Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3523529" data-attributes="member: 4937">'Partly' is not the same as 'pretty much'.Deep?  Maybe.  Evocative, certainly.  But I've never argued that creating a setting depended on world building.  I have always only said that world building was a useful tool for a writer.That and your incredibly twisted definition of world building which insists that any world building that goes on which creates setting isn't in fact world building.  But, yes.Who do you think needs such an example?  An example of a setting that was created without a world building process proves nothing that is actually a point of contention.  As a trivial example, a setting that is internally inconsistant is still a setting.  You can't prove your case by listing examples of setting without world building, because your case is not that world building is sometimes bad, but by your own admission that it is always a negative.  But a single example of a setting or story that couldn't be created (or could not be creaetd as well) without a world building process proves that world building is not merely an indulgence.  There is a vast gap between necessity and indulgence, and I don't have to prove necessity to disprove indulgence.</blockquote>