 Hey there, so this is kind of an impromptu video, sort of a response to this specific comments that I'm going to point out here, but also, it's not the only comments that have said something similar to this before, and don't worry, this isn't me being like buttered or anything, this is just me talking about a pretty common question that people have asked or a pretty common problem that they seem to have with me. So I'm just going to read this comment out first, and then we'll get to the response. Why do you do this? Never been a fan of Martin's work, so I'm not an angry fan. I'm genuinely curious as to why you and terrible writing advice find it so reprehensible that an author didn't want to sync hours, if not days, slash months, fine-tuning every little thing about their setting. Why is it suddenly such an issue that authors or game designers don't look into plate tectonics, title forces, and a whole host of other nitty-gritty details before they ship slash publish their work? How about you create a setting that comprises in-depth information about the biology, geology, meteorology, dendrology, anthropology, archaeology, cosmology, and oceanography of the fictional world and see how far you get? How about you get off your high horse and think for once if what you're saying really needs to be said? So that was a comment left on my recent Song of Ice and Fire world-building analysis. And so the thing about that is that I have gotten similar comments before. A lot of people saying it's just a fantasy world, leave it alone, or who gives a shit, that sort of thing. And I just wanted for a minute to talk about why exactly I do this. So I started world-building analysis by doing an Ember in the Ashes, and that's a series that I actually really like. I really like those books, all three of them that have come out so far, and I'm excited for the last one. But I did notice just some little inconsistencies in the background of it. Like it was literally just, I think I mentioned in the video, the population of the Marshall Empire seemed low. And so one night I was thinking about that, and I literally just got out the measuring sticks and I looked at the map and I tried to figure out exactly how big things were, and then based on that I looked at the population and et cetera, et cetera. And from there I just started writing and eventually I had a whole script for a video planned out. And the thing about that is that Ember in the Ashes, again it is a good story I think, because the world isn't really that important to it. Like it is a little odd and it's a little off and it's a little, just not quite as good as it could be, but really that just means the background to it isn't as interesting. It's like, I tend to think of world-building as like the graphics in a video game. Now if the graphics aren't very good, I personally don't care that much, like okay as long as the gameplay and everything is fun it doesn't matter that much to me. But if they are really good, then it adds flavor, it makes everything look nicer, it makes everything just cooler to see and it makes the game itself more fun to play. You can also think of it as like salt with your food, you know, you put a little bit on it adds flavor, but if you add too much then it just overpowers everything and some authors do have a problem with this, some fantasy authors in particular have a huge problem with this, they just front load all the world-building. And if you don't have any or if it's like not salt but you accidentally put paprika on instead, which in this not great analogy, paprika is going to be like shitty world-building but just work with me on this. And it's just going to ruin the food, it's going to ruin the flavor of the food. And so what I'm getting at there is that in most cases no, the world-building isn't really that big of a deal, I'm kind of a nerd for it and I really like it but a lot of people aren't and I get that. But then you also run into cases like my second world-building analysis which was on the Divergent series and that one part of the reason that that series was really bad because I think it's really bad, I really don't like those books, I like the first one is okay and after that they're just bad. And a pretty big part of the reason for that is the world-building because the thing about that is that the world-building ties into the character development, it ties into the conflict and it ties into the themes of the story itself. Like you look at this society that they've built where they have several different groups all built off of one personality, trade a piece and that is kind of weird. Granted, if the author has been trying to tell some sort of ESOP or, I don't know, get across some sort of potent message then maybe it would have worked. Maybe it would have been okay but by just, I don't even know how to put this, but by having a world that didn't really make sense it detracted from the themes and it detracted from the conflict because you're looking at this and thinking well this world doesn't make sense, these different groups don't really make sense and they're in conflict with one another so it detracts from that and it detracts from the character development as well because the character development is tied into all that. And so in this instance we can see that, yeah, issues with world-building do affect the rest of it and so what this guy said, Black Metal Grotto, it's not about just having plate tectonics and everything mapped out because I don't do that sort of thing. Some people out there are world-builders who do that sort of thing and more power to you if you like that but I don't. I'm more focused on the history, the culture, the anthropology side of things. And the reason I don't do that and the reason I don't really care about it or even talk about it that much is because it doesn't tie into the story. It doesn't matter that much. That's it really, it just doesn't matter in most cases. If you were to write a book where for whatever reason the geography and plate tectonics were really important then yeah, I would expect you to get it right as well. And then we'll go to some of my other world-building analyses where like number three was Wheel of Time. And that one, again, I even mentioned in that, that Wheel of Time's world-building is pretty good overall. I just found a couple of issues with it, a couple of, even some of them kind of big issues and then just talked about it from there. And in that case it's more like, hey, isn't this kind of weird? And again we're getting back to like the background of the graphics of it like, hey, the graphics could be a little better here is basically what I'm saying. Like with Sean Chan for example, I still don't think that just made all that much sense. And then we've got my two-part Southern Victory world-building analysis where in that one it started off okay and it's like, it's alternate history is the thing. So we can argue all day about what would have happened, what wouldn't have happened. That one I'll admit was definitely a pretty subjective take on my part because that's just my interpretation of history. And I'm pretty sure I admitted that in the video as well. And in the second part of the series, like the latter half where it's like after World War I basically, then it starts to just be parallels with real history and that's a lot more boring. And that is the general consensus among the people who have read them. And so that is another case where the world-building actually does tie into the story because at the beginning the story's good because it's unique, it's different, but then after a while it's just real history so it's not as good. And then we have Blood Rose Rebellion where again the world-building of that ties into the plot and it ties into Anna's character somewhat. Like the thing is in that world they had all these creatures and magic itself that was locked away in the binding. It was locked away in this giant spell. And to think that that didn't really change that much other than okay now only a couple of people have magic is silly to say the least. Like that would have radically altered everything because before that it would have been radically different from our own world as well. And so this one is not quite as bad as, or that example I mean is not quite as bad as like Divergent where it completely makes the setting fall apart and it makes the conflict fall apart but it is pretty weird and it just doesn't make sense. And to people like me who actually enjoy this sort of thing enjoy picking apart like how these worlds work and how their society functions and all that. To people like me that's kind of just distracting. That's a good word for it just distract. And now we're getting to the Game of Thrones one which I just released a couple of days ago and that one again I think that the world-building is pretty good. I think in a lot of ways it's actually above average but there are a couple of things that just again distract me and do take away from the conflict we'll say. Like I do talk about how the governments of the Seven Kingdoms should really be more centralized. And I've seen arguments against that and I see what you're saying but I'm not 100% convinced of that it should be as decentralized and as feudalistic as it seems. And to me just looking at the 300 year history of the Targaryens and looking at how they basically fought down one rebellion after another it seems like they would have tried to reform in some way. Maybe not completely strip their Lords of Power but do something to try and prevent rebellions again because that is eventually what brought them down was a couple of major lords rebelling and then later on the actual conflict of the main story is about again major lords fighting against one another whereas if Robert Baratheon had also consolidated power which again in his defense he didn't really have the capability of the Targaryens to do but if he had tried at least then maybe the war would have been different or maybe it would have been avoided entirely or something and I'm sorry my laptop's light is reflecting off my glasses that's probably annoying but anyways and so that does take away a little bit from the actual main conflict of the story and so that's about all I have to say on this really like it's just not the end of the world it really isn't when world-building is just a little off or it's just a little shitty and that's kind of where this one is actually no I don't want to say shitty because that makes it sound worse than it is because it's really not it's good in most ways this is me pointing out the couple of ways which are bad and how that takes away from the conflict and yeah that's what I do with all my world-building analyses because for the most part I've really only done them on world-building that I think is bad and that I think is worth talking about because of how bad it is of course there have been some exceptions but at the end of the day I just want to be clear that it's not that big of a deal unless it detracts from other parts of the story so that's it I hope this wasn't too rambly I just saw that comment a couple of minutes ago and I thought you know what I should I should get my thoughts about that out there and I'll see you guys later