# How much science should be in a novel?



## Savalric (Nov 30, 2014)

The title says it all. I'm a rather analytic guy; I'm used to learning huge amounts of information about topics that intrigue me. As such, I usually suffer from overshare, so, how deep should one go in describing phenomena in books? Specifically, fantasy novels. With that said, how "deep" do you all go in your writings? Would you bother to explain why or how your character was able to bend a bullet around his head? Or just say, "it was magic" and leave it at that? Let the readers hypothesize or speculate on their own? In essence, how much mystery do you leave?


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 1, 2014)

That's a good question 

I've read novels that go so extremely in depth that they lose me completely and I'd had to skip enitre sections to bypass the stuff and ones where they don't nearly explain things enough, also leaving me with a giant question mark over my head.

The answer, I'm almost certain, lies somewhere in between the two extremes. 

Figuring out how your tech works in a universe of your design is alot of fun, even more so if it's based on real tech, but while it might be fun for you to describe every intricate detail of how it works it's important to keep in mind what's actually relevant to the story itself. A quick synopsys of the function of [insert thing here] along with any notable attributes as they pertain to the plot should be fine if you can't find away to _show _the reader what it is; show is always better than tell, but sometimes you just can't avoid it.

Anyway, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, each story is different and you'll have to decide for yourself just how much about [insert subject here] your reader needs to know so things make sense to them.


----------



## Sam (Dec 1, 2014)

That's like asking how much action should be in an action film. 

Whatever is necessary for the telling of the story.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 1, 2014)

I think every reader will have a preference. All I want is to be entertained, and dumping explanations and equations on me that do not add to the story, detract from it. At the same time, I don't appreciate a writer who takes liberties and removes any rules of the physical universe that stand in the way of the story WITHOUT A GOOD EXPLANATION.

So, for me, enough science to make it accessible and believable. Any more I find either self indulgent or, worse still, just plain old boring.


----------



## John Galt (Dec 1, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> I think every reader will have a preference. All I want is to be entertained, and dumping explanations and equations on me that do not add to the story, detract from it. At the same time, I don't appreciate a writer who takes liberties and removes any rules of the physical universe that stand in the way of the story WITHOUT A GOOD EXPLANATION.
> 
> So, for me, enough science to make it accessible and believable. Any more I find either self indulgent or, worse still, just plain old boring.



This. 
If I see a "sciency" character come in, mention molecules, atoms, light speed and time travel in some jumbled 'explanation' that doesn't make scientific sense, I'll throw that book out the window. TV shows are doing this often these days; mentioning molecules to make things sound legitimately "scientific".


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 1, 2014)

John Galt said:


> This.
> If I see a "sciency" character come in, mention molecules, atoms, light speed and time travel in some jumbled 'explanation' that doesn't make scientific sense, I'll throw that book out the window. TV shows are doing this often these days; mentioning molecules to make things sound legitimately "scientific".



XD

I try not to go into detail about things I have no clue about myself


----------



## Schrody (Dec 1, 2014)

John Galt said:


> This.
> If I see a "sciency" character come in, mention molecules, atoms, light speed and time travel in some jumbled 'explanation' that doesn't make scientific sense, I'll throw that book out the window. TV shows are doing this often these days; mentioning molecules to make things sound legitimately "scientific".



Oh, you will hate my book. Although, it's all legitimate science, I'm not making up facts.



Noxicity said:


> XD
> 
> I try not to go into detail about things I have no clue about myself



That's why you have research tools. 

For the OP - depends what you want to write. You surely can't write a hard science novel and make up things as you go. If you're writing a fantasy novel, I would say ditch the science and let your imagination be free. That said, you still need to make believable "facts", tell us why is something like it is, throw some made up history... Readers will read and will be indrawn in your story if you present it like something normal, well known.  You can find examples in many books/movies.


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 1, 2014)

> That's why you have research tools. :smile:



I should rephrase: I don't write about things that are beyond my understanding, things I might research but which still baffle me.

XD


----------



## Schrody (Dec 1, 2014)

Noxicity said:


> I should rephrase: I don't write about things that are beyond my understanding, things I might research but which still baffle me.
> 
> XD



Well I knew nothing about geology, and now I know a lot (because of the research) 

It's just a matter of will.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 1, 2014)

I guess like others said it depends on what you want to do. If you want to write a story based on real science phenomenon, then definitely do your research and write enough that is pertinent to your story. You probably don't want to overload with too many facts if it takes away from the story, but you will need enough to make your readers understand what you are trying to convey. It's a judgement call really.

Of course, if you are just writing fantasy, you can pretty much make something up so that it sounds plausible. I mean it worked for Superman :lol:


----------



## Terry D (Dec 1, 2014)

If you are writing a fantasy novel in a world where magic exists and is used, then there's not much need for any scientific explanations since magic is commonly perceived as being 'beyond science'. If, however, your world is governed by the laws of physics as we know them, you better be ready to do some explaining, but that would be more science fiction than fantasy. In the realm of science fiction it's always a good idea to keep in mind Clarke's Law*: Any technology, sufficiently advanced, will appear as magic. Imagine showing a cigarette lighter to a cave man.

*Arthur C. Clarke


----------



## Bishop (Dec 2, 2014)

I write science fiction, and I'll say I've gotten by with very little. I do a lot of research to try and get general ideas of what I'm talking about, but rarely put it into the actual text of the novel. People are coming to your novel for a story. They'll go to text books for physics lessons.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 2, 2014)

Savalric said:


> ...how much mystery do you leave?



How much mystery do you want to leave?

A word, first, about subgenres:

In Science Fiction, we have what are called "Hard" and "Soft" sub-genres. Hard Science Fiction would demand that there be some sort of reasonable sounding excuse, based on at least the fringes of rational scientific thought, that provided the mechanism which enabled the bullet to appear to "bend" around someone's head. Soft Science Fiction would say "The Gottrieb 9000 Personal Defense Shielding Unit has Activated" and leave it at that, with a bit of hand-waving if some more formal explanation was required.

In Fantasy, we have "High" and "Low" subgenres. In "High Fantasy", which is intimately involved in mythical realms, that bullet would come from a gun that belongs in the mortal realm and, because it is from "Outside", it can not possibly harm our protagonist, who is King of the Troll Folk. In "Low" fantasy, a typically more mundane Setting, our protagonist casts a spell just before the guy working for the local crime boss tries to assassinate him in the alley behind Ricky's Diner.

These "guides" on how to handle such a thing that are genre dependent. They're something you may wish to think about when aiming for a particular audience.

However, the most important thing that you must decide is what you are going to emphasize in your story. How big a role does real science and future-tech play in your Science Fiction story? How fantastic and magnified is the magic in your Fantasy Story? How important are these elements of the Setting in your full story? Are you more focused on a character-driven story that simply moves through one of these realms? If so, you may want to downplay distractions involving the heavy exploration of the Setting and limit the Reader's exposure to things outside of the immediate character. If you're looking to tell a story within a very colorful and broad canvas of a Setting, you'd certainly want to explore some of the Setting's intricacies, so you'd pay a bit more attention to mechanisms and magical rules than you would, otherwise.

If you take any particular sort of explanation or lack of same to the extremes, you're simply comfortably within the audience's expectations within your genre. If you work more towards fulfilling the requirements of the story, which involves a Setting that is very much of secondary consideration, you would likely limit your use of distracting explanations.

Somewhere amongst the various strategies, a comfortable median exists.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 2, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I write science fiction, and I'll say I've gotten by with very little. I do a lot of research to try and get general ideas of what I'm talking about, but rarely put it into the actual text of the novel. People are coming to your novel for a story. They'll go to text books for physics lessons.



Hey! I have to educate my readers! :mrgreen:

Of course I'm not gonna start with subatomic particles, but they have to know basics   When your character is a scientist you can't expect him not to tell anything about his field


----------



## Cran (Dec 2, 2014)

Savalric said:


> The title says it all. I'm a rather analytic guy; I'm used to learning huge amounts of information about topics that intrigue me. As such, I usually suffer from overshare, so, how deep should one go in describing phenomena in books? Specifically, fantasy novels. With that said, how "deep" do you all go in your writings? Would you bother to explain why or how your character was able to bend a bullet around his head? Or just say, "it was magic" and leave it at that? Let the readers hypothesize or speculate on their own? In essence, how much mystery do you leave?


Without taking away from all of the advice offered - understanding the mechanics of your world is more important to you than to your reader. Unless you introduce a complete outsider (a common enough device) who needs an explanation and comparison with a more familiar dimension (like say, our common reality), or you intend to spend a lot of time in growing up and/or learning, your world's inhabitants are going to carry a lot of understanding of how things work for them and most of that will be taken for granted. 

What you share of your understanding of the world you have created is up to you, but tends to work best when it is woven into the story you are telling; a natural part of the narrative voice. How deep you go into phenomena should match how deep you go into anything else in your story, otherwise you risk creating a story that is simply a platform for exploring that phenomena.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Dec 2, 2014)

Hello Savalric

Thanks for starting a great thread.

Your question about 'how much science?' begs an even broader question and that is how much detail - and what level of detail - do you want to put in your work? and I think it depends on the interests of the readers you want to read your work.

John Locke believes you cannot be all things to all people: you decide on the audience or readership you want to reach and tailor your style to their interests. Or you develop a style that you are comfortable with, in the same way you select a genre or sub-genre that interests you, write your novel, then go looking for an audience that are interested in stories the way you tell them. Either way you end up with a readership that Locke calls OOU (One of Us) and it realistically does not include every potential reader in your genre.

So, if you'e a crime and mystery writer you may be looking for a readership that likes the way P.D.James wrote with pages of detail on what people are wearing, how their houses are furnished and what paintings are hanging on their walls or Scott Turow with lengthy examinations of the labyrinthine paths of legal systems and criminal syndicates. Or if you're into political thrillers, you might like John Le Carré's forays into the psychological forces that drive his characters or maybe Robert Ludlum's conjectures about what really happens when the CIA gets involved in anything. 

My point is it's up to you how much detail you want to offer your readers: what you are comfortable with. As has already been pointed out here, it must make 'sense' either based on existing hard science or what might be out there, or in other situations you need to come up with some sort of credible 'magic' to justify what is happening.

The one thing you must not do is blithely drop in some convenience to make things work out. If everybody around your heroine and hero is dying of some zombie plague, there has to be a credible reason why your two have survived: something with more substance than they are really nice people and don't deserve to die.

And some of it comes down to what has been said in many posts and many threads here: do your research. Check things out, understand enough of the basics so whatever happens to your characters is consistent with what your readers expect. If your character is stripped naked and tied to a tree in the yard beneath the west front of the cathedral - as one of mine is in my latest work - then do some Google StreetViewing to confirm there is, indeed, a tree in that yard.

If you don't, sure enough a reader familiar with that yard will know whether there grows a tree there or not. Your readers will forgive you a few mistakes but if your work is full of them, you're not likely to get many good reviews or recommendations.

And while we're on the subject of research, do any of you out there in ForumLand know anything about the Lincolnshire Police? PM me, please. I have a question nobody seems to be able to answer for me.

Thanks for listening.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Savalric (Dec 3, 2014)

Cran said:


> Without taking away from all of the advice offered - understanding the mechanics of your world is more important to you than to your reader. Unless you introduce a complete outsider (a common enough device) who needs an explanation and comparison with a more familiar dimension (like say, our common reality), or you intend to spend a lot of time in growing up and/or learning, your world's inhabitants are going to carry a lot of understanding of how things work for them and most of that will be taken for granted.
> 
> What you share of your understanding of the world you have created is up to you, but tends to work best when it is woven into the story you are telling; a natural part of the narrative voice. How deep you go into phenomena should match how deep you go into anything else in your story, otherwise you risk creating a story that is simply a platform for exploring that phenomena.



For the most part, the book follows 3 people from relatively early in their life, so while they're being trained, they'll be learning the laws and rules of the world. But since this world is supposed to exist within our physics centric world, the question became should I explain how the two, magic and physics, interact on a deep level, giving realistic structure to the world, or hint at deeper interactions, but only cover what the viewer would see, scrapping a lot of explanatory dialogue or backstory. Essentially, should I actually include the lectures in the novel or not. 

After reading everyone's posts (Thanks, btw. I was surprised on how many replied and how fast, I wasn't expecting much), and thinking back to how a few other stories have handled the interaction between magic and physics, as well as explaining it, I've figured that it doesn't make sense to have the characters think scientifically when they aren't born in the age of science. A lot of the way humans thought back then was that it was all magic anyways, so having a character be the voice of reason and everyone else firmly believe in magic makes the most sense. In case you were wondering, the story I had in mind begins solely focused on magic, but as they catch up to modern times, science comes into the picture and it becomes a sort of battle between magick and science.


----------



## Cran (Dec 4, 2014)

Savalric said:


> For the most part, the book follows 3 people from relatively early in their life, so while they're being trained, they'll be learning the laws and rules of the world. But since this world is supposed to exist within our physics centric world, the question became should I explain how the two, magic and physics, interact on a deep level, giving realistic structure to the world, or hint at deeper interactions, but only cover what the viewer would see, scrapping a lot of explanatory dialogue or backstory. Essentially, should I actually include the lectures in the novel or not.


These are legitimate questions. To find the answers, I would further ask, "Who would know? How deep does the knowledge go in the mind of the teacher or teachers? How much depth could the teacher or teachers reasonably expect to impart to our young students?" 

As the god of your universe, you are expected to know it all and as deep as it goes, but are you a god who intervenes directly to impart knowledge? Or a Watcher who simply observes and shares the observations that unfold. 



> After reading everyone's posts (Thanks, btw. I was surprised on how many replied and how fast, I wasn't expecting much), and thinking back to how a few other stories have handled the interaction between magic and physics, as well as explaining it, I've figured that it doesn't make sense to have the characters think scientifically when they aren't born in the age of science. A lot of the way humans thought back then was that it was all magic anyways, so having a character be the voice of reason and everyone else firmly believe in magic makes the most sense. In case you were wondering, the story I had in mind begins solely focused on magic, but as they catch up to modern times, science comes into the picture and it becomes a sort of battle between magick and science.


Now, that could be interesting.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 4, 2014)

Savalric said:


> For the most part, the book follows 3 people from relatively early in their life, so while they're being trained, they'll be learning the laws and rules of the world. But since this world is supposed to exist within our physics centric world, the question became should I explain how the two, magic and physics, interact on a deep level, giving realistic structure to the world, or hint at deeper interactions, but only cover what the viewer would see, scrapping a lot of explanatory dialogue or backstory. Essentially, should I actually include the lectures in the novel or not.
> 
> After reading everyone's posts (Thanks, btw. I was surprised on how many replied and how fast, I wasn't expecting much), and thinking back to how a few other stories have handled the interaction between magic and physics, as well as explaining it, I've figured that it doesn't make sense to have the characters think scientifically when they aren't born in the age of science. A lot of the way humans thought back then was that it was all magic anyways, so having a character be the voice of reason and everyone else firmly believe in magic makes the most sense. In case you were wondering, the story I had in mind begins solely focused on magic, but as they catch up to modern times, science comes into the picture and it becomes a sort of battle between magick and science.



I think you are asking for trouble if you try to explain the relationship between science and magic in any detail. Your readers who are fans of the science side of things are going to see holes in everything you try to explain (because there is no real relationship between science and magic), and the readers who are hard-core fantasy fans won't care--for them magic just_ is_.


----------



## John Galt (Dec 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I think you are asking for trouble if you try to explain the relationship between science and magic in any detail. Your readers who are fans of the science side of things are going to see holes in everything you try to explain (because there is no real relationship between science and magic), and the readers who are hard-core fantasy fans won't care--for them magic just_ is_.



Most of my magic systems are hard ones (ie, they follow rules and are somewhat specific). However, none of my hard magic systems (or any I've read) actually obey our world's laws of physics. I treat most of my systems as if they stem from a made-up physics principle which doesn't exist in our world; ie, humans and animals develop differently because of the interaction of this force/principle with the environment (biological differences, new predators that interact with the "magic"). But I never actually state it to the reader. 
So magic just is as far as the readers' concerns go. 

Your idea seems interesting, Sav. You could even go as far as the "magic" solving our physics/biology problems we face today. Magic of the gaps, so to speak. I had an idea for something similar; a massive thing spanning centuries. Good on you for actually going there. 
The interaction between science and magic could be pretty funny by Clarke's principle (any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic); "magical" characters could see the technology as "magic" and the "scientific" characters could see the magic as such.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 4, 2014)

Savalric said:


> For the most part, the book follows 3 people from relatively early in their life, so while they're being trained, they'll be learning the laws and rules of the world. But since this world is supposed to exist within our physics centric world, the question became should I explain how the two, magic and physics, interact on a deep level, giving realistic structure to the world, or hint at deeper interactions, but only cover what the viewer would see, scrapping a lot of explanatory dialogue or backstory. Essentially, should I actually include the lectures in the novel or not.



There are plenty of ways you could do this. One of the most successful ways would be to create a "magic mystery."

For instance, in snippets, here and there, your characters discuss what they learned in class. I do not suggest that you write out lectures... Instead, note unusual, exciting or funny moments during formal classes, but let your characters get together for magical "labs" and "study halls" or they could even gather informally to review their lessons and to practice/play with magic.

It's at such times like these you would introduce the "meat" of your magic system. But, only use these moments sparingly. You don't want a cycle of these sorts of things. Just use a couple to point out some fine points of your magic system. And, you won't be showing off those fine points just to brag to the Reader. Instead, they will help serve to form the "clues" of a "magic mystery." That mystery can develop in a number of ways, from being the primary plot to just being an incidental sub-plot that ties in somehow with the overall development of your magical story. 

For example, suppose that during their study sessions, one of them screws up the casting of a spell and everything in the room moves over to the left about three feet, before stopping rock-still. Why is that? Why did that happen? Can they do it again? For some reason, even though they obviously were responsible, they can't repeat the "mistake." A few suggestions are made, but are wildly wrong. So, they confront a professor after class (or are confronted by one) and ask the question - Why did this happen? The professor/whoever gets irate, threatens to expel them, yada, yada, yada... Finally, it culminates in the "truth" tying your word together - They accidentally, but only temporarily, nullified gravity in a small area. Gravity is "magic" too, but it's a Primary Force and isn't easily overcome. Who'd want to, anyway, when flying and levitating spells are easily available? What they did was temporarily roll back the tide of gravity and, instead of flying off the Earth, like everyone commonly thinks would happen, what really happened is that the Earth just kept spinning along it's merry way 'round while everything in the room... didn't. (Some handwaving with momentum and centrifugal force is needed...) Everything came to a sudden stop once the comparatively weak, yet highly dangerous, mistaken magic dissipated and gravity reasserted itself with a vengeance.

Make "learning" your magic system interesting. The clues that you present might even help the Reader to guess what actually happened before you tell them. If you achieve that, you present the Reader with a wonderful gift - "The Aha Moment." Have you ever read a mystery and solved it before the final scene? How did you feel? Were you smug and self-satisfied? Excited at your ability to comprehend the story? Was the story more meaningful for you as a result? Good, that's probably what the writer intended.  If you structure your magical clues appropriately for such a mystery, you can give the opportunity for the Reader to experience those same feelings.



> After reading everyone's posts (Thanks, btw. I was surprised on how many replied and how fast, I wasn't expecting much), and thinking back to how a few other stories have handled the interaction between magic and physics, as well as explaining it, I've figured that it doesn't make sense to have the characters think scientifically when they aren't born in the age of science. A lot of the way humans thought back then was that it was all magic anyways, so having a character be the voice of reason and everyone else firmly believe in magic makes the most sense. In case you were wondering, the story I had in mind begins solely focused on magic, but as they catch up to modern times, science comes into the picture and it becomes a sort of battle between magick and science.



On the contrary, making them think "scientifically" is common in high fantasy settings where magic is intimately woven into the lives of the people. (It isn't as common today as it used to be, but there are plenty of examples of such use of magic systems.) But, instead of just boring old "physics", it's "magistry" or some other such a thing. If you construct the system well enough, your Readers will be able to "scientifically" deduce what is going on with your magic system. If, for instance, you have opposing forces in magic, the Reader can easily deduce that if a magician uses both those forces, there will be a cancellation. If you have sympathetic forces in your magic system, some may amplify effects. What about magical catalysts that do nothing by themselves, but cause magic to react powerfully? And, if such a catalyst were thrown into a raw vat of potent magics, what do you expect your Reader's reaction will be? They'll be shocked, right? They'll eagerly turn the page to see what happens, since they already know that such a combination is dangerous. And, why do they know that? They know it because you have carefully built up a fairly logical and scientific set of causes and effects, already, and they are familiar with many of your basic "rules." In some cases, they'll be so familiar with them that they'll be able to construct their own ideas of magical effects and the mechanisms that cause them.

There's room for "magic science" in fantasy.


----------



## Atlantean (Jan 25, 2015)

To be honest, if I read something that equates to more or less a mechanical engineering diagram or plan or something, I'd probably stop reading it. That's just me, but I'm sure there are people out there that are right into reading very technical/mathematical pieces of fiction.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jan 25, 2015)

I guess it depends on who you're trying to appeal to. I'm down for ALL the science. You won't get 50 Shades of Gray status, but I'm not sure you want that anyways lol. 

For rizzle though, I think you can go with some pretty complex ideas if keep it relatively layman's. These complex ideas can make for great stories I think. But it's also really easy to just throw it over everyone's head.


----------



## SamLeitner (Apr 17, 2015)

Depth of science in a novel depends on how far your work bends from fact to fiction. I draft my stories as non-fiction first. Characters and sensitive subjects are then colored to make the story acceptable as fiction. Scientific explanations only go far enough to either leave an Easter-egg for later use or to make the story plausible. Twice I have had to change my story line because fiction became fact too soon. 

I think most readers of novels read to be entertained. You can still educate but in very small bits and pieces. 

I suggest research to understand ten times what you are going to write about. Your writing will be easier and more believable. Making a summary on one piece of data is not interesting. Your consolidation of magic or science should leave the reader with some thought required or I believe they lose interest. Whatever your science level, it should be plausible if you write close to non-fiction. At least get it past the laugh test.


----------



## Sforza (Apr 21, 2015)

I think that as long as you explain it you can add as much science as you want, but if it's just technicalities with no explanation then that would be a problem.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 21, 2015)

I think my writing sits somewhere between science fiction and fantasy and I attempt to tackle the problem by suggesting that there may be scientific explanations for things but not giving them adequately. The hints that I do give tempt the interested reader to apply their own, possibly better, knowledge to determining whether my suggestion is plausible or nonsense. Rather conveniently the people who could really explain the science are never around in the story and all the reader gets is a garbled second-hand version from someone who probably doesn't understand what he's talking about. Well yes, that's me of course, writing entirely in character. As the explanations are often in dialogue, not narrative, it is quite reasonable that they could be wrong. Without those tantalising partial explanations the story might be lacking though, so I have to do enough research to make people wonder. My story is predominantly about how people react to things that they don't understand, so too much explanation of the science takes the magic out of it. Magic is after all just unexplained science.

I also use terminology to give apparent explanations where none exist. This is like a doctor telling someone who has lost their voice that they have laryngitis, simply translation of the existing information into different terminology. For example, a time traveller returns from a trip to exactly the point in space-time and history that he left. This means that he is both leaving and arriving at the same time. In effect he apparently never left in the first place, but what was the experience like from his point view and how does it work? The man explains that he was told that it is a hysteresis paradox, which is quite true technically speaking but not an explanation. As he has no idea what that is he can only explain how it feels but not what happens in scientific terms. Does the reader really need a thesis on temporal hysteresis phenomena? The man who drives the time machine doesn't any more than I need any more than a vague idea what happens under the bonnet of my car. Suck, squeeze, bang, blast; car goes very fast.

There is a difference between learning how technology works and how to use it. In my writing where any teaching is involved it takes the form of dubious analogies, such as time travel being likened to walking across a field of snow and a time machine being in some ways like a teaspoon in a cup of tea. The fact that the driver of the time machine perceives it as a giant teaspoon flying through time doesn't impair his ability to do his job in any way. Also the fact that one day he finds himself walking back though time, which turns out to be an endless snowfield in his mind, is just the result of the analogies, not any form of reality. Ultimately all analogies break down in science and only the mathematics seems to hold good, but nobody wants that in the story. 

The bottom line is of course as already explained whether you are going for hard or soft sci-fi. Mine is positively limp, but then it is a fairy tale as well. As with so many things in writing, you have to look at what you're doing from the viewpoint of your target reader. What do they expect to read and how much do they expect to understand?


----------

