evilthecat said:
Technically, it doesn't. Lilith is never relevant to the plot, and is only mentioned once. But the original point is that something like Narnia has sketchier worldbuilding than other fantasy settings, because if you stop and think about it, things stop making sense.
You may as well ask how the existence of Adam and Eve is consistent with evolutionary science.
It isn't. But the multiverse of the setting isn't based on evolutionary science. By the rules of the setting, we know, or can reasonably deduce, that:
-Life is created by Aslan, and worlds shaped by him (as in, by the rules of the setting, Creationism is apparently correct)
-Travelling between worlds is the exception, not the norm
-Earth is the "World of Men" - of what indications there are, humans don't exist in any other world.
So if we actually stop and think, we can put two and two together.
Bringing this up implies a misunderstanding of the purpose.
Why?
I brought up Narnia in the first place to demonstrate that it's possible to appreciate Narnia as a Christian fable, while also acknowledging that the worldbuilding is sketchy. That Lewis didn't care about the worldbuilding doesn't negate the fact that the worldbuilding is extremely broad. If I was evaluating the books as a whole, then the worldbuilding becomes less of an issue. But if I'm focusing on worldbuilding by itself, then it can be examined by itself.
The world of Narnia does not always conform to consistent laws. It is not required to. "Worldbuilding" in the sense you are describing it seems incredibly trivial because fiction does not need to be consistent, it only needs to be entertaining. Sometimes those things overlap, but they don't have to.
Okay, sure, in the strictest definition, worldbuilding doesn't need to be consistent. But lack of consistency will inevitably harm entertainment. We see that time and time again. Speaking personally, the lack of consistency in Narnia doesn't harm my entertainment level. Lack of consistency in something like 40K however? Yes, it does.
It doesn't. It's actually a response to the point you made.
Well then it's wrong, because we do know that there was contact between Narnia and Archenland. Humans arrive in Narnia first, then go to Archenland. So in the context of Book 2, we have to assume that the Narnians conveniently forgot about the humans that lived alongside them for nearly two centuries, and that Jadis herself was apparently unaware of the fact that right to the south was a country of humans. Now, none of this is unsolvable with a bit of fanwank, and none of it is really deleterious to the overall enjoyment of the setting, but in the context of worldbuilding, it's shoddy.
I will admit that it's a pet peeve of mind that when you think about it, Archenland does bugger all in the setting. Jadis conquers Narnia? Does nothing. Calmorenes attack Archenland? Narnia helps. Telmarines invade Narnia? Does nothing. Calmorenes invade Narnia? Does nothing. It's part of why when I've written Narnia fics Archenland has been my punching bag in that I get to invent reasons why the country is so bloody useless.
No shit.
Again, this is the most vacuous definition of worldbuilding, wherein any instance of magic must be accompanied by thousands of words of information on the pseudo-physical principles of how magic works, but in this case you are not required to understand. Narnia is a world created by the literal omnipotent, omniscient Christian God.
Soft magic systems aren't hard magic systems, but there's still rules. So by the rules of the setting, as scarce as they are, it's noticable that sometimes there's an explanation for crossing worlds, and sometimes not.
You could argue that God/Aslan created Narnia partly for the benefit of the small group of humans who would enter it, hence why their appearance is prophecized and why they are given the means to do so, but that's not really a worldbuilding argument, it's a theological argument.. which is the point.
I could make the argument, it doesn't mean it's a good one.
If I'm arguing that Aslan creates Narnia for the benefit of humans, then that doesn't really sync up with what we've shown. Let's suppose he knew that Diggory, Polly, Frank, and Helen would wind up in it. If that's the case, why does he chew out Diggory for bringing Jadis into the world and 'tainting' said world (I forget the exact wording, it's basically analogous to original sin, and with apples, really on the nose at that). Second of all, if Narnia is created primarily for humans, that doesn't sync up with Prince Caspian. Doctor Cornelius states "All you [Caspian] have heard about Old Narnia is true. It is not the land of Men. It is the country of Aslan, the country of the waking trees and visible naiads, of fauns and satyrs, of dwarfs and giants, of the gods and the centaurs, of talking beasts." The badger says, paraphrased, "Narnia isn't a man's country, but it is a country for a man to be king of" (insert joke about women getting the shaft here if you want). By the end of it, apparently the majority of Telmarines leave Narnia to go back to Earth, and while some remain in the land, we don't really see that much of them.
Also, if you're referring to the Cair Paravel prophecy, we don't know when that prophecy was made, but I assume it was made after Jadis took control. But even if not, the prophecy is made in specific reference to the Pevensies getting their arses on certain thrones, it's got nothing to do with the creation of Narnia, or the group of humans who bumbled into it from 19th century England.
Also, this is off topic, but if you're maintaining that "humans rule, animals have the majority" is a theological argument, I'm not sure if that really stands up either. In Abrahamic faiths, humans are at the centre of everything. In Narnia, they aren't. Not really. "Man shall have dominion" only seems to go so far in the setting. That they're kings/queens most of the time? Sure, okay. I can buy that. But the whole "Narnia isn't a man's country" thing is repeated many times in Prince Caspian, and there's nothing to suggest that we should disagree with it.
You really cannot separate worldbuilding from theme or subtext in this case.
Look above, I just managed it.
...seriously?
Okay, fine. Fiction operates on rules. Fantasy and sci-fi can have different rules from the real world, but they're rules all the same. Even if they're sparse rules, they still exist. There's some level of grounding in it.
In Setting A, it can be stated that X is X. The story and characters operate with the assumption that X is X. If, one day, we're told that X is no longer X, but Y, then that's going to piss people off unless it's handled correctly.
I can choose from literally any fictional setting in existence here as an example, but I'll go with The Expanse. In The Expanse, here's a few rules, among other things:
-Artificial gravity doesn't exist, sans centrifugal force, and that can get up to about 0.3g at best.
-Belters are physically distinct from Earthers/Martians due to living in low gravity conditions.
Both of these facts of life are part of the reason why the plot unfolds the way it does, coming to the fore in Nemesis Games. Nemesis Games works, in part because its plot is in reaction to the worldbuilding. Things go a certain way (access to star systems beyond Earth), so the Belters realize that they're screwed, ergo the creation of the Free Navy, and everything that follows that. However, imagine if in-between books, the writers suddenly contended that Belters weren't physically distinct, that they COULD survive in regular g environments, and all that. Do you think anyone reading the book wouldn't ask "wait, what the hell?" upon reading such a claim?
And it's not to say these facts are immutable. Maybe artificial g could be developed. Maybe bone supplements could be improved, so that the Belters can survive on those worlds beyond Sol. As I said, you can change elements of a setting if it's handled correctly. But if you change rules on the fly, it's not only lazy, it's detrimental to the setting, and one's investment in it. To quote Stargate on the matter, "never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
I mean, come on, this is Writing 101.
Look at the sales figures and metacritic user scores for those games.
I'm not sure if sales figures are really indicative of much. First two games were PC only, and released in an era where it was harder to get one's hands on games. But looking at the user scores?
Fallout: 89
Fallout 2: 92
Fallout Tactics: 79
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel: 41
Fallout 3: 79
Fallout: New Vegas: 85
Fallout 4: 52
Fallout 76: 27
These are the PC ratings in each case sans BoS. The console ratings, when applicable, tend to be a bit higher, but seem to follow the same pattern. And while I'm usually reluctant to cite Metacritic as being indicative of much (since review bombing is a thing), these ratings do seem to suggest that I was correct. Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas have scored the highest, and the Bethesda gmaes have gone from reasonably positive (3), to mixed (4), to dire (76).
Worldbuilding is a product of genre conventions.
Not really. FTL maybe, but I can cite numerous examples where it isn't.
Faster than light travel is impossible. There is absolutely no reason to believe it will ever be possible. Its existence in science fiction is pure magic (literally so, in the case of settings like Dune and 40k), it's a magic handwave occasionally backed up with some awkward pseudo-scientific explanation which does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the enormous consequences of it existing. In any science fiction setting which seems to operate on immutable physical laws, the existence of faster than light travel should immediately break your suspension of disbelief. It does not, because it is normal within the genre.
I mostly agree, but...
Noone is going to complain if a science fiction book does not have a fully fleshed out physical explanation for why FTL is possible, or if a fantasy book does not have pages and pages of deep lore explaining the operation of magic and to which things must remain consistent. Our understanding of genre conventions entirely determines what the audience is prepared to tolerate, and that's what actually matters here.
Technically true, but in the context of worldbuilding itself, there's distinction between works that put in the legwork, and those that don't.
This is speaking broadly, but there's about three levels as to how you can handle FTL travel in a setting. First is to not even acknowledge the light barrier exists - ships can get from point a to point b in a reasonable timeframe, and no-one explains anything. Second is to acknowledge it and give an offhand explanation - off the top of my head, Star Trek. In TOS, the explanation was "warp drive," and while not an in-depth explanation, it was praised at the time for even acknowledging the light barrier existed. Third is when it actually goes into detail, which brings me back to 40K. We know how FTL travel is possible (the Warp), and how that FTL travel is actually conducted.
FTL travel may be a genre convention, but how one deals with the convention is going to vary from setting to setting, and some settings put more thought into it than others. The worldbuilding is independent from the convention, even if it's serving the need of that convention. It's also why breaking from the rules of the setting decreases investment in said setting - Andromeda comes to mind, whereas a rule was that the Slipstream was the only method of FTL travel, and thus, messages had to be carried by ships, while in Season 3, we see Hunt and another captain engaging in super-luminal holographic communication. It breaks the rules of the setting, and can't even be bothered to address it - not even a "oh thank goodness we developed super-luminal communications within the last two years!"
An educated guess.
