[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: 2006-01-26 05:24 am (UTC)I think with the movie, it's more that I have issues with the concepts rather than the execution; not like I'm saying it's unrealistic but rather it's not automatically unrealistic to imagine things turning out a differnet way (if you wrote a significantly different story, just with similar characters). I'm not sure what I have to prove there, exactly-- possibly that whole escalation of choices thing doesn't -have- to further entrap you with every step (at least some give-and-take both ways is probably normal).
I'm totally with you on implausible externals directly 'intruding' uncomfortably-- like, they don't have to, but if they suddenly do lose that consistency it's rather jarring. However, maybe you could have a sudden shock or plot or character twist development seem consistent too, if you build up to it. So maybe Ennis could've changed if you gave him 5 more years :> And well, there's always Brian, but I dunno about the plausibility with that especially as it seems they played up the camp and the ridiculous aspects in the last season rather than trying to ground it solidly ><;; Which... I should actually watch sometime~:))