# Is realism viable?



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Mar 27, 2014)

I recently had a work critiqued and while the critique raised some interesting points, it also made me question one of the fundamental qualities of my work. I like to pride myself that my Fantasy is realistic. You won't find super-ninjas or Die Hard action in my story. And a lot of the critique seemed to revolve around that. 

In the scene my character breaks into a house, using an old set of doors on the first floor (the attic used to have a pulley and doors for storage purposes). She then takes out the guard and lets the other thieves in. The reader questioned why they didn't all climb inside and then escape via the roofs. The obvious reason is realism. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop requires quite a bit of skill and is very hard if you're carrying loot. Not only that, but the roofs in the city are slanted (like most medieval roofs) and if you'd jump from roof to roof you'd likely slip off or even break the shingles (and then fall off). Jumping from roof to roof makes a lot of noise too (at least with slanted roofs, as you have to practically throw yourself against the slanted ledge and then grab something for support). And it's easier to see a group running over the roofs than it is to see a single person in dark clothes pick a lock and slip inside (in seconds), using those first story doors. Opening the front door is more visible but you can get inside in seconds, which reduces the change of being caught. And these burglars aren't _that _trained. They can pick a lock and they know the basics of sneaking but they're just poor people from the slums. 

This is just one example. As you see, I really put a lot of thought into this burglary but one of the main points of critique was that I didn't seem to have put much thought into it. Because the "roof option" is more exciting (by Hollywood standards at least). And because it seems more convenient (medieval burglary isn't convenient!). 



Spoiler: 2nd example



There was another example that involved garroting a guard. The reader suggested he threw her over his shoulder or at least kicked behind him. Now I do agree, I probably should have made it more of a struggle. But the "thrown over his shoulder" option is again something that doesn't seem very realistic. We're talking about a medieval mercenary here (so he's not a Jiujitsu expert). I had him react by trying to grab the wire (obviously, the sudden garroting panicked him). It's a very inefficient way of trying to escape... but people panic when they suddenly have steel wire crushing their larynx.



So to get to the point - is writing a realistic story viable? Because a lot of people seem to prefer Hollywood-action over realism. And a lot of people think certain things are possible when realistically they're not. So as a result they expect you to use a different (more convenient) solution. Or they get bored because they expect everything to be "ultra-bad-ass". I mean jumping over roofs has become such a Fantasy staple (for thieves) that people expect you to use it. 

So what are your opinions here? I know there's a few people here that enjoy realism too, so that's why I ask here. Also, if by any chance the person who reviewed my writing sees this, I did like your critique and you raised some very good points. But when it comes to the story, I feel like we aren't on the same page (and there's nothing wrong with that).


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

Eh, it's a matter of style. It's all a matter of taste, some people like realism, other's don't. Now, I personally don't, I feel it constrains my writing and I don't have nearly enough knowledge to write a heavily realistic story, but this is just my personal taste. It's the same thing as preferring tea over coffee or vice versa.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 27, 2014)

When you receive a critique like the one you did, what the critiquer is really saying is:

Did you think this through?

It sounds like your answer is, "Yes."

The proper response is to let that be your answer and move on.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Mar 27, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> When you receive a critique like the one you did, what the critiquer is really saying is:
> 
> Did you think this through?
> 
> ...



It's not really the critique that's bothering me, because that's one individual expressing his opinion. I just wonder if the general public (or a segment thereof) can accept realistic fantasy. Because obviously, it's a bit less spectacular at first sight. Things are still spectacular - but you have to understand why they are. You have to realize just how hard it is to pick a lock to appreciate the art. Else, it's just a skill that _every _thief should have, lest they be seen as incompetent. In reality, there are plenty of thieves and burglars who cannot open certain types of locks (or any lock at all). It's just that video games and Hollywood make it seem so easy that it's lost some of its appeal for those who don't know how hard that actually is. 

The same goes for sword-fighting. Every farmhand becomes a master duelist as he travels the world. All it takes is an hour of practice every day for a few months. That's what many stories have us believe. Truth is, it takes years to become any good at it. You might see an improvement after a few months but you won't be a champion. Another Hollywood staple is the hero defeating several enemies in close quarters combat. In reality, a two vs. one is almost impossible to win - unless it's two untrained bumpkins versus a master. 

So people lose appreciation for the smaller things (that are actually very difficult), because they believe (or want to believe) that more is possible. Obviously there's a market for realism, but I'm talking about Fantasy in particular now. Because of all the genres out there, Fantasy is best known for its tendency to veer into the unrealistic.


----------



## Devor (Mar 27, 2014)

This reminds me too much of LOTR.  The biggest complaint you see about that epic is "Why didn't they just fly in on the eagles?"  The problems with that solution are overwhelming, but people don't see them.  The only mistake Tolkein made in this regard was not including the following scene:

Frodo:  "Can't we fly in on the eagles?"
Gandalf:  "They'd be shot down by the massive orc army living in Mordor."

You can try a similar solution.

Thief 1:  "Can't we jump the rooftops?"
Thief 2:  "Do you know how much noise that would make?  People live right under those roofs."

As for a more abstract answer, the truth is no, you can't be fully realistic in literature.  Reality is long and boring.  There's too many details.  Things move too slowly.  Fiction is:  Cops find dead body.  Solve case within twenty-four hours.  Reality is, man kills wife.  Nine years later police arrest him.  Trial begins another two years later.  I mean geesh, you can't have a good TV drama doing that.  There's levels of unrealism that you need to have some slack with, like those timelines, and composite characters.  One character does everything when in reality they would be done by a dozen different people.  How many people work at the typical job site?  But then you'd have to develop a dozen different characters.  That isn't going to work.

The best you can do is pick something to be realistic about and help readers to understand, especially if you think the "accepted trope" is kind of absurd, like with running on rooftops.  Take the opportunity to let that come across.  Take the chance to correct the misconception, make readers a little smarter, and tighten the amount of slack we all take with these "creative liberties" by raising the bar.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 27, 2014)

I disagree with Devor.

You absolutely can be as realistic as you want.  A good writer can make the reader accept any approach you want to take.   Might be a good idea to start your story with a scene that establish the realism of your world in order to set reader expectations.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2014)

There is a lot of literature that is realistic, and people read it. It comes down to individual tastes.

As for Tolkien, I do think he should have addressed it. He did in a roundabout way - it was of paramount importance to keep Sauron from knowing where the ring was and being able to focus his attention on it. Flying it into Mordor on a giant eagle would have accomplished the opposite of that, and likely been the doom of Middle Earth.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

Eh, I always interpreted that as it would make a pretty poor story to just air drop the macguffin into the volcano. Anything else is just justification.


----------



## Devor (Mar 27, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I disagree with Devor.



It's accepted that authors even use composite characters when writing their memoirs.  I would say that it's reasonable to think full realism is an unrealistic expectation in almost any lengthy piece written as a narrative.  But I very much encouraged him to go forward with his story, so I don't know why you would make a point of announcing your disagreement.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Eh, I always interpreted that as it would make a pretty poor story to just air drop the macguffin into the volcano. Anything else is just justification.



Justification is exactly what you need in a story. If the reader comes away with the impression that you only did X because otherwise it would be a poor story, than that's a poor story. The reasoning for not flying it in makes perfect sense, and like I said, Tolkien does address the need for it to remain hidden.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

You only need justification if someone asks.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> You only need justification if someone asks.



Readers are smart. You have to decide whether you need a justification while you're writing, and assuming readers won't ask is a mistake.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

Just as much as assuming they will.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Just as much as assuming they will.



On the contrary, readers are smart, as I said. At least some of them will ask. Conflating the two assumptions makes no sense if you think about the distinction for a moment.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

The concept of willing suspension of disbelief is based directly on the fact that they will not ask.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> The concept of willing suspension of disbelief is based directly on the fact that they will not ask.



This is incorrect. However, someone else may wish to take up the baton while I get some work done. Thanks for your input, Queshire.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 27, 2014)

Devor has it right. You said you have a reader's critique. If you get a few such, then I'd say it was something that needs addressing, and Devor's suggestion is the one that occurred to me as well. It could be done in dialog or with internal dialog.

But you also generalize the question. On the broader level, I have really helpful advice: realism is good if it's realistic. You're welcome. '-) [pirate wink]

Seriously, when you think it through, you consider alternative ways of solving the problem you've presented to your characters. Realism means they try other solutions and they fail, or they consider other solutions and reject them. You can bring a lot of that into the story, which councils and long internal monologues, or you can just touch on it to show the reader you've been paying attention (Devor's approach, which is hereby formally named the Devor Solution).

Where you can get into trouble is when you have the characters roll along on the one path that works without sending them down blind alleys and into ambushes. Heck, in the present case, you could even have them try to escape via rooftops only to have it go wrong. I'm sure that's not appropriate for your plot, but you can see the possibilities. Perhaps the reader is simply objecting to the lack of consideration of those other solutions.

Finally, you do bring up a valid point. If we go for too much historical realism, we risk losing the reader, simply because most readers carry with them all sorts of misconceptions about the Middle Ages ... and about horses, about military logistics, about how arrows work, and about all the other things so well explained in the forums here. Dealing with all of them would seriously derail the story, but dealing with none of them opens you up to the "not realistic" criticism you received. It's a balancing act. I've fallen a thousand times, but it's the only way to get from this end to The End.


----------



## Devor (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Just as much as assuming they will.



I don't know why "justifying" something would be a mistake, even if the readers wouldn't ask.  If the justification is a strong one, then you've added to the story.  If the justification is "weak," which I don't think applies to the Tolkein case, but if it's weak then you've lampshaded it, which can be just as effective.

But you've got to know your audience.  Some people will ask and others won't.  The question is which group is reading your book.  The only thing to do is be consistent.  Make it clear early on what kind of liberties you're going to take.  Consider it part of the "tone" of your work.  I think most people here are shooting for a level of realism that's at least a little higher than Tolkein's.  It makes sense for most of us to assume as much from our readers, and to take a moment to address at least the complaints that a well-read reader might have, like those about eagles or rooftops.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

I admit it's a bit of a simplified version of the concept, but it basically a reader understands going in that a work of fiction can not accurately map to real life and so they afford the work of fiction an amount of lee way to be unrealistic, to not work to the laws and expectations of real life without the need for any explanation. Basically, they do not ask about such a thing. Now, a writer with knowledge of the expectations of the readers can play around with willing suspension of disbelief. Think of it like a currency. The closer something is to real life the less willing suspension it "costs," if you can sell one unrealistic thing to the reader, such as traveling to a different world through a wardrobe, then things similar to that also costs less. The opposite also goes true, with things further from what is accepted costing more. However, if you have enough willing suspension of disbelief saved up that you can afford to throw something in without any explanation or justification then none is needed.

The existence of the debate over the Eagles in the first place is evidence that for everyone that asks about the Eagles, Tolkein was over drawn at the disbelief bank. He could have included more explanation in the story for why the Eagles wouldn't work and therefore cause more people to be willing to accept it, make it cheap enough that he could afford it with the disbelief he had left, but he didn't. Those explanations you provided, they're just connections to other aspects of the story that your willing suspension of disbelief has sold you on making the problem with Eagles cheap enough that you can accept it. Others won't see those connections and so the Eagles remain a plot hole large enough that they question it. Mine is the same way, justifying to me why I should accept it. Now that I think about it more, I was wrong to imply that my interpretation wasn't just justifying it, but hey, I'm ok with it just justifying it.


----------



## Devor (Mar 27, 2014)

Queshire said:


> The existence of the debate over the Eagles in the first place is evidence that for everyone that asks about the Eagles, Tolkein was over drawn at the disbelief bank. He could have included more explanation in the story for why the Eagles wouldn't work and therefore cause more people to be willing to accept it, make it cheap enough that he could afford it with the disbelief he had left, but he didn't. Those explanations you provided, they're just connections to other aspects of the story that your willing suspension of disbelief has sold you on making the problem with Eagles cheap enough that you can accept it. Others won't see those connections and so the Eagles remain a plot hole large enough that they question it.



I appreciate the explanation, and you make a good point.  Specifically with Tolkein, though, I'm not sure that it represents him being overdrawn.  I don't think most of the people talking about eagles thought of it themselves but are just repeating something they saw online.  And people find it funny that a blockbuster trilogy (because people think of the movies) would have a big glaring plot hole.  But it doesn't.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 27, 2014)

I agree with Devor. No story can be completely realistic. You have to choose your style and tone and through telling the story reinforce that, which also means addressing questions the reader will have which all start with the word 'Why?' All story's and especially fantasy and scifi must establish limits to what can and cannot be done. Without establishing them the reader will ask Why? and Why not?

Yes, it's obvious you thought things out in your story, but did you convey those rationales to to reader in an effective way? As Devor said, you have cut the reader off at the pass and address the questions the reader will ask, by answering them, stalling, or by hanging a lantern on them. If no answers are given, then the reader will make assumptions and those assumptions are probably not going to line up with what you have in mind.

Again no story can be 100% realistic, but you can fake it enough to give the illusion of realism. As long as you're internally consistent you're golden.

As for realism, this is a video on what too much realism gets you. It's from Robot Chicken but it makes a nice point.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 27, 2014)

Devor said:


> I don't know why "justifying" something would be a mistake, even if the readers wouldn't ask.  If the justification is a strong one, then you've added to the story.  If the justification is "weak," which I don't think applies to the Tolkein case, but if it's weak then you've lampshaded it, which can be just as effective.
> 
> But you've got to know your audience.  Some people will ask and others won't.  The question is which group is reading your book.  The only thing to do is be consistent.  Make it clear early on what kind of liberties you're going to take.  Consider it part of the "tone" of your work.  I think most people here are shooting for a level of realism that's at least a little higher than Tolkein's.  It makes sense for most of us to assume as much from our readers, and to take a moment to address at least the complaints that a well-read reader might have, like those about eagles or rooftops.



If justifying leads to doing more research than you need to do taking time from writing, if justifying leads to exposition and technobabble within the story that takes you out of the plot, if your attempts at justifying causes you to realize just how unrealistic you’re really cool idea is when without that information it would have fallen perfectly fine within willing suspension of disbelief for you and a lot of your readers than I think that it WOULD be a mistake.

What I’m worried about is prospective writers romanticizing justification and realism and their writing suffering for it. When used in moderation there is nothing wrong with going “This is cool, screw science,” or “This is unrealistic, but it makes the story better for it,” I know that I don’t know nearly enough to try to write a fully realistic story, and I’m fine with this. I don’t try for perfection. All I want to do is to tell a story, to say some sort of message.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with trying to write Hard Sci-fi or Fantasy, it is a style choice and by themselves are can not be wrong. What is wrong is A) when writers view it not as a style choice but think of it as an absolute and find their imagination limited as a result, and B) when those who favor a realistic style looking down on those who favor a more abstract one as lesser. My whole point in this thread is to caution against falling into those traps.


----------



## Addison (Mar 27, 2014)

Part of writing fiction of any kind, horror, sci-fi, fantasy etc, is trusting the reader to fill in the gaps. Now in the first post you described why your MC did it the way she did. Those points can't be filled by the reader's imagination. If you'd put in the reason with interior dialogue or two character's talking then it would have been explained without taking away from the story.

I believe realism is viable. It makes the story real, valid and solid which helps pull the readers out of their seat and into the world you created. Anyone who prefers Hollywood-action seems to enjoy seeing things go BOOM than really seeing the characters reach their goal and beat the bad guy. Realism is a good tool to use, it has a time and a place in every story whether it's a huge ingredient or just a sprinkle. It helps set a foundation to build off of. Even if your realism is just the medieval setting, it's good. 

So realism gets my vote.


----------



## Reaver (Mar 27, 2014)

The eagles are a deus ex machina for Frodo and Sam to escape as a crumbling, erupting Mt. Doom loomed above them, so who cares about realism there? 

I want to know why Tolkien didn't spend more time with the Haradrim barbarians who had to stay behind and dig out their comrades who got crapped on by mÃ»makil.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 27, 2014)

The problem with that critique lies in your reader not sharing your vision. There could be several reasons for that and it may not be the fault of the reader (but it could be).

It's also possible that your writing doesn't feel consistently realistic, then when fantastical possibilities are pushed aside for realism, it doesn't feel right. Or, it could simply be your reader expecting different from fantasy stories. You'd know better than any of us. 

As far as how much realism you can convey in a story, you can do a lot. I agree that no story can be completely realistic, but that's because most aspects of daily life are mundane and boring. Take dialogue for example. Good dialogue is conversation's greatest hits. We don't want to read small talk. We want drama. We want tension.That applies to most any story element. 

However, you can still write with a high level of realism and make the story interesting and engaging. Take "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. The story is a historical portrayal of the battle of Gettysburg dramatized through characters, some of which are based on real life personas. Shaara didn't show everything in the daily lives of soldiers. He didn't detail them eating every meal, marching endlessly, or sitting behind fieldwork fortifications for hours on end with no combat. Instead, he showed us the the engaging bits and slices of dramatic action through the eyes of characters.

So, can you be realistic? Yes, but you need to show the realism in engaging ways, not through mundane behaviors. Give us your greatest hits.


----------



## The Dark One (Mar 29, 2014)

Devor said:


> This reminds me too much of LOTR.  The biggest complaint you see about that epic is "Why didn't they just fly in on the eagles?"  The problems with that solution are overwhelming, but people don't see them.  The only mistake Tolkein made in this regard was not including the following scene:
> 
> Frodo:  "Can't we fly in on the eagles?"
> Gandalf:  "They'd be shot down by the massive orc army living in Mordor."



Gwaihir should have been Gandalf's first solution, having used him to escape Orthanc.

I still love LOTR though, despite that outrageous plot flaw / deus ex machina to save Frodo and Sam at the end.

On topic, I prefer any sort of fantasy or sci-fi to be plausible. It must be plausible within its own story rules, but the closer it is to our own reality then the better I like it. Magic can exist but I prefer it to be smaller in scope and less godlike in application.

Everyone's different though. I was watching a fantasy film in the cinema once and near the end these people climbing a castle wall are hiding just below the parapet as guards go past with dogs, and the kid in front of me whispers to his mate: 'Oh that's ridiculous...the dogs would have sniffed them for sure!'

The kid's just sat through all that magic and dragons but he won't cop the fact that dogs might not sniff people hiding.


----------



## psychotick (Mar 29, 2014)

Hi,

Just to weigh in on LOTR, there's no reason at all why the eagles couldn't have carried them in. Eagles can fly high and very fast. Orcs on the ground therefore don't matter at all. And only the ring wraths on their dragon thingies could have fought them in the air. The explanation I heard for it was that the eagles weren't going to go there while the dark lord was around.

As for the OP's two scenes. I'd simply write a line for the first "- sometimes they'd escape across the rooftops, but here the buildings were too far apart." And for the second "- he held him firmly with the garrot making it impossible for him to struggle." 

Job done.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 29, 2014)

I'm fine with realism either way, so long as the story is good. I try to have some of it in my own work, but its not an essential thing for me.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 1, 2014)

As to the eagles bit (since everybody else jumped in on this), I'd say Gandalf didn't take this route for a very good reason:  giant eagles verses flying Nazghul.  The Nazghul would have sensed the ring and closed in en-mass.  They had reputations for sorcery - the witch king was probably a near match for Gandalf in his own right, and all of them were pretty much unkillable as long as the one ring remained intact.

With regards to the OP, I'd go with the suggestion of an earlier poster in this thread:  have one (stupid) thief ask about jumping to a nearby rooftop, and his smarter companion shooting the idea down - too noisy, roof too steeply pitched.  Maybe mention a thief who tried something like that years earlier and broke his neck.


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 1, 2014)

But Gandalf says to Gwaihir, we have need of speed faster than the wings of the Nazgul. Then Gwaihir replies: The north wind blows but we shall outfly it.

Thus it is established that Gwaihir (and at least some of his kin) is faster than the Nazgul and might therefore have flown in from way above to deposit the ring to the sammath naur.


----------



## Devor (Apr 1, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> But Gandalf says to Gwaihir, we have need of speed faster than the wings of the Nazgul. Then Gwaihir replies: The north wind blows but we shall outfly it.
> 
> Thus it is established that Gwaihir (and at least some of his kin) is faster than the Nazgul and might therefore have flown in from way above to deposit the ring to the sammath naur.



I didn't mean to start this kind of back and forth.  But I'll go a round.

 - Frodo's goal was to go in undetected.  To Sauron, he was a worthless hobbit.  Even when Sauron found Frodo, he could only imagine Frodo to be a spy, not one to trust with the one ring.  But Sauron and his spies would have been watching the eagles, and there's only one reason a group of eagles would try to dive bomb into Mordor.  He would've seen them, known the ring had come to them, and have had his forces waiting on Mt. Doom.

 - There's a lot of factors in determining whether the Nazgul could catch an eagle coming to Mordor with the ring.  The eagles might move faster overall, but that beast the Nazgul rides might have enough burst speed to catch one.  The Nazgul have sorcery.  The Nazgul would have the home turf advantage, as well as orcs and artillery they could call upon, and wights, like those they were turning Frodo into.  Speed doesn't beat numbers, mixed weaponry and position.

 - Could an eagle fly as swift and as high and as far with a ring bearer on its back?  What about while breathing in the smoke over Mt. Doom and the thin air of Mordor?  They swooped in, picked up Frodo, and then, believe me, with the oxygen needs of a bird, they stopped somewhere.  By the time they got to Mt. Doom they would've been easy prey.

 - It's not hard for a marksman to shoot down a flying target with the right weaponry.  Not at all.

 - There's no reason to assume the eagles would've shown any resistance to the power of the ring, let alone the kind of resistance it would take to destroy the ring.  Even if the eagle wasn't the ring bearer, but only served as the mount, the ring bearer would be completely helpless if the eagle turned on him mid flight to seize the ring.

 - Even if someone could still reasonably argue those points and believe it might work, there is plenty of reason to assume that the characters, including the eagles, would not be willing to risk it.


----------



## Malik (Apr 2, 2014)

You can't have 100% realism when you're dealing with a world where magic is standard operating procedure.

But when an author starts telling me something that is not magic, and that has absolutely no basis in reality, the spell is broken. I was reading something on Goodreads last year in which, in the opening scene, a character reached down into a pool of lava to retrieve . . . something. A sword, I think. I don't remember what he was trying to get, or even the name of the book, now; I just exited at that point. "Nope. No way. This narrator is lying." Reading it felt like listening to someone tell an aggrandizing lie about one of his buddies who is so super-awesome. 

So there's realism and realism. I'll forgive dragons and flying horses and sorcerers shooting fireballs at each other, but if you have an arrow sticking out of someone's stomach, heroes swinging 20-lb. anime-style swords, someone bouldering along a castle wall in armor (you know who you are and I hope you're reading this), then you don't know what the hell you're talking about and I have better things to do with my time than listen to you. Get your facts straight and get back to me. 

This is just me; your mileage may vary.


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 2, 2014)

Clutching at straws Devor...

The point is, Tolkien could have dispelled/precluded all the debate simply by adverting to the problem and dismissing it with just a couple of brush strokes.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 2, 2014)

I think realism in fiction is a very modern idea and not a very good one. I'm not sure why it's been sweeping through the fantasy genre in recent decades, but it strikes me as yet another example of the kind of "zero-sum" writing advice people enjoy peddling to young writers to make themselves seem like experts. 

"Your writing MUST be realistic!" Well, no, it mustn't. There's certainly a place for realistic fiction. There is a fanbase for them. If you like writing realistic fiction and you are aiming toward that fanbase then carry on. But if all fantasy were realistic I would immediately stop reading it. If realistic fantasy was the only fantasy that sold I would immediately stop writing. There's nothing that appeals to me about "realism". 

But I think some of the people who peddle "realism" simply misunderstand what it is they really mean. Because there is something that, on the surface, seems like realism but isn't and it is the foundation of storytelling. And that is credibility. The storyteller has to make the reader believe in the story he is telling, even if it isn't realistic. Tolkien called this "Secondary Belief". The reader believes in the story and the world of the story while within it because the storyteller has crafted such a credible experience of it. You can believe in, for example, a world covered in pink trees if the storyteller has done his job properly and made pink trees a credible thing within the story.

I think the main difference between "realism" and "credibility" is that the first is external and the latter is internal. Realism compares the world of the story to our own world. Credibility demands only that the world of the story be internally consistent and believable. Realism isn't necessarily a bad thing. It has its place in fiction. It's only when you start trying to apply it to all fiction that it goes wrong. Credibility can apply equally to any and all fiction without causing any problems because its criteria will be different for every story. I think that makes it a much more useful way to set a standard for yourself as a writer.


----------



## Devor (Apr 2, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> Clutching at straws Devor...



Handwaving only works in fiction.




> The point is, Tolkien could have dispelled/precluded all the debate simply by adverting to the problem and dismissing it with just a couple of brush strokes.



Hey!  That's what I said!


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 2, 2014)

Mythopoet,

Where are you seeing all this advice telling all fantasy writers to be realistic?

I haven't seen that advice at all, and I read a lot of advice about writing.  Ask Steerpike, if someone had come up with a rule that said, "Your writing must be realistic," I'd have stuck it on my must-do list already 

Seriously, the advice I've heard everywhere is much like you stated about credibility - you world must adhere to its internal logic.


----------



## Devor (Apr 2, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Where are you seeing all this advice telling all fantasy writers to be realistic?



I'm sure it's out there.  I went on a fantasy-forums search a while back, and a lot of them have members who pile up on that kind of advice.  Take your adherence to something like "tight writing" and add open condescension to people who disagree, and that's the internet in many other public forums.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 2, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> But I think some of the people who peddle "realism" simply misunderstand what it is they really mean. Because there is something that, on the surface, seems like realism but isn't and it is the foundation of storytelling. And that is credibility. The storyteller has to make the reader believe in the story he is telling, even if it isn't realistic. Tolkien called this "Secondary Belief". The reader believes in the story and the world of the story while within it because the storyteller has crafted such a credible experience of it. You can believe in, for example, a world covered in pink trees if the storyteller has done his job properly and made pink trees a credible thing within the story.



I think this is something we keep coming back to now and then; the difference between what's realistic and what's believable.

Personally I haven't come across anyone who serious claims "realism" needs to be incorporated in fantasy, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would argue it in one way or another (this is the only forum I frequent btw). I'm all with you on the credibility thing; internal consistency, believeability, secondary belief or whatever you want to call it. The important thing is that things make some kind of sense within the framework you have established.

Where I guess there may be some kind of conflict is where the framework of the story conflicts with how the reader perceives the world in general - the real world, not your story world. It's fairly easy to suspend your disbelief when it comes to fantastical creatures and magic and other elements that are staples of fantasy fiction. 
It's less easy to suspend your disbelief of what you consider to be rational human behavior in certain situations.

Let's say you have a mage performing at a market to try and earn some coin. It shouldn't be very hard to convince the reader that he juggles fireballs in the shape of kittens to amuse the kids, right?
But let's say that instead of the fireball thing the mage entertains people by turning little kids into tuna, permanently. You'd have a much harder time convincing the reader that this is a commonly accepted form of entertainment and that the parents wouldn't be protesting against it (reader wouldn't bat an eyelid at the mage turning someone into tuna though).


Fortunately, things like that shouldn't be too difficult to avoid (I believe/hope).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 2, 2014)

I think there's room in fantasy for both realism and a more action/adventure slant.  When I go to a movie, sometimes I want a real story about characters that has a plot.  Other times, I want to see a guy knock out the guard with a single punch or run through a maelstrom of automatic weapon fire without getting a scratch on him.

Some people have more preference for one over the other.  Some action movie fans won't go to a movie that is more "real."  Some fans of realism will thumb their noses at action.

This is a personal preference, not a rule.  If you want to write for one audience over the other, that's your choice.  You can make that choice based on what you prefer or on what you think your audience prefers or on a flip of the coin or on the phase of the moon.

Where you start having a real problem, imo and as others have stated, is when you are not internally consistent.  If you've written a gritty, real-world story, the reader may lose confidence in you if suddenly your hero can knock people out with a single punch and cars explode during crashes for no apparent reason.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 2, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> The point is, Tolkien could have dispelled/precluded all the debate simply by adverting to the problem and dismissing it with just a couple of brush strokes.



Yes. This is why it is important to have explanations or justifications in fiction, when necessary, even if just in a cursory fashion. The extent to which they are provided will affect the reader's willingness or ability to suspend disbelief. If you go into it thinking the reader will just suspend disbelief no mater what, you're taking a foolish approach and one that isn't likely to gain you much of a readership. The amount of rationale that needs to be provided is a gray area, as demonstrated by the different views on Tolkien.


----------



## Devor (Apr 2, 2014)

I think there's another layer to this question than "realistic or not" and "style and tone."

Going back to the thieves who wouldn't run on the rooftop, I appreciate that kind of "realism" in some works.  But I'm cool with a rooftop running scene, too, _if I feel like the author knows what he or she is doing._  Run across the rooftops, sure, but let me hear about padded soles, the sharp thud of jumping into the roof, let someone slip for a moment.  Let me feel like the author understands what it means to run across a rooftop, and reference some of the challenges involved, instead of just skipping by them.

It doesn't need to be pure realism, but maybe something you can call a "softened" realism.  A thoughtful unrealism.  The unrealism that comes because you understand what it is you're making up a story about.

I don't need realism.  But many readers have read stories that were closer to being realistic, and I think we should acknowledge that when we write stories that are not.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 2, 2014)

Devor,

I think you nailed the crucial issue:



> if I feel like the author knows what he or she is doing.



That's the thing I care most about.  As long as you put me inside your world firmly, I don't care what that world is.

Let's take the example that someone else brought up of a knight not being able to perform some tasks in full armor.  In a fantasy world, I can make up any facts that I choose.  My characters may resemble humans, but there is nothing to say that they are.  They can be as strong as I want them to be.  Likewise, my armor may resemble medievel plate mail, but it can be lighter and more flexible if I want it to be.

The important point is for me to be consistent.

If I show the character strong in one scene, I can't show him weak in another.  I can't place a limitation on his race that would prevent him from growing that strong.

If I show the plate mail as flexible, I have to make sure that it is always flexible.  I can't have it all of a sudden take on the properties of medievel plate mail.

Be consistent and your audience will trust you.  Break that trust, and they'll discard you.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 2, 2014)

In a recent scene I included a little creature called a night squirrel. It looks pretty much like a squirrel except it's fur is dark blue and it's tail flashes white when it feels threatened. 

That isn't a realistic.

I think the reader will buy it though. They'll think it's an interesting creature and move on with the story. The way I'm trying to accomplish this is by describing it as something perfectly normal. My MC doesn't get upset that there's a blue flashing squirrel in his burrow, he get upset because there's an animal in his burrow and then he shoos it away. That's all there is to it, no whooping about with details or explanation about how magic it is etc.

Still, cutting out just that piece and removing the context the night squirrel might seem strange, but with the backdrop of all the other non-ordinary things that happen, it's not such a big deal.


----------



## Gurkhal (Apr 6, 2014)

I say: Go for realism unless the story is hurt at which point you can take artistic freedom to reality. 

Yeah, I don't really say anything new but I thought that I should add my voice to it.


----------

