>Tolkien wrote whole encyclopedias of backstory that don't show up in Lord of the Rings, but you can feel the reality of his fictional world in every word. Its presence is known and comes through in the story.
I always hear this from nerds. So they feel this need to "world build" before even coming up with a plot. It strikes me as idiotic. Do you think you'd really be able to tell between someone who went through the mental masturbation of world building versus someone who made it up as he went along (but put in the effort to keep things consistent?) Would it really matter?
>Do you think you'd really be able to tell between someone who went through the mental masturbation of world building versus someone who made it up as he went along
In a fantasy universe, yeah. The world building is literally the only thing that Lord of the Rings has going for it.
Fantasy nerds have autism and have trouble relating to stories about people, so they can only focus on shit like world-building. It doesn't matter to them that most of the characters in LotR are flat, boring, and all talk in the same way, if there's a chronology of the construction of the bathrooms of all the kings of each race then that makes it okay.
What a contrarian faggot. You really showed them redditors! You go anon!
Just because Tolkien wrote le ebin genre ficshun that does not mean that his writing techniques are useless or shit. There's nothing wrong with properly building the structure for a novel beforehand. Dickens for example thoroughly studied Carlyle's book on the french revolution before writing Tale of Two Cities.
I never read Tolkien nor plan on doing it, but your contrarian shit is gay af desu
>you can feel the reality of his fictional world in every word
"The worst mistake a contemporary f/sf writer can make is to withold or disrupt suspension of disbelief. The reader, it’s assumed, wants to receive the events in the text as seamless & the text as unperformed. The claim is that nobody is being “told a story” here, let alone being sold a pup. Instead, an impeccably immersive experience is playing in the cinema of the head. This experience is somehow unmediated, or needs to present itself as such: any vestige of performativeness in the text dilutes the experience by reminding the reader that the “world” on offer is a rhetorical construct. All writing is a shell game, a sham: but genre writing mustn’t ever look as if it is. This seems to me to ignore the genuine sleight-of-hand pleasures of conjuring in favour of a belief in magic, a kind of non-writing which claims to be rather than to simulate."
This is actually something I always note, you can easily tell when an author has no fucking clue about what happens on the scene aprat from what he's directly describing. For me a good writer is someone who creates a storyboard in his mind with lots of details which aren't going to end up in the final text.