Harry Potter, Details and the definition of Worldbuilding

[Reveen]

The problem with the detail nitpicky constructionist attitude towards world building is that is misinterprets the role of world building in a story. Worldbuilding isn't really about building a world, it's about the author communicating the idea of a world the author has cooked up in his head to the reader, every little factoid you put in is nothing more than an illusion to fill out the picture of the world.

Sure, you can do this by constructing a series of objective facts about the world, but I think that's a really brute force, unartful way of doing it, and I think that managing to actually create an evocative world this way is a happy accident that was accomplished by some of their heavy in depth worldbuilding, but nowhere near all of it. You read all this bullshit the author made up about their world, something clicks that makes you believe the lie, and because human beings don't actually know why they like or believe in things, you falsely chalk it up to detail causing the world to "make sense". Sanderson is apparently good at this, but I'm sure he'd be better if he isolated and emphasized the parts of his writing that turns his pages and pages of facts and mechanics into a real world for people.

The thing that makes Harry Potter genius and in my mind a superior approach is that sure, it's spottier in the details than others, but Rowling does such a good job of selling you the world on an emotional and thematic level that the little details that don't line up are functionally irrelevant. She accomplishes with an understanding on tone and storytelling packed in 223 pages that other authors pile up thousands of pages of notes to do. And even if you, personally, don't like it because of the spotty details, that doesn't mean there's actually anything wrong with the approach. This approach made Rowling the fucking White Flame Dancing on the Graves of Her Enemies of middle grade fiction who hasn't been dethroned since, especially not by punks who think they have her number because their wizard stories are so much more thinky-smarty and adult oriented than hers.

Or hell, take Tolkien. Sure he drew up a massively detailed world and mythology, but he also understood how to create a feeling of the weight of history through language and by drip feeding details instead of piling them onto you. And the intention isn't to create some simulation of a real magical world, but to create a sense of myth.

Now, there are good reasons to put in tons of detail into your world. But I think a writer is almost always far better served by doing that with nuances and mundanities rather than facts and mechanics. Focus on what the elves think about and their little nuances in culture and thought, go into how they live their day to day lives. We don't need to know how their magic lightning bolts work or what wood they use for their toothpicks if we can get to know them as people.

I mean, the harsh truth of writing is that every single thing you write is complete bullshit. All those details about the politics and powers of your world are at the end of the day bullshit. Storytelling is the act of making shit up to entertain people. It's what the bullshit means to people that's important.

 

[mothematics]

Here's a simple fact of fiction: just because it's true doesn't mean it feels true. You can draw directly from your experience for what people are like but throw people out of your story because 'humans do not act that way'. And when applied to worldbuilding--which I would say is really just the nature of the setting, and how it informs and influences and enhances the narrative--the idea of 'trueness'' itself is, yes, bullshit. Because it's not true. Nothing is. @Reveen is entirely correct when he says that "every single thing you write is bullshit". So, when you're presenting worldbuilding in the sense of 'this will explain how this make sense in the larger world' what you're really doing is just making an argument.

And you can have the most well-argued, well thought-out argument for why something exists in your fictional world, and it will not feel as 'true' as something else. What's actually 'true'--in that it is better argued, or better justified, in the broader context of the narrative--does not mean it is 'better' than a paper-thin excuse for a story to happen that feels truly wonderful to engage with. Just because it's a solid argument for things doesn't mean that it's an emotionally convincing one.

One of these makes a good story. And, generally, the other makes a good thought experiment, and a mediocre story, because it doesn't make you want to engage with it. (I speak broadly here, so, God willing, nobody jumps down my throat with the "But I like massive, dry walls of backstory text in my narative!" I know you do. And generally, that's not a good thing for a written work to have; it can work, like most all things can if you're good enough, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge that.)



As for 'what' worldbuilding is: When you get down to it, I would say that almost every single bit of information that informs your story is an act of worldbuilding. Because it informs the larger world in which it takes place. Dialogue can be worldbuilding. The word choice used in action lines can be worldbuilding. The way a character is described can be worldbuilding. The way people do or don't react to other characters based on things about them can be worldbuilding.

I would definitely say there's a bit of a gradient, with Sanderson et. al on one end of it, and, perhaps, Rowling on the other, but it is all just steps on a line.

My two cents, anyway.

 

[The Bird]

Harry Potter is good worldbuilding.

Specifically, it's good THEMATIC worldbuilding. It does its best to make the world have a certain feel and aesthetics while making the whole thing feel real. Whenever I imagine the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, I imagine exactly what Rowling intended me to imagine, and at the same time, on the surface level I find the setting believable(in the sense that I can imagine day to day life and the setting itself seems alive) unless I start actively looing for plot holes and places the setting doesn't hold up, because the setting maintains a consistent theme and aesthetics.

What it isn't, however, is good worldbuilding in the sense of establishing consistent rules or history, for the most part. Compare Lord of the Rings, which has concrete, consistent rules and a detailed history. While it stands up more under scrutiny, Lord Of the Rings fails to capture a specific aesthetic, fails to capture a specific feel, beyond 'somewhat christian fantasy Scandinavia'. It fails to capture the imagination as much as HP does.

Basically, tl;dr, Harry Potter fails at worldbuilding when judged by one criterion, but passes with flying colors when judged by another criteria.

 

[Reveen]

Basically, tl;dr, Harry Potter fails at worldbuilding when judged by one criterion, but passes with flying colors when judged by another criteria.

Click to shrink...

The question is; in this case does the first criterion even matter at that point? If a story succeeds so strongly in one area it can easily survive with the other, and can not having that one thing truly be called a significant flaw?

You created an egocated piece of media, get your rave reviews and cash you checque, and whether or not the nitty gritty lines up matters only to the people determined to be frustrated. The Matrix was by no means a plausible or sensible premise, but it was a seminal work of action science fiction cinema anyway.

 

[keios]

The question is; in this case does the first criterion even matter at that point? If a story succeeds so strongly in one area it can easily survive with the other, and can not having that one thing truly be called a significant flaw?

You created an egocated piece of media, get your rave reviews and cash you checque, and whether or not the nitty gritty lines up matters only to the people determined to be frustrated. The Matrix was by no means a plausible or sensible premise, but it was a seminal work of action science fiction cinema anyway.

Click to shrink...

I feel as if we have already talked about this point earlier in this thread. That is, I suggested that it's possible that HP's worldbuilding is failing thematically in some ways because of its vagueness, thus linking the two criterion.

And also, if we're really going to go with popularity as implicitly determining the aesthetic worth of a story here, ignoring all the other ways in which HP might have gained a leg up (by being "low fantasy"; by reaching the "popularity" threshold where everyone and their parents were reaching it), then I might as well note ASoIaF is an extremely popular franchise, and the Kingkiller Chronicles, while not being as successful as either HP or ASoIaF, is a really popular series. Both of these, I would argue, place some amount of emphasis on the "first criterion", and they are in fact often lauded by their fans for doing so.

 

[The Bird]

That is, I suggested that it's possible that HP's worldbuilding is failing thematically in some ways because of its vagueness, thus linking the two criterion.

Click to shrink...

It isn't. Again, thematic worldbuilding is what Harry Potter does WELL. And I'll be frank, its worldbuilding isn't 'vague'. Its just not very consistent, which is a different matter entirely.

(by being "low fantasy"; by reaching the "popularity" threshold where everyone and their parents were reaching it

Click to shrink...

It isn't low fantasy by any metric. At all.

Both of these, I would argue, place some amount of emphasis on the "first criterion", and they are in fact often lauded by their fans for doing so.

Click to shrink...

Ehhhh. They place some emphasis on it, yes, but not as much as you would actually think.. Its more consistent than harry potter, mind, but to be honest, ASoIF places about an equal amount of emphasis on both criteria. It has a solid feel to it and a consistent setting behind it, but it is neither as consistent as LotR or as strong, thematic wise, as HP.

 

[vicky_molokh]

Can't we just agree that different audiences prefer different types of worlds (and different approaches to the building thereof), without trying to subtly bash the other?

(In my case, I prefer the rigid consistent worldbuilding for some franchises and campaigns, and the more theme-only evocative but inconsistent or undetailed worldbuilding for others.)

 

[The Bird]

without trying to subtly bash the other?

Click to shrink...

...I mean, I wasn't trying to bash anyone? I was just giving my two cents on the matter.

 

[keios]

It isn't. Again, thematic worldbuilding is what Harry Potter does WELL. And I'll be frank, its worldbuilding isn't 'vague'. Its just not very consistent, which is a different matter entirely.

Click to shrink...

Hmm, I suspect you're just joining the thread. Earlier we were talking about how oppression and abuse of power are key themes of Harry Potter which are undermined by sloppy handling of house-elves and werewolves.

It isn't low fantasy by any metric. At all.

Click to shrink...

You might notice I put the term in quotes. What I meant to refer to is the fact that many people find fantasies that are not sent in an entirely different fantasy land more approachable, and that this has probably boosted Harry Potter in popularity. If you want to have the low/high fantasy argument, we can do it in another thread.

Ehhhh. They place some emphasis on it, yes, but not as much as you would actually think.. Its more consistent than harry potter, mind, but to be honest, ASoIF places about an equal amount of emphasis on both criteria. It has a solid feel to it and a consistent setting behind it, but it is neither as consistent as LotR or as strong, thematic wise, as HP.

Click to shrink...

I hear "some amounts" actually encompasses "equal amounts".

No, but seriously. I think consistency in worldbuilding doesn't have to come at the cost of themes, and in fact, I'd argue that ASoIaF has some really strong themes like "destiny" and what it actually means, or stretching the limits of what we understand as humanity, and that both of these, and other themes, are baked into its worldbuilding.

 

[Wobulator]

Can't we just agree that different audiences prefer different types of worlds (and different approaches to the building thereof), without trying to subtly bash the other?

(In my case, I prefer the rigid consistent worldbuilding for some franchises and campaigns, and the more theme-only evocative but inconsistent or undetailed worldbuilding for others.)

Click to shrink...

But if we just agreed to disagree, what would we do with out lives?

 

[vicky_molokh]

...I mean, I wasn't trying to bash anyone? I was just giving my two cents on the matter.

Click to shrink...

Didn't mean you in particular. But over the course of this thread and some earlier discussions on this forum in other threads that related to the topic of worldbuilding, there have been some comments which seemed (to me, anyway) to have subtle 'and the other camp is doing entertainment wrong' component. (Maybe not so subtle in some cases, but it's been a long while.)

But if we just agreed to disagree, what would we do with out lives?

Click to shrink...

Proceed to categorize the things we disagree about! ^_^

 

[Reveen]

then I might as well note ASoIaF is an extremely popular franchise, and the Kingkiller Chronicles, while not being as successful as either HP or ASoIaF, is a really popular series. Both of these, I would argue, place some amount of emphasis on the "first criterion", and they are in fact often lauded by their fans for doing so.

Click to shrink...

No. I don't really think so.

I haven't read Kingkiller, but I've followed readings of it before, so my word may be suspect on it, but to me it's worldbuilding came off as just as vague as vague on Harry Potter, but on a macro scale. There was little sense of time, place or culture outside of it's explanation of how it's magic works, and it heavily relies on being evocative.

ASoIaF, which I have read, absolutely relies just as being evocative and drawing interesting perspectives with which to view the world. The setting is very detailed, but GRRM focuses on some things and almost entirely ignores others. He can describe the meals his characters eat in fine detail, but doesn't see the need in telling you where it comes from except in the broadest strokes. He'll tell you that the North worships the Old Gods, but will leave how their religion works almost entirely to your imagination.

In fact, his worldbulding is way more focused on the little nuances and mundanities of it's world over fully fleshing out how his world works or it's history. The latter of which only really comes up when it directly informs the events of the present. He's made up a ton of noble houses, but doesn't really care how every one of them factors into the politics of the world or what they do.

GRRM is broader in scope and a lot more dense, but I don't think his worldbuilding is necessarily any more concrete than Rowlings, to the point his writing almost has a dreamlike quality to it at times. You get the feeling reading that he just likes describing food, making up house sigils, and pontificating about history, and only deigns to tell you about it when it's convenient for him. He occasionally give you a guided tour of a tiny pocket of the setting to see what it's like, but it's always just as much about the feeling of the place than the facts of it.

Which isn't a bad thing. Part of what makes me love his writing is that he'll build a detailed world, then stop giving a shit about it because his stories are about characters.

 

[all fictions]

Can't we just agree that different audiences prefer different types of worlds (and different approaches to the building thereof), without trying to subtly bash the other?

Click to shrink...

We can't, otherwise this thread would serve no purpose, would it?

 

[keios]

I haven't read Kingkiller, but I've followed readers of it before, so my word may be suspect on it, but to me it's worldbuilding came off as just as vague as vague on Harry Potter, but on a macro scale. There was little sense of time, place or culture outside of it's explanation of how it's magic works, and it heavily relies on being evocative.

Click to shrink...

I was merely pointing out that if you wanted to use popularity to talk about effectiveness of worldbuilding, then Kingkiller's popularity is absolutely boosted by its quasi-scientific sympathy magical system, at least if you believe what fans say. I've actually read the book, by the way, and for the record I do think it's evocative. I never said otherwise! It's just a lie to treat the sort of systematic magical system and "socioeconomically viable" worldbuilding or w/e else people choose to associate with the "first criterion" as never interacting with the "second" type, that is, how thematically relevant or evocative the work is! These things all exist in the same work, they must work in concert to achieve the story's effect!

As for this stuff about how it's actually using evocativeness for establishing time, place, and culture, like umm, what?? What does this even mean? I mean, yeah, if you decide to define systematic/logical/consistent/rigid worldbuliding as only happening when a work of fiction describes all these things to the death, then you can simply claim that every single popular work of fiction doesn't meet these standards, and wooo! there you go! No work of fiction ever has actually managed to use consistent worldbuilding to gain an audience!

Additionally, Kingkiller does some really marvelous worldbuilding work (which is also thematic) around stories, how they're told, how they evolve, and how they're understood. If nothing else, this gives lie to your statement that it doesn't establish place or culture.

ASoIaF, which I have read, absolutely relies just as being evocative and drawing interesting perspectives with which to view the world. The setting is very detailed, but GRRM focuses on some things and almost entirely ignores others. He can describe the meals his characters eat in fine detail, but doesn't see the need in telling you where it comes from except in the broadest strokes. He'll tell you that the North worships the Old Gods, but will leave how their religion works almost entirely to your imagination.

In fact, his worldbulding is way more focused on the little nuances and mundanities of it's world over fully fleshing out how his world works or it's history. The latter of which only really comes up when it directly informs the events of the present. He's made up a ton of noble houses, but doesn't really care how every one of them factors into the politics of the world or what they do.

GRRM is broader in scope and a lot more dense, but I don't think his worldbuilding is necessarily any more concrete than Rowlings, to the point his writing almost has a dreamlike quality to it at times. You get the feeling reading that he just likes describing food, making up house sigils, and pontificating about history, and only deigns to tell you about it when it's convenient for him.

Which isn't a bad thing. Part of what makes me love his writing is that he'll build a detailed world, then stop giving a shit about it because his stories are about characters.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, again, I will restate this: personally, I do not believe that evocativeness and systematic worldbuilding are necessarily in opposition to each other. I can definitely believe that they're negatively correlated, but I don't think saying that ASoIaF is evocative is proving anything about how consistent or inconsistent the worldbuilding is! There's no need to tell us where the food comes from because logic indicates that its a feudal economy, and he's tried pretty hard to make his narrative imply that it's basically a normal feudal economy. Sure, there's places he's failing (Lannisters), but come onn. Do not confuse detail with consistency.

Edited to add: I just have to stress this point about detail. HP is an extremely detailed world. This is why people can endlessly play Quizup in the HP mode and why fans have things like HP lexicon and potterwords to help them keep track of all the details. JKR, too, likes to describe the feasts in the Great Hall, and the crowds at the Quidditch matches. If your criticism is that people who like systematic worldbuilding often get lost in detail, I'm all with you, man. I just want to point out that the good people of Ferretbrain feel this way about HP and details too, and HP is being held up as not being the "fashionable" type of systematic worldbuilding we're talking about.