Although I havn't read your books, which I hope to correct when they are out in english. I do love this map
Hello Erik, Thanks for posting and for your explanation. As a community of cartographers, we are always paying a lot of attention to such things as "realism" in fantasy maps, so I think you will understand the concern. Even in a fantasy story, the world has to reflect the realism that makes it believable to people living in our real world.
I'm sure it's too late now, but there are ways to accomplish what you described (about two rivers refusing to share the same mouth) and still maintain the realism of rivers always flowing downhill at every point. Perhaps if you need another such map, you might see if you can find a way to do that. Otherwise, to knowledgeable eyes like the ones here, the map just distracts by its "wrongness".
As a life-long fantasy reader, I'll look forward to seeing your books come out in English!
Although I havn't read your books, which I hope to correct when they are out in english. I do love this map
Here is an update! I've added more names and done some tweaking with the colors.
Tell me what you think, and please ignore the rivers!
paratorna6b.jpg
"That sounds... incredibly complicated, but there's no doubt the result is fantastic." /Diamond
I like it. The only thing I think I would change is that the water names need to be a little higher contract, either bolder or darker blue.
This is gorgeous. I love the textured feel of the land, and your border is lovely.
And once again, another update. Not much new except some labels.
paratorna7.jpg
"That sounds... incredibly complicated, but there's no doubt the result is fantastic." /Diamond
That's quite good to me!
The map looks fantastic!
And speaking of fantastic, Obbehobbe, it sounds like you are just the artist in this situation and you were following the guidance of a customer. Brior, I'm a firm believer in fantasy being FANTASY, who cares how the rivers flow! I understand that drawing some elements of a map may just make a map look bad, but ONE river that defies the norm is not something that should be changed, ESPECIALLY if it is relevant to the story. I look back at my old, OLD maps, and yes, my rivers are wrong and look terrible, and on some maps it stands out and affects the aesthetic appeal. On Obbehobbe's map here, that one extra, irregular river doesn't stand out or negatively impact this map in any way.
Also, I've never met your average fantasy novel consumer/reader who, 1) would give a rat's behind, or 2) knows enough about cartography to even be slightly aware that there is an irregularity.
I disagree with Chick's statement that "...to knowledgeable eyes like the ones here, the map just distracts by its "wrongness"." People on this site might notice, but I do not believe it distracts at all, nor should it be considered wrong.
According to Google here is the definition of "fantasy":
fan·ta·sy
ˈfan(t)əsē/
noun
1.
the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
I'm all for constructive criticism and what not, but we can't go around telling each other that their Imaginary worlds are "wrong" and should be changed because of how things function in the real world.
I'll get off my soap box now.
Last edited by wthrasherb; 03-16-2015 at 10:44 AM. Reason: typo corretion
Of course, fantasy is fantasy, but I think the fantastical is all the more wonderous if it has normality to contrast to. Therefore the desire for worlds to have verisimilitude, and then add fantastic elements on top.
The map is so good, and really there's just one wrong river, that it's very tempting to just... correct it. If it's a commission, please mention it to the customer! If they don't *need* the river there, then it would be oh so easy to just move the source to that lake in the mountains. If they need boats going up both rivers to that lake, then have a canal?