Manbearcat
Legend
double post
Last edited:
These authors aren't trying to model reality: they're making the points they want to make using story components adapted from reality.
But D&D worlds have no need for a clear distinction between magic and reality. When I play, I’m not modeling the real world, or even the real world + magic. I’m modeling a fantasy world, where I can edit natural laws that get in the way of my fun.
Brave New World is quite interesting in this respect.Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and Andrew Stanton (Wall-E) weren't trying to simulate dystopian futures. The worlds were conduits for the authors' social/political commentaries (warnings?) and ruminations (affirmations?) upon the human condition.
I suppose that someone might, but I've always thought that hand-wavium and action movie physics are based on a lack of explanation. "Eh, it doesn't matter, so whatever. It's just a game/movie, etc." But maybe that's not everyone's idea of what those terms mean.Some might say this confirms the stereotype of hand-wavium and action movie physics. No?
Dickens is a realist, yes. As, per your link, is Flaubert. But to think of their works as simulations of anything strikes me as absurd. Madame Bovary isn't a simulation of the life of the bourgeoisie - it's an attack upon it. Great Expectations isn't a simulation of what happens when the younger brother of a smith's wife receives an anonymous bequest - at least as it spoke to me when I read it, it's about the illusions that drive so much of modern social dynamics.
These authors aren't trying to model reality: they're making the points they want to make using story components adapted from reality.