Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3485801" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.Maybe you should review your definition of post-structuralist.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.Well, at least I've got you to admit it.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. - emphasis mineOnce 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.But, isn't the point that Mr. Harrison disagrees.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.Actually, I do too.  That could be part of your confusion, as RC and myself have different definitions.Your definition is so narrow that it defines an act that never takes place.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.</blockquote>

Verification