Places, Spaces -- It's All Words and Dirt
As an aspiring writer and avid reader of fantasy, there is perhaps nothing more two-faced than a sense of place. That's a phrase you hear a lot -- sense of place -- and yet the more I say it, the more I think about it, the less it makes any sense at all. (In case this wasn't obvious, this post is a little more philosophical than my usual fare, so bear with me) I'd argue that, in fact, what makes somewhere stick, really get its literary claws into you, is not at all what you'd expect. It isn't some rigorous depiction of the minutia of this fictional realm, or the unique ways in which it interacts with the characters who are experiencing it; no. Words are words, and dirt is dirt. it seems redundant to say that one cannot become the other no matter how much you describe its color, its texture, its grit on the tongue. What does that leave us with, then, really?
Well, this will seem like a tangent, but let's talk about the Inuit. The way they conceive of places is totally unique. Just look at this:
That is an ammassalingmuit, a spatial and temporal map. In effect, it is a four-dimensional depiction of the Greenland coastline, incorporating the movement of tides and snowfall throughout the seasons in which it was made. I think these gorgeous works of art highlight the extremely helpful perspective of the Inuit when it comes to places: as archeologist Peter Whitridge puts it, "The cognized landscape of the Inuit was not less precise or rational for the immense cultural burden it bore." That is to say these maps may seem "inaccurate" to a Western cartographer because the features of the land are distorted. Such an assumption disregards place in favor of space, however, and if we think for a moment about this, it makes no sense.
Whitridge sums up this point nicely: "place is merely a particular
(non-Western, communal, local) case of space." We say "space" to mean the objective features of a location, but by what metric do we measure such things? A foot? A meter? How about by the stories which take place upon it? That then is the point. Why does one invented unit of measurement and quantity dominate the other in our minds? Space does not exist. Place does not exist. It's all cultural context!
That is not to say Western senses of place have been stripped of stories or more "fantastical" elements; I just think the traditionally narrow view of place and space, however difficult it may be to dismantle in the lived world, is far more fragile in fiction. After all, if the stones are as much a part of the temple as the sermons, what then are we left with in a world that exists only on paper?
Now, finally, we see the flaws in painstakingly making places in fantasy feel "real." The truth is, they are as much part of the story as the dialogue, as the action. Places are not set dressing; they are monoliths of story. When we think of real places, so much springs to mind in an instant, far more than can be conveyed in the pages of a publishable novel. Subconsciously, or consciously if you're Inuit, the stories of a place fill our heads. Incredibly, that same link persists even when we don't consider a place real. An author need only tap into that link; the reader will do the rest.
So the next time you read about a place, or hell, write about one, remember the insights of the Inuit: a place is not the stage on which a story is told; place and story are one and the same. Dirt is words, and words are dirt.
(I realize this post is dense, but I'd really like other authors' and fantasy readers' takes on this. Thank you for reading what may be my last post on this blog. It's been a great time, and for the love of God go read Earthsea RIGHT NOW)