Fantasy and Realism...

[Mallus]

I thought of posting this in the current Ice and Fire thread, then thought the better of it. So here goes, in its own thread.

What's the role/place of "realism" in fantasy fiction?

In what ways can fantasy be realistic?

In what ways should fantasy be realistic?

In what ways shouldn't fantasy be realistic?

An enormously broad set of questions, eh? With no right answers, certainly. But maybe an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[Dimwhit]

It depends on how you are defining realism. Do you mean realistic as to the real world? Or do you mean realistic within the boundaries established by the fantasy setting?

I don't think fantasy has any obligation for realism as it relates to our real lives. However, a wise author of filmmaker will do whatever possible to give the audience some semblance of normalcy to cling to. Otherwise, the audience can get hopelessly lost. A great example is Brazil, an amazing movie by Terry Gilliam that lost most of its audience. Possibly because the sense of realism was almost non-existant.

However, what about realism within the boundaries established by the fantasy setting? This, I think, is absolutely critical. D&D is an excellent example. I don't know how many times I looked at a rule and say, "This makes no sense! It's totally unrealistic!" I would naturally be countered with a "It's not supposed to be...this is fantasy!" But as far as I'm concerned, there should be a sense of realism within the D&D boundaries, and it's that realism that I think gets disrupted.

I think I lost my train of thought. I don't know if this came close to commenting on the original question, but there you go.

 

[CCamfield]

Fantasy should not be arbitrarily unrealistic. That is, adding magic and wizards and monsters to a setting should not be an excuse for stupid world-building with no good explanation.

"It's fantasy, it's supposed to be unrealistic" would not be an example of a good explanation.

 

[FraserRonald]

I thought of posting this in the current Ice and Fire thread, then thought the better of it. So here goes, in its own thread.

What's the role/place of "realism" in fantasy fiction?

In my opinion (and its only that) realism exists in fantasy and science fiction in order to help to maintain the willing suspension of disbelief (WSD). Reading about a world with magic and elves (etc.) is already a strain on one's WSD, so why strain it any further? One should maintain consistency, and if one does not indicate a difference from our reality, the reader is going to get caught up on it. So, your thin, 90 lb. Weakling can't lift a car--unless you have already indicated to the reader that he is wearing his belt of Frost Giant's strength, or what have you.

Also, the "realism" of the setting must be consistent. If the belt of Frost Giant's strength allows the 90 lb. Weakling to lift a car, then anyone wearing it should be able to lift a car. If Joe T. Blough puts on that belt and can't lift a car, that's not consistent, and you will confuse your reader, as well as destroy that reader's WSD.

In what ways can fantasy be realistic?

Fantasy can be as realistic as the writer wants it to be. I have only read the first book of George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Fire and Ice," but I think it is a reference most people can relate to. Throughout much--almost all--of that book, there was very little that was outside my frame of reference (the real world). There were a couple of supernatural instances, but that was about it. If the actual supernatural instances were not related by the characters present, but were rather related as events that someone had "heard of," it would have been as close to Medieval Europe as possible. Almost everyone in Medieval Europe believed in the supernatural, so such occurrences would be readily believed.

In what ways should fantasy be realistic?

I think that fantasy should be realistic in all ways, save those the writer explicitly points out to the reader. The sky in most worlds is blue, which is as it should be. As Dimwhit mentioned, this allows the reader a common frame of reference with the setting of the world. The reader feels a certain familiarity with the setting, and understands the underlying rules of the setting because they are the same rules the reader understands about our real world. If you read 200 pages of a book and then in some off-hand manner the writer mentioned (or a character did, whatever) that the sky is magenta, wouldn't that throw you right out of the story? "Huh? Did he mention that before?" The frame of reference is shattered and the WSD is strained, if not totalled.

In what ways shouldn't fantasy be realistic?

I agree with CCamfield. I would say fantasy shouldn't be realistic in those ways necessary to tell the story. There's nothing wrong with extraneous fantastic elements, as long as they aren't dragging the reader away from the story. I don't need to know how creative and wonderful the writer's world-building is; I want to know how creative and wonderful the writer's story-telling is.

That thing is, I think some writers get carried away with fantasy. Many things are different or non-realistic for no apparent reason. Does every forest creature need to be completely different from those here in our world? If it's a furry herbivore that hops and eats carrots, does it need to be the six-legged, purple fivvilmueller? Why not just call it a rabbit, if it does what a rabbit does? If you're calling a prince 'a prince,' why does a horse need to be a besstellikan?

But that's just me. YMM(and likely will)V.

An enormously broad set of questions, eh? With no right answers, certainly. But maybe an interesting topic to discuss.

Actually, thanks for bringing this up, Mallus. I always appreciate a good soapbox, and I am quite interested to see what my E.N. Worlder comrades will say.

Take care all.

 

[The Serge]

I'll go beyond just literary pieces, and incorporate movies, games, and other modes of expression in some of my responses.

What's the role/place of "realism" in fantasy fiction?

Depends on the nature of the fantasy world and the intent of the designer(s).

Generally speaking, I think that it's important for a degree of versimilitude to be exhibited in any fantastic environment if only to allow the audience the opportunity to become involved in the fantasy and better appreciate it. Of course, the designer(s) needs to know what kind of audience he's attracting, what kind of audience is likely to even care, and consider the impact the "reality" (or lackthereof) may have on the ability for the audience to appreciate the designer's intent(s).

For example, if I were to write a story that takes place in a contemporary setting and I decide to introduce elements that are traditionally reserved for "speculative fiction," I would likely handle that differently from how I would handle writing a story that is clearly set in a fantasy environment to begin with.

More than anything, I think "consistency of context" is the key. If I am writing a story in a contemporary environment and I begin to introduce elements that are considered fantastic, I believe that I should give the reader and indication of why this sort of thing can happen in such a story. Of course, I suppose it also depends on the kinds of readers I'm after too.

On the other hand, if I am writing a story set in a fantastic land and I've already established certain parameters that I then willy-nilly break down (rather than deconstruct), that's a problem because I've shattered the consistency I created (of course, you have a fantasy within a fantasy.... like a world of wizards and clerics who are bombarded by fairyland, a world with entirely alien concepts to the established fantasy).

(Magical realism (popular in South America) does not really seem to offer any warnings about the sorts of "fantastic" events that occur).

Originally posted by Mallus In what ways can fantasy be realistic?

Depends.

It depends on what the designer hopes to achieve, the kind of audience she hopes to acquire, and the kind of money she hopes to make (cynical, I know, but I think we need to consider publishers and producers to a degree).

It also depends on how one defines "realism." If by that we mean a scientific explanation for magic, that's one thing. If we mean there being truly tough decisions for the characters and implications that transcend the idea of a fantasy world and touch Human issues, that's another.

I honestly believe that a movie like Pretty Woman is more a romance/fantasy than say Lord of the Rings. No, there are demons or diabolical rings in PW; there are also no signs of magic or anything like that. Instead, we get the highly improbable tale of a working girl who's picked up by a wealthy john who falls in love with and becomes a changed man (sort of) by movie's end, while she becomes his paramour. It's a modern fairy tale that doesn't really present any impactful comments or challenges of the Human Condition. In that sense, I would say it's not realistic.

By contrast, LotRs offers some intense issues about sacrifice, honor, commitment, determining what's right from what's convenient, and so on. Sure, it's pretty black and white, but it deals with much deeper issues than PW despite its fantasy trappings (and the ending's not exactly happy either).

I think that realism is really a smokescreen for people who believe that they are looking for depth when they're really just sort of comfortable with something simple and without the requirement of really looking at something. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily. Some people really don't want to read a book or watch a film that challenges their attitudes or ideas, or forces them to consider important issues when they want an escape.

"Realism," as perceived by most people, means that there's nothing really outrageous happening in the book or on screen. It means that we're not seeing people jumping from one car to another on moving highway, each vehicle traveling at 100 mph. It means, to many, that there's no magic and there are no acts that seem to defy the layperson's understanding of science. This, to me, isn't realism any more than having some magic is really fantasy.

Case in point: Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Many hail it as a "realistic" look at The Batman because it's gritty, violent, and clearly paints The Batman as a vigilante. What so many ignore is the fact that he's committing acts that are virtually impossible, that there's an alien flying around in it, and that is is filled with many mythological overtones which most people would argue are fantastic.

What makes TDKR realistic aren't the "grit" and "violence." If anything, it's the ambiguity it provides. Sometimes we're not sure if The Batman is a hero or a lunatic. We're not sure if there are any heroes. I think people pick up on this ambiguity, but because they're dealing with a "comic book," they hone in on the obvious stuff and utterly miss the point.

Same with A Song of Fire and Ice. The realism is not in the "grit" (I'm so tired of that word). It's in the ambiguity (among other things) of the environment, the people, and the themes.

Originally posted by Mallus In what ways should fantasy be realistic?

It depends.

If a person wants to tell a tale that has magic, simple morals, and lots of fun characters (like the Eddings' stuff), I'm all for it if it's well done.

If a person wants to offer a tale that forces me to question my ideas of morality, what defines a hero or villain, what is worth struggling for or dying for, or what it means to be a human being, and then wraps it up in a "fantastic setting," great!

Violence and "grit" have nothing to do with realism. I do not perceive Goodkind's Sword of Truth as realistic despite the violence and adult themes incorporated in the books. The violence is gratuitous, the books are filled with almost infantile soapboxes, and the characters are flat. It's a simple book that appears sophisticated because of the adult situations. To many, this is a more realistic fantasy when in truth, it's just violent, simple genre fantasy.

Again, it depends on the goals of the designer and the audience he's interested in attracting.

Originally posted by Mallus In what ways shouldn't fantasy be realistic?

It depends.

I think consistency is important, so that's sort of my answer.

Until Reign of Fire came out a while back, I always wanted to write a book about a group of kids who accidently discover the layer of a slumbering dragon, thereby beginning a prophecy about the Apocalypse. It would be set in modern times and would incorporate essentially modern environments, people and the like... with a dragon and with magic. Within the context that would be developed, I think it would have been fine.

It's when the material isn't presented in a consistent fashion that there's a problem.

Also, this is a "reader response" issue. As I've said before, some people have very clear ideas as to what they perceive as realistic and what they perceive as fantastic. Additionally, people have ideas as to what elements they like to see in their fantasy. Too much sophistication may not be appealing to some or may be too challenging for others.

 

[Hand of Evil]

What is real? Fantasy is created in the story, you escape from the real and become lost in the story, if that story is well written what does it matter, you don't care as you enjoy the story.

Now what real elements should be in a fantasy novel, it depends on the story but the characters, character interaction and dialog should come across as realism, you have to have people believe in those or no matter how fantastic the story the reader will not enjoy the story.

 

[FraserRonald]

I'd like to say, first off, that I agree with many of the Serge's points, so I didn't see any reason to repeat them. Lots of good thoughts and consideration went into the post. It's a good read.

The Serge: Please don't take my comments as a challenge to your opinions, rather consider that I was so intrigued by your ideas that I had to comment.

That and I really like to hear myself talk . . . er write . . . er you know what I mean!

I think that realism is really a smokescreen for people who believe that they are looking for depth when they're really just sort of comfortable with something simple and without the requirement of really looking at something. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily. Some people really don't want to read a book or watch a film that challenges their attitudes or ideas, or forces them to consider important issues when they want an escape.

Hmmm. I guess I would agree if you are talking about 'emotional realism' a la your point about Pretty Woman vs. LotR, but I don't see reflecting the real natural laws of our world, the physics, biology, chemistry, etc as any kind of cop-out. Quite the opposite. It's too easy to ignore realism because one is writing fantasy. I would say that much of the fantasy that is 'deep' (I would point to Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun and Guy Gavriel Kay's the Sarantine Mosaic as 'deep' in the philosophical and emotional sense) adheres to realism save in those areas in which the unreal or magical adds to the story.

I guess what it boils down to is that I don't think fantasy challenges readers with its concepts of magic or in those aspects of fantasy that differ from our reality but rather in the plot and characters presented. As such, I don't think expecting a certain amount of adherence to reality--and where there is no adherence to reality, consistency--is lazy. I believe writers who ignore reality and can only offer up 'this is fantasy' as a defence are the lazy ones unwilling to be challenged.

But that's just me!

"Realism," as perceived by most people, means that there's nothing really outrageous happening in the book or on screen. It means that we're not seeing people jumping from one car to another on moving highway, each vehicle traveling at 100 mph. It means, to many, that there's no magic and there are no acts that seem to defy the layperson's understanding of science. This, to me, isn't realism any more than having some magic is really fantasy.

Well, I'd rather not speak of other people's concepts of realism, though I will discuss my own. As you say, the chase scene from Matrix: Reloaded was not 'real,' however, it was consistent. When one discusses realism in science fiction and fantasy, I believe one must accept that by its very nature, science fiction and fantasy is not 'real.' However, much of it is 'realistic.' In my opinion, when considering fiction (of the printed or filmed type), there is a large difference between real and realistic. Dialogue in fiction is expected to be realistic but not real, meaning that it should sound (when read) like how people talk, but is not a verbatim transcription of a conversation. Much of our conversations are unimportant irrelevancies which should not be reproduced in dialogue (unless there is a good reason for it--characterization, it moves the plot forward, what have you).

I also think that fantasy and science fiction should be realistic but not real. The consistency of the setting is what makes, in my mind, speculative fiction realistic. No, in the real world, magic does not exist, and it does not shatter the setting's 'realism' if magic exists there as long as magic acts in a consistent manner.

I think that's what it all boils down to--consistency. We have natural laws in our world because our world behaves in a consistent manner. If not, we would have never been able to discern those laws. That's what I expect from a speculative fiction setting--consistency within its own established laws. And that's how I would rate a setting as realistic.

Same with A Song of Fire and Ice. The realism is not in the "grit" (I'm so tired of that word). It's in the ambiguity (among other things) of the environment, the people, and the themes.

True, it had realistic emotional depth. It also had a realistic setting, much of which--in its physical and social laws--mapped directly to our 'real' world, which I think may be another reason people consider the work realistic.

I can't agree more with you about 'grit' or sex and violence = realistic. You're dead on with that.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

 

[The Serge]

I'd like to say, first off, that I agree with many of the Serge's points, so I didn't see any reason to repeat them. Lots of good thoughts and consideration went into the post. It's a good read.

Thanks!

The Serge: Please don't take my comments as a challenge to your opinions, rather consider that I was so intrigued by your ideas that I had to comment.

Okay.

Hmmm. I guess I would agree if you are talking about 'emotional realism' a la your point about Pretty Woman vs. LotR, but I don't see reflecting the real natural laws of our world, the physics, biology, chemistry, etc as any kind of cop-out. Quite the opposite. It's too easy to ignore realism because one is writing fantasy.

I agree entirely. I am concentrating more on the elements of the "Human Condition" moreso than on the concepts of adhering to scientific principles.

I tend to appreciate texts/movies that challenge our concepts of our condition, our desires, perspectives of right and wrong and so forth. I also enjoy those that force us to take a stand regardless of the difficulty of the decision (like LotRs).

However, I think that this is more a strength of "fantasy" than it is a strength of "science fiction." I think that "fantasy" attempts to address the gaps in the human soul that respond to religious concepts. While sci-fi does this as well, my experience is that it's more philosophical than religious and tends to be more concrete than theoretical.

I guess what it boils down to is that I don't think fantasy challenges readers with its concepts of magic or in those aspects of fantasy that differ from our reality but rather in the plot and characters presented.

Yes!

Well, I'd rather not speak of other people's concepts of realism, though I will discuss my own. As you say, the chase scene from Matrix: Reloaded was not 'real,' however, it was consistent. When one discusses realism in science fiction and fantasy, I believe one must accept that by its very nature, science fiction and fantasy is not 'real.' However, much of it is 'realistic.'

My experience has been that a lot of people do not associate depth to fantasy and sci-fi because they can't get past the actions and concepts that come across on the screen or in the language.

For example, a lot of people miss the socio-economic commentaries (however simplistic) in the various Star Trek incarnations because they can't get past the fact that the shows and films are set in the future and feature characters flying around in a spaceship in space. I think that most people (until recently, perhaps) don't see the real issues that permeate most fantasy and sci-fi because the images aren't "real" or do not reflect their (limited) concepts of of what "real" is.

In my opinion, when considering fiction (of the printed or filmed type), there is a large difference between real and realistic. Dialogue in fiction is expected to be realistic but not real, meaning that it should sound (when read) like how people talk, but is not a verbatim transcription of a conversation. Much of our conversations are unimportant irrelevancies which should not be reproduced in dialogue (unless there is a good reason for it--characterization, it moves the plot forward, what have you).

These are excellent points.

I also think that fantasy and science fiction should be realistic but not real. The consistency of the setting is what makes, in my mind, speculative fiction realistic. No, in the real world, magic does not exist, and it does not shatter the setting's 'realism' if magic exists there as long as magic acts in a consistent manner.

See above.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Thanks for reading my thoughts and sharing your own!

 

[Ranger REG]

I thought of posting this in the current Ice and Fire thread, then thought the better of it. So here goes, in its own thread.

What's the role/place of "realism" in fantasy fiction?

In what ways can fantasy be realistic?

In what ways should fantasy be realistic?

In what ways shouldn't fantasy be realistic?

An enormously broad set of questions, eh? With no right answers, certainly. But maybe an interesting topic to discuss.

To be brutally honest, I don't like to use the term "realism" or "reality" when it comes to a fantasy world. It's all subjective to me. While I live in what I call it the "real world" where the laws of physics is applied everyday, in a "fantasy world" her denizen's perception of realism may difer.

"Plausibility" is a much better term. It makes it easier to believe any event or phenomenom that occured in the fantasy world that can never exist in our real world, most especially when magic becomes a commonplace in the environment.

 

[rbingham2000]

Mainly, you can create any rules you like for how your fantasy world works -- but then you have to stick to those rules to the end, or else the audience/readers will hate you.

Magic is often used as an explanation for why the fantasy realm is different from the world we live in. So one has to consider the following questions concerning magic:

• Where does magic come from?
• How does magic work?
• Why does magic work the way it does and not some other way?
• What can you do with magic -- and what can't you do?
• Can magic be defeated? If so, how can it be defeated; and if not, why aren't the magic-users in charge?
• How do other people view magic and magic-users?
• What is the price a magic-user must pay for using magic?

For other questions like this one, I strongly recommend "Patricia C. Wrede's Worldbuilding Questions," which exists in several forms on the web.