The Confused Term: “Stealth Worldbuilding”

Reading Time

What exactly is so stealth about standalone fantasy novels set in the same world? Am I missing some crucial point, or am I the only one who thinks that if you take a few minutes to do your homework or are an attentive reader, it would be obvious that a bunch of standalone novels are all set in the same world? And if it’s not obvious, then wouldn’t it seem clear that one of three things is happening: 1) the author never intended for there to be additional novels in that world, and, so, came up with a connection to make things interesting; 2) the author had ideas to do such a thing, but never to that level; 3) there was prompting for the connecting factors to come about?

The author of the post linked above talks about Terry Pratchett as a good, high-profile example. The problem? Of all the people you could point to, Pratchett is the least “stealth” about his worldbuilding for anyone who writes standalone fantasy novels. Why? Because none of his novels are de facto standalones when they have the enormous Discworld title printed on the cover. You know right from the start that this book is in Discworld. No stealth about it. There’s no secret moment where you can go “oh, yeah, that’s another part of Discworld and I totally didn’t know.” His books are clearly labeled as part of the same world.

The rest of the examples seem to suffer from the same problem. Shouldn’t it be obvious that if the worlds have the same names, then they are the same worlds, and thus no longer being sneaky about it? And if the names aren’t obvious, how exactly does that make the worldbuilding stealthy? The author is still building a world, and very obviously so, populated with characters and cultures. The only thing that seems to support the term is that some years down the line, books you didn’t think were linked suddenly are. But that’s not a new thing in fantasy. That’s been happening for standalone novels and series for decades (maybe even the better part of the last 100 years). Half the time it’s not even a stealth technique; that would imply intention from the start of a particular set of independent novels.

Readers like to have this fantasy that all writers have a grand plan in their heads, but the truth of the matter is that most writers don’t (not in the sense that we’re talking about here). Some writers write a standalone book, find out it worked out well, and are prompted by their publisher to write another one, maybe as a sequel or as a new addition to the world, or decide to write another one for the thrill of it. Some writers have a little bit of the plan in mind, but didn’t expect, twenty years down the line, that they’d be writing the one book that put all the pieces together. Few writers have that enormous plan already set up (though some undoubtedly do).

So, I reiterate: what exactly is stealth about all of this?

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Digg
Reddit
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Follow Me

Newsletter

Support Me

Recent Posts

A Reading List of Dystopian Fiction and Relevant Texts (Apropos of Nothing in Particular)

Why would someone make a list of important and interesting works of dystopian fiction? Or a suggested reading list of works that are relevant to those dystopian works? There is absolutely no reason other than raw interest. There’s nothing going on to compel this. There is nothing in particular one making such a list would hope you’d learn. The lists below are not an exhaustive list. There are bound to be texts I have forgotten or texts you think folks should read that are not listed. Feel free to make your own list and tell me about it OR leave a comment. I’ll add things I’ve missed! Anywhoodles. Here goes:

Read More »

Duke’s Best EDM Tracks of 2024

And so it came to pass that I finished up my annual Best of EDM [Insert Year Here] lists. I used to do these on Spotify before switching to Tidal, and I continued doing them on Tidal because I listen to an absurd amount of EDM and like keeping track of the tunes I love the most. Below, you will find a Tidal playlist that should be public. You can listen to the first 50 tracks right here, but the full playlist is available on Tidal proper (which has a free version just like Spotify does). For whatever reason, the embedded playlist breaks the page, and so I’ve opted to link to it here and at the bottom of this post. Embeds are weird. Or you can pull songs into your preferred listening app. It’s up to you. Some caveats before we begin:

Read More »

2025: The Year of Something

We’re nine days into 2025, and it’s already full of exhausting levels of controversy before we’ve even had a turnover in power in my home country of the United States. We’ve seen resignations of world leaders, wars continuing and getting worse and worse (you know where), the owner of Twitter continuing his tirade of lunacy and demonstrating why the billionaire class is not to be revered, California ablaze with a horrendous and large wildfire, right wing thinktanks developing plans to out and attack Wikipedia editors as any fascist-friendly organization would do, Meta rolling out and rolling back GenAI profiles on its platforms, and, just yesterday, the same Meta announcing sweeping changes to its moderation policies that, in a charitable reading, encourage hate-based harassment and abuse of vulnerable populations, promotion and support for disinformation, and other problems, all of which are so profound that people are talking about a mass exodus from the platform to…somewhere. It’s that last thing that brings me back to the blog today. Since the takeover at Twitter, social networks have been in a state of chaos. Platforms have risen and fallen — or only risen so much — and nothing I would call stability has formed. Years ago, I (and many others far more popular than me) remarked that we’ve ceded the territory of self-owned or small-scale third party spaces for massive third party platforms where we have minimal to no control or say and which can be stripped away in a tech-scale heartbeat. By putting all our ducks into a bin of unstable chaos, we’re also expending our time and energy on something that won’t last, requiring us to expend more time and energy finding alternatives, rebuilding communities, and then repeating the process again. In the present environment, that’s impossible to ignore.1 This is all rather reductive, but this post is not the place to talk about all the ways that social networks have impacted control over our own spaces and narratives. Another time, perhaps. I similarly don’t have space to talk about the fact that some of the platforms we currently have, however functional they may be, have placed many of us in a moral quagmire, as in the case of Meta’s recent moderation changes. Another time… ↩

Read More »