| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Maglubiyet |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 15:12:16
While I truly enjoy the many novels I've read over the years set in the FR, I must take exception with the gross biological inaccuracies occasionally portrayed on their pages. Although the setting is fantasy, where nearly anything is possible, it is still a world that operates on basic laws and principles.
I believe that a familiarity with the real world principles on which the FR is based will help the authors create a more believable universe. Furthermore, I think that it is irresponsible to propagate misconceptions and falsehoods to a target audience of teenagers. As an educator, I know firsthand how difficult it is to purge these ideas once they've taken hold.
That being said, let me point out a few recurring problems I've noticed in FR novels (without naming names!):
1. Spiders are NOT insects. It is true that the term "insect" is occasionally used to describe any air-breathing arthropod. But insects are, in fact, a specific group within the arthropods, distinct from spiders (and centipedes.) Characterizing spiders as insects isn't grammatically incorrect in English, but it is a taxonomical fallacy.
2. Spiders do not have mandibles. The correct term is chelicerae (or falcers). Since most people have probably never heard this word it's not surprising that FR authors do not use it. But the main point I'm trying to make is that their mouthparts do not move from side to side like an ant's. These are appendages used for piercing, pulling, and injecting poison.
They also do not have antennae.
3. Spiders typically have 8 forward-facing eyes. These are set at the front of their cephalothorax. They do not have heads as such, only a fused head-body that contains their eyes, mouth, and legs.
4. Centipedes aren't insects (see above.) Insects are characterized by six legs, wings, one pair of antennae. Exceptions to these criteria are rare.
5. Algae, lichens, and coral are photosynthetic and could not occur in the Underdark without some light source. If you've ever seen algae while on a cave tour it is there because of the electric lighting that's been strung for the benefit of the tourists. Lichens and coral both contain symbiotic algal cells that require light to survive. Fungus and bacteria, however, would surely thrive in the lightless Underdark.
6. Predators do not typically roar when attacking prey. Hollywood movies aside, roars are usually reserved for threat displays within one's own species. When you're trying to kill something to eat, it doesn't help to warn your prey or to advertise your kill to every other predator within earshot.
Obviously, in a world where dragons can fly, breathe fire, and talk, minor quips like these can be overlooked. But I believe that fantasy is made all the more enjoyable when the background that it is set in is familiar and believable. When I am engrossed in a novel and I read a line like, "Spiders. The paladin noted with revulsion that the foul insects were snapping their mandibles," it breaks the spell for me.
WotC markets to younger audiences. Advanced vocabulary and concepts can pose problems to readability and flow. But these issues can be skirted with the application of some creativity, a tool most authors have some skill with.
So FR authors, hear my plea for the sake of our children who may be inspired by your words! Do your research before setting word to page. Don't include inaccuracies (biological or otherwise) in your works. Find and incorporate inspiration from the real world. And please, please continue to crank out interesting, exciting, and entertaining novels!!!
|
| 27 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 12:09:17
But everyone knows that glass is different in the Realms. Especially Calishite glass - nasty stuff.
-- George Krashos
|
| Winterfox |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 11:53:20
Okay, I retrieved my copy of Realms of Infamy and re-read the short story. The victim in question gorges himself on a cake (and I think you'd notice if anything coarse is in your mouth and attempt to spit it out), into which Entreri has put the ground glass, and dies in painful agony the following night. (Something about feeling as if his stomach is on fire or something.)
Which is, uhm, a leeeetle dramatic and a leeetle... incredulous. Now, the most I can take is dose afer dose after dose of glass ground to fine dust, day in and day out. It'd take a copious, unholy amount of glass for the damage to be that drastic. (Even then, questionable. Glass ground to very fine powder, remember.) For the cake to have done that kind of damage, it'd have to contain, what, more ground glass than cream? |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 07:08:30
Well, I have never read the story question to know exactly how fatal the glass was, but in a certai nsetting(especially calimport) I could totally buy using crushed glass to kill people.
With people that gulp food, and especially thicker stews and gruel, it is plausible that coarse ground glass would make it through unnoticed. And even with bread or other foods where flour is used, it is plausible that the grindstones there could be of no more quality than those of egypt, and it is common knowledge(which in all truth might be as correct as the glass thing) that the grains had so muc hgrit in themthat it wore down the teeth of people, so if it is similiar in that area, grit might be just ignored.
Also not that the person that wrote that article constantly sspeaks about "seeing a doctor, while msot i na pseudo medievil setting would ever do such a thing, and any healers they did see would likely be ignorant of such matters.
It would be an interesting idea though to use very coarsely crushed glass, even largish hunks, and then use soem magic upon it to shrink it, rendering it as tiny and unnoticable as the finest powder.... until the enchantment wears off. The food would also not detect as poisoned under magical detections for such. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 06:05:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Well, to play Cyric's advocate here... As that link states, the belief that eating ground glass will kill a person is a very widespread one. The vast majority of us, myself included, have never had any reason to question this "fact." It's one of those things we've seen in various forms of media all our lives, and everyone else shares the same belief... Until I read your post and then followed the link (that's a fave site of mine, BTW), I firmly believed that the ingestion of crushed glass would be fatal.
So, for 97 people out of a hundred, that bit would have seem perfectly plausible.
Nevertheless, as I said, suspension of disbelief went out the window for me. The fact remains that the incident in the short story is implausible -- unless the glass Entreri used was enchanted or poisoned or something, neither of which is stated, hur hur. *shrugs* I wouldn't have minded if young Entreri were to harbor a delusion that "crushed glass == fatal, kewl assassin trick whee!", but as it is, the story made it into a fact. Not a misguided opinion of a misinformed street urchin, but something that actually happens in stubborn defiance of medical facts.
Besides which, you've already replied to the original poster that what he's brought up consists of "minor points" that most people won't notice anyway, so eh... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 05:29:42
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
Oh, oh, technical details. Fun.
Did anyone know that ground glass is not, in fact, as fatal as Artemis Entreri believes it to be?
I could never quite get over the crushed glass in The Third Level short story. My suspension of disbelief just went, fell, and shattered into tiny little bits.
Well, to play Cyric's advocate here... As that link states, the belief that eating ground glass will kill a person is a very widespread one. The vast majority of us, myself included, have never had any reason to question this "fact." It's one of those things we've seen in various forms of media all our lives, and everyone else shares the same belief... Until I read your post and then followed the link (that's a fave site of mine, BTW), I firmly believed that the ingestion of crushed glass would be fatal.
So, for 97 people out of a hundred, that bit would have seem perfectly plausible. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 03 Sep 2004 : 05:10:59
Oh, oh, technical details. Fun.
Did anyone know that ground glass is not, in fact, as fatal as Artemis Entreri believes it to be?
I could never quite get over the crushed glass in The Third Level short story. My suspension of disbelief just went, fell, and shattered into tiny little bits.
|
| Saime |
Posted - 02 Sep 2004 : 09:41:32
quote:
Originally posted by Maglubiyet
I bet dark elves have as many words for spider as Eskimos have for snow.
Since we are talking about technical details; it's a misconception that the Eskimos have many different words for snow. See Laura Martin, "Eskimo Words for Snow: A Case Study in the Genesis and Decay of an Anthropological Example", American Anthropologist, 1986, 88, p. 418-423. |
| Lina |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 10:40:15
quote:
Originally posted by Maglubiyet
While I truly enjoy the many novels I've read over the years set in the FR, I must take exception with the gross biological inaccuracies occasionally portrayed on their pages. Although the setting is fantasy, where nearly anything is possible, it is still a world that operates on basic laws and principles.
I believe that a familiarity with the real world principles on which the FR is based will help the authors create a more believable universe. Furthermore, I think that it is irresponsible to propagate misconceptions and falsehoods to a target audience of teenagers. As an educator, I know firsthand how difficult it is to purge these ideas once they've taken hold.
That being said, let me point out a few recurring problems I've noticed in FR novels (without naming names!):
1. Spiders are NOT insects. It is true that the term "insect" is occasionally used to describe any air-breathing arthropod. But insects are, in fact, a specific group within the arthropods, distinct from spiders (and centipedes.) Characterizing spiders as insects isn't grammatically incorrect in English, but it is a taxonomical fallacy.
2. Spiders do not have mandibles. The correct term is chelicerae (or falcers). Since most people have probably never heard this word it's not surprising that FR authors do not use it. But the main point I'm trying to make is that their mouthparts do not move from side to side like an ant's. These are appendages used for piercing, pulling, and injecting poison.
They also do not have antennae.
3. Spiders typically have 8 forward-facing eyes. These are set at the front of their cephalothorax. They do not have heads as such, only a fused head-body that contains their eyes, mouth, and legs.
4. Centipedes aren't insects (see above.) Insects are characterized by six legs, wings, one pair of antennae. Exceptions to these criteria are rare.
5. Algae, lichens, and coral are photosynthetic and could not occur in the Underdark without some light source. If you've ever seen algae while on a cave tour it is there because of the electric lighting that's been strung for the benefit of the tourists. Lichens and coral both contain symbiotic algal cells that require light to survive. Fungus and bacteria, however, would surely thrive in the lightless Underdark.
6. Predators do not typically roar when attacking prey. Hollywood movies aside, roars are usually reserved for threat displays within one's own species. When you're trying to kill something to eat, it doesn't help to warn your prey or to advertise your kill to every other predator within earshot.
Obviously, in a world where dragons can fly, breathe fire, and talk, minor quips like these can be overlooked. But I believe that fantasy is made all the more enjoyable when the background that it is set in is familiar and believable. When I am engrossed in a novel and I read a line like, "Spiders. The paladin noted with revulsion that the foul insects were snapping their mandibles," it breaks the spell for me.
WotC markets to younger audiences. Advanced vocabulary and concepts can pose problems to readability and flow. But these issues can be skirted with the application of some creativity, a tool most authors have some skill with.
So FR authors, hear my plea for the sake of our children who may be inspired by your words! Do your research before setting word to page. Don't include inaccuracies (biological or otherwise) in your works. Find and incorporate inspiration from the real world. And please, please continue to crank out interesting, exciting, and entertaining novels!!!
 I see there's one biologist here as well. 
*sighs* Reminds me of my days learning all this stuff I never used. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 05:45:23
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Yeah, that one is from Cormyr - A Novel. There were a few in the Elminster series as well, but hey you can't be too picky! 
-- George Krashos
Ah, thank you GK. I thought that had to be the tome but wished to make sure. I'll have to thumb through it to review the chapter you refer to.
Thanks again.
SB |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 05:27:10
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Which tome had this event taking place? The Cormyr novel?
Yeah, that one is from Cormyr - A Novel. There were a few in the Elminster series as well, but hey you can't be too picky!
-- George Krashos
|
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 22:32:51
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
If you're writing from the point of view of Grunt the Half-Orc Barbarian (IQ in the low 70s), you often won't say "chelicerae" or "cephalothorax," even if these are the most technically precise terms. Because we're filtering the action through Grunt's perspective, and he doesn't know those words.
As usual, Richard, I completely agree with you. At the same time, I largely agree with Maglubiyet as well. I don't see these two positions as discordant.
Let me explain from my own experience. I was recently writing a scene involving two dueling wizards whose spells caused billowing clouds of sulphurous smoke. I described them as such -- "sulphurous smoke" -- because that's hardly a five-dollar explanation. But then I realized that my point of view character was a young, uneducated thief. He would have no idea what sulphur was (nor would many of his contemporaries), so it made no sense to use that in my description.
I could have copped out. I could have stuck with "sulphurous smoke," because that's the most accurate and complete way of describing it. But instead I have my protagonist observe that there is a noxious rotten egg smell accompanying the smoke. The reader will probably guess it's sulphur, but I don't have to violate the point of view rule to get it across. Moreover, the chemical composition of the cloud is not important for the story anyway. The only reason for using the word "sulphur" would be to evoke an image (or smell) in the reader's mind. If I can show rather than tell, why wouldn't I? Especially if it preserves accuracy?
What I'm getting at is that while it is no doubt true that most Realms inhabitants wouldn't know the difference between an arachnid and an insect, the reader probably does, and I agree that such inaccuracies can be annoying. So it behooves the author to spend a little extra time thinking about how to phrase things such that both objectives -- accuracy and story flow -- are met. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 17:06:53
quote:
Originally posted by Murray Leeder
I love that all this is coming from the god of goblins! But it's fascinating -- especially that bit about predators roaring. I didn't know that.
Say, Steven, do you think I'd get away with using "chiropteran" as a synonym for "batlike"?
As long as the person saying such a word would have a reason to use it, go for it, Murray. Have a party. If it's in exposition, just make sure the reader can dope it out via context and only marginally might have to dash to the dictionary. As my background's in secondary education, I always try and keep the vocab level up when I'm writing but not so much that it interrupts the flow of the adventure/story so they have to go look it up; if they do, fine, but don't make it mandatory
I'd point out some of the five-dollar words I've slipped into products over the years (either on my own or by Ed's urging), but then I'd just be pointing out all the grammatical ways we'd side-skirted some of TSR's more draconian code of ethics limitations. After all, there's only so many ways one can wave the left hand to distract the bosses from what the right hand's up to.
Steven
Who hopes to eventually be upgraded from "game designer" to "author" through fiction writing beyond short stories and get to use more five-dollar words |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 14:52:19
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Hehe, I get far more upset when I read that King Duar of Cormyr in the 400s DR is sending his family to Waterdeep for safety - when I know that Waterdeep doesn't exist as a city then and is a settlement of the Bloodhand tribe of barbarians (who would no doubt show the royal heirs a darn good time).
Which tome had this event taking place? The Cormyr novel?
quote:
But I read FR novels for FR content first, and as a fantasy novel second. You see, I find that if the FR content is true to the sources and error free, I enjoy the book as a piece of fiction in any event.
-- George Krashos
A nice attitude to possess and an even nicer one to encounter these days in a fellow FR fan. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 04:29:34
Hehe, I get far more upset when I read that King Duar of Cormyr in the 400s DR is sending his family to Waterdeep for safety - when I know that Waterdeep doesn't exist as a city then and is a settlement of the Bloodhand tribe of barbarians (who would no doubt show the royal heirs a darn good time).
But I read FR novels for FR content first, and as a fantasy novel second. You see, I find that if the FR content is true to the sources and error free, I enjoy the book as a piece of fiction in any event.
-- George Krashos
|
| Moonharp |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 03:01:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am an intelligent sort, at least as smart as the average bear. I've been somewhat educated, as well. But to me, these things are just minor points.
I know that spiders are not insects, and I know they have eight legs. That's all that's important to me, when I'm reading a work of fiction that mentions spiders. I don't really care if a spider has mandibles or not -- it's immaterial to the story. And most people are going to be the same way, unless they study these particular topics.
About lichen and algae and such in the Underdark: If I am going to suspend my disbelief enough to believe in miles of endless tunnels and caverns, squid-headed brain eaters, seriously unfriendly elves, big floating balls of eyes, and a strange magical radiation, then believing that algae and lichen could also live down there is no stretch at all.
Seriously, if you can wrap your mind around concepts such as the ones I listed, how is a minor inaccuracy that 9 people out of 10 wouldn't notice going to throw you?
Liable reply - and yes, every time I read a story, I usually do not even mentally register the actual words - I just go with the image my mind immediatly portrays. Therefore, as long as the word gets you the desired image, it is fine by me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 02:50:47
I am an intelligent sort, at least as smart as the average bear. I've been somewhat educated, as well. But to me, these things are just minor points.
I know that spiders are not insects, and I know they have eight legs. That's all that's important to me, when I'm reading a work of fiction that mentions spiders. I don't really care if a spider has mandibles or not -- it's immaterial to the story. And most people are going to be the same way, unless they study these particular topics.
About lichen and algae and such in the Underdark: If I am going to suspend my disbelief enough to believe in miles of endless tunnels and caverns, squid-headed brain eaters, seriously unfriendly elves, big floating balls of eyes, and a strange magical radiation, then believing that algae and lichen could also live down there is no stretch at all.
Seriously, if you can wrap your mind around concepts such as the ones I listed, how is a minor inaccuracy that 9 people out of 10 wouldn't notice going to throw you? |
| Moonharp |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 02:07:31
quote:
Although the setting is fantasy, where nearly anything is possible, it is still a world that operates on basic laws and principles.
I found this discussion most interesting, being an ambitious biology student...
Many times it has crossed my mind that how much is Faerun controlled by the forces of nature... or should there even be any such limits in a fantasy world? I guess so... Imagine a Faerun without gravity...
As for the name-terminology, I would stand with Maglubiyet... it is rather frustrating when some things are totally screwed up...
quote:
Sure, it's technically inaccurate, but for the majority of people, spider = insect = bug = whatever has lotsa legs and we don't wanna touch it. Most people know that tomatoes are fruits rather than vegetables, but since they use it like a vegetable.......
I know you did not mean it this way, but you'd be surprised how intelligent many people are... I have long had a problem of thinking everyone around me to be of Orcish IQ... which was sometimes proved right, but then again, in many cases I was proved wrong. And a ready sign of higher intelligence of the audience is the fact that they are already reading a book (and not watching the TV).
Though, again, I agree with some of the opposing voices that perhaps a too scientific vocabulary can disrupt the reader's sense of fantasy... Not many people would appreciate that spiders are from Phylum Arthropoda, and that the Panamese wheel spider was observed for a year and it was found out that it consumed an average of 1.63 insects (= 0.089 g) a day...(I got this from a Google result, just to illustrate a point...)
Well, re-reading it through, this message was just a repeat of the previous ones... |
| James P. Davis |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 23:31:39
quote:
Excellent! You wouldn't happen to be a biologist would you? It does seem that a dragon or a blink dog would take advantage of this reaction, whereas a wyvern or a hell hound might not.
Not a biologist... but I play one on TV .
But seriously I do study alot of stuff like that and even catch myself making big mistakes. Recently I rewrote an entire chapter based on some information I researched on the hunting tactics of wild dogs as compared to how a pack of Shadow Mastiffs might hunt and attack a lone victim. After the way that turned out I would imagine any swordsman at any level of skill would rather take on, say Drizzt for example, than face that kind of viciousness.
At least against Drizzt you know it would end quick... |
| Maglubiyet |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 23:03:15
Wow, thanks to all of you for your replies! Everyone makes good points and I can understand that writing a novel isn't always like writing a paper for a peer-review journal. These kinds of problems hardly rate on the sin-o-meter of authorship. But, at the risk of seeming ornery, I'll address each response:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Generally speaking, a scene in a piece of fiction is told from a particular character's point of view. We see the action through his eyes, and, to some degree, anyway, the language is supposed to convey this. This sometimes precludes the use of uncommon words, no matter how accurate they may be.
This makes sense. To be consistent then, I would expect to see the converse: very precise use of language when the character in question is well-educated, like Elminster or Gromph.
To be honest, Richard, in my recollection I have never noticed you to make any of the kinds of errors I noted above. I haven't read that many FR novels. But the two of yours I have read, Dissolution and The Black Bouquet, have been a real treat! At this point I'd be inclined to purchase any title with your name on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
In designing the Realms, Ed went out of his way to make things *different* from existing models from Earth or from fantasy fiction,
That's a good point (and I'm glad he did!) However, I still expect the language to map between our world and Toril in the novels. Or, barring that, to at least have an explanation when something isn't quite what's expected.
Consider the sentence: "Hoj, the shepherd boy, tossed another carcass to his sheep, who greedily ripped into the raw meat with their jagged beaks."
Clearly I'm not talking about any sheep that the average person is familiar with. As a reader I'd like to know WHY the word "sheep" doesn't correlate to the mental picture I have of the animal.
quote:
Originally posted by James P. Davis
Therefore, I believe a creature that is aware of this fact, might let loose a growl or roar, inspiring the paralyzing primal fear that humans are privy to, but I would only expect this behavior in creatures with above-average intelligence, not your average lion or tiger.
Excellent! You wouldn't happen to be a biologist would you? It does seem that a dragon or a blink dog would take advantage of this reaction, whereas a wyvern or a hell hound might not.
quote:
Originally posted by Murray Leeder
I love that all this is coming from the god of goblins!
Errr...ahem. <snort> Har! Ya stinkin' humans! |
| Murray Leeder |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 21:16:45
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
If I was editing you, Murray, chiropteran would be right out. Common latinate terms are fine and convey a certain kind of Common speech, but lesser-known ones imply survivals of older languages which in the Realms would probably be Thorass: we know what that sounds like and it's not like Latin or Greek.
Fair enough. Even if it were narration, as Richard says, narration is usually filtered through character perspective even in third person. Isn't it odd that, in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, Tolkien makes reference to freight trains? This is a case where the narration is strictly for the reader, when it refers to things that don't exist in the characters' world. |
| James P. Davis |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 20:42:12
quote:
Predators do not typically roar when attacking prey. Hollywood movies aside, roars are usually reserved for threat displays within one's own species. When you're trying to kill something to eat, it doesn't help to warn your prey or to advertise your kill to every other predator within earshot.
I think this one depends mostly on the intelligence of the predator and the nature of the prey. There are many carnivorous creatures in the Realms capable of understanding, and of even speaking, the Common Tongue.
It is the nature of most preyed upon animals to freeze when a predator is detected by sound or scent, hence the fact that almost all predatory creatures have forward facing eyes (for depth perception, judging distance, etc.), excellent vision, etc. Senses that make the attack more successful and silent. However, humanoids, lacking in the scent department, rely mostly on sound to warn them of an unseen predator. (I.E. hearing a sound in your house at night, most people are likely to initially freeze up, out of fear and a biological reaction to remain still, unseen, and hear better.)
Therefore, I believe a creature that is aware of this fact, might let loose a growl or roar, inspiring the paralyzing primal fear that humans are privy to, but I would only expect this behavior in creatures with above-average intelligence, not your average lion or tiger.
Sudden, ambush-like movement causes most people to reflexively move (and those with combat-training to counterattack) and could ruin a swift kill. Given that most predators do use their roar as a threatening display, this could freeze the commoner and destroy the resolve of an otherwise resistant warrior (who wouldn't know that the thing he reflexively slashed at was a, oh I don't know, half-dragon fiendish displacer beast...?).
While I agree on the other points regarding spiders and such, the broad spectrum of predators in Faerun does create quite a few unique situations, but I also agree with Richard that the course of the scene is dictated by the characters/creatures involved and the narration beyond that can only do so much without appearing as a much more well-informed character itself. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 20:22:11
quote:
Although the setting is fantasy, where nearly anything is possible, it is still a world that operates on basic laws and principles.
But not biological or scientific principles, except in the grossest and most superficial sense. In designing the Realms, Ed went out of his way to make things *different* from existing models from Earth or from fantasy fiction, specifically to stop players making assumptions or crying 'But it doesn't work that way!'
Often the Realms matches our world -- its rabbits are similar, with long ears -- but it's in no sense obliged to. My guess is that most Realms folk have no idea that spiders might not be insects, and that scholars are divided on the subject since there's little international scientific orthodoxy, much as they likely are on whether kobolds are goblinkin.
We know that lichen grows in the Underdark. Therefore either it's non-photosynthetic, there's an explanation that hasn't been made explicit (and countless such discursions have been cut from Realms sourcebooks for space), or that particular scientific norm doesn't apply in the Realms. The reasoning doesn't work in the other direction, because this is sword and sorcery worldbuilding, not scientific worldbuilding. You may prefer a more rigid base with what you know about our world, but the Realms very deliberately ain't built that way. Realms novels are judged by being accurate to the Realms, not to our world.
If I was editing you, Murray, chiropteran would be right out. Common latinate terms are fine and convey a certain kind of Common speech, but lesser-known ones imply survivals of older languages which in the Realms would probably be Thorass: we know what that sounds like and it's not like Latin or Greek. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 19:54:00
Take it from a guy who's endured his share of criticism for using four-dollar words: There are a number of considerations that can figure into an author's choice of one word vs. another.
One of these is something that non-writers often fail to realize: Generally speaking, a scene in a piece of fiction is told from a particular character's point of view. We see the action through his eyes, and, to some degree, anyway, the language is supposed to convey this. This sometimes precludes the use of uncommon words, no matter how accurate they may be. If you're writing from the point of view of Grunt the Half-Orc Barbarian (IQ in the low 70s), you often won't say "chelicerae" or "cephalothorax," even if these are the most technically precise terms. Because we're filtering the action through Grunt's perspective, and he doesn't know those words. |
| Murray Leeder |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 18:53:35
I love that all this is coming from the god of goblins! But it's fascinating -- especially that bit about predators roaring. I didn't know that.
Say, Steven, do you think I'd get away with using "chiropteran" as a synonym for "batlike"? |
| Maglubiyet |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 18:48:26
Steven, thanks for your response.
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
There's only so many synonyms that pop into one's head while writing, and trust me when I say that using spider all the time gets tiresome if writing about drow.
Agreed. English is a bit limited in suitable synonyms for spider that accurately capture the essence of the critter. Here are some I came up with: arachnid, arthropod, invertebrate, web/wall crawler, web spinner, wall walker
Spider adjective: eight-legged, bristly, spiny-legged, eight-eyed
+plus+
Spider noun: animal, beast, creature, vermin, monster, predator, hunter
Realms specific: Child of Lolth, orbb, steeder
I bet dark elves have as many words for spider as Eskimos have for snow. How about introducing a few more entries for the drow dictionary!
Your point on scientific terminology worming its way into fantasy literature is well taken. I wouldn't want to hear, for example, about how Mummy Rot caused someone to have a low white blood cell count.
quote:
However, to state that authors have responsibility to their readers to get this right is a bit off; teachers and readers themselves are responsible for making sure facts are learned correctly. Fantasy authors are responsible only for delivering a solid and engaging story.
I know, but what if I say "pretty please?" Seriously though, this is an issue of marketability. If the consumers don't mind then do whatever sells. But, as one of your customers, I would like to see a little more accuracy. Just as I'm concerned with the content of the tv shows and movies that my son watches, I also try to keep tabs on what he reads. If it crosses the threshold of acceptability, for whatever reason, I disallow it.
Thanks again for your feedback! I'm interested to hear what people have to say on this topic.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 17:52:42
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
Steven Schend
Who originally thought the topic was about Ed Greenwood's presence on GenCon panels and what he often turned them into, whatever the original topic
 |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 29 Aug 2004 : 16:45:44
Not to diminish the seriousness of your message, but one explanation as per referring to things as insects that aren't is simple: There's only so many synonyms that pop into one's head while writing, and trust me when I say that using spider all the time gets tiresome if writing about drow. You can slip in arachnid every now and again, but it's not a word that smoothly works in many situations, especially dialogue.
Sure, it's technically inaccurate, but for the majority of people, spider = insect = bug = whatever has lotsa legs and we don't wanna touch it. Most people know that tomatoes are fruits rather than vegetables, but since they use it like a vegetable.......
I agree that what you've asserted needs to have some attention paid to it, for accuracy's sake. However, to state that authors have responsibility to their readers to get this right is a bit off; teachers and readers themselves are responsible for making sure facts are learned correctly. Fantasy authors are responsible only for delivering a solid and engaging story.
Heck, I even bridle to use scientific terms like "ozone" in the Realms to describe the smell left behind by lightning, since the term doesn't exist in Faerun. Thus, to attend to such inaccuracies in stories, I might have some scribe of Oghma try and correct Mirt that spiders aren't insects (or whatever issue at hand), and he'll dismiss it as academic and unimportant to the fact that he's uncovered 1000 giant insects clambering up the Yawning Portal. In the scheme of story and/or world, this is a tempest in a teapot. Important, yes, but not if it slows down the story.
Steven Schend
Who originally thought the topic was about Ed Greenwood's presence on GenCon panels and what he often turned them into, whatever the original topic |
|
|
