Although I hadn't enough time to study your article completely ( I will study it later ), it sounds a good writing with interesting information. In addition to your article I applaud you that you bravely could to ride on some wild horses .
And yet funnily enough, I love Heroes. I know I'm in the minority, and yes, there are lots of ickle discrepancies but I consider it a bit of a tour de force, POV-wise, so, I'm inclined to be forgiving. @Wreybies. One of my friends worked as a French interpreter for the U.N. She disliked the film for exactly the same reasons you did. She also told me there is no way, given Kidman's character's history, she would ever have got security clearance in the first place.
I should probably give it a second chance, but like I said, when that boy pulled the zinging sword out of the sheath to marvel it, I put the book away... I couldn't care about any of the characters, and I was like, okay, so where's Logen? The writing was good, though.
When I was nineteen, I went horse riding with two amigos and three amigas we were trying to impress. There were five fully-trained, docile horses and one maverick, loose-cannon horse that hated people. I volunteered to ride the maverick, loose-cannon horse that hated people. Everybody else’s horse walked up the hill, but mine would only stand still eating grass or run* up the hill. When I got off of it at the top of the hill it turned ninety degrees and kicked me in the thigh. Hard. Technically, this qualifies as a mistake a writer has made about a horse, except I wasn’t a writer then and am not really one now either. Also, it may not be a common mistake, to be fair. *I don’t want to hear about cantering or galloping or whatever, so don’t even try it.
Actually, I think your post is more likely to get us comparing war wounds than correcting your terminology.
@Wreybies - just read the synopsis on wiki - it sounds like an awful film with a predictable plot and a rather unsatisfying/pointless ending...
That's 'cos they've diversified—there's no money in it. The general public just aren't prepared to pay much for such a rudimentary means of travel. Hippogriff wrangling. That's where it's at.
In my brief foray into hippogriff wrangling, I can advise you to only use cold branding. Those things hold a grudge.
LOL!!! Oh no! I feel like my topic ran away without me =P sorry guys, I was off on holiday. About breaking in - We broke in a few horses. When I say we, I should say, my boss. I never got in the ring with them while they were in the early stages - I was the gentle one who got to groom them after my boss had gotten them used to being touched. Breaking in sounds cruel, and it can be depending on who does it, but yeah, it just means getting them trained for a rider, more or less. The process is wide and varied. I'll give you a quick break down of how we did it: My trainer always had them haltered from a young age, and he would lead them around as foals now and then, but he kept contact minimum so they did not get comfortable with us - this meant they had a healthy respect for us, because if you cuddle them and have them all over you as foals, they'll do the same as adults, and a 500kg horse trying to roll you or rear at you is not pleasant. The real first stage was to bring them in to the ring (or corral). There, we'd put towels over their backs and use a very long whip and just trail it all over their bodies, to get them used to being touched and having random things (like reins) dragging on their skin. The ones I saw took this stage well. The next stage was to belt a fake girth around them with no saddle, just a towel underneath it. My trainer never did them TIGHT, but enough they'd stay on - this was usually followed by a few seconds of nothing, then all hell broke loose. One little mare who was full sister to another horse we had, who was also a deep thinker, did nothing at all - took it all in stride. If they did that okay, then it was time for a saddle. They usual all buck and go wild, and we'd just leave them there and watch until they stopped. Once worn out, you'd go in, take it all off, and let them back to their paddock. Next stage was to tie their legs. This is kind of horrible sounding. The reason is so they get used to their feet being picked up, for shoeing. Once they would let us pick their legs up relatively okay, the strap went on (because most would still stomp their feet down and fight it). It tied above the knee to below the knee, basically forcing them to have their front leg bent. This was my least favourite part because they did, on occasion, fall over. They buck and try to run but it's not that easy with one leg tied up. Generally they'd fall over and stay down, so you'd go in, stand them up, and run your hands all over that leg, then undo it. You'd then reinforce that when you picked that hoof up, it was yours, by picking it up again now they were exhausted. I don't recall one ever fighting it, but it did have to be done a few times. I don't remember doing it on hind legs, only fore. Hmm. After that (sorry long post I know), it was bridling time. Also, by this point, I got to groom them after all this each time and wash them down, and this is where they seemed to start enjoying it, especially when they were lathered in sweat as it was summer too. I actually can't remember exactly how it went, but because of the halter I don't think it was incredibly different - reins were attached through loops in a saddle and they were held by the trainer about 5-10m behind the horse (super long reins). From that safe distance they'd walk them up and down, etc. Between all this, when they had the saddle on, my boss used to hop on them on his belly over the saddle like a dead weight. He never SAT, he'd just lie over them so if they spooked he could get off easily. They could also see his legs more clearly and knew it was him, etc, and were less liable to spook. I must emphasise he did his very best to make sure those horses were taken care of, and he was NEVER cruel, never beat them, etc. After that, it was the full saddle and reins method, which I don't recall clearly either… as for forming relationships - same as with any human or other animal. Time and affection (like a dog). Instead of throwing sticks, you groom them, or ride them. Spending time with them on the ground is as important as in the saddle. HOPE THAT HELPS XPXPXP
To be fair, I think @katreya indicated as much, before elaborating on her own personal experience of it. She made that quite clear.
What does one do to bond with a horse? Nothing, practically. They like people unless grossly mistreated. They like to be fed, they like to be scratched...it's very simple. Some people make it mystical or complex. I don't know why. I've been around horses - riding, training, raising them - nonstop for over 55 years. However, no amount of bond will extinguish a horse's instincts. They still can be startled, they still can bolt (run away) in fear, they can still buck you off. Their reaction when you fall off, is often to stand there with a puzzled expression as if saying, ''Whatever are you doing down THERE?" or to run off in terror because you're hanging off them in an odd position. Their first allegiance is always to other horses, not humans. They are the quintessential herd animal. They have a sort of 'collective conscious' so that every horse in a group will veer away from danger in perfect unison. What one knows, they all know. If one horse runs away in fear, so do they all. Long ago one author wrote that no horse clings more strongly to its habits than a horse. Their memories are infallible. A great author wrote a story of a horse that was used to grind grain, which meant being hitched to a pole, and walking in a small circle, turning the grinder. When retired the horse continued to walk in circles in the pasture, with no grinder in sight. The author waxed lyrical over the sadness of this. I could have assured him that the horse was probably deliriously happy, following his familiar routine. Another author wrote of escaping a Russian prison camp. He escaped by stealing a horse. Every day he frantically whipped the horse into a gallop that lasted for hours. Every night he turned the horse loose, thinking the horse would despise him and beat it back to the work farm. To his shock, the horse went off in the field, eating grass for hours, and then late each night came back and lay down at his side. Many talked of this 'loyalty' and 'faith' and rightness of the horse 'helping' him escape. But after years of doing exactly this, returning each night to the camp for a meal of grain, the horse was merely following his habit. 'Breaking in' is the British term for teaching a horse to be ridden. Hopefully, this is put off until the horse is three or so years old and mostly developed physically(the reality is that in America, many race and show horses are 'broken in' when still the rough equivalent of a human toddler). Until that time, they're taught to be led by a person(not rush forward or hang back, turn when the handler turns, etc), to hold their feet up for the horse shoe-er(though they rarely need shoes before being ridden unless they have orthopedic problems or live on a hard surface), to stand still while being brushed, to walk up a ramp into a horse transport (a 'float' in some countries, a 'trailer' in others), to be given a bath. None of these things are 'natural' to a horse and they have to be taught each thing meticulously with much repetition, using simple, very direct, immediate methods, patience and firmness. Everything is broken down into very simple basic steps. For example, when the time comes to be introduced to riding, the saddle is first shown to the horse so he can smell it. Then the trainer jiggles the parts of the saddle so the horse becomes accustomed to the sounds it makes. Then gradually, the saddle is brought closer to the neck, in gradual steps is laid on the back, etc. It's absolutely mind-numbing, boring, repetitive work that almost no one has the patience for. It must be broken down into simple, single steps. Few people have any comprehension of how to do this. Good horse trainers are not found around every street corner. It's a very rare calling. The current batch of 'internet gurus' are sad and ridiculous jokes. A foal is born a completely wild animal. His mother, no matter how much she loves her human master, will always stand between the newborn and any other creature. She will usher the baby over to her far side if any human so much as walks into the stable. You will not even be allowed to LOOK at that baby. She will kill to protect him if she has to. The protectiveness of the mare is an amazing thing to behold. Bother that baby and she will come at you with teeth bared, ears snaked back, and front feet flying. If put to pasture with other horses, she will with tireless brutality, keep every single other horse away from her baby with hooves and teeth. Mares and babies are often put in a small paddock by themselves, to give her a refuge from the other horses. It's not that the other horses are likely to kill that baby. But she doesn't care. She keeps them all away from that newborn. Even a 'maiden' mare who's never had a foal will protect her baby. Despite being exhausted after the birth she will stand over the sleeping baby for hours at a time, never bothering to lie down and rest herself. You can walk by her a dozen times a day or night and see the same timeless scene. The most bizarre thing is that mares hardly ever step on their babies. The mare may weigh as much as five times more than the baby, but he will be as safe with her as if he's guarded by a dozen Secret Servicemen. The veterinarian who checks over the foal after his birth will need several assistants to wrestle the foal into a corner and hold him there, while he leaps, bucks and struggles, and his mother practically has a meltdown. The foal knows nothing of humans. Horses are not 'domesticated', but neither is any other 'domestic' animal. They are all born wild. They become familiar with humans, and gradually learn to like them and cooperate with them. After a time, foals seem to accept humans as 'little horses'. They have no conception of humans being far more fragile than themselves and will nip playfully at humans in complete innocence. Push a foal and you'll be nipped. And GOD those little tiny teeth hurt. As soon as the baby gets his teeth, mamma will snap at him or kick him if he nurses too hard. She'll teach him to stay away from her feed. She'll teach him to not pester her. He'll learn the rules of the herd even if his only companion for months, is his mother. She will teach him. Even more strangely, she seems to know exactly when to push the foal to be more independent. When he gets to be four or five months old, she'll snap at him if he tries to nurse. He'll often be off on his own, eating grass and playing with other foals. Even more strangely, a mare will keep a handicapped foal at her side, for years, if necessary. My friend's foal was blind, and his mother never weaned him. Instead she guided him everywhere, through creeks, over rocks. It was an incredible thing to see.
Someone brought up how particular horse folk are about what's written about horses. But many different topics are like this. An astronomer might have a fit over what you write about stars. A geologist over what you write about rocks. A psychologist over what you write about mental illness, a data analyst over what you write about crime, and so on. But horse folk not only are extremely passionate about horses and extremely proud of their knowledge. They are meticulous, dogged and hyper critical of what is written about horses. Should they be? Of course they should be. Most of them spend years, and many bumps and spit out teeth, learning their art. They've bought and paid for it. And they'll tell you whatever you want to know, if you just ask them. It's a funny thing. I found that in most countries, critics of books are incredibly tough on writers, even novices, on all aspects. They demand a book hang together logically, that it not be circumstantial or unlikely (even, in some ways, with fantasy and science fiction, where the premise at least needs to be tidy and clear, even if technically impossible), but in generally, they hold a writer to an incredibly high standard in all aspects. I recall a review in India in which the author was taken to task for stating that it took a character a certain amount of time to cross a room, and the critic analyzed exactly how long the room was and how long it should have taken and exactly why that was important. Grammar, spelling, sentence structure? It's taken for granted that the author will do his homework here. Errors there would be unforgiveable.
My horse gripe isn't with issues I've seen in books, but with advice about horse scenes given by other writers. I have been told, both in my critique group AND by people on this site to make the scenes factually inaccurate so it will be easier for the reader to understand. I have owned horses and was in 4-H for years growing up. My parents still have horses and break mustangs. As far as I'm concerned wrong is wrong. I won't write an inaccurate scene to make it "easier on" or "more believable" for the reader. Perhaps those writers who include woefully inaccurate horse scenes were simply capitulating to the demands of critics who claimed 'the reader wants/expects it to be this way.' If writers stopped giving in to critics who demand inaccurate information, then readers would have some idea what basic animal husbandry looks like and would stop expecting the ridiculous. Just my 2 cent's worth.
Sometimes you just have to stick with something when you know it's right. There's times when I wouldn't 'stick to my guns'. In this case, there is an accurate description of ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT on groundwork, but it's totally irrelevant to the story. I wrote a story years ago about a prisoner in what was then, a new sort of prison 'horse training' program. The prisoner was an angry, violent kid, and was in for a long sentence after a violent robbery. After failing to achieve something with the horse during his session with the riding coach(and being dressed down by the coach for losing his temper), he went back that night and whipped and beat the horse. The horse knocked him down and reared over him. He thought at that point he was going to die. He waited for it to come, but the horse, instead of striking him with its hooves, turned and walked away. That was the point at which his entire life changed. But I was VERY careful to not overdo with the explanation of the technical side of the work. What was important was the transformation the man underwent, in that one moment, when he deserved no mercy and was given all the mercy that was possible. But there are times when it's important to stick to what you know is right. I've written about a lot of mentally ill characters, and I would NEVER misrepresent or manipulate the phenomenon of mental illness, to 'make the story better' or make it 'read more like people expect', or what's the worst of all, to prove my agenda. "It is what it is" can be very important. I think it's very, very important there to not perpetuate stereotypes or confirm prejudices. And that means accuracy. And that means understanding research, not just kowtowing to a party line from people who know nothing about it. For example, The Horse Whisperer was an incredibly popular book and movie, but it was - ridiculous. Horses just don't act that way. Why did people like it? It had Robert Redford, scenery, a pretty lady and an affair, and a cute kid, and very incidentally, a horse. No one cared whether the horse part of it was accurate. Except horse folk. On the horse bbs, that movie was ripped to shreds. They hated it.
I have a question about horse riding, rather than horses themselves. Would appreciate any information. How plausible is it that someone who has never ridden a horse could a) mount one first time (with stirrups, saddle, and someone holding the reins) and b) pickup the basics of making it trot and canter in the space of an hour or so? In the movies we always see the comedy of the person who spins in circles with one foot in the stirrup and the other madly hopping then ends up draped over the saddle like a queasy sack. I'd rather not to do that, but on the other hand the MC is no super-talented, "born natural." She just needs to learn to ride a horse at a basic level enough to get with relative ease from a to b and have conversations on the way. It's not really that big a plot point, but I'd like to get the detail right. Thanks.
There is no such thing as a 'born natural' when it come to riding. It's not natural to anyone. And no one - no one - can get on a horse the first time, pick up the basics, and trot and canter, in the space of an hour. Not even to the point of just staying on the horse. Children learn faster than adults, but typically, it's six months (at least 25 lessons) before even a child canters on a very placid 'school horse' that's kinda 'programmed' to pitter patter around the arena at a slow shuffle, often while the instructor steers the horse using a longe line. And a horse like that would never be competitive in any sort of competition. I learned from an 'old school' instructor who had kids cantering by their fifth lesson, but that fifth lesson mostly consisted of us popping off the ponis like tiddlywinks, over and over. Even someone who had ridden before, and had a long PLNR (period of life with no riding), would have a hard time doing that, just to stay on, not to look decent or anything beyond just not fall off. Suggest that your character may have ridden a lot in her past, and finishes up this ride completely exhausted, with a lot of raw rubs on her legs, some very sore muscles, and no points for form, style or finesse. She'd have a chance that way of lasting an hour, but don't expect her to walk or pee comfortably for a couple days after.
I would say that it matters a lot about the experience and common sense of a character. No, they won't be able to canter or trot (especially not trot -- at least w my mare, trotting is the hardest gait to remain seated during). But getting on and getting seated shouldn't be a big deal, especially if they have someone with them who knows what they're doing. The canter is probably the easiest gait to remain seated during other than the walk. Someone who isn't experienced definitely shouldn't be galloping. I rode for seven years before I tried galloping, but mostly that was because I was terrified of the speed and the stirrups were too long because I was a child. About age: I taught several of my friends the basics of how to ride (mount, dismount, turning, etc) when we were about 10, in the space of an afternoon. They could stay on, provided they didn't do anything stupid. One could stay on while trotting; the other -- no way. Physical strength has a lot to do with it. Neither of them looked like experienced riders while doing it, though. An athletic person is going to be able to stay on much better than someone who leads a sedentary life, but the muscles used for staying upright are very different than the ones used while playing most sports. Someone who has a lot of common sense is going to catch on faster than someone who doesn't. Someone who is experienced with horses isn't going to let their friend -- who knows nothing about horses -- ride by herself the first time she ever gets on a horse, unless they're just walking. Have your characters ride double (one in the saddle, one behind) for a bit, then give MC her own ride. This is, of course, provided the horse they're riding has the temperament for it. (My horse didn't, once both riders weighed more than a hundred pounds, and she would buck and trot and crow-hop to get us off her). After a few days with a lot of riding, I wouldn't be perturbed if your MC was comfortable enough in the saddle to stay on during a trot and canter. She's going to be very saddle-sore though.
Because in my WIP there is some serious horse riding and I don't know the first thing about horses, I found this to be very helpful: https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=19730 What are your thoughts about this source?
I feel that the mileages given for horses to cover in a day are ridiculously too high. In the usual fantasy world, a rider would go to great lengths to spare his horse. He'd often travel at a walk, or lead his horse. He'd take several horses and switch back and forth between them(but he'd need feed and water for all of them). He'd have to stop and rest his horses each day. The horses would need to have hay (dried grasses) packed up and carried with the group(10-20 lbs a day for each horse), they'd need grain for energy(8-16 lbs a day of barley, corn, oats or in some parts of the world, rye), they'd need grazing(if no hay, they'd have to spend at least 6 hrs a day grazing), water, and rest. Alternatively, there'd be depots along the way where the group could barter for or buy feed. Or steal it. Endurance racers cover a lot of ground? International endurance horses make their record distances under artificial conditions. They are purpose bred for generations, they're not easy to ride, they're conditioned for YEARS by experts to reach high daily mileage, they receive specially tailored diets and saddles and bridles, they are cared for by a whole team of experts(vets, masseuses, nutritionists, trainers, etc), their riders ride expertly in such a way to avoid putting pressure on their spine, they're followed by support vehicles and drenched with water frequently, they're cooled off with buckets of ice poured over them at each rest stop, and many of them drop out of the longer races. And many, overall, still don't last very long in the sport. When those long rides were done back in the 'good old days', there was not too much concern over whether the horses survived the ride or not. The 'Remount' effort for the cavalry was proof of that. 'Remounting' officers (replacing dead or disabled horses) was a big part of cavalry expenses. For most characters in fantasy stories, walking cross country would be much easier, logistically. One would be less likely to be detected, too. Horses raise dust, and they can scent each other from as much as ten miles away - and they call to each other. In a grassland country, a rider might be able to graze his horse entirely, but only during certain seasons, and the animal would be unlikely to go very fast on just grass (old Tom Rush song, ''Little rope horse lit out after him like he'd been eatin' corn''). Probably the most durable and enduring horse in the world is the Akhal-Teke of Asian Russia. Probably predates the Arabian horse, probably an ancestor of the Arabian. The traditional Akhal-Teke looks more like a greyhound than a horse. In 1935 I think, Russia organized a 2600 mile race from Asian Russia to Moscow, to test the different bloodlines/breeds available to them for breeding cavalry horses. The Akhal-Teke was believed to be the 'winner'. The ride is said to have taken 84 days, an average of 30 miles a day in fast country. Unfortunately, the available Akhal-Tekes (a few hundred remained by then) were extensively crossed with other breeds. It's hard to find the 'greyhound type' any more.
So, how much distance can a horse cover in a day maximum? Depending on the source I've posted, I assumed that about a 1300 kms more or less (including horse-swaps, some harsh climates, variation of route difficulty and rests), might need 2 months. Am I off? I'm asking because I have no clue. The route they cover is from Lin'an to Tongchuan. Lin'an is east - north and Tongchuan is west - north. The route from one to another is like a straight line in the Song (pink) territory.
We do this very differently in the 'sport horse world'. The horses are handled extensively from the moment they're born. Many are 'imprinted'. They're very familiar with people, but are taught from a young age not to rear or bite around people. They wear blankets on the coldest days, so they're used to things on their back long before a saddle is put on. Usually, breaking is a 'non event'. No fireworks. The horses are already trained to turn, whoa and go, long before we get on. They're familiarized to bridles and all the gear months before anyone gets on. They've usually learned to ride in a horse trailer, get a hose bath, and have their feet 'done' by the farrier by the time they're a few months old. I have a two month old foal. I taught him to pick up all his feet merely by well-timed neck scratch rewards. He was never even tied up to learn this. He knows whoa, giddy up, turn left, turn right, and stand still. He's two months old. He simply has not reared on us, bit us, or charged us. If he did, he'd be punished promptly. But he hasn't even offered to. And he's not at all a phlegmatic or lazy animal. He's extremely active and spirited. It's a very different system. Designed for a very different type of horse and conditions. The system katreya described originated in the very sparse Western USA range. The system I described originated on high fertility settled farmlands and pastures.
