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: 2006-09-10 04:21 am (UTC)I don't need realism. I do need what happens in the story to make sense to me. The characters have to behave in a way that seems consistent both with themselves and with the environment they're in. Things that obviously don't make sense tend to make it hard from me to be drawn into the story. What kind of things do that depends on the story in question. If the story is supposedly set in the future of our world, and the science in it is explained, the explanation had better not violate science as we know it without giving a reason. I don't go around trying to pick holes in the science in fiction, but if the holes are so big that they try to swallow me up while I'm reading, that's likely to be a problem for me. If the story takes place in a historical setting, the characters should have attitudes that are appropriate to their time, not ours. Stories set in the present and supposedly in our world need to be more realistic than stories set in imaginary places. If the story is about some subject that I know a lot about, it usually needs to be more realistic to work for me. If there are birds in a story, for example, it distacts me when they do things that are totally inappropriate for the species in question. (A vulture nest in a tree for example, when they're really cavity nesters.) Whatever the setting, I need to be able to believe that the characters would do the things they do. If the story is told well, and I care about what happens to the characters, that's going to make me more foregiving of things that don't make sense. Besides liking stories where I care about the characters, I like stories that make me think about something, whether it be possiblities for the future or the ways that people interact or something else. If thinking about the ideas in the story makes the story fall apart, that doesn't work for me.