“’If a thing smells like shit, and is the colour of shit, the chances are it is shit.’”
In “The First Law Trilogy (#1-3)” by Joe Abercrombie
“’No one likes to shake hands with the man who empties the latrine pits either, but pits have to be emptied all the same. Otherwise the world fills up with shit.’”
In “The First Law Trilogy (#1-3)” by Joe Abercrombie
“A soldier was dragged past with an arrow in his eye. ‘Is it bad?’ he was wailing, ‘is it bad?’”
In “The First Law Trilogy (#1-3)” by Joe Abercrombie
“Every man had his own special language of agony. Some screamed and howled without end. Some cried out for help, for mercy, for water, for their mothers. Some coughed and gurgled and spat blood. Some wheezed and rattled out their last breaths.”
In “The First Law Trilogy (#1-3)” by Joe Abercrombie
World building has always been the last refuge of the untalented when it comes to fantasy writing. If more time was spent on plot and characters, and less of GDP and child mortality rates of these 'fantasy worlds,' we'd all be a lot better off. If you compare how many pages are in the Illiad, or in Fritz Lieber's works, or in Joe Abercrombie's, say, and compare it to the doorstops of Martin and Jordan, then it's crystal clear that 'world building' can often be an unnecessary device. Abercrombie, as an example, created better characters in 4 pages of writing, than most authors did with 4 novels. More is not necessary better. World building is always problematic for me, because IMO, it robs the reader of imagination, of the ability and experience of filing in the gaps yourself, and becoming immersed in the world, which is a joy to me as a reader. Let's take the Shire from LotR as an example. Everybody's Shire is different, because every reader, every person, is unique, and has their own unique take on the Shire. Sure, the rolling green hills are there for everybody, but everybody's rolling green hills will be different. Bilbo's front do, or at Bag End will be its own unique and subtle shade of green for everybody. But if the author gives us every nut and bolt, fills in every blank, and gives us reams of economic data on a world or a person, then the imagination, the wonder, is lost. As a kid, I used to wonder at how strange and wonderful Numenor was in this particular world, but then Tolkien and his son gave us notebooks worth of backstory, filing in every gap, and Numenor lost its sparkle and wonder...
That's just the difference between good world building and bad world building. The suggestive unexplained detail hinting at wonders yet unrevealed (Abercrombie’s and Tolkien’s without the Notes) versus exhaustive and exhausting detail (like Jordan and Martin). Most of time it’s clearly just a question of balance. But if you read fantasy (of the imagined world’s variety) you need to believe this is a real place rather than just a hastily knocked together wonderland, even if you don't need reams of econometric data. Actually this why I generally don't read much fantasy anymore, except for a few authors here and there like Abercrombie. Nothing gets me frothing at the mouth more quickly than "You are the Chosen One, who must use the Staff of Wonders to defeat the Dark Duke!!" None of that in Abercrombie's SF. You get Sand dan Glokta instead, which is much, much better...
Nb: The Blade Itself (5), Before They Are Hanged (4) and Last Argument of Kings (5)
