#love tolkien's worldbuilding but like. come ON‚ professor.

[aeide-thea]

always interested in metatext and grateful to OP for having posted this, although as with JKR it's a little like, if it's not in the text itself then it is in fact reasonable of people to question its absence, john—

having said that i'm afraid i got stuck on the photographed-but-not-transcribed portion of this which reads

Criticism of the speed of the relationship or ‘love’ of Faramir and Eowyn. In my experience feelings and decisions ripen very quickly (as measured by mere ‘clock-time’, which is actually not justly applicable) in periods of great stress, and especially under the expectation of imminent death. And I do not think that persons of high estate and breeding need all the petty fencing and approaches in matters of ‘love’. This tale does not deal with a period of ‘Courtly Love’ and its pretences; but with a culture more primitive (sc. less corrupt) and nobler. (bolding mine)

like. a LOT happening there!!

Tolkien: "I think you misunderstand Faramir."

I think you misunderstand Faramir. He was daunted by his father: not only in the ordinary way of a family with a stern proud father of great force of character, but as a Númenórean before the chief of the one surviving Númenórean state. He was motherless and sisterless (Eowyn was also motherless), and had a 'bossy' brother. He had been accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously just, and very merciful.

I think he understood Eowyn very well. Also to be Prince of Ithilien, the greatest noble after Dol Amroth in the revived Númenórean state of Gondor, soon to be of imperial power and prestige, was not a 'market-garden job' as you term it. Until much had been done by the restored King, the P. of Ithilien would be the resident march-warden of Gondor, in its main eastward outpost - and also would have many duties in rehabilitating the lost the dreadful vale of Minas Ithil (Morgul).

I did not, naturally, go into territory, and clearing it of outlaws and orc-remnants, not to speak of details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. But it was made clear that there was much fighting, and in the earlier years of A.'s reign expeditions against enemies in the East. The chief commanders, under the King, would be Faramir and Imrahil; and one of these would normally remain a military commander at home in the King's absence.

A Númenórean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and a least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the Steward (or representative of the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor.

from The Letters of JRR Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter, letter no. 244, a draft to a critical reader

[vintagegeekculture]

The Empire of the Petal Throne, printed first in 1975, was the first real “campaign setting” ever created in the early days of roleplaying games, at least as we would recognize it, e.g., the idea the setting has unique characteristics and history, magic has certain rules, the tech level means a wildly different equipment list...as opposed to just being a platform for campaigns, discovered as the characters explore and move around, which was often the default in most early tabletop games. You can’t think of the first generation of tabletop gamers without seeing the huge influence of Empire of the Petal Throne in nearly everything; in the 70s, at the scale games worked at, this was a big deal. 

As for the setting itself, it’s often fascinating to me how divergent thinkers tend to diverge alike. Nearly all “weird and different” tabletop settings (e.g. Talislanta, Skyrealms of Jorune, heck, even Synnibarr, the Uwe Boll of this subgenre) follow the blueprint of Jack Vance’s Dying Earth books, in that it usually is a setting of impossible antiquity that at one point was starfaring but reverted to barbarism, so a feudal society is surrounded by alien artifacts and superscience they barely understand, with ruins of 20,000 years and so on. That’s the world of the Empire of the Petal Throne, an earth colony that reverted to barbarism when it was sucked out of the planet’s orbit 40,000 years ago and into a dimension with vastly different physical laws. It led to impossibly stratified, priest-ruled cultures where social standing had to be factored into everything, more like precolonial India. Artists tend to make it look vaguely like precolonial South America, as their overly busy ornamentation seems to be visual shorthand in the western mind for “culture that is truly alien and wildly divergent.” 

The creator of the setting was M.A. R. Barker, a professor of Indian and Middle Eastern studies who was a white Midwesterner who converted to Islam and changed his name to Mohammed Abdul Rashid (before weebs and Japanophilia, the culture nerds tended to obsess over most was the Middle East, India, and Persia, just ask Harold Lamb, John Milius, or even Lovecraft, who gave himself the “Arab name” of Abdul Azhared and wrote “The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath”). Barker was essentially every single teen dungeon master, myself included, with dozens and dozens of marbled composition books with all kinds of detailed notes on their settings. The interesting part is that as he was a linguist, he created artificial languages for his settings, and with Tolkien, who Barks is often compared to, it’s challenging to discover whether he started setting-first, or created the setting as a vehicle for his constructed languages. The amazing thing is, when he started writing about his setting, there was no tabletop gaming; he first saw it as a vehicle for a novel, then wargaming, then when D&D came into existence, he started running games there that lasted for decades and were published.

Barker ran a famous “Thursday night game” for decades in Minneapolis set in the Empire of the Petal Throne, one of his players was D&D founding father and co-creator Dave Arneson. The fascinating thing about early D&D in these days is how cliquish it was; everyone knew everyone through personal connection. Professor Barker was in the right place at the right time - the midwest wargaming scene in the early 1970s - to befriend the first circle of D&D gamers, impress them with the sheer shocking depth of the worldbuilding he created at a time when that wasn’t anywhere near close to normal, and get a release of a boxed set of his world setting in ‘75, making it the first true game world setting as we know it. 

Details in worldbuilding are great but eventually, there’s a point of diminishing returns. M.A.R. Barker reminds me of a documentary I saw called Jiro Dreams of Sushi where the guy who runs one of the most famous sushi restaurants in the world insists octopus be massaged for 45 minutes before serving. All while reading about Barker, you ask one question: does he care a lot and is he detailed, or is this unhealthy compulsion or obsessiveness? The line between being detailed and “caring a lot” vs. truly obsessive behavior is kind of blurred sometimes, like for instance, when you hear that Barker had a collection of over 2,000+ miniatures he personally created for Empire of the Petal Throne (rather like how sometimes the line between collecting and hoarding is vague). I mean, I don’t even think I can answer that because the line between the two is blurred: was Barker a genius who created a towering achievement, maybe the most detailed fantasy world of all time....or was he an obsessive eccentric with an unhealthy fixation, like a slightly less reclusive Henry Darger?

My personal approach to worldbuilding is to start story first and build the world around the story. Don’t create any details you don’t intend to be important or to create a conflict. If it doesn’t come up, it might as well not be there. Story comes first, not setting. If you want the finale of the first adventure to be in a volcano, put a volcano next to the starting town. Only bring up that trolls once invaded the world from another dimension if you intend for Trolls to return and their dismantled gates to reactivate, and so on. If you create a rule that sorcerers lose their powers when they fall in love, have one get in danger of falling in love. If you have a rule that all clones go insane, but cloning doesn’t come up at all, what was the point of that mental energy and effort, anyway? My point is, you can get away with flimsy worldbuilding and good stories, but never the opposite.

The danger of truly strange settings is that as there’s nothing to mentally compare it to, it all comes off as insane and disconnected - and that’s more a problem with tabletop games than any other, which have to have 6+ people “on the same page.” That’s why games are at their best at genre simulation and it is difficult to do truly unique concepts, e.g. “you’re all superheroes in Marvel Comics.” Someone, I think it was James Rolfe, once pointed out that nobody ever finds it weird or strange that Godzilla has atomic breath, because he kind of looks like a dragon, and breathing fire is a thing dragons do. But when Gamera, another monster, tucks his head and limbs in and starts flying like a pinwheel, it looks crazy and kind of hilarious because that comes from absolutely nowhere. 

Here’s one final question to ask about the first true game setting: can you run a game in it? I’ve found that in my case, the answer is no. It’s such a product of the distinctive genius/insane mind of M.A.R. Barker that it’s hard to see how anyone else could do something with it or approach the material. I admire and love Empire of the Petal Throne, but it’s the only game setting I ever got I haven’t used. It’s interesting that D&D never revived Empire of the Petal Throne; I suppose it was too much of a product of a single stubborn vision to be absorbed into the D&D cosmology or multiverse. You will not see the armadillo men with 8 sexes who defecate in public get a listing in the Monster Manual in any future edition. 

[nochd]

*Sighs a deep sigh.*

There needs to be a new name for urban myths that have been spread specifically because of the internet; misunderstandings, half-truths, and what-ifs that have gained a spurious aura of truth largely through humanity's (generally commendable) eagerness to share knowledge and (less commendable) inability to do so without reducing it to soundbites.

I fight internet factoids the way Odin fought giants, knowing that he was doomed to be defeated. But here we go.

(#1) There is no evidence anywhere that Treebeard is in any form a portrait of C. S. Lewis. Somebody on the internet thought they saw a resemblance and said "Hey, what if...?" and someone else passed it on while leaving out the "what if?" part.

"Treebeard" in Tolkien's early drafts was the name of a (humanoid) giant who was going to appear friendly but turn out to be malicious; as far as the documents show, Tolkien changed his mind about the malice before he got this idea past the outlining stage.

Lewis himself, reviewing The Lord of the Rings when it came out, certainly didn't recognise himself in Treebeard; he was more inclined to the idea that Treebeard was a Tolkien self-portrait. This, despite Lewis having seen quite a lot of Tolkien's creative process.

(#2) Lewis and Tolkien were good friends in the 1930s, but their friendship cooled off over the following decades. They were never Bestest Best Friends; they never even got to the point of addressing each other by their first names, which in their social context was reserved for a much higher level of intimacy than it is now (though Lewis did nickname Tolkien "Tollers"). Lewis's lifelong best friend was a guy called Arthur Greeves.

(#3) Both Lewis and Tolkien denied that their best-known works are "allegorical". Neither of them meant what the internet thinks they meant by that. This is because they were both Oxford professors of English literature (though Lewis later moved to Cambridge), and they used the word "allegory" in a narrow, specific technical sense for a specific genre of (mostly mediaeval) literature, not as a general synonym for "metaphor" or "symbol".

Aslan is a depiction of Christ. He's not an allegory for Christ, not because he actually is Christ but because he doesn't have all the defining characteristics of a mediaeval allegory. He does what Lewis thought Christ would do in a fictional situation, rather than (as an allegory would have done) symbolically re-enacting the non-fictional life of Christ from the Gospels.

When a young Narnia reader's parent wrote to Lewis passing on her son's concerns that he felt he was being tempted into idolatry by the feeling that he loved the fictional Aslan more than the real Christ -- yes, that happened -- Lewis did not reply "It's OK, Aslan actually is Christ, so it all comes to the same thing." He replied with some suggestions of how the child could pray so as to get right with God. At the end he put in a request, that if the kid could pray "And please God, help Mr Lewis not to hurt anyone else this way again" that would be a kind thing to do.

(#4) We don't have manuscripts for the Narnia chronicles the way we do for The Lord of the Rings, because Lewis hated reading his own work and burned all his drafts once the book was published. It is clear, however, that Lewis was not out to build an internally consistent "secondary world" like Tolkien. (Consistency of worldbuilding has come to be a standard for fantasy fiction only since Tolkien's time and because of Tolkien's example.) If you try to construct a consistent picture of the Narnian universe from the books, you'll find yourself constantly running into inconsistencies, including some outright contradictions.

Partly that's because Lewis just wasn't all that careful about that sort of thing; compare how, at the end of Out of the Silent Planet, he tells us that "Ransom" isn't Ransom's real name but a pseudonym to protect his identity, and then in Perelandra a biggish thematic point is made to hang on the fact that "Ransom" is Ransom's real name.

But Lewis was a meticulous literary scholar, a highly imaginative writer, and closely familiar with Tolkien's creative process. He would have been capable of making a consistent "secondary world" if he had wanted to. Not doing so was a deliberate choice. He didn't intend readers to explore the world of Narnia as a world. It's for the same reason that there's only one character who appears in all seven Narnia books. The only consistent through-line, in any sense, is Aslan. If you want to immerse yourself in Narnia, the only way is to come to grips with Aslan and what Aslan means. And that is by design. That is what Lewis intended.

That's presumably what Tolkien meant when he described the Narnia books as a "hodgepodge" of disparate elements thrown together without rhyme or reason.

I could indulge in some wild theorizing about Tolkien and Lewis's relationship and how their writing factored into that -- I'm personally convinced that the Green Witch's hold over Prince Rilian in The Silver Chair is a satirical portrait of the Tolkiens' marriage -- but I try and make sure to clarify the distinction between my own speculations and what's actually documented fact, which I suppose is why none of my speculations have become meme-factoids yet.

Level 1: Characters in a fantastical setting with no clear analogue of any real-world culture or religion celebrate Christmas; the implications of this are never examined

Level 2: Characters in a fantastical setting celebrate a secular, non-denominational mid-winter holiday which just coincidentally involves many of the same rituals and observances as Christmas

Level 3: Characters in a fantastical setting celebrate a mid-winter holiday commemorating an invented folk-hero whose mythos furnishes elaborate alternative explanations for various Christmas observances

Level 4: Characters in a fantastical setting celebrate Christmas because in spite of the setting's history otherwise bearing no resemblance to that of Earth, for some reason Catholicism still exists

Level 5: Whatever C S Lewis was on

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

After the misogynistic shitshow by Dumb&Dumber, do you have any recommendations (can be books/movies/shows/etc.) for series with women in power written well? Something that is, you know, beyond Dumb&Dumber's two brain cells to understand?

My apologies for how long it took me to answer this, anon.

I’ll be glad to point out to you some well-written stories of women in power. The issue is that I’m not certain what you mean by “women in power”. The most common interpretation that comes to my mind is a woman in political power, but there are several kinds, so I’ll give you a broader range of suggestions.

Now I have to say, I’m no expert in this topic, and I probably can’t give you as many recommendations as I’d like. Sorry about that. And also - all of these series I’m recommending have shortcomings, and none of them are perfect. I’ll make sure to list the (perceived, in my eyes at least) shortcomings of my suggestions. I do have to warn you first, though, that my descriptions contain minor spoilers.

*These are in no particular order

1. Tolkien

Whenever I’m asked a question about a series with well-written women, my first answer is always to read Tolkien’s books. The history of his legendarium spans thousands and thousands of years in earthly time, and even goes back to a time when time itself didn’t exist (a la the creation of the Ainur). There are many, many well-written female characters in the professor’s legendarium, and the best thing, to me, is that they’re varied. Tolkien doesn’t stick to one type of woman to serve as his female ‘icon’, so to speak, he writes women in many different kinds, and I can appreciate all of them.

Some examples: Galadriel is probably the most well-known, and I stan a wise, powerful, revered queen. Other examples include Varda Elentári (I literally worship her lol), Nienna Qalmë-Tári, Melian the Maia, Lúthien Tinúviel, Aredhel Ar-Feiniel, Morwen Eledhwen, and Idril Celebrindal.

Now for the shortcomings. I really only have one shortcoming when it comes to Tolkien, and that’s the fact that he never writes from the direct perspective of his characters, the way, say, GRRM does for ASOIAF. And while that style does have its great points which I enjoy to the fullest, such as leaving everything open for interpretation, it also prevents us from having a full look inside the characters’ heads and completely humanizing them. Although, actually, I tend to enjoy that aspect of Tolkien’s writing, as it allows me to explore and settle on my version of a character (which I usually do through writing fanfiction, lol). Still, this can be a drawback for some.

2. A Song of Ice and Fire

Assuming that ASOIAF’s ending won’t be like the ending for Game of Dumbasses, which I’m 99% certain it won’t be, GRRM generally does quite a good job when writing women in power in the midst of a world as misogynistic and shallow as ASOIAF’s world. He very realistically explores the rewards and consequences of their actions, personalities, and so forth. There is quite a large multitude of female characters in ASOIAF’s world, and they’re all quite varied as well.

Some examples: Daenerys Targaryen (my queen from this day until my last day), Arianne Martell (I love her I love her I love her), Asha Greyjoy, Sansa Stark (she’s become rather controversial as of late thanks to Game of Dumbasses, but I still like book!Sansa despite having my gripes about her), Arya Stark, Alysanne Targaryen, Rhaena Targaryen, and Margaery Tyrell. I might even tentatively name Cersei Lannister, who, while certainly not a good example or representation of a woman in power, is a very well-written example of the consequences that living in such a misogynistic, stiflingly patriarchal world such as ASOIAF’s.  

Now for the shortcomings. As much as I love ASOIAF, there are some rather sexist and racist themes in it, and also, the fact that there’s such detail about nudity, especially in Dany’s early chapters, when she’s a freaking thirteen-year-old, make me very uncomfortable.

3. Empress Ki

Unlike the others on this list, Empress Ki is not a book series (if it was, though - God, I would buy the books so fast). It’s a Korean drama set in Ancient China during the reign of the Yuan Dynasty established by the Mongol Kublai Khan following the life of a real-life historical figure, Empress Qi. Qi began as the daughter of a lower-ranking noble in Koryo (the name for Korea at the time), a vassal state of China. She was sold as a concubine for the emperor, Toghon Temür. Despite having an empress at the time, Toghon Temür fell in love with Qi and favored her. Eventually, Qi did become empress of the Yuan Dynasty.

Empress Ki, the k-drama, follows this history loosely, but it’s by no means historically accurate. Nevertheless, it paints a dramatized version of Empress Ki’s journey. What I like about the drama is that Empress Ki’s ambition is never framed as evil. She becomes very politically astute and manipulative, even vengeful, but maintains her heroism nevertheless. There was never even any hint of “Oh no, her ambition is making her evil™”. I liked that very much, and it was such a breath of fresh air after the vomit-inducing misogyny that D&D didn’t even try to hide in their writing.

Now for the shortcomings. Unfortunately, since this is set in the royal court of imperial China, where empresses and concubines all lived and all grasped for the emperor’s favor, there is a fair bit of cat-fighting going on between the women, a tired and overused trope. While it’s understandable because of the circumstances the women are in, it still tired me to watch. Empress Ki herself was also subject to being forced to behave, at least publicly, in a very narrow and stereotypical line of behavior for a concubine of the emperor, since she needed support. Imperial China was pretty misogynistic as well, and the k-drama is true to that kind of setting, though unfortunately never addressing or framing it as a particularly bad thing. But as I said, Empress Ki follows real history, and I understand why the writers couldn’t throw in something such as women receiving equal rights to being heirs or something to that effect.

4. The Nevernight Chronicle Series

The Nevernight Chronicles is set in a fantasy world with three suns, in which night only arrives once every few years. The main character is Mia Corvere, who is the daughter of an executed traitor in the Itreyan Republic. The story follows Mia as she goes on a journey for revenge against the people who killed her father, and her aim is to become an assassin of a cult, as she believes this would help her achieve her goals. Sounds cliche, right?

Despite this kind-of-overused trope (kid loses parent, becomes an assassin to avenge them), Nevernight caught my attention because Mia, our protagonist, isn’t exactly human. She’s a darkin, and has the power to bend shadows to her will. This power, though, comes with drawbacks. I can’t say too much more, as this isn’t a very well-known series and much more would be spoilers.

Admittedly, I’ve only read the first book and am still trying to get my hands on the second one. In any case, I’m recommending this because I very much enjoyed the way Mia, as an assassin, was written. There’s a very fine balance between her ruthlessness in trying to become a hired killer and the remnants of her morality. I also liked the writing style, although I suppose it’s not for some. The author uses footnotes to help with his worldbuilding, which I found kind of tedious at times unless the information in them was interesting.

Now for the drawbacks (besides the thing about the writing style, lol). I must warn you: although Mia is sixteen at the start of the series, this series is not classified as YA, but rather as adult fiction. And there’s good reason for that. It has some rather explicit descriptions of extreme violence, blood, and gore, and also, characters are put in mature sexual situations despite being only in their teens. Said scenes were pretty well-written in my opinion, but it still made me uncomfortable. There is also some underlying racism.

5. Game of Queens

Game of Queens . . . had its good points and its not-so-good points. The reason I’m putting it on this list is because it follows the story of the two Biblical queens, Vashti and Esther. As you may know, Vashti was ordered by her husband, the king of Persia Ahasuerus, to appear before him and his men in the men’s banquet hall, which was considered extremely scandalous and something no decent woman should ever do. Vashti refused, and because of her refusal, she was either deposed, exiled, or executed. The Bible doesn’t mention her again.

Ahasuerus’ second queen, Esther, was a Jew but had to hide it (I believe the Persian Empire disliked Jews or something to that effect, but frankly I can’t remember exactly why). However, Ahasuerus, influenced by his villainous counselor, almost ordered war on the Jews. To save her people, Esther revealed her identity as a Jew, putting herself at risk, and pleaded with Ahasuerus to call off the war, which he did.

Anyway, I very much liked Vashti and Esther’s characterization in the books, for different reasons. Vashti I liked because she began as a pawn: naive, carefree, wanting for nothing, and then she began to realize that she was being used. Her story in Game of Queens is about moving past and growing from the manipulated, unthinking child she was into a competent and intelligent manipulator herself. What I find noteworthy, though, is that despite her increasing cunning, she retains her gentle nature, and her kind personality never really changes. Too often have I seen stories where women lose innocence and become cold and hard as they learn to play the political game. And while I enjoy stories like that too, I admit it was very refreshing to see something different.

I liked Esther because she defied the norm of a woman during that era. Esther was a skilled horse rider, and strong and fit physically, not at all delicate. A moment I really, really liked in her story was when her aunt commented that she must be tired after a long journey, and Esther, raised more as her father’s son than her father’s daughter, replied that no, she wasn’t, and that she was very used to traveling much further distances.

Lastly, Vashti and Esther also became friends in Game of Queens, and I very much enjoyed reading the moments of their friendship. There’s no jealousy between them, no pettiness, no catfighting. Just two young women working together and becoming close.

As for the shortcomings, I disliked two things in particular: Amestris, Ahasuerus’ mother, is the classic power-hungry seductress who attempts to manipulate everything from behind the scenes. It’s not that I disliked her in and of herself - she was a very competent, very intelligent woman, but her character is such a stereotype that I felt it detracted from the story. She’s given no real backstory, no real motivation. The other thing I disliked is that Esther fell in love with Ahasuerus at first sight, based only on his handsome looks. For someone as witty, determined, and tough as Esther’s portrayal in Game of Queens, I was disappointed that her falling in love with Ahasuerus was such a swift process with no logical or emotional backdrop.

My dear friend @martaaa1506 also told me that the Wheel of Time series and the Witcher series are very good. I’d actually advise you to check her out for more recommendations, lol. 

[thescribesloft]

Things to consider when worldbuilding:

Appearance:

Clothes, jewelry, architecture, body types, and colors are important aspects.

The aesthetics of the world are one of the most influential to a reader. Most writers base their worlds on real life cultures. Lord of the Rings was based on Norse, German, and English cultures among others. He used Futhark script for the Dwarves and based Hobbits off of English, Welsh, and Cornish Fairies. 

The clothes reflect the character. If your character dresses in ragged, dirty clothes, it can be assumed they spend a lot of time out of doors or may not have a home at all. If your world has royalty, what kind of clothes signify that authority? Do they wear deep, rich colors? Do they wear a crown, tiara, coronet, circlet, or headdress (Yes, there is a difference)?

It is good that, as a writer, you think of details. In fantasy, jewelry is extremely important and may add to the plot and aesthetic of a story. Does your character wear jewelry that means something to them? Were they given an amulet for protection or a vial of special liquid?

Architecture is a key point. If your characters live in trees, the image of wood elves comes to mind. The reader will picture wood carved with flowing greenery, braided leather and woven silver doors. The buildings are like characters. A lot happens inside them enough to make them unofficial characters even if they don’t say anything.

I know this may sound prejudiced, but it is important to consider body type and weight. It’s boring if your character is perfect in every way with buff abs or an hourglass figure. Those are ideal body types and rarely exist. They are also extremely hard to relate to. Now, I’m not saying you have to insert your body type specifically, but if you want to include an ideal body type or weight, at least have the character earn it. Have them be heavyset at first and then gradually have them lose weight throughout the story. It’s more relatable and even encouraging that way.

Color can be really helpful. If your world is dystopian, drab, boring colors may be ideal. Colors symbolize many things: Red = war/seduction, black = death/plague, white = perfection/purity. How you color your world helps the reader imagine it.

Environment:

Is your world a cold wasteland? Is it sandy or grassy? Are there mountains? Does your character live beside the sea?

This where your high school knowledge of geography comes in handy. What are the basic environments? Does your story fit into one of those environments? Do your characters wear animal skins or furs? Do they run around buck naked? Do they live with shaggy beasts? If they live in extreme environments, what do they do to protect themselves? How does this environment fit into their culture? How do foreigners deal with the surroundings when they visit? From what I’ve seen, the more harsh the environment, the hardier the people. So if your character is strong-willed, they would have grown up in a harsh wilderness and may seem uncivilized. Drawing a map of your world is fun and gives you and your reader a visual.

Culture:

This is where it gets fun for me. I love looking up cultures on which to base my countries. I suggest research into world cultures for inspiration. You may want to create a completely unique culture, and that’s fine. Hey, you’re the writer. Some of the best authors are veteran scholars, though, and use that knowledge to their advantage. Tolkien was a Philologist and he was a university professor for years, which helped add to his stories. 

Does your story’s culture(s) have a caste system? Are they a democracy or a monarchy? What is the government like? How the balance of power turned or shifted?

And what about marriage? Some of the most interesting dystopians and fantasies have strange and unique marriage rituals. Is your world’s culture(s) for or against same sex marriage? Is polygamy or polyandry acceptable? 

And you can’t forget the religion. What do your characters believe? Are they intensely religious or do they simple go along with the rituals because it is culturally acceptable? Are they polytheistic or monotheistic? Religion is one of the biggest world changers.

[vardasvapors]

anghraine replied to your post:kareenvorbarra replied to your post: [[MOR]...

“while unreliable narrators are a thing, unreliable to the point of ‘they 100% made shit up’ is a slippery slope that’s untenable” I had a brief period of being Controversial for arguing that, because it’s canonicity gatekeeping and medieval manuscripts have something something

skjfdhskjfhskj IT’S FICTION WITH A MYTHOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENT AESTHETIC THAT’S NOT THE SAME THHIIIiiiinnngggg *head gently falls on keyboard*

And yeah I think I’ve said this before but: if you’re allowed to throw out every single piece of canon you encounter with nothing but “they made it up”, you WILL eventually get right back to “some professor in 1930s england made it up” and it’s back to being a fictional book with canonical content. Which is a FINE risk to take sometimes, when it’s actually fun and not just like, weird self-righteous wank, imo, but, just, make sure the payoff is worth it??? Like tbh I’m quite open to contradicting canon bits with a lot of like, worldbuilding details and stuff, but when it comes to stuff that outright contradicts or changes the story and themes and meanings rather than improves or deepens or adds to them, just….Value judgements are a THING. They’re OKAY. There is such a thing as a bad story and a good story. Deciding that that bit in the LACE where Tolkien says elves only have sex for babies is stupid and actually only exists because Aelfwine was slightly deaf is a fine lol-canon. Deciding that historians totally just cranked a boatload of propaganda to make Finrod look good and all the great stuff in his arc didn’t happen is a shitty lol-canon. IT DOESN’T NEED A NEUTRAL BLANKET RULE, JUST COMMON SENSE.

crocordile replied to your post: kareenvorbarra replied to your post: [[MOR]...

my only regret is not having it all printscreened

yavieriel replied to your post: kareenvorbarra replied to your post: [[MOR]…

You’ve pretty much got it. It was an absolutely exhausting time to be in fandom and not an orthodox member of the church of Feanor-did-nothing-wrong, I’m still sort of bitter and wary over it. When you can’t even hold a coherent discussion with the people you disagree with because “unreliable narrator/death of the author/resistant reading/gatekeeping/manuscript tradition” means even directly quoting Tolkien is meaningless and feels/headcanon reigns supreme.

(Also /that is not what death of the author _means_ ffs/ )

kareenvorbarra replied to your post: kareenvorbarra replied to your post: [[MOR]...

“pengolodh was anti-feanorian so nothing he wrote can be trusted”

Ah u guys…I am lucky I guess, I just have to avoid those uh, you know who, handful of people over there. Tbh while I do loathe the Feanorian-apologism like whoa, I’ve also always been kind of, I Don’t Really Get It But Okay, about people who outright hate the Feanorians and don’t want to see anything about them at all, bc I DO love them as characters….but er, the more old stuff I find out about fandom the more I kinda appreciate where this is coming from tbh.

[spaceorphan18]

Mults - my replies will be in bold. 

multsicorn replied to your link “The Silmarillion Recap and Review”

also connects interestingly with tolkien's idea of fantasy/worldbuilding as 'subcreation' (if you have read about that), if it's literally also how the world is created in-universe! and in terms of words -> poems/songs, obv there's a lot of significance of poems & songs (which get blurred together) in lotr-verse

Yes! Tolkien developed this entire world through the creating of a couple of languages - and of course he had his love of song and epic poetry.  Combining the two was what made the world of TLOR. 

also also in traditional creation myths worlds get made out of the MOST RANDOM things - water! darkness! body parts of fallen gods! SO LIKE singing is quite reasonable tbh

It’s still hard to conceptualize for most people (me) because it’s not really visual. 

> The Valar create the sun and the moon for light > WAIT A MINUTE did all that elfy conflict happen with no sun or moon! wtf! how! CAN ELVES SEE IN THE DARK I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED

Yes - Men were children of the sun, Elves walked in the dark for thousands of years, and were children of the stars. 

also i especially appreciate STARED AT EACH OTHER FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS yeah that sounds totally realistic okay

That’s totally how he describes it in the book ;) The other elves were worried there for a little bit, lol 

admittedly the whole thing probably makes more sense if you read it rather than a quick n dirty summary

Yup! ;) Actually, maybe not, I had a college course, and a podcast from a college professor to help me understand it. 

> Btw, Turgon's daughter, Idril marries a man, Tour, in what is the second union of man and Elf. (Why does this union never go the other way, Tolkien?) bc tolkien was a man and wanted pretty elfy girls, he id'ed himself & his wife w beren and luthien (.... why do i know this when i've never read the silmarillion) (i told u fandom wank is my fandom tho)

It’s one of those tidbits that everyone ends up knowing.  Man, the podcast had some discussion about that - why it was always a male human and female elf, but for the life of me I can’t remember the details of the discussion. 

> This was great at first, but after a few thousand years they began to question why they couldn't go visit their friends and be immortal. > it's really interesting/amusing to me how much of this makes me go 'BECAUSE THEOLOGY WAS A THING' (or bc tolkien was a christian and how so, i mean). the continual motifs of corruption and 'no bc we are good' (lol what does that mean) (but that's the sort of paradigm the author was coming from)

but, especially, sepcifically, here, bc fantasy worlds have rules, right? that's how they work - they're not our world - they have to work by some other sort of rules - (whether the people there and/or the readers know/understand them or not)....  

OH yeah, of course - it does tie into the Christian thing, or also the Norse/Greek myth stuff tied in, too.  But also -- conflict for story.  

but wrt 'why can't we' and the completely unspoken & unquestioned assumption, axiom, that the rules of the world are good & right & just, (cause that's how rules of a world work; it's inherent in the act of creation, maybe??), as opposed to the answer to 'why do we have to die' etc. being.... that sucks and we don't have to accept it. seen as unfair not by corrupted or bad people, or the question(/resentment?) leading to corruption etc, but... wow look at that 'rule' it

is actually totally unfair

Yes - totally unfair, but it ties in with the Christian stuff again - and how you’re supposed to trust that god has a plan, even if you don’t know what that is.  

* final thoughts: i've never actually thought of lotr as black & white at all - i guess it does have evil in it. and good. but we don't follow sauron, we follow the mortals and their weaknesses and it's a v v human story. (for all that it's about elves and hobbits and YKWIM)

Hmmm.  I won’t discount that it’s a human story, I think there’s a lot of humanism in it (including elves and hobbits) but I do think The Silmarillion has a lot more gray spaces.  (So do the movies - which I don’t think is the worst decision they made!) 

whereas i think it's easier for the silmarillion to come off as simpler, bc 1. the stories are a lot shorter, more like summaries/lists of info! sometimes than stories, and 2. seeing them all laid out in a row magnifies patterns that might've seemed like a single choice for a single story in lotr. all that said i bounced off the silmarillion the only time i tried to read it so far (in... middle school...?) so despite having many opinions they are not worth anything lol

Oh goodness, The Silmarillion really isn’t simpler.  It’s just not there are so many layers, even in the chapters with only a few pages.  There’s a lot to unpack, always, and it’s not always clear what’s going on.  LotR can be read and consumed as a story and that’s fine.  Where The Silmarillion requires (at least it’s my belief) some study to gain an actual understanding out of it.  

So - Mults, does this format work for you at all? Or do you still want me to do a side blog?