interesting way of viewing things. whilst you're right MBotF's length does influence the magnitude of wu. its kinda like your own continental journey as a ready. and whilst when reading GotM i was like " where the hell am i? who's that? why am i here all of a sudden?". i had so many questions about the world the book was set in instead of the actual plot of the book itself. i always thought erikson just threw us into the series. like he did threw paran in with the bridge burners. but one good thing about series is that well for me anyways the reader kinda progresses along with the characters. i didn't really look at it as like an entire world until the last few books. it was more me as a reader walking in step with the characters.
(my apologies for my chaotic post and i realise that i may have completely misunderstood your post)

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

If I'm understanding your question correctly, I'd say it's because of Erikson's experience as an archaeologist. Erikson actually wrote a little about the worldbuilding process on Reddit:

Quote

For me and Cam, we approached world-building from geology upward. From that we slapped on layers of geography, history, anthropology and archaeology, biology and so on. For our gaming, I know I started with maps, because maps help direct me on how to create the cultures and civilizations on those maps (coast versus inland, traders versus introverted, closed cultures, mobile versus sedentary, lowland versus highland, hill-tribes versus plain-tribes; forest-dwellers versus river-fairers, old versus new, stagnant versus innovative, rigid versus egalitarian, and so on). Once you have a general idea of all that, you can start layering the land's back history -- what came before, and what came before that, and what drifted down and to what extent did that knowledge become twisted? Bear in mind that ecosystems evolve as well: a very early culture that deforested its environment and, say, introduced goats into the landscape, will ultimately lead to an arid, rocky, denuded setting for the present culture (think Middle East, Greece, parts of Italy and Spain). You want the landscape to be as protean as the cultures living on it, just working on a slower pace of change.
But all of this is incidental: it's there to provide an air of authenticity to your world: now the challenge is to populate it with vibrant, interesting characters, and life-stories we as readers want to follow.

Source: http://www.reddit.co..._ask_me/c3vwtq2

[hmqb]

Certainly, and regardless of motive or technique the world building aspect of his approach is well noted as a strong feature of the series. At least for me the appeal of most long series is getting more and more time to develop a relationship with the world or characters...

[Andorion]

Aeneas, first I would just like to suggest that if you submit such a large post, maybe you should break it into paras as it is easier to read that way.

SPOILER INFO WARNING: I have avoided specific spoilers but there are spoilers in terms of very general features of the books in this series.


Now as for world-building and MBotF a few thoughts come to mind:

1. One of the special features of SE is that not only does he engage with his characters in depth he also engages with his world and I mean in a physical sense. He treats Wu like a real world so we get descriptions of geology, and then there is the constatnbackground narrative of environmental change due to settled agriculture/indiscriminate hunting. These are real features of a world and addressing these lends texture t o the narrative.

2. Then there is the gradual revealing, but never totally revealing tendency of SE. Any reader of MBotF can google MBotF map while reading GotM and get the full world map (D'reks version) Yet this map does not sketch out the limits of the world. There are the warrens, whose nature is still up for debate. In many cases they are entire distinct worlds with their own ecology, history, culture etc. These are each distinct worlds which intersect Wu. And we never know everything about them. So not only are we gradually made aware of an immense area still to be explored, we get the sense that these are unknown and the slow and incomplete unveiling usually raises more questions than gives answers, opening new vistas of speculation and enquiry. Thus what SE does is magnify the scope and depth of his world in th emind of the reader.

3. The prologues play a major role in this as well. In almost every book the prologues depict something enormously ancient happening, the scope and nature of which we can only guess at. Sometime their is some explanation as to how they link up to the main story, and sometime there isn't. But with each such prologue the scope of the world is magnified in the minds of the reader. This awareness of antiquity is very important to worldbuilding I think.

Umm thats as much as I can say without going into spoiler territory, as you are now in MoI.

[aeneas]

Thank you all for your insights- that quote from reddit is particularly interesting, had I seen that before hand my OP would have likely been different. All I can say is that I look forward to all that is to come, both in terms of plot and setting (it's not often that I am aware of such emphasis on setting). Well, I've got some reading to do- I bet it will it will result in some more insights, questions, and sub questions which will all be soon to come.