I've recently taken up writing again after having a long break. (About 3 years) And I'm starting to have a long-lasting question which remains unanswered, so I figured I'd bring it here. How do I start building my world and the lore involved? My book which I'm starting includes people with supernatural abilities. I have thought of all of the lore and a backstory as to how people have these abilities. But I'm struggling to decide whether to explain it all in the first chapter to prepare my reader with some sort of narrator explaining OR space it out throughout the book to slower develop the world around my characters. Though there is quite a hefty amount of lore and I was really unsure if the reader would become confused if I throw it all at them at once. Thank you for your time! * If there is already a thread about this, I apologise and please take this one down.
The better bet is to spread it out over the course of the novel, rather than frontload it at the beginning. The names, places, magics will have no meaning, no point of reference to the reader. If they work through it at the beginning of the novel, it is unlikely they will recall it. It is better to learn the information within the context of the story, through the eyes, actions, commentaries, reactions, observations, explanations, etc. of the characters involved in the stories. Remember, it is likely that the vast majority of your world building and lore will not grace the pages of your novel(s). Or not directly, but having it will form a foundation of consistency, and will add depth to the tale and help ensure reader suspension of disbelief.
I concur with the previous response. Keep all your lore written down for yourself as a reference, but only put it in where it's relevant. I.e. if there is a rule about limitations of superpowers, put it in around where that limitation will be shown to your audience. Also, try to limit the exposition, if possible, but don't be afraid to put a little bit in if necessary. Also, if there's anything not directly relevant to the story but that you think readers should know (or that beta readers say they're confused about), look for places to sprinkle it into casual conversation. I'd like to think of lore as cinnamon (or your spice of choice) in a cake. If you put it all in at one spot, that spot will be too spicy and the rest of the cake bland. It's better to keep it spread out.
Don't. This is what would be telling, rather than showing. Reveal the lore to the reader as it becomes relevant to the story. If it's not relevant, you don't need to include it, no matter how much you might be tempted to. A lot of writers want to do this to show off their beautifully constructed world - but readers won't care about it, unless it serves some purpose.
I prefer to slowly, slowly, seed the world via small introductory sections and various namedrops. Like, one of my most recent fanfics was a fusion of two different settings, and one of the first things I did was drop a few names that were unique to the world, had characters refer to in-setting occurrences off-hand to pique the reader's interest, or discuss unique issues (for example, one important distinct part of the setting was the inclusion of some dangerous unobtainium, so what I did was demonstrate its effects on an character, before switching to some other discussion about said unobtainium that was naturally done between several characters), did some sweeping descriptions of various unique places and what not.
I agree with the other posts, sprinkled lore tends to work better. A teach once told me that I should know everything I possibly could about the worlds I wanted to create, but only put in as much as was necessary to make the story work. That might seem a bit stingy for world-building but it's been a handy thing for me to keep in mind to stop me from waffling on too much. Also, as a reader sometimes it's fun to feel clever for making connections between parts of a story's lore, to feel like you've been able to exercise your imagination a little, rather than be given everything too quickly.
This really is a question down to personal preference so don't expect a permanent solution to be offered here because every approaches this differently based on what works for them. Some people can't begin without a plan and some people can't begin if they've created one. My approach is to focus on the most important thing - writing it all down. You can have an amazing, flawless outline but it's still not use to you in the manuscript isn't complete. Personally, I find working anything out before the story is written is a waste of time for me. I write. Then I plan. Because then I know what I have to work and I know exactly what needs to be worked out. This is particularly true for me with research. I can get bogged down in that and only need 2% of it. I would rather just leave that part blank and come back to fill it in after when I've researched exactly what I need. So my first draft IS my plan, it's just an incredibly detailed one. I create the magic systems afterwards.
There are two questions to ask: How important is the world lore to the story? How is the story told? Here are two examples for the first question: The world building in Jenna Moreci's 'Savior's Champion' is merely a plot device for her fantasy romance/action story. While in Evan Winter's 'Rage of Dragons', the world building is an integral part of the story and characters in his fantasy action/drama. 'Savior's Champion' is told from the 1sr Person POV of the main character (except for the 1st chapter, or was it the proloque?), so what we know about the world is what the character knows or learns as the story is told. 'Rage of Dragons' is told from the 3rd Person POV, but is limited to the main character (except for the proloque). The MC begins the story with limited knowledge about his world and a simple world view. We learn about the the true nature of that world as he does (it's very well done and I highly recommend it). Now, I'm going to pick a really popular fantasy series for an example of bad world building exposition: Book One of Brandon Sanderson's 'Stormlight Archive' series. In the beginning of the book, there's an assassination where the killer uses really cool magical powers. Sanderson goes into detail about how these powers work. Later on, one of the MC's begins training to use the same powers. Again, Sanderson goes into detail on how the powers work, but its just the same infomation already given during the assassination sequence. What could have been a immersive mystery (what are those cool powers and how do they work?) and a rewarding reveal (ooh! that's how they work!) is lost due to the double exposition.
If you provide a summary of it in a prologue, it would whet the reader's appetite. They have to have something going in to capture their interest.
It's typically best not to do huge info drops, it disrupts the flow of the story, bores a lot of readers, and doesn't mean much without context. It's best to really only explain things are they're relevant to the story as it takes place. That's how I do it, even then I usually don't go into long detailed explanations unless it's needed for some reason. If you detail everything heavily, it may cause problems later on and you could write yourself into a literary corner. It's always best to leave something to the imagination of the reader, and some wiggle room for yourself.
I favor a "fill in the blanks" approach. You have to start with the story you want to tell, meaning you design the world to suit that story. Prioritize what information needs to be present for plot reasons first, then what the main characters would reasonably know already, then giving the readers a comprehensive understanding of how your setting works if possible. If you think your readers can make sense of something through simple assumptions, let them - even if their assumptions are wrong, as long as that doesn't affect the story it doesn't really matter. Try not to explain anything that the readers don't actually need to understand, unless you can have it come up in dialogue or narration in a way that seems natural. (This is why I favor the "fish out of water" approach, since it puts the main character on equal terms with the readers. You can't be faulted for explaining things if your hero actually doesn't really know anything about the setting.)
I like Tolkien's approach. The whole Hobbit/Lord of the Rings saga was launched by a single, simple word picture: "A hobbit lived in a hole." He began with a character (who turned out to be Bilbo Baggins) in his ordinary-to-him environment, and the world of Middle Earth grew from there. Maybe that's why I like Tolkien so much. His approach is personal. He focusses on the characters and builds their world to tell their stories, which turn out to be bigger than they could ever have imagined. If on the contrary you start with lore and systems and planetary concerns, it's hard to get into. For me, anyway.
Tolkien created his own languages, pantheons, and world lore. But, he was also a story teller. In the Hobbit and the LotR, he set out to tell a story, and use his world building as an element in those stories.
I would like to clarify: When I say "explain", I do mean that as in explaining to the reader exactly why a certain world-building element is in the story - like the whole history of the thing or whatever - simply because you feel it's important they understand your rationale. This is usually intrusive unless the narrative actually provides a reason for bringing it up. Do show all the odd little details of your world, even if they're not important to the plot and you only added them out of whimsy. Whimsy is fine. What I'm saying is, you don't really need to justify it, as long as it appears to make sense in context.
I find myself enchanted with the appendix approach. In the novel Mr. Norrel and Johnathan Strange there are instances in the text where a footnote is provided that offers additional worldbuilding lore if the reader is interested in reading it. Because it is a footnote it does not interrupt the story but adds a bit of allure to it. The novel itself is written as an historical narrative so having the footnotes almost adds to the ambiance of the novel. If footnotes seem to subtract from the intent of the story there is the endnote method where passages with tricky lore are noted and a description of the lore is provided at the end of the text with the associated number. I know this method doesn't work for everyone and many people find it messy to work with but if you are attached to the idea of letting the reader in on your thought processes and world building it is a great way to incorporate information without subtracting from the story. At any rate it's better than the "Concerning Hobbits" portion of Lord of the Rings where the entire chapter could be removed and no great loss would be had. I love that part of the book personally but it doesn't add to the story. If it had been included as an extra I think many people would have enjoyed it more than they did. Worldbuilding elements are extremely important when it comes to putting the world together for an author. When it comes down to reading, however, most readers are interested in story, not worldbuilding. If worldbuilding is your passion and you want to share a complete world with others you can consider delving into the world of TTRPGs but that is a completely different experience.
Make sure you remember the tactile details. Write well, and you will create worlds. "A long grove by the lake which smells of pine and sounds of cones falling, between whose titans one can watch airships melting into the horizon," is infinitely more interesting than the Kingdom of [keyboard smash], ruled by [keyboard smash], since the year [keyboard smash], (not that I think you would write anything as dry as the latter). My system is to just explain as we go. It creates the joy of discovery. The "outsider" trope is great for speculative worlds.
As the others have said resist the urge to info dump, it turns readers off. Most people do not want to sit through My Creative Fantasy 301 for the first chapter or two before they get to your totally awesome story. What helps me is building the world, map and magic systems out ahead of time. I do this almost in wiki format, so I know for example that my village of Zergova has an inn which is known for its goat cheese and spruce beer. It has a blacksmith but he is limited to only horse shoes and simple farm repairs, not blades or armor repairs. The village elder is not fond of mixed race creatures and may stir up trouble if he knows one is in town. There is not much else in the village that anyone would find of use. Now if my half-elf protagonist is traveling in the vicinity of Zergova and wants to swing in, I can look at my wiki for the location. I will have him slip in at dusk to escape notice of the village elder, not bother putting anything about the blacksmith in, as he does not require horse shoes, and he will have a simple meal of goat's cheese and spruce beer. This helps keep my stories consistent between characters and locations. Just because you include a detail, like the blacksmith, in the wiki, you are not forced to use it. You may have noticed that while my world, map and magic systems are static, my characters are not. They are dynamic and I look over their shoulder and let them tell me their story while they do things for good or ill in the world of my creation. I am not saying this is the best or even a good way to do it, as it is probably the most time consuming. But it does work well for me.
My world building is done in layers as the story is drafted. For example: there is no major religion in the world such as Christianity or Islam. So, no religious institutions, their services, and their structures that a community is centered around. Now as I'm writing the 3rd draft of my WIP, that part of the world is coming into focus: dwarven law and trade are the institutions that the communities are centered around. So, most communities have some sort of dwarven law, healing, and trade center. In fact, to be a member of the aristocracy, one must have a proper dwarven education, so the learning centers are also darwven. The dwarves are not homogeneous; there are rival factions that compete for power. So, as my story is a work in progress, so is my world building.
