So far all of my published fantasy-work has been either (A) entirely divorced from geographical realism (like Uresia - a circular archipelago designed to resemble a massive watery crater) or (B) fantasy set in an earthly location, so each (in their own way) sidesteps the question ...
The only other fantasy world I run with is the one I created as a teenager, and in those days my knowledge of earthly geography and fantasy geography were both too limited to have much to subconsciously draw on ... I'd never yet attempted to read Lord of the Rings, for example (I've since attempted it), and my favorite fantasy novel then (Ende's "Neverending Story") was mapless and overtly whimsical in layout, so whatever I was drawing on, it didn't resemble anywhere I lived (at the time, North Carolina, within hiking distance of the Outer Banks, which would have been a cool thing to mirror had it occurred to me). (My favorite fantasy novel these days is Hughart's "Bridge of Birds," which takes place in a fanciful rehash of T'ang China, so, again ...)
Anyway, wherever fantasy maps come from, I don't think there's any wrong way to go about them (at least generally - there could be a wrong way if you set specific rules for yourself and then fail to live up to them, I guess). Familiarity is good; bizarre is good; everything between is good
Originality is always possible and always will be; it's just the natural consequence of honest personal investment in the work. You are unique, so it's just a matter of translating the perspectives that belong to you into the work that will then also belong to you.To create something 'original' (if that's possible in today's media ) while keeping a level of familiarity so the reader/viewer can relate and be immersed.
Originality most often emerges in the details and tones, though -- don't stress too much about it being evident at first-glance on the map
Reply With Quote