introducing a made up creature.

[krunchee]

Hi guys, I guess I'm relatively new at writing and I have found myself stumped a few times when introducing something I have either made up or that shouldn't have an English name for me to give the reader. E. G.

Gaidin watched the Manaut from the concealment of dense foliage.

How do I now explain to the reader that a Manaut its a waist high dinosaur creature like a mini velosaur raptor short of saying:

A Manaut was a small creature that stood waist high on a full grown man. It had a long face like that of a dog but it stood on two back legs supported by a long solid tail. It's arms were almost too short to be functional however the finger like talons were endowed with vicious looking sharp talons.

I'd go into more detail about its feet an so forth but I'm wondering if saying it like that is acceptable?

 

[Ireth]

I personally would rather slip the details into the perspective of the character rather than dumping it all at once like a textbook. Something like this:

"Gaidin watched the Manaut through the dense foliage. It stood on its hind legs, turning its dog-like face left and right as it sniffed the air. Gaidin held his breath, wondering if it could smell him. The Manaut's long tail lashed back and forth over the grass; Gaidin knew one blow from that could break his leg. The rest of it was worse--though its arms were almost too short to be of use, its long, vicious talons made up the rest of the length. Gaidin shuddered at the thought of those claws ripping into his flesh. For a beast only half the height of a man, a Manaut was as deadly as any predator."

 

[krunchee]

That's brilliant, it's all about show don't tell, a concept I'm struggling to grasp. Thanks a lot.

 

[Feo Takahari]

To expand on Ireth's comment, if your narration sticks close to a viewpoint character's thoughts, you can "personalize" it by describing it the way that character would. A scholar, a hunter, and a tailor will have very different perceptions of the same creature. (This doesn't apply in omniscient, of course, but you can instead describe monsters in the same voice you use to introduce unfamiliar landscapes.)

 

[Wanara009]

Sorry to bump in, but I have similar problem too. How would you do this if the character only have other made-up animal to compare it to (i.e.: I can't use the word 'dog-like' or even 'elephantine' since the characters have never seen one)?

 

[Mindfire]

One technique is to never really describe the made up creature at all, mentioning it's features only as the story needs and let the audience sort of piece together what it looks like on their own. Jim Butcher does this in the Codex Alera and it works for the most part. Through his sparse descriptions I was able to make out that a slive is something like a velociraptor. And I still don't know what a gargant is, only that it's smelly, really strong, vaguely mammalian, and big enough for a 400 pound man to ride on. It could be giant cow, or a giant boar, or even a rhinoceros for all I know. But my not knowing exactly what it looked like never hindered me from enjoying the story. Would I recommend this method? Not really. While the zero description on the animals didn't hinder me from enjoying the story, it still hindered me a little. I had to pause for a moment and imagine what a gargant might look like. For a few moments my attention was drawn away from the narrative toward something I felt the author had left out. Something like that gives the reader an opportunity to put the book down. In my case, I was already too invested to let something like that stop me, but you can't always count on that being the case.


So what would I advise? Well on the one hand, doing it the way I just described is risky and might feel unfinished. On the other hand, NOBODY wants the story to come to a grinding halt for a needlessly long description of a new creature. There has to be balance. Some possible routes:

• Stress any similarities the creature has to creatures the reader is likely familiar with or can easily become familiar with through google.
  Pros: If you can say, "it's like an X, except it's also Y", you've given the reader something to work with, a foundation of familiar knowledge they can then build the more fanciful elements of your creature onto.
  Cons: "It's like X, except Y" can come off as really lazy and uncreative if you're not careful. "It's a kangaroo, except it breathes fire!" could turn out really awesome or really lame. This kind of description can also make the narrator and/or the story feel a bit conversational. It works for something like Percy Jackson, but if you're going for a gritty or an epic tone, then not so much.
  -
• Describe the creature through the eyes of the protagonist.
  Pros: This is good because it's a package deal. Along with learning about the creature, we also learn a bit about the character describing it. This pulls us that much farther in to the story and world, which is a big plus.
  Cons: These kinds of descriptions can kill pacing if not handled well. Unless your character is incredibly loquacious or scholarly and this is a low stakes scene, like an ornithologist describing a rare bird, shorter is better. Keep the action moving.
  -
• Keep your creatures realistic.
  Pros: This is similar to the first option, but a bit more austere. Whereas option one means using a familiar creature as a foundational layer for more fanciful details, this method minimizes or althogether abandons the fanciful details. Keeping creatures realistic means there's less that needs describing, and this in turn means less work for both the author and reader. You don't have to go to great lengths to describe a direwolf. It's just a really big dog with really big teeth. Case closed. (Unless your direwolves have magical powers like mine, in which case you got some major 'splainin' to do.)
  Cons: Some readers may find this boring or unimaginative. Depends on what you're writing. If you're going for a more gritty, realistic tone, this'll probably fit right in. But if you want to do something a bit more whimsical, this may feel a bit too vanilla.
  -
• Use "stock" creatures.
  Pros: A dragon is a dragon. You can't beat that name brand recognition. Just from the name alone we know exactly what you're talking about. Sure, you might have come up with some new powers or a creative twist, but at bottom, it's a dragon. And we're ok with that. Ditto for griffins, phoenixes, unicorns, goblins, trolls, gorgons, harpies, elves, dwarves, giants, ogres, etc. This is also similar to option one, but it's kinda like the inverse of the realism approach. There's a reason that the "classic" fantasy creatures stick around despite constant use and abuse. Don't be afraid to tap into that.
  Cons: Allegations of "cliche" will certainly be tossed. But the bigger problem is that these creatures, enduring and beloved as they are, have been pretty much pre-shaped for you by the aggregate of imaginations that have used them before, which means you as the author have a bit less control. If your version is significantly different from what's come before, it might be hailed as fresh and original, or your readers might just think that you're "doing it wrong". On the other hand, if your version is pretty much exactly like what's come before it, it might feel too stale or too "stock fantasy". This is also bad opportunity for a novice writer to crack open their D&D handbook.
  -
• Hire an illustrator.
  Pros: Could enhance your writing and make you look professional.
  Cons: Costs money.
  -
• Include a bestiary as an appendix.
  Pros: ...NO.
  Cons: This is extremely self indulgent. The only thing worse than cracking open the D&D handbook is writing one of your own. And if you include stats and "hit points" for your creatures, I suggest you board up the doors and windows because the angry mob is on their way.

 

[krunchee]

Wow thanks for the feedback guys. I have been sitting down this afternoon and pumped out 2000 words in the form of a prologue. Love them or hate them I like the little bit of back story.

I'm going with a character perspective set up.. Trying to provide insight into the MCs mindset and emotions.

Again thanks a lot for your time guys,
Zach