Creature descriptions without Earth references?

[Sandstone-Shadow]

I'm writing a story that takes place on a fantasy planet. While it isn't Earth, it's similar to Earth. Some of the creatures resemble creatures from Earth, but none of them are the same. It also has a little less gravity than on Earth.

The problem I run into is, how do I go about telling these things without using Earth references? The characters know nothing about Earth, so I can't write, "She was able to hover for a long period of time because the gravity on their planet is less than that on Earth," because they wouldn't know about Earth. Could I just get by with something like, "The gravity on the planet allowed her to hover for an extended period of time"? Or do I need to literally tell that it's less than Earth's gravity?

Then for the creatures. For an example, there is a creature mostly based off of a bear. I called the creature a "symphemetal bear." At first, I thought these sorts of names would work perfectly - it gets the point across that they're similar to Earth creatures but are still a different creature.

But there are no "bears" as we know them on this planet. They wouldn't know what a "bear" is, they just know what a "symphemetal bear" is. So is it wrong to name the creature using the word "bear"?

The next thing that I thought of is I'll call the creatures "symphemetals" instead of "symphemetal bears." But when I describe the creature, I still want the readers to picture a bear, albeit a strange and fantasy bear.

Would it be a better idea to keep the name "symphemetal bears" or just go with "symphemetals"? My story also has creatures based off of tigers, dragons, and other creatures. For most of them, it's the same scenario; I want the reader to generally picture a tiger or a dragon, but I'll describe them with different sorts of modifications, so to speak... what does this sound like?

I'm not really sure how to describe these creatures. Do I describe them as, for a very general example, a purple bear, or a purple creature with four short, stocky legs and a thick body?

Let me know if anything I said needs clarification, I'm not quite sure of how I worded this.

 

[Zeph]

You could probably get away with describing it as "a purple, ursine creature". Well, provided that your readers know what ursine refers to. If not I'd probably go with the latter description you gave.

As for the low gravity thing - Just say that the gravity is relatively low, yeah. No need to refer to earth, really.

 

[Music Dragon]

There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, you know! I mean, I assume your characters will be speaking in English even though they're from a completely different planet - am I right?

Attention to detail is good, but above all, make it an enjoyable story to read.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

while you're writing, probably just forget about earth except fr the things that are similar. like for the hovering thing, just say how there is low gravity instead of making an earth reference.for animals/creatures... purely describe them, forget about making similes. that works for me.

 

[DeskRage]

If the characters have had no experience with Earth the planet, pointing out something like "low gravity unlike that of Earth" makes no sense if you're writing from their perspective. That low gravity would be normal to them, so there would be no reason for them to point it out in internal monologue. What you could do is have one of them throw a rock and note that it took maybe several seconds to fall, or something like that.

 

[surskitty]

What you could do is have one of them throw a rock and note that it took maybe several seconds to fall, or something like that.

... which is also normal for them. Why would it be noted?

I can't think of any way you can mention the lower gravity without it being awkward and contrived. Do you actually have to mention that or can you leave it be?

 

[Sandstone-Shadow]

Thanks for the replies, guys. =)

There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, you know! I mean, I assume your characters will be speaking in English even though they're from a completely different planet - am I right?

...Very true. I'll probably take this approach as far as describing the characters. Still, though, would it be odd if my description for a creature was something like, "it was a bear, but with silver fur and a long tail"? I suppose I'm overthinking things a bit, maybe.

I can't think of any way you can mention the lower gravity without it being awkward and contrived. Do you actually have to mention that or can you leave it be?

Hmm. The only thing it really affects right now is how the birds fly. They hover like we stand, but for the size and shape of bird they are (comparable to a red-tailed hawk) I don't think it's realistic that they hover so much. ...Maybe I'm overthinking this.

 

[surskitty]

Still, though, would it be odd if my description for a creature was something like, "it was a bear, but with silver fur and a long tail"? I suppose I'm overthinking things a bit, maybe.

That's an extremely clumsy way to word it. Why not just 'silver bear' or find some animal that looks mostly like what you want? Like a badger?

Hmm. The only thing it really affects right now is how the birds fly. They hover like we stand, but for the size and shape of bird they are (comparable to a red-tailed hawk) I don't think it's realistic that they hover so much. ...Maybe I'm overthinking this.

Hovering's pretty improbable with lower gravity, too; the only vertebrates I can think of that can hover are hummingbirds and I'm 90% sure that's mostly due to wing shape. Trying to incorporate pseudoscience when there's no reason for it to be there is an easy way to lose readers.

 

[Pwnemon]

I've often thought the same things about Pokemon. How is it that Tauros is the "Bull Pokemon?" Bulls sure don't exist in that world.

What I decided is that while they may not have bulls as we have bulls, it doesn't mean they don't have the word bull. For them, Bull could be an adjective, describing something that is like a bull, for example, it could mean "Easily angered." Same with the bear, in their world, bear could mean "Husky and deadly."

 

[Sandstone-Shadow]

That's an extremely clumsy way to word it.

That was a fairly clumsy example. I probably would use something more along the lines of "silver bear" in the end anyway.

Why not just 'silver bear' or find some animal that looks mostly like what you want? Like a badger?

They aren't really like any Earth animal; Pwnemon's point about Pokémon is pretty relevant, actually. Tauros isn't a bull but it's similar to a bull; that's the kind of description problem I have, I guess.

Hovering's pretty improbable with lower gravity, too; the only vertebrates I can think of that can hover are hummingbirds and I'm 90% sure that's mostly due to wing shape. Trying to incorporate pseudoscience when there's no reason for it to be there is an easy way to lose readers.

Hmm, true. Is it believable enough then to say that they're a fantasy species of bird and they can hover, and that's that?

I've often thought the same things about Pokemon. How is it that Tauros is the "Bull Pokemon?" Bulls sure don't exist in that world.

What I decided is that while they may not have bulls as we have bulls, it doesn't mean they don't have the word bull. For them, Bull could be an adjective, describing something that is like a bull, for example, it could mean "Easily angered." Same with the bear, in their world, bear could mean "Husky and deadly."

Hmm, this is true. I will think about this; I haven't considered something like that before. =)

 

[ultraviolet]

with stories like this it's often very useful to have one character who is new to the surroundings - not neccesarily from earth, but someone from say, a different planet, so other characters can explain phenomenon. stories like this usually need a point of reference ~somewhere~ otherwise you're going to leave the reader a little alienated.

Then for the creatures. For an example, there is a creature mostly based off of a bear. I called the creature a "symphemetal bear." At first, I thought these sorts of names would work perfectly - it gets the point across that they're similar to Earth creatures but are still a different creature.

well, can you describe a bear without using the word 'bear'? If earth isn't mentioned anywhere in your story, I think it weakens things if you're going to call it a bear without any reference to earth or bears, though.

 

[Hiikaru]

I wouldn't mention Earth when describing the effects of their gravity. If they can hover due to low gravity, just say that. It isn't really necessary to mention Earth when talking about such a common concept. If they're breathing, do you compare the air to Earth's air? It isn't necessary. Your audience will know what low gravity means.

It's probably fine to call them bears in name. As a reader, I feel that this is mostly an acceptable break from reality. It allows an easy visual of a similar animal without going to great lengths in the description. Besides that, in a world with similar lifeforms, is it really so unbelievable that they would come up with similar distinctions? Even if you think they would use different words, you can pretend you're translating.

If their names aren't familiar, then it's probably fine to use one of our words for an animal like it in the description some of the time. Maybe not so often that it gets repetitive, but if it's important to you that the audience know what the animal looks like, then this can also be considered an acceptable break from reality.

There are a couple of other devices that would probably suffice, though.

"Horse" isn't the only way to invoke the image of one. If you mention a long-legged animal that people can tame to ride on or to carry things, for instance, I think people would generally imagine something like a horse. Dogs are loyal, domestic pets that wag their tails a lot. A scaly thing scurrying across the desert on four thin limbs, swishing its rapidly regrowing tail behind it is clearly a lizard. There are other traits that define animals beyond their names.

Probably the other workable way to do it is just to describe some of their features and otherwise let the audience imagine what they will. They don't always have to see what you see. A bear is tall and stocky, with powerful arms and legs attached to claws designed to rip through its enemies. Someone reading this description might imagine any number of different animals, but if the main thing we need to know about it is that it could do some serious damage to the main character, that's really quite sufficient. If it appears more often, you might mention the tiny rounded ears or the puffball tail.

When you don't want to name it, try and think about what the main aspects of the creature and mention those instead.

Additionally, using a familiar word can be more or less awkward depending on the writing. "An enormous bear-like creature growled menacingly in her direction, swiveling its long ears toward her as she backed away through the snow" seems more likely to be overlooked than "the animal that was growling at her was a lot like a bear, only with long ears." So long as the description flows, your average reader probably isn't going to stop and think "wait, why are these fantasy people calling it a bear when those don't exist here." They're used to hearing animals described that way.

From what I've read of your previous threads your birds are pretty central to the story, so even though explaining that they have beaks and feathery wings will get your point across, you may as well go ahead and call them birds.

However, if something appears for one scene walking past the characters, does a potential reader really need to know what it actually looks like? You can also base your decisions on how recognizable its real-life counterpart is. How many animals do you think of when you hear about something fluffy and hopping versus how many four-legged hunters you can think of?

I think really the biggest thing to consider is how important it is to you that your readers are imagining the same thing you are. Is it fine if they imagine the scariest animal they can think of, or do they need to know that the scary animal is a tiger?

I love the questions you post here. I think you'll have a really interesting story someday.

Edit: Oh, also, reading over your world history (again), I do like the idea of calling all these strange things by familiar words. It gives you kind of a sense of familiarity but also of mystery. Another book that does something like this is The Host (sorry if you don't like Stephenie Meyer, but). It's explicitly stated that when Wanderer talks about seaweed and spiders, she doesn't really mean creatures anything like what we use these words for, but something about the concept is similar. This is kind of different from just regular animals wandering around the world. I have difficulty explaining exactly what it is about it that I like, but it seems cool for some reason.

 

[Butterfree]

I think the translation angle is the best way to look at this. These creatures are not going to be actually speaking English; their word for the bears might ound like "wehdil" or whatever, but you, as the translator, would probably translate "wehdil" to something like "symphemetal bears" because although it has no direct translation, it does look like some kind of bear and that's simply the most efficient way to translate it. Imagine you're translating some aboriginal Australian text, except say there is no English word for dingoes; you'd probably call them something like "wild dogs", and simply "dogs" when the full phrase is too cumbersome, because that's the term most likely to bring up a usable image of what they are in the reader's mind.

However, translations also don't just go insert stuff like "The symphemetal bear looked like a bear, except X and Y." Instead, the ways in which they differ from normal bears can be weaved into the narrative where it's relevant: "The bear swung his long tail in irritation." This tells your reader, "Oh, so 'bears' in this world have long tails." And if there is never an appropriate occasion to bring up these differing features, they're probably not so important that you should be too desperate for the reader to know about them anyway.

As for the birds hovering, I don't think anybody is going to be bothered when a fantasy bird can hover just because that fantasy bird looks something like a red-tailed hawk instead of a hummingbird. It's still a fantasy bird.

 

[Pwnemon]

On the other hand, you could do something like a character who came to Earth one way or another and is relating his story. Which could also give you an ending if you don't have one.

 

[Sandstone-Shadow]

Thank you all for your advice! I really appreciate that. I think I have it worked out now; I think I'll keep the name "symphemetal bears" and describe them in a style like the examples that Hiikaru and Butterfree posted.

I think really the biggest thing to consider is how important it is to you that your readers are imagining the same thing you are. Is it fine if they imagine the scariest animal they can think of, or do they need to know that the scary animal is a tiger?

This is something I should probably relax about. To a point, I want my characters to see exactly what I'm seeing, but that's not fully possible and I don't want to force the descriptions so the readers see as exactly what I see as possible. So I think I'm going to try and relax about it some.

I love the questions you post here. I think you'll have a really interesting story someday.

Thanks! And I haven't read The Host; it sounds somewhat interesting though.

And if there is never an appropriate occasion to bring up these differing features, they're probably not so important that you should be too desperate for the reader to know about them anyway.

I think I'm going to commit this to memory. Kinda goes along with the "readers imagining the same thing you are"; I shouldn't be so concerned with the readers seeing exactly what I see.

On the other hand, you could do something like a character who came to Earth one way or another and is relating his story. Which could also give you an ending if you don't have one.

Mmm, I suppose I could, but I don't think I will. It's not really that type of story, and I think forcing a random creature from Earth in will make things awkward. Thanks for the suggestion, though. =)

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

You could always do what Neal Stephenson did at the start of Anathem; state clearly that the world of your novel is not Earth, it is a different planet with lower gravity and therefore its animals have evolved differently from those on Earth but that you will use the Earth animal they most resemble when talking about them in the narrative.

 

[Pwnemon]

Actually, what I meant is that a character from that planet came to Earth, but if it isn't that type of novel, it just isn't. I get it.