This is my attempt at a series where I use random excerpts from the Age of Scorpius to identify incorrect word use and, more importantly, explain why they are incorrect.
The flaws in AoS's world-building, plot construction, characters etc., are glaring and need to be fixed, but what elevates AoS from "bad BookTok pick" to "unreadable" is its grammar and lexicon. It's not just the words that are used incorrectly: it's also the commonly known words and phrases that are NOT used. Instead, Milo crafts these strange, over-prepositioned fragments that blur the line between bad word choices and bad grammar.
The thing is, it's really hard to explain exactly why these words are misused. For example, Milo uses the phrase "a dim throb" several times. The word "dim" is used to describe light; it is not used to describe pain. The correct phrase is "a dull throb". But if you try to explain why, the reason is just "Because that's how it goes: you use dim for light and dull for pain."
(There are writers who use adjectives in unusual pairings like this - GNU Sir Terry - but let's walk before we run, eh?)
This series is my attempt at articulating what is normally subconscious or instinctive when it comes to understanding how to use words.
Disclaimer: these explanations are based on my personal experience as a native English language speaker from the US who believes that explaining a joke can make it funnier (that's the kind of nerd you're dealing with here). Connotations and associated imagery will vary from region to region and differ even more among people who know English but don't conduct their lives in that language.
I am very much a person who acquired most of their vocabulary via reading: mostly traditionally published fiction until I went to college, at which point my reading material became more non-fiction and social science theory.
I will not be using grammatical terms more advanced than "subject/object" and "noun/verb/adjective" etc. I was not an English major, and I don't feel like looking up whether or not I'm accurately using the word "participle".
There will be instances where the words I've identified as "wrong" can be used that way in really specific circumstances. I think we can all agree that this author does not have the skill to do that.
With that being said, let's start with the opening to Chapter 11:
Chapter 11, opening paragraphs
I've highlighted the words/phrases I am addressing here (yes, I know there are more examples on this page. Please have mercy: I've already written 1600 words on six mistakes).
Example 1: "browned"
The grassy plains were never ending, an up and down of browned hills for as long as I could see, speckled with fresh snowfall.
[I just noticed the phrase "as long as I could see". The correct phrase is "as far as I could see". "Long" is used to describe dimension, not distance. Isn't that the same thing? Nope! Length describes the size (both physical and temporal) of an object; distance is the space between objects.]
"Brown" as a verb means a process of heating/cooking something until it turns brown, AND it implies the existence of an actor that is performing this. In this sentence, I see the phrase "browned hills" and think "Browned by what? What browned these hills?"
I understand what Milo meant here: it's winter, and the plant cover on these hills is brown instead of green. That's just not the right word. In fact, if he just said "brown hills", that would be perfectly fine!
Hey! But we know what made the hills brown: it's the natural life cycle of plants. Doesn't that count?
It could. But "brown" as a verb specifically indicates heat. Even when talking about, say, bagged lettuce, I would say "that lettuce is going brown", using "brown" as a pure adjective. Not "that lettuce is browning" (though that is something I have heard ESL speakers say).
Example 2: "spur"
I let it sit in the back of my head, pondering on why the simple interaction as a kid felt like it meant more, why it caused a spur of light to fiercely activate in my veins.
I would appreciate it if Rieka never talked about her veins ever again. Dear god. You know there are other things in your body? Bones, nerves, skin? Ffs she doesn't even mention blood unless it's "hued" her clothes.
Thatâs not how you use the word âspurâ. Spur (when itâs not referring to the thing on the heels of cowboy boots) means a growth or a protrusion - usually spiky or prickly in some way - that branches off a central trunk or limb. So if there is a "spur of light", that would mean there's some kind of larger narrow light object from which a piece has become a spur.
I actually have no clue what Milo is trying to say here. If he meant to describe that the memory was sticking in his mind, he probably meant "burr". But then we come to the phrase that the light was "activating fiercely" in Rieka's veins, and I'm back to being entirely lost. Especially because nothing happens in the following sentences: nothing is activated.
Example 3: "Societal's township"
I'd heard rumors about Societal's township...
This is such a weird way to mention Lyra without using its name again. It's like if I got sick of saying San Francisco and said "the Bay Area's City". You can just say "the township" or "the town". In fact, because Lyra is named in the previous sentence, the whole phrase can be replaced with the pronoun "it". If using the word "it" feels like Rieka is downplaying what she's heard about Lyra, you could also use other phrases: "this place", "this town", etc. Using "Societal's township" implies that a) there is only one township in Societal and b) Societal is quite small because it only has one township.
Example 4: "compare"
I'd heard the rumors about Societal's township, but nothing would compare to my first look of a new world with vibrant colors and chiming voices.
After a second look, I think I'd categorize this as a grammar mistake instead of a word choice error. Actually, it's more like a dozen grammar and word choice mistakes in a trench coat. Explaining any one issue would require explaining three other issues, so I'll just include how I would write this sentence (with minimal changes to its contents):
I'd heard rumors about this place, but nothing could have prepared me for how vibrant it was, especially compared to The Hub.
Example 5: "circumventing"
The sidewalks were made of colorful stone bricks circumventing in various directions, spirals of weaving hues mimicking the flow of magic.
This sentence makes me want to throw up.
I know what Milo is trying to describe: the sidewalks are colorful, and the colors are arranged in a spiraling pattern.
What Milo has actually described: the sidewalks are colorful and spiraling in random directions
(me, the reader: If the sidewalk is made from colorful bricks, and the colors are spirals, does that mean the sidewalks are spirals? Where do these sidewalks go? I donât even know which way the Quiznoâs is!)
But to return to my original point:
Thatâs not what circumventing means. Itâs just not.
Well, if you look it up in a dictionary youâll see-
Yes, âto circumventâ literally means âto go aroundâ. But a) by âgo aroundâ, it doesnât mean âwanderâ: it means âdivert from the original path due to an obstacle in the wayâ and b) âcircumventâ almost always refers to getting around an abstract obstacle, like rules or regulations. And it always implies that there is an object that needs to be circumventED.
Example 6: "lumbering" (specifically in context)
In the distance was a lumbering castle, seemingly tiny from where we stood.
I've seen people criticize this specific sentence elsewhere because "castles don't move, so castles can't lumber". I'm actually fine with that. In fact, I think lumbering is a great word to use to describe a castle that looms over the landscape, imposing a heavy presence over all of its surroundings. It doesn't have to move; the characters can feel it watching them, like it's following them around the town.
"Lumbering" means to walk in a heavy and unsteady manner. Giants lumber. Bears lumber. People without proficiency in heavy armor lumber. The heaviness is a key component of lumbering. If you want to use it to describe something that is NOT moving, it needs to be big. It needs to be so big that it feels like it's moving even when it isn't.
If the castle is "seemingly tiny", then it's not lumbering.
Also, we never talk about this castle again. Are there castles in Gardian? Wouldn't the Hub have a castle?
Now I'm thinking about how this book would be 50% better if there were just more castles. Castles everywhere.
Conclusion:
Do you see how fucking long this post is? Do you remember how when people told him "the word is uninhabitable, not inhabitable", Milo pointed to an archaic dictionary definition to argue? Can you imagine having to break down every single one of these errors like this to convince him to accept edits?
These are problems that can only be solved by improving his internal lexicon (or by only writing with words that he actually uses in his everyday life, but then how would we know he's a master of his craft?!). The only way to gain an instinctual understanding of connotations, sentence structure, and other components of how to communicate via the written word is to READ. And not just anything! You need to read works that are a) written in complete paragraphs and b) reviewed and edited by someone who is NOT the author.
Yes, unconventional author styles exist. Yes, using words in unexpected contexts can create great images and moments. But you've got to know that that's what you're doing. You can't word vomit on a page and call it abstract art.
It's not that Milo wanted praise for his book, it's that Milo wanted praise for the world he created.
He wanted his audience to see the World of Gardian and think "omg living in a world where I'd have Capricorn magic sounds so cool!!!" He wanted people identifying with archpowers the same way people used to identify with Hogwarts houses. He wanted people to read his book and spend the days dreaming about living in Gardian, where they could be free to be queer and have magic and not be oppressed on the basis of their gender.
But he also wanted all of the best tropes from YA dystopia lit. He wanted the "female rage" and "opposing the oppressive government" and the inspirational story that could directly tie to our current moment and inspire people!
You can't have both. If you want a story about overthrowing the system, there needs to be a system worth overthrowing. At the moment, the only thing "wrong" with the government of Gardian is the Scorpio Code. And everyone agrees! Nobody defend the status quo, there is no patriarchy to overthrow, no one even says "no homo".
(Sorry I noticed it rhymed and I couldn't resist.)
You can't shy away from "problematic" portrayals. You HAVE to show us normal people being homophobic. You HAVE to show the harm happening to people other than our main character and one couple. You can either have a story about a lovely little world (where the plot focuses on stopping people who are trying to destroy it), or you can have a story where the plot is about overthrowing the status quo of this world because it sucks.
Let me put it this way: everyone loves The Hunger Games. No one wants to live in Panem.
Having multiple artists for AOS (or, at least, having multiple character artists) is a bad idea from an artistic/storytelling perspective.
Because even if you provide Tamora Pierce-levels of physical description, different artists are going to draw the characters differently. They're not going to look the same throughout the book.
If you look at Reika on the standard cover versus the special edition cover, she looks different! Are her arms skinny or does she have really defined muscles? Are her clothes baggy or form-fitting? Does she look like Narah or not?
This issue is especially egregious with Kaia. I can't find the picture from the art in the book, but from what I recall in other posts, there's a chapter heading where Kaia looks like Keesha from Magic School Bus, which is NOTHING like the other art. Her hair texture in official art changes between 2C, 3A, 3C, 4A, and 1C-but-with-Dyson-Air-Wrap-curls. There's no consistency.
I love Actual Play as a medium so much: there is no other medium that has this specific combination of diagetic/non-diagetic AND in-character/out-of-character storycrafting. It's watching a writers' room brainstorm a story except all the writers are also actors and directors and - most importantly - fandom shitposters.
There are pros and cons to this medium, like there are for all mediums. For example, the length: each episode is so goddamn long, with even highly edited Actual Plays having episodes that are never shorter than a feature length film.
But for my little analytical brain that loves watching how all these systems - game mechanics, the nature of play, acting dynamics, language, RNG, humor, and so many others - interact and intersect, there's nothing like it.
Sometimes fandom meta is really well done character and plot analysis that utilizes both in-universe lore and external structures to draw out deeper meanings of what we as media consumers have just witnessed.
And sometimes people say the most obvious shit and expect the rest of us to be like "omg mind blown".
Finally watched the Fjordster Wedding Live Show and I have something to say:
I searched on Ao3 for all Shadowgast fics published in the month after the show was posted on YouTube: and there were only TWO that used the revelations about the bachelorette party and Essekâs whole *waves hand around in that direction*
"The magic system is never fully explained" yeah that's how life works. Imagine having a story set in modern day America and the characters have several pages of exposition on combustion engines and telecommunication networks before we get to the plot
i think this is absolutely correct and good writing advice but also victor hugo would like to have a word with you about the parisian sewer system circa 1832
@rrlawrentian wrote up a post that included this screenshot and it made me realize something. AOS is absolutely not about revolution.
Throughout the book there is a lot of talk of anger and fire and rebelling going on, but the conclusion isn't lets fight the government. It instead goes "Ok. Let's take our stuff and go to the proper authorities and use the system to change the law like law abiding citizens." Huh? Thats not fucking shit up! Thats just, obeying the law? They decided not to change the code by forcing the government to do so, but instead going through the corrupt system to fix it! (Note: It's been a bit since I read the ending so if I'm missing something pls let me know!).
Thats like if Katniss ended the first Hunger Games book by going up to President Snow and politely asking him to stop the death games please and Snow then goes "You know what? You seem like a nice girl, sure! No more games! The dystopia is over!" Can you imagine how boring that would be for a book? Is that why sequels to AOS were gonna be the same book over and over again because otherwise it would just be five chapters of going to court and getting the law changed???
Hell you can see the "revolution" being tame in that glimpse of the series ending we saw. Rieka goes "guys lookie its the sword!" and everyone is like "oh bitch, you're right! no more code now!". Then its legally fine to commit Zodiac Murder(tm) on the one motherfucker, and bam! Your government now!
Revolutions don't normally follow the law, they break it to achieve their goal(s)! Revolutions that become violent are brutal and complicated and a lot of people, including innocent people, usually die in the process! If a writer is promising a violent revolution, then they better be prepared to take on writing all the brutality and complexity that comes with it.
It doesn't help that Milo is narratively speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the legitimacy of Gardian's governmental structures.
To my recollection, neither the narrative or the characters question the validity of the Celestial Determinismâą (which is just a strange thing to back up as a queer AFAB TRANS person). If you are born a Saggitarius, you must be banned to the seas: nobody considers that to be an injustice, it's just how things are. It is presented as a morally neutral policy which the population just complies with. People are apparently okay with just dropping off their children to sight unseen. We are told that the sign-segregated institutional schools are pretty alright, actually.
The characters are not rebelling against a system which forces them into social roles based on something as insignificant as a birth date. They are doing so because the super special magic awesome main character can't love her girlfriend, and isn't that bad?
For a story that is supposed to be an overt criticism of Christianity (and Milo doesn't even really highlight which flavour of it -- doctrinal differences do matter!!!), the text can't help but infer that a top-down imposed authoritarian theocracy is valid because the religion is a matter of fact, not belief. The only thing that is a problem within this authoritarian theocracy is that you have bad actors that may exploit the structure for their own personal gain (ie Blaine and the Scorpio Code).
It's a very "the system is bad because it makes my main character sad" sort of thing.
and once AGAIN I keep getting slammed in the face with "this isn't a bad thing to say to a younger audience"!
Having a story for middle schoolers that says to neurodivergent kids "Hey, that thing the teacher yells at you for? That's not your fault and it's wrong of them to punish you for something you can't control."
which also says to "normal" kids, "Yeah the teacher is nice to YOU, but how do they treat the 'troublemaker' kids? Are those kids trying to make trouble, or is this something they can't change about themselves?"
This is all fine! This doesn't need to be about systemic injustice or be deeply rooted in political theory: it can just be a fun adventure story.
@rrlawrentian wrote up a post that included this screenshot and it made me realize something. AOS is absolutely not about revolution.
Throughout the book there is a lot of talk of anger and fire and rebelling going on, but the conclusion isn't lets fight the government. It instead goes "Ok. Let's take our stuff and go to the proper authorities and use the system to change the law like law abiding citizens." Huh? Thats not fucking shit up! Thats just, obeying the law? They decided not to change the code by forcing the government to do so, but instead going through the corrupt system to fix it! (Note: It's been a bit since I read the ending so if I'm missing something pls let me know!).
Thats like if Katniss ended the first Hunger Games book by going up to President Snow and politely asking him to stop the death games please and Snow then goes "You know what? You seem like a nice girl, sure! No more games! The dystopia is over!" Can you imagine how boring that would be for a book? Is that why sequels to AOS were gonna be the same book over and over again because otherwise it would just be five chapters of going to court and getting the law changed???
Hell you can see the "revolution" being tame in that glimpse of the series ending we saw. Rieka goes "guys lookie its the sword!" and everyone is like "oh bitch, you're right! no more code now!". Then its legally fine to commit Zodiac Murder(tm) on the one motherfucker, and bam! Your government now!
Revolutions don't normally follow the law, they break it to achieve their goal(s)! Revolutions that become violent are brutal and complicated and a lot of people, including innocent people, usually die in the process! If a writer is promising a violent revolution, then they better be prepared to take on writing all the brutality and complexity that comes with it.
It doesn't help that Milo is narratively speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the legitimacy of Gardian's governmental structures.
To my recollection, neither the narrative or the characters question the validity of the Celestial Determinismâą (which is just a strange thing to back up as a queer AFAB TRANS person). If you are born a Saggitarius, you must be banned to the seas: nobody considers that to be an injustice, it's just how things are. It is presented as a morally neutral policy which the population just complies with. People are apparently okay with just dropping off their children to sight unseen. We are told that the sign-segregated institutional schools are pretty alright, actually.
The characters are not rebelling against a system which forces them into social roles based on something as insignificant as a birth date. They are doing so because the super special magic awesome main character can't love her girlfriend, and isn't that bad?
For a story that is supposed to be an overt criticism of Christianity (and Milo doesn't even really highlight which flavour of it -- doctrinal differences do matter!!!), the text can't help but infer that a top-down imposed authoritarian theocracy is valid because the religion is a matter of fact, not belief. The only thing that is a problem within this authoritarian theocracy is that you have bad actors that may exploit the structure for their own personal gain (ie Blaine and the Scorpio Code).
Foofy coffee, with the whipped cream, syrups, and soy/oat/almond/whole milk, is fine actually. I would feel much better about only having coffee in the morning instead of breakfast if there was a lot more milk in this.
Part 3: Attempting Compassion (and where it stops)
When criticizing The Age of Scorpius, while I tend to keep my commentary focused on the writing and not (*waves hand at everything else*), I try to keep these things in mind. [I made this as an anonymous side blog where I could be as unfiltered and mean as possible and I STILL end up putting so much effort into being kind and thinking the best of people. Ugh. I would be a terrible cult leader.]
Milo doesnât know this stuff about religion. Most people donât think about it in this way. I do, but thatâs because I read Durkheim when I was 18. And the only reason I did that was I went to pretentious hashtag elite college (If you ever hear a college tour guide say the phrase âThe Life of the Mindâ, run in the opposite direction and only consider returning if theyâre paying you).
Milo is 23-24. He was 13-14 when the Angry Orange became president. I was around the same age when Obama became president. Those are very influential years for gaining an understanding of wider society, politics, and world events. This is the earliest memory of politics that most people remember, or at least the earliest age where they consciously realize they have a political opinion. Miloâs entire political life has occurred in a time when political norms have been thrown out the window.
Milo would have graduated high school in 2021. The last year and a half of his education was dramatically interrupted by Covid. This a) impacted what he learned from school and how teachers evaluated him. There are a lot of reports of teachers acknowledging that they just let everyone pass those years. Compassionate, but for older kids that meant passing them out of the educational system entirely; b) this moved Miloâs entire life online. Online in the age of algorithmic feeds and social bubbles. This makes it very easy to fall into echo chambers and circles where any criticism is âdramaâ and everyone supports you blindly.
âMilitary bratâ = inconsistent teaching, learning, and evaluation. Having to start over every few years. Itâs probably easier to keep in touch with your friends nowadays, but that is still via the internet.
And despite keeping all of the above in mind, my compassion is stopped by a brick wall.
How could anyone read this and say itâs okay?
A lot of the criticism of the book are addressing the themes, the concerning implications, the worldbuilding, etc.
Thatâs fine, but thatâs all criticism you can throw at a lot of shitty books. You can throw this criticism at some good books too.
The writing in this book, as in the actual word choices and sentence structures, is nonsensical. It is confounding. And it is utterly unique.
An AI wouldn't have written this: LLMs are trained on word use in context. Milo's word choices indicate that he probably doesn't read a lot because he uses words in contexts they don't belong in. He uses words that make it clear what he means but are justâŠwrong. Reading the chapter, you can easily tell from the context that when he says âdemeanorâ, he means âclothesâ. But thatâs not what âdemeanorâ means. Itâs just not!
This is not the work of someone who speaks English as a second language: the errors that come from that tend to be with tone, idioms, and the differences in the literary conventions. Milo writes like someone told him a dictionary and a thesaurus were basically the same thing, and then that thesaurus was the only book he had access to for twelve years.
There are two facts that just cannot fit together in my brain:
Milo Winter has worked for years to become an author. He desperately wants to be a writer.
Milo Winter has no idea how words work and little interest in using words to communicate.
And these two facts just keep colliding in my brain, refusing to stick together.
I think I've figured out a *part* of why the Age of Scorpius situation fascinates me. There's a lot going on, but I had a eureka moment just now.
I haven't done a lot of creative writing recently, but I realized that I actually write a lot. Between graduate school, work, applications (I wish all "cover letters" a very "die"), and the fact that I have no shame about double-texting people, I write so much. (Might be weird to consider 'texting my friends' as 'writing', but yesterday I typed ~800 words to explain hockey culture to them.
Gift giving is my love language, and the gift in question is marginally useful knowledge.)
I'm not the best writer in the world (evidence: see posts), but I am deliberate. And I am constantly rereading the sentence I just wrote and, well, editing it.
For example, I just wrote the phrase "...especially when it involves the US military's being deployed." Stared at it, and then went "why tf did I phrase it like that?" and changed it to "especially when it involves the deployment of the US military". That first sentence is so awkwardly worded, I noticed as soon as I reread it. And I immediately fixed it. I still don't think it's very good, but if I come back to it later with fresh eyes, I'll be able to improve on it again.
I'm not even sure this process should be called editing or "editing-as-you-go". It's just, like, double-checking? Is there anything distracting from my point? Am I communicating exactly what I mean? Will the reader be pulled out by having to think "wtf does this even...oh I see now. Why would you say it like that?"
*That's* at least one part of why this grabs me: how does a person write like this? How is it possible to end a paragraph with a phrase and start the next paragraph with the same phrase? How can a person write without reading what they just wrote?
Back on my Age of Scorpius bullshit again again, [Part 1]
(This section is not as nice as Part 1, to the point that it felt wrong to have them inhabit the same post)
Part 2: "And is the religion that's oppressing us in the room right now?"
I had this whole screed drafted about writing religion from a non-US-Protestant perspective. And then I realized that none of it mattered because Milo didn't even get to the point of making *those* mistakes. The Scorpio Code fails at being an analog to religious oppression because
There is NO RELIGION in Gardian!
Where is it? Where is the religion in this book? Who*/how do they worship? Where do they worship? Is there a church in town? Is the Stellarium some form of theocracy? Or is there a separation of church and state?
*[I know not all religions pray to something or believe in a high power. I've read Durkheim.]
We heard mention of "the Gods", but what kind of gods are they? Even that previous sentence: are they gods or capital-G Gods? Are they physically present in the world? Are they psychically present? Or is this religion by faith alone?
There aren't any mentions of shrines, temples, festivals, or even meetings. People follow the code because the government tells them to, and NOBODY gives any kind of "the gGods want it this way" explanation.
"Blaine has invented the Scorpio Code and is telling everyone it was from the gGods!" And? So what? Why is that a convincing argument? There is no evidence of anyone giving a shit about the gGods.
Without a religion or any sense of religious life, the Scorpio Code cannot be religious oppression. It is oppression via power, yes, but the power of religion works differently than the power of the state, even when they are enforcing the same thing.
It betrays a deeply juvenile view of religion. Why are people religious? "Oh it must be because they are either mindless sheep or dicks." And that's why a governing body took Blaine at his word: he said the phrase "gGod told me so" and everyone blindly accepted that and started enforcing it immediately, and nobody called him crazy.
Even the most basic Christian stories, as in "sanitized down to an kindergarten picture book" level of basic, involve a Chosen of God telling the people something that God told him, and then most of those people don't believe him. Moses and the Pharaoh, Noah and the Ark, I mean for fuck's sake
THERE'S A MEME ABOUT IT.
It's not just that the author doesn't portray any form of religious life in this world, it's that he fundamentally doesn't care to understand why being religious matters to people. And you can't write about religious oppression without trying to understand why people follow religion and what causes people to stop following it.
TL;DR: Gardian can't be religiously oppressive because there is no other mention of religion at all in this book. Also "because God told me so" is not a cheat code to getting religious people to believe bullshit.
Coda:
A lot of the flaws in Milo's worldbuilding do come from him just not having a lot of experience with life. He wants to tear down organized religion because it's oppressive, but he doesn't understand why some people like religion. Honestly (disclaimer: this is kind of mean) this is another sign of Milo's arrogance. He is the smartest person in the room, and people who don't think the exact way he does are either evil or stupid. If you don't like his writing, it's because you're too stupid to understand narrative voice. If you are religious, you're pitiable for believing in a magic guy who lives on a cloud. If you find it confusing that this super oppressive government would prohibit marriage between Unions, but also be pro casual sex: that's a failure of your imagination, not of his understanding of society.
I honestly think the best way for Milo to become a better writer is to, counterintuitively, not write and only read for some time. I particularly suggest reading non-fiction: not Malcolm Gladwell "how to hack your life into six figures" type shit. I mean a history book. Like a biography/memoir, or an account of some period of history (recommendation: "Making Sense of the Troubles: The Story of the Conflict in Northern Ireland" by David McKittrick). None of us are born with the knowledge we need to understand the world, and a hundred years isn't enough time to learn it all through lived experience. Which is why reading about the world beyond your immediate surroundings is so amazing.
Hot take: worldbuilding doesnât have to make sense
A lot of recent AOS criticism is focused on the subpar worldbuilding. And I get it: if this is the part Milo spent 10 years on, how does it make no sense?
I think itâs actually okay if the worldbuilding is shallow. If it falls apart if you dig into it a little. I think thatâs fine
IF
âŠif itâs a middle grade book.
Thereâs a book series I remember liking in middle school by Patrick Carmen called The Land of Elyon. Fun little magical adventure story. Twelve year-old girl Alexa finds a magical stone that gives her the power to talk to animals, leading her to discover a conspiracy that threatens her home and the walls beyond. And she and her animal friends, along with the ~16 year-old son of her recently deceased mentor, thwart the conspiracy and save the cities!
[after reading the summary to refresh my memory about this book, YIKES. Using convicts to build your infrastructure, not pay them, and return them to prison when theyâre done? So slave labor but worse? And weâre not gonnaâŠmention it? At all?
The things we told children during the Bush AdministrationâŠ]
If you actually examine the Land of Elyon, its worldbuilding is bad, arguably worse than the World of Gardian.
But it works! Carmen just keeps writing about Alexa's adventures in this land that doesn't make economic or socio-political sense, and that's OKAY.
A) He knows his audience (middle grade) isn't going to read that deeply. He can gloss over the "how does this society work" part.
B) He writes well enough to let the reader suspend their disbelief.
That second part is key though: you've got to be able to write coherently.
More under the cut if you're interested in the "bad" world-building of a middle grade book I read literally over 20 years ago.
**
See this map? The entirety of the first book only concerns the 4 cities connected by the walled roads. The walled roads were conceived of and built by Alexa's mentor Thomas (who seemingly dies of old age at the beginning of the book). He founded Lunenburg (North of Bridewell) when he was 33 as a safe place to live in the dark and scary woods. When people started believing him that it was safe, they followed him and settled there to the point that it became overcrowded. To relieve overcrowding, he proposed building walled roads into the woods and creating towns at the ends of them.
People only live in these cities. There are some other people living in the other cities marked on the map, but if there isn't a city, nobody lives there. (Technically people do live in the wastes, but they're portrayed as roving bands of scavengers, not isolated homesteads.) There is no farmland mentioned, no trade, heck this whole place is an island. And 4 of the 8 places where people actually live are at the most 40 years old.
Where are the people *coming* from? How is this place feeding itself? How do they have so many books to fill multiple libraries? Thereâs one river and it doesnât even go near people! Where are they getting water?!
[one thing I did remember about this series, without needing a reminder, was that when the protagonist learns who her biological father is, sheâs like âoh so thatâs why I never had a crush on [Boy]: because he was my brother!ââŠâŠ.đŹ
Patrick, my guy, you know kids my age were reading Flowers in the Attic, right? Like in the 1980s?]
Also, (this is the unfortunate implications part) because the people of Lunenburg are afraid of the monsters in the woods, the road is built by convicts Thomas "borrows" from Ainsworth. On the condition that once the roads are done, they are returned to prison in Ainsworth. How does this society have *that* many convicts?!?! There is no logical answer that isnât troubling.
There's more stuff that's nonsensical, but the point is none of this matters. It's still a well-written middle grade book. At the end of the day, the most important part of being a writer is the writing.
Some pointers:
If you notice a worldbuilding hole, trying to address it with a hasty explanation
"You can sleep in our guest room"
*shit they live in the woods that no one should live in, why would they have a guest room? um um*
"that's weird, but our house has a guest room too. Because dad didnât build the house, it was like that when we moved in."
Reader: ...wait, what?!
might be worse than just ignoring it or deleting the part that triggers the cognitive dissonance.
"I can pull out some blankets, but I'm afraid you'll have to sleep on the floor"
Expectations differ for different age groups. Sometimes that's limiting (can't have sex in a middle grade book), sometimes that's liberating (no I don't need to explain how the Government works. I thought it was cool so there it is.)
The "two questionsâ trick: people will go, at the most, two questions deep on worldbuilding elements, after which any old bullshit is enough. After two answers, you can get away with "it's matter-antimatter fusion, very complicated to explain" or "ahh it's all in tune with the Weave, the channels of power that flow through space and time" or "I don't know, man. It's like, crystals or some shit".
