On maps

I have often been mentioned for not including maps in my fantasy novels. I get it; it's hilarious. But I would like to clarify that my stance has never been against maps themselves. In fact, I love maps. They can be an incredible way to explore and experience a fantasy world beyond the tale. However, I don't always find them necessary, and when reading fantasy have often found myself skipping them entirely. I also believe they should be used strategically and thoughtfully, rather than included simply because it is expected from the genre. 

When I first discussed not using maps in a podcast interview, I was specifically referring to my process of writing and worldbuilding. For me, world, plot, and character are developed together, reciprocally. They are not created in isolation from one another. In that sense, maps are not always necessary as a beginning point to the process, and sometimes they even detract from immersion. I tend to focus primarily on the characters and their immediate concerns. 

When it comes to reading, the argument could be made of course, that a reader can simply choose to skip over a map. True, and I agree. But that misses the point of what I am trying to do with immersion. I am deeply focused on the reader's experience of the world, and when entering a story, I believe the characters' journey should come first, not a bird's-eye view of the world. Perhaps it is a pedantic thing, maybe a little pretentious, but I want the experience within the book to be wholly within the world of the story.

Maps often give away more than they intend to: information about geography, politics, and even plot. That is not inherently a bad thing, especially if it is the author's purpose to display a rich, pre-constructed world. But, as with everything in writing, maps must be used with intention and purpose. If you find yourself including a map simply because it is "the done thing," it is worth asking: Why am I including this? What purpose is it serving? Could this information be conveyed to readers in a way that better supports the story?

For example: in my world, different factions might maintain competing versions of maps based on political or theological beliefs. Borders may be inconsistent, disputed, or change drastically over time. No map in existence (even today) is a truly accurate document. They are argued over and redrawn constantly.

Therefore, if a map is included, it should acknowledge its own partiality and unreliability, or, at the very least, the way it is revealed to readers should be considered carefully. (Placing it at the back of the book, for example, may discourage constant reference and preserve narrative immersion.)

To return to The Cirilliarc: while some supplementary material appears at the back of the books, it is presented organically, through fictional glossaries, excerpts from history books, or corrupted manuscripts. Within the story itself, there is an in-world reason for this: the trilogy is ultimately SPOILER that will not be revealed until the trilogy is complete. Thus, any “official” material must feel imperfect, fragmentary, and deeply human, rather than absolute. The maps are in-world and the supplementary documents that divide sections and chapters are in-world. Because of this, all are susceptible to corruption, both intentional and accidental. There is no fourth-wall breaking glossary that gives readers a run down of the world's cultures, not is there an equally immersion-smashing 

In The Curse of Ohlin, Gahlahan is refers often to his audience (whoever that may be), and as such, does not overly explain features of the world. He may describe a Kyrzegh's kyrburot, or he might describe the way the Saltspear was formed, but for a lot of things he simply does not care to go over them. He believes that you, the audience, are from his world. How often do you find yourself talking about a car ride and have to give a detailed description of how internal combustion engines (or Tesla batteries) work? I would love to say never, but some people out there must find that shit crucial in their storytelling. Gol! Bringing it back to maps, how often do you go through life only to discover that a place you have spoken about is not located where you thought it was? There are parts of Sydney that, no matter how many times I try to remind myself, I always assume they are located somewhere else. (Chatswood sounds like a suburb in Western Sydney) We may use Google Maps daily, but whether we pay proper attention to it is another question. What if the experience you're trying to give the reader is disorientation? Specifically disorientation in a bizarre and non-linear world? I feel a map would undo your efforts. Think of Susanna Clarke's Piranesi. A map would ruin it.

I do, in fact, use maps all the time in my own writing process. But my decision to share them with readers is cautious and deliberate, always in service of preserving the mystery, texture, and lived-in feeling of the world.

Anyway, I wanted to try and clear it up. If not for you than for me. People joke about the map thing a lot, and it is very funny, but this is where I stand and why I stand there and what I meant when I said what I said.

Here are two great articles by Mark L
awrence and joe Abercrombie, who have both included and excluded maps, depending on the nature of the world and work. I read them years ago, and they really helped in founding my approach to worldbuilding.

 Joe Abercrombie: https://joeabercrombie.com/maps-craps-2/ 

Mark Lawrence: https://mark---lawrence.blogspot.com/2017/09/why-youre-not-getting-map.html

All that said, here's a map: