Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: fardawg on May 26, 2011, 09:54:24 PM
-
Seriously though. I have wanted to talk for a while now about several misconceptions that I think Brandon, Howard, and Dan have (or at least had at some point). I could be misunderstanding them, so correct me if I am wrong.
The first is the idea espoused by Brandon several times that Tolkien had World Builders Disease and that he was an outliner. It seems that Brandon thinks that the Silmarillion was worldbuilding backstory for the Hobbit and LOTR and that Tolkien spent too much time on the backstory compared to writing the “real” books. In fact, the Silmarillion is a collection of the “primary” stories of Middle Earth. The reason he spent so much time on it was that he couldn't get anyone to buy it. He actually tried several times to sell it, at least once soon after the Hobbit and then again along with LOTR (the idea of a sequel came from the publisher), but they wouldn’t buy it.
The Hobbit was basically an accident and not intended at first to be connected to his larger Mythology, but he then used some of the Silmarillion as backstory. He used more when he came to the LOTR.
As for being an outliner, it seems from what I have read of the original drafts of LOTR that he was very much a discovery writer and "eternal rewriter". Tolkien had no idea what the story was when he began (he didn't really want a sequel). He would write a chapter or so (if that), come up with another idea and start all over again from the beginning! He started with Bilbo but soon realized that it made no sense due to the way he ended the Hobbit. He then tried to use Bilbo's son (Bingo Baggins, I believe) who morphed into his nephew, etc. At one point the first appearance of the Black Rider turned out to be Gandalf. The history of the “One Ring” was also a surprise to him. It was just a magic ring in the Hobbit until he decided it could have a more sinister origin. He had to revise the Riddles In the Dark chapter for future editions because it (and Gollum) didn't have the sinister edge that it needed (He had a great in-world reason for the differences too: Bilbo was being influenced in a subtle way by the ring so he lied to Gandalf). He also made the briefly mentioned “Necromancer” of the Hobbit into Sauron. He then went back to the Silmarillion and gave him a backstory as a lieutenant of the original Dark Lord, Morgoth.
Next up: the portrayal of the the Hero's Journey.
I know that at least Howard has read (or heard) The Hero With A Thousand Faces and has a better appreciation of it now, but early on in the podcast (e.g. Season 2 Episode 7) they portrayed the Hero's Journey as if it was so rigid that it said the hero MUST have a humble origin ala Star Wars. However, some of the first examples Campbell gives are the Buddha, who was said to have been a prince guarded by his father from the harshness of the world, and The princess from the Princess and the Frog fairy tale. Neither of them are farm boys or all that “humble”. I think a popular misconception is that Star Wars IS the Hero's Journey rather than ONE example of how it can work. I highly recommend The Writers Journey by Christopher Vogler. He uses films as varied as The Full Monty, Pulp Fiction, and Titanic (and hundreds of others) as examples of the Hero's Journey. He points out that the Monomyth isn't supposed to be rigid and can be adapted to any genre.
Anyway, I still love Writing Excuses and can't wait for the Hero's Journey episode (is that still going to happen guys?)
-
No defenders? Does this mean I win? :P
-
I actually agree with them about the hero's journey. While Campbell's conclusions are correct, it's not the only path a hero can and/or should take. Frankly, Campbell's tropic path has been done to death. As for their stance on Tolkein, I don't know. I'm not enough of a super fan to know anything that would support or refute their claims.
-
I'm not a Tolkien scholar, so I got no basis for participation on the subject.
-
"While Campbell's conclusions are correct, it's not the only path a hero can and/or should take. Frankly, Campbell's tropic path has been done to death."
Have you read Vogler?
I see the Monomyth as very flexible. Can you give me a story (one that is well known or I can look up the plot for) that you consider to not follow the Journey?
I should have also noted that Tolkien's discovery writing was also based in his created languages. He would sometimes come up with a language and then create a character or culture for that language.
You can read about his process (and read some pieces of the early drafts) in the four volume "History of The Lord of the Rings", part of the larger "History of Middle-Earth" series.
This site has great synopses of the individual "History of" books. http://tinyurl.com/6y3apwy "The Return of the Shadow" is the first of the Rings books.
-
I think I have to disagree with you, at least somewhat, on both counts.
The prince who has led a sheltered life IS a humble beginning- it's just that the inner journey is the one he's more obviously deficient in than the outer journey, because as a prince he already has social standing and recognition, but he has no idea about the world or life in general. You can't have a heroes journey without either a character in need of significant inner improvement, or external recognition, because otherwise there is no character to develop in the process of the journey. Howard, Dan, and Brandon are 100% correct in their interpretation.
As for Tolkien not being an outliner... discovery writers can absolutely suffer from World Builder's disease, it's just instead of getting it from outlining, they do it by developing the backstory too much, or being far too slow in realizing when their discovery writing is branching off from the story they want to tell. The former definitely describes Tolkien, as the Silmarillion was definitely backstory, even if he really did conceive it as a complete or independent work, and could never have stood alone without investment in the world of middle earth that we got from LOTR. You're absolutely right that what he was doing had no relation to outlining, however.
-
hum·ble
adj. hum·bler, hum·blest
1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology.
3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage.
The sense in which they have used "humble" is the 3rd one, which is why I mentioned Star Wars and "farm boy". If they were correct in their interpretation (at least what they have said so far) they wouldn't have used the "farm boy" cliche to define it. The Prince was ignorant of suffering and piety, but that does not make him humble. I would say he was humbled when he was shown the outside world. His Journey included becoming humble.
As for World Builder's disease, I agree that discovery writers can have it (Though I believe Brandon portrayed it as a problem more distinct to outliners). I wasn't making the assertion that he couldn't have it since he was an outliner. I was disagreeing that the Silmarillion was a symptom of it (at least in so far as it is a distraction from the "real" work).
I couldn't disagree more regarding the Silmarillion. As I said, the Silmarillion is not backstory. It only became backstory many years later. No mater what you think of its publishability, that doesn't change the fact that it was written first, was not written as backstory to the Hobbit and LOTR, and was considered by Tolkien to be the main work. It wasn't as if Tolkien had the idea for the Hobbit and started writing the Silmarillion to give it history. What became the Silmarillion was begun around 1914 and the Hobbit was begun in the early 30's.
It's like saying that if Jordon couldn't get the WOT published and came up with another story set in the same world (which he considered lesser to WOT), that WOT was just backstory and that he had WBD because he spent so much time writing it before the "real" books.
-
Tolkien wanted to develop his own set of mythology. He didn't have any intention to write a novel. When he did eventually write the novels, he used that mythology as the backstory for the novels. Backstory doesn't have to be something you come up with only after getting the idea for a novel.
I think Brandon has a very valid point (except that I haven't listened to the episode recently to be sure that's actually what he's saying). From the point of view of a novelist, a collection of mythological stories is useful only as a backstory. It's not a marketable work in and of itself. I highly doubt that Tolkien would have become the phenomenon that he became, spawning his own Tolkien scholars, were it not for the commercially viable novels that he eventually wrote. The Silmarillion or the stuff in the Book of Lost Tales collections, if he had put them out without writing the Lord of the Rings, would have soon been pulped by any bookstores that risked taking them on, and no one today would be talking about Tolkien.
-
All I'm saying is that the Silmarillion was not meant to be backstory to the "real" books. I am not saying it was a novel or that it could have sold well without the Hobbit and LOTR. Brandon has portrayed it as if Tolkien had wasted time on Worldbuilding instead of writing the "real" books. This is not case.
-
It's a matter of perspective, what the end intent is. From the point of view of a novelist, what Brandon said IS the case. Writing Excuses is advice for people who want to be commercially successful novelists. If you do what Tolkien did but want to be a novelist, you are wasting your time.
If you want to do what Tolkien did, but for the same reason as Tolkien, then you are not wasting your time, since for you the worldbuilding is an end in and of itself. Which is fine but irrelevant to Writing Excuses' purpose.
-
"If you want to do what Tolkien did, but for the same reason as Tolkien, then you are not wasting your time, since for you the worldbuilding is an end in and of itself. Which is fine but irrelevant to Writing Excuses' purpose."
And that is my whole point. Tolkien was not writing because he had novels as an end goal, those were an afterthought. He was creating a mythology for England by writing poems and prose tales which were collected into the Silmarillion. To use Tolkien as an example of wb-disease is still missing the mark since it assumes that his goal was to write novels.
I would still disagree that the Silmarillion is simply World Building though. World Building as I understand it (and as it is used on WE) is background information to flesh out the world of your novel. Its purpose is to serve the novel which is not what the Silmarillion was written to be. The Tale of Beren and Lúthien, for example, was written for its own sake and was not written so Tolkien would have something cool to allude to when he wrote about Aragorn and Arwen (if anything, it was the reverse!). Tolkein hoped that the LOTR would get people to read his real stories.
I completely agree that WBD can be a problem for novelists; I just don't see how Tolkien is relevant to the discussion since his end goal was not that of a novelist.
-
Because to some fantasy writers the Lord of the Rings is still their favorite fantasy novel, so they think that to be a successful novelist they should emulate Tolkien. So it's extremely relevant to the discussion.
Worldbuilding is not just about backstory. It's about exactly what the word seems to mean, building a world. There can be many reasons to build a world. You could spend a long time building a world in order to make a good RPG setting, as was done for Forgotten Realms. You could build a world to make a setting for your conlang (constructed language) if you are a conlanger. You could do it simply as a thought experiment. Or you could build a world simply to build a world because worlds are interesting.
Tolkien said he wanted to construct a mythology for England. But I think the mythology he constructed had very little to do with England and was just concerned with its own world. There are some vague parallels in there and I assume a Tolkien scholar could point out a lot more, but as far as the layman is concerned it's just a world unto itself.
The worldbuilding in the Silmarillion was not just a list of facts and dates. Tolkien built the world through poems and stories about events in the world. But worldbuilding is certainly what Tolkien was doing, constructing a mythology about a place and time that never existed. He wasn't just writing individual poems and stories; by setting them all in the same fictional time and place he was worldbuilding, giving a picture of the whole through its parts.
I have Brandon's worldbuilding document for the Stormlight Archive, and parts of it are written as historical-sounding stories. He could have gone the route of just writing the history of Roshar and releasing it to the public. But that's not what he wanted to do, because he's a novelist.
-
Worldbuilding is not just about backstory. It's about exactly what the word seems to mean, building a world.
Precisely.
I'm working on a story that takes place in modern day Paris and even though it's not an otherworldly location I still have to do some world building. Just because everyone is familiar with the city doesn't mean they know what it's like to live there. It doesn't matter if I do it through poetry, dialogue, exposition or pictographs. I still need to do it.
-
Because to some fantasy writers the Lord of the Rings is still their favorite fantasy novel, so they think that to be a successful novelist they should emulate Tolkien. So it's extremely relevant to the discussion.
Its relevant when you don't misrepresent the facts.
Worldbuilding is not just about backstory.
Sorry, I was using backstory to encompass all of that. I meant it as the "story" of the world. I should have use background.
Tolkien said he wanted to construct a mythology for England. But I think the mythology he constructed had very little to do with England and was just concerned with its own world. There are some vague parallels in there and I assume a Tolkien scholar could point out a lot more, but as far as the layman is concerned it's just a world unto itself.
It had a lot to do with England, actually. For instance, Rohan was a horse culture because he believed the Anglo-Saxons could have defeated the Normans if they had a strong cavalry. Middle-Earth itself was from the Anglo-Saxon word middel-erde which is their name for Earth. It doesn't mater what the perception is though, because my point was that he had a point beyond building background for novels. That is the only reason I brought it up. I was not implying that he wasn't building a "secondary world", as he called it.
The worldbuilding in the Silmarillion was not just a list of facts and dates. Tolkien built the world through poems and stories about events in the world. But worldbuilding is certainly what Tolkien was doing, constructing a mythology about a place and time that never existed. He wasn't just writing individual poems and stories; by setting them all in the same fictional time and place he was worldbuilding, giving a picture of the whole through its parts.
That makes my point. Of course he was worldbuilding Middle-Earth. My point was that the Silmarillion was not simply a collection of worldbuilding material for the "real" stories. They were the real stories!
I have Brandon's worldbuilding document for the Stormlight Archive, and parts of it are written as historical-sounding stories. He could have gone the route of just writing the history of Roshar and releasing it to the public. But that's not what he wanted to do, because he's a novelist.
First: You lucky.....! ;)
Second:
Brandon didn't sit in a ditch in WW1 and write tales with the goal of keeping himself sane while his friends died around him and with the hopes that he could build a mythology for his homeland that was sorely deficient of one; Tolkien did.
Brandon's best friend didn't ask that if he died Brandon would carry on with their goal of writing the kind of stories they wanted to read; Tolkien's did (and his friend died in battle that day, as did all but one of his other friends). (See the real note at bottom)
Brandon wasn't grading papers one day when the first line of Way of Kings came to him and then wrote it as a children's story for his kids not connected to his grand heroic tales of Roshar, pulling very small bits of his real storytelling in as background (not using "Roshar" once in the story btw); Tolkien did.
Brandon wasn't bugged by his publisher, while he was working on his real stories, to write a sequel to the accidental book; Tolkien did.
Brandon didn't realize as he discovery wrote that he could connect his real stories more deeply to the silly children's book (what Tolkien thought of Hobbit) by setting it firmly in Roshar, both deepening his interest in the sequel and hoping that it would give him an excuse to sell his real stories before or alongside it; Tolkien did.
Brandon Wasn't disappointed because he could only sell the sequel to his silly children's story and had to wait until he died until there was interest in publishing his "background" Roshar material of the grand sequel to his children's story (you know, his "real" work); Tolkien was and did.
Brandon has very different goals than Tolkien did. I think it is unfair to hold Tolkien to his standard and miss the point completely of what he was trying to do. Yes, you can tell people what Tolkien was doing and explain to them that he wasn't looking ahead to writing The Hobbit and LOTR and that the Silmarillion, therefore, is NOT an example for how to build a novel. That is very different from falsely portraying Tolkien as taking too long on his "backstory" instead of getting to his "goal" of writing novels. I don't think Brandon is doing this consciously (it is an unfortunately common misconception that Tolkien himself was depressed by), I just don't think he knows this.
The note ---
My chief consolation is that if I am scuppered tonight - I am off on duty in a few minutes - there will still be left a member of the great T.C.B.S. to voice what I dreamed and what we all agreed upon. For the death of one of its members cannot, I am determined, dissolve the T.C.B.S. Death can make us loathsome and helpless as individuals, but it cannot put an end to the immortal four! A discovery I am going to communicate to Rob before I go off to-night. And do you write it also to Christopher. May God bless you, my dear John Ronald, and may you say the things I have tried to say long after I am not there to say them, if such be my lot.
Yours ever,
G.B.S.
-A letter written to J.R.R. Tolkien by his friend G.B. Smith on the day of his death.
-
I'm working on a story that takes place in modern day Paris and even though it's not an otherworldly location I still have to do some world building. Just because everyone is familiar with the city doesn't mean they know what it's like to live there. It doesn't matter if I do it through poetry, dialogue, exposition or pictographs. I still need to do it.
See above for what I meant by "backstory".
I never denied that worldbuilding was necessary, believe me I know. My entire point is that the Silmarillion was not written to be background for LOTR. Its purpose was to be a collection of the stories based in Tolkien's mythologized England. It was more like an anthology. It was only because he couldn't get it published that people thought Christopher Tolkien was publishing his dads "quaint background notes" on the "real" story.
Imagine writing an epic book that you loved with a passion but nobody wanted it because it wasn't "modern" enough. You then wrote a silly short story for your kids that had tiny bits of your real book in it and that got published. Then you finally get the real book published (or you die and one of your kids publishes it) and people think it was worldbuilding for the @#$& kids book! Not only that, but they criticize you for "wasting time" on all that "worldbuilding" instead of writing more sequels to the "real book"!!! Congratulations, you now have a small taste of how Tolkien felt. :'(
-
Sigh. You're missing the point. Of course Brandon is not Tolkien. He nevertheless has a valid point about him from the point of view of a novelist.
-
Sigh. You're missing the point. Of course Brandon is not Tolkien. He nevertheless has a valid point about him from the point of view of a novelist.
Yeesh. Now you're missing the point ::) I already said that I agree that a novelist shouldn't do what Tolkien did (since they have different goals and the Silmarillion was not background for a novel) and that Brandon is right about worldbuilders disease being a problem. Once again, it is not valid if it is a misrepresentation of what Tolkien was trying to do. They have completely different goals and motivations; that was the point of comparing them; not simply that they are different people. You can't act as if Tolkien wasted time worldbuilding for a novel he never meant to write while writing the stories that he did mean to write! Its completely illogical. He did however have Eternal Rewrite Syndrome. I'm not trying to be a Tolkien apologist; I'm just trying to be make it clear as to what his motives were and dispel misconceptions.
See my last response to dhalagirl. Is it valid for the hypothetical critics to accuse her of having WBD?
Have you read everything I wrote (I'm not being a jerk; it happens)? This should have all been clear by now. Sometimes I am overly verbose and people skip half of what I write. I don't blame them. ;)
-
Sigh. You're missing the point. Of course Brandon is not Tolkien. He nevertheless has a valid point about him from the point of view of a novelist.
Yeesh. Now you're missing the point ::) I already said that I agree that a novelist shouldn't do what Tolkien did (since they have different goals and the Silmarillion was not background for a novel) and that Brandon is right about worldbuilders disease being a problem. Once again, it is not valid if it is a misrepresentation of what Tolkien was trying to do. They have completely different goals and motivations; that was the point of comparing them; not simply that they are different people. You can't act as if Tolkien wasted time worldbuilding for a novel he never meant to write while writing the stories that he did mean to write! Its completely illogical. He did however have Eternal Rewrite Syndrome. I'm not trying to be a Tolkien apologist; I'm just trying to be make it clear as to what his motives were and dispel misconceptions.
See my last response to dhalagirl. Is it valid for the hypothetical critics to accuse her of having WBD?
Have you read everything I wrote (I'm not being a jerk; it happens)? This should have all been clear by now. Sometimes I am overly verbose and people skip half of what I write. I don't blame them. ;)
Doesn't matter what Tolkien did or why he did it. All that matters is that you shouldn't imitate him or do what it looks like he did (even if it isn't) if you want to get your book published within your lifetime.
And that's Brandon's point. What Tolkien did or why he did it is irrelevant. Which is the point you are missing.
-
Exactly. (And I already said I agreed with fardawg that Tolkien's motivations were not those of a novelist.)
-
"Doesn't matter what Tolkien did or why he did it....What Tolkien did or why he did it is irrelevant. Which is the point you are missing."
Sorry, but yes it does. Context matters! I have said repeatedly that novelists shouldn't spend too much time on worldbuilding. How exactly am I missing the point? I'm really starting to think you guys aren't reading everything I am writing. I keep clarifying and then you tell me I don't get it.
Look at my last response to dhalagirl (bellow). Tell me if the hypothetical critics are right.
Imagine writing an epic book that you loved with a passion but nobody wanted it because it wasn't "modern" enough. You then wrote a silly short story for your kids that had tiny bits of your real book in it and that got published. Then you finally get the real book published (or you die and one of your kids publishes it) and people think it was worldbuilding for the @#$& kids book! Not only that, but they criticize you for "wasting time" on all that "worldbuilding" instead of writing more sequels to the "real book"!!! Congratulations, you now have a small taste of how Tolkien felt.
Then imagine people saying that it doesn't matter if the critics misrepresented you because their "narrative" was right.
-
You say novelists shouldn't spend too much time on worldbuilding. We say novelists shouldn't spend too much time on worldbuilding.
You say Tolkien had a different motivation for writing his earlier stuff. We say Tolkien had a different motivation for writing his earlier stuff.
Looks like we agree completely. End of conversation.
-
I agree with Peter, people have stated their opinions and it may be best to just leave it at that.
Don't be this guy:
http://xkcd.com/386/
;)
-
Why is it that any discussion of Tolkien sooner or later turns into a pointless heated debate? It's like talking about religion and politics during Thanksgiving dinner.
-
Its not heated from my side. That's why I use smileys ;D I've had fun myself. Though it is frustrating when you are told you don't get it when you have said over and over and over that you do.
The only thing we don't seem to agree on is that Brandon Sanderson can make mistakes. :o
I said all along that I agreed that WB can be a problem. Bottom line, I just wanted to make it clear that Brandon gave the wrong impression and that we shouldn't hold Tolkien to a false standard (I would say the same if someone did it to Brandon). I have no problem saying that Tolkien had Eternal Rewrite Syndrome (I think I'm the first to use Syndrome ???). I would say the Sanderson fans (I'm a casual fan as I know him more from WE - I haven't read much of his yet - remedying that) are the ones who don't want him to have made a mistake. ;) ;D
You are all cool in my book. 8)
If a little fanatical ;D
-
Why is it that any discussion of Tolkien sooner or later turns into a pointless heated debate? It's like talking about religion and politics during Thanksgiving dinner.
Perhaps we should coin Dhalagirl's Corrolary to Godwin's law?
-
Perhaps we should coin Dhalagirl's Corrolary to Godwin's law?
What are you, some kind of Nazi sympathizer? They thought Hitler couldn't make a mistake either?!?!? Oh, and he was a Worldbuilder too! >:( Wait... ???
-
Perhaps we should coin Dhalagirl's Corrolary to Godwin's law?
What are you, some kind of Nazi sympathizer? They thought Hitler couldn't make a mistake either?!?!? Oh, and he was a Worldbuilder too! >:( Wait... ???
Did you just compare Brandon and Hitler?
-
Of course Brandon can make mistakes. Have you heard him try to pronounce denouement?
-
Of course Brandon can make mistakes. Have you heard him try to pronounce denouement?
I've heard him try to pronounce many things. I am a fan of writing excuses you know. :P My favorite was when he was reading Dan's first novel (or is that nozzle?) and tried to pronounce scrupulously and thought it was scrumptiously. That one had me on the floor. ;D
Did you just compare Brandon and Hitler?
It's about time someone did. This topic thread is long enough, don't you think? :P
You did get the reference, right? :o
-
I think Peter summed this up succinctly when he said that if a writer emulates Tolkien for the sake of world-building, he doesn't have "world-builders' disease" as it is currently understood (and described by Brandon) as a problem for novelists.
I even hesitate to use the word "writer" in the above sentence, because when I am world-building for dungeon mastering, I don't consider myself a writer. I consider myself a world-builder, similar (but far less skilled) to Tolkien.
If a would-be novelist emulates Tolkien out of a misguided belief that he must have complete mythology, background, history, or even character history in place before putting pen to paper, he has world-builder's disease.
Tolkien may not have had the "disease" in that it was a problem for Tolkien -- I believe that is Fardawg's primary point here -- but Tolkien did have worldbuilders' disease as understood by the modern novelist -- which is Brandon's and Peter's point.
It's also worth noting, with all due respect to the man, that Tolkien's own opinion of his "true" work was not a realistic assessment of the marketplace. How true of most new authors this is. Yet it's equally true today that a novel within a customized fantasy setting is far more marketable than a rulebook for a customized fantasy setting.
I know, I know, how dare the editors and Fan Dumb define true art. Right?
-
I even hesitate to use the word "writer" in the above sentence, because when I am world-building for dungeon mastering, I don't consider myself a writer. I consider myself a world-builder, similar (but far less skilled) to Tolkien.
But Tolkien was writing stories (very traditional ones at that - hence the limited market - I think it would have given Beowulf a run for its money though ;) ), not just building a world to set stories in. While Tolkien was worldbuilding, he did it through telling the story. I think that WB "outside" of the story would be something of a foreign concept to him (though the appendices did expand on the bits he couldn't work into the main story, they weren't unnecessary to his conception of the tale). To me, that is very different than worldbuilding as it is thought of today. As a DM you are creating a mythological "space" for you and the players to create a story from; that is WB.
Tolkien may not have had the "disease" in that it was a problem for Tolkien -- I believe that is Fardawg's primary point here -- but Tolkien did have worldbuilders' disease as understood by the modern novelist -- which is Brandon's and Peter's point.
But that understanding is based on the false assumption that Tolkien was simply building a world to eventually write in. If someone spends all of their time writing the setting and history without writing the stories that they are building up to, that is WBD. That is not what Tolkien did, so it is a strawman (I can't emphasis that fallacy enough) to say he had WBD. That there is a false assumption about Tolkien is my primary point. Not just that it wasn't a problem for him. I completely agree that people shouldn't write their WB like the Silmarillion since it is false to think the Silmarillion was WB. It's as if someone reads Way of Kings and thinks it was Brandon's worldbuilding, so they use it as a template for their WB. They are acting on a false premise.
It's also worth noting, with all due respect to the man, that Tolkien's own opinion of his "true" work was not a realistic assessment of the marketplace. How true of most new authors this is. Yet it's equally true today that a novel within a customized fantasy setting is far more marketable than a rulebook for a customized fantasy setting.
I don't think he even had the "marketplace" in mind. It was sort of an afterthought. It was only after he sold the Hobbit and during LOTR that he thought people might have liked the work enough to publish it. Tolkien's writing was always very much rooted in medieval storytelling and not modern at all. He didn't like playing by the rules of modern man.
I know, I know, how dare the editors and Fan Dumb define true art. Right?
It isn't about who defines "true art", or even wanting to buy it. It's about not misrepresenting what the clearly stated intent of the author-artist was. Saying that Picasso's Guernica isn't true art, or that you don't like it, is one thing; saying that he shouldn't have wasted so much time painting and hanging up that "preliminary doodle" is quite another!
The bottom line is, Don't do what you think Tolkien did if you don't know what Tolkien was doing!
PS. I hate to be Mr. Contradictory. I don't want to come off as some kind of trolling jerk who argues for argument sake. I'm just a stickler for getting people to understand what I am saying and fixing misconceptions. I would do the same for Brandon's work.
-
By the way, I just saw something that said Tolkien had submitted a draft of the Silmarillion to his publisher when they asked for a "sequel" to the Hobbit. They apparently rejected it without reading the whole thing and asked for a direct sequel to the Hobbit. More evidence that Tolkien saw the Silmarillion as a possible publishable follow up and not just world building.
-
I think Peter summed this up succinctly when he said that if a writer emulates Tolkien for the sake of world-building, he doesn't have "world-builders' disease" as it is currently understood (and described by Brandon) as a problem for novelists.
I even hesitate to use the word "writer" in the above sentence, because when I am world-building for dungeon mastering, I don't consider myself a writer. I consider myself a world-builder, similar (but far less skilled) to Tolkien.
If a would-be novelist emulates Tolkien out of a misguided belief that he must have complete mythology, background, history, or even character history in place before putting pen to paper, he has world-builder's disease.
Tolkien may not have had the "disease" in that it was a problem for Tolkien -- I believe that is Fardawg's primary point here -- but Tolkien did have worldbuilders' disease as understood by the modern novelist -- which is Brandon's and Peter's point.
It's also worth noting, with all due respect to the man, that Tolkien's own opinion of his "true" work was not a realistic assessment of the marketplace. How true of most new authors this is. Yet it's equally true today that a novel within a customized fantasy setting is far more marketable than a rulebook for a customized fantasy setting.
I know, I know, how dare the editors and Fan Dumb define true art. Right?
I agree with these points, Jason.
I've also read fardawg's answer to these points, and I can't help but saying that, having read the Silmarion, it doesn't read like a story. Oh, the early bits (the creation, the music, etc.) and some of the rare interludes, personal tragedies and occasional victories, are interesting, but beyond those, it reads like a history textbook. A dull, boring, and painfully detailed history textbook. If Tolkien was writing it as a story (or, if you prefer, mythology), then apparently his idea of "Writing a Modern Mythology" is identical in form to "Doing a Lot of Worldbuilding with a Couple of Interesting Stories placed here and there inside of it," even if that wasn't the intended purpose.
Don't you see? The distinction between worldbuilding and storytelling is paper thin from an explicitly functional point of view. It's all about intent. Essentially, Worldbuilding is a form of storytelling---it's in-world documentation, in-world mythologies, background material, language information, all the rest. If you sit down and write a history of some fantasy world, you have both written a story (the Mythology, which is often an actual story or history in-world) and done Worldbuilding.
In modern fiction, the term Worldbuilding in practice is the part of the story that doesn't end up verbatim in the published novel, but informs it heavily and maintains it's consistency in the background, usually because it doesn't make an engaging story in its own right. In this sense, Tolkein wasn't Worldbuilding because he intended his history to be a worthy story in its own right. On the other hand, in practice, his history ended up being Worldbuilding to The Lord of the Rings, which was much the better for having the enormous history behind it.
Thus we can have a self-consistent answer. Did Tolkein think he was Worldbuilding? No, he thought he was writing a comprehensive history of a fictional world which he really liked, for it's own sake. In practice, was he Worldbuilding? Yes; Worldbuilding and Storytelling are closely related disciplines and look similar from the outside; their main difference in modern practice really is whether the resulting work is publishable or not. Did it improve the works that actually sold? Emphatically yes; the sense of history behind The Lord of the Rings is one of the things that really impressed me about it. Do authors sometimes think they need to imitate Tolkein and his (inadvertent) Worldbuilding, and thus catch Worldbuilder's disease? Yes. Did Tolkein have Worldbuilders disease? I'd have to say so. The fact that he was doing it for his own amusement or thought it might be publishable have no bearing on the fact that he kept on trying to refine the Story that represented his worldbuilding.
-
I agree with happyman. And I reject this statement: "But that understanding is based on the false assumption that Tolkien was simply building a world to eventually write in." Not at all. He was building a world, but not a world to eventually write in. You can understand that and still reach an opinion from a novelist's point of view. It's not a straw man.
History has proven that Tolkien was, frankly, misguided. He wanted to build a mythology for England. Instead, he only built a mythology for himself and for Tolkien enthusiasts (and by Tolkien enthusiasts I mean "people who were introduced to Middle Earth through the novels and wanted to learn more"; basically there is no other kind). His goal was unattained. However, his novels changed an industry forever.
If you want to build a mythology for a modern-day country, don't, because it's a waste of time, or at least don't follow Tolkien's example, because he was a failure at his goal. But if you want to use Tolkien as an example to follow for a worldbuilding process to amuse yourself, then he is quite a successful model to follow.
-
I reject this statement: "But that understanding is based on the false assumption that Tolkien was simply building a world to eventually write in." Not at all. He was building a world, but not a world to eventually write in. You can understand that and still reach an opinion from a novelist's point of view. It's not a straw man.
But if you say "Tolkien did have worldbuilders' disease as understood by the modern novelist" then those novelists have to be giving a straw man because TOLKIEN WASN'T WRITING A WORLDBUILDING DOCUMENT! I really don't know how else to put it. The "modern novelist" uses worldbuilding as a historical framework to hang his stories on. The worldbuilding document is not meant to be a story/stories that stand on their own. By definition they are created to support the novel. Tolkien didn't write the tales collected in the Silmarillion to hang the "real" novel on. You cannot accuse Tolkien of spending too much time on WB when he didn't! You have to change the accusation into some nebulous nonsense that in unconnected to the original statement in order to keep it going; hence they build a straw man (not you personally; just those still saying he was simply WB).
History has proven that Tolkien was, frankly, misguided. He wanted to build a mythology for England. Instead, he only built a mythology for himself and for Tolkien enthusiasts (and by Tolkien enthusiasts I mean "people who were introduced to Middle Earth through the novels and wanted to learn more"; basically there is no other kind). His goal was unattained.
His goal grew beyond the original intent (though he still accomplished it since Middle-Earth is very English). That is not failure. The Silmarillion was a number one best seller and continues to sell in multiple editions to this day. How many of yours have? ;)
If you want to build a mythology for a modern-day country, don't, because it's a waste of time, or at least don't follow Tolkien's example, because he was a failure at his goal. But if you want to use Tolkien as an example to follow for a worldbuilding process to amuse yourself, then he is quite a successful model to follow.
Umm... I think you are taking the "mythology for England" a little too literally. He didn't intend it to become a literal mythology that would end up in text books. He was disappointed that what little there was was borrowed from other nations so he decided to write fairy tales and epic poems set in a fantasy England that sounded like the mythology and fairy stories he liked to read. He succeeded in that goal though it became deeper than that.
Seriously, that whole "failure" and "waste of time" thing was a bit harsh, man. You're reaching a bit. It seems like your just trying to be mean now.
-
TOLKIEN WASN'T WRITING A WORLDBUILDING DOCUMENT!
Yet to the modern novelist or storyteller, the Simarillon exists as nothing but a world-building document. It hardly matters whether that was Tolkien's intent.
The inventor of the Post-It note intended to invent a strong superglue. What they invented was a weak glue which was quite poor at its original intent, but a genius way of holding up tiny temporary notes.
You're saying Tolkien wasn't world-building, but as a readable story, the Simarillon...well...fails. Even die-hard fans acknowledge this. Tolkien did not succeed in building a readable story. He succeeded in laying the groundwork for other stories. No, that wasn't his intent. If he was trying to build a standalone "story" with the Simarillon, he has failed to hold my attention after over a dozen attempts...because it doesn't read like a story.
It reads like a world-building document.
The Silmarillion was a number one best seller and continues to sell in multiple editions to this day. How many of yours have? ;)
Nobody here is discrediting Tolkien's success, imagination, genre-defining, intelligence, or trying to diminish Tolkien as a contributor to the genre. But this response is akin to if I told my wife I didn't like a movie (or disagreed with its premise, or disagreed with what its fans state is its premise) and she said, "Oh yeah? How many movies did you make? How many of them won awards?"
Well, none. Does that invalidate my opinion?
History has proven that Tolkien was, frankly, misguided. He wanted to build a mythology for England. Instead, he only built a mythology for himself and for Tolkien enthusiasts (and by Tolkien enthusiasts I mean "people who were introduced to Middle Earth through the novels and wanted to learn more"; basically there is no other kind). His goal was unattained.
Umm... I think you are taking the "mythology for England" a little too literally.
I don't claim to know what Tolkien was trying to do, but I know what he actually accomplished:
He built a world. He wrote in-universe articles, songs, poems, histories, genealogies.
And how many people are interested in reading the aforementioned?
Only die-hard Tolkien fans. Nobody hands the Simarillon to someone and says:
"It's a page-turner."
"Had me guessing all the way."
"Changed the way I think about x."
Unless -- and this is the most telling thing about this discussion -- unless "x" = world-building.
-
Fardawg,
I would appreciate it if you would respond to my last post. I feel like I addressed your concerns more directly than Peter did (which is why Peter cited me in his post rather than rewriting my answer). It is thus disconcerting to to see you respond to Peter's post without considering the context, which is in terms of the points I made.
-
Sorry happyman, I meant to respond to you before I saw Peter's post and thought I had included responses to you.
I can't help but saying that, having read the Silmarion, it doesn't read like a story. Oh, the early bits (the creation, the music, etc.) and some of the rare interludes, personal tragedies and occasional victories, are interesting, but beyond those, it reads like a history textbook. A dull, boring, and painfully detailed history textbook. If Tolkien was writing it as a story (or, if you prefer, mythology), then apparently his idea of "Writing a Modern Mythology" is identical in form to "Doing a Lot of Worldbuilding with a Couple of Interesting Stories placed here and there inside of it," even if that wasn't the intended purpose.
It is not one story, but a series of stories connected by the history of the Silmarills. Those do read like stories if you read medieval fiction. That is what Tolkien was imitating. He wasn't writing a "modern" mythology; he was writing a feigned ancient mythology. It doesn't mater if you liked it or not. My entire point is that peoples perceptions are wrong and that arguments like Brandon's are based in that wrong assumption. I care about Truth, not some post-modern relativism where the intention of the author is completely ignored. If there is no Truth, there can be no real, logical discussions any more, and we are all just grasping at the wind.
Don't you see? The distinction between worldbuilding and storytelling is paper thin from an explicitly functional point of view. It's all about intent. Essentially, Worldbuilding is a form of storytelling---it's in-world documentation, in-world mythologies, background material, language information, all the rest. If you sit down and write a history of some fantasy world, you have both written a story (the Mythology, which is often an actual story or history in-world) and done Worldbuilding.
You say it is "all about intent" yet before that you also seem to say his "intended purpose" in writing the Sil. doesn't matter because it is "identical in form" to worldbuilding. It is subjective as to what you think WB looks like. WB is the behind the scenes work that isn't meant to be the story itself; the Sil. was intended to be the stories themselves.
In modern fiction, the term Worldbuilding in practice is the part of the story that doesn't end up verbatim in the published novel, but informs it heavily and maintains it's consistency in the background, usually because it doesn't make an engaging story in its own right. In this sense, Tolkein wasn't Worldbuilding because he intended his history to be a worthy story in its own right. On the other hand, in practice, his history ended up being Worldbuilding to The Lord of the Rings, which was much the better for having the enormous history behind it.
I have said all along that it became worldbuilding. My point throughout this discussion has been that Brandon Sanderson (and others) have the false impression that "Grandpa" Tolkien wasted his time WB instead of writing real stories (and they are apparently also unaware that he wrote many more stories that aren't as well know such as Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major). If we wish to be objective (I seem to be arguing with subjectivists), it does not matter what it became (since we all agree that it did morph into WB after the fact) when the point that was being made by Brandon was that the Silmarillion started as WB. I am dumbfounded as to how people can continue to say Brandon and others are correct in accusing Tolkien of spending too much time on WB when the FACT that it was not intended as WB completely invalidates that particular criticism!
If the criticism is changed to "people shouldn't imitate the style of the Sil. if they want to publish" or "don't imitate Tolkien's Sil. in your WB BECAUSE it wasn't intended as WB to begin with", then we can all agree. But as long as people try to defend Brandon's specific criticism, I will continue to state the facts when people try to defend it.
Worldbuilding and Storytelling are closely related disciplines and look similar from the outside; their main difference in modern practice really is whether the resulting work is publishable or not.
Their main difference is what the author meant to do when he put pen to paper. Please answer this question as no one seems to want to respond to any variation I have given: If the Way of Kings didn't sell, but Brandon then used it as backstory to write a more "acceptable" novel, could I accuse him of wasting time in writing WOK when it was finally published and I mistook it for a WB document? Would you be right in correcting me and saying that he meant to publish WOK as a novel so the accusation is invalid? Would I be right to then say that Brandon's intent doesn't matter since it became a WB document?
Did it improve the works that actually sold? Emphatically yes; the sense of history behind The Lord of the Rings is one of the things that really impressed me about it.
Tolkien knew this was true and was even hesitant at one point to try and publish the Sil. because it might take away the "magic". That doesn't negate the fact that it was not a WB document in its construction and that the accusation of Brandon's (as it was stated) remains invalid.
Did Tolkein have Worldbuilders disease? I'd have to say so. The fact that he was doing it for his own amusement or thought it might be publishable have no bearing on the fact that he kept on trying to refine the Story that represented his worldbuilding.
He only worked on it as long as he did because they wouldn't publish it. That is perfectionism and Eternal Rewriting Syndrome, not WBD. WBD is when people continually tinker with their WB document (knowing that it is a WB document and not the real book) because they feel they don't have enough background for the story or they get so wrapped up in how cool it is that they never get around to writing the book it was intended to support (I think that is the main part of WBD that people aren't understanding: it has to detract from the intended novel to be WBD). Those with WBD don't write the stories they intend to write because they spend all their time on the WB document; Tolkien wrote the stories he wanted to tell, including those in the Silmarillion.
Again, Tolkien was an Eternal Rewriter because he worked on multiple drafts of his stories until he felt it was perfect. That is a completely different disorder from WBD as defined by Brandon himself!
-
Jason
this response is akin to if I told my wife I didn't like a movie (or disagreed with its premise, or disagreed with what its fans state is its premise) and she said, "Oh yeah? How many movies did you make? How many of them won awards?"
Well, none. Does that invalidate my opinion?
That response was in relation to the accusation (made by Peter, I believe, not you) that Tolkien was a failure with the Silmarillion because it wasn't publishable etc. The analogy should be more like someone accusing a movie maker of being a failure because no one liked or wanted to see his previously unreleased movie but his rabid fans; and the other person then points out that the movie was a box office hit when it was finally released, then, jokingly, asks them how many award winning movies they made. It wasn't meant to be all that serious.
Again, I really hope I am not coming off as a trolling jerk. It is really hard to write a reply without it looking like I am trying to pick a fight.
-
fardawg, you seem to be getting far too angry for this conversation to continue. Take some deep breaths.
You are using a different definition of worldbuilding than me. You're assuming that when I say worldbuilding I mean writing a background document for a novel. But I have said multiple times that that is not what I mean. Token certainly did intend the Silmarillion to be worldbuilding. Not the kind that serves as a backstory, but the kind that builds a world (his "mythology for England"). Therefore the argument is not "completely invalidate[d]."
The Silmarillion is not successful in its own right. There may be a dozen people in the world who picked it up and liked it without having read the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings first. It is successful only when viewed as a companion piece to the novels. It is only due to the overwhelming popularity of the novels that the Silmarillion reached bestseller status.
You say: "it has to detract from the intended novel to be WBD." I disagree. Maybe I should call it worldbuilder's syndrome or "different ability" instead of disease (but I won't). The upshot is that you build a world for years instead of writing a novel, whether or not you intended to write a novel in the first place. However, you win the point about Tolkien being an eternal rewriter rather than an outliner.
You say that you have said all along that Tolkien's mythology project only later became worldbuilding (when thought of as backstory for the novels). We do not claim (and Brandon does not claim) that Tolkien intended it as backstory from the beginning. This seems to be the gross misrepresentation you seek to redress in this thread: that Tolkien spent too much time writing something he knew was only backstory. But none of us ever said that. Brandon did not say that. Worldbuilding is not the same thing as backstory, though to a novelist it is usually used as backstory--at its heart it is just building a world. Tolkien did spend too much time worldbuilding, but it was worldbuilding for its own sake. Which we have already said is fine. It is "too much time" only in the respect that if he had written novels instead, those could have been more lastingly popular and touched people's lives, doing things that the mythology itself could never do. But those novels would have just as much failed Tolkien's goal, which was to build a mythology. He succeeded in his goal where he himself was concerned, but failed in his goal where it concerns the population at large. His myths are not told around the fireside late at night by grandfathers to their grandchildren. They have no life outside the Tolkien-novel fan community. It is within a subset of the Tolkien-novel fan community where he succeeded in this goal. Indeed, I say that his novels made his worldbuilding a success. Without his novels, his worldbuilding would have been a failure everywhere beyond his circle of family and friends. Yet because of his novels, his worldbuilding reached an audience it would never have reached. And a portion of that audience does appreciate it in its own right (though not without the context of already having read the novels). Tolkien should appreciate having been given the opportunity for his magnum opus to reach those people. If he wants to ignore the (larger?) amount of people who say he should have written more novels instead, he is free to do so.
If the Way of Kings were perceived as a worldbuilding document the way people perceive the Silmarillion as such, then it would probably be justified. In fact, there are people who hate the Way of Kings who loved everything else that Brandon wrote. Brandon knew going in that this was going to be the case for some readers. No book that an author writes is going to appeal to everyone. There are some readers to whom the Way of Kings is simply too epic in scope and pacing. They want something like the first Mistborn book instead. Some of those people ask where the plot is in the Way of Kings, because there is no clearly defined goal from the beginning the way there was in Mistborn. They don't like how the plot comes together only in the end of the book, and accuse it of being backstory. From the point of view of those people, their criticism is valid. They want a different kind of book than Brandon wanted to write. And that is perfectly OK, and Brandon has said that is perfectly OK. But so far the market has not shown Brandon's strategy to be wrong: Way of Kings sold twice as much in hardcover as Warbreaker did. (Mistborn became popular in paperback.) The market did not show Tolkien's strategy to have wide appeal: the Silmarillion did not similarly outsell the Lord of the Rings. But because Brandon knows different books appeal to different readers, he continues writing different sorts of books. The new Mistborn novel is an example of this.
Brandon is also creating his own mythology, the mythology of the Cosmere, with Hoid and Adonalsium. Yet from the start he does not expect this to have a life outside the novels or to become popular beyond a small subset of Sanderson readers. He is taking a much more realistic and pragmatic view of the whole matter than Tolkien took.
-
fardawg, you seem to be getting far too angry for this conversation to continue. Take some deep breaths.
HAHAH! ;D Wow. Maybe you missed the times I repeated that I am taking this lightly and trying to make it clear I am not angry in the least. Nice try at projection though.
You are using a different definition of worldbuilding than me.
I am using the one that Brandon used.
You're assuming that when I say worldbuilding I mean writing a background document for a novel. But I have said multiple times that that is not what I mean.
Then you are not following Brandon's definition which is the one that I have been addressing. In which case there is no point to the conversation since I talking about something he has said multiple times and you are redefining it. Aren't you his assistant?
Token certainly did intend the Silmarillion to be worldbuilding. Not the kind that serves as a backstory, but the kind that builds a world (his "mythology for England"). Therefore the argument is not "completely invalidated."
It is when you are not arguing using the definition in question. Is WOK WB in your definition then? Isn't it building a world while telling stories within it?
You say: "it has to detract from the intended novel to be WBD." I disagree.
Again, I am using the definition as defined by Brandon. Disagree with him.
The upshot is that you build a world for years instead of writing a novel, whether or not you intended to write a novel in the first place.
He didn't "build a world for years instead of writing a novel". He was telling the stories that he hoped might sell some day, including the Silmarillion stories, the Hobbit, LOTR and the other stories I mentioned. He was also a professor and lecturer. It isn't as if the man sat on his butt all day tweaking the Sil.
It's like saying a poet wasted time trying to write poetry he hoped would sell some day instead of spending more of that time writing a pulp novel based in the world of his poems that eventually did. It doesn't matter what the public liked more. The poems weren't WB. And Tolkien didn't waste all of his time writing the Sil. He wrote the Hobbit and LOTR when he had those in his head.
We do not claim (and Brandon does not claim) that Tolkien intended it as backstory from the beginning.
Then he shouldn't have said that he wasted time WB instead of writing the "real" books. If he knows Tolkien intended to sell those stories numerous times, including when they asked for a sequel to the Hobbit, he should have made it clear that he was using a different definition for WB than what he used during the same discussions.
If the Way of Kings were perceived as a worldbuilding document the way people perceive the Silmarillion as such, then it would probably be justified.
So the perception of the ignorant and "the market" dictate reality no mater what the truth is? That's good to know :o
Brandon is also creating his own mythology, the mythology of the Cosmere, with Hoid and Adonalsium. Yet from the start he does not expect this to have a life outside the novels or to become popular beyond a small subset of Sanderson readers. He is taking a much more realistic and pragmatic view of the whole matter than Tolkien took.
Good for him. I am glad the books are doing well as I am a fan. That doesn't change the fact that Tolkien didn't waste his time WB (using the definition that Sanderson has given).
Just because the stories he told in the Sil. weren't modern enough for the market, doesn't mean that they should be delegated to WB after the fact. Tolkien's intent (however unrealistic his goals may seem to any of us) is very much important in determining whether he was WB or trying to tell the stories that were in his head when he was in the trenches of WWI.
Saying that he wasted his time with stories no one would want to read at the time is very different than saying he wasted his time building the world of his "real" stories. One is an fairly accurate (though sad) assessment of the different type of world that Tolkien was clinging to and the facts of the publishing industry; the other is redefining what Tolkien was actually trying to do after the fact based on the "value" that you and others place on those tales. Do you consider poets to be wasting their time writing poetry rather than writing a novel based in the world of their poems? Just because the poems don't sell doesn't mean they are a waste of time.
-
Please give Peter a little more respect. Not only is he a valuable member on this forum, he is a moderator, and Brandon Sanderson's assistant.
I believe that what Peter (and Brandon originally) is saying is that from a writer's point of view if you are wanting to publish a book, don't write the Similarion.
They aren't saying that Tolkein was trying to publish it, or even that he was ever planning on publish it. They're saying that worldbuilding, pure worldbuilding (as in building a world with histories, dates and times) doesn't sell very well unless it has a compelling story behind it. Which Tolkein did with LoTR and the Hobbit.
EDIT- little grammar stuff.
-
fardawg, you are often bolding your text and using a lot of exclamation points. This indicates extreme emotional investment if not anger. If you don't want to come off that way, stop doing it.
I will now read the rest of your post.
-
--He didn't "build a world for years instead of writing a novel"
Different usage of "instead." I can rephrase to: build a world for years and not write a novel. Which is what happened. Of course his day job was as a university professor. No one has a day job worldbuilding.
Maybe Brandon gave that definition of worldbuilding. Do you have exact quotes? Or can you refer me to the episode number so I can look at the transcript?
Maybe I've been using a different definition. But I can assure you that in a face-to-face conversation, or if Brandon were posting in this thread, he would agree with me on the important points. The podcast is off-the-cuff and the language can fail to be precise at times.
Ultimately it still seems to me, from what you are saying, that we are agreed on pretty much every point about Tolkien's intentions and results. The only disputes left are what Brandon said and meant.
-
Please give Peter a little more respect. Not only is he a valuable member on this forum, he is a moderator, and Brandon Sanderson's assistant.
I believe that what Peter (and Brandon originally) is saying is that from a writer's point of view if you are wanting to publish a book, don't write the Similarion.
They aren't saying that Tolkein was trying to publish it, or even that he was ever planning on publish it. They're saying that worldbuilding, pure worldbuilding (as in building a world with histories, dates and times) doesn't sell very well unless it has a compelling story behind it. Which Tolkein did with LoTR and the Hobbit.
EDIT- little grammar stuff.
I was not trying to be disrespectful. Can you point out where I did this?
I know who he is. I said that before.
I know what he is saying and I have said multiple times that I agree that a writer wanting to publish shouldn't write like the Silmarillion. Please read what I have said before. I don't think you have read enough of this conversation.
----------------
Peter
fardawg, you are often bolding your text and using a lot of exclamation points. This indicates extreme emotional investment if not anger. If you don't want to come off that way, stop doing it.
I will now read the rest of your post.
Sorry that you think that. I bold to emphasize points that I think are key (you should be able to get that from the context of what is bolded) because people seem to drift over them (and keep ignoring them). It is easy to drift over key points in long posts so I try to make them clearly stick out. I think I get the bold thing from comics. In comic books bolding generally is used to emphasis words, not make an angry voice. It wouldn't even make sense to use "angry voice" with most of the words I bolded.
The bottom line is, Don't do what you think Tolkien did if you don't know what Tolkien was doing!
See, in that I was emphasizing the dictum (I think that's the right word) that I was coining. I saw that as something we could agree on. I don't even know how that could be seen as angry.
Look at zas678's post. Was he yelling with the bolding he did? I didn't see it that way. He was emphasizing. I use exclamation points (something I hate using in fiction) to also emphasis that this is a highly important statement where in an actual conversation I would emphasis this with my voice. EM's can be used for more then anger (like surprise or joy). That last one where I had all caps, bold, and an exclamation mark was done in a way that was supposed to convey that I had no other way of emphasizing the point so people could get it. To me, it was clear that it was a different tone than the rest of the post.
If you notice, I also use smiles and have pointed out many times that I am not angry (I'm actually getting a little annoyed that these are being ignored). To tell me I am too angry just after I pointed out I wasn't is a bit odd. It is an unfortunate aspect of internet writing that people can take your statements out of context ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D See, Happy! ;) I'll cut out the bold and exclamations if they make it weird for you-- though you might want to disable them if you don't like them. Use your admin powers, Peter. Let go your conscious self an...Oops, wrong forum.
In your remarks about Tolkien being a failure etc., it was pretty clear you were getting a little heated. I have no intention of going there, or being led there. All I want is a friendly, logical conversation that uses clearly stated definitions. This whole my definition vs your definition gets us nowhere.
Peace (I seriously almost used an exclamation mark at the end of this - old habits...).
And I do respect you, BTW. As a human being at least ;)
-
If you see this first, I had another post before this. Please read it first.
--He didn't "build a world for years instead of writing a novel"
Different usage of "instead." I can rephrase to: build a world for years and not write a novel. Which is what happened. Of course his day job was as a university professor. No one has a day job worldbuilding.
But he did write a novel when he had the idea. When he wrote "in a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit" on a students paper, he began working on the Hobbit. He wrote what he wanted, when it occurred to him. It was the same with LOTR; when he finally got the spark he needed he began writing it (he had many false starts before that which contributed to the long writing time). He also wrote many other stories that are lesser known. That is another misconception, that he only wrote the Hobbit and LOTR. He wrote several shorts and novellas. He also did a lot of translations of Old English poems like Beowulf. The Sil. wasn't really distracting from his writing.
Maybe Brandon gave that definition of worldbuilding. Do you have exact quotes? Or can you refer me to the episode number so I can look at the transcript?
You can start with his first writing lecture at Jordancon. He also mentions Tolkien there. Most of the worldbuilding podcasts should have his definition (at least implicitly). I'll see if I can did up an specific one.
Maybe I've been using a different definition. But I can assure you that in a face-to-face conversation, or if Brandon were posting in this thread, he would agree with me on the important points. The podcast is off-the-cuff and the language can fail to be precise at times.
He really hasn't given that impression in anything I have heard. It really wouldn't fit with what he has said.
Ultimately it still seems to me, from what you are saying, that we are agreed on pretty much every point about Tolkien's intentions and results. The only disputes left are what Brandon said and meant.
Which is what I have been critiquing from the beginning. I can only critique what has been said, not what has been thought. Bringing up personal definitions muddy the water and make things very confusing. This is the reason for the bolding etc (not yelling. THIS WOULD BE YELLING TO ME!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRR, I'M A MONSTER!!! :D). I keep trying to emphasis these points so people will pick up on them. Its like getting replied to by automatic response robots with one programed response.
--------------------------
EDIT --- New Stuff
In the 4th video of the 2009 Jordancon writing seminar – After confusing Tolikien for an outliner who spent 18 years outlining before writing, he said “at some point you have to stop worldbuilding and start writing”. So WB here is clearly the stuff you write before you start writing the novel that is not the story itself. The Sil. stories were the primary storytelling and not preliminary pre-story writing to build the real novel upon (as we have agreed).
In season 3 ep 1 – Worldbuilding History – Brandon and the guys talk about WBD in terms of writing too much non-essential history that is then info-dumped into the book because you think it is cool. Tolkien hinted at a much deeper history without going overboard and info-dumping. As said before, the Sil. (understanding that it might not be what Brandon was referring to here, though I do think he sees the Sil as the WB of LOTR) was not non-essential background stuff, but a series of connected tales that were Tolkien's main intended stories. He also mentions (in a good light) the feel of a "weight of history" because Tolkien spent time WB. A lot of the history, though -- the stuff referring back to the Sil. -- was already written many years before and were just worked into the LOTR.
It seems very clear that WBD, according to Brandon, is when you get so caught up in writing the background info (as I defined it before) underlying the world that you spend all of your time writing that rather than writing the novel you intended to use it for. Again, this is not what Tolkien was doing with the Silmarillion. He intended those stories to be read and enjoyed on their own Merritt and didn't conceive of the other tales till much latter. He didn't sit down to write the Hobbit and LOTR and then got side tracked with the history of them in the Sil. tales.
Brandon says regarding Tolkien that “for every chapter you got, there was...ten fold that never ended up in the book”. He also said that he spent 20 years WB and then wrote his books. This isn't true. He took 12 years to write and revise it and it took that long because: he was discovery writing and had no idea what the story would be; he had to stop along the way (he had to put it aside for a whole year at one point) to make money as a full-time professor and an examiner ("I have spent nearly all the vacation-times of seventeen years examining ... Writing stories in prose or verse has been stolen, often guiltily, from time already mortgaged..."); and it took about a year to revise the earlier parts of the book once it was virtually done in order to make them match, likely due to his perfectionism and the other points made. It wasn't because he was WB stuff that wouldn't appear in the books. The appendices did contain a lot of material that couldn't fit in the book, but they were important to the conception of the story and helped to fill it out (such as the history of Aragorn and Arwen) and to make it logical and internally consistent (something Tolkien was very good at doing -- even after the fact as with the Hobbit revisions).
I know Brandon mentioned the Sil. in the context of WB and wasting time. I will try to find that too.
Here are some interesting quotes from Tolkien
“I met a lot of things along the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had not more idea of who he was than had Frodo.”
“I don't much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature -- Elrond, Gondolin, and Esgaroth have escaped out of it -- and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”
-
Your smilies make you seem like a rude know-it-all jerk, not like a nice person trying to have a conversation. As do phrases like "sorry that you think that." That points the finger at the other person. The neutral way to say the same thing is "I did not mean to give that impression." And when you bold tons of things to give emphasis so people don't skip points you're saying we're too stupid to follow the conversation. Your entire spirit from the post title itself has not been one of conciliation but of attack. You refuse to acknowledge any points we make but keep insisting we are wrong even when we agree with you.
That said, it sounds like you have a point about Brandon's statements regarding Tolkien. So thank you for the information. What the rest of us have said is what he should have said, and I'll try to mention it to him sometime.
There is no good way this conversation will continue, so I am closing the thread. You can consider this your victory.
-
fardawg attempted to excuse his behavior in private messages, and I told him if he continued he would face a ban. He then made the following post under an assumed name:
http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=8235.msg178013#msg178013
He is now banned for one week. And I suggest the ban be made permanent unless he apologizes to everyone in this thread. But I am open to other options. If you have participated, please make your opinion known in the linked thread. Thanks.