this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)

Worldbuilding

2824 readers
1 users here now

Rules of !Worldbuilding:

See here for a longer, more explanatory version.

Related Communities

For conlang (constructed languages) discussion check out !conlangs@mander.xyz Feel free to discuss the your conlangs in our community, as well!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
infinitecartographer@lemmy.world
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world
Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
Imotali@lemmy.world
18
Am I getting too convoluted with writing lore? (explanation in post) (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world to c/worldbuilding@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

I know.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

My guy, that is literally what I said. We know he wasn't playing the fiddle while Rome burned, he wasn't even in Rome at the time.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay, I might've worded it weird. But I am hung up on the "fiddle" part, not who was doing what with it. If you just changed the "fiddle" for the "lute", I would have no notes. Because if we just go changing words around like that, Nero might as well had been playing the electric guitar.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The phrase is* the result of the story being chewed on by writers/literature over the ages. Medieval writers categorized ancient stringed instruments under the Latin word fidicula which would eventually translate into fiddle.

Edit: *

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Mistranslations don't change a lute into a fiddle. These are different instruments. They look different, and they sound different. And they are played COMPLETELY differently. I will NOT back down on this. It was a lute.

Also, medieval writers in what cultures? Because I'm pretty sure the ones from Italy did distinguish between the lute and the fiddle. They might've called it the same word in some cases, like you might call a glass a glass or a cup a glass or a mug a glass, and it's still a technically correct name, they are different. And glass mugs do exist, I have one right now on my desk in front of me.

You can't be right just because you give the source of where you got your misinformation from. Sorry. I don't think that's how it works.

No offense, though. Everyone makes mistakes. As far as I know, I could be making one right now and not even know.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ok dude, I've tried to have this discussion civilly but you very clearly took offense at some point during this exchange.

I will spoonfeed you this piece of information, then I will stop engaging in this ridiculous interaction. Geoffrey Chauncer, author of the Canterbury Tales, mentioned Nero's callous indifference to Rome burning. Shakespeare wrote of him playing on his lute. The idiom spawned from various other authors referring to stringed instruments and their players as fiddles/fiddlers. You can educate yourself on the usage of the term fidicula and what it translates to/where it leads etymologically, I don't care to. You should probably look up the idiom as well.

Something tells me Chauncer, Shakespeare, and the idiom itself will outlive you.

Edit: for accuracy.

Edit 2: I'll take a step further: This article goes into the historical inaccuracies of the phrase and how/why it came to be.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My man, didn't I literally say "No offense,"? I'm pretty sure I did.

And I'm pretty sure Chauncer and Shakespeare won't outlive me, since they already died.

But whatever, this is a discussion about a single perceived misuse of a single word. And at this point I'm getting confused. So, do you agree it was a lute or not? This is what the discussion is about (I think). At least that was my intention from the start. Because I distinctly remember this little story about Emperor Nero having a lute in it, not a fiddle. Although there are versions of the story that say it was a cithara. And a cithara isn't either a lute or a fiddle.

Also. The article you linked kind of makes it sound like it isn't talking about an instrument at all. Maybe, possibly, Nero fiddled his diddle while Rome burned. There's still an instrument involved, just not a musical one. Not conventionally anyway.

And no. I'm not reading the whole article. Not because I don't care enough to do so (although that is true, I don't), but because I don't have the attention span to read an article about a misqote of a fake story.

And again, no offense. I mean what I say as literally as I can. I am terrible at speaking to people. And honest. People don't like that, usually. As a token of friendship, please accept this funny picture of a drink that I have found (I found the picture, not the drink).

I really don't know how else to diffuse the situation. 🙂

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

First, no it wouldn't have been a lute. They weren't invented until the 13th century, if he was playing an instrument it would have been a lyre or cithara; possibly a pandura. None of this matters, however, because my original sentiment still stands. We know Nero wasn't fiddling while Rome burned.

Second,

Also. The article you linked kind of makes it sound like it isn't talking about an instrument at all.

It is the third paragraph.

First it presents the picture of an individual playing a musical instrument as he took a sadistic pleasure in the terrible misfortunes of others. Secondly it represents ineffectual effort.

Pedantry is not a virtue, especially when you're totally incorrect about what you're correcting. I would invite you to read more history.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Lutes were invented in the bronze age...

Edit: I'm pretty sure the bronze age was before Nero was born. Although I am not 100% sure. More like 99.9995%?

Edit 2: Actually lyre also sounds right. Now I'm doubting the version I heard. But it was definitely NOT a fiddle that Nero was not playing.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

This has been your lesson on how history gets muddied and how, despite fiddles not existing, the fiddle became associated with Nero.

Also, I sincerely doubt Romans would have been playing on ancient Mesopotamian lutes. The European lute was adapted from the oud in Europe somewhere around the 13th century.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Was it a lesson? I guess, because I learned something.

I asked the person who first told me this fake news about Nero. Turns out it really was a lyre, and I did misremember.

And lutes really were invented before 3000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lute Not just in ancient Mesopotamia. Egypt and Greece too. And many other places. Before Rome was evem built. It wasn't invented just once. Just like language.

So yes, maybe I wasn't right, but at least I don't have to admit you were right the whole time. Can we just call it a draw?

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

No you absolutely weren't right, you tried to correct my statement (paraphrasing) of 'We know Nero wasn't fiddling' with 'Actually we know Nero wasn't fiddling because fiddles weren't invented'. You literally proved my statement while trying to say I was wrong.

Not to mention, the link you provided indeed states that evidence points to their existence in 3000 BC - in ancient Mesopotamia. Their earliest known existence. From which spread to Egypt and Greece, specifically Greece in the form of the pandura. The only thing I'm technically wrong about here is assuming ancient Greece isn't a part of Europe, because the Greeks themselves didn't identify as European. They actually invented the term.

You need to actually read. I'm not interested in continuing to give you history lessons.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn't fiddling, because the fiddle wasn't invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn't) then it would've been a lyre or a lute. This is all I wanted to say.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn't fiddling, because the fiddle wasn't invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn't) then it would've been a lyre or a lute.

Explain how this is a 'correction' to this.

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course. The correct version would be: "Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the lyre while Rome burned? Yes."

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fiddled is a verb. The only person who fixated on it being a noun is you, a point I should have addressed immediately.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Fool! You think I know what the difference is?

spoilerThis is a sarcastic, over exaggerated reaction. Just so you know I'm not actually trying to insult you.

No, really, I think I understand even less now. And how is the word "fiddled" being a verb change anything?

The term "fiddling/fiddled" implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn't be a fiddle involved. Because fiddles were not invented yet. Lest Nero was fiddling himself (or someone else), I cannot accept your version of the idiom as correct. Just because there is no such thing as "luteing" or "lyreing" doesn't mean "fiddling" is the correct verb to use.

Edit: I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. Are you assuming I am disagreeing with any part of your statement? I am not. I am simply saying that the correct version of the saying would not mention fiddles. Because there were no fiddles. Unless that is the point. We know he wasn't playing the fiddle because there were no fiddles? Is that the point?

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The term "fiddling/fiddled" implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn't be a fiddle involved.

This just isn't how language works. You can dispute the idiom all you want, that doesn't make you right; 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned' is a well known saying.

What you're saying is like trying to say that Julius Caesar wasn't assassinated because the term wasn't coined in English until Shakespeare. No one agrees with that, just so we're clear.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

In my country/culture the idiom goes "Nero didn't play (or did, people use both versions) the lyre while Rome burned". I don't know what else to tell you. The term being invented or not doesn't matter since the instrument wasn't invented. Your example with Cesar is different. If knives weren't invented by that time (or other stabbing implements) would you still say he was stabbed to death? Language doesn't matter in face of physical reality.

To me, it is the objectively correct version of the idiom, as it involves a historically accurate instrument.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So you're just wrong, still - being willfully ignorant because you're a pedant doesn't change anything.

Imagine being so pompous as to think your interpretation of an old saying is objectively correct. I would tell you to read up on language prescriptivism but you've already proven you don't read. Doesn't bode well for your story.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No, not interpretation, the way to say it. Where I'm from, the idiom explicitly mentions playing the lyre. I checked.

And no, I don't read things that don't interest me or have no impact on my life. This argument is purely for the fun of it. I mean, at this point it is. Thank you by the way for engaging with me. This was a surprisingly nice exchange. My mind still isn't changed. I prefer to believe things that I am told in real life by people, rather than things I read on the internet. Whenever it suits me, of course. I am a hypocrite after all. You know what they say. "Billions of flies can't be wrong, there's gotta be something to this shit." In any case, thank you for your time, and I wish you all the best.

spoilerSince I assume we'll be ending the conversation soon, I'll be honest. I know I was wrong. Maybe not wrong, but definitely not objectively correct. However, I cannot admit that. Not 20 comments in. At this point if I admit I was wrong, it means all of this was for nothing. It means this was all wasted time and wasted words. And I don't want to admit that. Because it wasn't. It was fun. Right? Arguing about something silly? Neither of us willing to concede, even though the subject has no actual impact on our lives. I enjoyed this. It was so much more civilized than my everyday life. Thank you. Genuinely.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Well, I'm not sure where you're from - and considering that this is an English idiom then it's just as likely that other languages are more accurate.

I will admit that the dive into history was fun, I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't motivated by that at least. This entire conversation actually elucidated the point I was making quite well, in that human memory is a fickle thing and history can become muddied as a result. History is written by the victor and other phrases come to mind.

I do wish you and your story well, but I would ask that you consider something for me. Etymology and the progression of language may not seem immediately valuable to you or the story you're writing, but now you have greater insight into the workings of human communication. The layperson didn't care that the fiddle wasn't invented, by the time the phrase was coined it perfectly captured the idea behind the rumor that spread during Nero's time and what was carried through history. If I'm not mistaken he wasn't even rumored to have been playing any instrument, he was rumored to have been singing.

All the best, I hope you continue writing and reading.

[–] ludrol@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

[…]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?

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.)

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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).

[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

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’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

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, it matters insofar as to whether or not it would be thematically appropriate for me to call him Al.

Otherwise, if you're having fun, who cares?

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I care. That's the problem.

The naming is just the top of the ice berg. I kind of just feel stuck perfecting the setting and making sure everything makes sense in-world, that I might be missing the forest for the trees. I had a lucid moment when I thought "Am I putting way too much effort into something nobody is even going to notice without an extensive deep-dive into the lore and symbolism?".

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, let me preface this with saying that I am quite familiar with what you're talking about. My partner has published two books, I used to design book covers before AI killed that, I know many writers, etc.

Extensive worldbuilding has its pros and its cons. Having a good understanding of the world that you're writing in will help you keep your story consistent. Your characters will be more well-rounded, because even if they don't directly reference your worldbuilding, they should be acting with the world's constraints in mind. You won't have to make as many snap decisions that you have to remember to account for later, less plot holes to fill. It's not about "nobody is going to notice", because if you have solid worldbuilding, it'll flow through book and they'll see it without realizing it.

The problem is when it starts getting in the way, like you're describing. You say you feel stuck perfecting the setting, and making sure everything makes sense. Forget about other people, why is that important to you?

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's important to me, because when I read stories and dive into fictional settings, I hate inconsistencies. It ruins my enjoyment of a piece of media when I notice these things. And I want to avoid people having that experience with my work. When I put something out there, I have this urge to make sure I account for all angles, that everything has a logical in-world explanation.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Honestly, that's sensible. Is there a way to get your brain to compromise to a level of vaguery?

Like, if there was a reality changing event 5000 years ago, it would make complete sense that things would be an unknown from that time period. Unless the story is about archaeologists or very long-lived characters, it may not have an impact on the story.

Think about IRL, 5000 years ago is around when they were inventing cuneiform writing. We don't have a good understanding of what happened back then, and it really doesn't have any impact on the things that are happening now. Is that different in your book?

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Well, I'd argue that inventing cuneiform had an immense impact on society that we can feel to this day, but I do get your point. Thank you.

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] paraplu@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A lot of my favorite works have worlds that feel like you're barely getting a glimpse of them. The author has something much bigger than you'll get to see, and it makes the worlds feel alive.

That said, I've dropped a lot of books because there's some sort of explanation of the world. By the time I care enough about a world enough to sit through an explanation I no longer need one.

If your work does well people may clamor for all this extra stuff you made. Maybe then you can publish it. But even then I'd be very cautious. Star Wars was partially killed by explanation. If something that beloved can't bear explanation, that's something to keep in mind.

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Personally, I love me a good explanation. When the story completely stops to explain some concept to me. I unironically like that. But it has to be an explanation of something interesting.

However, I am not the standard consumer of media. I watch educational videos for fun. That's why I asked the question in the first place.

Thank you for the comment.