|3 people marked this as a favorite.|
Caterpillars wrote:Quote:I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?
Or you know magic.Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.
Considering the way they're made and reproduce can be cool - see the examples Fuzzy-Wuzzy gave. Or hags - we've long known how hags reproduce and it's got plenty of story potential, but focusing on the genetics of why they only have female children doesn't add anything.
Nor does making dryads, who started mythologically as tree spirits, into fungi.
We are, in the end, sitting about and playing make-believe on a grand scale. Does it really matter if one uses myths or real phenomena as the basis of the make-believe? Reality is full of extraordinarily odd too-strange-for-fiction stuff.