Some authors have a vague world with little explanation for how that world came to be or why, while others will know minute details about their fictional worlds but never have a reason to bring them up.

There’s pros and cons to both. Readers might enjoy filling in the blanks when trying to figure out why a culture in a book works the way it does. This can be fun when if the author drops hints that lead to a logical conclusion (Ex. Only 10% of the population is female, therefore women are highly valued and few men with have an opportunity to be with a woman.) On the other hand it can be frustrating when it doesn’t make sense (Ex. Only 10% of the population is female, but women have no value and are readily killed off.) In the second scenario it’s hard to figure out how people have managed to survive and without an explanation from the author it looks poorly thought out.

Then there’s the detailed worlds. Knowing a world inside and out can give the author a great opportunity to flesh out a full story. “Fifty years ago A happened which led to B which led to C…” Writers can make it clear that they’re not making up new facts as they go along; their world has a full history and rich cultures. The con being that it can be easy for an overzealous author to infodump everything they know. Perhaps they know that a toilet on their world flushes by pulling a lever on the floor, and they shoehorn it into the story, leaving the reader wondering why they just read five paragraphs about how a toilet works. This detail can be fun; maybe a character trips over the lever and falls in the toilet. But if it’s written into the story for no reason it can create needless filler that will bore readers.

I’m the second type of author and created this blog to jot down information that wouldn’t fit into the books. What about you? Which way do you write? As a reader which do you prefer? What are the best and worst instances you’ve seen for both?