# How important are the Maps?



## Deleted member 64995 (Sep 16, 2020)

In many famous books, for example:
Stephen King, George Martin.
There are maps of the city, even if the book is set in the present.
Is it really necessary to insert it?
I prefer to describe the place, leaving the reader to imagine the place.
Am I wrong?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 16, 2020)

They're definitely not essential. I always saw them as an optional extra, and only interesting at all to the extent understanding the geography of the world matters to the story. If your story is only within a limited geographical area, they're definitely unnecessary. 

In A Song Of Ice And Fire they're sort of useful to visualize the different kingdoms and stuff. They're not something you need to include for the reader, so long as you do the job through the writing.

For what it's worth, I always thought the Tolkien map of Middle Earth was ludicrous and actually caused me to take the world less seriously when I saw it. Random, unnatural patterns of mountains all over the place, way too much empty space, and just generally pointless.


----------



## Joker (Sep 16, 2020)

Andrej Sapkowski wrote a million words in the Witcher saga across a large continent without a map. It's definitely not necessary, just a gimmick for map nerds like me.


----------



## indianroads (Sep 16, 2020)

As a reader, I never look at them.

As a writer, I either use a setting I know, or if it's a fantasy story I'll draw a map for my use while writing.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> They're definitely not essential. I always saw them as an optional extra, and only interesting at all to the extent understanding the geography of the world matters to the story. If your story is only within a limited geographical area, they're definitely unnecessary.
> 
> In A Song Of Ice And Fire they're sort of useful to visualize the different kingdoms and stuff. They're not something you need to include for the reader, so long as you do the job through the writing.
> 
> For what it's worth, I always thought the Tolkien map of Middle Earth was ludicrous and actually caused me to take the world less seriously when I saw it. Random, unnatural patterns of mountains all over the place, way too much empty space, and just generally pointless.




I thought I was the only one who found Tolkien's maps inconsistent with the story.




Joker said:


> Andrej Sapkowski wrote a million words in the Witcher saga across a large continent without a map. It's definitely not necessary, just a gimmick for map nerds like me.



I don't know The Witcher book.
I love descriptions very much.
I believe that a good description, can avoid a map.
My fear is that not all readers like long descriptions.




indianroads said:


> As a reader, I never look at them.
> 
> As a writer, I either use a setting I know, or if it's a fantasy story I'll draw a map for my use while writing.



For personal use, when writing, it is okay to draw a map.
I do it too.
I am perplexed, publish maps in a book set in modern times,   like a Stephen King book.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 17, 2020)

LadySilence said:


> I thought I was the only one who found Tolkien's maps inconsistent with the story.



Inconsistent with elementary geography. These mountain ranges look like a five year old drew them: There are far too many, the patterns are bizarre. The forests don't make sense. 

Also apparently Tolkien or whoever drew it got bored between Rhovanion and the Sea of Rhun and south of Gondor because there are hundreds of miles of basically nothing but empty space. If you're going to draw maps, draw good ones. 2/10 try harder.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 17, 2020)

^ I remember reading an article about "fantasy rivers" (as you do) and it cited Tolkien and loads of others as drawing rivers in ways that could never physically exist. Usually because ... you know ... mountains. The Seas of Nurnen and Rhun are a case in point. Where the hell is the outflow? Frodo should have just waited for some bad weather to flood Mordor. Then of course the fires might have been doused and he'd be stuck with the 1R.

I still like a good map though. There are some reasonable cartographers in Twitter that, come publishy time, I might chuck a little money at. Failing that, there'll always be inkarnate.com.

EDIT: You know what I could go for? I could really go for a story set in Far Harad. Kind of a Silk Road fantasy vibe or something.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 17, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> ^ I remember reading an article about "fantasy rivers" (as you do) and it cited Tolkien and loads of others as drawing rivers in ways that could never physically exist. Usually because ... you know ... mountains. The Seas of Nurnen and Rhun are a case in point. Where the hell is the outflow? Frodo should have just waited for some bad weather to flood Mordor. Then of course the fires might have been doused and he'd be stuck with the 1R.
> 
> I still like a good map though. There are some reasonable cartographers in Twitter that, come publishy time, I might chuck a little money at. Failing that, there'll always be inkarnate.com.
> 
> EDIT: You know what I could go for? I could really go for a story set in Far Harad. Kind of a Silk Road fantasy vibe or something.



I agree about maps. I'm not a huge fantasy reader but I find maps tend to make the world 'make sense' spatially. I was deeply confused by the world of A Song Of Ice And Fire until I looked at the map because understanding a world purely through anecdotes and occasional descriptions is difficult. 

I mean, if a martian's understanding of Planet Earth came down to what they heard described and casually talked about by people on earth, they would likely be confused because certain things dominate identity. For instance, you hardly ever hear about deserts in China but it's a huge part of their landmass. Likewise, parts of Russia are very warm, Mediterranean and coastal, but you would have to look at a map to really grasp that. Based on cultural variety and soft-power projection, certain countries that are not very big seem like they should be enormous landmasses (France, the UK) while other countries that are truly quite vast seem comparatively tiny (Kazakhstan, Australia). 

 This only matters if the story itself actually spans something close to a 'world', though. It's annoying to find a world map only for the novel itself to only take place in a tiny percentage of it, which is likely why Tolkien's map is so imbalanced. If you look at the pathways of the characters in The Hobbit and LOTR (which you can do here) most of the characters and scenes occupy a fairly narrow corridor which is detailed. There's only a few deviations. Nobody much goes to Khand or Near Harad and I suspect much of these places only exist in passing references so why bother.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Inconsistent with elementary geography. These mountain ranges look like a five year old drew them: There are far too many, the patterns are bizarre. The forests don't make sense.
> 
> Also apparently Tolkien or whoever drew it got bored between Rhovanion and the Sea of Rhun and south of Gondor because there are hundreds of miles of basically nothing but empty space. If you're going to draw maps, draw good ones. 2/10 try harder.



The book that I own, does not have a map, only now did I realize that it is not there.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Also apparently Tolkien or whoever drew it got bored between Rhovanion and the Sea of Rhun and south of Gondor because there are hundreds of miles of basically nothing but empty space. If you're going to draw maps, draw good ones. 2/10 try harder.



Why the need to take the maps literally? 

Plate tectonics only became widely accepted in the geoscience community in the decade after LOTR was published - not elementary knowledge back then. Geographically accurate maps are a relatively new invention - up until the 1880s the Mountains of Kong were mapped south of the Sahara.  Tolkien's map is evocative of older maps, the kinds that had 'here be monsters' at the edges as well as London and Paris in approximately the correct locations. The reason the south of Gondor is empty is because these lands are unknown to the civilisations in the story, not because they are literally empty.

One of the principal purposes of that map is to act as a framing device to tell the reader that Middle Earth is a fantasy world unlike other contemporary fantasy worlds. The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Chronicles of Narnia* were all fantasy worlds from which the child protagonists returned to the real world. But in the context of LOTR, Middle Earth is the real world. There will be no returning from it, and so the protagonist's journeys are going to be different to those of other fantasy works. I think the map is a part of this framing. 

Now, for better or worse, it is a trope of the genre.


* Even though Narnia had a map, its otherworldliness is left in no doubt: "_This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there_." I'm not sure what function the Narnia map serves - perhaps it was a later addition after Tolkien had popularised their use. Anyone know?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 17, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Why the need to take the maps literally?
> 
> Plate tectonics only became widely accepted in the geoscience community in the decade after LOTR was published - not elementary knowledge back then. Geographically accurate maps are a relatively new invention - up until the 1880s the Mountains of Kong were mapped south of the Sahara.  Tolkien's map is evocative of older maps, the kinds that had 'here be monsters' at the edges as well as London and Paris in approximately the correct locations. The reason the south of Gondor is empty is because these lands are unknown to the civilisations in the story, not because they are literally empty.
> 
> ...



I mean, it's not a bridge I want to die on or anything, but maps are supposed to be taken somewhat literally aren't they? That's why they're maps, not illustrations. 

I buy that (old) maps had gaps of the kind you mention at the edges and in areas that were genuinely unknown...but the gaps in Tolkien's map aren't simply at the edges but across lots of patches that, according to the 'scale' are sometimes over a hundred miles. Between populated places, like the area between Gondor and Eriador. That wasn't the case with the old maps AFAIK?

I do take the point about plate tectonics however you don't need to understand plate tectonics to know that mountain ranges don't tend to form themselves into near perfect right angled boxes, as they do around Mordor. The world is 'Middle Earth' and we can assume follows earthly science so I'm just confused as to how such things could exist.

I dunno man, maybe you are right and I'm being massively unfair and pedantic, but I just think that for the degree to which people applaud Tolkien as the consummate fantasy world-builder his world doesn't smack with a ton of realism, at least in visual form.

The map of Narnia isn't hugely detailed or anything but at least the topography and tree lines seem to make a bit more sense, I think. These guys sure do love their mountains...


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I mean, it's not a bridge I want to die on or anything, but maps are supposed to be taken somewhat literally aren't they? That's why they're maps, not illustrations.



Well, that's the question, and the devil is _somewhat_. The British Library had a good exhibit of maps recently, the take home message was that a map told you more about the culture that produced it than the geography it represents. Even the Mercator projection map everyone thinks is an accurate representation of the world is massively distorted towards the poles. 

With regards to Tolkien's maps, that it gives approximate locations is not the point, it's supposed to tell you something about the cultures. Is there a big, 'unrealistic' gap between two cities? Maybe the author wants us to think those cities are culturally/economically distant.

In the context of novels i think scientific realism a strange metric to assess the quality of a map, rather than a mythological metric. That may have changed with the Google map generation, but given the mythological inspirations for LOTR, i would judge it the latter.

Yes, mountains feature a lot in fantasy maps. We could wonder why the authors thought that was an accurate representation of the distribution of mountains, or we could seek the mythological meaning of mountains: home of the gods, nests of dragons and monsters, hordes of treasure - all the stuff you need for a fantasy novel.

Also, check out the Carpathian mountains - they look like an upside down version of the Mordor mountains, including a right angle.


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 17, 2020)

If the place actually exists, I use google earth, or I actually go there. Sometimes, if the place does not exist, imagine yourself gliding in from the clouds like you're actually going there. Sometimes I'll make a map so I correctly reference the settings if long travels are in the story. It is absurd to say for instance that travelling in one direction will take you home most of the time because they're not going all the way around the world. So, at some point, if you turn around and go back, you have to go back and read what you said and describe it backwards.

The reader will pick up on it I'm sure. Yeah, Tolkien's river's for example... they'd have to flow in both directions at some point.

I like Google earth though. One nice feature is that you can look at a part of the world, remove all words from the screen, and zoom in to see an area at almost tree levels. I sometimes use random biomes for my story, and actually describe places that exist, but are uninhabited by people, and rotate the screen so that north is no longer relevant. At higher levels, cities can't even be identified by time period. I mean, you can't see cars or buildings, but you can tell it's a city. It could be an ancient city. I then describe what I see.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 17, 2020)

^ I was just thinking -- put a QR code in your book and go to an interactive map online... 

(And hah, yeah, it's probably been done...)


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 17, 2020)

Not necessary, I guess. Our job as writer is to make readers visualize things through text.

Though personally, I'd take anything like that as extra sauce.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 18, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> In the context of novels i think scientific realism a strange metric to assess the quality of a map, rather than a mythological metric. That may have changed with the Google map generation, but given the mythological inspirations for LOTR, i would judge it the latter.



I disagree it's an either/or. 

I'm not sure what the 'mythological metric' is here, but when I think of effective mythology, part of its propensity to engage and inspire is whether it feels real. Not real as in 'this exists!' that's obviously silly. But real as in, I could imagine it existing, that it is at least consistent with its own ideas and bridges those ideas credibly with the real-world default experience of the reader. Suspension of disbelief, etc.

The fact is the Carpathians aren't actually in a near-perfect three-sides-of-a-square. They are a bit more square-ish than most mountain ranges, sure, but you can't tell me with a straight face that Tolkien's rendition looks like a mountain range that could even imaginatively just spring out of the ground, as mountains do. It looks like a child's idea of 'scary mountains that conveniently encircle (ensquare?) a scary thing'.

That wouldn't matter if Tolkien gave some kind of explanation -- maybe Sauron pulled them out of the ground to create a natural fortress in Mordor? -- but as far as I know (and I could be embarrassing myself here because I never read all his stuff that closely or deeply!) he doesn't. Tolkien is depicting them as Regular Mountains, albeit in an imaginary version of Earth: Same deal with the rivers, etc. He could have made those things at least semi-scientific without losing any mythology and, more importantly, enhancing the realism of his world. 

Why not? Are the laws of science on middle earth not broadly similar to that of real earth? If they aren't, what are they? Why is the gravitational pull the same? Why do they have day and night? Why is blood red? If they are broadly similar, then I want some kind of consistency and I want that which is different (magic) to have some kind of explanation, even if it's an unscientific or vague one (magic exists because wizards exist, hobbits live older than humans because they aren't humans). Without those explanations, I am prone to defaulting to earthly expectations. When things deviate from the earthly, I need some foundational clues as to how the world works, or else there is a risk that the world does not work.

Again, not a bridge to die on and I'm sure everybody is different, but I tend to get a bit hung up on this stuff with fantasy, which is part of the reason why I don't enjoy a lot of it (while tremendously enjoying some of it). 

I haven't got data or anything, but I suspect this _sort _of problem is actually what stops a lot of people from liking fantasy. Not the maps particularly, but the lack of apparent attention to small details that can throw you out of a story. The kind of arrogance that comes with insisting that readers accept things 'just because'. 

A lot of fantasy authors seem oblivious or indifferent to this: The notion that people may not walk into their stories starry-eyed believers but agnostics, or even skeptics. I see nothing wrong with being a skeptic. I think the world NEEDS more skepticism...and I think fantasy authors should cater to us, at least if they have any interest in bringing in readers outside the base. _It can be done. _


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 18, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I disagree it's an either/or.



I agree it's not either/or, but the mythological aspect of maps had hitherto not been discussed on this thread: hopefully it gives the OP another angle to consider.

As to what effective mythology is, that will change between individuals and generations. I think Tolkien's maps served their purpose 70 years ago and it's unfair to judge that aspect of his story with modern understanding. Just like Frankenstein is today criticised for unrealistic science, ignoring that over 200 years ago scientists were just learning that animals could be 'animated' by electricity. I suspect the unrealistic features of Tolkien's maps were only raised closer to the millenium as people became more educated.

But if you are asking questions about the gravitational constant, iron binding potential and tectonic theory in a fantasy world, i can see why you don't enjoy the genre too much. However, there does seem to be a generation of writers who do try to go for this sort of realism in their fantasy. Genre's shift just as do tectonic plates, and i'm not surprised that a generation raised with the military precision of Google maps would want far more detailed maps than authors were willing and able to supply 70 years ago. What passed in yesteryears is a different question to what passes today.

As to Mordor's mountains, apparently Tolkien based on a volcanic arc seen under the Carribean sea, although the entire Middle Earth was built by the angel-like Valar. Huh, also it seems the entire world was built flat then bent into a sphere. Again you could read that as a literal thing that just happened in the world, or you could see the parallels to how some human cultures had to shift from seeing the world flat to understanding that its spherical.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 18, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> As to what effective mythology is, that will change between individuals and generations. I think Tolkien's maps served their purpose 70 years ago and it's unfair to judge that aspect of his story with modern understanding. Just like Frankenstein is today criticised for unrealistic science, ignoring that over 200 years ago scientists were just learning that animals could be 'animated' by electricity. I suspect the unrealistic features of Tolkien's maps were only raised closer to the millenium as people became more educated.



The problem with this kind of argument, for me, is it contradicts the status Tolkien otherwise enjoys.

I agree completely that writers of the past should not be beholden to the standards of today _except _when the same writers are still called masters of the craft by the standards of today.

The consensus is that Tolkien is the greatest worldbuilder of all time. Not the greatest worldbuilder of 70 years ago. People will argue, often quite stridently, that his work is still unparalleled, that his approach is still relevant as a modern text, a lodestar of modern fantasy as well as a product of its time, not a historical classic that should be viewed critically. Nobody argues that Frankenstein is still the greatest science fiction book. The general view on Frankenstein is that to the degree it can be called science fiction at all, it's mainly as a display of Victorian scientific attitudes and we read it in that context. Science Fiction authors aren't really using Mary Shelley's understanding of science to drive their own. On the other hand, a lot (most) fantasy authors do use Tolkien as their ideal even now. I assume that would include map-making. 

I'd be willing to bet any money there's a fantasy author out there somewhere who is, right now, sketching their imaginary world map complete with nutty geography 'because Tolkien'. I am less confident there is an aspiring SF author out there outlining a novel based on Shelley's science.

Also, to be clear, I'm not 'asking questions' about tectonic plates, etc. I could not care less about tectonic plates. What I do care about is created worlds being fathomable and consistent with the observable, real world...unless there is a fitting 'except for' that explains the difference adequately. 

So, when I see rivers and mountains and seas that don't align with reality, I want to feel that the author knows they don't fit with reality and has accounted for this divergence through some sort of explanation -- 'this world is your world...but with dragons' -- which does not necessarily have to be 'scientific' but merely needs to be credible -- I can certainly imagine dragons evolving so it works as a premise: "Dragons exist". Otherwise, if it don't get a sense of continuity within the world, I (and I think a lot of others) start to eye roll because, suddenly, we are conscious that the author is pulling stuff out of their orifice. 

It starts to feel like they are just, yeah, scribbling out their map on a piece of paper thoughtlessly: "Let's put a mountain here...a sea here...a river here...empty space, can't think of anything, just leave it empty -- somebody will say it's because I want them to think those cities are culturally/economically distant."

I think a really important, and often overlooked, aspect of fantasy worldbuilding is that it should not actually feel like a _fantasy_ world. It should feel like a _different _world.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 18, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> The problem with this kind of argument, for me, is it contradicts the status Tolkien otherwise enjoys.
> 
> I agree completely that writers of the past should not be beholden to the standards of today _except _when the same writers are still called masters of the craft by the standards of today. The consensus is that Tolkien is the greatest worldbuilder of all time. Not the greatest worldbuilder of 70 years ago. People will argue, often quite stridently, that his work is still unparalleled, that his approach is still relevant as a modern text, a lodestar of modern fantasy as well as a product of its time, not a historical classic that should be viewed critically.



Not sure i agree with that. I'd say Euclid was the greatest mathematician, even though by todays standards his mathematical knowledge is eclipsed by any grad student, and his 5th postulate turned out not to be quite so axiomatic.

Similarly, Tolkien can at once be the greatest world-builder (i'm not sure he is) and his methods can be  flawed and dated - they are not mutually exclusive.

Once a master, always a master, even if standards improve, unless we're allowing for revisionist history.



luckyscars said:


> Nobody argues that Frankenstein is still the greatest science fiction book. The general view on Frankenstein is that to the degree it can be called science fiction at all, it's mainly as a display of Victorian scientific attitudes and we read it in that context. Science Fiction authors aren't really using Mary Shelley's understanding of science to drive their own. On the other hand, a lot (most) fantasy authors do use Tolkien as their ideal even now. I assume that would include map-making. I'd be willing to bet any money there's a fantasy author out there somewhere who is, right now, sketching their imaginary world map complete with nutty geography 'because Tolkien'. I am less confident there is an aspiring SF author out there outlining a novel based on Shelley's science.



I'd argue that it's the greatest sci-fi of all time. It's certainly listed as one the all time greats of sci-fi. But i agree, no one should be reading Shelley for science ideas for a sci-fi, but if you're writing in that genre i'd say it's a must read. 

Ditto for Tolkien. If you're going to look at maps for a fantasy book, you could do worse than start with LOTR. You'd be myopic to finish there, but on this thread you were the first to mention it and that was to denigrate it. I could perhaps understand if someone was holding it up as the only exemplar, but no one here is. Maybe it's just the different circles we associate with making us talk past each other. Personally i know loads of people into world-building and map making - comes with the hobby of RPGs - but i don't think i've even heard people mention Tolkien in that context. 




luckyscars said:


> Also, to be clear, I'm not 'asking questions' about tectonic plates, etc. I could not care less about tectonic plates. What I do care about is created worlds being fathomable and consistent with the observable, real world...unless there is a fitting 'except for' that explains the difference adequately.
> 
> So, when I see rivers and mountains and seas that don't align with reality, I want to feel that the author knows they don't fit with reality and has accounted for this divergence through some sort of explanation -- 'this world is your world...but with dragons' -- which does not necessarily have to be 'scientific' but merely needs to be credible -- I can certainly imagine dragons evolving so it works as a premise: "Dragons exist". Otherwise, if it don't get a sense of continuity within the world, I (and I think a lot of others) start to eye roll because, suddenly, we are conscious that the author is pulling stuff out of their orifice.
> 
> It starts to feel like they are just, yeah, scribbling out their map on a piece of paper thoughtlessly: "Let's put a mountain here...a sea here...a river here...empty space, can't think of anything, just leave it empty -- somebody will say it's because I want them to think those cities are culturally/economically distant."



Sure, some people will feel that (you obviously do), and some won't (i obviously don't). One way is not objectively better, i think it depends on what you want to convey with a map, which is not just geographical information, although you could certainly make a case that one way is better suited to certain markets.



luckyscars said:


> I think a really important, and often overlooked, aspect of fantasy worldbuilding is that it should not actually feel like a _fantasy_ world. It should feel like a _different _world.



That's certainly one approach and i'm all for it. But i think there's a place for soft-world building too, where attention to detail is eschewed for for a sense of otherness. Maps can get pretty abstract (a map of ease of commute looks very different to a geographical map, just check out the London underground map). In literature i think it's form should be dictated by the themes of the story (which in some cases will mean scientific precision). I'd love to start seeing writers experiment with more abstract forms though, might have a play myself if i delve into fantasy.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 18, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Ditto for Tolkien. If you're going to look at maps for a fantasy book, you could do worse than start with LOTR. You'd be myopic to finish there, but on this thread you were the first to mention it and that was to denigrate it. I could perhaps understand if someone was holding it up as the only exemplar, but no one here is. Maybe it's just the different circles we associate with making us talk past each other. Personally i know loads of people into world-building and map making - comes with the hobby of RPGs - but i don't think i've even heard people mention Tolkien in that context.



It's kind of crazy to me you don't think people fixate on Tolkien as a modern icon of worldbuilding. I literally googled 'best fantasy worldbuilding' and spot checked the front page and Tolkien is mentioned frequently. Stuff like this even supplies the image of the map we are debating as an example right under 'creating a map' https://blog.reedsy.com/worldbuilding-guide/ Other sites quote Tolkien as a lead to follow (https://writersedit.com/fiction-wri...to-write-fantasy-sci-fi-and-real-life-worlds/). There are scores of online interactive maps, forums about the maps, books written and sold about the maps. These aren't terribly obscure either. Clearly somebody thinks this stuff matters.

Now, you may quibble with all this on the basis of (1) Worldbuilding does not always equate to map creation and (2) The 'use him as a starting point' thing. Point 1, I would say is short-sighted because even though a map is sort of an accessory it still is 'the world' and the world is hugely important. Point 2, I'm not sure I totally grasp. What difference does it make whether you start with Tolkien or finish with him if you are still taking pointers from him? Either way, it's fine. But it seems to me fairly obvious that Tolkien is to hard fantasy what Stephen King is to horror: A lot of people who think he can do no wrong (or nothing _substantively _wrong), and thus a ton of imitators aping him at every turn.

Regardless, I'm not holding him up as the only exemplar. I mentioned other authors. Look, I think Tolkien is just fine as a fantasy author and there is lots to admire in his work. There is also lots, and I mean lots, that is really not very good. Much like Stephen King I think there's a bit of cult-think here that results in a zero sum: We love Tolkien so we can't accept that Tolkien might actually just not be very good at certain things.

This thread isn't about Tolkien anyway, so we can probably leave it there. I will say I do think its interesting how even something as simple as 'Tolkien's maps demonstrate basic geographical misunderstanding' results in an extended debate and detour into a series of get out clauses: "Maps aren't really about providing accurate information", "It's not literal", "It's a product of its time", etc. In my view, these are all either wrong (most people do think of maps as sources for accurate information, certainly on geography?) or red herrings (the fact it's a product of its time does not matter in a writing conversation -- it would matter in a literary critique conversation, or a history-of-maps conversation).


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 18, 2020)

> It looks like a child's idea of 'scary mountains that conveniently encircle (ensquare?) a scary thing'.


THAT'S THE POINT. I occasionally draw maps for Dnd and have little to _no _intention of making them look realistic. They are meant to play on the viewer's imagination and incite their sense of adventure. 

Maybe a better argument would be that Tolkien's maps aren't _aesthetically _​pleasing? I could see that bearing more fruit.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 19, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> THAT'S THE POINT. I occasionally draw maps for Dnd and have little to _no _intention of making them look realistic. They are meant to play on the viewer's imagination and incite their sense of adventure.



Realistic and imaginative are not mutually exclusive qualities and, for me, they are in fact inseparable.

I can't *imagine* a fantasy world if I can't *imagine* it relating to some conceivable _variation_ of the real world and I'm not sure how anybody can. 

You might as well say "in my world, two plus two equals five" and then, when I say that doesn't make any sense and you should either explain why two plus two equals five or use regular math, respond by telling me it's because I 'lack imagination' or 'a sense of adventure'. It's really the same principle, it seems to me. It's an 'anything goes' attitude of low-effort. by that reasoning, we can just have Tony Montana sprout wings in the middle of Scarface, because why not? If 'it plays on the viewer's imagination', isn't that a good thing? It's certainly adventurous.

I do not lack imagination at all. I am simply _skeptical _when it comes to things that don't make sense _and don't seem to have any reason behind them. _Such as having rivers that run _through _mountains that otherwise mostly seem to be earthly mountains, subject to identical forces as regular rivers.

But, at the end of the day, each to their own, right? You are entitled to like what you like. That's cool.

But it really is a (geographically speaking) an objectively flawed map. That is honestly about as far as my point on this matter extends. And, I think this isn't an opinion, really. To claim it is a good map (geographically) is to say that two plus two equals five is good math and not bother to explain why...other than _something-something-don't-take-it-literally-something-sense-of-adventure-something-product-of-its-time_. Which, okay, but you can say that about any gobbledygook. When a Starbucks coffee cup is left on the set of Game Of Thrones, is that a mistake or is it _mystery_? This is pure subjectivity, impossible to argue against. The facts make the objective argument here quite simple, though. Here is an article. Here is another. Here is a third. 

That doesn't mean to imply Tolkien is a bad writer, or even a bad worldbuilder overall. But it does mean he clearly either knew nothing about basic physical geography...or didn't care to incorporate it properly. So, he is only as bad a worldbuilder as that stuff matters. 

To me, it matters _some. _It is not a mortal blow, but deserves some measure of criticism, if not contempt, because it does make the world seem a bit less serious. Because having rivers with no outflow _does_ come across like an avoidable mistake or oversight. A 'blooper'. There's no reason for the choice that I can perceive. Do you perceive any? Is there a benefit to designing rivers that run uphill that you can articulate Tolkien was going for? Or the weird straight lines of mountains? Or the smooth edged woods? Any of it? Could it possibly be he just screwed these things up a bit?

I just know that in every other genre, in every other story, we expect things to make sense, even if they aren't necessarily *realistic*. I don't write characters with two left feet or eyes on the back of their heads without having some implicit or explicit reason provided for in the text -- doing so would make it absurd. I don't write about people who live in houses with circular rooftops or walls that ripple to the touch or cars with square wheels or people who turn into Chinchillas out of nowhere. I could, but I don't, because absent of a reason, it would hurt credibility. 

 So, I guess the question is, why should fantasy authors (much less the 'greatest fantasy author') be immune from the pitfalls of absurdity and their share of the heckling? No, I don't agree. Fantasy isn't an excuse for bad design. Make it make sense, make it feel real, or else satisfy yourself with forever appealing to the percentage of people who don't care.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 19, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> It's kind of crazy to me you don't think people fixate on Tolkien as a modern icon of worldbuilding. I literally googled 'best fantasy worldbuilding' and spot checked the front page and Tolkien is mentioned frequently. Stuff like this even supplies the image of the map we are debating as an example right under 'creating a map' https://blog.reedsy.com/worldbuilding-guide/ Other sites quote Tolkien as a lead to follow (https://writersedit.com/fiction-wri...to-write-fantasy-sci-fi-and-real-life-worlds/). There are scores of online interactive maps, forums about the maps, books written and sold about the maps. These aren't terribly obscure either. Clearly somebody thinks this stuff matters.



Crazy maybe, but Google tailors its results to individuals. When i googled 'creating a map' images the _only_ fantasy world i got back was called Brookhedge. 



luckyscars said:


> Now, you may quibble with all this on the basis of (1) Worldbuilding does not always equate to map creation and (2) The 'use him as a starting point' thing. Point 1, I would say is short-sighted because even though a map is sort of an accessory it still is 'the world' and the world is hugely important. Point 2, I'm not sure I totally grasp. What difference does it make whether you start with Tolkien or finish with him if you are still taking pointers from him? Either way, it's fine. But it seems to me fairly obvious that Tolkien is to hard fantasy what Stephen King is to horror: A lot of people who think he can do no wrong (or nothing _substantively _wrong), and thus a ton of imitators aping him at every turn.



To point one, i'm a bit confused as you've already stated that maps are 'definitely not essential', but now state they are 'hugely important'. 

Point two: well, you were the first to mention him, so we'll never know what people here may have said about him unprompted. But even if we say he's a rubbish technical map maker - the fact that he is so popular and successful makes him worth looking at - he obviously captured people's imagination, and continues to today (even if it just boils down to the artistry).

To return to Euclid - his geometry has been replaced by Riemann geometry and his 5th postulate was plane wrong, but we still study his mathematics.



luckyscars said:


> Regardless, I'm not holding him up as the only exemplar. I mentioned other authors. Look, I think Tolkien is just fine as a fantasy author and there is lots to admire in his work. There is also lots, and I mean lots, that is really not very good. Much like Stephen King I think there's a bit of cult-think here that results in a zero sum: We love Tolkien so we can't accept that Tolkien might actually just not be very good at certain things.



I'm sure some people will brook no criticism of Tolkein and/or King. But there is also the other possibility you seem unwilling to even contemplate: some people genuinely like his maps - despite being aware of their flaws. Or is it just simpler to pretend people with contrary views must have a personality defect? 




luckyscars said:


> This thread isn't about Tolkien anyway, so we can probably leave it there. I will say I do think its interesting how even something as simple as 'Tolkien's maps demonstrate basic geographical misunderstanding' results in an extended debate and detour into a series of get out clauses: "Maps aren't really about providing accurate information", "It's not literal", "It's a product of its time", etc. In my view, these are all either wrong (most people do think of maps as sources for accurate information, certainly on geography?) or red herrings (the fact it's a product of its time does not matter in a writing conversation -- it would matter in a literary critique conversation, or a history-of-maps conversation).



I get that _you_ only like literal maps, and i have no problem with that take - but why can't you accept there are other ways to make maps and that some people prefer those ways? Why shouldn't the OP take those views into account?

I assume you wouldn't see a London underground map and complain it's not geographically accurate (some people do actually, when they think two tube stops are close together based on the underground map only to discover they are many kilometers apart on the surface)?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 19, 2020)

James Michener includes maps as well.  Prior to the days of internet, I used to love, on my vacation, settling in for a good long read at the beach or on a deck overlooking the water.  The only thing I had was the book.  No phone...no Google.  It was great to take a little reading break and peruse the map. For me, it adds to the richness of the reading. 

My current WIP is a novel set in Manhattan.  I describe restaurants, neighborhoods, hotels, stores, piers and streets. I plan on adding an illustrated map. I think it will add value.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 19, 2020)

Good world-building is not something you can just sit down and dream up. It has to emerge from the story or no one will care.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 19, 2020)

Maps can be interesting additions to books, but none are "essential". The book will stand or fall on the merits of the story and the writing, not on the strength of its maps, chapter titles, glossaries, or any other accessory.


----------



## Newman (Sep 20, 2020)

LadySilence said:


> In many famous books, for example:
> Stephen King, George Martin.
> There are maps of the city, even if the book is set in the present.
> Is it really necessary to insert it?
> ...



It's a device to make it come alive, IMO.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 20, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> To point one, i'm a bit confused as you've already stated that maps are 'definitely not essential', but now state they are 'hugely important'.



No, I said _the world_ is hugely important. Maps are not essential to creating a world, if they were all books would have to have them. But like anything else if you're going to include something it should be executed well. 

Mythical languages are also not essential to creating 'the world', however if a mythical language is created and it makes no sense it hurts 'the world'. Likewise, a really good made-up language or made-up map _could _help 'the world'. 

It's simply one of many features which, when done well, can improve things to some degree (though never fully), but when done badly can really throw people out of the story (and sometimes fully).



> Point two: well, you were the first to mention him, so we'll never know what people here may have said about him unprompted. But even if we say he's a rubbish technical map maker - the fact that he is so popular and successful makes him worth looking at - he obviously captured people's imagination, and continues to today (even if it just boils down to the artistry).



That would be an Appeal To Popularity fallacy. Though I don't discredit this point entirely, clearly there is a lot to learn from anyone popular whether that is Stephanie Meyer or Tolkien or James Patterson or Charles Dickens, but I did already address the problem with it. Just because somebody is popular doesn't mean they do everything well. Sometimes they do certain things really badly.

As stated, Tolkien is a good worldbuilder, but he is not the greatest in every respect, and stuff like his Map (which is not nearly the biggest problem with Tolkien FTR, but we need to stay on track) sort of demonstrate the limitations. As popular as Tolkien (or any author) might be, it is still incumbent on anybody to judge things and authors on merit, not so we can denigrate Tolkien (who is dead and likely would not care anyway) but so we can try to do better. No other motive matters.



> To return to Euclid - his geometry has been replaced by Riemann geometry and his 5th postulate was plane wrong, but we still study his mathematics.



Right, but that's a strawman. I'm not saying we shouldn't study Tolkien. I'm saying we should agree that his map is geographically flawed (this much seems to be a fact) and that you have not, in my opinion, made a good case for why it's a good map _now_ in spite of those flaws. The best we can get to is that it's a good map _in spite of _it's flaws and even that seems tenuous given the importance geography typically has to map design. A better conclusion might be Tolkien is a good worldbuilder, a great writer, in spite of a not very good map. That much I can probably agree with. I'm not sure why that's really controversial?

A similar example to Euclid: Almost every lawyer will read and write essays on Magna Carta. We consider it vital. This is despite the fact that most of it is obviously either moronic ('no-one could be arrested on the accusation of a woman') or presently irrelevant. It remains vital because _some _of it isn't ('That no freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned without a proper trial by a jury of peers') and _those_ things are vital. But we can still say 'the Medieval Barons did not have a perfect understanding of criminal justice' and 'we absolutely shouldn't implement all those same perspectives now' and be correct without any sense of blasphemy. Ditto for the Bill Of Rights and a dozen other things. There are no sacred cows here.



> I'm sure some people will brook no criticism of Tolkein and/or King. But there is also the other possibility you seem unwilling to even contemplate: some people genuinely like his maps - despite being aware of their flaws. Or is it just simpler to pretend people with contrary views must have a personality defect?



No, but it's not relevant, unless we are appealing to popularity. If we are judging things on popularity alone, you are right. But there are other measures, at least when it comes to things like maps, which have objective metrics with which to measure effectiveness (such as whether they reflect a world that could conceivably exist). I am disregarding the popularity thing for that reason. I would wager most of the population (including most Tolkien readers) give things like mountain and river placements zero consideration, so whether it's popular or not is really not part of the equation. What matters (to me, I will allow maybe not to you or to Tolkien or to most of Tolkien's fans) is trying to pick off wavering skeptics who like fantasy but are generally incredulous, because of this kind of flippancy when it comes to Making Sense.



> I get that _you_ only like literal maps, and i have no problem with that take - but why can't you accept there are other ways to make maps and that some people prefer those ways? Why shouldn't the OP take those views into account?



Answered in above point.



> I assume you wouldn't see a London underground map and complain it's not geographically accurate (some people do actually, when they think two tube stops are close together based on the underground map only to discover they are many kilometers apart on the surface)?



The London underground map is a schematic offering entirely different information, much like most maps of the solar system and such. There's no scale marked on the London Underground map, there is in Tolkien's. There's no compass on the LU map, there is on Tolkien's. Tolkiens is clearly supposed to be a detailed drawing of the layout of the world 'to scale' and with orientation, so it's entirely fair to expect scale and orientation to matter and to critique any violations of both.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 20, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> No, I said _the world_ is hugely important. Maps are not essential to creating a world, if they were all books would have to have them. But like anything else if you're going to include something it should be executed well.
> 
> Mythical languages are also not essential to creating 'the world', however if a mythical language is created and it makes no sense it hurts 'the world'. Likewise, a really good made-up language or made-up map _could _help 'the world'.
> 
> It's simply one of many features which, when done well, can improve things to some degree (though never fully), but when done badly can really throw people out of the story (and sometimes fully).



Thanks for clarifying.



luckyscars said:


> That would be an Appeal To Popularity fallacy. Though I don't discredit this point entirely, clearly there is a lot to learn from anyone popular whether that is Stephanie Meyer or Tolkien or James Patterson or Charles Dickens, but I did already address the problem with it. Just because somebody is popular doesn't mean they do everything well. Sometimes they do certain things really badly.
> 
> As stated, Tolkien is a good worldbuilder, but he is not the greatest in every respect, and stuff like his Map (which is not nearly the biggest problem with Tolkien FTR, but we need to stay on track) sort of demonstrate the limitations. As popular as Tolkien (or any author) might be, it is still incumbent on anybody to judge things and authors on merit, not so we can denigrate Tolkien (who is dead and likely would not care anyway) but so we can try to do better. No other motive matters.



It would be an appeal to popularity if there was an objective measure to which would could compare that popularity. If we accept literature is an art form, and that art is subjective then there is no objective measure. If most people say Picasso is a great artist, then he is a great artist. 

I know you'll say that maps do have an objective measure: current known geology. But this is what you refuse to acknowledge: Tolkien's maps are as much a work art as was the creation of the language and the writing itself. You can, if you want, judge it on its geological fidelity: that's your choice, but you can't force it on other people.

That maps in fantasy works are better if they consistent with currently known geology is your opinion. It bothers you and others, i get it, and i can see why. But it doesn't bother everyone and i don't understand why you won't acknowledge this. I'm not saying you can't criticise his maps, i'm just asking that you acknowledge that it doesn't bother people who don't judge fantasy maps on geological features.



luckyscars said:


> Right, but that's a strawman. I'm not saying we shouldn't study Tolkien. I'm saying we should agree that his map is geographically flawed (this much seems to be a fact) and that you have not, in my opinion, made a good case for why it's a good map _now_ in spite of those flaws. The best we can get to is that it's a good map _in spite of _it's flaws and even that seems tenuous given the importance geography typically has to map design. A better conclusion might be Tolkien is a good worldbuilder, a great writer, in spite of a not very good map. That much I can probably agree with. I'm not sure why that's really controversial?
> 
> A similar example to Euclid: Almost every lawyer will read and write essays on Magna Carta. We consider it vital. This is despite the fact that most of it is obviously either moronic ('no-one could be arrested on the accusation of a woman') or presently irrelevant. It remains vital because _some _of it isn't ('That no freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned without a proper trial by a jury of peers') and _those_ things are vital. But we can still say 'the Medieval Barons did not have a perfect understanding of criminal justice' and 'we absolutely shouldn't implement all those same perspectives now' and be correct without any sense of blasphemy. Ditto for the Bill Of Rights and a dozen other things. There are no sacred cows here.



If it's a logical fallacy then why do you extend it to the Magna Carta? Obviously you were bringing it in a example, as was i.

I certainly acknowledge that Tolkien's maps are not geologically accurate (though its the rivers not the mountains that seem inconsistent). I disagree that's _necessarily_ a flaw. Certainly it is for some and not for others. 

I spoke earlier about how the map is used as a framing device in the context of contemporary fantasy at the time: that was the job of the map, that's what i choose to judge it by. If that doesn't convince you, fair enough you can just say you disagree and leave it at that.

I'd say your point about the Magna Carta supports my case: it is still studied, still important, despite being outdated.

I agree about sacred cows, but any good debate requires rebuttals. People who disagree with your opinion aren't necessarily doing it out of loyalty.

You seem to be obsessed with Tolkien's fans. Can we make the debate more abstract and just talk about whether fantasy world maps have to be geologically accurate?



luckyscars said:


> No, but it's not relevant, unless we are appealing to popularity. If we are judging things on popularity alone, you are right. But there are other measures, at least when it comes to things like maps, which have objective metrics with which to measure effectiveness (such as whether they reflect a world that could conceivably exist). I am disregarding the popularity thing for that reason. I would wager most of the population (including most Tolkien readers) give things like mountain and river placements zero consideration, so whether it's popular or not is really not part of the equation. What matters (to me, I will allow maybe not to you or to Tolkien or to most of Tolkien's fans) is trying to pick off wavering skeptics who like fantasy but are generally incredulous, because of this kind of flippancy when it comes to Making Sense.



 I agree that maps can have an objective measure: how well they represent some topology. Very important if someone will actually have to navigate real locations using that map. But people aren't literally navigating in the real world with a fantasy map.  We can probably agree that orientation is an important feature of maps, but orientation isn't just restricted geological features: mythological features, thematic features, invoking a sense of mystery can all be ways to orientate readers. It is not objectively true that the most important criterion is necessarily geological accuracy: it is up to the reader to determine that for themselves. 

That the reader chooses for themselves is very relevant.




luckyscars said:


> The London underground map is a schematic offering entirely different information, much like most maps of the solar system and such. There's no scale marked on the London Underground map, there is in Tolkien's. There's no compass on the LU map, there is on Tolkien's. Tolkiens is clearly supposed to be a detailed drawing of the layout of the world 'to scale' and with orientation, so it's entirely fair to expect scale and orientation to matter and to critique any violations of both.



The LU map is just an example that maps don't have to be geologically, or even geographically, accurate. Like you say, it's a schematic. Fantasy maps, even with geological features present, can be taken in a similar vein. Obviously that winds some people up no end, and you certainly want to take into account when making your fantasy world map, but there seems to be enough of a niche for other types of maps. I guess it boils down to knowing your audience.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 20, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> It would be an appeal to popularity if there was an objective measure to which would could compare that popularity. If we accept literature is an art form, and that art is subjective then there is no objective measure. If most people say Picasso is a great artist, then he is a great artist.
> 
> I know you'll say that maps do have an objective measure: current known geology. But this is what you refuse to acknowledge: Tolkien's maps are as much a work art as was the creation of the language and the writing itself. You can, if you want, judge it on its geological fidelity: that's your choice, but you can't force it on other people.
> 
> That maps in fantasy works are better if they consistent with currently known geology is your opinion. It bothers you and others, i get it, and i can see why. But it doesn't bother everyone and i don't understand why you won't acknowledge this. I'm not saying you can't criticise his maps, i'm just asking that you acknowledge that it doesn't bother people who don't judge fantasy maps on geological features.



If you go back and re-read the discussion you will note that I have constantly qualified most of this as being fundamentally _my opinion_ -- or at maximum the opinion of those who might think like I do, i.e. that things being created to be as lifelike as possible is generally an improvement. 

The _only_ thing I have proposed as going beyond 'my opinion' is that the Tolkien maps are not consistent with known geology/geography, which is a fact. This much it sounds like you now accept.

If so, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for here. You seem to want to cast my views on the matter as being some kind of obnoxious absolutism, which it is obviously not. Having an opinion and being subsequently unpersuaded by yours ≠ 'being bothered by other people's views', let alone 'forcing my views'. Please quote where I said people shouldn't read Tolkien or absolutely must agree with me. You can't, because I did not say that. If anything, I said the opposite. The idea that I am 'forcing' anything here is puerile.



> If it's a logical fallacy then why do you extend it to the Magna Carta? Obviously you were bringing it in a example, as was i.



To differentiate between the idea of studying something for historical context/academic importance and the idea of studying something for modern application and how those are different. Nobody studies the Magna Carta to learn the law. We study it to learn the history of the law. The same could apply to Tolkien, depending on what we are talking about. Are we reading Tolkien, Lewis, Pratchett for the purposes of historical understanding, or as a reference point on how to write good fantasy now? A lot rides on that decision, and it may well be 'both' but then how are we differentiating between academic curiosity and 'this is what my book should incorporate'? If it's for academic curiosity, fine, read Tolkien and his maps. I certainly do. If it's for a blueprint, it seems one ought to stay away from Tolkien's crud maps because they contain shite geography and that seems to detract the experience for some of us while adding nothing?



> I certainly acknowledge that Tolkien's maps are not geologically accurate (though its the rivers not the mountains that seem inconsistent). I disagree that's _necessarily_ a flaw. Certainly it is for some and not for others.



The only reason I disagree with you is because you have yet to help me understand what the point of a purposefully inaccurate map could be, what it brings to the proverbial table. You say you understand my point, but I don't understand yours. I promise I am trying. I think the closest you got was some stuff about adding mystery or mythological feel...something like that. Okay, but I don't know what that means in the context of illogical rivers. Perhaps I am not artsy enough to understand what you are saying.



> I spoke earlier about how the map is used as a framing device in the context of contemporary fantasy at the time: that was the job of the map, that's what i choose to judge it by. If that doesn't convince you, fair enough you can just say you disagree and leave it at that.



It's not that it doesn't convince me so much as I am genuinely not sure what you are trying to convince me of. How is an inaccurate map a better 'framing device in the context of contemporary fantasy at the time' than an accurate one would be? Answer that, and you probably win me over immediately. As it stands, I can't even begin to argue with your theory because it does not sound like a theory at all. It sounds like word salad and muddying waters to protect an author who, frankly, doesn't need protecting.



> I'd say your point about the Magna Carta supports my case: it is still studied, still important, despite being outdated.



Answered above.



> I agree about sacred cows, but any good debate requires rebuttals. People who disagree with your opinion aren't necessarily doing it out of loyalty.



Oh, but a lot of them are. You get this shit with the Harry Potter crowd, too -- or at least you did before Rowling joined the Westboro Baptist Church. Anything which inspires a devout following, you always get this brigade-think of 'my country right or wrong' and the next thing you know the Beatles have no shitty songs, Kurt Cobain didn't kill himself, Thomas Jefferson was kind to his slaves, etc. I'm not saying that's you, just that it _sounds _like you. It certainly applies to too many people and it usually makes such discussions tiresome. If it's not you, then my apologies. Please disregard that portion.



> You seem to be obsessed with Tolkien's fans. Can we make the debate more abstract and just talk about whether fantasy world maps have to be geologically accurate?



And you seem to be obsessed with saying I am obsessed. The _only_ reason we are currently talking about Tolkien is because you made a big deal about a singular criticism I made and instigated a debate over it. You have yet to make any more of an effort to change the subject than I have, so why exactly am I the  'obsessed' one here? Could it be there's a double standard? If not, why can't _you _make the debate 'more abstract'?



> I agree that maps can have an objective measure: how well they represent some topology. Very important if someone will actually have to navigate real locations using that map. But people aren't literally navigating in the real world with a fantasy map.  We can probably agree that orientation is an important feature of maps, but orientation isn't just restricted geological features: mythological features, thematic features, invoking a sense of mystery can all be ways to orientate readers. It is not objectively true that the most important criterion is necessarily geological accuracy: it is up to the reader to determine that for themselves.



I didn't say it was the most important criterion. Lots of things matter. Again, it's not an either/or. Just because lots of things are important doesn't mean you can disregard any single one.

 I already explained how this works: You don't get to have the best map, let alone the best story, just because you were geologically accurate. That's obvious. HOWEVER you definitely can lose readers by screwing stuff up -- my only point. That much is true for anything. Look, I don't want to rehash this again, but _everything_ in a writer's work has an inbuilt bias toward negative effect, because it's much easier to stop reading than it is continuing to read. Write a great character and you _might _take one tiny step toward a good book. Possibly. But, write a terrible character and you _will _take one massive step toward it being a terrible book, if not completely undermining the whole thing. Bottom line: It's easy to persuade people not to invest in something. It's much harder to get them to. If that wasn't true, I wouldn't care about something as trivial as a map.



> The LU map is just an example that maps don't have to be geologically, or even geographically, accurate. Like you say, it's a schematic. Fantasy maps, even with geological features present, can be taken in a similar vein. Obviously that winds some people up no end, and you certainly want to take into account when making your fantasy world map, but there seems to be enough of a niche for other types of maps. I guess it boils down to knowing your audience.



Can they, though? I think the readers' expectations of a fantasy map (any) are pretty reliable: They want it to tell them about the world's geography in broad detail, and they want it to enhance a sense of realism by, yeah, being compatible with their understanding of the real world (or at least not flying totally in face of it for no reason). Subway maps don't have that same burden. A subway map just needs to tell people the stations and connections and that's all. It has a single, defined purpose which has nothing to do with believability -- nobody disbelieves a subway map. I don't see that there's much similarity at all.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 21, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> The _only_ thing I have proposed as going beyond 'my opinion' is that the Tolkien maps are not consistent with known geology/geography, which is a fact. This much it sounds like you now accept.



Honestly the mountains look fine to me. Perhaps i'm just uneducated about such matters. I googled around to see what geologists think: this professor is of the opinion that:

_All in all, in geological terms, Tolkien’s descriptions and pictures of Middle-earth are of a world that, geologically at least, is very like our own.

_However, this blog post, also by a geologist, states:

_Middle-earth’s got 99 problems, and mountains are basically 98 of them.

_I can't tell which is the more rigorous analysis. Maybe you're aware of more opinions from the geological community, but if geologists disagree as to the geological fidelity of Tolkien's maps, i'm certainly not qualified to say one way or another, but it doesn't sound like a fact at the moment. 



luckyscars said:


> If so, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for here. You seem to want to cast my views on the matter as being some kind of obnoxious absolutism, which it is obviously not. Having an opinion and being subsequently unpersuaded by yours ≠ 'being bothered by other people's views', let alone 'forcing my views'. Please quote where I said people shouldn't read Tolkien or absolutely must agree with me. You can't, because I did not say that. If anything, I said the opposite. The idea that I am 'forcing' anything here is puerile.



Because the first time i asked why shouldn't the OP consider you said: 

_No, but it's not relevant, unless we are appealing to popularity...
_
And concluded that 

_What matters (to me, I will allow maybe not to you or to Tolkien or to most of Tolkien's fans) is trying to pick off wavering skeptics who like fantasy but are generally incredulous, because of this kind of flippancy when it comes to Making Sense._

The point i'm now trying to make is that it's not necessarily flippancy.



luckyscars said:


> To differentiate between the idea of studying something for historical context/academic importance and the idea of studying something for modern application and how those are different. Nobody studies the Magna Carta to learn the law. We study it to learn the history of the law. The same could apply to Tolkien, depending on what we are talking about. Are we reading Tolkien, Lewis, Pratchett for the purposes of historical understanding, or as a reference point on how to write good fantasy now? A lot rides on that decision, and it may well be 'both' but then how are we differentiating between academic curiosity and 'this is what my book should incorporate'? If it's for academic curiosity, fine, read Tolkien and his maps. I certainly do. If it's for a blueprint, it seems one ought to stay away from Tolkien's crud maps because they contain shite geography and that seems to detract the experience for some of us while adding nothing?




That would all matter if i suggested you study Tolkien's maps for geological accuracy. I've cast aspersions on the idea they are factually inaccurate, but it's beside the point. You can study Tolkien's maps for many other reasons than geological accuracy. Many people love the maps, why is it a bad idea to see why? It's not an appeal to popularity because i'm not making a truth claim about geological fidelity, but one of people's opinions. 




luckyscars said:


> The only reason I disagree with you is because you have yet to help me understand what the point of a purposefully inaccurate map could be, what it brings to the proverbial table. You say you understand my point, but I don't understand yours. I promise I am trying. I think the closest you got was some stuff about adding mystery or mythological feel...something like that. Okay, but I don't know what that means in the context of illogical rivers. Perhaps I am not artsy enough to understand what you are saying.
> 
> It's not that it doesn't convince me so much as I am genuinely not sure what you are trying to convince me of. How is an inaccurate map a better 'framing device in the context of contemporary fantasy at the time' than an accurate one would be? Answer that, and you probably win me over immediately. As it stands, I can't even begin to argue with your theory because it does not sound like a theory at all. It sounds like word salad and muddying waters to protect an author who, frankly, doesn't need protecting.



It's geological fidelity, or otherwise, is completely orthogonal to the 'mythological' features i'm talking about. It doesn't mean anything in the context of illogical rivers, in the same way a cubist portrait doesn't necessarily mean anything to a photo realistic portrait. It's trying to show you something else. Like BornforBurning said when you characterised Mordor as 'scary mountains that conveniently encircle (ensquare?) a scary thing': that's the point. If it provokes a feeling of foreboding, the job is done. Of course, if you want to try to achieve that objective and stay consistent with geological features, go ahead. But as i said before, it's orthogonal to its main purpose: an emotional response.

I'm sorry that i'm unable to explain my ideas any better, i find it very difficult to articulate matters of art. 




luckyscars said:


> Oh, but a lot of them are. You get this shit with the Harry Potter crowd, too -- or at least you did before Rowling joined the Westboro Baptist Church. Anything which inspires a devout following, you always get this brigade-think of 'my country right or wrong' and the next thing you know the Beatles have no shitty songs, Kurt Cobain didn't kill himself, Thomas Jefferson was kind to his slaves, etc. I'm not saying that's you, just that it _sounds _like you. It certainly applies to too many people and it usually makes such discussions tiresome. If it's not you, then my apologies. Please disregard that portion.



Maybe there are, but have any popped up here? I just find it odd to pre-empt them.



luckyscars said:


> And you seem to be obsessed with saying I am obsessed. The _only_ reason we are currently talking about Tolkien is because you made a big deal about a singular criticism I made and instigated a debate over it. You have yet to make any more of an effort to change the subject than I have, so why exactly am I the  'obsessed' one here? Could it be there's a double standard? If not, why can't _you _make the debate 'more abstract'?




Well that's the first time i mentioned it - but you'd mentioned Tolkien fanboys 3-4 times starting from post 11 up until the quote above, also roping in Harry Potter fans. I feel it's a distraction to what we really want to talk about.



luckyscars said:


> I didn't say it was the most important criterion. Lots of things matter. Again, it's not an either/or. Just because lots of things are important doesn't mean you can disregard any single one.
> 
> I already explained how this works: You don't get to have the best map, let alone the best story, just because you were geologically accurate. That's obvious. HOWEVER you definitely can lose readers by screwing stuff up -- my only point. That much is true for anything. Look, I don't want to rehash this again, but _everything_ in a writer's work has an inbuilt bias toward negative effect, because it's much easier to stop reading than it is continuing to read. Write a great character and you _might _take one tiny step toward a good book. Possibly. But, write a terrible character and you _will _take one massive step toward it being a terrible book, if not completely undermining the whole thing. Bottom line: It's easy to persuade people not to invest in something. It's much harder to get them to. If that wasn't true, I wouldn't care about something as trivial as a map.



Then we are agreed.




luckyscars said:


> Can they, though? I think the readers' expectations of a fantasy map (any) are pretty reliable: They want it to tell them about the world's geography in broad detail, and they want it to enhance a sense of realism by, yeah, being compatible with their understanding of the real world (or at least not flying totally in face of it for no reason). Subway maps don't have that same burden. A subway map just needs to tell people the stations and connections and that's all. It has a single, defined purpose which has nothing to do with believability -- nobody disbelieves a subway map. I don't see that there's much similarity at all.



The LU map was just an example of how abstractions can work in maps. Perhaps an example from literature will serve better. Take a look at the 100 acre wood from Winnie the Pooh back in 1926. It's labeled 100 Aker wood, and has many other inaccuracies, all alluding to the child illustrator; a framing device suggesting that the story takes place in a child's imagination and giving a sense of whimsy. Hopefully you can see that making this particular map geologically consistent is just beside the point. That can also, though not necessarily, be the case for maps in the fantasy genre.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 21, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> If it provokes a feeling of foreboding, the job is done. Of course, if you want to try to achieve that objective and stay consistent with geological features, go ahead.



(Cutting out the other stuff only because it gets circular and tangential)

So this is probably the main point. My question is, why not try to achieve that objective and stay consistent with geological features? Like, what's the plus? There may not be a particularly big minus, but there certainly seems no benefit, so why not just shoot for accuracy to make the world as real as possible? It's not like it's not possible, or even difficult. I don't know of any reason for why the map had to be designed that way, I don't see any of the problems that aren't fixable with no damage done. Why not make the Mordor mountains look more like the Carpathians, say? Same effect, no sneering from us pedants.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 21, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> (Cutting out the other stuff only because it gets circular and tangential)
> 
> So this is probably the main point. My question is, why not try to achieve that objective and stay consistent with geological features? Like, what's the plus? There may not be a particularly big minus, but there certainly seems no benefit, so why not just shoot for accuracy to make the world as real as possible? It's not like it's not possible, or even difficult. I don't know of any reason for why the map had to be designed that way, I don't see any of the problems that aren't fixable with no damage done. Why not make the Mordor mountains look more like the Carpathians, say? Same effect, no sneering from us pedants.



Yeah, that's certainly a viable option. I would say that it's a matter of knowing your audience. For instance, the Winnie the Pooh map would lose its charm if you tried too hard to constrain it to known geology. The LOTR map would probably be more amenable to such a treatment, but even then i'd be reluctant to go too far - for instance, the sense of wide open and unchartered spaces is an invitation to adventure, i wouldn't want to lose that. But for certain fantasy world builds, and probably most sci-fi, it might be the best option.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 21, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Yeah, that's certainly a viable option. I would say that it's a matter of knowing your audience. For instance, the Winnie the Pooh map would lose its charm if you tried too hard to constrain it to known geology. The LOTR map would probably be more amenable to such a treatment, but even then i'd be reluctant to go too far - for instance, the sense of wide open and unchartered spaces is an invitation to adventure, i wouldn't want to lose that. But for certain fantasy world builds, and probably most sci-fi, it might be the best option.



I don't think Winnie The Pooh is a great example here because it's written for fairly young children whose sense of realism is probably pretty flexible. But even if it wasn't, it has some other qualities that make a difference, such as the fact it clearly indicates it was designed by a small child based on their imagination -- it says so at the bottom. It's 'flaws' are obviously explainable given that. The LOTR map (which I am now profoundly sick of!) has no such sense of subjective authorship attached -- it is, it seems, supposed to be A Real Map. If there was some way to tell it came from a defined, subjective source (not a child, but maybe somebody who didn't grasp geography/good cartography, like Frodo himself) then I think that would be just fine because then we could contextualize it. 

I must admit I struggle a bit with the idea of wide spaces being more inspirational. I don't get that sense at all, not from Tolkien or anybody else. Maybe in certain respects. I like the fact that George RR Martin doesn't go into detail on Sotheros (?) and that's designated in his world as 'the unknown'. But having 'the unknown' take place _between _known geography rather than at the peripheries often seems to suggest the map creator being a lazy bugger more than an intentional conveyance of the unknown. We see whole patches of bloody nothing all over even Erador and Gondor where we know there are civilizations. Take away all the mountains and rivers, much of Middle Earth is basically a featureless desert of beige space. I don't find it inspirational at all, but YMMV.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I don't think Winnie The Pooh is a great example here because it's written for fairly young children whose sense of realism is probably pretty flexible. But even if it wasn't, it has some other qualities that make a difference, such as the fact it clearly indicates it was designed by a small child based on their imagination -- it says so at the bottom. It's 'flaws' are obviously explainable given that. The LOTR map (which I am now profoundly sick of!) has no such sense of subjective authorship attached -- it is, it seems, supposed to be A Real Map. If there was some way to tell it came from a defined, subjective source (not a child, but maybe somebody who didn't grasp geography/good cartography, like Frodo himself) then I think that would be just fine because then we could contextualize it.



But you get the point with the Pooh map, that geological fidelity isn't always what you want, and sometimes gets in the way?

The LOTR map is more 'objective', but it's far from a precision map. The style is archaic, if not quite medieval, and as much an aesthetic experience as it is anything else. 



luckyscars said:


> I must admit I struggle a bit with the idea of wide spaces being more inspirational. I don't get that sense at all, not from Tolkien or anybody else. Maybe in certain respects. I like the fact that George RR Martin doesn't go into detail on Sotheros (?) and that's designated in his world as 'the unknown'. But having 'the unknown' take place _between _known geography rather than at the peripheries often seems to suggest the map creator being a lazy bugger more than an intentional conveyance of the unknown. We see whole patches of bloody nothing all over even Erador and Gondor where we know there are civilizations. Take away all the mountains and rivers, much of Middle Earth is basically a featureless desert of beige space. I don't find it inspirational at all, but YMMV.



You don't see the blank spaces and wonder _what's there_? It's like an invitation to join in the world creating process. Maybe it's a gaming thing.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 25, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> But you get the point with the Pooh map, that geological fidelity isn't always what you want, and sometimes gets in the way?
> 
> The LOTR map is more 'objective', but it's far from a precision map. The style is archaic, if not quite medieval, and as much an aesthetic experience as it is anything else.



At a glance, there actually isn't much wrong with the Hundred Aker Wood's geography. The rivers look like they make sense, the foliage works (granted, it's pretty hard to mess up since it's only a tiny area), and it even manages some pretty good land relief. The only thing that lacks fidelity is the annotations on it, which even then are really only 'wrong' because they are clearly misspelled. But as a fantasy 'map', it's pretty good, much better than Tolkien. At least Christopher Robin seems aware rivers need outflows -- most of the medieval cartographers seemed aware of this also (which makes sense, you don't need to know about geography simply to recognize patterns). What are you thinking is comparable, exactly?



> You don't see the blank spaces and wonder _what's there_? It's like an invitation to join in the world creating process. Maybe it's a gaming thing.



That's like saying 'you don't see a blank page midway through a book and wonder 'what's there? Don't you see it as an invitation to _create your own story?_' 

Sure, I do wonder, but not necessarily in a good way. I'm okay with 'the unknown' being reflected on a map as in Sothyros, but not arbitrarily because Tolkien couldn't be bothered. Why are there blank spaces between two highly populated settlements? Do you really think it's because the map maker intentionally wanted to provoke imagination, or was it simply that they didn't have anything within the text and didn't feel like doing the additional work?


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> At a glance, there actually isn't much wrong with the Hundred Aker Wood's geography. The rivers look like they make sense, the foliage works (granted, it's pretty hard to mess up since it's only a tiny area), and it even manages some pretty good land relief. The only thing that lacks fidelity is the annotations on it, which even then are really only 'wrong' because they are clearly misspelled. But as a fantasy 'map', it's pretty good, much better than Tolkien. At least Christopher Robin seems aware rivers need outflows -- most of the medieval cartographers seemed aware of this also (which makes sense, you don't need to know about geography simply to recognize patterns). What are you thinking is comparable, exactly?



I didn't mean to imply that they were comparable. I took the Pooh map as an example as it's clear that its geological fidelity is irrelevant. Would you think less of that map if the river outflows were wrong? If not, then we are disagreeing on degree instead of type, if you get my meaning.




luckyscars said:


> That's like saying 'you don't see a blank page midway through a book and wonder 'what's there? Don't you see it as an invitation to _create your own story?_'
> 
> Sure, I do wonder, but not necessarily in a good way. I'm okay with 'the unknown' being reflected on a map as in Sothyros, but not arbitrarily because Tolkien couldn't be bothered. Why are there blank spaces between two highly populated settlements? Do you really think it's because the map maker intentionally wanted to provoke imagination, or was it simply that they didn't have anything within the text and didn't feel like doing the additional work?



I did once read a Buddhist book that deliberately had a blank page halfway through. It had an interesting effect. But anyway, i think of it more like the pause in a piece of music. 

We'll never know what Tolkien was thinking, but apparently the choice of leaving blank spaces was deliberate, according to the author of this book. Given the amount of effort that Tolkien spent on the book, including the map, laziness seems inconsistent with what is known about how he worked.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 26, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> I didn't mean to imply that they were comparable. I took the Pooh map as an example as it's clear that its geological fidelity is irrelevant. Would you think less of that map if the river outflows were wrong? If not, then we are disagreeing on degree instead of type, if you get my meaning.



As a map, I would think less of it yes. Why would it make sense not to think less of a map that included absurd rivers when we would think less of a real map that did likewise? This is what my issue with your argument is: You are spending a lot of time contradicting my argument but I feel you are not really constructing your own -- you are not explaining to me why absurd rivers are a _plus, _or even making a good case for why they are _not a negative_. You seem to be mainly saying 'they're not that big of a deal' and doing whataboutery. If that is the totality of your argument, I could almost agree...at least in Winnie The Pooh. I mean, do I think the issue of a problematic map matters in Winnie The Pooh? Not really, because Winnie the Pooh isn't a serious exercise in worldbuilding, it isn't trying to be 'another world' so much as a childish, imaginary rendition of a piece of woodland that could be anywhere. But LOTR and most epic fantasy wants to be taken _seriously. _It demands readers to invest massively in its world as a conceivable, tangible place. So, I think its map matters slightly more, yeah. It's kind of like comparing nerf guns to replica rifles for military reenactment: Neither are totally 'real', sure, but the lack of realism matters more on one of them. 



> I did once read a Buddhist book that deliberately had a blank page halfway through. It had an interesting effect. But anyway, i think of it more like the pause in a piece of music.



I don't buy it. 



> We'll never know what Tolkien was thinking, but apparently the choice of leaving blank spaces was deliberate, according to the author of this book. Given the amount of effort that Tolkien spent on the book, including the map, laziness seems inconsistent with what is known about how he worked.



I have always thought of Tolkien as being a remarkably unimaginative man, at least in terms of literary creativity (he was very imaginative with languages). I know, right? Unpopular opinion alert! 

But seriously. Tolkien it seems was, more than anything, an academic and an extremely conservative one. An academic who it seems became a fantasy author almost accidentally and as a vehicle for his academic interests and experimenting with them. Unlike, say, Lewis Carroll or even JK Rowling, I see very little in his work that was 'new' even at the time he wrote it. Just about all of his creations are borrowed, sometimes verbatim, from earlier myths and legends, and even the stuff that was his invention (like hobbits) aren't especially imaginative: What is a hobbit but a pygmy little Englander? His plots are extremely humdrum -- I read LOTR when I was twelve and even then found it predictable. He was quite good at naming (or renaming) stuff. A linguistic interest, again.

So, I dunno...maybe 'lazy' isn't the right word? Maybe unimaginative is. I don't think Tolkien is particularly imaginative, and certainly not with his map. I think he probably ran out of ideas quite quickly. I mean, look at the area around 'Rhun', a cluster of nameless mountains, a bit of forest and a lake (imaginatively named 'The Sea Of Rhun'...) and tell me if that doesn't look like he just kind of thought 'fuck it, can't think of anything', if not 'fuck it, can't be bothered'.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> As a map, I would think less of it yes. Why would it make sense not to think less of a map that included absurd rivers when we would think less of a real map that did likewise? This is what my issue with your argument is: You are spending a lot of time contradicting my argument but I feel you are not really constructing your own -- you are not explaining to me why absurd rivers are a _plus, _or even making a good case for why they are _not a negative_. You seem to be mainly saying 'they're not that big of a deal' and doing whataboutery. If that is the totality of your argument, I could almost agree...at least in Winnie The Pooh. I mean, do I think the issue of a problematic map matters in Winnie The Pooh? Not really, because Winnie the Pooh isn't a serious exercise in worldbuilding, it isn't trying to be 'another world' so much as a childish, imaginary rendition of a piece of woodland that could be anywhere. But LOTR and most epic fantasy wants to be taken _seriously. _It demands readers to invest massively in its world as a conceivable, tangible place. So, I think its map matters slightly more, yeah. It's kind of like comparing nerf guns to replica rifles for military reenactment: Neither are totally 'real', sure, but the lack of realism matters more on one of them.



Even the Pooh map? You really don't see it, do you?  There's nothing i feel i can explain, it's not an intellectual task. I could spend hours trying to explain to someone why i like a piece of music, a certain food, or a painting, but none of that will change tastes.

Anyway, it's not so important that you do see, i'm just asking that you acknowledge others see it that way. At the moment you seem to be seeing only the worst in people - its lazy or unimaginative or fan service or hero worship etc. Those things exist, but it could be that other people are seeing something else, have different value systems that make us pay attention to different things.

Kind of like i feel about Hemingway: its amongst the worst literature i have read, which leads many people to attempt to explain why he's so brilliant. Despite these explanations, and even some essays, i just can't see what people are talking about. It's like being colour blind. But i acknowledge there is something there i just can't see, rather than people simply being pretentious or faux intellectual - which is what some critics say of Hemingway and his fans.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 26, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Even the Pooh map? You really don't see it, do you?  There's nothing i feel i can explain, it's not an intellectual task. I could spend hours trying to explain to someone why i like a piece of music, a certain food, or a painting, but none of that will change tastes.



So why are you expecting me to explain _my _opinion?



> Anyway, it's not so important that you do see, i'm just asking that you acknowledge others see it that way. At the moment you seem to be seeing only the worst in people - its lazy or unimaginative or fan service or hero worship etc. Those things exist, but it could be that other people are seeing something else, have different value systems that make us pay attention to different things.



Dude, we already covered this. This is _my opinion. _​I am happy to have my opinions challenged but not to have them mischaracterized as some kind of dogma, especially if you're not going to come up with your own perspective that I can then challenge -- because that's not how it works. I have stated and clarified this now multiple times. Obviously I acknowledge other people disagree. It's plainly obvious. The question is: Do you acknowledge that other people (some of whom are on this thread) actually agree with me?

Go back and count the number of times I have prefaced my various points with 'I think'. The only person who seems to struggle with the idea of other people seeing things differently is you. You don't seem very tolerant of my criticisms, because you find them intolerant. Do you see why this is circular?



> Kind of like i feel about Hemingway: its amongst the worst literature i have read, which leads many people to attempt to explain why he's so brilliant. Despite these explanations, and even some essays, i just can't see what people are talking about. It's like being colour blind. But i acknowledge there is something there i just can't see, rather than people simply being pretentious or faux intellectual - which is what some critics say of Hemingway and his fans.



And that's fine, as a personal choice for you to make, but it's not something you have any business trying to convert other people to follow. We are not obligated to acknowledge value in things we don't think have value, are we? If we are, I assume you believe any kind of criticism to be illegitimate? I disagree fundamentally with that approach. I disagree in the need to equivocate because 'some people might like the fact this car only drives backwards IDK'. No, the right to praise something highly necessarily includes the right to shit on it. All we can reasonably ask is people articulate their positions coherently and reasonably. I feel I have done that.

For the record, I don't feel that I am being unfair or particularly denigrating toward Tolkien at all. I am simply highlighting certain aspects I think are deeply unimaginative (which happen to be quite numerous) and, in terms of the map, flat silly. Since you admit you cannot coherently explain why they are not, I'm not sure what to tell you. Would it make you feel better if I just agreed that Tolkien's map is spectacular?


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> And that's fine, as a personal choice for you to make, but it's not something you have any business trying to convert other people to follow.



I'm continuing under the assumption that the OP, or others, are following our discussion - people still forming their opinions about the utility of maps in fiction. Hopefully they'll learn something from our exchange, i know i have. On a discussion forum, and in life generally, i feel i'm within my rights to express contrary opinions. You've gotten to set out your stall, probably representing the majority position, i've set out mine. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to it (for instance by claiming i am trying to 'convert', a word with negative connotations).


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 26, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> On a discussion forum, and in life generally, i feel i'm within my rights to express contrary opinions. You've gotten to set out your stall, probably representing the majority position, i've set out mine. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to it (for instance by claiming i am trying to 'convert', a word with negative connotations).



Is convert negative? Wasn't aware it was particularly. 

If it is, I would point out you have characterized me as 'denigrating' Tolkien, being 'obsessed', implied repeatedly that I am intolerant or dogmatic in my views, and a series of similar things, such as now saying that I only 'see the worst in people'. So, I would disagree that the hostility or personal slander is one-sided. 

As it happens, I don't feel hostile. Somewhat frustrated, perhaps, because I'm not sure why you are insisting on an opinion you say you cannot explain. Do you often voice disagreements with people without being able to articulate your own position in a way that can be scrutinized? I feel like it's all kinds of disingenuous to quibble with an opinion and then say "I can't explain my own". How do you expect me to learn from your views if they amount to 'it all seems okay to me -- can't tell you why, it just does'? Let me know if I missed something, I don't want to mischaracterize you, but that's my read right now.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Is convert negative? Wasn't aware it was particularly.



Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly has negative connotations my neck of the woods.



luckyscars said:


> If it is, I would point out you have characterized me as 'denigrating' Tolkien, being 'obsessed', implied repeatedly that I am intolerant or dogmatic in my views, and a series of similar things, such as now saying that I only 'see the worst in people'. So, I would disagree that the hostility or personal slander is one-sided.



But by your own admission you are denigrating Tolkien - you've not exactly been shy about it. Obsessed? I tried to bring in the Pooh map to move us away from Tolkien, yet here we still are. I'm glad you now acknowledge that there has been hostility and personal slander your end, and i'm more than happy to apologise for that coming from my end - it's not deliberate. Unskillful rather than belligerent. 




luckyscars said:


> As it happens, I don't feel hostile. Somewhat frustrated, perhaps, because I'm not sure why you are insisting on an opinion you say you cannot explain. Do you often voice disagreements with people without being able to articulate your own position in a way that can be scrutinized? I feel like it's all kinds of disingenuous to quibble with an opinion and then say "I can't explain my own". How do you expect me to learn from your views if they amount to 'it all seems okay to me -- can't tell you why, it just does'? Let me know if I missed something, I don't want to mischaracterize you, but that's my read right now.





I think you missed the parts where i did try to explain my view, talking about the mythology of mountains, the emotional evocation of empty spaces and how other mediums utilise 'emptiness', bringing in the Pooh map - which i thought would be a really clear example of how maps don't need geological fidelity (apparently not). Your response has always been you 'don't buy it' - which is your prerogative. The Pooh map did take me aback - to me it's just so clear - that there is nothing i can say that is any clearer. I mean that's what art is, right, articulating parts of the human experience which are otherwise too cumbersome to express with conventional means?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 26, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> I think you missed the parts where i did try to explain my view, talking about the mythology of mountains, the emotional evocation of empty spaces and how other mediums utilise 'emptiness', bringing in the Pooh map - which i thought would be a really clear example of how maps don't need geological fidelity (apparently not). Your response has always been you 'don't buy it' - which is your prerogative. The Pooh map did take me aback - to me it's just so clear - that there is nothing i can say that is any clearer. I mean that's what art is, right, articulating parts of the human experience which are otherwise too cumbersome to express with conventional means?



The Pooh map is fine, though. You can't possibly explain why it isn't, other than it has spelling mistakes, but even those are obvious as to why they are there. You say 'it's so clear' but why is it clear? What 'clearly' indicates to you that the map lacks geographical fidelity other than it being from Winnie The Pooh and created by a child? That child didn't design any part of it in a way that is not in keeping with the real world.

The mythology of mountains is fine, but mountains can be mythic while still being geographically correct, as is the case for most mountains. So it's not evidence for why the ranges are wrong, right?

Regarding emptiness, the reason I can say I don't buy it is only because what can be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence for why those empty spaces are there that you can articulate. On the other hand, there is evidence for why geographical fidelity matters in maps that are for worlds that are themselves analogous (geographically) with the real world. The evidence is the existence of every other map ever. If we don't accept that the world is analogous (geographically) to the real world then why does it seem like it is?


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> The Pooh map is fine, though. You can't possibly explain why it isn't, other than it has spelling mistakes, but even those are obvious as to why they are there. You say 'it's so clear' but why is it clear? What 'clearly' indicates to you that the map lacks geographical fidelity other than it being from Winnie The Pooh and created by a child? That child didn't design any part of it in a way that is not in keeping with the real world.



Why are those spelling mistakes there? Can you see that any geological mistakes, if there are any - i've not analysed it - could have the same effect?



luckyscars said:


> The mythology of mountains is fine, but mountains can be mythic while still being geographically correct, as is the case for most mountains. So it's not evidence for why the ranges are wrong, right?



I agree you could have both - i just don't think it's always _necessary_. I'm not sure what you mean by 'evidence for why the ranges are wrong'. Do you want a specific reason why Tolkien chose not to be geographically accurate in lieu of some mythological feature? (i'm still not convinced the mountains are though - i linked to those two geologists, and if they couldn't agree, i'm not going to figure it out.) Something like him writing in his memoirs 'I deliberately eschewed current geological understanding to ensure that Mordor was fully surrounded by mountains to elicit a sense of foreboding...' Is something like that what you mean by evidence?




luckyscars said:


> Regarding emptiness, the reason I can say I don't buy it is only because what can be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence for why those empty spaces are there that you can articulate. On the other hand, there is evidence for why geographical fidelity matters in maps that are for worlds that are themselves analogous (geographically) with the real world. The evidence is the existence of every other map ever. If we don't accept that the world is analogous (geographically) to the real world then why does it seem like it is?



Again not sure what evidence you imagine. I'm not making an assertion about the physical universe, so evidence is not applicable. I'm making an assertion about how i, and others, feel about something. A fantasy map has to empirically prove its navigational utility? I can see that being true of real maps - but a fantasy map? Is it enough for you to say that a map with empty spaces provokes ceratin emotions in me? Do you disbelieve me?. Do you want an fMRI scan of someone looking at a map, like they do for people listening to music, to see what functional centres are lighting up?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 27, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Why are those spelling mistakes there? Can you see that any geological mistakes, if there are any - i've not analysed it - could have the same effect?



Because the map is authored by a child and that distinction is provided, explictly and implicitly. Because that distinction exists, any such flaws that are in keeping with what a child may do make perfect sense. When you have a fictional author, you can fictionalize the author's output. So long as the context is consistent with itself, you can have all manner of 'mistakes' and it's fine.

No such reality exists for Tolkien, as far as I know. Who is the author of the map (not literally, but in terms of the story)? If the fictional authorship of the map was provided "this map was drawn by..." and was somebody who one could imagine not understanding geography very well (say, a child of dwarves? I don't know) then I would likely not be highlighting the geographical problems and blank spaces as a matter of credibility. I would have the context to say 'these rivers are wrong compared to the real world HOWEVER they make sense in Tolkien's world because X' But, who or what is X?

We don't have an X though, do we? Absent of X, it's supposed to be A Real Grownup Map, presumably. A creation of the real world author who knows everything. There's certainly no evidence to suggest it isn't intended as a grownup map, crafted by Tolkien as an objective diagram of his world, which we are supposed to take seriously and literally. The default point of reference for all maps (and all things) is objective truth, and that is why the same 13th Century map of the world written today would be absurd but written in the 13th Century is not. Because the 13th Century is adequate context: We know who those people were and why they got things wrong. This is not true for Tolkien. We don't know why he got it wrong. We don't know if he secretly got it right. Because there is no evidence?

 So then, why should I have to turn in mental gymnastics so as to make excuses for things that don't make sense due to lack of context? That is the author's job. My job as a reader is not to try to figure out possible reasons for an author seemingly fucking up that don't exist in the text. 



> I agree you could have both - i just don't think it's always _necessary_. I'm not sure what you mean by 'evidence for why the ranges are wrong'. Do you want a specific reason why Tolkien chose not to be geographically accurate in lieu of some mythological feature? (i'm still not convinced the mountains are though - i linked to those two geologists, and if they couldn't agree, i'm not going to figure it out.) Something like him writing in his memoirs 'I deliberately eschewed current geological understanding to ensure that Mordor was fully surrounded by mountains to elicit a sense of foreboding...' Is something like that what you mean by evidence?



Maybe, yeah. That would certainly be an improvement over the status quo because it would offer a rational basis and resolve beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that Tolkien simply doesn't know/care how geography works, which is a problem in 'world building'. As it stands, that possibility continues, and as long as it's _possible _that a writer has been lazy or careless, that hurts the credibility of the work. For me.

I still fail to understand the 'mythological basis' argument. If your assertion is that bad geography creates heightened mythology, I just don't see how that works. It certainly doesn't have to be that way. I don't think the Tolkien map is 'more mythological' than the Narnia map, or even the Winnie The Pooh map, which are both geographically better renditions. How 'mythy' something is, sounds like an entirely different question.



> Again not sure what evidence you imagine. I'm not making an assertion about the physical universe, so evidence is not applicable. I'm making an assertion about how i, and others, feel about something. A fantasy map has to empirically prove its navigational utility? I can see that being true of real maps - but a fantasy map? Is it enough for you to say that a map with empty spaces provokes ceratin emotions in me? Do you disbelieve me?. Do you want an fMRI scan of someone looking at a map, like they do for people listening to music, to see what functional centres are lighting up?



Again, you are grossly mischaracterizing my point. This is now the third time I am having to clarify to you this is my opinion and that _you _are the one criticizing my opinion, not the other way around. I have not criticized your opinion _beyond _simply stating it does not adequately disprove mine (because it doesn't, right?) or that it lacks support.

But I don't honestly care how you _feel_ about the map. You seem to care quite a bit how I feel, though, and I am not sure why that is? I am only engaging with this debate to defend my opinion, not to critique yours, which I cannot do even if I desired to, because, as stated, I do not understand it, as it isn't based on any of Tolkien's text NOR the physical universe, as far as I can see. Your opinion seems wholly based on conjecture and speculation over things Tolkien never said or wrote. I just don't share the energy to invest in what seems entirely hypothetical and absent of any textual basis. To speculate on Middle Earth beyond what is explicitly written or drawn...you might as well be speculating on the mapping of the Planet Adidas, from a map authored by Gremlins. Now you can do that if you want, but since I do not know the Planet Adidas, nor the Gremlins, I can't see what you see, at least not if it differs from Earth, or from whatever texts may exist as evidence to scrutinize. 

ETA: Sorry, but I must come back to this:



epimetheus said:


> But by your own admission you are denigrating Tolkien - you've not exactly been shy about it.



That's fine as your opinion, but it's without merit. I have not denigrated Tolkien and certainly not said I have. Denigrating, by definition, means to treat unfairly. Unless you can point to a single thing I have said that is demonstrably unfair, I think you should withdraw that term. To not withdraw it would, it seems, be _denigrating _me.

 Secondarily, I have not obsessed over Tolkien anymore than you have. You brought up other things, I addressed most of those other things. I brought up Narnia, you ignored that and continued with Tolkien. It's disingenuous to now pretend you have not continued to instigate discussion of that author, much less made some valiant effort to pivot. Am I supposed to ignore your continuing comments about Tolkien, lest I be 'obsessed' for wanting to rebut them as they arise? If so, why does that same standard not apply to you? Why are you any less 'obsessed'? Give me a break.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 27, 2020)

I am finding myself coming down on lucky's side of the argument here. In the sense that, he is not obligated to like Tolkien. I love Tolkien. I think he is totally wrong not to like Tolkien. Regardless, all he is done is state his emotional opinion as rational argument. That is no crime. That is essentially what all of us do when we critique fiction. 

I am also biased because I have always found his maps somewhat aesthetically displeasing (my favorite kind of fantasy 'map' would probably look somewhat similar to this Seagrave painting.) Though I continue to hold my position that the 'realism' and 'believability' arguments fall flat. I see no particular reason why the geography of Middle-Earth is not abiding by traditional Terran geographical principles. I especially see no reason why it is not following its own internal and highly mythologized logic. 

Oh yes, and _of course _I disagree that Tolkien is unimaginative.  In my opinion, lucky is operating under a highly specific definition of the word 'imagination,' where imagination means merely the creation of the unexpected. What makes LOTR is not that it _has _hobbits. It is that Tolkien has made us breath and feel his love for the English countryside in a way few other authors have. He gave us this incredible image of what peace and innocence might look like. It's sort of in the construction of the word itself. Image. The ability to visualize. To bring those pictures into terrifyingly stark clarity. I am largely uninterested in the fact that other people happened to have written stories involving hobbits and dragons. The pursuit of originality tends to be trite.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 27, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I would have the context to say 'these rivers are wrong compared to the real world HOWEVER they make sense in Tolkien's world because X' But, who or what is X?
> 
> We don't have an X though, do we? Absent of X, it's supposed to be A Real Grownup Map, presumably. A creation of the real world author who knows everything. There's certainly no evidence to suggest it isn't intended as a grownup map, crafted by Tolkien as an objective diagram of his world, which we are supposed to take seriously and literally. The default point of reference for all maps (and all things) is objective truth, and that is why the same 13th Century map of the world written today would be absurd but written in the 13th Century is not. Because the 13th Century is adequate context: We know who those people were and why they got things wrong. This is not true for Tolkien. We don't know why he got it wrong. We don't know if he secretly got it right. Because there is no evidence?
> 
> ...



There's a difference between mischaracterising and simply not understanding? No, it doesn't disprove your point - i don't think these are points that can be disproved, as they're based on preferences (which is why i keep talking about how maps make me feel). I think back in post 17 i agreed our views are not mutually exclusive  - but you continued to debate certain points, so i did too. I've learnt plenty in the process, so i'm happy to continue if you are.

I mentioned how Middle Earth was created flat and then folded into a sphere by some angel like beings. Once we have that, i'd imagine any geological consistency with the real world gets thrown out of the window. I think that's more a commentary on shifting beliefs with the advent of rationalism than it is about shifting tectonics.

For me it requires no energy to ignore most geological inconsistencies in a fantasy map, i'd have to take map each on its own merits (any generic fantasy map, do you want to move away from Tolkien's map?). For you it requires energy. Fair to say that's the main difference in our opinions?



luckyscars said:


> That's fine as your opinion, but it's without merit. I have not denigrated Tolkien and certainly not said I have. Denigrating, by definition, means to treat unfairly. Unless you can point to a single thing I have said that is demonstrably unfair, I think you should withdraw that term. To not withdraw it would, it seems, be _denigrating _me.



Yes, maybe disparage is a more accurate term?



luckyscars said:


> Secondarily, I have not obsessed over Tolkien anymore than you have. You brought up other things, I addressed most of those other things. I brought up Narnia, you ignored that and continued with Tolkien. It's disingenuous to now pretend you have not continued to instigate discussion of that author, much less made some valiant effort to pivot. Am I supposed to ignore your continuing comments about Tolkien, lest I be 'obsessed' for wanting to rebut them as they arise? If so, why does that same standard not apply to you? Why are you any less 'obsessed'? Give me a break.



Well we're certainly both obsessed about something else why would we keep coming back?



BornForBurning said:


> In the sense that, he is not obligated to like Tolkien. I love Tolkien. I think he is totally wrong not to like Tolkien. Regardless, all he is done is state his emotional opinion as rational argument. That is no crime. That is essentially what all of us do when we critique fiction.



Thanks for the input, always good to have a fresh perspective. Certainly no crime - i think i've said as much several times? But the point i'm failing to make is a generic one about maps in literature not necessarily needing geological fidelity to add to the work. Am i off the mark that much?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 27, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> I mentioned how Middle Earth was created flat and then folded into a sphere by some angel like beings. Once we have that, i'd imagine any geological consistency with the real world gets thrown out of the window. I think that's more a commentary on shifting beliefs with the advent of rationalism than it is about shifting tectonics.
> 
> For me it requires no energy to ignore most geological inconsistencies in a fantasy map, i'd have to take map each on its own merits (any generic fantasy map, do you want to move away from Tolkien's map?). For you it requires energy. Fair to say that's the main difference in our opinions?



And that's fine...for you. But it means nothing to me. I take maps based on textual context. You are ascribing qualifiers that are not in the text -- "i'd imagine..." and that doesn't do it for me. OK?



> But the point i'm failing to make is a generic one about maps in literature not necessarily needing geological fidelity to add to the work. Am i off the mark that much?



You're off the mark because your premise is that I am saying maps have to have geological fidelity no matter what, which is not what I am saying -- Hence I am good with Pooh. I am saying that _absent of a reason why they wouldn't have fidelity _I am going to apply the same rules to them as I would, say, a regular real world map. I don't see why that is unreasonable or why you think it intolerant. It's simple common sense, to me: If you do not provide an explanation for why something is 'wrong', I am going to be dissatisfied by its 'wrongness'.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 28, 2020)

Fuck the map. Just write the damned book.


----------



## rarie (Sep 30, 2020)

Although maps are a common trope, particularly in fantasy novels, they're by no means necessary. The only reason you might want to put a map in (if you're not a map-lover) is if your world is geographically complicated enough that it would be hard to follow without a map. Even then, I'd say you could probably just fiddle with the story to make it clearer rather than feel the need to add a map.
Not sure of the statistics of this, but I think the majority of readers aren't actually sitting there with the map to follow the protagonist's journey across the world.


----------



## epimetheus (Oct 1, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> And that's fine...for you. But it means nothing to me. I take maps based on textual context. You are ascribing qualifiers that are not in the text -- "i'd imagine..." and that doesn't do it for me. OK?



Okily dokily.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 1, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Okily dokily.



Here you go:
[video=youtube;ejzde32zdVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejzde32zdVw[/video]


----------



## BornForBurning (Oct 1, 2020)

> Here you go:


What even is this. It's a meme band, and then the intro comes in and it isn't, and then the breakdown hits and it is again.


----------

