How important do you find realism/coherence in fantasy worlds?

[Chevalière de Saint-Just]

This is perhaps a rather stupid conceit on my part,but I've always found it quite unnecessary past a certain point,given that a great deal of the genre's delight lies in unreason and metaphysics...then again,I may be misguided.

 

[pmmg]

Its not important to be ‘real’ according to the rules of our world, but is important to be real to the rules of the make believe one.

If you say ppl can defy gravity and then have one fall to their death, that will hurt the story.

Unless there is strong reason not to, the effort should be to maintain credibility in the story.

If something is not shown to be different, the assumption will be its like things on earth. If you show stuff that would not fly here, and do not show why, the credibility of the story will drop.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think it’s down to each creators personal preferences. In fantasy in theory *anything goes*, but even with a high level of speculation, it’s possibly still a good idea to implement reason into it, so that within the restrictions of the worldbuilding you at least have an explanation for things. Otherwise you have a lot of nits to pick.

 

[Queshire]

Ah, realism, my old foe.

 

[Rexenm]

It is an interesting issue. A lot of authors go walk about when this question raises sirens. There are no winners or losers in this scenario. It is totally about the town.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Come one, come all, I say. There is no standard. The genre has everything from thinly-veiled historical fiction to a world on the back of a giant turtle.

Personally I love all of it, from Pratchett to Malazan to Hellboy to Strange & Norrell to First Law to The Worm Ouroboros.
As long as it's done well, I'm down.

Writing-wise, like pmmg said, do whatever you want, just be consistent.

Edit: I would note that realism and coherence are two different issues.
Realism is what I'm referencing here... I can't imagine an incoherent book would be readable, although if you could recommend a delightful and also incoherent fantasy I'd be very interested to read it.

 

[pmmg]

Alice in wonderland is not entirely coherent, I think.

I can imagine a batman story, where he is subject to the Jokers mind that might not seem coherent as well. So, I think they can be out there.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Coherence is the right word IMO. Paraphrasing a reviewer for Eve of Snows, there are intelligent bears and magic but still an overarching sense of reality. That might be a terrible paraphrase, think it was Booklife by Publishers Weekly, but I could be way off, LOL. Or was that Kirkus? Eh, I'm too lazy to look it up.

But anyhow, that's really what I was going for and it fits my sensibilities as a reader. On the other hand, The Road Runner can defy the law of gravity because he never studied law. So, a lot would depend on subgenre and the desired feel.

If you set a rule, I don't want it broken without a good explanation, and I'd prefer it broken by the bad guy instead of the good guy, because when the protag breaks a rule its more beneficial to the protag and feels more contrived, while if broken by the bad guy it's likely bad news for the protag, which is always a good thing.

 

[Jackarandajam]

If you set a rule, I don;t want it broken without a good explanation, and I'd prefer it broken by the bad guy instead of the good guy, because when the protag breaks a rule its more beneficial to the protag and feels more contrived, while if broken by the bad guy it's likely bad news for the protag, which is always a good thing.

There's some serious smarts in this here bit. I'll have to chew on it for a while, but it sounds like a really good rule of thumb.

 

[pmmg]

If you set a rule, I don't want it broken without a good explanation, and I'd prefer it broken by the bad guy instead of the good guy, because when the protag breaks a rule its more beneficial to the protag and feels more contrived, while if broken by the bad guy it's likely bad news for the protag, which is always a good thing.

Also leaves the door open for the Good guy to come around and break it better at the end.

 

[Ban]

Realism is unimportant, but coherence is key. If you want to write about a hollow earth where gravity draws folk into the air and people fly around by ejecting fire from their hands, I'll cheer you on. But if these massive changes to human life have no further effect on the setting, its worldbuilding and your story, I'll turn away disappointed by the lack of holistic vision.

 

[pmmg]

But if these massive changes to human life have no further effect on the setting, its worldbuilding and your story, I'll turn away disappointed by the lack of holistic vision.

This is an argument for 'Realism is important'...and it is.

Coherence is:

Mary leapt into the air and flew, but tripped on her own shoelaces and fell. <--its incoherent that one could fly and have a problem with tripping.

Realism is:

Mary leapt into the air and flew, but no one thought any differently, even though no one had ever flown before. <--It's just beyond credible that no one would think it something other than normal. Realism demands some react.

 

[Ban]

This is an argument for 'Realism is important'...and it is.

Coherence is:

Mary leapt into the air and flew, but tripped on her own shoelaces and fell. <--its incoherent that one could fly and have a problem with tripping.

Realism is:

Mary leapt into the air and flew, but no one thought any differently, even though no one had ever flown before. <--It's just beyond credible that no one would think it something other than normal. Realism demands some react.

The example was meant as a simple indication, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with what you present as "coherence." A sudden, unexplained lack of worldly sense is a perfectly fine literary tool. It works for fables, children's stories and a number of magical realist tales (of which I see the irony).

 

[Queshire]

While I generally agree with the others about being coherent I think it's important to keep in mind how flexible you can be within that. Presuming that you trust the author (or in this case the audience trusts you) then you can have things just happen and have the fact that they happened suggest that there must be an explanation for it even if that explanation isn't spelled out.

For example, if everyone in a setting casts spells by themselves, but one nation instead uses steampunk gadgets to house spirits and they use those spirits to cast spells instead then we don't necessarily need to know how they do it or the precise benefits & drawbacks to their particular brand of spell casting unless the cast actually go visit that country.

 

[Incanus]

Coherence and logical consistency are crucial in my view. The word I usually think of is 'verisimilitude'. That term sort of touches on both cohesion and realism.

I great example of a story that lacks this quality is the movie 'Snowpiercer'. It breaks its own rules, and fails at realism and cohesion in major ways.

 

[Rexenm]

While I generally agree with the others about being coherent I think it's important to keep in mind how flexible you can be within that.

It is like work ethic. It is not up to the boss, even though it might seem to be so. It requires work, and that work to be done. Technology is magic is science. There is no reason.

 

[Mad Swede]

Fantasy stories don't need to be realistic, but in my view they do need to be internally consistent and coherent. If your setting has magic and/or gods and you decide a set of rules for these things then the rules must be applied consistently. If your setting has merchants who travel around then you must also have defined how they travel around and how money and/or barter systems work. With all that written, such rules needen't be a hindrance to the story. In fact I'd argue that they improve the quality of your writing since you can't use a deux ex machina to get yourself out of a whole you've written yourself into. More than that, you can use these rules as plot drivers and plot points so giving those rules real meaning and effect.

To take a well-known set of books as an example. In The Belgariad, the gods have decided that they cannot act directly for fear of destroying the world so they have to act through others so limiting their powers. Similarly the two competing prophecies act through others. So the protagonists have to solve most situations by themselves. Sorcery (magic) is a sort of in-born ability but one which requires teaching to give proper effect. As Garion finds out, trying to lift a rock using sorcery without understanding some basic physics can land you in a sticky situation - in his case up to his armpits in mud without having lifted or even moved the very large rock. More than that, using sorcery makes a sort of mental noise so other sorcerers (even the bad guys) can hear you, and it is also physically and mentally tiring. Belgarath nearly kills himself through over-exertion as a result of using his powers and this becomes a plot point which leads on to a number of other plot points. Trade is an important factor in the story and in the back story, and the various trade routes and coinage systems also provide plot points.

 

[skip.knox]

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."
-- Elwood P. Dowd

More seriously, realism is a chimera for writers because whatever is the author's understanding of what is realistic, our gentle readers will have a wide range of opinions on the same subject. Satisfy your own standards. If trad published, you'll have to satisfy your publisher as well; all else is just reviews and sales stats. if self-published, then you can leave off the second clause.

It's worth sorting some terms here. "Realism" is too general a term to be useful. There is accuracy, verisimilitude, and consistency.

Accuracy is what people often mean when they speak of realism. Can a horse really run that far without resting? Will an object fall that slowly? Did warriors actually wear plate armor back then? And so on. So yeah, when dealing with magic spells, it's nonsensical to speak of accuracy. Only some parts of our book need to be accurate.

Verisimilitude is accuracy's cousin. When people use realism in this sense (usually as in "that's just not realistic") they mean to say it does not resemble truth. Most times this happens when the author has not taken the trouble to establish why in *this* story the thing described could actually be so ... so big, so fast, so whatever. That's authorial laziness, but it can also be the author doesn't realize the thing asserted even needs explaining. They assume. An example would be dragons that don't eat. The author has them flying around, burning down enemies, but never considers how to feed a phalanx of fifty beasts each as big as a house. Verisimilitude can be an opportunity for the author to add "realism" to their story.

Consistency is what others here have already addressed. Keeping to the rules already established in-story. Breaking this third aspect is the worst sin because it's the one most any reader will catch. They don't need to know history or physics, but they sure as heck can remember when you said two chapters ago.

Anyway, touch all three bases, and you're well on your way to home.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."
-- Elwood P. Dowd

"Wouldn't that get a little monotonous? Just Akron and cold beer and poor, poor thing?!?"
Love that film!!

 

[skip.knox]

Yep. It's brilliant. It's on my list of Movies I'll Watch Any Old Time. I've seen that one probably eight times or so.