As a side note: Abercrombie didn’t include a map in his “First Law” trilogy. It’s a bloody epic tale set in a dozen different places with LOTS of travel in between. Without a reference I was absolutely confused.
Abercrombie’s argument against maps in fantasy books
- … maps aren’t really suitable to the type of book I write, that is one centred tightly around the characters. To use a film metaphor, I feel that epic fantasy is often told too much in wide shots, which is to say we are shown vast events from a great distance, we are shown little people in a huge landscape, we perhaps lack that feeling of closeness with, and understanding of, the characters. And there’s no wider shot than the whole world on a page, right?
- A focus on world, and setting, and getting all the details straight, that maybe gets in the way of submersion in the characters and the story. I’d rather they just let it flow over them, left the details in my (hugely capable) hands, and concentrated on each event as it’s presented.
- … I do think having a map there can damage the sense of scale, awe, and wonder that a reader might have for your world. … The unknown can be mysterious, exciting, in a way that a few squiggles on a piece of paper often … aren’t. It’s a bit like the problem I have with literal fantasy artwork of the characters on a cover. Pictures work very powerfully compared to words. Straight away the reader’s imagination is constricted by what they’ve seen there…
- I also reckon that, while the hardcore fantasy fan would often like to see a map, the more general fantasy reader isn’t that bothered, and in fact might be quite glad when there isn’t one. You see it in the front there, and you kind of feel you have to look, and get some sense of it all before you start, know what I mean? As if the author’s suddenly going to appear at some point and test you.
Some time later Abercrombie did actually jump on the map bandwagon, when his fourth book “Best Served Cold” came out.
His reasoning for including a map:
…If a map’s going to be included, I want it to be right. I want it to punch its weight, and look the part. I think maps in fantasy series are too often lazy. Lazy in terms of the authorial thought going into them, and lazy in terms of the artistic execution. A map is artwork, and if you’re going to include it, it needs to look authentic, it needs to help set the tone and create the atmosphere for the world as well as simply describe it, or it’s a wasted opportunity. Or worse, it’s just stuck in there to say – “this book is epic fantasy, like that Lord of the Rings that made everyone so much money. Man, I hope this makes money too.”
So I was very keen that a map should:
a) be accurate within reason,
b) have artistic merit,
c) communicate something about the setting just in the way that it’s drawn.
This got me thinking. I love maps in general. I thin they are neat. I spent a good portion of my early teenagehood drawing maps of non-existant places populated by elves. I like Hobb’s maps. I’m glad they are there, because I often used them as a reference to understand what the heck was going on. But I do feel that the maps provided my Ken Lewis were lazy (sorry Ken Lewis).
Just for comparison:
Original
In general, I think fantasy books need maps - they can serve as a reference. The more places are involved in the plot - the greater the need for a map (First Law trilogy). If the majority of the plot deals with a travel/quest to the other side of the world you have to have a map (LOTR). I confess I could've survived without a map in Liveship Trader (they just travel south and north / up and down the coastline). The map in Tawny Man was absolutely frigging useless - which was a shame, I could've used a good map. The map in Farseer was sort of necessary, and kind-of did it's job....
Sourced from:
Joe Abercrombie's Blog - Maps. Craps.
A Dribble of Ink Blog - Best Served Cold Map
Cross-posted to: Fitz and the Fool
No comments:
Post a Comment