Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 1081483" data-attributes="member: 4049">I'll go beyond just literary pieces, and incorporate movies, games, and other modes of expression in some of my responses.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).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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification