La Volpe
Sage
I've been mulling an idea over for some time now, but I have a problem in terms of plausibility. There is no reasonable explanation as to how the physics would work.
Here is a simpler example of what I'm talking about:
Let's say there's a story with train-sized insects ruling the world and humans fighting them for freedom, etc. Now, that is not plausible in the normal realm of physics. The reason being the square-cube law; i.e. the insects would collapse under their own weight. If insects were that big, they wouldn't have exoskeletons. And they would have thicker legs. And they would walk differently, and have lungs, etc. etc.
So the question I'm asking is this: Would I need to come up with an explanation for this plausibility problem? E.g. magic? I'm not really looking to bring magic into the equation, in an attempt to balance the new and the familiar. So I'm tempted to just handwave the whole thing, and just write it as if the physics would not be an issue (and thus not explain why it isn't an issue).
Would you, as a reader, be okay with this?
Here is a simpler example of what I'm talking about:
Let's say there's a story with train-sized insects ruling the world and humans fighting them for freedom, etc. Now, that is not plausible in the normal realm of physics. The reason being the square-cube law; i.e. the insects would collapse under their own weight. If insects were that big, they wouldn't have exoskeletons. And they would have thicker legs. And they would walk differently, and have lungs, etc. etc.
So the question I'm asking is this: Would I need to come up with an explanation for this plausibility problem? E.g. magic? I'm not really looking to bring magic into the equation, in an attempt to balance the new and the familiar. So I'm tempted to just handwave the whole thing, and just write it as if the physics would not be an issue (and thus not explain why it isn't an issue).
Would you, as a reader, be okay with this?