[clockwirk]

Is there a map of Joe Abercrombie's world online anywhere? I'm kind of surprised that the publisher didn't include a map in the first book (I don't know about the second) since the story involves different nations and their geographical relationship to each other in a fairly large way. Any help?

thanks

[Eventine]

You might want to read this post about the topic on Joe's blog:
http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2007/10/maps-craps.html

[Bear]

I've never really notice the absence of maps in books. If they're there, I might reference them occasionally. But the omission of a map has never been something I'd have a strike against an author for.

So yeah. I didn't really notice the omission with Abercrombie. But now that I'm aware of it, I am furious. I hope Mr. Abercrombie likes hate mail.

[Takoren]

The problem with maps is that they are usally thought out very poorly. Often it's one continent, five countries, maybe one city per country, one huge forest, one mountain range and perhaps a few rivers. Just where in the real world are you gonna find that?

For every map that is done well, I can name five that are done poorly. Tolkien, Martin and Erikson's maps absolutely rock, and I have some affection for the maps in the WoT books and Riftwar books.

As much as I love Robin Hobb, how long do you think drawing the map for the Six Duchies took? Ten minutes, give or take? How about the Shadowmarch maps in Tad Williams's books? And I need not mention the glorious crapitude of Terry Goodkind's maps.

Conversely, one of the best books I ever read, The Book of the New Sun, had no map at all. For that matter, a good book will have me not caring what the map looks like.

But I still have to love a map that's done well. And for what it's worth I'm glad Abercrombie isn't an anti-map snob, and I can totally understand his preference to concentrate on characters rather than locations.

[clockwirk]

I've never really notice the absence of maps in books. If they're there, I might reference them occasionally. But the omission of a map has never been something I'd have a strike against an author for.

So yeah. I didn't really notice the omission with Abercrombie. But now that I'm aware of it, I am furious. I hope Mr. Abercrombie likes hate mail.

Ha! Well, I'm not to that point exactly, but I do like to visualize the spatial relationship between different regions. I've found myself wishing for a map to look at in order to lock the story in. It's not a deal breaker by any means...I still love the book. I just wish there was a map.

[clockwirk]

The problem with maps is that they are usally thought out very poorly. Often it's one continent, five countries, maybe one city per country, one huge forest, one mountain range and perhaps a few rivers. Just where in the real world are you gonna find that?

For every map that is done well, I can name five that are done poorly. Tolkien, Martin and Erikson's maps absolutely rock, and I have some affection for the maps in the WoT books and Riftwar books.

As much as I love Robin Hobb, how long do you think drawing the map for the Six Duchies took? Ten minutes, give or take? How about the Shadowmarch maps in Tad Williams's books? And I need not mention the glorious crapitude of Terry Goodkind's maps.

Conversely, one of the best books I ever read, The Book of the New Sun, had no map at all. For that matter, a good book will have me not caring what the map looks like.

But I still have to love a map that's done well. And for what it's worth I'm glad Abercrombie isn't an anti-map snob, and I can totally understand his preference to concentrate on characters rather than locations.

Yeah, but Abercrombie has major story lines that deal not just with the characters, but the characters in the context of huge political and national changes. If the characters are talking about whether their nation can afford to go to war with the people up north because the people down south might rebel (oversimplified), I like to be able to take the concept of those factions in at a glance rather than searching the book and my memory for where each nation is located and how they relate to each other.

In that case, the LACK of a map is a distraction from the characters because you have to spend a lot of energy figuring out what the world looks like rather than focusing on the story. I don't even care if it's a good map. I assume that the world is more complex than what's on the page. I'm just looking for basic geography.

I also found it strange on Joe's blog that he said he didn't like epic fantasy told in "wide shots" (paraphrased), but later said that maps can make the reader lose the "scale, awe, and wonder" of the story. I think it's the "wide shots" that help give the story "scale, awe, and wonder."

I agree that Hobb's maps aren't great, but I also think that her books lack a "big picture" feeling. I still like the books though, because they're character based. And I did refer back to the maps, even if they were junk.

[Takoren]

Having not read the First Law books, I was not aware that his stories depend that much on locations, Clockwirk, and I would agree that being the case, he'd better get a map drawn.

[Werthead]

Conversely, one of the best books I ever read, The Book of the New Sun, had no map at all.

Isn't this because Wolfe drops casual hints through the BotNS until the reader suddenly realises that the landscape through Severian and co is travelling is basically South America in the distant future?

[bossfan2000]

While I dislike it when books dont have maps, I dislike it even more when the maps are bad, or when they are so hard to read that they are practically useless. I am reading The Briar King (mass market pb) and the map in that book is headache enducing. the city names are too small, hard to tell what is land and water, and the different shades of grey just make everything hard to read (at least in my opinion).

[Takoren]

Yeah, but Abercrombie has major story lines that deal not just with the characters, but the characters in the context of huge political and national changes. If the characters are talking about whether their nation can afford to go to war with the people up north because the people down south might rebel (oversimplified), I like to be able to take the concept of those factions in at a glance rather than searching the book and my memory for where each nation is located and how they relate to each other.

In that case, the LACK of a map is a distraction from the characters because you have to spend a lot of energy figuring out what the world looks like rather than focusing on the story. I don't even care if it's a good map. I assume that the world is more complex than what's on the page. I'm just looking for basic geography.

I also found it strange on Joe's blog that he said he didn't like epic fantasy told in "wide shots" (paraphrased), but later said that maps can make the reader lose the "scale, awe, and wonder" of the story. I think it's the "wide shots" that help give the story "scale, awe, and wonder."

I agree that Hobb's maps aren't great, but I also think that her books lack a "big picture" feeling. I still like the books though, because they're character based. And I did refer back to the maps, even if they were junk.

What a difference time can make. I'm nearly done with Before They are Hanged and I agree that there is so much geography in the story that I don't understand why Abercrombie doesn't at least let a fan do a map for him, or actually publish one of his own self-reference maps.

However, I get a basic idea where everything is. The North is to the north, obviously, with Angland this sprawling wilderness on the edge of Union territory, and the Union taking up the lower portion of the continent. To the west (I think it was west) is a large, barren section of the continent labled "Old Empire". There is a small sea at the bottom of the continent and Dagoska is immediately on the other side. Below Dagoska is the empire of Ghurkul. I can almost see a map of it all in my head.