Classic case has to be Tarzan, by Edgar Rice Burroughs!
Hmmm…peers suspiciously at Spice_Weasel. It’s almost…ALMOST like you’re intimating that the appendices weren’t your favorite part of Lord of the Rings. But that can’t be right. You seem like a good person and we all know that all right-thinking people love the appendices best. Right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?! 
So, I love world-building (decent world-building) in sf/fantasy, but I really don’t like most ‘hard sf’. I suspect it has something to do with having been a history major while sucking at math 
. I’ll happily devour Cherryh’s sociological/political sf while not giving a shit about ‘jump-drives’.
I’m can also be offended by well-done but lazy world-building. I enjoy Turtledove’s Videssos cycle while still being annoyed by it because the lazy fuck just did a straight (well, flipped) port of Byzantine history and added magic. That’s the sort of lazy shit I would do if I were novelist and then suffer extreme self-loathing afterwards.
My kids loved it as a read aloud. YMMV, but might be worth considering, if your kid likes read-aloud novels. Very satirical and silly stuff.
As for fantasy and research, I think about mythopoetic vs. hard fantasy. Someone like Brandon Sanderson firmly believes that magic systems should be internally consistent and well-considered and, well, systematic. Someone like Peter Beagle thinks that magic systems should be mysterious and ineffable and, well, magical.
Different strokes and all, but I prefer The Last Unicorn to Mistborn. Given a choice between a world that’s lovely and evocative and a bit out of focus, and a world where you can take a magnifying glass to any inch of ground and see the grains of sand, and I’ll always take the former.
The hard fantasy requires more research, I think.
I’ve heard that there are many – and vocal – weapons experts that will jump on you if you get the slightest thing wrong about them.
It’s a minority taste, I’ll grant. And seldom done well: it can too often read more like a textbook than fiction.
But occasional authors… (Heinlein, Clarke etc) were sometimes able to combine a sense of wonder (or humor!) with accurate science. For me, the richness of the real world as revealed by science can be broader and more ‘magical’ than any fantasy.
I’m with you there. Mind you, Beagle is a rather special writer: his poetic gift is extraordinary.
True–Beagle’s one of the all-time greats, and I’ve definitely read books where a muddled magic was just a hot mess.
I also think about things like Star Wars, and the Force’s move into midichlorians. That felt like an attempt to move from the mythopoetic to hard fantasy, and it was very lead-balloonish.
Sometimes the little things can take me out of a story even if it doesn’t ruin the entire experience. I was reading a post-apocalyptic alien invasion story where a woman picks up a fire axe and describes it as weighing about 25 pounds. Twenty-five pounds doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s an insane amount if you expect someone to use it without getting tuckered out after a few swings. Fire axes typically weigh 6-8 pounds, and there was no reason the author couldn’t do a little fact checking all from the comfort of their own home. For me, the scene was interrupted by the ridiculous description of the axe and it took me a little bit to jump back into the action.
I imagine there are things authors have gotten wrong that went over my head because I lacked the knowledge to know any better.
This is a good one. I’d find that jarring and eye-rolling as well. It’s pretty common for people to assume things like medieval weapons were much heavier than they actually were. Your average longsword was about 3-4 lbs, whereas a lot of people seem to think they weighed far more.
So it’s a very common error, but it is still something that is trivially easy to look up. If you’re going to bother to include an actual weight as a story point, just check it first. That’s the most trivial bit of research anyone should bother doing in a final edit.
Adding to the chorus of ‘yes, research real life stuff that you don’t know about if you’re going to include it’, and I don’t think it matters what the genre is.
As an example that bugs me immensely, I cannot believe L. M. Bujold had so many characters having seizures in her books without apparently checking the recommended first aid for someone having a seizure. No, sticking random objects in someone’s mouth is not a good plan, you can cause serious damage- you’re supposed to be sensible characters who should know better, not chaotic idiots- stop it! But no, no-one ever says it’s wrong, not even those who definitely have the training to know better.
I’ll accept wormholes without a murmur, but not that. That seems like something you should check first.
Interesting. I’ve actually had seizures and never picked up on that oversight.
Yes, absolutely. I definitely made it all the way through those books.
I’ve always thought world building is like character backstory. You need to know, it needs to inform your choices, but you don’t need to cram it down the throats of your riders. I’ve seen too many examples where the writer is so insecure about their technology that they feel they need to include almost a technical manual before any action.
When a book is really working, in almost any genre, the world building, characters, and story all mesh and flow. Exposition about how the world works is a natural result of the characters and story. The story comes out of the world and the characters, and the characters are a result of existing in that world and being part of the story. And to be clear, balance doesn’t mean equal parts of each.
I’m just a reader, so I wouldn’t begin to tell someone what it takes to write an engaging book (foreshadowing that I am about to tell them), but as a reader, I can tell when, to my tastes, the author has hit or missed the mark. I think preparation is necessary, whether that is careful planning, research, or just having an excellent instinct for seat of the pants story telling, and the editorial eye to go back and fix it where it didn’t work.
Things can go too far, and I’m thinking of Neal Stephenson. I very much like many of his books, but some of them suffer from the “I did a bunch of research, let me tell you about it” problem. As I coincidentally mentioned in another thread, I found chapters about 18th century sewer systems boring. However, I did enjoy learning about orbital mechanics in Seveneves.
I think in many ways that was because the sewer lectures didn’t add to the story (as I remember it, because I have no intention of rereading The Baroque Cycle), but understanding how rockets make it to orbit is central to the conflict and story in Seveneves.
I think it’s fairer to say that that’s what Sanderson personally likes, but he doesn’t believe that that’s the only right way to do it. Cite:
I suspect that there are some good, or even great, novels that haven’t involved any research, but I don’t know of specific examples.
It seems to me that the background of a good novel will be a combination of personal lived experience, research, and imagination, but the exact mixture of those elements will vary considerably from book to book or author to author.
Totally fair, and thank you for the correction. Confession: after I posted that I went and read Sanderson’s wiki and came across that, but was too lazy to correct myself. So I appreciate your doing so and apologize for my sloth!
This.
Research or world-building is like a scaffold. It’s necessary to build a building, but you don’t want to leave it obviously all around the lobby when you’re done.
A good building directly demonstrates the craftsmanship of the workers who stood on that scaffolding. And thereby indirectly demonstrates how well it was scaffolded.