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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FraserRonald" data-source="post: 1084723" data-attributes="member: 7892">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!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!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.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.</blockquote>

Verification