[Aneirin]

Well, this discussion has kept on going right along in the stereotypical fantasy races thread, and it may be a little late now to try and move it here... so I'll just start this off with a brief post, and see if it lives or dies .

The initial point of contention was whether Erikson, or any indeed any other fantasy author, could be said to rival Tolkien's world building. My own feeling was that no author I was familiar with had done so, and that it was unlikely that any would. This is not to say that no author has written better stories, created better characters, or even constructed worlds that a good many people may enjoy reading about more. It is rather about giving credit where it's due. I think Tolkien, like him or not, deserves credit for what is still the best-realised of fantasy worlds, and that people are sometimes a little too hasty in wanting to heap the same accolade on their favourite author.

We all like Steven Erikson, for some of you he's probably your very favourite author, and for me he's pretty darn close. But that does not make him the very best at every single aspect of writing fantasy. He may not even be the very best at any of them, but he's very good at very many and that's what makes his series great. World building is definitely one of his strengths... but to claim he surpasses Tolkien at that is very, very questionable. When people go blithely stating that very thing, I think that if anything it has something of a discrediting effect on their other praise for that author. It has very much the sound of "I like this author, and this is the sort of thing people say about authors they like, so I'll say it about this one".

Case in point, I did a search on the Terry Goodkind forum earlier for the word 'Tolkien'. I'd never been there before, but was confident of finding the inevitable favourable comparisons. Sure enough, a Goodkind fan writes "...the world Terry built rivals Tolkien's universe in it's sheer creativity and scope." So, I'd already seen people say this of Jordan and Martin, I'd recently seen people in the above thread say it of Erikson, and now I'd even seen someone say it of Goodkind. Not surprisingly, this leads me to believe that it's just one of those things people say, probably without giving it much thought, and essentially boils down to saying 'I like this author more than Tolkien'. Surely though we should be able to do Erikson the credit of more meaningful, objective, and well-judged praise than that.

Okay, so that's the easy part. Now, as to what Aimless was questioning, what it is that actually makes for good world-building... well... uh, that'll have to wait until later . I know, a rather woeful start to the thread, but Lost is on now! And then 24! Good programs... indeed, they rival Tolkien's universe in their sheer creativity and scope .

But maybe... if anyone would like to state why they don't think Tolkien deserves to be called the king of world building, or why they think Erikson does?

[Wry]

To my mind tolkiens world seems lifeless, vast but somehow empty. I know he's well able to create settings that are emotionaly stiring (the shire for example), but leaves others as seeming somehow... monochrome, if you get my meaning. I think ths has a lot to do with his dying before he had realised his world to his satisfaction (evidenced by the fact that he never published most of the supplementary "world-building" material, i.e. he wasn't finished building)

I also feel that it's not really fair to compare his world to say erikson or martin, for the simple reason that they have built their world through telling their story (which they aren't finished yet), not through having reams of notes post-humously published. if you take the lord of the rings alone, then Tolkiens world would seem less impressive.

But that's just a personal opinion. I am still and always will be an admirer of Tolkien, and the constant comparison between him and other writers is a testament to his importance in the genre, if not the actual depth of his writing.

[Whelp]

@Wry
Imho, the Shire is perhaps the most appalling part of Tolkien's world
The legends he described in Silmarillion (the fall of Gondolin, Nirnaeth Arnoediad), or only hinted at in the appendixes (the rise of Angmar, Numenor)are, however, great.

Still, I would hesitate to compare Tolkien with Erikson, Martin, or Cook. Tolkien's writings are more along the lines of the "classic, heroic" fantasy, with its clear-cut, black-and-white settings, whereas Erikson, for example, writes a much darker world. To me, all are really great - yet their worlds are vastly different.
Also, I would postpone any comparison after the final volume of MBotF

[Tempo]

I believe there is a subtle difference between Tolkien and Eriksons worldbuilding.

Eriksons world is being shown as the story unfolds, but there is always the feeling that the history of WU is less important than what is currantly happening in the story,

whereas with Tolkien, the story being told really gives the impression of being just an episode of a far greater tapestry. In both series, the tale deals with world shattering occurances (Final battle with Sauron V battle with CG), yet with Tolkien there is a definate ageless feel, a feeling that so much has gone before, while Eriksons world has history all right, but it doesnt feel ageless, just.......constant.

Both worlds look upon Westros with disdain however, its rubbish, just a load of brown where characters wait their turn to get knocked of....out of the blue of course.....

[polishgenius]

What I'd say is that although in some ways, Tolkien's building was unrivalled, people need to be as wary of unequivocly stating that there's no equal to it as of comparing any half-decent fantasty to his work.
I kind of agree with Wry, and what I'd say is that what Tolkien excelled at is not building the world, but the mythos. The backstory and history he designed for it is absolutely phenomenal, and I can't think of any others that are as good as that in the details (though Dune perhaps rivals it and Malazan has a similar scope - it just suffers through the slightly chaotic organisation of dates and things).
But what he didn't do is build a world you could believe would actually work. Everything that happens in Middle Earth is told, and aside from a slight description of the Shire there isn't any space for anything between the words.
On the other hand, even someone like Feist, who's building is somewhat on the fly and in accordance with which whatever story he wants to tell, has some space for this, and others from Martin (who does it to an extent) to Pratchett (who stumbled upon it by accident, really) to Mieville (my favourite for this particular sense, and who focuses on this) are much better at describing worlds which would work in terms of societies, trading, technologies, and general development of the world beyond the stories he's told. In some cases, the world to some extent dictates the way the story goes, because certain actions just wouldn't work, while Tolkien's world is placed around the story.

[Astra]

Aneirin said:

The initial point of contention was whether Erikson, or any indeed any other fantasy author, could be said to rival Tolkien's world building. My own feeling was that no author I was familiar with had done so, and that it was unlikely that any would. This is not to say that no author has written better stories, created better characters, or even constructed worlds that a good many people may enjoy reading about more. It is rather about giving credit where it's due. I think Tolkien, like him or not, deserves credit for what is still the best-realised of fantasy worlds, and that people are sometimes a little too hasty in wanting to heap the same accolade on their favourite author.

But maybe... if anyone would like to state why they don't think Tolkien deserves to be called the king of world building, or why they think Erikson does?

We have discussed it a little bit before
If you are interested, here is a link for this topic: http://www.malazanem...read.php?t=4819

and here is my post from the topic, which is basically exactly the same as you yours: http://www.malazanempire.com/forums/showth...p?t=4819&page=5

IMHO, when they say:
the world *** built rivals Tolkien's universe in it's sheer creativity and scope
they actually, maybe unconscious, admit that Tolkien is the best, and this new world is almost as good and mature enough to contest with Tolkien himself At least, that's how it sounds to me.

[Aimless]

Aneirin, I just don't feel this discussion will be meaningful unless we're all clear on the criteria we're using. Tolkien's writing is probably unsurpassed in many ways, but Erikson has his anthropology and archaeology working for him, and I love that. Herbert has the mythos and the scifi approach. Every writer that's been mentioned so far has focused especially much on some aspects and less on others.

The only person I've come across who's really comparable to Tolkien is the man behind Tékumel, and I'm not even sure he's written any novels set in that world!

[Aimless]

Maknavox said:

I seriously do not think tolkien has that a great history. Ive read some parts of the samarillion, and i found it quite boring.

Just like real history!!

Tolkien gets bonus points for dedication... but is dedication the most important part of worldbuilding? The sheer number of hours you've put into the world?

[Whelp]

@Aimless:

Quote

is dedication the most important part of worldbuilding? The sheer number of hours you've put into the world?

Imho, it is a very important factor - as it helps in creating a more coherent setting.

@Maknavox:

Quote

I seriously do not think tolkien has that a great history. Ive read some parts of the samarillion, and i found it quite boring. Oke the ideas are somewhat cool and original, like the transgression of kings to governers(stadhouder in dutch), but other than that its not that big nor original.

Since Tolkien drew heavily on history and old Anglo-Saxon myths and legends, this is not that surprising.

Also, wasn't the whole of LotR dedicated to a single premise: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

[Aimless]

Whelp said:

@Aimless:

Imho, it is a very important factor - as it helps in creating a more coherent setting.

You'll get coherence and depth in some areas at the expense of others. No single human is capable of covering ALL bases! Tolkien didn't bother with the things Pratchett loves for example.

[Werthead]

polishgenius said:

What I'd say is that although in some ways, Tolkien's building was unrivalled, people need to be as wary of unequivocly stating that there's no equal to it as of comparing any half-decent fantasty to his work.
I kind of agree with Wry, and what I'd say is that what Tolkien excelled at is not building the world, but the mythos. The backstory and history he designed for it is absolutely phenomenal, and I can't think of any others that are as good as that in the details (though Dune perhaps rivals it and Malazan has a similar scope - it just suffers through the slightly chaotic organisation of dates and things).
But what he didn't do is build a world you could believe would actually work. Everything that happens in Middle Earth is told, and aside from a slight description of the Shire there isn't any space for anything between the words.
On the other hand, even someone like Feist, who's building is somewhat on the fly and in accordance with which whatever story he wants to tell, has some space for this, and others from Martin (who does it to an extent) to Pratchett (who stumbled upon it by accident, really) to Mieville (my favourite for this particular sense, and who focuses on this) are much better at describing worlds which would work in terms of societies, trading, technologies, and general development of the world beyond the stories he's told. In some cases, the world to some extent dictates the way the story goes, because certain actions just wouldn't work, while Tolkien's world is placed around the story.

Actually, Feist's world of Midkemia was actually created by someone else (Steve Abrams) and Feist's books are actually chronicling the 500-year-history of Midkemia over the period of the Five Riftwars, leading up to the 'present day' of the setting. Midkemia has a much richer and more in-depth history than has been seen to date.

It should also be pointed out that 'history' is a facet of worldbuilding, in which case Tolkien emerges as the clear winner. Erikson is good at giving a sense of the history of his world, but whilst there's a clear structure for it, precious few of the details are filled in. Thus Bakker, Martin and even Jordan outclass him in this regard, although Erikson's sense of history is certainly superior to Jordan's more traditional fantasy history (well-detailed as it is).

It also pays to contrast 'overt' worldbuilding to 'subtle' worldbuilding. Overt worldbuilding is telling us there's tons of continents, nations and races, subtle is showing us through the story these as part of the story. In this regard Tolkien also emerges favourably. He never told us what lies south of Harad or east Rhun because there's no need for it in the story. Similarly Martin has already said we won't be seeing Sothoryos or the lands beyonds the Sunset Sea because they have no bearing on the story (similar with Bakker saying that we won't be seeing much beyond Eawa in the later books as that's where the action is). Contrast this to Robert Jordan showing detailed maps of the entire world in the Big White Book, even though we'll never be visiting Seanchan or Shara or the Land of the Madmen.

Erikson is difficult to categorise in this regard, as his story takes place across the entire world, but I think he's probably more of an 'overter' than a 'subtler'. Both methods of worldbuilding are equally valid, but the former I think encourages the reader to step back and look at maps and glossaries, whilst the latter encourages just getting on with the story.

[Aimless]

I must admit I see things like creating languages as lying somewhere towards the "meh" end of the scale when it comes to rating a world-builder.

And I recently realised that one major thing that's actually been bothering me about Erikson's world is his use of essentially immortal characters with lives spanning HUNDREDS of thousands of years. I've only recently begun to appreciate just how much time a hundred years is, and my sense of time is getting in the way of accepting Erikson's novels right now.

Erikson, archaeologist and anthropologist that he is, probably has an even better appreciation of these things, and it bothers me a lot that he doesn't seem to want to show it. It's a fairly vague criticism, but it's one I feel strongly about. I think

Personally, I admire Jordan's history esp. much for this very reason. In WoT, the 3000 years that have gone since the Breaking seem to really make sense. Contrast that, now, with Eddings, where 3000 years seems to be a pretty insignificant amount of time. He tries to pack it properly, but it doesn't show most of the time.

Er.

[McLovin]

Aimless said:

And I recently realised that one major thing that's actually been bothering me about Erikson's world is his use of essentially immortal characters with lives spanning HUNDREDS of thousands of years. I've only recently begun to appreciate just how much time a hundred years is, and my sense of time is getting in the way of accepting Erikson's novels right now.

That's a fair criticism, IMO, especially once we get up to the Human First Empire. Why does it take humans 70,000 years or so to move from Dessimbelackis to the Malazan era? That's a long span of time for basically nothing to happen. The same could also be said for the appearance of the CG to the establishment of Rhulad's empire...120,000 years, give or take. Why so long?

[Brys]

I think Tolkien is the most accomplished worldbuilder and Arda has the most depth of any imaginary world. That to me doesn't necessarily mean that he's the best worldbuilder, but he is the most complete in them. I think Erikson's worldbuilding is more coherent and more realistic (of course allowing for the fantastical elements) as he seems to have a better knowledge of how societies evolve. But Tolkien wasn't trying to create a realistic world similar to our own, he was creating a mythology for England. I personally think Tolkien is the best worldbuilder at the moment for sheer depth, but I think it's entirely possible Erikson will surpass him by the end of the series.

In subtle worldbuilding, I think Erikson is pretty much Tolkien's equal, but for different reasons. Erikson tells us about most of the continents and races, unlike Tolkien, but then for much of their history he just hints at what happened - there is very little on the war between Jaghut and K'chain Che'malle for example. Tolkien on the other hand does the opposite - he goes into a lot of detail on the past of a few races, but barely touches upon others (eg there is a huge amount of detail on the elves, how they came to be and pretty much their entire history up to the point of LotR, but Harad is barely mentioned). For subtle worldbuilding though, Mieville's the master - he gives so many hints of there being a lot more to the world than he explicitly writes about, but never actually goes into much detail (he isn't writing epic fantasy after all).

Quote

Why so long?

Human history took similar time spans - the species has existed in its current form for 1/4 million years - the real advances have only taken place in the last 4000 years or so. With more powerful predators, a harsher climate or any number of other factors, it could have taken much longer. It's implied that there was huge environmental change between the First Empire (human) and the Malaz era, and calamities may have taken place meaning that none of the technology survived.

[Tom]

Having read this thread, I'd have to say that Erikson doesn't rival the work of other fantasy writers, he far surpasses them.

I could go on about breadth and scope, but it all boils down to the fact that Erikson's work is more interesting. The history actually matters in the course of the stories. It doesn't matter if two elves meet who left each other fifteen centuries ago... but if a group of Tlan Imass happen across a Jaghut... oh boy, are you in for some fireworks...

Erikson drip feeds us the history in a way that doesn't overwhelm us. Aside from the recounting of actual events, there are the dates that crop up, creating a backstory without actually needing to go into detail. Like in Memories of Ice - one of the opening chapters describes the 33rd Jaghut war. The *33rd*. And this is thirty thousand years ago. Whereas Tolkien would have three wars, all written out in intricate detail. That's just a waste of our time. We only want to read about the stuff that matters. It doesn't matter that there are all these ancient forces that died long ago in LOTR. Because in TMBOTF, we've only told about that stuff which has relevance to the events occuring in the narrative.
Most masterful world-building - The way we have a whole book with Trull Sengar in it, and then we're given his past, the history of his people - everything we were wondering in the first book where he appeared.

I hate to take this fact and strike people over the head with it, but the fact is this: Tolkien is not everything. Granted, he created a brilliant world, told a fantastic story and basically defined the fantasy genre, but people are doing it better, now. Originality, while good, is not the most important thing.

Also, I could probably sit at my computer and come up with several thousand centuries worth of history, battles, events, characters - all that jazz. Heck, I have in the past. But that doesn't mean it'll be interesting. These are stories we're tallking about... and the whole point of stories is to entertain.

Sorry if this came over a bit ranty... I get bugged by people saying 'zOMG!!!111 Tolkeen is da PWnage!!!111'

[Aneirin]

Wry said:

I also feel that it's not really fair to compare his world to say erikson or martin, for the simple reason that they have built their world through telling their story (which they aren't finished yet), not through having reams of notes post-humously published. if you take the lord of the rings alone, then Tolkiens world would seem less impressive.

This is true in a way, but I think that the difference is even more fundamental, and that this fundamental difference requires the inclusion of Tolkien's other work in any consideration of the world he created. And that difference is that the world, not the story, was Tolkiens primary creation. For most authors their notes are just things that they might one day include in their stories, but for Tolkien it was different... and indeed, they were often not so much notes as essays. I think that Tolkien's world feels more real because in a sense, to Tolkien, it was real. I don't mean that in any mystical sort of way, but to reiterate that for Tolkien the world came first, it had an integrity of its own that was not subservient to the stories set in it.

However, I do not think that it is in any way a criticism of other authors to say that they have a world less deep that Tolkien's, because it's obvious that their goals and Tolkien's are not the same. As I said in the other thread, I do not think that anyone has created a world to equal Tolkien's because I don't think that anybody has tried - their focus is on other things, and they have no need of such a world. In this sense they should not be compared - their merit should not be compared to Tolkien's. A dictionary cannot be criticised because it only defines 'pie' without telling you how to make one. But it is still true to say that the cookbook is better for recipes.

polishgenius said:

What I'd say is that although in some ways, Tolkien's building was unrivalled, people need to be as wary of unequivocly stating that there's no equal to it as of comparing any half-decent fantasty to his work.

This is true. While the fact that fans of many authors make the same comparisons to Tolkien may give some discredit to such claims, it does not mean that one or more of them might not in fact be correct. But I do think that the burden is then on that person to say why that particular author really is better in that respect.

I can agree with some of the rest of what you're saying, if not your last line, but still not entirely. It perhaps gets back to the question of what makes for good world building, which I cannot presume to offer a definitive answer to. But I don't think it's to be found in a profusion of semi-arbitrary minutiae. In Tolkien's writing there are such layers and depth... any custom you come across in Middle-earth, there's probably an essay somewhere explaining why it originated and how it's evolved to its present form over time. I've not read Mieville though (and have been a little put off trying), so cannot offer any thoughts on that comparison... but maybe one of these days .

astra_lestat said:

and here is my post from the topic, which is basically exactly the same as you yours

Well, great minds think alike! Or is it fools seldom differ? I always get those mixed up . But thanks for the link, not quite the same topic but an interesting read.

Mi... uh, on Aimless, said:

Aneirin, I just don't feel this discussion will be meaningful unless we're all clear on the criteria we're using.

Agreed... although I think, in part, the discussion is about the criteria. It's obviously not for me to set down some definition of good world building to then try and moderate the debate by.

Quote

Tolkien's writing is probably unsurpassed in many ways, but Erikson has his anthropology and archaeology working for him, and I love that. Herbert has the mythos and the scifi approach. Every writer that's been mentioned so far has focused especially much on some aspects and less on others.

Again I agree, but I think that on a higher level the world *is* what Tolkien focused on while most other authors focus on the story. While this does not in itself inevitably make for a better world, I think that in the case of Tolkien it's a large part of what does. Middle earth lore was created over the span of decades, and was brought into being almost for its own sake, rather than to prop up a story. Tolkien was writing for himself and for fellow academics of mythology and language, rather than for the entertainment of the masses, which gave an enormous integrity to his writing.

Mythology was Tolkien's field of expertise, and he drew greatly on this in creating the world that he did - not just in creating a mythology for Middle-earth but in creating Middle-earth *as* a mythology. Erikson likewise has his anthropology and archaeology, which is probably a very large part of what makes his world one of the best among the modern fantasy writers, but I don't think he uses his expertise to the same extent or same ends that Tolkien did his. It comes across more in the events of the book and in some facets of the history than in the development of the world as a whole. I think one of Erikson's strengths could be said to be the fall of empires, and their remnants, but for all that it adds to the story and the history it does not make for the completeness of Tolkien's world.

[polishgenius]

In support of Brys on Mieville, the two things that Mieville does better than anyone else I can think of now are:
(1)The subtle worldbuilding that Brys mentions - single offhand sentences that add richness and imagination to the world, and short paragraphs of explanation that tell you that something exists, but leaves it to your imagination - I'm thinking for example of his description of the Gengris in The Scar.
(2) Disentangling his creation from our world, and from himself. It's not just a changed and shaped version of ours, and it's done with a very subtle brush, so the world has it's own rules according to the differences between it and ours. So while it (or at least New Crobuzon) is roughly comparable to Europe of our world in the victorian/late industrial era, it's not that at all, because the differences are ingrained, not surface shine. This is helped by his offhand descriptions as if everything was everyday rather than reacting as if the differences were exceptional.