*For lack of a better board to post this discussion on, I'm placing it here.*

I recently came up with a new way of looking at two viewpoints that influence worldbuilding. The most common, and the most natural, viewpoint is the exocosmic ("out of world") viewpoint. This is the tendency to view the world you are making from the perspective of someone who lives in an another world. This is the viewpoint that all worldbuilders innately begin with because, simply put, we are not living in that world so we are not looking at it like someone who does. This is also the viewpoint that your readers will have when they sit down to read your book/story.

The good side of the exocosmic view is that it provides a barrier between fiction and reality that allows you to build your world without the risk of falling into delusions of actually living there. The down side of this view is that it tends to lead to a mechanical description of your world, one aspect at a time (i.e. the History, the Religion, the Magic, the People, the Creatures, etc.) without noting how these aspects all interrelate and connect with each other within that world. Exocosmic thinking can also cause both authors and readers to think about their fictional world in terms of their own world. Technically this is the definition of exocosmic thinking and is somewhat unavoidable. However, there are cases when this tendency can overstep its bounds to the point that it suffocates the world you're making. For instance, expecting your race of monarchical Elves to share our modern democratic ideals of freedom can cause problems since they won't inherently have the same ideals that we do about government because they've never been exposed to the ideals. Exocosmic thinking can also cause your world to feel smaller than it actually is along with overemphasizing fact over perception. For instance, we on earth have no precise way of knowing every detail of what heaven and hell are like, so obviously neither would our characters in our fictional world, thus the reality of it does not have to be mapped out to every detail because your characters won't be operating with such knowledge.

The second way of looking at worldbuilding is the endocosmic viewpoint, which, as you might guess, is the practice of looking at your fictional world through the eyes of its inhabitants. This allows you to step into the minds of not just your characters, but of all your world's inhabitants (whether they factor into your writing or not) and see how the world looks to them. For example, would your main character really go risk his life for the sake of a world that he's never seen much due to lack of travel technology? Would he not be more likely instead to risk his life for the village and people that he HAS seen and lived among? This is what endocosmic thinking allows you to see. It allows you to put yourself in the shoes of someone in your fictional world and see the implications of the facts you've been outlining. This is an especially useful tool in race creation, because it encourages you to see the race through the eyes of a member of that race instead of as a distanced observer. For instance, it opens your eyes to just what it would mean to be a member of a race of people that wings in place of arms and hands and to think about how you would interact with your world. This could be done for each of your races.

Obviously, endocosmic worldbuilding would by nature be a much more in-depth and demanding process than merely building a world exocosmically, and not everyone has the time or desire to invest that much time and energy into exploring every aspect of their world. However, the endocosmic way of thinking can still serve as a valuable tool to augment exocosmic worldbuilding, allowing you to peer deeper into only those areas of your world that are pertinent to your story. Whichever you choose, I would strongly encourage you to increase your endocosmic thinking as you create your worlds.

in Christ,
Jordan

In my experience, I have not seen a possibility of ever separating these two aspects of world building. I don't think I could do it if I tried. Every part of a world is inextricably linked with the other parts, and with the people in it, and I see it from all those perspectives at once. I have seen some of those drawbacks to exocosmic development in other peoples' worlds though. Thanks for this insight!

I agree with Jay that separating these perspectives would probably be impossible. And I see how my original post might seem that I'm suggesting that, sorry about that. But beyond merely being impossible to separate the two perspectives, it would be rather undesirable, since a world that's described totally endocosmically would be written in a language that no one spoke, or at the very least use gobs of words that no one on our earth would understand, and that would not be very fun. Likewise, a completely exocosmically portrayed world would run the risk of boring the readers. I think, though, that is useful to have an awareness of these two perspectives and how they can influence one's worldbuilding. It seems to me that many worldbuilders unconsciously let the exocosmic perspective dominate their work, and I think that an awareness of this tendency can allow people to consciously balance the two perspectives and add even more depth and beauty to their worlds. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. I just think the two should be equal partners instead of one becoming a dictator.

I agree.

Would you mind re-writing this concept up as a blog post?

Sure thing. It'll just take a day or two to organize my thoughts into a more blog-worthy format. I'll post it in the submissions forum ASAP.
Oh. And btw, thanks for making a place for this topic

You are welcome. That just goes to show that the site is fluid, and the more y'all participate, the better it gets.

That's a good way of putting it.

Who is 'iarbonelseye010'?

That's Seer's old username.

Oh. I see now.

Does that predate Mr. Squishy?

That's quite a username.

I think the Exocosmic and Endocosmic views need to be well balanced, as both can be extremely beneficial for learning about that world and the people who live there. Their different merits complement and balance out the other's faults. I try to use both of them, and keep away from the tendency to tell everything from the narrator's point of view, but it is difficult at times.

Hmm, that would be interesting to find out.

Glad I got to re-read this topic - I had read it before, as a newbie, but then promptly forgot about it I have a few ideas that I don't have time to post now but I will soon.

eru

I have not written an exocosmic book, just didn't snap in my head I guess. I might one of these days but I really like the detail you can go into with the background of your character and the possibilities and such of the endocosmic.

I would like thank Seer for this post. This post has helped my worldbuilding tremendously. My worldbuilding for Murel now makes sense and is actually interesting because I don't just randomly decide that the sun rises in the south and sets in the north; instead, I give a reason why "north" is "north" and "south" is "south" and that, in turn, explains why the sun rises and sets the way it does.

Thank you, Seer, for a post that is constantly on my mind when I'm worldbuilding.

The Silmarillion. Tolkien was one of the few authors to truly understand the endocosmology of his world.

No, the Silmarillion was constructed from an endocosmological perspective. Tolkien believed that England lacked its own mythology so he created one, and he did it by inserting himself in the myths, and then fleshing them out and developing them from the perspective of a person who actually believes in the myths.

His start out as very simple, very English (and rather Celtic) myths. Tolkien puts himself in the shoes of an ancient Briton and sails across the sea to the Elvish isles. (The Book of Lost Tales)

Tolkien spent most of his life taking The Lost Tales and aggrandizing them into The Silmarillion. These simple myths become awesome legends because Tolkien grounds them in the legends of ancient England and ancient Greece. (In other words, the epic scope of Norse Mythology, the delightful subtly and simplicity of Celtic Mythos...and the resonating ancient tale of Atlantis.)

This tendency of quaint myths becoming mighty legends can be seen in Greek history. The Greeks wanted to maximize their place in history, so they changed ancient mythology to maximize their importance. Later, the Romans did the same thing.

So Tolkien replicated this. Since he was the sole member of his fanciful culture, he let his artistic license guide him until he had created a myth that suited him...although he didn't fully achieve this goal.

This kind of process seems sort of heretical to fantasy writers, despite the fact that Tolkien is the primary ancestor of modern fantasy. The truth is, Tolkien built his world from the inside out. All his readers are on the outside, so when we go build our worlds, we build from the outside.

Of course, Tolkien wasn't purely endocosmic, or he would have written LoTR in Westron, not English. Tolkien also took his Westron, Rohiric, and Hobbit names and Anglicized them, so that they wouldn't bore us to death.

And there is Tolkien's excellent use of words. An analysis of the etymology of the word "wraith" reveals that Tolkien chose the name very intentionally. The history of the word includes wreath, originally "a twisted thing", and also includes other words representing darkness, evil, absence, and ghoulish monsters. All these connotations are unconsciously evoked in the mind of well-read readers, and even poorly-read readers.

Endocosmic world building is like taking a huge block of marble (your black slate), get an essence of an idea for a sculpture in your mind (your basic concept), and then gradually reveal the sculptural by shaping that block of essence.

The block of essence is all you have to work with. It limits you to working from inside the idea, not the outside.

Exocosmic building is like taking a wire frame (your basic idea) and then adding clay, molding the shape, painting it, glazing it, firing it, until you have the finished work. You add to, shape, and alter your original conception, until you have a finished product.

Instead being limited to some "essence" of an idea, you add to your world from the outside.

Of course, it's impossible to do either way purely when writing fiction. However, I believe it would behoove authors to try crafting novel drafts (not worlds, just texts) from a more endocosmic perspective, letting the reader quickly "get inside" the story, rather than pushing them away with endless explanations of fantasy creatures and features.

I know what you mean. I've been trying to build Eartea from the exocosmic perspective...and I keep hitting roadblocks. I think I'll trying slipping into the mind set of some of my cultures, and see what they think about the past, and then step out and use those ideas to decide what history was really like. Same thing for the future: I'll find out where they think they're going, and then base the future on the ideas I encounter.

I believe Tolkien rationalizes the use of both forms in "On Fairy Stories".

WARNING: Improperly mixing these forms of writing may lead to the cliche of an overly ignorant country person being treated like an idiot. Please write responsibly.

This was very interesting! I did not know that there was such a difference between endocosmic and exocosmic. I thought that one was simply making stuff up and that the other was being more realistic. Thank you for the help!

*looks for a Like button on the post* :p

Thanks a bunch for posting this--it cleared up a lot about these particular concepts for me.

The basic difference is that exocosmic thinking tends to focus more on the fact of the matter. How things truly are in the world. On the other hand, endocosmic thinking realizes that just as in our world, where our perceptions of the realities impact our actions and thoughts more than the objective fact of the reality itself does, so in a fantasy world, an inhabitiant/character may perceive things differently from the way they are. That's the basic difference

Good example, many people come up with very carefully-thought-out systems of magic/cobha with detailed explanations for why it really isn't "magic" perse like the Bible forbids. That's thinking exocosmically. Endocosmic thinking would keep the reality of how the cobha works in their mind, but would focus more on what the characters understand of the cobha and what they experience while using it. Make sense