this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026

16 points (94.4% liked)

Worldbuilding

worldbuilding@lemmy.world

2,863 readers

96 active

0 users here now

Rules of !Worldbuilding:

See here for a longer, more explanatory version.

Rule 0: These are guidelines, not laws.
Rule 1: Be polite and respectful to others.
Rule 2: Provide some lore with your submissions!
Rule 3: Show some effort.
Rule 4: Do it yourself.
Rule 5: Advertising is limited.

Related Communities

For conlang (constructed languages) discussion check out !conlangs@mander.xyz Feel free to discuss the your conlangs in our community, as well!

founded 3 years ago

moderators

infinitecartographer@lemmy.world

Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world

Zonetrooper@lemmy.world

Imotali@lemmy.world

Am I getting too convoluted with writing lore? (explanation in post) (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world to c/worldbuilding@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So, here's the thing. I have this setting I've been working on for years now. And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it. I was trying to come up with some names for characters in a story I am writing in said setting. And when I was researching how names and languages change I was struck with a thought. Am I overcomplicating this? Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named "Al Banian" and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality? I'm getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don't know all the details. Case and point, a guy named "Al Banian".

Another example. There are several creation myths, and three of them are technically correct.

I need some advice. Feel free to ask questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (24 children)

Using Sauron as an example, we don't actually learn that Sauron and Gandalf are from the same class of beings until the Silmarillion. There is a ton left 'unknown' about Sauron in the LotR because it simply isn't relevant to the story Tolkien was telling. He is the dark lord. Do you need to know that he wasn't the first dark lord, that Morgoth was, for the story of the One Ring to make sense? I mean it's interesting, but ultimately it weakens Sauron's role in the narrative. You'd be wondering about Morgoth and what he got up to instead of Sauron, the primary antagonist of the story.

I'm personally a big fan of deep history but one needs to appreciate the reality of history in order to utilize it effectively. In other words, things are lost to time. Some questions will never be answered. Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes. Do we know that Nero was suspected of having a hand in the fire to clear out space for his new palace? Yes. Do we know that he definitely had a hand in it? No (though we're pretty sure he didn't).

Just food for thought.

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 1 month ago* (23 children)

Actually, we can be sure Nero wasn't playing the fiddle while Rome burned, because Nero died in 68 AD, while the fiddle was invented in the 1500s (AD). He might've played a lute though, we will never know.

Other than that, I have nothing to add. Thank you for the comment.

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (22 children)

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

I know.

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 1 month ago (21 children)

Not my point. You almost got me. I almost apologized for not paying attention. But I'm in the right here. The myth was that he played the lute while Rome burned. You brought up the fiddle. That's where I was confused, why a fiddle? It was a lute. Well, it wasn't, since it didn't happen. Okay. I hope that clears things up.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (20 children)

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

My guy, that is literally what I said. We know he wasn't playing the fiddle while Rome burned, he wasn't even in Rome at the time.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (19 children)

Okay, I might've worded it weird. But I am hung up on the "fiddle" part, not who was doing what with it. If you just changed the "fiddle" for the "lute", I would have no notes. Because if we just go changing words around like that, Nero might as well had been playing the electric guitar.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children)

The phrase is* the result of the story being chewed on by writers/literature over the ages. Medieval writers categorized ancient stringed instruments under the Latin word fidicula which would eventually translate into fiddle.

Edit: *

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

Mistranslations don't change a lute into a fiddle. These are different instruments. They look different, and they sound different. And they are played COMPLETELY differently. I will NOT back down on this. It was a lute.

Also, medieval writers in what cultures? Because I'm pretty sure the ones from Italy did distinguish between the lute and the fiddle. They might've called it the same word in some cases, like you might call a glass a glass or a cup a glass or a mug a glass, and it's still a technically correct name, they are different. And glass mugs do exist, I have one right now on my desk in front of me.

You can't be right just because you give the source of where you got your misinformation from. Sorry. I don't think that's how it works.

No offense, though. Everyone makes mistakes. As far as I know, I could be making one right now and not even know.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

Ok dude, I've tried to have this discussion civilly but you very clearly took offense at some point during this exchange.

I will spoonfeed you this piece of information, then I will stop engaging in this ridiculous interaction. Geoffrey Chauncer, author of the Canterbury Tales, mentioned Nero's callous indifference to Rome burning. Shakespeare wrote of him playing on his lute. The idiom spawned from various other authors referring to stringed instruments and their players as fiddles/fiddlers. You can educate yourself on the usage of the term fidicula and what it translates to/where it leads etymologically, I don't care to. You should probably look up the idiom as well.

Something tells me Chauncer, Shakespeare, and the idiom itself will outlive you.

Edit: for accuracy.

Edit 2: I'll take a step further: This article goes into the historical inaccuracies of the phrase and how/why it came to be.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (15 children)

My man, didn't I literally say "No offense,"? I'm pretty sure I did.

And I'm pretty sure Chauncer and Shakespeare won't outlive me, since they already died.

But whatever, this is a discussion about a single perceived misuse of a single word. And at this point I'm getting confused. So, do you agree it was a lute or not? This is what the discussion is about (I think). At least that was my intention from the start. Because I distinctly remember this little story about Emperor Nero having a lute in it, not a fiddle. Although there are versions of the story that say it was a cithara. And a cithara isn't either a lute or a fiddle.

Also. The article you linked kind of makes it sound like it isn't talking about an instrument at all. Maybe, possibly, Nero fiddled his diddle while Rome burned. There's still an instrument involved, just not a musical one. Not conventionally anyway.

And no. I'm not reading the whole article. Not because I don't care enough to do so (although that is true, I don't), but because I don't have the attention span to read an article about a misqote of a fake story.

And again, no offense. I mean what I say as literally as I can. I am terrible at speaking to people. And honest. People don't like that, usually. As a token of friendship, please accept this funny picture of a drink that I have found (I found the picture, not the drink).

I really don't know how else to diffuse the situation. 🙂

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

First, no it wouldn't have been a lute. They weren't invented until the 13th century, if he was playing an instrument it would have been a lyre or cithara; possibly a pandura. None of this matters, however, because my original sentiment still stands. We know Nero wasn't fiddling while Rome burned.

Second,

Also. The article you linked kind of makes it sound like it isn't talking about an instrument at all.

It is the third paragraph.

First it presents the picture of an individual playing a musical instrument as he took a sadistic pleasure in the terrible misfortunes of others. Secondly it represents ineffectual effort.

Pedantry is not a virtue, especially when you're totally incorrect about what you're correcting. I would invite you to read more history.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 1 month ago* (13 children)

Lutes were invented in the bronze age...

Edit: I'm pretty sure the bronze age was before Nero was born. Although I am not 100% sure. More like 99.9995%?

Edit 2: Actually lyre also sounds right. Now I'm doubting the version I heard. But it was definitely NOT a fiddle that Nero was not playing.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

This has been your lesson on how history gets muddied and how, despite fiddles not existing, the fiddle became associated with Nero.

Also, I sincerely doubt Romans would have been playing on ancient Mesopotamian lutes. The European lute was adapted from the oud in Europe somewhere around the 13th century.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

Was it a lesson? I guess, because I learned something.

I asked the person who first told me this fake news about Nero. Turns out it really was a lyre, and I did misremember.

And lutes really were invented before 3000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lute Not just in ancient Mesopotamia. Egypt and Greece too. And many other places. Before Rome was evem built. It wasn't invented just once. Just like language.

So yes, maybe I wasn't right, but at least I don't have to admit you were right the whole time. Can we just call it a draw?

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

No you absolutely weren't right, you tried to correct my statement (paraphrasing) of 'We know Nero wasn't fiddling' with 'Actually we know Nero wasn't fiddling because fiddles weren't invented'. You literally proved my statement while trying to say I was wrong.

Not to mention, the link you provided indeed states that evidence points to their existence in 3000 BC - in ancient Mesopotamia. Their earliest known existence. From which spread to Egypt and Greece, specifically Greece in the form of the pandura. The only thing I'm technically wrong about here is assuming ancient Greece isn't a part of Europe, because the Greeks themselves didn't identify as European. They actually invented the term.

You need to actually read. I'm not interested in continuing to give you history lessons.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn't fiddling, because the fiddle wasn't invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn't) then it would've been a lyre or a lute. This is all I wanted to say.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn't fiddling, because the fiddle wasn't invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn't) then it would've been a lyre or a lute.

Explain how this is a 'correction' to this.

Do we know that Nero wasn't actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

Of course. The correct version would be: "Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the lyre while Rome burned? Yes."

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

Fiddled is a verb. The only person who fixated on it being a noun is you, a point I should have addressed immediately.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Fool! You think I know what the difference is?

spoiler

This is a sarcastic, over exaggerated reaction. Just so you know I'm not actually trying to insult you.

No, really, I think I understand even less now. And how is the word "fiddled" being a verb change anything?

The term "fiddling/fiddled" implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn't be a fiddle involved. Because fiddles were not invented yet. Lest Nero was fiddling himself (or someone else), I cannot accept your version of the idiom as correct. Just because there is no such thing as "luteing" or "lyreing" doesn't mean "fiddling" is the correct verb to use.

Edit: I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. Are you assuming I am disagreeing with any part of your statement? I am not. I am simply saying that the correct version of the saying would not mention fiddles. Because there were no fiddles. Unless that is the point. We know he wasn't playing the fiddle because there were no fiddles? Is that the point?

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

The term "fiddling/fiddled" implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn't be a fiddle involved.

This just isn't how language works. You can dispute the idiom all you want, that doesn't make you right; 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned' is a well known saying.

What you're saying is like trying to say that Julius Caesar wasn't assassinated because the term wasn't coined in English until Shakespeare. No one agrees with that, just so we're clear.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)

In my country/culture the idiom goes "Nero didn't play (or did, people use both versions) the lyre while Rome burned". I don't know what else to tell you. The term being invented or not doesn't matter since the instrument wasn't invented. Your example with Cesar is different. If knives weren't invented by that time (or other stabbing implements) would you still say he was stabbed to death? Language doesn't matter in face of physical reality.

To me, it is the objectively correct version of the idiom, as it involves a historically accurate instrument.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

So you're just wrong, still - being willfully ignorant because you're a pedant doesn't change anything.

Imagine being so pompous as to think your interpretation of an old saying is objectively correct. I would tell you to read up on language prescriptivism but you've already proven you don't read. Doesn't bode well for your story.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

No, not interpretation, the way to say it. Where I'm from, the idiom explicitly mentions playing the lyre. I checked.

And no, I don't read things that don't interest me or have no impact on my life. This argument is purely for the fun of it. I mean, at this point it is. Thank you by the way for engaging with me. This was a surprisingly nice exchange. My mind still isn't changed. I prefer to believe things that I am told in real life by people, rather than things I read on the internet. Whenever it suits me, of course. I am a hypocrite after all. You know what they say. "Billions of flies can't be wrong, there's gotta be something to this shit." In any case, thank you for your time, and I wish you all the best.

spoiler

Since I assume we'll be ending the conversation soon, I'll be honest. I know I was wrong. Maybe not wrong, but definitely not objectively correct. However, I cannot admit that. Not 20 comments in. At this point if I admit I was wrong, it means all of this was for nothing. It means this was all wasted time and wasted words. And I don't want to admit that. Because it wasn't. It was fun. Right? Arguing about something silly? Neither of us willing to concede, even though the subject has no actual impact on our lives. I enjoyed this. It was so much more civilized than my everyday life. Thank you. Genuinely.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Well, I'm not sure where you're from - and considering that this is an English idiom then it's just as likely that other languages are more accurate.

I will admit that the dive into history was fun, I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't motivated by that at least. This entire conversation actually elucidated the point I was making quite well, in that human memory is a fickle thing and history can become muddied as a result. History is written by the victor and other phrases come to mind.

I do wish you and your story well, but I would ask that you consider something for me. Etymology and the progression of language may not seem immediately valuable to you or the story you're writing, but now you have greater insight into the workings of human communication. The layperson didn't care that the fiddle wasn't invented, by the time the phrase was coined it perfectly captured the idea behind the rumor that spread during Nero's time and what was carried through history. If I'm not mistaken he wasn't even rumored to have been playing any instrument, he was rumored to have been singing.

All the best, I hope you continue writing and reading.

parent