Controversy Time
Monday, September 4th, 2006 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniThis subject has come up in three different conversations, under three different guises in the past 24 hours, so I thought I'd bring it here and see what y'all think.
What, exactly, is with the need to have stories be "realistic"? I mean -- a news story, that has to be "realistic," because you're reporting facts; events that actually happened, words that were actually spoken, actions that were actually taken or not taken.
A fictional story, though -- note the use of the word fictional, as in science fiction -- that can be any dern thing the author wants it to be, provided she can bring it off. Back when I was learning how to write, there was this thing that readers brought to a story called, "The willing suspension of disbelief," which is that piece of human consciousness that says, "Tell me a story."
It's not my job as a science fiction writer to teach piloting, or math, or genetics, or, heck, the fine art of gambling. It's my job to tell the best dern story I can, right now, and if I do it right, and don't jostle the elbow of that willing suspension of disbelief, then the story will deliver an emotional punch far different, and (IMNSHO) far deeper than that delivered by a "factual" story.
To recap -- I don't care if the premise of "The Cold Equations" is "realistically" flawed, or if the "realistic" math "proves" that that 98 pounds of extra cargo wouldn't make a bit of difference in the med ship reaching its port. What I care about is the melant'i play -- the working out of the relationships; the exploration of human error, and necessity.
What about you? Does a story have to be "realistic" in terms of what we know now in order to engage your interest and your heart? Why or why not?
What, exactly, is with the need to have stories be "realistic"? I mean -- a news story, that has to be "realistic," because you're reporting facts; events that actually happened, words that were actually spoken, actions that were actually taken or not taken.
A fictional story, though -- note the use of the word fictional, as in science fiction -- that can be any dern thing the author wants it to be, provided she can bring it off. Back when I was learning how to write, there was this thing that readers brought to a story called, "The willing suspension of disbelief," which is that piece of human consciousness that says, "Tell me a story."
It's not my job as a science fiction writer to teach piloting, or math, or genetics, or, heck, the fine art of gambling. It's my job to tell the best dern story I can, right now, and if I do it right, and don't jostle the elbow of that willing suspension of disbelief, then the story will deliver an emotional punch far different, and (IMNSHO) far deeper than that delivered by a "factual" story.
To recap -- I don't care if the premise of "The Cold Equations" is "realistically" flawed, or if the "realistic" math "proves" that that 98 pounds of extra cargo wouldn't make a bit of difference in the med ship reaching its port. What I care about is the melant'i play -- the working out of the relationships; the exploration of human error, and necessity.
What about you? Does a story have to be "realistic" in terms of what we know now in order to engage your interest and your heart? Why or why not?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 08:11 pm (UTC)I think the key words here are "in order to engage your interest and your heart." To me, this is what fiction is about.
Good science fiction is driven both by interesting extrapolation and by engaging characterization. It seems to me that lots of people, lately, are getting hung up on precisely what "extrapolation" means; they get hot under the collar about which sorts of extrapolation are and aren't acceptable or, for the purposes of this discussion, realistic. This speaks to an interest in the quality of the science in science fiction. But it doesn't speak to the quality of the fiction in a broader sense. And, personally, I think they're emphasizing the wrong thing or, at least, they're concentrating on only one half of the equation, which makes for an imabalanced perspective. If the extrapolation—no matter what kind—is interesting and internally consistent (which many respondents here have mentioned), then it'll work for me.
The point that another respondent made—about how once you accept FTL travel, other stuff is, at the very least, permissable—is to the point of the question, too. If we can imagine it, we can write about it. In fact, I think we should write about it, about how it affects history and society and personal relationships. Whether or not something is "realistic" or "believable" is totally subjective; everyone's metric is different. Scaling our stories according to someone else's idea of what is and isn't realistic is just deadly. It's a recipe for failure. One must write to one's own standard; either the markets will buy the story or they won't, but you as a writer have told the story you need to tell.
So I guess my thinking is, if a writer can make her argument convincingly to me (for whatever measure of "convincing" I may need), I'll be engaged. And as a writer, I'll do the best I can to sell the realism of my work, but that means making my story internally consistent, which is how realism stands or falls in fiction. If I do my job, then my work will be invisible to the reader and the story will work on its own merits.
Some people aren't going to buy FTL drive or interspecies communication or Jurassic Park-level genetic manipulation. They won't buy your fiction no matter what. Those who are willing to suspend their disbelief will go on the ride with you for as long as you can sustain their attention.