Maps - They should be mandatory for fantasy novels

[Werthead]

Me neither, but the main reason I dislike them is that I think they look like they were made in some Apple paint program in, like, 1995.

This is why the move to Giger's maps (not that Giger, though that would have been kind of interesting) for the UK edition of ASoS was well-appreciated. Then Voyager went back to the old crappy Sinclair maps and not even the updated version in the US edition of ASoS, but the old, old version from the first edition of AGoT, which has about four castles on it and that's it.

I'm reading something about, say, someone thinking of starting a war against China, and I have at least two neurons, I know that China is a country and not a city. If I'm on Chapter 10 of 800-page Epic Fantasy, and someone runs into a council saying that Desejiwor is being invaded by the Bezhemians(!!), I'd prefer not to have to flip through previous chapters to figure out what Desejiwor is and how close to Frolzelia that is. I mean, I'm generally already trying to juggle a list of constantly-shifting alliances between characters. Most of the important ones in the action would probably be able to tell me off the top of their head that Desejiwor is a city just across the gulf from Frolzelia, because it's part their everyday life. Personally, though, I don't have infinite time to spend drawing my own maps just to figure out what the political action is doing.

One of the worst examples of a book that needed a map and didn't have one was James Barclay's Cry of the Newborn. The book depicts a war raging over four fronts on land and sea with multiple battles, huge troop movements, three nations and multiple provinces within those nations. From the text it was impossible to work out WTF was going on. The Tsardon are invading Atreska, which is the border province of the Estorean Conquord? Okay, fair enough. And after that Gestern and Gosland are threatened? Right. Oh, hang on, the Tsardon can attack Gestern without going through Atreska? Okay. Wait, the only way to get from Gestern to Estorea without going through Atreska is by sea? What?

For the paperback edition the publishers relented and included a map which didn't resemble the one in my head based on descriptions from the first book at all.

Incidentally, whilst we're taking the mick out of Joe, The First Law doesn't really require a map at all, (although it would have been nice to know that Midderland is an island before the end of the second volume, as that adds to the story by explaining why Adua considers itself safe from both the Northmen and the Gurkish). I would argue that Scott Lynch's Lies of Locke Lamora does, because the story makes frequent and confusing references to what districts of Camorr are in proximity to others. Luckily, you can get a map off Scott's website, so that's not a problem.

What does puzzle me is when authors refuse to include a scale but then tell you the distances between places so you can work it out anyway. Scott Bakker resolutely doesn't give you a scale for the PoN maps and then tells you it's 200 miles from Glelgath to Asgilioch; GRRM doesn't give a scale but then says the Wall (almost a functional scale bar by itself) is 300 miles long; Brian Ruckley doesn't put a scale in Winterbirth but you can then deduce it's 50-60 miles from Anduran to Glasbridge; Jordan doesn't include a scale in WoT but then says it's 200 miles from the Two Rivers to Baerlon and 4,000 miles from the Aryth Ocean off Toman Head to the Spine of the World.

[Geddon]

Perhaps they don't include a scale because doing so implies accuracy. It allows the author to say that the map just gives a rough idea of the placement of various countries and towns relative to each other, which is a handy defence against awkward questions along the lines of "If it takes three days to walk to Garolon, how come it only took your characters four days to walk to Marat, a city that is nearly twice as far away on the map?"

[Werthead]

Perhaps they don't include a scale because doing so implies accuracy. It allows the author to say that the map just gives a rough idea of the placement of various countries and towns relative to each other, which is a handy defence against awkward questions along the lines of "If it takes three days to walk to Garolon, how come it only took your characters four days to walk to Marat, a city that is nearly twice as far away on the map?"

Or they could make it rain a bit

I think it's more to do with not wanting to spend more time on the worldbuilding than on the actual writing of the story, which I think is fair enough. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that Tolkien spent so much time on getting everything 100% accurate in LotR that it probably added a year or two to the writing of LotR, and possibly many years to the writing of The Silmarillion.

[Peadar]

Perhaps they don't include a scale because doing so implies accuracy. It allows the author to say that the map just gives a rough idea of the placement of various countries and towns relative to each other, which is a handy defence against awkward questions along the lines of "If it takes three days to walk to Garolon, how come it only took your characters four days to walk to Marat, a city that is nearly twice as far away on the map?"

Stop it! Stop giving away the secrets!

[mormont]

Personal preference maybe, but I'm more inclined to simply take the author's word for it on a lot of stuff: I don't seem to have this urge that some of you are suggesting to see whether it all makes sense. I suppose that's the reader flipside of what Wert is suggesting for authors - I'm not really interested in whether the geography of the setting works. The urge seems to be both to anticipate the author (with strategic stuff) and 'check his working' (with travel stuff) and I'm not interested in doing either. I appreciate Kat's point about the map being an aide memoire, and like I say I agree there are books that benefit from a good map. But do all fantasy books need one? Certainly not, yet that's what the default position seems to be.

[diabloblanco18]

I suppose that's the reader flipside of what Wert is suggesting for authors - I'm not really interested in whether the geography of the setting works. The urge seems to be both to anticipate the author (with strategic stuff) and 'check his working' (with travel stuff) and I'm not interested in doing either.

I think that some of us here may have been influenced a bit by the Goodkind threads (and to a lesser extent the other book-bashing ones) in this regard. Trusting the author to keep things consistent becomes harder when you know that authors take liberties (or completely ignore) with internal logic so often.

[Paddy]

I dont see the argument that having a map makes you feel omniscient and/or draw you away from the characters and setting, given that we have maps in real life and they dont have that effect.

Including a map in a book signals that a reader is meant to take the book with a level of "realism" that may not be appropriate for every story, no matter how much travel there is or how many battles, etc., there are.

This is probably a personal thing, but I never found this. Because fantasy worlds are set in periods of low-ish tech, and the maps presumably come from the worlds of the stories, I've always had the inherent assumption of a fair bit of inaccuracy in maps that I find for fantasy series. Well, for country-side anyway. Maybe city maps are more accurate because of their scale and nature.

Just look at medieval maps of countries or continents or the world... they're similar to a degree, but wildly inaccurate in other ways.

I'm a big fan of the concept, because it's another puzzle to unravel. Despite coming off like some sort of mouth-breathing worldbuilding science geek here, I like unrealiable narrators. An unreliable mapmaker, especially if the map were supposed to have been drawn by a character in the story, would rock. What if it were a map drawn on the back of a napkin in a tavern, sort of a "How to find the Dark Lord's Hideout (cause I already went there and stole half his gold)" thing, but the mapmaker was a drunk and prone to exaggeration? What if the only person who had been to Crystal Cave of Coolness accidentally stumbled upon it, but was the sort who would get lost on their way from their house to where they worked, if they got caught in a horse-and-cart traffic jam and had to take a side street? I like it.

Exactly.

Map-haters... having a map isn't something you can ignore, is it? I mean, do you think that it's too much to forget about the map for the sake of those who like it as an aid?

A few people here have mentioned that they dont care for maps and rarely glance at them... surely they don't mind one way or the other?

For me, maps are an aid given that I find it difficult to keep given details like distances and directions in my memory, but only really when the story is jumping around from differing locations, like WoT or aSoIaF (but unlike something like, fer instance, David Eddings' books).

Thinking back on it now, I feel that Peadar's The Inferior is probably better off for not having a map. First of all... it doesn't need it, it's mostly set in a small enough region that there's no requirement for one and mostly, it's a first-person story and the main character's complete lack of knowledge of what any of the world is like outside of his own area means that having a map would be a bit pointless.

OTOH, I felt that Lies of Locke Lamora (and to a lesser degree, Red Seas Under Red Skies) would definitely have benefited from a map.

Not that the story didn't work without it, it did, because I loved it and didn't see any map until after I'd read it; but too often, with descriptions of areas bordering each other and travels past sections of Camorr, I found myself thinking "I wish I had a map of this" all too often.

Finally... Maps are definitely not a requirement for Fantasy series. But I feel that for me and many other fans they are a great, enjoyable aid in immersing ourselves in the world of the story.

ETA:

Personal preference maybe, but I'm more inclined to simply take the author's word for it on a lot of stuff: I don't seem to have this urge that some of you are suggesting to see whether it all makes sense. I suppose that's the reader flipside of what Wert is suggesting for authors - I'm not really interested in whether the geography of the setting works. The urge seems to be both to anticipate the author (with strategic stuff) and 'check his working' (with travel stuff) and I'm not interested in doing either.

Fair enough, but for those who do want to do this, what's wrong with letting them have a map to do it with, it's just another way to enjoy the work (oh, and pedantry is often incurable too )

I appreciate Kat's point about the map being an aide memoire, and like I say I agree there are books that benefit from a good map. But do all fantasy books need one? Certainly not, yet that's what the default position seems to be.

That's my feeling too. But so what if it's the default position? I dont see how it harms those who dont care for maps, other than to give something more to complain about.

For people who bitch about non-present maps or demand that they have a map... that's something else and is probably rather unreasonable, to say the least.

[Arthmail]

Which brings me to my main point, which is what I really can't stand is the demand that somehow, the absence of a map has to be justified, when the presence of one does not. How dare Joe not have a map! Who does he think he is? Get with the program and give us one right away! etc. I know, people aren't entirely serious with this, but it's the prevailing attitude that irks me: that maps are the default.

Why does that irritiate me? Because it's defending a useless cliche that strangles the genre. It's as bad as covers with babes in impractical suits of armour and about as helpful. The maps you get in 99% of cases are afterthoughts and add little or nothing except, as DF says, a crutch. Often a wonky one that won't support your weight properly, at that. I don't even like the ASOIAF maps, to be honest. They haven't added anything that I didn't get from the text.

It strangles the genre? A little overblown, no? The covers strangle the genre more than anything else. And yes, the absence of a map does need to be justified. The author is creating a world from scratch, with nothing for the reader to reference aside from a few words on such and such a place. Even a simple land mass, with political borders, can help. It lets the reader simply know what is where. It takes fuck all for a map to be put in the book. Those that ignore them will do so anyways, but probably 50% of the people that read fantasy like to see some maps...whether they actively study them or simply look at them when they are curious about locations. That means that by not putting them in, some 50% will be either disappointed big time because they are map geeks, or midly irritated if something does not sit right with them.

You have to look at it from a learning perspective. A couple of people here talk about being scientists and wanting something to sink their teeth into, others are scientists that use their imagination. There are something like 7 different types of intelligence, so for some people maps are crucial. It is an aid. Personally, whatever helps a person to more fully enjoy a book is a good thing.

[Shryke]

Personal preference maybe, but I'm more inclined to simply take the author's word for it on a lot of stuff: I don't seem to have this urge that some of you are suggesting to see whether it all makes sense. I suppose that's the reader flipside of what Wert is suggesting for authors - I'm not really interested in whether the geography of the setting works. The urge seems to be both to anticipate the author (with strategic stuff) and 'check his working' (with travel stuff) and I'm not interested in doing either. I appreciate Kat's point about the map being an aide memoire, and like I say I agree there are books that benefit from a good map. But do all fantasy books need one? Certainly not, yet that's what the default position seems to be.

It's not whether it's working, it whether we understand what's going on.

A map helps readers to understand the spacial relationship between places, which helps them keep track of what's going on.

[kcf]

It's not whether it's working, it whether we understand what's going on.

A map helps readers to understand the spacial relationship between places, which helps them keep track of what's going on.

Part of the debate goes to how reader's think at a fundamental/biological level. Some people relate to the worlds very spatially and some abstract with all matters in between. For someone who thinks in a spatial way, a map is something they will likely enjoy and maybe something that is almost required for their understanding. Of course I still think that a map should never be necessary and if it is, the writing is failing.

[Errant Bard]

And yes, the absence of a map does need to be justified. The author is creating a world from scratch, with nothing for the reader to reference aside from a few words on such and such a place. Even a simple land mass, with political borders, can help. It lets the reader simply know what is where.

Isn't it a choice from the author? Why should he justify anything? he doesn't owe you anything, it's his story, his stylistic choices, and he's surely not writing for people who think words are not enough. What's next, asking for a reason to not have pictures of all the characters because you cannot picture them in your head?

This odd sense of entitlement just feels weird to me. Sure, maybe a map can help some people in a way, but if an author doesn't want to "help" people to approach his stories that way, that's his prerogative and he shouldn't have anything to justify. In the end, you buy his books or you don't.

[diabloblanco18]

This odd sense of entitlement just feels weird to me. Sure, maybe a map can help some people in a way, but if an author doesn't want to "help" people to approach his stories that way, that's his prerogative and he shouldn't have anything to justify. In the end, you buy his books or you don't.

Eh..."entitlement" is a highly misleading way of describing the issue. As readers, we're not "entitled" to anything. The author, editor, and publisher have the ultimate say in what goes into a book, and we have to take what we get. However, this in no way excludes us from criticism of a particular book. That's what this is about. Some people feel that a book (or only some books) is deficient without an accompanying map, in much the same way that a book without depth of character, or an engaging plot, is deficient. There's nothing wrong a reader making judgments about a book's quality.

[Errant Bard]

@Diabloblanco: Yes, I agree with you, but the post I responded to said that the absence of map had to be justified.

Edit: On topic, I think that the text is what should be the default, and any addition like maps, appendixes, dictionary and the like should always be considered as optional, unnecessary bonus, that people should be happy to get, rather than something mandatory that people should bitch about when it's not here. A story that can't stand on its own merit is simply badly written.

[diabloblanco18]

@Diabloblanco: Yes, I agree with you, but the post I responded to said that the absence of map had to be justified.

Gotcha. That's a poor way of framing the argument as well.

[Jacen]

Strange that everyone says Lynch's books do not have maps. I have a US paperback of Lies and the US hardcover of Red Seas. Both of my editions have maps. The Lies book has a map showing each of the districts of Camorr. Strange..

Put me in the "I love maps" category for all the previous reasons stated. It should be left to the author of course, because its their baby. But when an author has a really nice map it lets me know that he/she put alot of thought into their world and how it works. That way I can see for myself "oh, I see why they are sailing to city _______, because going by land would be a bitch and a half" or "I see why it makes sense for Lord ____ to try and flank the army of darkness through the pass of pain". I also like to look at maps and wonder about the locations and if we will ever see them. I remember one my first reads of ASOIAF I was always intrigued by Dorne from the maps and was extremely interested in seeing the lands up close.

[Werthead]

I dont see the argument that having a map makes you feel omniscient and/or draw you away from the characters and setting, given that we have maps in real life and they dont have that effect.

I have a confession to make: I once poured over a map of Basingstoke whilst thinking, "I AM AS A GOD!"

OTOH, I felt that Lies of Locke Lamora (and to a lesser degree, Red Seas Under Red Skies) would definitely have benefited from a map.

Not that the story didn't work without it, it did, because I loved it and didn't see any map until after I'd read it; but too often, with descriptions of areas bordering each other and travels past sections of Camorr, I found myself thinking "I wish I had a map of this" all too often.

Blame Gollancz for that one. I think the Bantam US edition has the maps in the book but Simon 'Mapkiller' Spanton had them removed from the UK one. I'll try to remember to ask him about that one.

[Geddon]

I'm fall into the "not bothered" camp, I pretty much ignore any maps in the books I read while I'm reading. That said I think this thread alone is proof that for some people they are a significant part of the enjoyment of a book. Given that that's the case I would try to include one if I were a publisher, and I'd argue for one if I were an author, it's best to accommodate your customers if you can do so without significant cost.

I think it has to be said that most of the maps included in books are pretty poor though. If I were to include a map I'd do it right, I'd hire an artist to do a decent colour rendering, with lots of details and embellishments (something like the Discworld maps, or the maps on the endpapers of the WoT hardbacks). If the resulting map couldn't be reproduced in the book then I'd put it on a website so the fans could print it out themselves or, better still, offer signed prints for sale.

[The Wedge]

If you want the LoLL and RSuRS maps, they are both available on Scott Lynch's site. They are the same as in the US releases.

[Arthmail]

Isn't it a choice from the author? Why should he justify anything? he doesn't owe you anything, it's his story, his stylistic choices, and he's surely not writing for people who think words are not enough. What's next, asking for a reason to not have pictures of all the characters because you cannot picture them in your head?

This odd sense of entitlement just feels weird to me. Sure, maybe a map can help some people in a way, but if an author doesn't want to "help" people to approach his stories that way, that's his prerogative and he shouldn't have anything to justify. In the end, you buy his books or you don't.

This is a tired argument that could be used for anything and then taken it to the furthest possible conclusion. We are not talking about character portraits. Visuals of that manner are usually easy enough to come up with. People that can't do that don't read. But maps are different. When you have, as you often have in fantasy, armies waging war across different lands that only exist in make believe, people that actually like to see where these armies are going like maps. If Abercrombie has a map already made, why not include it? It needs to be justified because he's basically saying one thing: I dont like maps, and for those of you that do, tough shit. If 50% of fantasy readers (or 30%, 40% whatever it is), like maps, he's basically giving them the finger. Yes, you can say its his work, and he does not need to do anything for his readers. Of course he does not, and it is his work. But to just shrug your shoulders and say...meh, i don't like maps and for those of you that do, go draw your own...that's something that sits funny with me.

If he happens to write great books, as Abercrombie does, then its not just...meh, buy or don't buy. I'll still buy, but there are those that like maps a great deal, and there is zero reason not to include them. Saying one does not like them, or does not feel the need for them, does not detract from the fact that perhaps half of your readership wants them. Abercrombies books, to me, would benefit from a map...because right now its the proto-vikings in the north, the proto-english in the middle, and the proto-fremen/aiel/desert people in the south. I can draw generatlizations, but i have no idea of where the old empire is, or anything of that nature. That might not be important to you, but it is to some others.

Funny, when this started i didn't really care. Or at least i didn't think i did.

[Errant Bard]

We are not talking about character portraits. Visuals of that manner are usually easy enough to come up with. People that can't do that don't read. But maps are different.

No they are not, they are redundant with the text, and if an author cannot make himself understood without the help of a drawing, he fails as a writer.

Also, an author that doesn't go the extra mile to cater to every need of his readership is not giving them the finger. Once again you start from the position where he owes them something. He doesn't. He offers a story, as is, with its stylistic choices. Let's say that 50% of fantasy readers (or 30%, 40% whatever it is), like first person narration, is the author giving them the finger when he writes in the third person? Yes, it is the same, it's a choice, the final result is what the storyteller wants you to have. Despite your repeated assertion that there is no reason for this choice, some people, among them at least one recognized author have said otherwise in this very thread.

Of course I don't mean that you aren't free to say that these choices suck.