Is this actually a bad idea, or am I just asking the wrong people?

[Marscaleb]

But evidently people do care, so the questions are why, and is it something the author needs to address.

How many people are we talking about? Five or five hundred? It matters.

Are they fans of the genre or more friends and family? This, too, matters.

I think I had well over a hundred people review the map when I shared it without proper context. Honestly not all the responses were negative, but either way its hard to know how seriously to take those reactions since the context I gave just made it sound like a "common" fantasy novel. A lot of people called me unimaginative, and to be fair, a mirrored Europe IS unimaginative - by itself.

But the whole reason I made this thread on this site is because I wasn't sure if the people who were upset were really fans of fantasy novels to begin with.

Frankly I don't understand why anyone would share something so profoundly important to a story as a map prior to publishing...

Yes, I wrestle with sharing anything on the website. I'd be more likely if it was already published. But this is a map of europe, just flipped over. Not much to protect there.

Really? That's a terrible thing to avoid sharing. Every terrible fantasy map could have been avoided if the creator had just bothered to share it first and ask for feedback. When you say you are afraid to share them I just picture someone making boxy, unrealistic, cliched maps because they never tried to get feedback. We don't need more eyesores like the ones from Game of Thrones. (Just another example of how much the map really matters, I suppose...)
There are lots of people out there who love maps, myself included. I'm on several different subreddits where people just share maps; it awesome.
Check out r/mapmaking; it's a great place for people to share WIP maps, and there's a lot of people who understand the aspects of realistic geography to help craft better-looking maps.


But back to the subject at hand, yes I suppose I will share the map, (I thought I'd make a separate thread on the worldbuilding forum, but since you asked...)
I am... aware... that my map has other problems, and maybe those are part of what is upsetting people. I would like to get some feedback to try to work out what is and is not working with my map.

Just give me a minute to pull it up...

 

[Devor]

It sounds like the map might get posted before this post does.

My initial reaction to the idea of a mirror map is negative. You've said it's like Europe and WWII, but it's too on the nose. The parallels would be more powerful if they're more subtle, or if you go full into alt history. It's almost like the uncanny valley with digital art. The parallels become noticeable enough and weird to be a distraction from the story you're telling instead of immersive.

With that said, it's only one element of the story, and seeing a finished project sometimes gives a much different impression than just an idea. Also, if you start with a mirrored Europe, and then make tweaks here and there over the course of a year of writing, it might end up looking very different by the end. Then there's who knows how many ideas that get layered on top of it. You can also just not publish the map, just using it for your own reference, and depending on how the story goes, people might not even notice. So, outside advice is no substitute for your own creative judgement.

 

[Ban]

I say keep ruffling feathers and don't give in to any naysayers. You've got a fun idea going which would be a shame to toss away just because folks have a negative gut reaction. My only advice would be to heavily lean into the "mirrored real world" angle across all aspects of your worldbuilding. That way you showcase that this tidbit of worldbuilding is not just a throwaway or a shortcut, but key to the work.

 

[Marscaleb]

So, here is the map in its latest form.

https://imgur.com/3X1n7sN

One thing I will freely admit is that I put more effort into some parts than I did into others. When I shared it, I was really hoping to get some feedback to help me pin down what I should change and what I should keep. (But mostly I just got told not to take this approach at all.)

For example, the coastlines. I have portions that I deliberately altered, and I have portions that I kept matching the (mirrored) real-world. I have portions where I put in a lot of effort to make the coastlines "look different" but still be recognizable. And at some point I had to just stop and wonder "is this working?"
So I kind-of left it in this in-between state and hoped it would inspire people to indicate what efforts were worth it and what was not.

Likewise with the borders and the names; some had more thought put into them than others.

The point is: I know that things need to change. But I don't know which direction I should be going in.
What should be changed, and what should be kept?

Spoiler: Some personal thoughts

I'm not exactly surprised that people hated the fact that Iceland was still called Iceland, but let's be honest here, why would it really be called something different? Storyline-wise, I think it's fine to keep it. The main character can be surprised to see that name on the map, boom, hang a lantern on it. But I think it is ruining the experience when people see that on the map without reading the story.

And personally, I hate the way Vanland looks, even if it is largely like it is in the real world. But I want to re-shape that weird bulb on the end.

 

[Ban]

Personally I don't think the map's the problem but the countries that populate it. I'd make them more akin to the real-world (an alternate history version thereof), or at least be consistent in deriving them all from their real-world counterparts. As it stands currently you're leaning into the fantasy counterpart culture trope in some cases, but creating something entirely different in other cases. For example you have clear France, Hungary and Scandinavia counterparts, but Belarus is Lekkan now? What's a Lekkan? Good on Illyrica for surviving the collapse of the Roman empire, though I do expect a Roman empire to have existed in this world as a result, which causes me to wonder why the silent cousin of Tuscany displaced the Tyrrhenian Sea. Did Rome exist but not the other ancients of Italy? I'm also not sure why you've changed the coastlines to begin with. Would be more fun in my opinion if you kept them as they are.

 

[Marscaleb]

While I was staring at this today, I thought: if there was an archipelago over the North Sea, it would make more sense for Britain and Norway to be a single country.

So I toyed around with this revision:

Honestly I like it, but the more changes I make like this, the more I have to ask: just how much can I change while still expecting the main character to feel like history really will repeat itself?

I don't mind her having second thoughts after she's involved; it would be some good character moments to have some serious second-guessing.

but Belarus is Lekkan now? What's a Lekkan?

Poland, actually. Geographically at least.

which causes me to wonder why the silent cousin of Tuscany displaced the Tyrrhenian Sea.

That's a little too disguised for me to understand what you mean.

or at least be consistent in deriving them all from their real-world counterparts. As it stands currently you're leaning into the fantasy counterpart culture trope in some cases, but creating something entirely different in other cases. ... I'm also not sure why you've changed the coastlines to begin with. Would be more fun in my opinion if you kept them as they are.

It's largely in service of the story, and then trying to get the rest of the map to match.
For example, I need to keep certain major players, (obviously,) but then I have portions that I want to adjust because of how certain parts of the war turn out. eg, Gaullia and Norles try to meet so as to cut off Argus from the sea. So having an independent country in the Netherlands would hamper that. Thus, we still have France and Germany but no Netherlands. Over in the Balkans, where I have basically no wartime affairs written yet, I tried to follow the same sort of pattern. Some countries still exist, some don't.

That was the thinking at least, but as you pointed out (and as I tried to say myself) there is a lot of inconsistency.
I need to figure out what direction I need to steer this, but I'm just too close to everything to see it clearly.

 

[Ban]

Regarding the silent cousin of Tuscany displacing the Tyrrhenian sea you have a Shuscany sea where the Tyrrhenian is in real life. Shush + Tuscany = Shuscany =Silent Tuscany. Very sneaky variety of Italian they are.

As for the rest, while I personally think a mirrored version of the real world is the most interesting, you could also opt to populate your world with entirely fictional countries and nations, or create some in-world reason why certain nations are and certain aren't derived from the real world. Perhaps some magical event caused people to be transported from our reality as well as another reality to this fictional mirror world. They then rebuilt realms reminiscent of those they came from where they landed. This could explain why some are like ours and others aren't, but it would require a bit of in-depth worldbuilding to pull it off. (Where and when did they arrive? What cultural impacts does the event have? What migrations happened thereafter?)

 

[skip.knox]

The genre is key. You're going to get one set of reactions from non-fantasy readers, another from fantasy readers, another from historical fiction readers, and yet another from fantasy writers. And variety within each group.

Perhaps even more important are the questions you ask when asking for feedback. The more general the question, the more vague the answer. As posted in the Subject of this thread, there's not much more to be said other than what you've got already; namely, it's not in the concept, it's in the execution. If you can ask more specific questions, you might get more focused replies.

Here's one angle you might consider. You don't have to show the whole map. At least, not unless your story is going to span the whole continent, Winds of War style. Let's suppose the whole story takes place in Italy. The reader never needs to see that entire map, doesn't need to know what changes you've made there. The focus would be on what the character sees, and what causes her to realize she is in a strangely different-yet-similar version of Italy. The rest of the continent can be handled by reference, letting the reader's imagination fill in the blanks.

 

[pmmg]

Really? That's a terrible thing to avoid sharing. Every terrible fantasy map could have been avoided if the creator had just bothered to share it first and ask for feedback. When you say you are afraid to share them I just picture someone making boxy, unrealistic, cliched maps because they never tried to get feedback. We don't need more eyesores like the ones from Game of Thrones.

That is a fair comment, but the assumption that maps not shared are bad is purely an assumption. While I can think of many reasons I would share my maps with others, I am highly protective of the current one. I will accept that other eyes may help improve it, but I am no longer in the changing it stage. I would prefer to move towards publication with it instead.

 

[Marscaleb]

That is a fair comment, but the assumption that maps not shared are bad is purely an assumption.

Right. Likewise, the assumption that stories not shared with alpha readers are bad is also purely assumption.
It's the exact same thing with every creative work. Movies have test screenings. Songs have demos. Games have alpha testers. If someone puts something out there without having someone else review it and give feedback, sure, it could still be good. And people who have been making a thing for a long time usually know what they are doing. But for the rest of us, a second pair of eyes is a godsend.

I'm not saying you need to get feedback on your map; for most stories a map isn't that critical. For most fantasy stories it's just a bit of flair.
For mine it's pretty critical. Not only because it actually sets a lot of the bounds of what happens in the war, but also because it's setting the tone for what kind of world my story takes place in. That's why I'm trying to get things pinned down now. (And thankfully, I'm getting a lot figured out; things that are greatly impacting the story.)

Perhaps even more important are the questions you ask when asking for feedback. The more general the question, the more vague the answer. As posted in the Subject of this thread, there's not much more to be said other than what you've got already; namely, it's not in the concept, it's in the execution. If you can ask more specific questions, you might get more focused replies.

What bothers you about this map, within the context I have given for my story?
Which names do you think I should change? (if any) What borders do you think I should change? (if any)
What feels like it doesn't match the rest of the map?
What breaks your suspension of disbelief? What makes you think, even as a map about an alternate world, "No, that doesn't sound reasonable."?

Everything that triggers such a response is something that I need to either change or directly address within the written work.

 

[Rexenm]

I had an idea like this, for a game. It was where Francis Bacon, after editing the bible, woke up in Mousekewitz, as a mouse, armed with only a magnifying glass. The map was upside down, and he had to destroy the statues of liberty, in order to prevent The Black Hand from assassinating Franz Ferdinand, who was the second coming, whilst solving puzzles and collecting items, much like the dungeons in Zelda. There were no points in this game, it was like a one to zero. When it was over, he was back home again, and included italics. It were as if he was in a dream.

What bothers you about this map, within the context I have given for my story?
Which names do you think I should change? (if any) What borders do you think I should change? (if any)
What feels like it doesn't match the rest of the map?
What breaks your suspension of disbelief? What makes you think, even as a map about an alternate world, "No, that doesn't sound reasonable.

I think this map, could be turned upside down. It is interesting to change these names, because what will remain of the original idea? Borders run along river systems and are important landmarks of history. That is a complex question. Italy still looks like a boot, so no problems there, just that it has changed sides. To what sounds reasonable or not, I think that it could be more cyclical, but just that - for some kind of clarity. My map, would need to have different borders too. The names, should be mousey. The map should include the whole world, and include hints there. There should be a dragon underneath the Vatican, just for kicks.

I hope I have helped to inspire you.

 

[pmmg]

So...As far as shape and political lines, I think these are as good as any. I am sure lines can be drawn in many ways and have it make story sense. Since this is a political map, there is not much on it to indicate why the borders are what they are. I dont see lines of forts or battle fields or armies. I can assume its all just under the hood.

Ice land is surprisingly not very icy. Is it because of the ice that you think it would be called that?

And the black sea is not actually black, so why would that name be the same?

Last, I see you have a number of empires...but empires are kind of a conglomerate of smaller states all 'forced' under one banner. I would not expect regions of this size to be empires, they are still having trouble with their neighbors.

Looking at the lines. I would not expect many of these boundaries would have longevity, but then....that is kind of true for Europe today, so...

 

[Ban]

Have to disagree on your point about the empires Pmmg. The ones placed on this map are an almost 1 to 1 comparison to empires that have existed in real-life Europe. I don't see why this world's equivalents of the German, French and Ottoman empires wouldn't be able to exist in this world, albeit by different names. Same for the Kalmar Union/North Sea Empire which dons the mantle of Norlandy here. In real life Napoleon III's French empire co-existed for a time with the Austrian, Russian and Ottoman empires. That's four whole empires located in Europe at the same time. Considering the monarchs of the United Kingdom also held the title of Emperor/Empress of India, you could say five.

 

[Mad Swede]

I wrote earlier that the story should carry itself without a map, and this map illustrates why. It isn't familiar enough for people to accept the premise of the story on the basis of the map alone, and without the story it's just a map. For your story to work your main character has to recognise what is happening, and that lies mostly in the politics of the setting and how the various national leaders act. That isn't about the map at all, it's about drawing some form of parallel to our world and doing so in a way which makes the story compelling. It's also about how you convey the main characters memories and how they learn about this new place they're in. It will be about the similarities, but it should also be about the differences, because there will be some and they may be what makes it possible for the main character to avery global disaster. That could make for a good story, but it will be very character driven and so a map might not be needed at all by the reader.

 

[pmmg]

All of those places were holding on to a lot more land when they were calling themselves empires, save for the ottomans, which is not fully shown on his map, so it may still yet stretch quite far.

I also wonder what is the status of Tunisia? Is that present, and should not also be colored in?

Norles may be an empire, and the Kalbian Union. Argus looks iffy to me. Gaulia only if they are holding on to past pride.

 

[Ban]

All of those places were holding on to a lot more land when they were calling themselves empires, save for the ottomans, which is not fully shown on his map, so it may still yet stretch quite far.

I also wonder what is the status of Tunisia? Is that present, and should not also be colored in?

Norles may be an empire, and the Kalbian Union. Argus looks iffy to me. Gaulia only if they are holding on to past pride.

No they weren't. Look up the size of Napoleon III's France or the German empire under Wilhelm I. Unless you are talking about overseas colonies, in which case I'd point out that the Holy Roman empire wasn't much bigger than the continental European portion of either Napoleon III's France or Wilhelm I's Germany.

The depicted Argus Empire is just modern Germany + Austria + the former Prussian lands to Germany's east. That's more than enough to qualify as an empire here in Europe. Same for Gaullia-Narbonne which includes all of France and the Benelux. Both nationally diverse and sizable.

 

[pmmg]

Sorry Ban, I don't see Empires in that map. I see places that are still deciding their borders. Some are calling themselves empires, but from what is depicted, I think they have a weak claim to such a title.

Napoleon had conquered much of Europe and thus was called an empire. Wilhelm rejected the title and accepted it at the insistence of Bismark for purposes of public relations. I think they had a weak claim to such a tile. The holy roman empire held a large territory when that name was applied. But I also think they had a weaker claim as time went on.

Empire means rule over many states. To divide those land masses out into bonded together states would make for some really small states. I'd question their claim to being states when they start getting too small.

 

[Ban]

Sorry Ban, I don't see Empires in that map. I see places that are still deciding their borders. Some are calling themselves empires, but from what is depicted, I think they have a weak claim to such a title.

Napoleon had conquered much of Europe and thus was called an empire. Wilhelm rejected the title and accepted it at the insistence of Bismark for purposes of public relations. I think they had a weak claim to such a tile. The holy roman empire held a large territory when that name was applied. But I also think they had a weaker claim as time went on.

Empire means rule over many states. To divide those land masses out into bonded together states would make for some really small states. I'd question their claim to being states when they start getting too small.

I would take historical precedent as more important here than personal opinion. Historically, empires are not what you imagine them to be, regardless of whether or not you question it. Even if we're discussing it from a modern perspective, the only remaining empire in the world is Japan, which was not founded the way you describe an empire ought to, nor is currently what you describe an empire to be. As for Napoleon, I am specifically talking about Napoleon III who notably did not conquer Europe.

 

[Marscaleb]

All of those places were holding on to a lot more land when they were calling themselves empires, save for the ottomans, which is not fully shown on his map, so it may still yet stretch quite far.

I also wonder what is the status of Tunisia? Is that present, and should not also be colored in?

Norles may be an empire, and the Kalbian Union. Argus looks iffy to me. Gaulia only if they are holding on to past pride.

What you're not seeing here is that all the major countries here have lands/colonies overseas. Basically the Africa scramble all over again. Plus colonies in the Americas.

That's one of the reasons why I want to figure out how I'm handling Europe, so then I know how I should handle Africa. I want to figure out the rules of how much of the land matches our world.
Storyline-wise, I am already referencing at least two countries in "Africa" that have come under the control of the Argus and Norles empires.

Also, I generally agree with you about "These aren't empires," but the thing is that historically they considered themselves empires.
When I shared the map on a page in reddit, someone complained about having "too many empires" and how them all calling themselves an empire sounded more like a ****-measuring contest.
I had to laugh because he was exactly right, but that was the state of things before WW1, so that's how things are here.

 

[Finchbearer]

I wrote earlier that the story should carry itself without a map, and this map illustrates why. It isn't familiar enough for people to accept the premise of the story on the basis of the map alone, and without the story it's just a map.

I would say that for me the map is instantly recognisable -

That being said, I would agree and say that I think your story would probably carry itself better without the map as a visual aid. As long as you’re writing a story that’s an alternate version of what we already know then the reader can imagine how it would look perfectly well without a map.

Maps for a high / classic fantasy novels often work really well because it’s usually a completely fantastical world, and map making and world building in that context therefore can carry itself with visuals added in.

It might be that you simply find referring to the map useful as a visual aid to help with your writing without the need to add it into the book - however, it’s your project so have fun and do what you want with it.