Is realism viable?

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You only need justification if someone asks.

 

[Steerpike]

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]

Just as much as assuming they will.

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.