[realism, bah!]
Jan. 25th, 2006 12:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaMan, it's really weird how often I feel like I should apologize for my idealism (nevermind the romanticism); this is probably because I wind up talking to a lot of rationalist types, and the outside culture in general tends to be on the rationalistic (when not entirely irrational and intuitively 'stupid') side. I think it's probably wrong to try to justify or explain away one's intuitive drives and beliefs, but at the same time, if I don't, I probably seem 'spacey' and easily ignored. If I don't want to be ignored, I should be understandable and rational, right, except some of the things I think lose their 'zing' if I translate them into different sorts of terms-- they start to seem ridiculous. More specifically, they start to seem 'unrealistic'.
I've been thinking about this 'cause I've been brushing up on Myers-Briggs types again (mine is INFP-- unsurprising if you're familiar with the system). Basically, I'm like the Idealist Squared, always spilling out of any rational framework I try to put myself in; at the same time, I'm thinking about Brokeback Mountain and how it's described as a 'realistic' romance, and whether having a problem with it on theoretical grounds would make me 'anti-realism' (which I try to believe I'm not, since I keep saying 'write more realistic love-stories!' most of the time).
Basically, I don't know: do rationalist-type people just have a really divergent vision of what 'realism' is from intuitive-type (more emotional) people? Of course the answer is yes (probably). So when I say, 'I want Harry/Draco to be written realistically', I mean something else entirely, perhaps, than the rationalist 'thinking-type' person who'd say 'Brokeback Mountain was very realistic' (and I'm not saying it's not, but that it's merely not the whole of the truth). In fact, the sort of stories often lauded as 'realistic' in H/D (where there's abuse, one-night stands and sometimes alcohol involved, or even just awkwardness and fumbling alone) seem merely predictable and generic to me. Without a unique spin, 'realism' seems pointless; with a unique spin (in the telling or storyline, though hopefully both), sometimes it seems there are people who wouldn't call it 'realism'. Maybe I should just fess up and admit that 'realistic fantasy' is still fantasy, and if I -had- to choose, I'd pick the fantastical bits over the 'plausible' ones because I'm me, all value judgments aside. (Though I still want both, dammit!)
Yeah... this seems to present a problem. Huh.
So to be clear, when I say 'realism' in writing, I mean 'being true to how you really see the world'. In many cases, I think the writer isn't necessarily honest with themselves on this count, and this is what tends to bother me; a rationalist thinker would probably be bothered by the outside manifestations of 'incorrectness' more, like 'such-and-such is implausible' in a more direct cause-and-effect sort of way. I can notice such things too, of course, but at the same time if I find the story emotionally plausible and internally logical, the external plausibility doesn't matter as much. All this is going to be implied when I say I want 'realistic' fic.
Although if I wanted to be nit-picky, I'd say what I"m looking for in stories isn't fantasy, precisely, so much as vision; that's why the 'generic' realistic stories do nothing for me most of the time. I don't care about what's easily observable and obvious to a monkey (like, 'life sucks, drink beer'). It may be realistic but it's also passé. I want to see new things, have my imagination engaged; I want to be both reassured, challenged and surprised. That's what life is about to me, so of course I think it's 'realism' :D
I've been thinking about this 'cause I've been brushing up on Myers-Briggs types again (mine is INFP-- unsurprising if you're familiar with the system). Basically, I'm like the Idealist Squared, always spilling out of any rational framework I try to put myself in; at the same time, I'm thinking about Brokeback Mountain and how it's described as a 'realistic' romance, and whether having a problem with it on theoretical grounds would make me 'anti-realism' (which I try to believe I'm not, since I keep saying 'write more realistic love-stories!' most of the time).
Basically, I don't know: do rationalist-type people just have a really divergent vision of what 'realism' is from intuitive-type (more emotional) people? Of course the answer is yes (probably). So when I say, 'I want Harry/Draco to be written realistically', I mean something else entirely, perhaps, than the rationalist 'thinking-type' person who'd say 'Brokeback Mountain was very realistic' (and I'm not saying it's not, but that it's merely not the whole of the truth). In fact, the sort of stories often lauded as 'realistic' in H/D (where there's abuse, one-night stands and sometimes alcohol involved, or even just awkwardness and fumbling alone) seem merely predictable and generic to me. Without a unique spin, 'realism' seems pointless; with a unique spin (in the telling or storyline, though hopefully both), sometimes it seems there are people who wouldn't call it 'realism'. Maybe I should just fess up and admit that 'realistic fantasy' is still fantasy, and if I -had- to choose, I'd pick the fantastical bits over the 'plausible' ones because I'm me, all value judgments aside. (Though I still want both, dammit!)
Yeah... this seems to present a problem. Huh.
So to be clear, when I say 'realism' in writing, I mean 'being true to how you really see the world'. In many cases, I think the writer isn't necessarily honest with themselves on this count, and this is what tends to bother me; a rationalist thinker would probably be bothered by the outside manifestations of 'incorrectness' more, like 'such-and-such is implausible' in a more direct cause-and-effect sort of way. I can notice such things too, of course, but at the same time if I find the story emotionally plausible and internally logical, the external plausibility doesn't matter as much. All this is going to be implied when I say I want 'realistic' fic.
Although if I wanted to be nit-picky, I'd say what I"m looking for in stories isn't fantasy, precisely, so much as vision; that's why the 'generic' realistic stories do nothing for me most of the time. I don't care about what's easily observable and obvious to a monkey (like, 'life sucks, drink beer'). It may be realistic but it's also passé. I want to see new things, have my imagination engaged; I want to be both reassured, challenged and surprised. That's what life is about to me, so of course I think it's 'realism' :D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 08:11 pm (UTC)every time i take the myers-briggs test i get a different result. every time. sometimes i'm extroverted but most of the time i'm leaning towards introverted. everything always kind of hovers around 50% anyway.
IT'S WACKY. you damn dreamer.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 05:09 am (UTC)i actually don't know how that works; i think it's a question of self-perception and how you perceive yourself that particular day, and the fact is my self-knowledge and self-perception remain disgustingly table. i *try* to pretend i'm different, but ultimately i know it's a dream (like, 'i wish i was more logical and thinky, DAMMIT'), but. i'm so so predictable :(
but wacky!! predictable in a wacky way. :D!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:14 pm (UTC)sorry, that was fun. cos tables are like. tables. ho ho!
i also think "thinky" should be in the dictionary.
as long as there is some element of wackiness (ooh man i'm thinking of the spanish inquisition sketch - AMONGST OUR WEAPONRY ARE SUCH ELEMENTS AS FEAR, SURPRISE....) then you're pretty cool.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 08:59 pm (UTC)...among my weapons are INCOHERENCY, STUBBORN SILENCE and also LAUGHING TOO HARD. Yes.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 09:01 pm (UTC)you are the inquisition REBORN.