Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9541582" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The point, then, is that it isn't just a theoretical thing--you do in fact in practice accept that there are times where higher resemblance to a physical-world situation would be worse than a very slight sacrifice of that resemblance in order to reap major gains in another area (in this case, the entirely-narrative concept of "pacing").Hence, complaining that something is done for a narrative reason isn't, in isolation, a valid dismissal, yet you have done so in this thread, more than once. That's why [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and others (like me) are so surprised that you would do anything whatever, even if pressed hard, that pursues anything narrative at all. In order to address this gap, you have to actually add more, not just "well that's narrative-driven, so it's bad." The argument needs at least one of (a) why the sacrifice to the resemblance-to-physical-world would be too great, (b) why the gain elsewhere is not of sufficient value to justify the associated sacrifice, or (c) why this specific narrative goal isn't as valuable as claimed.In the absence of that, it really is quite shocking that you have, repeatedly, rejected anything narrative at all, solely on the basis that it is narrative-driven, and yet you do in fact do narrative-driven things yourself. Whether you do them while holding your nose, wishing there were another way, is not nearly as relevant as the fact that you will, in fact, accept some, very limited, purposeful sacrifices to verisimilitude/realism/etc.Up until this point, I genuinely believed you held that absolutely maximal verisimilitude/realism/etc. was always best, no matter what sacrifices had to be made elsewhere. That if you learned there was something further you could sacrifice in order to get even the tiniest gain of verisimilitude/realism/etc., you would not only do it, you would do it gladly regardless of the cost. That is, demonstrably, not true--and it now means a number of points you had previously made need to be revisited, because your position is now not "absolute maximization of verisimilitude is always the best state"--but rather "maximizing verisimilitude without too much sacrifice in other useful areas", which is a much more fruitful field of discussion, albeit one that is also much more nuanced.</blockquote>

Verification