Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Roman]

Thank you Mr. Harrison for 'getting a clue' about my psychological type and being 'very afraid' of me. I must be a terribly dangerous person, because I engage in worldbuilding.

 

[Mystaros]

His statement is a perfect excuse for technically proficient writers who cannot themselves create, but would rather steal and then mock other people's works while enabling their characters (usually far more competent analogues of the author) to wallow in solipsistic delusions of grandeur.

Those who can create, do. Those who cannot, steal other's works and pretend they have no value.

 

[Storm Raven]

Do you know what beat Light that year?

It was 2003.

The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson won the Locus award that year.

The Separation by Christopher Priest won the Clarke award.

Light won the Tiptree award, and was also nominated for a British Science Fiction Association award.

 

[helium3]

Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.

But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.

The word Virconium sounds familiar. He gets compared to Italo Calvino, who I like. China Mieville apparently thinks he should be a Nobel Laureate.

Of the above three facts, only one (other than that he's actually had stuff published) actually makes me think his opinion is worth listening too.

I think the issue here is that what he's saying isn't particularly profound, but the way he manages to say it makes him sound like a pompous blow-hard. There are many more constructive and diplomatic ways to say "Don't let the construction of your work's setting command your attention to the detriment of the actual work."

Does someone have an actual link to where this was posted? Maybe there's some context here I'm missing.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?

Nope. Tolkien followed the advice. What do we know about Middle-earth outside the areas the heroes traveled through? Very little.

I think he's right on, even for FRPGs. I don't think he means literally ignore everything outside the protagonists' area, just don't worry about detail until needed. That's exactly the guide I follow and it works great.

 

[Mallus]

His statement is a perfect excuse for technically proficient writers who cannot themselves create, but would rather steal and then mock other people's works while enabling their characters (usually far more competent analogues of the author) to wallow in solipsistic delusions of grandeur.

I hope the protagonists of Light aren't author analogues. Read Harrison and see if you still think you're statement apply to him (have you read him?).

Also, theft is a matter of course in art, as is belittling ones peers and forebears. When artists --of any stripe-- talk about their craft, you have to learn to disregard the self-aggrandizing, the over-generalized, the petty, vain, hateful, narrow-minded and utterly f-ing stupid and extract the little kernals of insight.

Actually, this skill comes in handy when anyone starts talking.

 

[Odhanan]

Utter crap.


RC

Same thing.

He sounds either jealous, lazy, or just likes the provocation. I get what he's saying, but his tone and and his logic are completely skewed and offensive.

 

[Gentlegamer]

He is by me. There is not a single word wasted in LotR,

I agree. In contrast, see the "Wheel of Time" series.

 

[Cam Banks]

This is just barely on topic, but, given that he's written The Wasp Factory, yes, we should be scared of him. Or at least I am. Or at least I was scared when I read the book, oh so many years ago.

He's no relation of mine, by the way. I know, you were curious, but no.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Mallus]

Whether or not someone is published in the US should have small effect on the word of mouth, or awards like the Hugo, Nebula or World Fantasy awards which would spread the authors fame.

And yet I've read him and you heven't. Mallus 1, Celebrim 0

I think it is one of those 'love it or hate it', works, because it seems like its either every fans favorite or every fans least favorite.

I blame the protagonist for that.

Basically, his own.

Do you believe advice to 'avoid minutiae' and 'leave room for mystery/ambiguity' isn't widely applicable?

I'm not the one claiming universality.

No, you're the one failing to put Harrison's remarks in context. Don't all artists talk like that when they talk about art? In provocative, sweeping generalizations? That's the rule as far as my experience goes.

All I have to show is that creating/evoking a setting can produce good fiction, and then I've obtained a satisfactory proof.

The real issue isn't whether he's always right --nobody here claimed that. Does his insight apply at all?

My personal opinion is that stories with interesting internally consistant settings are better than most of the post-modern junk that tries to dispense with it...

Post-modern junk like The Great Gatsby? Now that's a lean, efficient piece of work. A book that both follows Harrison's advice and provides the one of the definitive pictures of its time and place.