Conworlding and plausibility

[Ares Land]

If you want an Earth-like planet that doesn't have a Moon, well, you just do that! It's been a growing trend, among worldbuilders as among language inventors, that, for some strange reason, everything must be plausible and realistic. As much as Realism School fans decry Star Wars I find it a source of wonder that inhabitable planets can have three suns and huge moons and all the rest.

I think the lesson here is to put science at yóur service --- rather than to conceive your world in the service of science.

Strict adherence to "plausibility" and "realism" can be overly limiting, and can lead to nervous paranoia, but you have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction, otherwise you'll end up with no limitations at all. I think a maximum of one ass-pull per con-thing is sensible, or two with a lot of caution. This probably deserves its own thread.

Let's take it to a new thread then

The standard rule in SF is that you're allowed One Big Lie. Except that of course, SF works end up with a lot more ass-pulls. Foundation has galactic colonization, hyperdrives, pocket nuclear device, a science for predicting human behaviour, anti-gravity, and my personal favorites, psychic powers through advanced mathematics, psychic powers through genetic mutations and of course, my favourite SF item: atomic ashtrays. All of which are seriously questionable. We buy the stuff because they make the story work and their origin and consequences are explored. Yes, even the atomic ashtrays! (Tobacco serves as a shorthand for the state of pan-galactic trade, the technological power of the Foundation is demonstrated, rather neatly, by their use of nuclear power for everyday object.)
What do people complain about Foundation? Well, OK, psychohistory, but arguably that's not a bug, it's a feature. Psychohistory gets people engaged enough to argue about it so that counts as a success.
The most jarring things are the sexism. Or little details, like oil and coil-rigging after 20,000 years, or the tobacco plantations, or when they calculate hyperspace drive with slide-rules.
I'd argue these are areas where Asimov didn't quite think things through. A far-future society isn't going to have 1940's American values; they could very well be sexist, but their sexism would be different; oil and coal aren't going to be in 20,000 (it's as if we went back to mammoth hunting), the drugs will be different if you've had 20,000 years to explore a galaxy's worth of ecosphere, if we could figure out FTL technology with a slide-rule, we'd have done it.

So, to put it briefly, you can justify just about everything as long as your picture is detailed enough, the details fit the story, and you explore the consequences of the premise. Of course this amounts to the same thing as your rule: a huge ass pull entails enormous consequences, so you need to limit these.

On the other hand, we're talking about creating entire planets here. We'll never finish it anyway, so we can spend as much time as we want on any absurd detail we feel like exploring.

Oh, and I guess implausibility can be freely ignored when it serves the plot. Perdido Street Station is all about the grotesque and the social commentary; nobody cares that the khepri make no sense or that the garuda can't possibly fly.

For that matter, sufficiently vivid and grounded narratives makes readers forgive a lot of things. The Micmacs never built huge Maya-style pyramids in Maine, but the description of daily-life in rural Maine is so vivid that I'm still scared when I get there.

Implausibility is also, at heart, a requirement in SF and fantasy. To use Foundation as an example again, if anything, it's rather lacking in magitech. ("20,000 years of technological civilization and all I got is that lousy ashtray").
In fact the need to balance implausibility and realism is at the heart of good speculative fictions. Ask yourself "What if there had been dragons on medieval battlefields?" and you get aSoIaF. Ask yourself "What if the beings of Germanic mythology had actually existed alongside the Christian god?" and you get the Silmarilion, or "And what would be the place of men in this, and what would it be like, fighting Satan right here on Earth?" and you get LOTR.

[Pabappa]

I follow the one-gimmick rule as best I can, but I end up explaining a lot of things as resulting from the one change, some of which are quite a stretch. The main differences between humans on planet Teppala and humans on Earth are that humans are pacifistic by nature and women are often both taller and stronger than men. I'm planning to make one of these the cause of the other, but haven't decided yet which is which. Probably both are ultimately caused by something further back which also made animals much tamer than on Earth, such that humans can communicate with bears, wolves etc and not just be pounced on immediately. So that means my gimmick goes back millions of years, and affects animals and humans alike .... so it's starting to look like more than one change, but I still consider it to be one single change. (Conlang-related ideas like the unusual phonology of Poswa cant be easily derived from this behavioral change, but that doesnt bother me because the phonology of Poswa does not cause major historical events the way the male/female height gap does.)

I used to write science fiction when I was younger, but sometime in my early twenties I abandoned it and switched to fantasy. What I write now doesnt even really seem like fantasy, since there's no magic .... but it feels like fantasy to me.

[Raphael]

Minor note: what annoyed me most about those Foundation books that I've read (I haven't read them all) was that the very people who were able to predict and manipulate other people's actions through their advanced social science, the Second Foundationers (or is that Second Foundationeers?), also had actual psychic powers. It's as if Asimov was so mystified by his fellow human beings' motivations that he couldn't imagine any way a person might be able to understand another person's thoughts or predict another person's actions other than psychic powers.

(See also the habit of some sci-fi settings to use the word "empath" for someone who has psychic powers allowing them to sense other people's emotions.)

[Ares Land]

I never could understand all the psi-powers, empath, ESP that was so prevalent in classic SF.
Those guys would've killed themselves if they ever had calculated an orbital period wrong, but they'd swallow and regurgitate whatever any quack happened to say about parapsychology.

[Raphael]

My own problem is that if I stick to One Big Unscientific Thing, I'll have to use that up for having a very-human-like sentient species. Oh, and I'm currently planning to take them into the age of FTL exploration, so that's two of those. Not really any coupons left for, say, earth-like climates and seasons without an earth-like moon.

[Ares Land]

very-human-like sentient species. (...) Oh, and I'm currently planning to take them into the age of FTL

Didn't anyone tell you? Those two you get for free!

(Honestly these tropes are so common that they barely require any explanation.)

[zompist]

There's something to the one-big-thing rule, though I don't think it's so much about plausibility as about focus. E.g. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination is about personal teleportation, which he develops in all sorts of ways. It doesn't mean that other speculative ideas are forbidden, only that they're secondary.

The Anubis Gates is based on two big things: (strictly limited) time travel, and soul transference.

Snow Crash is based on three big things: the Metaverse, libertarianism, and a permeable brain-computer interface.

One problem with multiple speculative ideas is the author may pull one out of their ass to get the protagonist out of a difficulty, then forget it later. That's the besetting sin of the comics, or Star Trek, where after years of continuity so many ideas are floating around that no writer can keep track of them all, or work out their consequences.

On the other hand, most novels and movies are created over a period of a couple years or so. Many of us here are engaged in a form of conworlding that takes decades to finish. There's theoretically time to work out consequences of ideas on a much deeper level. So I don't think a conworld needs to limit itself to one idea.

[zompist]

Thinking about it more... one of my pet peeves is when the One Big Idea is worked out technologically, but not culturally. Bester is very good at working out cultural consequences; many fantasy authors are not.

A typical example: the Elder Scrolls games, where you have general, very powerful magic, but otherwise a completely ordinary medieval world. (Plus classical when they feel like it.) But the magic they have— persuasion spells, fireballs, teleportation, healing, summoning creatures, life force sensing— would transform society until it was no longer medieval. Teleportation means that travel, communications, and war are not limited by the speed of the horse; also that houses don't need doors. Healing means that people's lifespans could be extended indefinitely; it also lends itself to abuses (send workers into the uranium mines by day, heal them at night). All of these spells mean that a king can't just sit in a throne room with two or three non-magician guards to protect him. Persuasion is absolutely terrifying: all of the trust that a society is based on would crumble.

[Bob]

If you want an Earth-like planet that doesn't have a Moon ...

My conlangs are not very realistic. I usually only focus on one or a few grammatical things and then let the rest slide. I just don't remember what I've read about Language Universals and focus on other things in my conlangs.

Conlangs end up being commentary and release upon whatever languages I've been studying.

I tend to study very torturous languages that almost no one else studies: Logographic writing systems, and recently 1600s Massachusett with very long words in a cumbersome 1600s orthography ill suited for the purpose.

Then on the rare occasion that I conlang, the focus is on studying and doing things I don't otherwise get to do.

...

My general approach to fiction is also that I like pretty goofy stuff.

I generally hate all fiction, though, I just don't like it. I read massive amounts of non-fiction. When I do engage fiction, it's usually movies. And I especially like kids movies and books because they often contain fantasy and historic elements that grown up works generally lack. Children and old people are also interesting because they're distinct from grown up's in how they think or are thought to think but probably do not actually think.

Well, I study a lot of myths and myth-derived fairy tales. But that sort of thing is distinct from regular modern or somewhat modern fiction.

I remember especially liking many of the works of Michael Crichton, though. And he took pains to do something more like a vigorous and realistic science fiction. But otherwise I don't ask so much of realism in movies and privately tire of those who do, looking rather as I do for possible symbolism and the internal logic of movies which others overlook but which explains so many things about movies (and fiction and such) so much better and more satisfyingly than anything else.

[elemtilas]

My conlangs are not very realistic. I usually only focus on one or a few grammatical things and then let the rest slide. I just don't remember what I've read about Language Universals and focus on other things in my conlangs.

Conlangs end up being commentary and release upon whatever languages I've been studying.

This makes a lot of sense, and I've known other language scholars who do this kind of invention.

Would you consider this a kind of "model language" (I would). And this makes me curious: do you have a particular method of working in this genre? I could easily imagine having some pre-determined modules that could be placed around the area of focus in order to see how it works. Or would you sort of "simplify" & focus the natural language you're studying?

[sasasha]

A typical example: the Elder Scrolls games, where you have general, very powerful magic, but otherwise a completely ordinary medieval world. (Plus classical when they feel like it.) But the magic they have— persuasion spells, fireballs, teleportation, healing, summoning creatures, life force sensing— would transform society until it was no longer medieval. Teleportation means that travel, communications, and war are not limited by the speed of the horse; also that houses don't need doors. Healing means that people's lifespans could be extended indefinitely; it also lends itself to abuses (send workers into the uranium mines by day, heal them at night). All of these spells mean that a king can't just sit in a throne room with two or three non-magician guards to protect him. Persuasion is absolutely terrifying: all of the trust that a society is based on would crumble.

I think much of this is mitigated by not everyone having those powers -- whilst magic is available to 100% of players of ES games, it seems to be useable by far fewer NPCs. (And kings tend to have a mage hanging around them...)

But overall I'm sure you're right that the Elder Scrolls universe is not as different as it should be.

[quinterbeck]

Children and old people are also interesting because they're distinct from grown up's in how they think or are thought to think but probably do not actually think.

That's interesting! I'd like to hear more detail about that. What are ways what those groups are 'thought to think, but probably do not actually think'?

But otherwise I don't ask so much of realism in movies and privately tire of those who do, looking rather as I do for possible symbolism and the internal logic of movies which others overlook but which explains so many things about movies (and fiction and such) so much better and more satisfyingly than anything else.

If you like fiction with a lot of symbolism, you might enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia in light of Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis by Michael Ward. There's a nice summary of that book on its website.

[zompist]

I think much of this is mitigated by not everyone having those powers -- whilst magic is available to 100% of players of ES games, it seems to be useable by far fewer NPCs.

Well yeah, the PC is always the Special One somehow. But they sell charm spells in shops. A mage in the magic guild hands out a few like candy (and like all the guilds, there's like no entrance requirements). They could figure out ways to keep the spells special, but they just don't.

I understand the gameplay reasons; also, not everyone cares much about conworlding. But I reserve the right to make fun of it.

[sasasha]

Well yeah, the PC is always the Special One somehow. But they sell charm spells in shops.

True! Although most characters are really very poor - these aren't necessarily affordable! I've always liked how wealth inequality is pretty true to life in ES - you want to rob the market trader who sells vegetables? Fine, but they have like 40 gold to their name tops.

(and like all the guilds, there's like no entrance requirements).

In Skyrim, you have to cast a spell to be able to gain entrance to the Mage's College. And even though the PC is by default able to do it, you have to train with one of the mages in things like ward casting to be able to progress. So it's safe to say that if the majority of non-magical NPCs were real people, lacking the ability to do these fundamental feats, access to the guilds wouldn't be available to them.

I understand the gameplay reasons; also, not everyone cares much about conworlding. But I reserve the right to make fun of it.

Of course!! But I personally think ES is more watertight than at first it seems. Because it appeals to tropes it looks silly, but there is some good world-building thought hidden behind the 'I am a stock fantasy world' façade. For instance, the whole conceit of the Elder Scrolls themselves is actually pretty neat, if you ask me.

[sasasha]

BTW, noticing how this thread started, has anyone brought up "What If the Moon Didn't Exist?" by Neil F. Comins yet?

Well worth a read if you haven't come across it already! I think it adds weight to the "knowledge sets you free" argument: there is no way my imagination would build worlds like there are in that book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-If-Moon-D ... 0060168641

[Raphael]

BTW, noticing how this thread started, has anyone brought up "What If the Moon Didn't Exist?" by Neil F. Comins yet?

Well worth a read if you haven't come across it already! I think it adds weight to the "knowledge sets you free" argument: there is no way my imagination would build worlds like there are in that book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-If-Moon-D ... 0060168641

Indirectly, this thread might have been inspired by that - I read about in in Zompist's Planet Construction Kit, that gave me the idea to by a few e-books by Comins (What If the Moon Didn't Exist? is only available on paper so far, and right now, most English-language paper books are a bit difficult to get here because of Covid-19), and that, in turn, led me to start the Potential Calendar Questions thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=640

which, in turn, gave Ars Lande the idea to start this thread.

[sasasha]

BTW, noticing how this thread started, has anyone brought up "What If the Moon Didn't Exist?" by Neil F. Comins yet?

Well worth a read if you haven't come across it already! I think it adds weight to the "knowledge sets you free" argument: there is no way my imagination would build worlds like there are in that book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-If-Moon-D ... 0060168641

Indirectly, this thread might have been inspired by that - I read about in in Zompist's Planet Construction Kit, that gave me the idea to by a few e-books by Comins (What If the Moon Didn't Exist? is only available on paper so far, and right now, most English-language paper books are a bit difficult to get here because of Covid-19), and that, in turn, led me to start the Potential Calendar Questions thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=640

which, in turn, gave Ars Lande the idea to start this thread.

Ah. Everything is connected! I was sure I had been put onto this book by either Zomp or Artifexian, but couldn't remember which...

[Bob]

That's interesting! I'd like to hear more detail about that. What are ways what those groups are 'thought to think, but probably do not actually think'?

I'm talking mostly about old people and children who can't talk anymore or can't talk yet, or can't talk that much. I find that even the best of the academic literature trails off into unscientific and bizaare speculation that hasn't been much of a match for my own experience and research.

My 15 or so years of research have very much been interested in carefully examining the limits of science and unfortunately finding out how scientists and scholars across the board seriously fail to know about and act better with relation to the same.

[Bob]

Would you consider this a kind of "model language" (I would). And this makes me curious: do you have a particular method of working in this genre? I could easily imagine having some pre-determined modules that could be placed around the area of focus in order to see how it works. Or would you sort of "simplify" & focus the natural language you're studying?

I forget the concept of a "model language". I'll try to look it up on Wikipedia, FrathWiki, and Linguifex now quickly. Do you know of any better resources for conlanging terminology?

I only found "model language" here. Let me search a little bit more.

https://www.frathwiki.com/Constructed_language

https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Conlang_terminology

Sorry, I couldn't find anything more about it.

I just consider them conlangs. I especially consider my conlangs to be scientific experiments. I come up with all sorts of great ideas about language science theory while making them that I would not otherwise.

Yeah, I do stuff like that with the modules.

Usually I go with the modules and focus approach to conlanging.

These simplifications of natural languages I've been making for the sake of translations and presentation and study, my conlangs are not much like them.

My conlangs the last 10 years or so usually have some reference to features of the languages and writing systems I'm studying most at the time but then there's some exotic things I like to incorporate into the conlang and its writing system:

I like going with very odd basic word orders like OSV.

Recently, I like giving the language only 10 suffixes that serve a variety of purposes based on how they're arranged. So like one will make a root word a noun, then the next will have to be interpreted as a noun case.

The last 5 years, I stopped caring about having words be too similar to eachother and instead try to imitate East Asian languages where tone makes a big difference or where modern readings are very different from original readings. This is the sort of goofy stuff I have to deal with when I switch from reading Classical Chinese to studying Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese etymology.

I also have spent a lot of time doing very complex things with invented logographic writing systems. But not on a huge scale. For them, though, the underlying language is more of a side note to the big theoretical exploration at work.

The last 3 years, I've also done a lot of conlangs exploring English orthography and also other most Roman Alphabet orthographies to a lesser degree.

I like my conlangs to really allow me to use various grammatical ideas I've encountered the past few months or years, celebrate them a bit, and then allow me to say that I still conlang after all these years and that I still promote it among serious language scientists and other scholars as a way to uniquely and excellently explore and improve on language science theory.

But then otherwise, I'm also not that into it and find real languages, especially my specialty of logographic writing systems, far more interesting and engaging. There's a lot that's disappointing about conlangs.

The last 5 years or so have seen me receive better and worse couched requests that I share my conlangs here on Zompist Bboard. I try to keep that in mind yet conlang so seldom that it could really be years and years before I satisfy it in any manner, worse or better.

I think I have one that I could share right now but it's not my usual zany stuff but a fairly close derivative of real languages in many ways.

I'll try to go get it now, post it here in the Conlangs forum of the new Zompist Bboard, and link to it here: But I'm pushing my schedule a bit, so maybe another time. I am a bit eager to show that I do conlang and do indeed do magnificent work, if at least by my own testimony.

A Quick Grammar of the "Approximated Ancient Bantu Language Weds 5 6 2020"
Written Mon 5 11 2020.
https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php? ... 659#p30659

[alynnidalar]

Of course!! But I personally think ES is more watertight than at first it seems. Because it appeals to tropes it looks silly, but there is some good world-building thought hidden behind the 'I am a stock fantasy world' façade. For instance, the whole conceit of the Elder Scrolls themselves is actually pretty neat, if you ask me.

The problem with TES is that the lore is complex, bizarre, and told entirely by deeply unreliable narrators. Unfortunately, the actual games relegate all of that to in-game books instead of showing it because uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh medieval Europe and dragons I guess. I mean, this is a series where (canonically!) linear time occasionally stops working, the stars and sun are literally holes punched through to a different plane of existence, and all the gods worth talking about are dead, but do you ever talk about that in the games proper? Nooooo.

(Morrowind comes the closest to actually making the weirdness a part of the world and plot *shoves annoying pedant glasses up nose* but even there it's more about culture clashes and why you shouldn't trust anyone calling themselves a god rather than the practical implications of being able to buy Fireball spells for 5 gold from Arrille's Tradehouse down the road)