Warning: a kid at the library made me rethink my whole map style

I was working on a map for my book at the local library, just sketching coastlines with a fine liner. This boy, maybe ten, came over and watched for a bit. He pointed at a big, empty area in the middle and said, 'What happens there? It looks lonely.' I told him it was just plains, a place for armies to march across. He frowned and said, 'My grandma's farm has a weird rock that looks like a frog. We have a story about it. Your plains need a frog rock.' It hit me hard. I was so focused on making the map look 'right' with clear forests and mountains that I forgot to put in the weird, small stuff that makes a place feel real. Now I always add one completely pointless, strange landmark in every region, like a crooked tree or a stone with a hole in it. It gives the world a soul. Do you guys have a rule for adding little details that don't matter to the plot?

2 comments

2 Comments

bettymurphy27d ago

Can I ask if maybe that just makes it feel like a checklist? I worry that adding a strange thing to every single area on purpose might make it feel fake again, like you're just filling slots. In my experience, the best small details are the ones that show up because they belong to that specific place, not because you have a rule to put one there. Sometimes a plain is just a plain, and that's okay too.

seanh9127d ago

Right, because nothing says "real world" like a perfectly normal field with zero weird rocks or unexplained holes. Guess we should just map the boring parts of our backyards instead.