Hatrack River Writers Workshop: What would you think?

This is topic What would you think? in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003203

Posted by Novice (Member # 3379) on :

In my WIP (fantasy, with traditional environments such as forests and deserts, etc.) I'm describing a valley. I mean it to be pre-civilization, but that exact designation would be an anachronism.

In describing the valley, I want to use the phrase, "...the valley had no inhabitants..." (which is the simplest way I can think of to say "pre-civilization"). I don't want to spend too much time on the description, but it is important that the reader gets "pre-civilization" out of it.

Here's my problem (well, one of my problems): Much of the work is about animals. The animals are not magical, but they figure so strongly in the plot as to almost be secondary characters. So, by this point in the text, the reader is accustomed to thinking of the animal populations as part of the milieu. Is it possible to have the fauna so firmly connected with the human characters, that the reader might assume "no inhabitants" also means no animals?

(I think the answer to this is "no." To me, the word "inhabitants" always means "people". But I'd thought I'd get a few other opinions.)

Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :

Why not just say "No people lived in the valley"? When in doubt, rephrase.

Posted by Marva (Member # 3171) on :

Well, according to Wikipedia, inhabitant can include animals, too.

"One that inhabits a place, especially as a permanent resident: the inhabitants of a fishing village; snakes, lizards, and other inhabitants of the desert."

Maybe denizen or some variation would imply more than people.

No living thing inhabited the valley: this suggests both people and animals.

On the other hand, did you mean you only wanted to say that people didn't inhabit the valley? In which case, the "no people" would be fine.

[This message has been edited by Marva (edited July 11, 2006).]

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

Depends on genr and style.
I know it's fantasy but what sort of style are you employing?

In the bible the writer uses the phrase "a land wherein no man had dwelt". That exact phraseology may not suit but the idea may.

PS: I think 'inhabitant' is very close to 'habitat'. Perhaps use a different word, as beth suggested.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 11, 2006).]

Posted by Verdant (Member # 3498) on :

Why not use the valley as a character and the animals as inhabitants?

The valley's inhabitants included a herd of small deer, various squirrels and jackrabbits. Thickets provided as much shelter as could be found, since the only predators were wolves and an occasional coyote. Hawks and falcons also hunted the squirrels and chipmunks, but the underbrush was safe enough...

Just a thought

Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :

I like Verdant's idea. It really helps set the location and establishes the fact that the animals, which seem to be a large part of your story, are present.

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

What hoptoad said. The way to say this depends so much on the perspective of the narrator and the style.

Amerindian: "This was a place where no two-leggeds came."

KJV: "That place in the wilderness which no man hath seen."

Asimov: "No human beings lived there."

MTV: "I mean, really: no mall, no roads, nothing but a bunch of stupid animals."

Posted by Aust Alien (Member # 3493) on :

What about simply describing it as "untouched wilderness". The "untouched" means no people (or at least no chopping down trees, planting crops, building bridges etc) and the wilderness implies that animals are there (stops it being untouched by animals as well).

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I think "untouched wilderness" is overused, and often wrongly. It comes up, in my mind at least, with pioneer settlers describing land that the Indians certainly had been through...

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

"Wilderness" is fine. You can take or leave the "untouched". Saying "no inhabitants" is definitely wrong unless you mean "no inhabitants". You could say "uninhabited", which has slightly different implications (because it's more verbish, and thus implies the actor more strongly, or something). But "wilderness" is positive rather than negative.

Posted by Verdant (Member # 3498) on :

There are other words besides untouched. Try pristine, primeval, virgin, unspoiled.

The different words would carry different connotations. Primeval would also carry a pre-civilization or pre-historic theme. Unspoiled would avoid that idea but almost imply that the potential for spoilation exists. You could combine the words for a different effect, but too many adjectives could bog the story down and make it cumbersome.

The words are out there, though.

Good luck!

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

How would your main character say it?

Posted by Aust Alien (Member # 3493) on :

Primeval... I like that.

Virgin will be a problem if you have tree spirits or sentient trees in your story. They may object.

Pyre makes a good point: Depending on the pov character's attitude, what they're doing there and what they plan to do - unspoilt, unused, under-utilised, at-one-with-the-earth, empty, naked, un-dug, secure, insecure.
18th Cent Europeans described Australia as Terra Nuls meaning "empty land" even though people were here. It's a question of perspective.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

pri-me-val...[L. primaevus---primus, first, and aevum, age.] Original; primitive; belonging to the first ages...