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 10:07 pm (UTC)It might be important to note that I am not a fan of science-driven science fiction, with a handful of exceptions. I find long scientific explanations make a story drag. I end of dropping the book and picking up something else. When I want a lot of math, I read a textbook. I also find it a bit ridiculous to assume that we know everything there is to know about physics or anything else, for that matter. Science is changing all the time, and what we "know" today is a far cry from what our great-grandparents "knew".