Kind of a catch all.

Lord of the Rings is Epic.

Eragon is Epic.

The Blue Sword is not Epic.

The Chronicles of Narnia are borderlined Epic.

*tries to think of other books everyone has read*

LotR is the best example. A monsterpiece, most (if not all) of Tolkien's works center around the same world. There are maps, geography, history, mountains of history, mountains of mountains, languages, and whatnot. It's epically monstrous. It's huge.

This subject came to me while browsing the Realms Beyond. To qualify for a realm your world must be a monsterpiece. That was the original specifications, and that makes sense. An Epic world needs a place to reside, because it's really too big to do a lot of moving around.

I was explaining the difference between the way I write and the way Jay writes and I said that he wrote on a grand, epic scale. Languages, cities, history, and subforums.

I don't. I've never written more than one story in the same world. I don't do series. My worlds are never very well developed by the LotR standards because they only have to be around for a single book. It serves it's purpose, and moves on. I have nine novels, and nine worlds. Obviously I don't have subforums for all of them. I don't need that. I was thinking about world development, and thinking how I could develop them more, but it's not worth the effort. I am not an epic writer.

I know, I know, we all want to think of ourselves as epic. But if epic means big, grand and glorious, we aren't all epic. Some of us are simply... simple. And in simplicity there is grace and beauty too. In the lack of detail there is more to be left to the imagination, and that too, is glorious.

So, are you epic or not? Do you think there are advantages to that kind of world building for a single novel? Do you prefer epic writings or the simple ones? Feel free to expand upon the subject and add any thoughts of your own that you might have.

I consider myself the paradoxical both sides on this one. I am writing what you call a monsterpiece with at least a trilogy if not a few branch series after the fact. I also have the side (mostly when I write Sci-fi) where I need to get a point across but don't need to develop or very much close the subject (these all end up like little Twilight Zone short stories). When it comes to reading I do prefer an epic work as opposed to a conglomeration of little worlds. I don't mind a "thin" world though, I suppose it's more so one that seeks to be epic but does so as quickly as possible and avoids having 6 detailed appendices.

I'm as simple as they come. Borderline boring, in some cases. I love both epic and simple. "The Little Princess" is a simple story, and I love it. Frank Peretti stories are epic and I love those. But I'm a wacky kind of person who loves just about every genre, so I'm not sure where I fit on the epic scale!

Same as you Bush, we shall be simple and borderline boring together hehe. I Love Frank Peretti!.

Teehee! We shall be epic in our simpleness! Epic Simple, woo!!

What a glorious idea! We can be both at once that makes us more epic than anyone else! (How humble of me)

*rolling on floor laughing* Oh yes, oh so humble.

I do, too. Both can be effective.

We should start a campaign for Effective Simple Epicness.

To me Epic is a story that is concerned more with the big picture than the little picture. I love both but my fantasy series I fondly refer to as "my epic" since it has no title.

That's a very good way to describe it, Brinkstrigg. And that's a good non-title too. When a story is as long and cumbersome as LotR it doesn't deal as much with the little stuff. I mean, just one incident of one character could make a whole novel!

I like both too, but I only write simple. ('cept POY, not sure what happened there, it's still a simple story but it's an epic setting.) I prefer simply written stories as a general rule, but I don't mind the epic ones either. There are a lot more factors that decide whether I like a book or not.

I think I write on the epic-size scale. I prefer to have everything (well, pretty much everything) figured out before I begin to write. I do have to say it does limit me a bit to where I set my novels. Since I like everything figured out, I set as many ideas in one world as I can, then I don't have to be making world after world after world
Though, on the side, I do have some ideas that takes place in (seriously - what I call seriously) underdeveloped worlds.

And Bush, El and Jon... you guys are Simply Epic

* Rolling on floor laughing *

That deserves a banner.

That banner is... simply epic!

Oh wow, Vanya it is simply epic! We should make it our slogan!!

"Holy Worlds: Simply Epic"

I write epicly, but not to the degree of Lord of the Rings My trilogy isn't that saturated with cultural details and such.

For the most part, I'm not an epic writer. I develop what the story needs, and not much more.

And then there's Rhoive. I don't really think many/any of the stories set there would count as "epics" but that's the world that's had the most development and probably the only one of mine that might have a chance of getting a subforum. It has history that might never show up in a story. It has cultural details (for one race, anyway) that might never show up. I don't know if it's epic or not, but it's probably the closest I'll ever be.

I am usually more towards the simple end, as many of my works are standalone and I often focus on current culture rather than history and extended universe. However, I'm working on doing more extensive world-building for last year's NaNo novel, even though it's a standalone (for now). I do this for a couple of reasons... first, to help organize all my special cobha and races/animals. Second, to strengthen the second draft of the novel by giving me more of a base. Third, to encourage myself to do more world-building than I normally would. My goal is to earn a subforum by the end of February for this world.

Sometimes epic worlds can have so much information that the narrative ends up heavy or overly complicated, I've noticed. Simple worlds also need to have enough information to make it believable for the duration of the book. There's a variety of happy balances, but I think you can swing too far to either end. But it all depends on your work and your style.

I'm definitely an epic writer =P Everything I've ever developed is in Enderion - it's massive enough to hold all of my stories. I probably have more words written about Enderion than about my novel.

eruheran

Bread-and-water simple.

I'm a paradox as well. Velaiar is an epic world. It's huge, dealing with a multiverse where all the stories tie in together at the end, and dealing with massive conflicts and near-epic heroes. Yet, not all the stories are epic. Some are more like The Blue Sword, about a single person and their journeys.

Epic stories are mindblowing (Just think of the Wheel of Time, 12+ books all over 600 pages), but personal stories, I think have more personal impact.

I wouldn't say I'm epic or simple.

My characters are definitely epic. I plot out their childhoods on a timeline and fractal even my palace guards. I'm not obsessed I swear.

My cultures on the other hand...I have fun with details, but none of the details are extraneous. They're all important to the story in one way or another. There are no interesting bits of trivia.

I have a world that I am constantly exploring and adding to, big as our own, and hopefully it will be just as varied and complex someday.

But my stories tend to be simpler. They reside in a big world, but then...so do we. * smiles * And there are a lot of simple stories here.

I don't know yet how big my fantasy world is, but I think that it is a lot bigger than earth (though I haven't mapped that much of it yet, and might not ever do so)...



Uh...I'm definitely not epic, but I'm working towards discovering an epic fantasy land and then writing stories in it that range from simple (but not boring, because I wouldn't be able to write it in that case, though my definition of "boring" may change, ), to awesomely epic (hopefully). I think I prefer epic ones, but I'm not sure.

I love the extra history and details that come with stories like The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings...I could spend my whole life studying Middle-Earth, I think, and hypothesizing about it...but instead I'm going to spend my whole life exploring Vadra and hopefully portraying it in Story, both simple, epic, and simply epic ones.

What is the line at which something becomes epic? Very, very, very few people are going to work on the same world for fifty years the way Tolkien's genius did.

Good point, I'm not sure where to draw the line between "epic" and "simple"...but I feel like I might be leaning towards epic in at least some ways...obviously not as completely as Tolkien, but...

Hmmm. I'm not sure my story is epic . . . But it's definitely not borderline or mediocre (maybe the plot, but my characters aren't). Surely not epic to LotR scale, but possibly more than Narnia.

I don't consider Eragon epic. It tries, it really tries, but the Blue Sword is more so than Eragon in my humble opinion. Redwall is pretty epic.

I really try to write epically, with developed worlds and characters that anyone would love to pick up and read. But I find that some of my writing is more borderline. I can live with borderline, but I'm really hoping that my Northworld series ends up epically. That, of course, requires study from the author.

And E, I think your book is epic. ^^

She read the Blue Sword! * points in excitement! *

I don't think there is a line. You can say "This is not an epic tale" but I don't think you can say for sure when it is. Some things are obvious, some things are along the line...

I think we can agree on one thing. Don't try to write an epic story and cheat on the worldbuilding. If you're trying to write the next Lord of the Rings then you need to spend twenty years building the world you're writing in.

I'm definitely not epic in my fantasy story. It's my first, and I think it's okay (note the emphasis on okay), but it needs help. I've always been good with character development, subtle description, and details that don't feel like infodumping, but I'm not sure, in all honesty, how epic my world is going to be. I invented a race of Wood-elf-like creatures (that I should probably post about somewhere) and I added an interesting twist to my dragons. I also have nomad tribes and Dwarves. So, not lacking in characters. But the cultures, I think, are rather underdeveloped.

Tolkien failed. His epicness was not enough.
I know you all think I am crazy, but it's a fact. His development was kind of cheated. He cheated on the maps big time. While all three of his main stories (The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings) all happen in the same universe, The Silmarillion wasn't in Middle-earth, The Hobbit trailed off through the North of Mirkwood, and LOTR turned South at the Anduin and dodged all that business.
The fact is that while his world was pretty boss, his stories left much to be desired. For instance, using what other development he did have.
That said, I believe the world needs a new Tolkien, and I will be glad to oblige.

My universe consists primarily of six continents on a globe the size of earth. There will be multiple novels in each world. I am roughly 1/3 done with my first Red World novel, have one that does some Red World some Green World, have the basic plotting of a fantasy-mystery novel in the Blue World, understand the nature of the Purple World, but admit that Yellow and Black/Orange are somewhat underdeveloped.
Once this first novel is done mayhaps I will turn to epic worldbuilding, literally naming every single king and his sons (like Tolkien did, to no avail). But that will come after I have the story established.

Note that the Silmarillion isn't really a "story" in the sense that Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are, more a collection of myths and such---arguably worldbuilding materials---collected after his death by his son. If you're going to put it in the same category as Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, arguably you should do the same to the Book of Lost Tales and perhaps some of the other volumes in the Christopher-Tolkien-edited History of Middle Earth.
Also, while much of the Silmarillion is set in Valinor and Numenor (and it's debatable whether the latter is part of Middle Earth or not), a great deal does take place in Middle-Earth---before the flood from Numenor's overthrow, granted, but still ...

It's worth noting that Tolkien was a philologist first, a worldbuilder second, and a storyteller only third ---he invented Middle Earth to have people to speak the languages he invented, then set some of the stories he wrote for his children in it.

Also, Tolkien wrote before worldbuilding existed... so he didn't have all these fancy systems we have now. Standards are raised the more people try to match them.

Correction: Tolkien wrote, perhaps, before the term "worldbuilding" was invented. But he obviously did what we would call "worldbuilding" (the Appendices to the Lord of the Rings, added by test-reader demand if I remember correctly, are only the tip of the iceberg), and the systems that have sprung up exist to allow less able (or at least less inclined) writers approach the same level of quality. But, as I said, Tolkien created the languages first, then the world, and then started writing stories about and in the world, two of which became smash hits---but the stories weren't his first or primary interest, while for most subsequent authors (including me) the story is the main thing and "worldbuilding" is a necessary (if fascinatingly interesting) part of constructing the story.

Tolkien did much for literature, but like every writer, he had his weaknesses.

I'm kind of in the position of, "to epic, or not to epic?" I have the material to make it epic, a plot that could be written in epic style, but it could also be a great modern novel, too. I'm not sure.

Don't bet. At the rate my writing is travelling, it may well be 50 years before it emerges victorious.

You too?

I prefer the epic, especially when it comes to writing. (Maybe it's because I think the word "epic" is so cool that it deserves a story to meet its standard of excellence. ) I'm writing a five book...you guessed it...epic fantasy, and I have grand plans for a series to be started next year that will be on a much bigger and more in-depth scale.

I develop my fantasy at least with epicness in mind. I'm not nearly on the level Tolkien was, maybe because I'm so impatient to get on to my next set of ideas. The idea of combining all my fantasy ideas into one world is something I've tossed around, but I ultimately decided against it. This is primarily from a hunger and passion for creating new worlds and races and places. And I might be slightly ADHD...

My current world is slightly underdeveloped, mostly due to my lack of preparation, imagination, and patience. I definitely prefer writing over worldbuilding! That being said, I'm set on doing a more thorough job the next time around. This will be easier for two reasons. First, I have a lot more experience. Second, I'm on HW, where I can pick through threads and ask questions and get feedback to my heart's content!



I second that! In fact in my wild (and slightly demented) imaginings, I hope one day to attain the level of greatness that Tolkien did.

Unfortunately yes.

I really only have two, maybe three epics planned. The rest are all more personal stories, which are the ones I prefer. One is a superhero saga, one is space opera, and the other is a gritty dieselpunk series. NO fantasy epics from me.





The world doesn't need a second Tolkien. It has one. His name is Christopher and assembles his father's work. What needs is the first Reiyen, or Lord Tarin, or Airianna, Or BushMaid.

I prefer to write 'Epic' novels, but I'm not sure if they clearly fall into that definition. I'd say it is borderline epic. The reason I like to write such is this: if I am going to spend all the time to develop a world and create characters, I don't want to throw them away after one or two stories. That's why I want to write spin-offs of my initial series and maybe spin-off's of those. It depends what God gives me and with what my brain comes up.



So completely true.

I'd say that's not (necessarily) "epic" at all---that's merely frugal worldbuilding "Epic"--when the term refers to length at all---is when you have one vast, complex, usually multi-volume story. (Possibly followed by similarly vast and complex sequels or spin-offs.) But something like Christopher Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme books isn't an "epic," for all that the series is probably at least on the order of 22 books by now ... it's just episodic. (That particular series, by the way, began with a brilliant novel, then declined fairly quickly in quality of both writing and theology.)


Or the first Aubrey (whose fantasy setting I think could be paradigm-shifting ...)