How important is the map of the Land to you?

[matrixman]

I posted the first part of this in the Mordant's Need Forum and thought it might be worth it to also put it here:

The curious thing about Mordant is that I don't really feel a map of it matters much to me. Since people could use mirrors to "jump" to almost any place in Mordant, that makes the realm feel like one large amorphous whole connected or punctured at various points by mirrors, rather than a land of distinct, separate regions. Er, does that make any sense?

It's not like the Land, where there is so much travel by foot (or Ranyhyn!) to get from A to B. So we have a sense of the scale of the Land, that it has very distinct areas separated by large distances. I wonder how differently - or not so differently - I might have seen the Land in my mind if there hadn't been a map in the books.

So, how about the rest of you? What if the Chronicles books had never provided a map inside? How well do you think you would have coped with trying to see all the regions of the Land just in your mind? Would SRD's prose been enough to draw a decent picture, or would you have been horribly confused? Or would you not have bothered with the books at all because a map is one of the first things you check when browsing a fantasy novel?

[Beyondthebreach]

Ah . . . ironically, I just received my Atlas of the Land in the mail yesterday!

Actually, maps are very important to me . . . I suppose it all goes back to the extensive amount of Roleplaying games I've played (play) and collect. . . I love maps! I can stare endlessly at fantasy maps just imagining locations.

The problem with the maps in the Chronciles is they aren't detailed enough for me! Oh well . . .

The reason it has taken me two decades to get The Atlas of the Land is that I really can't stand Karen Wynn Fonstad's maps - I mean I really don't like them!!!

Anyway . . .

I was looking at the distances and the timeline in the back of the book and I have some serious issues! The distances in The Land (according to the Atlas) seem to be way off. The distance from Mithil Stonedown to Revelstone is given as 300 leagues. That 900 freakin' miles!

I absolutely can't believe that. Covenant made that journey in something like 28 days. Sure, there was Foamfollower and the raft . . . but, come on - that is just out of hand. Some days he hardly even travelled.

All the distances are like this - people would have to be walking 50 miles a day to make these treks. They weren't on Ranyhyn all the time . . . sheesh!

[ninjaboy]

I think they're very important too.. It is incredibly helpful to me for getting into the book, understanding more of what's going on.. Esp when the Warward had to march to Doom's Retreat and Quaan's Eoward went up the river and other people went other places.. You know what I mean.. When there's a lot going on in the Land (or any world) at the one time, knowing how far events are happening from each other is important...

But I don't figure out the exact kilometres or whatever, it just gives me a better mental picture...

I don't need them, but they drfinately enhance the story to me.. In my humble opinion..

[aTOMiC]

I've always enjoyed having the maps from the Chrons. I agree that I'd like to see something a bit more detailed but as a rough reference it's kind of nice to have. I have Fonstad's book as well and have only flipped through it a few times because I too am not all that happy with the way things were rendered but to each his own.

[Cail]

I appreciate it, but it's not necessary.

[Fist and Faith]

I will always at least glance at a map in any fantasy book, but almost never more than that. I'm the anti-Hile Troy when it comes to that stuff. I guess I do have a better-than-normal-for-me image of the Land in my head, because the books have been out for so long, and I've looked to see the changes in the forests from one Chrons to the next. But really, it doesn't have any bearing on my reading of the story. I just take their word that it takes them a long time to march from A to B.

[Unfettered One]

I find that even after reading these for 25 years, I still find myself stopping my reading and using the maps as a reference, just like I did the first go-around. As a guy who likes geography, I find the maps incredibly useful.

Regarding the distances and how unrealistic it is to travel 900 miles in 28 days, I just assumed that the League, while sharing the name of a unit of measure from our world, may not have the same definition.

[alessandi]

I have to say it is important to me, why bother to print a map if it wasn't? I think it gives you some idea of exactly where the story teller is taking you, it's a journey to another world and to have some idea of what that world looks like is important, to me at any rate.

[aTOMiC]

Regarding the distances and how unrealistic it is to travel 900 miles in 28 days, I just assumed that the League, while sharing the name of a unit of measure from our world, may not have the same definition.

Yes. That is exactly how I manage. If I pick the chrons apart I'm going to do harm to the fun I have with it. SRD is human. He makes mistakes but while I'm reading his books he's in charge and while I suspend my disbelief about the story I have no issue doing the same with possible flaws in the details.

[Mortice Root]

I like having maps whenever possible, but more as an artistic rendering of the geography rather than something that's done exatcly to scale. Not having a map usually wouldn't detract from my enjoyment of the story, but having one can certainly add.

As a non-Donaldson example, it took me forever to undertand what was going on at Helm's Deep in LOTR, just from reading the text. As soon as I saw a map (in Fonstad's atlas) I got it. Now, it didn't stop me from enjoying the story, but it did confuse the heck out of me.

[wayfriend]

I don't agree that Mordant's need was okay without a map. During the second book, Terisa and Geraden did quite a bit of travelling from Care to Care, and it got a bit confusing.

The Chronicles would have been okay without a map. It was nice to have, but not really useful. Many of the things that would have been interesting to see mapped - the area around Revelstone, or the around Mithil Stonedown and Kevin's Watch weren't, anyway.

Sometimes maps are distracting. I find myself confirming things in the text by going back to the map. "Yep, okay, that's right." Probably because, once there is a map, I try to keep it in my head, and every time I read something that's not in the map in my head, I need to go amend it.

[Relayer]

I would've liked to see a map of Mordant too. Not only for when they're travelling around, but then when the army marches to Esmerel. And throughout, when there are references to Alend's or Cadwal's armies marching.

But it certainly didn't make the story any less compelling... the concept of "they're marching through Perdon" or whatever was enough. And I don't think TCTC would have suffered w/out the map, but I certainly enjoyed having it to help get into the world. There are lots of great books that don't have maps, and it didn't affect my enjoyment.

What I always found kind of stupid though were the maps of Elemesnedene and Brathair. It was like "well, I can't make a map of the whole world to show where these places are (plus the One Tree and the frozen north seas) ... which I'd have loved to see, but I understand why there isn't one. I assume it was one of those publisher's things "but you've got to have a map!" so they created those. Not that they were bad, but they certainly added nothing. I didn't need to see the street layout for the city. Would've been much more appropriate to just be in Atlas.

[[Syl]]

Maps are of almost no use to me. I can't approach a story spatially.

[Beyondthebreach]

I love maps so much, I have to chime in to twice!

Seriously, I am such a map snob, that I'd be unlikely to read a fantasy book that didn't mave a map . . . I can't help it - in the back of my mind, I am always converting all fantasy books, lands and characters to a RPG/Campaign Setting format . . . maps are critical to my enjoyment of a Fantasy series . . .


I mean, how hard is it to put a map at the beginning!

[Caesar]

I think the map was extremely helpful to me. I had a hard time trying to imagine the Land without the maps. Now, of course, I know the general map of the Land by heart.

I have to agree with the earlier post about the Atlas of the Land. The maps aren't the best, but they are something. Until/unless someone else comes up with a new set of detailed maps (unlikely) I will continue to grit my teeth and use the Altas maps for reference.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with updated maps (perhaps for Thrd Chrons) even if they are "unofficial"?

[MsMary]

I appreciate it, but it's not necessary.

What Cail said.

If I have a map, I will refer to it to get a perspective about where things are taking place. Without a map, I just use my imagination.

[Starkin]

Seriously, I am such a map snob

Hey, you and me both! Maps are very important to me.

I'd be unlikely to read a fantasy book that didn't mave a map

The first thing I do when I pick up a fantasy book that catches my eye is to see if there's a map in the beginning. When there's not, I usually loose interest. Yeah, I know... makes me wonder how many great stories I missed out on because of being a "map snob"...

maps are critical to my enjoyment of a Fantasy series

That's how I feel. I feel like I'd be lost without a map at the beginning. I'm very geographic-minded.

As far as the Chronicles: I think the Land is beautiful from SRD's descriptions but it's also beautiful in the map form. It looks real to me, like it could exist somewhere: Landsdrop cutting the Land in two from north to south, Mount Thunder kneeling on it's edge, Andelain laying like a jewel nearby, Melenkurion Skyweir towering over Garroting Deep. Yeah, the maps ring true to my mind. You can tell SRD lovingly crafted his world and gave it a lot of thought.

And I feel that the distances are pretty realistic, especially when Earthpower is involved, like Foamfollower's boat. And Atiaran, with her straight back and anger, pretty much kept TC moving right along.

[amanibhavam]

Having a good map helps create a sense of reality behind the story, the feeling that there is a real breathing world existing outside the movements of the main characters, places that do not even feature in the main story but are indicated on the map anyway.

Now SRD does not work that way, he only writes into the story what is barely essential to advance the happenings, so the maps really only seem to provide some orientation, a sense of distances etc. So the books would not loose much if they were left out, but we readers, whose imagination works differently than SRD's probably would.

Unfortunately I am very clumsy with map software and generally with graphics applications, otherwise I would love to tinker with things like producing elevation maps for the Land and generate terrain images in, say, Terragen. Once I toyed with the idea of creating a Land map with the map editor of Civilization II or III:) or maybe even play Civ with Landborn races!

[drew]

When I first started reading fantasy (with the Chorns) I found that I constantly needed the map.

nowadays I rarely look to them at all.

(Runes)

Spoiler

I didn't miss the map in Runes

As far as LOTR, I found those maps fairly confusing; mostly due to the topography.

I find that fantasy maps can be eith too large to understand, or to detailed with places that have no bearing to the story, and are confusing.

The map in the Cov books, although SRD has said they are not exactly as he wanted, seem to be the right size and right detail.

[Prebe]

Edit