Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4460935" data-attributes="member: 18280">The first paragraph doesn't relate to my point, so I can see that I am not communicating it effectively.&nbsp; &quot;In world&quot; logic doesn't mandate that a work be of a particular genre.&nbsp; Cross-genre work also can -- and should -- have &quot;in world&quot; logic.&quot;In world&quot; logic means that there is an underlying set of assumptions about why the world works as it does, and that specific cases are then extrapolated from those underlying assumptions.&nbsp; This is, in reality, often a messy process.&nbsp; For example, within the Star Wars universe, there was an underlying assumption that there was a mysterious Force that allowed those who learned its ways to do things that would seem either &quot;psychic&quot; or &quot;magical&quot; (depending upon your outlook).&nbsp; Much of what happens in the classic trilogy is founded upon this bit of &quot;in world&quot; logic.&nbsp; However, the classic trilogy was dismissed by some as &quot;fantasy&quot; or &quot;not real science fiction&quot; as a result, so in Episode 1, Lucas introduced the midichlorians.&nbsp; These don't violate the &quot;in world&quot; logic of the classic trilogy, but they certainly shift it.&nbsp; For example, we learn in Star Wars that the Force gives you power over weak minds.&nbsp; The presence/absence of midichlorians begs the question, though:&nbsp; Are weak minds weak because they lack a high midichlorian count?&nbsp; IOW, is weak-mindedness something that can be detected through technology in the Star Wars universe?Similarly, Blade Runner (either the novel or the film) has a set (different for each) of &quot;in world&quot; assumptions that the work hangs on.&nbsp; In both cases, the &quot;in world&quot; assumptions disallow, say, Godzilla showing up just because it would be neat, or Deckard being able to perform supernatural combat stunts that don't happen to be supernatural.A good hint that something fails on the &quot;in world&quot; logic front is that, when you begin to ask what something is supposed to represent, you are repeatedly told to just not think about it.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4460935, member: 18280"] The first paragraph doesn't relate to my point, so I can see that I am not communicating it effectively. "In world" logic doesn't mandate that a work be of a particular genre. Cross-genre work also can -- and should -- have "in world" logic. "In world" logic means that there is an underlying set of assumptions about why the world works as it does, and that specific cases are then extrapolated from those underlying assumptions. This is, in reality, often a messy process. For example, within the Star Wars universe, there was an underlying assumption that there was a mysterious Force that allowed those who learned its ways to do things that would seem either "psychic" or "magical" (depending upon your outlook). Much of what happens in the classic trilogy is founded upon this bit of "in world" logic. However, the classic trilogy was dismissed by some as "fantasy" or "not real science fiction" as a result, so in Episode 1, Lucas introduced the midichlorians. These don't violate the "in world" logic of the classic trilogy, but they certainly shift it. For example, we learn in Star Wars that the Force gives you power over weak minds. The presence/absence of midichlorians begs the question, though: Are weak minds weak because they lack a high midichlorian count? IOW, is weak-mindedness something that can be detected through technology in the Star Wars universe? Similarly, Blade Runner (either the novel or the film) has a set (different for each) of "in world" assumptions that the work hangs on. In both cases, the "in world" assumptions disallow, say, Godzilla showing up just because it would be neat, or Deckard being able to perform supernatural combat stunts that don't happen to be supernatural. A good hint that something fails on the "in world" logic front is that, when you begin to ask what something is supposed to represent, you are repeatedly told to just not think about it. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification