The wrong kind of details: the components of wonder (aka lmp's rant)

[Kuruharan]

Well, I have to admit that I was not thinking explicitly of having a written backstory at the time I posted that, but it would probably be a good idea to have at least an outline of the story's history if the author wanted to refer to it in the context of the story. Having a timeline at least would be good. But one would not want to just drop in dates because that can also have a degrading effect on the story.

charm instead of wonder...the details kill the wonder.

So sometimes lack of description can be a good thing? Perhaps.
Does it make it more real to have something in a story that is taken for granted by the author and not mentioned, because it is something that is taken for granted by the characters? Although "real" may fall under the category of "charm" rather than "wonder."

Part of wonder is that it is something that is beyond our experience, or at least beyond the ordinary. The desire on our part to see and experience something "other" than ourselves or the things we understand well. The yearning for adventure, if you will.
(For some reason I suddenly feel myself seized by a longing to take an extended vacation.)

But on the other hand, if it is a story, it needs to be believeable within it's context. But that might be something that other people disagree with. I have a very orderly mind that doesn't like inconsistancies, loose ends, and the unexplained.

Then there is a degree of familiarity, like that of the hobbits, that may help contribute to the wonder.