[Wayne Batson]

The books that draw me in have incredible worldbuilding. So incredible that, when I read, it's like virtual reality. I recently read a book called Rise of the Dibor by Christopher Hopper, and I totally had that "I am there experience."

I try to read analytically, so I asked of myself (and of the text), how did the author get me there? What did he do to make the world of Dionia real to me. It occurred to me that in his realms, the races took on characteristics of the setting. Their armor, their physical appearance, their culture, and their occupations--they all seemed to just GO with the environment where they lived.

What are some other masterworks of worldbuilding? And what does the author do to draw you in?

[Tony Williams]

I think that Frank Herbert did that well in 'Dune': a very different ecology to Earth's, but it seemed to hang together.

In a different way, Hal Clement was an expert in identifying how drastically different physical conditions could create different environments and (to a lesser extent) cultures: 'Mission of Gravity' and 'Surface Tension' are classics.

Thses are of course SF rather than fantasy, though.

[U-Borat]

Ian Irvine and Russell Kirkpatrick are both great worldbuilders- Beautiful prose and good description. Unfortunately, their plot suffers accordingly, Irvine less so.

[Metal-Demon]

Well ... someone is bound to mention Tolkien, right?

Instead, I will offer up my favourite author Stephen R. Donaldson ... who I am convinced has "ruined me" for all other authors with his incredible world-building in The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant.

I can't exactly explain why I find his work to be some of the greatest the genre has ever seen, perhaps that is the reason I am a Reader of Fantasy Fiction and not a Writer. :D

[JBI]

The best world builder I have read I think is Robert Jordan. Even if you don't agree about his writing style, you can at least hand it to him for world building.

George R. R. Martin is another excellent world builder.

The problem however, with world builders is the tendency to be repetitive, and use conventional characters/things. I much prefer a unique world builder, like Jacqueline Carey, than anything by Wies and Hickman.

Uniqueness is the real difference maker when it comes to world building. When I do my literary work, personally I try to use completely new things, and to stay away from the Norse mythology that is so beloved amongst fantasy writers these days.

Instead, I personally try to get more of my influence from Greek mythology, and Jewish folklore. Golems are much more fun than elves in my opinion. As well, the very nature of fantasy is to be unique and creative. If authors are using the same things over and over again, no matter how much spin they put on them, they will become boring.

A couple other notable world builders are Zelazny (not your typical setting), Umberto Eco (doesn't primarily write fantasy, but Baudolino is a fantasy novel, with superb world building), R. A. Salvatore, Guy Gavriel Kay, and Ursula K. Leguin. L. E. Modesitt Jr. Also gets an honorable mention because of his excellent use of magic and politics.

[algernoninc]

My favorite remains Brian Aldiss and his Helliconia books - Martin and Ericson are great, but their stories are more character driven and politically complex. Aldiss really puts the environment in the spotlight, and the impact on the story is magnificent. I think George R R Martin may have borrowed a little from him with "Winter is coming" when he came up with recurrent cold ages. In helliconia this hot / cold cycle is very well explained by the astrophysics of two suns: a weaker/closer one responsible for the regular 4 seasons, and a much stronger/distant one with a cycle of more than one thousand years. Robin Hobb too, borrowed the earthworm / seasnake / flying dragon also from this series. And the main civilisations inhabiting this world are not variants of medieval western Europe - so more bonus points for originality

enough from the fan boy - Aldiss is not the only one skilled in worldbuilding :D

[Tony Williams]

As a writer, what interests me most about world building is creating something very different from the human/Earth norm, and making it hang together logically.

For instance, in 'Scales' I included an alternate Earth populated with intelligent 'saurians' (descended from dinosaurs). They have various non-human characteristics and abilities, and a particular social/political organisation and physical infrastructure, for all of which I have tried to provide logical and consistent explanations rather than simply inventing them for the sake of being different.

But that is SF; it's a harder task in fantasy, unless you're going to have a world in which magic functions - but within certain strict rules. I would then want to illustrate what the (considerable) impact of that would be on the social and political structures, rather than simply tacking it on to a conventional pseudo-medieval backdrop.

Of course, there is an alternative approach to world building, which consists of taking a world which is not very different from the human norm and describing it in exhaustive detail so the readers feel that they are there. That can be very effective in creating atmosphere, but as JBI said that can be at the expense of the plot. The more description is included, the more the action tends to be slowed down. A good story should contain a balance between description and action, in my view.

[Werthead]

Steven Erikson is another good worldbuilder, although in his case he sacrifices depth for breadth. You can made a 20-page list of all the countries, continents, languages, ethnic groups, races, religions, cities, seas, oceans, currencies and demigods of his world, but getting into the nitty-gritty detail of historical depth, for example, is difficult (Erikson is not good with dates and chains of events). Of course, the high-powered magic that Erikson throws around is also mildly damaging to credibility: you have a hard time believing that with magic that can devestate continents and unleash ice ages, the world would still be inhabitable.

GRRM is a very strong worldbuilder who gives a tremendous sense of depth, particularly historical, to his setting. The setting itself is less original - based closely on medieval Europe and Asia - but the very process of sticking to historical accuracy so rigidly (rather than just chucking in some references to peasents and knights and dukes and then ignoring them like other fantasy writers) is itself quite interesting and original. The development of the world is interesting because GRRM wasn't really interested in worldbuilding per se, just in creating a convincing backdrop for his story, but around the time of the third novel found he did enjoy the subcreation-for-its-own-sake thing that Tolkien had done before, resulting in a much more detailed and vivid setting than perhaps he originally envisaged.

Bakker, Jordan, Aldiss, Peter F. Hamilton, Patrick Tilley, Paul Kearney, China Mieville and Scott Lynch are also strong worldbuilders (although with Lynch we only have one very well-realised city to go on; interesting to see what he does as he reveals more and more of his world to the audience).

[Beleg]

I wouldn't call Kearney a particularly good worldbuilder - he does the geographical bits well but there's no depth to his creations and anthropologically they are all pretty much the same (despite the obvious historical east-west contrast). Similiarly, Lynch hasn't really built a world per se, unless we are counting cities - in which case Mieville, Crowley, VanderMeer, Gaiman, MacLeod, Volsky and Martha Wells are all superior to him.

Michelle West is a fine worldbuilder; unlike Jude Fisher, Kate Elliot, Jennifer Roberson and so many other fantasy writers, the cultures she has created actually do read differently instead of being mirrors images of each other with descriptionary bits exchanged.

Ursula Le Guin, Tolkien and Martin are by far the best worldbuilders I have read. Brian Aldiss deserves a honourable mention for Helliconia.

[nicba]

I don't think world building as such has much to do with that quality of "being there" - at least not for me.

An author can develop the most amazingly detailed, original, historically consistent world possible. But if he can't convey that setting to me in a way that is well integrated into the story then I just won't feel the same about it. I think that it's not so much about how an author builds his or her world, but how that world is presented to the reader.

I think it depends a lot on how the characters of the novel interact with the world too. Many fantasy books are about the young boy/girl who defies tradition and goes on to become a famous knight/wizard/bard/ect. Some of these books may have excellent world building, but the world building almost always suffer because the main character is so much an outsider to his/her own time and place in the world; the character could as well have been a visitor from another dimension. And if even the main character doesn't think and behave as if he/she "is there in the world" then how could I, as the reader, ever hope to fit in?