Read on Twitter
short(?) thread on how I go about building the worlds for the stories I write https://twitter.com/lehoczkyescobar/status/1270922379703783440?s=20
I think of worldbuilding sometimes in three levels, summarizable with answer to "what is detail X in your story" (or similar)
level one: you have the answer, know it already
level two: know how to make up the answer
level three: use first principles (in context) to ascend levels
level one: you have the answer, know it already
level two: know how to make up the answer
level three: use first principles (in context) to ascend levels
an example: as I am writing, I need "what is the radius of [fictional] weapon X?"
at level one, I know it's fifty meters
at level two, I know "this is who made it, and they were aiming for AoE"
at level three, "well, what makes sense? large enough to cover a large room, maybe?"
at level one, I know it's fifty meters
at level two, I know "this is who made it, and they were aiming for AoE"
at level three, "well, what makes sense? large enough to cover a large room, maybe?"
another example: "what relationship do these two groups have?"
level one: they're at an uneasy truce [link to outline of treaty's key points]
level two: not friendly or hostile (from each ideology,)
level three: what makes sense given incentives? what's typical in-universe?
level one: they're at an uneasy truce [link to outline of treaty's key points]
level two: not friendly or hostile (from each ideology,)
level three: what makes sense given incentives? what's typical in-universe?
this framework is always secondary to "what's useful," "what's cool," or "what works within the scene/story,"
but being able to articulate (or post-justify in reassuring fashion) "this can be at level X" helps to understand what's necessary to work out ahead of time
but being able to articulate (or post-justify in reassuring fashion) "this can be at level X" helps to understand what's necessary to work out ahead of time
I'm not great at worldbuilding, and I don't like it much for its own sake, so I do it for two primary reasons:
first, it minimizes interruptions when writing (less stopping to answer questions,)
second, it cuts editing by eliminating continuity errors, etc https://twitter.com/lehoczkyescobar/status/1252089608583745536?s=20
first, it minimizes interruptions when writing (less stopping to answer questions,)
second, it cuts editing by eliminating continuity errors, etc https://twitter.com/lehoczkyescobar/status/1252089608583745536?s=20
it's important to have a writing process which allows for a confident start, few distractions, and comparably little revision (because these are the easy markers which allow me to enjoy the work, and therefore do more/better;) this background organization is one system that helps
this tracks with how I think of worldbuilding in most important, actionable senses: you only need to do enough to convince the reader that the rest exists
another way to look at it (from understanding comics, by scott mccloud) is to identify what the reader needs to understand, inhabit, and interface with, then work backwards to dole out appropriate detail
how much do you want imagined, and how much must be concrete?
how much do you want imagined, and how much must be concrete?
from the reader's perspective, filling in different levels of detail
1) what they should be paying attention to or might be relevant later ("chekov's gun" is just seemingly extraneous detail)
2) (if not distanced third person) what the character notices and cares about
1) what they should be paying attention to or might be relevant later ("chekov's gun" is just seemingly extraneous detail)
2) (if not distanced third person) what the character notices and cares about
