LogFAQs > #897101714

Zeus posted...

For example, most works have horses instead of some other kind of domesticated steed (bearing in mind that horses "evolved" to their current form through selective breeding during the domestication process; in theory, other commonly available animals could have filled the same role -- especially in the absence of horse ancestors -- but instead of getting a horse analog, we tend to just get a horse).

Sort of as an aside and not necessarily as a justification for that sort of narrative trope, but in a few of the books I've read about animal domestication and the development of agriculture in general, it's pointed out that not every animal CAN be domesticated. Generally speaking, the two main factors of import is whether the breed in question has more of a predatory personality or a grazing lifestyle, and whether or not they take to pack or herd mentality or are more isolates. It's apparently extremely difficult to domesticate non-herd predators, which is part of why the cat is one of the only species of that nature we've ever managed it with - and even there, not entirely.

In other words, even given an entire world filled with animals, most of them would never be domesticated under any circumstances (and this is a large part of what hurt development in the Americas versus Eurasia and Africa - their potential stock of larger animals was much more limited, and most of them were unsuitable for long-term domestication). You don't just need people willing to attempt the domestication process, but you also need breeds that are specifically ready to be domesticated in the first place. So even in a fantasy world, you might never be able to have riding rhinos or triceratops that are actually plausible biologically.

(The same holds true for plants - it's pointed out that nearly every domesticated crop we have today was domesticated in a very narrow window of time and in very specific locations, with very little significant domestication taking place afterward. Tweaking or modifying existing breeds, yes. Domesticating entirely new breeds from wild crop sources, no. Strawberries are apparently one of the few "recent" crops, because they're only about 250 years old.)

All that being said, to be perfectly honest I always sort of find it annoying when writers try to distinguish unique breeds in their setting anyway. It's like, you're translating everything else into English, but choose to keep the breed name? If the people of your world have a large generally docile animal they breed for milk and meat, then just call it a cow (and not a "rothe", fuck you Faerun). If someone is drinking a fermented grain alcohol you can just call it "beer" or "ale" and I'll get it. At most, I'll happily tolerate if you feel the need to call a horse a "riding beast" or something generic, and I'll accept if you call tobacco "pipeweed" with a minimum of grumbles (and a few dirty looks at stoners who want to claim that hobbits are all hopped up on cannabis), but if you start referring to gnuforfles and brimdulthatch, I'm going to wipe my ass with your book.

In fact, as I've mentioned in this topic before, my one test for whether or not a given fantasy series is worth reading is seeing how many made-up words appear in the back-cover blurb of the book. When every third or fourth word is a nonsense word the author made up, it tends to indicate that the author isn't a very good writer, and the book probably borders on genre-trash or blatant Tolkien rip-off (since he's the one who started that trend in the first place). Doubly so if they feel the need to italicize all those made up words.

One of my other tests involves counting the number of apostrophes used in names, because that's another blatant indicator that you're reading something written by a hack.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family