Hussar said:
How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent.
Wait a minute. Would Mr. Harrison agree with that statement? My take on Mr. Harrison's rant is precisely that settings don't need to be internally consistant, and based on the reviews of his story cycles, he doesn't create settings that are internally consistant.
Now, for the irony.
Hussar said:
How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent...I take a post structuralist view of literature...
Maybe you should review your definition of post-structuralist.
To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.
No. The difference between setting and world-building is that setting is created exclusively through narrative devices, that is to say you create setting by writing a story. World building can employ narrative devices, but it differs in setting in that it is not limited to narrative devices and involves mental activities which are external to writing a story - say drawing a map - but which are designed to inform the authors choices within the context of the story.
In other words, world building is a negative term.
Well, at least I've got you to admit it.
I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.
Wait, 'not necessarily'? If it is not necessarily a good thing, then it is 'not necessarily' a bad thing either, in which case it cannot be a negative term by definition.
I've always maintained that. I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text. It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well. If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out. However, when that gets whacked into the story, for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is, that's a bad thing.
- emphasis mine
Once again, notice how you have to include a negative descriptor in order to prove your negative definition? What if the notes I've made and the time I've spent imagining Elven Tea Ceremonies gets put into the story for reasons other than 'simply to showcase how creative the writer is'? Is now suddenly the very same mental act in the past, namely making notes about and imagining elven tea ceremonies, alchemically transformed into something other than worldbuilding by something that I've done in the future?
Now, that is post-structuralist! And very very silly.
I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting. That's not world building, that's just good writing.
But, isn't the point that Mr. Harrison disagrees.
If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?
Because I'm making no value judgement about world building. I didn't say world building was necessary. I didn't say world building was bad or good. I merely indicated that if your goal was to create a detailed and consistant setting, that world building was a useful tool in that regard.
I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting.
Actually, I do too. That could be part of your confusion, as RC and myself have different definitions.
World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act. It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting. All of it. As much detail as you can possibly add.
Your definition is so narrow that it defines an act that never takes place.
Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings. Do you really think he was going to add more plot?
Actually, yes I do. In particular, I think he wanted to expand more on the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen (a story modeled after his own romance with his wife), which is within the story covered by only a few short scenes.