2014 SDCC | Putting the Epic in Epic Fantasy - Abercrombie,Hobb,Rothfuss,Feist

[BigFatCoward]

I disagree...like, a lot. If you write in your own world (and not earth) and you do not provide a map, you're just a) lazy (because "i can't do maps" or "i don't have time for maps" is not a problem...there are professionals who make stunning maps out of your short description or your "looks like a 2 year old drew it"-map-sketch) or b ) cheap ("a map is expensive bla bla"...yeah, right) ... or possibly both. We as the readers don't know where is what and especially if you have a big world and also use it in your book (aka a lot of different places the people go to or live in), then give us a map, so we can follow your journey.

i have never looked at a map in my life, i was perfectly capable of keeping up with what was going on.

[Yersinia]

I've always liked maps, but the switch to Kindle pretty much put an end to that. They're way too small and the text too difficult to read. Also, I usually don't even notice that there is a map (or a glossary or list of characters) until I've finished the book.

[Jo498]

I loved maps, before I ever read fantasy books... (some hobbit genes, I guess, I also would not mind 5 square meals a day, although I'd explode). Of course most fantasy worlds tend to be rather generic anyway as far as geography is concerned.

But maybe Abercrombie's logistics in the first law trilogy would be a little more plausible if he had bothered with a map. (It is basically: enter ship, exit ship, like Zak McKracken flying through the world with unlimited credit card budget)

[matt b]

If you write in your own world (and not earth) and you do not provide a map, you're just a) lazy (because "i can't do maps" or "i don't have time for maps" is not a problem...there are professionals who make stunning maps out of your short description or your "looks like a 2 year old drew it"-map-sketch) or b ) cheap ("a map is expensive bla bla"...yeah, right) ... or possibly both.

You forgot c) Interested in subverting reader expectations. While I really like maps, they're really completely unnecessary. If a writer can't convey the geography through the simple act of writing, maybe it's time they looked into a new profession. Just look at Joe Abercrombie's First Law series. No map, but I think he does a great job of laying out the land masses and more or less where they are in relation to each other. Does it matter that I don't know exactly what the coast of Angland looks like?

[Shinrei]

Yes, it does. At least to me. But maybe that's because a) i'm a map enthusiast b ) i studied Geography as a side-topic at university and c) i have higher expectations of someone who claims to build an own world ;)

[Starkess]

I disagree...like, a lot. If you write in your own world (and not earth) and you do not provide a map, you're just a) lazy (because "i can't do maps" or "i don't have time for maps" is not a problem...there are professionals who make stunning maps out of your short description or your "looks like a 2 year old drew it"-map-sketch) or b ) cheap ("a map is expensive bla bla"...yeah, right) ... or possibly both. We as the readers don't know where is what and especially if you have a big world and also use it in your book (aka a lot of different places the people go to or live in), then give us a map, so we can follow your journey.

I have sketches of maps for myself to make sure I do not contradict anything, but I do not intend to include a map in any final product. I rarely look at them as a reader and find that they're often used by readers for nitpicking (there couldn't be a mountain range next to a lake like that!), and I do not have a strong enough base in geography to make one I feel fully confident in.

I am neither lazy nor cheap, but thanks.

ETA: It's perfectly fine to have a preference for having a map, but to make insulting generalizations of writers who don't share your preferences is rude.

[RedEyedGhost]

I've always liked maps, but the switch to Kindle pretty much put an end to that. They're way too small and the text too difficult to read. Also, I usually don't even notice that there is a map (or a glossary or list of characters) until I've finished the book.

I will now download a large copy of the map onto my phone, and then pull that out for an easy, zoom-able reference.

[Sci-2]

i have never looked at a map in my life, i was perfectly capable of keeping up with what was going on.

If we're talking maps in SFF, than I'm pretty much with you. I usually find no reason to keep track of imaginary places. I honestly just assume the author knows what is going on in this fictional place.

[Shinrei]

The problem is - having a map and not wanting one is easy...just ignore it. The inverse case is not so easily fixed. So if you have sketch and are not knowledgeable enough, hire someone to make your map * (or let the publisher do it). Oh and nitpicky readers as an excuse to not put one in? Really? Lame.

And if you feel insulted, maybe i hit a nerve, eh?! ;)

* Btw, it is a fantasy map...so real world geographics might not even apply. So no reason to be shy.

[matt b]

c) i have higher expectations of someone who claims to build an own world ;)

See, I understand wanting a map, I understand liking maps. What I don't understand is insulting an author for not including one. That's a leap that's just beyond me.

[Migey]

Maps aren't strictly necessary, usually, but I feel they can add something. It's easy to get them wrong so I understand why authors don't want to do them sometimes and I know how annoying it must be to put effort into something only to have it be the source of pedantic readers nitpicking, but at the same time, it's nice to be able to look at a map (for me, anyway) and get a bit of a visual sense of where you are in relation to what. If you don't have that then it can often turn into you just being in a place, and when you're not there anymore then welp, you're in a different place, but it can be hard for me to really grasp internally that distance has been travelled, or rather it's harder to grasp what that distance means. Even when it's written well it helps some readers to have that. With Abercrombie's work, it all works well enough that I didn't really enjoy the books much less because of the lack of a map; but when one was provided in The Heroes, and on the covers of BSC and Red Country, I found myself constantly checking the maps and looking to get a better sense of the logistics and geography of it all, and it didn't have to make perfect geographical sense.

I would never claim that including a map is an obligation on the part of an author, but it is nice and lots of people do like them. I could also name some series which would definitely have suffered for lack of a map.

[Starkess]

The problem is - having a map and not wanting one is easy...just ignore it. The inverse case is not so easily fixed. So if you have sketch and are not knowledgeable enough, hire someone to make your map * (or let the publisher do it). Oh and nitpicky readers as an excuse to not put one in? Really? Lame.

And if you feel insulted, maybe i hit a nerve, eh?! ;)

* Btw, it is a fantasy map...so real world geographics might not even apply. So no reason to be shy.

Oh, please. Don't make insulting statements if you don't want to be called out on it.

[The Reckoner]

I've never referred to the maps.

[Shryke]

I disagree...like, a lot. If you write in your own world (and not earth) and you do not provide a map, you're just a) lazy (because "i can't do maps" or "i don't have time for maps" is not a problem...there are professionals who make stunning maps out of your short description or your "looks like a 2 year old drew it"-map-sketch) or b ) cheap ("a map is expensive bla bla"...yeah, right) ... or possibly both. We as the readers don't know where is what and especially if you have a big world and also use it in your book (aka a lot of different places the people go to or live in), then give us a map, so we can follow your journey.

Or, you know, the more obvious answer of "you don't care"/"it doesn't matter".

If what you are writing does not depend on strict tracking of geographic location, a map is not really necessary.

[Shryke]

If we're talking maps in SFF, than I'm pretty much with you. I usually find no reason to keep track of imaginary places. I honestly just assume the author knows what is going on in this fictional place.

I find they can be good at keeping track of what's going on with each character by tying said character to a rough location.

And then, of course, some stories require at least some understanding of the geography to make them easily comprehensible.

[Gigei]

Pfft, I could go around irl and ask people the exact geographic location of Romania and most of them would not know. I know 99% of people I talk to cannot point to the location of Singapore on the world map (unless they live there) because it's too small. Heck, if I didn't live there once I wouldn't be able to either.

Yet people can read and understand stories set in Singapore or Romania.

Maps = not needed

[Migey]

I'd say thats some pretty weird and not incredibly logical reasoning there, Gigei.

First of all, I still don't think maps are necessarily needed, however my problem with your argument is that while it is certainly true in the context of a book set in Singapore or Romania (I'd imagine), the same does not hold true for every book. Maps come in handy in circumstances where geographical relationships are important. In a book set in Singapore, such an issue becomes largely irrelevant; the geographical relationship between one district or neighbourhood and another can be expressed pretty sufficiently through words alone. The manner in which two areas in a city are physically related tend to be unimportant in a book set on earth, in a modern-day city which we can picture. Same often goes for books set in a wider area on Earth, like a whole country (ie, Romania). Often the only truly important detail is distance, which is conveyed, in a book set in a real place, more effectively by words or numbers (ie, X many miles, Y many minutes) than by a map.

But in a fantasy world, often geographical relationships become more important. If a book featured street-to-street gunfighting, a map wouldn't be needed, but in, say, a wider battle or war in a medieval setting (ie, no guns), a map becomes invalauble for understanding the relation of various armies, battalions, etc. I know Abercrombie has read this thread so hopefully he will see this and perhaps confirm, but I don't think that it's a coincidence that he, who normally prefers to establish geographical relationships verbally (and his series never really suffers for it, even if I personally wouldn't mind a map) included a detailed map in The Heroes, establishing positions of key figures and their troops. Could he have conveyed the information he needed to without the maps? Maybe, but he realised (I think, correct me if I'm wrong please Abercrombie) that it would be far more efficient to lay out what was going on with a map that allowed us to very quickly understand while reading what was going on in terms of the fighting; no need to flick back through pages to read small details I may have missed the first time around, just need to flick back to the map any time I get confused. The fact that the same map is present in multiple forms, with updated positions of troops and key figures only makes the whole thing easier. Of course, in his other books such a feature was never really necessary.

But it's useful for more then just that. Earth is familiar to us. I have a mental grasp of the existence of Romania and Singapore, even if I know next to nothing about them, have never been to either, and couldn't point out either on a map. The point is, the words mean something to me, making it easier for me to take in and hold information about these places. If someone told me where Romania was or told me something about that, the fact that the concept of Romania is one I'm familiar with makes the whole thing easier. Picture, however, a new and unfamiliar fantasy world. New names are being thrown around and we are being told about nations and cities which we have never heard of and mean nothing to us. A good author who knows how to handle exposition can often make the entry into an unfamiliar world easier and guide us slowly through what we need to know without ever unloading too much on us at once. But even if an author can do that, there are still challenges to face; we are still being asked to absorb information about a place which, at the time of introduction, means nothing to us. It is much easier to grasp and hold information about places and the relationships between them in a visual format. It orders the information in our minds and makes it easier to remember and to access if we forget it by looking at the map. It may be somewhat different for different people but that's just how memory works. It's still very possible to overload people with information, but it makes it easier for them to handle. Even when the exposition has been masterfully handled and the reader has been effectively guided into the world, it's possible for information to pile up. Imagine ASOIAF without a map. There are just too many places, too many relationships between these (and in many cases the geographical relationship is incredibly important), and too much information to remember, no matter how well it's given to us. It would be impossible for most readers to handle without a map. Of course, the geographical relationship between places isn't always important. I'd imagine it's not a coincidence that it took us so long to be given a complete map of the free cities. In the first few books, such information would have actually been detrimental, as it would've been more information which we didn't need and wouldn't have helped us. For most of the series, the exact location of the free cities makes next to no difference.

Not to bang on about it too much, but there's even more uses for a map, although many are very circumstantial. A good example is Brandon Sanderson's 'The Rithmatist', which is set in an alternative America in which the landmass has been split up; the states are still there as we know them, but the borders cannot be crossed by foot as the majority of the states in the US are no longer an unbroken landmass. This detail is one which isn't necessarily vital to the story, but it's an important detail to the world nonetheless. Rather than convey this through clunky exposition (which, I'd like to point out, everyone seems to love to point out when he does) he simply includes a map showing us the general setting. We can immediately pick up important information about the world before we read a word. It's set on Earth, but not as we know it. It's set in the USA, but again it's very different to how we know it and the relationships between states will obviously be affected by this. If it's not obvious enough, most of the names are changed but recognisable (in some cases completely different, in others not changed at all) and it's called 'The United Isles'. And of course, it has the added benefit of giving non-American readers an easy way to understand the geographical relationship of the states. It's not a detailed map, it's not absolutely vital, but it aids the reader and provides useful information for a minimum of effort. Mark Lawrence does something very similar with his Broken Empire trilogy; as soon as we see the map we are made aware that it's set on an alternative Earth, even if it takes slightly longer to realise it than with Sanderson's 'United Isles'. This information is very relevant to Lawrence's books, and the knowledge that this is a version of Earth also contributes to the atmosphere and feel of his world. Sure, the story would work if he didn't include a map, but the fact that he did really helps the story in multiple ways.

And also, Gigei, just because a map wouldn't be necessary for a story doesn't mean it wouldn't help. Sometimes it really isn't necessary at all, but sometimes there is a purpose to a map. I think it's up to the author of a work to decide if their book would benefit from a map, but it's not a question which should be dismissed out of hand; "well of course I need to include a map!" and "why would I want to include a map, I've told the reader what I think they need to know anyway!" are both attitudes which, I think, would be detrimental to an authors work. It needs to be considered.

[Gigei]

You might want them but that is not the same as needing them.

[Migey]

And I've never said otherwise. That does in no way refute my point that they can be very handy and really help. I state this only because I'm getting the sense that your statement there was meant to refute my points, which it really doesn't.

Do you actually flat out disagree with any points that I made?

[Joe Abercrombie]

Since I am invoked...

With the Heroes maps were important in letting the reader see the shape of the battlefield, conferring information, but it was also possible to use maps in a way that (for me) was slightly more intrinsic to the story than simply plonking a world map on the fly leaf, by having several maps with the dispositions developing each day, plus it seemed to add to the sense of invented military history I was going for - it's a style of map that you don't necessarily see in fantasy books that often. I generally feel it's important that maps should be doing something more than just being there for the hell of it, and wherever possible adding to the whole tone of the piece in the way they're rendered.

With the First Law I was deliberately trying to focus on character rather than setting, to plant the reader as much as possible in the heads of the characters. To tell a story in close up rather than wide shot. To have opened with a great big map o' the world would have felt like the exact opposite of what I was after, really. The characters don't necessarily have that information. I have loads of maps myself because they're obviously vital if you're designing a consistent and coherent world but I don't see that you necessarily have to make them available to the reader - sometimes they feel too much like a glimpse behind the curtain before you even begin. I love a good map, don't get me wrong, but I find they can subtract from the sense of mystery, the sense of involvement. Still, bottom line, the publisher didn't think the books needed a map. If they'd have insisted on one no way I'd have said no.