Conversation

A problem with novels that constitute large imaginary worlds is you can’t just read the “best” ones. You have to read some bad ones to grok the gestalt of the world so you can enjoy the best ones. Writters of good worlds seem to hit a useful mediocrity in all individual books
Replying to
The larger the world, the higher the variance. Harry Potter is very good in Prisoner of Azkaban, pretty lousy in Goblet of Fire, mediocre for the remaining 5. Good distribution. That’s about the limit I think. With more than 7 volumes it would get ugly.
2
2
A good hack seems to be building subworlds and connecting them up with either sequencing glue or crossovers. Asimov glued together robots/lije bailey/empire/foundation in late stage novels. Pratchett has crossover characters forming weak links across sequences. Star Trek too.
5
Replying to
I think they start out great when you have a sense you are only seeing part of a larger world out there. Later they become self-referential and the mystique goes away.