This, and all the world

[rolanni]

The question is:  how much world building do you do before starting a new series or tangent? I'm working on my first novel and keep finding I have to backtrack to explain assumptions.

There are a couple of things going on in this question, so I'll deal with the easiest one first:  It's Perfectly OK to have to go back and fix/add stuff in/to your story.  We all do it.  We all get stuff wrong in the first draft.  That's why most of us (I have had conversations with writers who say they write perfectly and never redraft.  Perhaps they do.) do multiple, or rolling, drafts.

As to how much world building I/we do before starting a new series...my first inclination is to say, "None; the characters tell me what I need to know, when I need to know it."

While that's true, it's probably not true enough.  There are certain basic decisions you need to make before you start writing a story.

You should know what kind of story you're writing:  romance, science fiction, fantasy, mystery, literary, &c, &c.  Knowing your genre will narrow what kind of world you're allowed to play in.  Yes, there are crossovers.  The Liaden stories cross genres six ways from Thursday, but they are rooted in the traditions of science fiction.

Now, this business with the characters telling me/us what we need to know?  That's true.  But the reason it's true is that Steve and I tend to "meet" the characters who will be living in any particular story first. That's How We Do It.  Other writers think about the world/society first, and then they think about what kind of people would live in that world, and what kind of trouble they'd get into, what their assumptions are about their world, and if they're right, wrong, or yes.

One of my favorite stories about world building comes from Janet Kagan.  She'd determined to write Hellspark, a book about language, and how it shapes society, thought, and prejudice; about what sentience looks like.  She worked hard on the kinesics of the various characters and cultures, kinesics being a plot-point, and she worked hard on her main character, Tocohl, who was a master linguist able to get around in multiple cultures because of her mastery of language and body language.  She wanted, particularly, for none of the cultures depicted in Hellspark to be "ours."

And she was just about to hand the book in when she realized something.

In her book about alien kinesics?

The master linguist nodded.

Well, she tore the book apart to find and fix each of those incidences.  As one would, of course.

Now, that's not the story of a failure -- the error was caught in time.

But it is a cautionary tale to all of us, to think about what we're doing in the world and society we're building, and to question the easy answers that come from our assumptions and a lifetime of experience in what we like to call the real world.

Ask yourself:  What would a kid who lives in a closed environment where germs and dirt would cause a lot of problems, cuss by?  Might he use, mud, or dirt?  Supposing this closed environment that must be kept clean -- how is that done?  Who does it?  What's it called, the clean-up run?  It's a basic task, keeping the ship clean, a survival task -- is it therefore high-value?  Is the Garbage Man the ranking crewman, revered for keeping the ship spotless and the crew alive?  Or is Stinks a low-level task relegated to the junior-most?  It could go either way, right?  Just because we don't happen to revere sanitation workers in so-called real life doesn't mean that's Natural Order.

Once you've made your choice -- be consistent.  Pay attention.  Daydream about what your choices mean, down the story-road, what interesting developments might spring from them.

. . .but you can do most of that while you're writing, see?  So long as you remember that going back and "fixing" things is a natural part of the process of storytelling.

. . .hope that helps.

Comments

Help?

[catherine ives (from livejournal.com)]

Wish Princess Sprite and Trooper could help me with my taxes.

[timepiece]

It's amazing how easy those things are to miss. I was on the 5th or 6th read-through of a much-beloved book, which features a genderless alien species -- it is quite emphasized that they are all "it"s -- when I noticed an offhand reference to the older females serving refreshments. Oops.

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Took me a while to realize why this question felt slightly off-kilter. I realize that the world has shifted, but once upon a time, I think most authors wrote books that were more-or-less standalone. Then if it took off, they might add on and shoot for a trilogy. And if you were really doing well, it might turn into a series. But I really do believe that most first books start out as singletons, which then grow into longer life. Oh, I will admit, there's a trend to trilogies. But... Do most authors start out planning a series? I know, I know, the Liaden Universe started as a seven or something plan, but I think that's unusual.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Obviously, it depends on the individual author, but I believe that a lot of new writers nowadays start out with at least a trilogy in mind. Reasons may vary -- some writers just naturally think in series. Other writers look about them and see that most books anymore aren't singletons, they are series, and so they think that's what they must write, even if they don't know anything about the demands and constraints of writing a trilogy. I means, yes, Steve and I said we were going to write seven books right out of the box, but we didn't know what it meant.

For a while, publishing houses were, subtly and not-so, pushing the series mindset. Things are so scrambled nowadays I don't know if that's still the case. Since basket-accounting is once again rearing its loathsome head, I tend to think that writers, having been trained to write series, as it were, are still writing series, but that series aren't selling as well as previously.

Publishers have so often. . . made errors. . .in the publishing of series books (taking Book Two OOP before Book Three hits the stands seems a favorite way of shooting one's authors in the foot) that many readers nowadays refuse to buy a trilogy until the last book is on the shelves. The problem with that being that what stores remain to us don't carry backlists on their shelves. Book Two may actually be in print, but it doesn't help if it's not on the shelf next to Book One and The Thrilling Conclusion.

So, yanno, like anything else, it depends. I do know that there's a school of thought that says, If you're going to go to all the trouble to build a believable world and culture and all like that, that it's a shame to "waste them" on just one book. There are a lot of problems with that, too, IMHO.