• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

How much detail is too much?

I my second book, "The Night and Day", my main character, Arylos, has to teach my secondary character, Iris, how to perform Alchemy in order to advance in divine-hood. The Alchemy that Arylos and the rest of the gods use is far different than most Alchemy used in Kaiyumi so he has to teach her both styles and their differences. During the tutoring sessions, how much detail should I use? Should I use Iris having long periods of trial and error and Arylos using as much detail and going down to the bare bones of the styles (which I fear could bore the reader) or use some detail, but not too much or just have their tutoring sessions behind the scenes (which I fear will leave important stuff out)?
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
You know, I think this is going to depend on the reader. I personally don't care for long details about the theory behind magic systems in books. I have friends who absolutely love it.
 

kayd_mon

Sage
Being too detailed about a magic system can sometimes make your story sound like a video game. I would only include the necessary portions to your plot. Create the feeling that she's spending a lot of time learning, but don't write a tutorial.
 
I think it depends on your preferred level of detail.

There might be different effects based on how your different readers react to what should be consistency of your style:
  • The readers who hate spending too long in theory may simply not forgive you if you do.
  • The readers who love extra detail there might be the ones who'll already be happy with the other, shorter times you get detailed, so playing to them would be deepening but not widening your readership.
  • Meanwhile, the readers who wanted more detail all along wouldn't be moved by one sequence going further than the others.

Just guesses there.

But, one thing I do know makes detail palatable to more readers, though: if a given lesson does involve trial and error or other tests, or maybe a challenge to the student's beliefs that's its own kind of trial ("What do you mean I can't talk to the dead, only came here to see Dad again--"), struggling through that can give a scene its own value. Especially if it relates to past or future struggles too, of course.
 

Nameback

Troubadour
I think the main things that readers look for are rules--they want to know, generally speaking, what's possible and what's not.

Now, those rules may be very broad. In the Malazan books, for instance, it seems like almost anything can happen, depending on who's wielding the magic and how much. So you learn to expect that -- it's a world with hugely grand magic and said magic can do all kinds of crazy stuff. The Earthsea books also have a pretty grand magic sensibility, so again you just kind of go with it.

My point, in using these examples, is to show what the reader needs in terms of rules: even if the rule is "there are hardly any rules," then the reader knows generally what to expect. Stay consistent with that. If you restrict magic and then suddenly something happens completely out of left field, the reader feels betrayed or confused.

So, while it's good for you to know all the detail behind the magic system, as long as the reader knows, in general terms, what the magic can or cannot do, what kind of effects are produceable, then you're good to go. Beyond that I think it's just personal preference. I think most audiences would favor lean rather than elaborate descriptions of magical systems, though.
 
I think the main things that readers look for are rules--they want to know, generally speaking, what's possible and what's not.

Now, those rules may be very broad. In the Malazan books, for instance, it seems like almost anything can happen, depending on who's wielding the magic and how much. So you learn to expect that -- it's a world with hugely grand magic and said magic can do all kinds of crazy stuff. The Earthsea books also have a pretty grand magic sensibility, so again you just kind of go with it.

My point, in using these examples, is to show what the reader needs in terms of rules: even if the rule is "there are hardly any rules," then the reader knows generally what to expect. Stay consistent with that. If you restrict magic and then suddenly something happens completely out of left field, the reader feels betrayed or confused.

So, while it's good for you to know all the detail behind the magic system, as long as the reader knows, in general terms, what the magic can or cannot do, what kind of effects are produceable, then you're good to go. Beyond that I think it's just personal preference. I think most audiences would favor lean rather than elaborate descriptions of magical systems, though.

OK, that helps a lot.
Basically, an alchemist in my novels can use many transmutations, but while eventually tire out and cannot perform alchemy again until he rests. The only exception is that my main character, who wrote the rules of alchemy pretty much, can take his fatigue and externalize it in a thunderbolt. Doing so will allow him to transmute again, but he will tire out faster this go around.

Also, an alchemist, counting my main character, MUST have the needed elements nearby in order to transmute. He cannot create things out of thin air.

Transmutations also run in a fixed cycle that CANNOT be ignored. For example; transmutation cannot stop at the destruction step so no alchemist can destroy thing by alchemy alone, making battles last longer instead of zapping an enemy with a instant-death beam of light and other types of cliches.

There are some other stuff, but that can be at a later time, but will be presented all at once.

How does this summary help?
 

Nameback

Troubadour
OK, that helps a lot.
Basically, an alchemist in my novels can use many transmutations, but while eventually tire out and cannot perform alchemy again until he rests. The only exception is that my main character, who wrote the rules of alchemy pretty much, can take his fatigue and externalize it in a thunderbolt. Doing so will allow him to transmute again, but he will tire out faster this go around.

Also, an alchemist, counting my main character, MUST have the needed elements nearby in order to transmute. He cannot create things out of thin air.

Transmutations also run in a fixed cycle that CANNOT be ignored. For example; transmutation cannot stop at the destruction step so no alchemist can destroy thing by alchemy alone, making battles last longer instead of zapping an enemy with a instant-death beam of light and other types of cliches.

There are some other stuff, but that can be at a later time, but will be presented all at once.

How does this summary help?

Yeah. Those are the sort of basic rules you need to convey to the audience. Needs materials. Will tire out. Can't just destroy, must transmute.

And these are all things you can convey by action! I'm assuming these alchemists can use alchemy in combat? So, you could have battle scene in which one of the combatants tires, his alchemy runs out, and he gets iced. Now we know that there's a general limit of exhaustion on alchemy. Same thing goes for materials--the POV, say, runs out of materials during some conflict, and is temporarily thwarted as a result. Etc.
 
Yeah. Those are the sort of basic rules you need to convey to the audience. Needs materials. Will tire out. Can't just destroy, must transmute.

And these are all things you can convey by action! I'm assuming these alchemists can use alchemy in combat? So, you could have battle scene in which one of the combatants tires, his alchemy runs out, and he gets iced. Now we know that there's a general limit of exhaustion on alchemy. Same thing goes for materials--the POV, say, runs out of materials during some conflict, and is temporarily thwarted as a result. Etc.

And the real value is that once you convey these rules (by action or not) you can plot scenes and whole threads around making the reader wonder "How's he going to make those rules get him out of this one?" If Arylos is able to bypass his fatigue with that thunderbolt, let him work incongnito somewhere and see how long he can keep working at an emergency before he blows his cover with that blast. If alchemists need the raw materials to transmute with, there's always the classic "Desertful of sand. Why'd it have to be a desertful of sand?" And then surprise your reader with the characters' ingenuity, or else with the hard choices they have to make instead.
 
And the real value is that once you convey these rules (by action or not) you can plot scenes and whole threads around making the reader wonder "How's he going to make those rules get him out of this one?" If Arylos is able to bypass his fatigue with that thunderbolt, let him work incongnito somewhere and see how long he can keep working at an emergency before he blows his cover with that blast. If alchemists need the raw materials to transmute with, there's always the classic "Desertful of sand. Why'd it have to be a desertful of sand?" And then surprise your reader with the characters' ingenuity, or else with the hard choices they have to make instead.

I am adding a scene where Arylos fatigues and has to use that energy release in a little bit when he fights what is called a "Null alchemist", basically, and alchemist that has no specific elemental choice.

The funny thing; my original draft opened with Arylos trapped in the middle of the desert, rendering his alchemy useless. I took that scene out, but I'm planning on recycling it soon.
 
Top