World building: what makes 'new' animals believable?

[hopewrites]

How in depth should descriptions be? I understand why it's essential for me (the writer) to know the ins and outs of the creatures I create for my daring new world. But how much of that should make it into the final story?
What is the best way to go about introducing a new animal to readers? Should I tell them? or should I have the characters dialog it from their perspective?

Assume for this question that the "homework" of creation is complete, from the etymology of their name to every last impact they have on the ecosystem they inhabit. Assume also that they do have a part in the story and are not being thrown in to justify the hours put into creating them.

 

[galaxy]

My guess would be that you should know as much as you want to describe. If your character is going to be performing autopsies on animals in your world then you would require extremely in depth knowledge on the entire physiology of the animal.

It varies according to the importance of animals in the whole world. A great example of such would be Avatar.

That is my opinion.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

What is the best way to go about introducing a new animal to readers? Should I tell them? or should I have the characters dialog it from their perspective?

It can be very tricky explaining through dialogue things that your characters take for granted, because it often sounds artificial, as putting it into the exposition might not. As with describing people, one of the best ways is to link the description to some particular action. The animal lurches forward on its long legs, it scratches at its mangy pelt, etc.

But don't underestimate your readers. Give them one or two facts and they can often fill in the rest. For instance, if something is stalking a group of your characters and everyone is afraid, readers will gather that it is a large predator. If it happens to also be the largest predator on your southern continent ... well, that's not something readers need to know. Nor do they need to know its diet, unless, for instance, several of these large predators have migrated into the region recently, hunted the game animals almost to extinction, and the people are near to starving because of it. Then you have a significant fact.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that there are real-world cultures that depend on one kind of animal for meat, milk, hides, transportation, etc. you shouldn't rely too much on one species to provide your people with everything they need, as though it were the only animal in the world. Not unless you have your characters living in such harsh conditions that only a few kinds of animals can survive in the region. Otherwise, it will not be believable.

 

[Boneman]

I agree with TE on this. 'Telling' a very long description defeats the object of a flowing story if it goes on too long. But if the animal is an everyday part of a world and it is different, it could be described almost as an aside, and each reader will get a picture of it from their own imagination, stimulated by a few phrases of your clever writing.

"Have you put the Corollies away?"
"Just going to do it, father."
"Make sure you empty their dew purses. And clean out the hoovelets - that one is still lame from the stone in its foreleg."
"Yes father."
She didn't mind the job. The Corollies liked her best, and always slept on her bed, when her father was away.

Can you see it yet?

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Boneman: Er, No. I assumed it was a beast of burden, but that sleeping on the bed line threw me. (to weird places)

However, Introducing new, believable animals is difficult.

Mainly because it will contrast with anything else that isn't 'new'.

If this is a common place animal - say like a horse equivalent - then you have difficulty in explaining its existance if every other animal is just normal.

The six legged skrolge, with its fearsome claws and fangs that could rip an elephant in half with a single swipe of it's six foot maw...

Is all well and good, but what's that elephant doing in there, surely you need the Groundslug, a ten foot worm that sucks the sap out of trees through their roots: which only comes to the surface to breed, which they do in vast numbers every seventh planet cycle; instead of that elephant.

But what's that tree doing in there, surely you need the ....

If you get my meaning.

The trouble with alternate worlds and animals is there is a tendency to relate them to Earth animals as in a horse like, cat like etc.

Cat like etc. is fine if the characters are from or have experience of Earth, otherwise how would the characters know.

If you need the cat and the horse to give the reader a hint then why bother, just stick to them. Most readers will accept that there will be an animal filling the role of a cat on a different planet. OK it may not be an Earth cat, but any minor difference you need the cat to have will, or should be, accepted by the reader in the spirit of fiction.

However, if the Ravaging Beast of Splogwand, a twenty foot, triple headed, four clawed, eight legged killing machine is the only new animal to be introduced into Earth environment, then obviously some detail is required as to how, when and who, brought it to the party.

Books like Dune succeded in this because it made the environment hostile, and the number of creatures therefore limited in scope.

 

[Pyan]

You need some continuity, as well - I can remember reading a SF novel (the name and autor, alas, escapes me) where every living being was based on a hexapodal pattern - after a few pages, the idea of the horse-equivalant, dog-equivalant, etc, etc having six legs seemed quite normal, as did the humanoids having a double set of arms.

I think you'd only get problems if you introduce a beast that can't possibly fit into the ecological pattern. Unless it's Fantasy, of course, where things aren't usually subject to scientific scrutiny.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

*"They look like rabbits, but if you call them smeerps, that makes it science fiction." The Issue at Hand, James Blish (writing as William Atheling Jr.) Advent Publishers

Interesting article based on the statement above:

http://www.lazette.net/vision/Vision52/RoseSmeerp.htm

Me, a horse is a horse (etc). I think that needless complication is all a bit smoke and mirrors. If it is an animal of shoulder height that people ride, just call it a horse, at least in fantasy.

Sci Fi is a little different, as presumably it is supposed to exist in the 'same' universe as Earth. Therefore, in taking the perspective of an alien world, for example, it is entirely possible that different creatures may be ridden. If this is the case (and, assuming we're writing from an Earthling's perspective) then we can use Earth descriptions in the narrative: "What they called a 'garax' was like a horse but for the extra pair of back legs and the third eye."

However, if it is from an alien perspective, then all bets are off because there is no frame of reference. Unless they have encountered Earthlings before, in which case the description is reversed: "What they called a 'horse' was like a garax but for having only one pair of hind legs and only two eyes". This way we reverse engineer the description.

Going further, if there is no connection to Earth in any way, then it's unlikely that it would be described at all, at least in narrative. We have the luxury of simply saying 'horse'. Therefore, your alien race should have the luxury of simply saying 'garax'. The very fact that they are domesticated, are ridden, have hair (as opposed to lizards, etc) and so on, like Teresa said, will imply the similarity and allow the reader to fill in gaps.

Boneman's example was good, in that we can show through dialogue, but again, as Teresa said, this can often come across as clunky. It is a difficult thing to get right, but if you approach it with that method I'd say it's your best bet.

 

[Boneman]

Actually, Dune is a good example, TEIN. If I remember correctly, the 'worms' are mentioned a few times before we first see one. Here's one: I've a filmbook on a small specimen, only one hundred and ten meters long and twenty-two meters in diameter. Worms of more than four hundred meters in length have been recorded by reliable witnesses, and there's reason to believe even larger ones exist'

And the first sighting says more by what it doesn't say - we just see a spice factory disappear into a whirlpool of sand, and I guess we all draw our own pictures.

Big Mythical beasties are probably easier to describe than small domestic ones, if you need 'different' animals in your world.

 

[DrMclony]

This is a very interesting problem we all hit from time to time.

I had to address this one carefully in my latest book, because I was building an ecosystem and some of my creatures were of critical importance. I had to explain a key anomaly and make sure it was scientifically plausible.

A commonly missed factor when writing animals into a world is the continuity of development. That is stability across the various evolutionary tracks of the animals in your world. If you have a stack of six limbed creatures and suddenly throw in a tripedal monstrosity, you had damn well better make sure it has a reason to exist and a proper evolutionary rite to life on your world. Animals generally don't invade planets, so if they started out there, they should be consistent with the evolutionary paths that exist and as such, have certain physiological similarities to their fellow inhabitants. I mean, look at earth - We humans may not be quadrupeds, but we DO have four limbs, and those can be traced to a quadruped ancestor. While insects tend to six limbs, they did not evolve to the sizes and success* of mammals. A six legged mammal on earth would be out of place, an unacceptable anomaly in your story.

This is why Avatar's creatures all having that linking thing works - because it is an evolutionary commonality (however unlikely and fictitious) just like having a twin chambered heart and two-lung cardiovascular system positioned inside a bone caged chest region is an evolutionary commonality of mammals on Earth.


*(Yes, 'success' is used poorly here and is perhaps not the correct term - insects are certainly successful)

 

[Phoenixthewriter]

Usually if I'm talking about an alien planet, or series of alien planets, I usually have an Earthling who somehow managed to get brought to this place. I really prefer to have someone the reader can relate to as the protagonist explaining this new world, than trying to create it from scratch, including the species of the protagonist.

In fantasy, I still try to keep the animals a bit strange though. I'll name them something close to their Earth-bound counterparts. For instance, a rhinok, is very similar to a rhinoceros. And a bullros is very similar to a bull. Granted they will be different to a degree, so if I need to, I can always incorporate their real world counterpart.

Also I feel that If I do things this way, I can have a rhinok, move right beside a bunch of horses, or come into a confrontation with a bear (possibly named forest bear), just because they are indeed so similar in both name and appearance.

 

[Brian G Turner]

How in depth should descriptions be?

Only as much as is required.

The example from Dune above is excellent - there's no mention as to whether the "worms" on Arrakis belong to any specific group of animals. They simply are, and are there. It's the impact they have on the spice trade, Fremen and other worlders on the planet that is important - not what constitutes the worms in any scientific sense, IMO.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

Yes, but they are still referred to as 'worms'. This immediately conjures the shape of the creature, irrespective of size. Once you have thta connection, all you need to do is leak information about how immense they are. No descriptino required at all, as their size becomes the only thing you need to worry about since people already know what worms are like.

 

[Dozmonic]

"New" animals should be in an environment that makes sense. Your reptilian dogs would work based in an arid desert environment, but would seem out of place running through green English meadows, eating buttercups and playing with fluffy kittens.

Their features can be as alien as you want, but they have to make sense. A donkey who is able to breathe fire would need some reason for this (obviously it's so he can make popcorn, but how would that have evolved?). A snake is a strange creature, but if an alien snake were suddenly capable of shooting out tentacles it would need some evolutionary (or genetically engineered/creationary) reason why.

Character reaction to the creatures has to make sense. If they are in an alien environment, they'd want to compare creatures to ones they (or we?) know. "Say, John, that reptiger looks like a massive scaled version of Mr Tinkles, your dopey cat!"

Also, keep the odd names to a minimum. Have them called something that would fit with how the indigenous people would have called them. The above reptilian dog I have in a story with a somewhat Arabic nation, so it's called an araha'im, which fits with how their language is constructed and portrayed. To call it a zarxkanoff or a llewgwellyngally wouldn't fit.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

This is a very interesting problem we all hit from time to time.

I had to address this one carefully in my latest book, because I was building an ecosystem and some of my creatures were of critical importance. I had to explain a key anomaly and make sure it was scientifically plausible.

A commonly missed factor when writing animals into a world is the continuity of development. That is stability across the various evolutionary tracks of the animals in your world. If you have a stack of six limbed creatures and suddenly throw in a tripedal monstrosity, you had damn well better make sure it has a reason to exist and a proper evolutionary rite to life on your world. Animals generally don't invade planets, so if they started out there, they should be consistent with the evolutionary paths that exist and as such, have certain physiological similarities to their fellow inhabitants. I mean, look at earth - We humans may not be quadrupeds, but we DO have four limbs, and those can be traced to a quadruped ancestor. While insects tend to six limbs, they did not evolve to the sizes and success* of mammals. A six legged mammal on earth would be out of place, an unacceptable anomaly in your story.

This is why Avatar's creatures all having that linking thing works - because it is an evolutionary commonality (however unlikely and fictitious) just like having a twin chambered heart and two-lung cardiovascular system positioned inside a bone caged chest region is an evolutionary commonality of mammals on Earth.


*(Yes, 'success' is used poorly here and is perhaps not the correct term - insects are certainly successful)

Generally true, although there is Australia to take into consideration. had it been re-joined to the mainland there would have been a fair old mix of unrelated species.

In my particular case, I try to use general-isms.

Not referring to a horse specifically, but to Fred's mount, or beast of burden etc. Then as Brian suggests, inferences that give the game away, say that it is a horse like animal, can be slipped in on the quiet when the reader isn't awake*.


(This also has the advantage that it ups the word count.)


* Probably for most of the book