Friday at 11:30AM in Hyatt Embassy EF, Darin M. Bush, James J. Butcher, Keith R.A. DeCandido, Seressia Glass, AJ Hartley, and Trisha J. Wooldridge participated in a panel on worldbuilding, “Where in the World Are We Anyway?” Wooldridge, the moderator, opened the panel by asking the panelists to describe their approaches to worldbuilding.
DeCandido pointed out that setting defines fantasy and science fiction and is, by definition, not reality. One factor he always considers is how people make their money. He cited the TV show Supernatural for having two guys who had no visible means of economic support driving around the country in a gas-guzzling car. He likes to be sure his characters can support themselves.
Butcher described his worldbuilding as opportunistic, explaining that his urban fantasies are set in a world the reader knows, so when he starts describing something, the reader knows this will be different. He believes in showing the tip of the world and implying there’s more beneath, like an iceberg. In contrast with urban fantasy, he sees fantasy as requiring more methodical worldbuilding. Glass, whose urban fantasy world is set in Atlanta, her hometown, takes interesting bits like the Little Five Points neighborhood and gives them a paranormal twist. Hartley also anchors his work in reality. He uses science fiction and fantasy elements to distort the familiar aspects of his world.
Bush added that he likes a world that’s completely different to feel comfortable for readers and livable for characters. He likes to take a familiar world and change just one thing. For example, he once wrote a story in which a Lovecraft Great Old One appeared suddenly appeared and seemed to just stand in place—because time moves more slowly for them. Wooldridge writes her fantasy novels “from the ground up,” starting with the geology, climate, and ecology and moving into religions and biomes. She tries to keep her world close to Earth so readers can understand the differences.
The panel then discussed ways to make strange worlds relatable to readers. They did not recommend giving everything a strange, new noun because readers then don’t understand what’s happening and can’t fall into the world. Having a point of view character who understands the world and explains only what needs explaining is one strategy for making the world accessible. So is the Glass strategy of taking the familiar and adding something extra to it.
In many stories, the primary characters are human, offering the reader an anchor among sometimes-bizarre aliens. One pitfall writers should avoid is over-creating, generating more that’s new and different than the story needs. If people are recognizable and engaging, the rest flows from that.
The authors then discussed the need for what Wooldridge called due diligence with the non-magical aspects of the world. She cited her research into plants, animals, survival, first aid, and indigenous cultures for a jungle world she created. DeCandido recommended talking to people who do the characters’ jobs because those people supply details a web search likely won’t. Butcher emphasized focusing on what’s essential to the story and avoiding tangents as well as writing confidently, so readers find the writing believable.
Hartley pointed out that a web search doesn’t offer details like how a place smells and how it feels. He recommends visiting a real-world location because “we don’t know what we don’t know.” Acknowledging that visiting an imaginary place isn’t possible, he added that details matter less as a story comes closer to being pure escapism. The panelists agreed that the sense of a place matters. All the details can be right, but the story may not feel right to someone who knows the area.
Writers sometimes have the opposite problem, a reader telling them something is wrong when they know it’s absolutely right.
The discussion then shifted to writing cultures other than one’s own. The panel agreed that sensitivity readers are an important resource. Emphasizing the point, Bush described writing a story with Bollywood themes. He did extensive research on the culture and did his best to treat it respectfully. A sensitivity reader from India agreed that it was respectful but pointed out that Bush had included two different cultures, which don’t like each other, in one sentence. He had also used a dance that was Indian but not part of Bollywood.
Acknowledging that finding sensitivity readers can be a challenge, the panelists suggested asking friends if they knew anyone, even seeking out friends of friends, following people from the relevant groups on “the app that used to be Twitter,” as Glass described it, and befriending them or learning from them. “Expand your social list,” she advised.
Wooldridge opened the discussion to questions from the audience. One person asked about explaining the world through a character whose function is just to do that. The panelists agreed that there should never be a character whose only function was exposition. Wooldridge pointed out that one character is unlikely to know everything about a given world, as she doesn’t know everything about Earth. Characters need to be layered and to perform more than one function. “They need to pull more weight than that,” Butcher said. Readers lose interest in one-dimensional characters, and combining characters can sometimes give a single character more depth.
The panel agreed that, when describing the world, authors should feel free to put more information than they probably need in the rough draft. They can always cut it later, saving it in a document or world bible or using it as bonus content on websites or for Patreon.
The last questioner asked whether there were easy rules a pantser could follow for keeping the world straight. The panelists agreed that internal consistency is important. They suggested making notes about the world as the story progresses and taking them out later, emphasizing that internal consistency is very critical.
Afterward, the audience clustered around the table to chat with the panelists, a sure sign of the presentation’s success.
