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

[Kuruharan]

lmp: Cross examined? What have you been up to?!

My problem with Redwall is that the author used the same tired formula FIVE TIMES in the SAME BOOK! Come ON!

I agree with you on that. It seems to me that if the eucatastrophe happens the same way more than once in the same story it ceases to be a eucatastrophe. (I have a keen grasp of the obvious don't I!)

I like your illustration about the rivers flowing from the mountains to the sea. But I have a question about the cultural difference between the "mountain" and the "sea-coast." Would it make any difference in the types of details that an author put into a story depending on which "stream" he/she was drawing from? Meaning, in the original mythos certain things would be more important to the authors than they would be to people reading a story derived from this myth a few thousand years later. Is that where "the writer must draw from her own mind...and bring her own unconscious/subconscious to bear upon the fresh spring water" to make the story more accessible to the audience? That is, if that is something important to the author in question.