How much is too much in world building.

[Thebigguy]

The general story is superheroes but my thoughts were that they came from earth and crashed on this planet where they met a character like Melcezedek out of the Bible and they were given powers. Another idea of how they got their powers was a Christ like figure, who gave them their power. But have them travel interdimensionally by powerful teleporters and that they came to the world through a war that was started by a renegade superhero who could travel through time and then there was a great war that tore this new world (Andeluslia I call it) nearly apart.
These superheroes stayed on the world and helped rebuild it. Anyway I was going to have a prophecy about the doors they shut to other worlds being reopened again. Which is what the current superhero body of champions is afraid of the don't want the door open again.
Anyway am I bogged down with too much detail, could someone give me a clue here on how to build a world I've never done this kind of thing before. I really don't know what age group I'm writing for.

[Tarin]

The key to good setting is not to describe everything, but only to describe the key elements. Most of the time, you can simply mention a particular setting (such as a diner), and your readers will immediately have a pretty good notion of what the setting looks like. From there, you can flesh your diner out to make it unique and vivid by describing just a handful of important details (the hammer-sized chip on the counter top, the uneven tiles on the floor, the smell of burning eggs).

The long-winded setting descriptions of yore are (generally) no longer popular or salable in today's fiction. So, as with most other areas of our wordcraft, authors have to be economists with it comes to setting.

Admittedly, setting in fantasy/sci fi novels can be a bit more of a challenge than usual, simply because you're trying to describe places and things the reader has never heard of. So you're allowed a bit more leeway - but just a bit. ;)

I have a few rules of thumb for keeping setting descriptions from bogging down my narrative:

1) Near the beginning the scene, identify the setting with at least a general statement. Sometimes this can best be done simply stating flat-out where the characters are ("Ellen sat down in the diner"); sometimes it can be better accomplished through one of the five senses ("the smell of stale bacon wafted to Ellen's nose").

2) Don't explain until it's necessary. If the characters are never going to have a reason to use the super-duper-highly-complex transporter, don't explain it. In fact, chances are you don't even need to mention it. Don't complicate things more than you have to. If, however, the characters will be using the transporter, thus making it necessary for you to explain how it works, refrain from explaining until the information actually becomes necessary. Readers won't care about how the transporter works until there's a reason to know. At the same time, however, you don't want to bog down action scenes with lengthy descriptions of how things look or work.

3) Scatter description throughout the narrative. You don't have to explain everything all at once. If you do, you risk both overwhelming and boring your reader.

4) Finally, if a block of description is necessary, for whatever reason, try very, very hard never to exceed two (short) paragraphs. Keep in mind that it's generally better to show your characters interacting with the setting rather than simply observing it.

Hope that helps. :)

[Lookin^Up]

Sometimes dialogue can be used to indicate a setting, such as "Mr. Havelock wants to see you," said Kyle. "Come with me to the transporter."

"You mean that funny looking cylinder over there?" said Jean.

"Yes, it dissolves your molecules and sends them to another location, where it reassembles them, and there you are."

A little heavy-handed, but you get the idea.

[Thebigguy]

Masterfully done.

[Phy]

Sometimes dialogue can be used to indicate a setting, such as "Mr. Havelock wants to see you," said Kyle. "Come with me to the transporter."

That's all you need. Show it in use, and you're good.

For Zelazny, less was more. He had the heart of a poet and the mind of a scientist, lively and inquisitive. He made it a point to use no more than three things to describe a person, letting other attributes come out later in context. As a result, his characters, and his world-building, relied very much on engaging the reader's imagination. As a result, his stories were lean and moved fast, but suggested great richness without being bloated in actual detail. He was the master of the fillip, that tiny gesture that evoked worlds.

[kshsj777]

For Zelazny, less was more. He had the heart of a poet and the mind of a scientist, lively and inquisitive. He made it a point to use no more than three things to describe person, letting other attributes come out later in context. As a result, his characters, and his world-building, relied very much on engaging the reader's imagination. As a result, his stories were lean and moved fast, but suggested great richness without being bloated in actual detail. He was the master of the fillip, that tiny gesture that evoked worlds.

Is that an actual character description?

[Phy]

Is that an actual character description?

Three things to describe a person? See for yourself! In the following three paragraphs, we learn a number of interesting things without getting bogged down in - the prose is light and lean and lyrical, and suggests more than it defines. And yet, we get a sense for the character, for the situation.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/zelazny3/zelazny31.html

King Solomon had a ring, and so did the guy I have to tell you about. Solomon's was a big iron thing with a pentagram for a face, but Billy Scarle's was invisible because he wore it around his mind. The two rings did serve similar purposes though.

Legend has it Solomon's enabled him to understand the language of beasts. Scarle as you may remember, also had the gift of tongues. I suppose that was the reason for his peculiar susceptibilities.

I am writing this letter, Lisa, because you are the one who managed to recruit him, and I think he was in love with you. Maybe I am wrong. If so, I can only ask pardon for the intrusion and trust to your sense of humor to put things in perspective.

Think of Zelazny as a sketch artist, suggesting, evoking, without dwelling. Many very smart people love dwelling, diving into something and going as deep as their time and their interest can take them. Others are content to skip across the surface. Neither method is 'correct' - both methods have their advantages and their adherents.

For my temperament, personality, dysfunctions, I prefer shorter, leaner stories. Zelazny, as I have said, spoiled me. It is very difficult for me to read milieu novels where the world building goes on and on and on and on and on. I have never finished The Hobbit, LOTR, or a great many other masterworks for just that reason. And yet, I've read Zelazny's entire Amber Chronicles. It helps that they were split up into 20 smaller pieces. Taken as a whole, the Great Book of Amber is at least as long as LOTR, but covers a lot more ground. It is not as rich, but does have the advantage of moving much faster; potato -potaahto.