So, here’s the thing. I have this setting I’ve been working on for years now. And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it. I was trying to come up with some names for characters in a story I am writing in said setting. And when I was researching how names and languages change I was struck with a thought. Am I overcomplicating this? Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named “Al Banian” and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality? I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details. Case and point, a guy named “Al Banian”.
Another example. There are several creation myths, and three of them are technically correct.
I need some advice. Feel free to ask questions.
My advice is do it for yourself, however you want to, whatever you like.
I’ve written and self-published two books. The first one got a few positive replies and one person said it was a favorite. The second one got bupkis. I didn’t write them first for others, but I’m glad at least a few people liked one of them. I wouldn’t change a thing about the second one, even though I know it’s too long, and goes into too much detail, I repeat things, and it has two endings. It’s what I wanted to write and I’m happy with it.
Make yourself happy, and if other people like it, that’s gravy.
That is good advice. The problem with me is that I’m a perfectionist. Not in the way that I don’t put anything I make out there until it’s perfect. Instead, I don’t do anything, because anything that I could ever do will never be good enough for me to be happy with. To me, if what I make isn’t objectively THE best it could be, I might as well not do it at all.
I’m trying to find a compromise. Thanks for the input.
I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details.
Yesh, stop world building, doing that is just silly. XD /s
I’m just concerned that my world building is getting too complex for what it is. Who wants to do what equates to a study session just to understand a story?
I do that, but I’m weird, so it doesn’t count. I’m looking for opinions of fellow creatives.
I’m no Tolkien. I’d love to be, but I’m just a guy who started the whole project with a silly justification for the existence of a made up game from the 1980s and a conspiracy theory. Also, I’m way too stupid to write to the quality that Tolkien did. If you want to imagine my level, imagine if the Sonichu comics had a Silmarillion’s worth of background lore that explains everything, and how it all ties to Jungian philosophy and Nietzsche’s Übermensch.
[…]in a story I am writing in said setting.
There is a trap that I sometimes stumble upon when reading books and novels. Authors are so proud of their worlds that they cram exposition at every opportunity, and it kills all joy from reading making it at most mediocre book.
Parroting one tumblr post: “Write as if reader already knows the world.”
You have a character named: “Al Banian” Do you need an explanation for their name? no. Do you have one? cool, but under no circumstances should you mention it to the reader for the sake of it. If it will come naturally in the plot then sure, add the explanation as you already have one.
Feel free to ask questions.
Who do you write for? What is a purpose of your writing?
Thank you for the advice.
The purpose of my writing is to make something that matters. I don’t have much talent in any field that would allow me to make an impact on the world. I’m not smart enough to be a scientist, not fit enough to be an athlete, not evil enough to be a polititian, and not nearly creative enough to be a writer. But with writing, I found a way to cope with my limitations. If I can make a world that is consistent and logical, then events happen on their own. I don’t need to be creative if I make a setting where interesting thigs happen. Or maybe I am being creative in a very roundabout way. In short, I write because I want to make an impact, and I want my words and opinions to get out there and into the collective consciousness. And who I write for is everyone and no one. Mostly for myself. Potentially for people who are like me.
You are definitely being creative in a roundabout way, but once you have all that work done, you can theoretically tell almost any kind of story within that setting.
I have been doing this in a very minor way (compared to you) in creating a D&D world so that I can step in at any point in history with an adventure and have the players version of the world change through their cumulative adventures.
I don’t have 5000 years of detailed world history or even a completed world map yet, but I am having fun and so are my players.
So to tie all this up, you are doing this for you and having fun with it. Why stop now? Write your stories. Maybe find an audience.
More or less though that writing process is similar to Tolkein’s. Make the setting well enough and the characters will suddenly start to make their own decisions for you. (And then you rethink earlier decisions when you get better at it and need to retcon things.)
I wouldn’t say my setting is as detailed as real life history, but you can step in at any point from 1977 to around 7000 and there’s always something major happening in the world. There’s always gotta be a driver for world events. So, once you establish that, things tend to happen organically.
I usually treat all conflict as originating from different opinions and points of view. This scales from inter-personal drama to cultures, religions, countries and races. This is both a boon and a curse, since I know the motivations and backgrounds of all characters, I see how superficial and stupid the conflicts between them are. What saves me there is that the reader doesn’t know, so they won’t notice. Once you start seeing it, you notice that there is no actual reason for armed conflict at an international scale. Like, not ever.
And the worst part is writing characters. Not as in creating them, but writing good dialogue. Despite all my efforts, it still seems (to me) like every person is just the same guy wearing different clothes. I desperately need to talk to other humans (to learn how they speak to one another).
If it matters for you, then its good, and it matters, but almost inevitably, if you feel like you have to explain literally any of it when you go to write a story in this world, you are probably doing it wrong. And what I mean by that, is that if its important to you that there is a reason why the guy is named “Al Banian”, then its important; but it shouldn’t be important to the story. Or rather, a person in this world is going to take this thing as self evident; a participant in this world doesn’t need it explained to them.
And this separates good scifi/ fantasy writing from bad writing. If its important *to you that an explanation for why the name Al Banian exists, then do that. And if its not necessary for your writing process, then don’t do that. And I’ll give two examples. Tolkien created a world first, and then wrote a story within that world. They seem more similar to you in terms of their overall process. Massive in scale and scope. Every part has an explanation, every name has a meaning. Maps, timelines, family trees, evolution, its all in there. And most importantly: Almost none of it makes it into the actual stories the world was used to support. The characters, individually and collectively take these things to be self evident. Gandalf doesn’t need the 3000 year history of the world explained to them; its self evident. And because Gandalf, the character in the readers head understands that this is the way the world is, so too does the reader. If Gandalf understands it to be some way or for some reason, then its sufficient for the reader. Whats most important is that it doesn’t break the suspension of disbelief.
A contrasting approach is Le Guin. She practically doesn’t bother with world building whatsoever. The Ekumen exist, and there is (maybe?) a broader world that these stories are set it, but most importantly, that broader world never interferes with the story she is trying to tell, because thats what the reader is actually engaging with. She plays fast and loose with the lore. Timelines don’t make sense. The politics are inconsistent. Even the technologies don’t line up. Who cares? It detracts not one iota because you aren’t reading a history of the Ekumen. You are reading a story which is happening on Gethen, and that story is engaging. And in the exact same manner that Tolkien feels the need to build an entire world, and then populates it with characters, Le Guin builds characters and a story, and then populates only the most necessary components of the world to support the story. And she gives not two wiffs of stinky piss about it being consistent. And both work. Both create worlds which are messy, and real, and believable, and which, most importantly don’t tax readers in their suspension of disbelief.
If you are dragging your reader out of your story to explain the linguistic evolution of “Al Banian”, and it stops them from believing your story because now you are explaining some tangential thing that people in your would should just understand as a given, you’ve failed in your task. But how you approach that task, if you need to be like Tolkien and build the world first, then tell a story within it, thats great. Or if you are like Le Guin, and you need to find the story to tell, and then you modify the world to support that story, thats also fine. Its your process, do what works for you. But don’t feel the need to explain things which shouldnt be explained. Compare the star wars OT to the later material. The OT never tries to explain anything. Not why it is the way it is, not how the force works, barely who the Jedi are. And its great. It all works. Some knightly order from a bigone era? Good enough. Keep it moving Luke. The latter material fails precisely because it feels like it needs to explain itself to the reader. And in doing so it ruins the suspension of disbelief. Its ok to keep it mysterious; it actually makes for better writing to not necessary have everything fully explained.
Thank you for that. I was really obsessing in my head about this, and a different perspective helps.
I guess as long as I don’t overwhelm the reader with explanations that aren’t relevant, I should be good. The lore can stay, I like the lore, but I shouldn’t obsess over patching every single potential problem for a theoretical person that might dive a bit too deep and expect an explanation of why and how atoms work in that world.
Thanks.
as long as I don’t overwhelm the reader with explanations that aren’t relevant,
I mean I don’t know your story or what you are writing, but I personally wouldn’t explain anything, even if an explanation exists. Never explain. Explanation is the death of narrative. If the explanation is important for you, then, great. One exists. But something has gone sideways if you have to stop telling your story to explain something.
I mean, sometimes you have to explain things. Even in LOTR it was explained why Sauron was the bad guy and why the ring was important. But I get it. Flashbacks to millenia in the past aren’t usually good for stories. Usually.
Using Sauron as an example, we don’t actually learn that Sauron and Gandalf are from the same class of beings until the Silmarillion. There is a ton left ‘unknown’ about Sauron in the LotR because it simply isn’t relevant to the story Tolkien was telling. He is the dark lord. Do you need to know that he wasn’t the first dark lord, that Morgoth was, for the story of the One Ring to make sense? I mean it’s interesting, but ultimately it weakens Sauron’s role in the narrative. You’d be wondering about Morgoth and what he got up to instead of Sauron, the primary antagonist of the story.
I’m personally a big fan of deep history but one needs to appreciate the reality of history in order to utilize it effectively. In other words, things are lost to time. Some questions will never be answered. Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes. Do we know that Nero was suspected of having a hand in the fire to clear out space for his new palace? Yes. Do we know that he definitely had a hand in it? No (though we’re pretty sure he didn’t).
Just food for thought.
Actually, we can be sure Nero wasn’t playing the fiddle while Rome burned, because Nero died in 68 AD, while the fiddle was invented in the 1500s (AD). He might’ve played a lute though, we will never know.
Other than that, I have nothing to add. Thank you for the comment.
Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.
I know.
Not my point. You almost got me. I almost apologized for not paying attention. But I’m in the right here. The myth was that he played the lute while Rome burned. You brought up the fiddle. That’s where I was confused, why a fiddle? It was a lute. Well, it wasn’t, since it didn’t happen. Okay. I hope that clears things up.
As I’m sure as many others have, I’ve spent a lot of time with background too.
What I might do is release a version that’s for a typical reader, i.e. one who’s not as interested in my story as I am; and then release a background to it later for the few who might be interested.
Maybe just tell the readers what Al Banian does or did, and if they’re interested, they can read up about him in your notes.
There’s also the possibility that if you don’t explain, others might come up with their own, and a few of those might be interesting.
