An interesting discussion topic...

[Redrobes]

To a degree I think I agree with the article. I think its basically a reaction to the previous article on Middle Earth which was a bit ludicrous. But it does have to be said that many fantasy maps have a similar style. Maybe the colours and rendering change but the general style of the mountains being drawn a certain way etc is very similar. So I get that. But in terms of it being necessarily geographically accurate then I would point him in the direction of other planetary maps. Despite the fact that we have not had the luxury of another water based earth like planet in our proximity the terrain is radically different to our planet. What these people are saying is that they object to another planet not having geography which exactly match Earths. That bit of it is ludicrous.

If you take many old maps, particularly those middle ages type of the Mapa Mundi collection, none of them look anything at all like our fantasy maps. It is as though we have narrowed our borders of possibility to those world maps with nice crinkly borders, perhaps portolan lines and so on. I think people _like_ that style of map in the same way that we hark to steam punk. It never existed but we like the idea of it. Steam Punk is similarly unrealistic to an extreme degree, so much so that nobody dares write an article pointing this out as tho we never before realized it without their insight.

[Mouse]

...It is as though we have narrowed our borders of possibility to those world maps with nice crinkly borders, perhaps portolan lines and so on. I think people _like_ that style of map in the same way that we hark to steam punk. It never existed but we like the idea of it. Steam Punk is similarly unrealistic to an extreme degree, so much so that nobody dares write an article pointing this out as tho we never before realized it without their insight.

I think the narrowing of styles in modern fantasy mapping is more to do with the emergence of a basic language, where the symbols or icons we draw or paste on our maps are its glyphs - the basic words of our language. The map tells the layout of the story in these simple glyphs we have subconsciously agreed upon between us... by way of selecting the most aesthetically pleasing versions all the time.

My handwriting is different to yours, but we can still read each other's script (I would hope) because we only ever use the same alphabet, language and word forms - the same glyphs. Its the same with standard/conventional/traditional fantasy mapping. We all use the same glyphs (even though not one of us draws them exactly the same way) to communicate the layout of the story to the widest possible audience (that's why they have to consist of some kind of common language, rather than being utterly unique every time, or no one would understand them at all).

I haven't tried my hand at what most people would call traditional fantasy cartography yet, but if you analyse what I have done instead , you will see almost straight away that without that convenient common language of recognisable glyphs my maps have to be almost spot on photorealistic - just so that people can understand the message they convey.

One thing that strikes me is that people often forget that at any one time in history there will be one massively popular style (or maybe two if one is on its way out and being slowly replaced by a new idea), and that it is actually normal to have this narrowing effect, simply so that we all understand what the map is trying to tell us - which is to communicate the layout of the story.

Variations away from the basic language of glyphs are driven by inspiration and creative artistic experimentation, which act like a force of evolution over time, such that in 50 years time fantasy mapping won't look anything like it does today - just as the vast majority of maps today don't actually look very much like Tolkien's map if you really look at them in a serious comparison.

[Blaidd Drwg]

I think the narrowing of styles in modern fantasy mapping is more to do with the emergence of a basic language, where the symbols or icons we draw or paste on our maps are its glyphs - the basic words of our language. The map tells the layout of the story in these simple glyphs we have subconsciously agreed upon between us... by way of selecting the most aesthetically pleasing versions all the time.

Well, this ^ exactly.
I think the writer is approaching cartography like people approach fine art, but misses the point that a map needs to be readable to be of any use. Sure, maps could potentially take many different forms: just look at Polynesian stick charts, Ammassalik wooden maps, or even a map of the London Underground. Great cartography, but you need to have a certain cultural background to have a hope of understanding them easily. And "fantasy" cartography also relates to genre. A London Underground style map can work in a sci-fi or modern setting, but I'd think twice before using it to represent Baldur's Gate's sewer system, or something. Maybe a post-modern map of the places I've visited on foot would be more to his liking: I'll take my old hiking boots, stick them in a picture frame and suspend them from the ceiling. Okay, that's probably a mean reductio ad absurdum, maybe But I get the feeling the writer is basically accusing us of merely painting pretty pictures. "How pedestrian!" I think he could at least have taken a quick look in our Cartographer's Choice gallery (assuming he knows about it) and be proven wrong

[Greg]

Yeah, interesting to read and everyone's comments too, but I think as has been pointed out by a few already, the author misses the point. He starts off by saying how most articles don't "judge fantasy maps as maps" which he then goes on to do. Considering that for the most part anyway, fantasy maps are only intended as way for a reader/fan/gamer to identify themselves in a world and immerse themselves within it as opposed to being used to accurately navigate around it like a real world map often allows, I think means that they aren't real maps for the most part so rightfully shouldn't be judged that way.

It is art. Yes, I agree sometimes they do share the same motifs and symbols and perhaps overly so, but that's often at the request of whoever is making the world. The nostalgia of Tolkien, the medieval context, and the general pleasing aesthetic of other fantasy maps often explain some of these reoccurrences. From time to time perhaps, you do get variations and drastically new things being tried out, but at the end of the day, it's all about artfully immersing someone into a world.

Anyway, I don't think I'll say anymore. I can see some of his points, even if I don't think they are wholly justified given his general approach.

[Voolf]

“Fantasy maps,” writes Adrian Daub, “are invented, but not all that inventive. Virtually all of them repeat certain features. The way coastlines, mountain ranges, and islands are arranged follows rules.

This is by far the most ridiculous statement i ever read about fantasy maps. First the critiques whining about FANTASY map being unreal because of some features, but if you focus on building a real (real is not very accurate statement which i wil try to exlain later why i think so) map, then it is obvious it won't be inventive, because all cartographers have to follow same rules for every single map (formation of mountains, rivers, lakes, biomes etc.) How a map can be inventive when you have so many restrictions.
A fantasy map is all about invention, because that fantasy factor allows artist to create something unexpected, unreal, interesting etc.
If you want an inventive map you always go for a fantasy map. If you want invented, but not inventive map you go with a earth-like (following all geology, geography and even astronomy rules) map.

Now why i said the "real" is not entirely good word, is because our understanding of nature, physics, etc. is constantly evolving and changing as we discover and reaserch new things. Just because something dosen't seem real, dosen't necessarily means it's impossible. Some time ago i watch a documentary about mission to discover more about Pluto and its moons. With new better imagery they discovered mountain formations, gazers and more which scientist have no clue how they could formed that way, because they contradicts all rules we know so far. So the simple fact from that is, just because you never saw a mountain range like that on Earth, dosen't mean it is unreal.

For instance: a surprising number of fantasy worlds contain vast landmasses in the east, but only an endless ocean to the west.”

Hate to break it for the author, but the maps he reffering to, are not world or even continet maps, those are regional maps showing a part of a kingdom or continent. There may be "endless ocean" on the east side of the continent too and "vast landmasses" of another continent on the west. They are just simply not shown. Or maybe the author is really bothered just by the fact that the those maps depict west part of the continent not east ?

I’ve seen this before. When people talk about their favourite fantasy maps, they’re not actually talking about their favourite work of cartography; they’re talking about a map of their favourite fantasy place.

Well i don't know anything about that. I, as many here in the guild love the maps for the creativity, style and aestetics. Not because they are from some well known movie. book or etc. (correct me if i am wrong) I could guess the reason those people were talknig about maps from favourite book/movie, is just because they simply love the book/movie. The emphasis for them is not favourite map, but the map from the book/movie with the setting the love. It is different form of categorizing.

It’s because fantasy novels are expected to come with maps. It’s become a cliché, thanks to multi-volume epic fantasy series that are basically derivative Tolkien clones: Tolkien had maps, so they have to as well.

Hate to break it for the author again, with all due respect to Mr. Tolkien, please don't make him precursor of novel maps, because he is not.

This is an example of bad fantasy map:


Terry Goodkind, Wizard’s First Rule (New York: Tor, 1994).

But why is it a bad fantasy map? Is it bad because the terrain is so ridiculously, implausibly mountainous? Or is it bad because the cartography is so poor? The map is drowning in undifferentiated hill signs: is that a fault of the author’s cartography or of his geography?

Well which is it then? The author stated the map is bad, and threw couple questions why could be so, but it seems like he fails to explain his statement. Personally i could only agree with the "bad" statement if we judge the map from aestetic point of view, but even then it is purely subjective evaluation if we do not compare it to other maps.

We know these are done in the fantasy map style because, like obscenity, we know it when we see it.

I did not know that there is something like fantasy map style. Just because long time ago people drew maps in THIS particular style, dosen't mean it is FANTASY maps style now, does it?

The trouble is that we don’t seem to be able to enunciate what that style is, where it comes from, or what the rules are.

Well i am... you would also, if you would actually did some reaserch.

If you want an example of how this can happen, consider a book that ought to be about fantasy map design, but isn’t: Jared Blando’s How to Draw Fantasy Art and RPG Maps

From this paragraph (to the end of article) we get to the real essence of this whole article which is a simple advertisement for Jared Blando's book. Paid or not, dosen't matter. I don't have any issue with advertisement of someone's work and i think Mr. Blando is doing darn good fatasy maps, but i really hate product placement "hidden" in well (or not) design article. If you want to advertise someting please do, but to it plainly.

---

TL;DR - The entire article is an advertisement, and the author did not do well with it. Also disagree with almost everything he stated.

[Straf]

This is by far the most ridiculous statement i ever read about fantasy maps.

I, too, found this an odd statement to make. Perhaps we should be representing coastlines with different types of flowers - or even flour, mountains as shellfish and forests using the collective works of Shakespeare rotated by different angles to represent different types of tree?

Or how about we represent a coastline using some kind of interface defining the limit of the land/water? Something like a line perhaps? What if we put some waves on the water side just to make sure? Trees represent forests, upside down Vs make great mountains so I'm told.

TL;DR - The entire article is an advertisement, and the author did not do well with it. Also disagree with almost everything he stated.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that way. I didn't want to say anything in case I came across too cynical but yes it did seem to be to be an elaborate way to promote a book.

[Mouse]

I noticed the ad, but decided not to mention it at all (failed!) because that just advertises the thing all the more.

[Falconius]

I didn't notice the ad at all, since:

We can’t expect Blando’s beginner-level drawing guide to serve as a primer for fantasy cartography. But it offers a possible explanation as to how the fantasy map making process yields a map that ends up being called terrible.

And:

It’s the fantasy map equivalent of drawing everything by starting with a bunch of circles.

I'd hardly call that pumping up a product.

In any case that is a minor point.

His original complaint seems like a valid one ("That is to say, they don’t judge fantasy maps as maps."), though I'm not sure what the conclusion of his thesis was. However I think why most fantasy maps in novels and books are so unremarkable is because they are tacked on at the end when the writer, who has written and entire novel without referring to a map, now needs one and so some poor illustrator has to come up with something that fits (though most maps often can't actually be made to strictly fit). Often this seems like it is done as a last minute thing and also that the authors and publishers request something super fantasy generic specifically so that it's easy to understand and so that it's clear on tiny paperback pages. In addition they want to keep costs down on an element many see as incidental to a fantasy novel. Given that the author didn't believe it necessary before writing how wrong are they to view it as such? If they actually hired cartographic illustrators, and let them have their lead, and if the author decided to consult a cartographic illustrator or anyone in related fields (geologists, cartographers etc.) before writing their story, fantasy maps for novels would of course be a lot more interesting. It's an irritating problem since authors tend to do a lot of research for their books, and skip out on something so simple and foundational.

I find the authors examples weird. Tokein's map is actually a really nice example of cartography, one that very few novels manage to emulate successfully even if that was their goal. Maps made for games tend to be really nice on the other hand, regardless of their realism. The Darksun map is one of my favorite maps, and it is not remotely realistic as far as I recall. Or even when it is realistic and prescribed it can be made really interesting just look at those series of maps maps that J Edward made for that scholastic book. Not a fantasy map, but it shows what can be achieved by a) following a map from the outset of writing, and b) allowing a cartographic illustrator to have his lead a little.

Another point to be mentioned is that the setting and the map are thoroughly interlocked. If you have the unenviable task of mapping a boring generic setting, you will end up with a boring generic map, and vise versa. So complaining about the bad terrain features of a map is a perfectly valid critique of both the map and the setting.

Edit: Also I should point out despite the preponderance of fantasy maps here at the guild, the maps produced here are so varied, and inventive, and interesting, that it took a hell of time to come up with yearly award categories, and even then they still only sort of work.

[Diamond]

I was tickled by this:

...or that two of the sand people's mam would call them in for their tea leaving the kidnapped Leia unguarded in their 'den'...

SandPeopleTea.png

Sorry about the hard left into off-topic-ness, but come on, that's funny.

[Mouse]

Leia... or cheese-on-beans-on toast... or Leia....

Guess they must have been girl-sandmen!