[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 05:50 pm (UTC)I have to say, this is a problem I've had with the world "realism" too. Especially in hobbit fandom there was a while where people kept saying "realism" meant everyone was raped all the time. I remember doing a post saying, um, you know people do have a realistic ability to love and care for each other too. Since when does someone not abusing someone else become fluff? It was especially weird there because Tolkien wrote the Shire as a nicer place than the world. There's never been a murder there. The idea that children were being sexually abused was completely strange, yet sticking that in and making people treat each other badly was supposed to be more realistic. I remember someone putting down stories where the hobbits went out and picked mushrooms and saying hey just like more realism when, um, actually picking mushrooms is canonically realistic. Violent crime in the Shire not so much.
Anyway, to bring it to the topic, Brokeback Mountain isn't realistic romance just because it sucks and everyone's miserable. People can choose their true love and live together without it seeming false--and a story that's more over the top isn't necessarily unrealistic in terms of it being untrue. I mean, it's true that many love stories end on a high note--you don't follow the lovers home and live with them and see them get testy with each other when the baby's colick is keeping them up all night. If you're constantly having to come up with kidnappings etc. to keep the romance going then that's something to look to the couple again. But love doesn't have to die or cause overwhelming sorrow to be realistic.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 05:50 pm (UTC)-- Albert Einstein
Um, yeah. If the writer has absolute faith in what they're writing, it works to a degree. Even Jennavere's work. You can tell that she wouldn't write it like that if she didn't really ... er ... think that.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:03 pm (UTC)But yeah, I've complained about this before, and we've even talked about it before, haven't we :> Hahah, but see how I cleverly package it differently :D A little ^^;; It's just that the people who see life negatively tend to seize upon the more negative stories and put them up as 'realistic', even if it's then clarified 'well, it's naturalistic' or 'societally correct' or 'it's in the style moreso than content'. It really seems people will automatically project their worldview onto whatever they see as 'reality' and then call it true when they read a fic that supports that value system. It's just frustrating ><;;
Like, honestly, most H/D that's most lauded as 'realistic' I think of as either 'slice of life' (little snatches of everyday behavior) or 'justified pessimism', where nothing works out except sex (or even sex is awkward), and since it's H/D, of course that's how it will be. I always feel like people underestimate reality or something :>
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:12 pm (UTC)Does that make sense?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:13 pm (UTC)I recall reading some part where Draco was eating tons of 'candy' and crazy things for breakfast that you can't even get for breakfast in Europe -- honey and waffles and chocolate chip pancakes (trust me, I've tried) -- and just had to shake my head. She obviously believes Draco would do that. And I can't fault her for that, really. Not anymore.
Don't we all have a pre-set audience, though? I've come to the conclusion that my stuff isn't smutty and/or simply written enough for the wider audience. (I know, that sounds awful, but I'm referring to my tangenital tendencies more than any higher skill.) I mean, if I could get as many hits as Jennavere does, I would; I just can't seem to write like that. I think it is not really a matter of conscious choice, you know?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:28 pm (UTC)I tend to think of the stuff you described (cause & consequence, power relations and so on) as just being common sense, but I say 'realism' just in case, ahahah.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:41 pm (UTC)*g*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 06:45 pm (UTC)Personally, I'm fairly demanding on all levels of plausibility, both external and internal, but I don't consider Everyone's Doomed stories to be necessarily more realistic than People End Up Happy stories. What defines realism is setup and follow-through: given the build of this particular character and the way he or she interacts with the setup of this particular world, is this result the logical and honest one? In the case of a movie like BBM, the ending is realistic not because everything turns out shitty but because given the way the characters are constructed and the way the society they inhabit is constructed, it's a logical and honest result. If they had moved to New York it would have been happier, but the dishonest to the character of Ennis as constructed.
So yeah, we can have romantic endings, happy endings, cynical endings, sad endings, but they have to follow from what came before.
Also, I'm bothered by implausible externals when they contradict each other within the story more than when they contradict reality. I mean, I can buy a huge gay community in Pittsburgh (hee), despite that being unrealistic, as long as the source that puts such a community in such a place portrays that community consistently: it's always present, it affects its environment in plausible ways, etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:27 pm (UTC)See, the candy stuff-- that's the 'outside universe' details I don't tend to bother with unless it's something -really- stupid (as
I think some writers have more of a pre-set 'narrow' audience and some have a wider audience where they appeal to many different types of readers (those writers would be what we call 'great', ahahah). I've never quite attained that level, um, but obviously I want to. With writers that reach the 'lowest common denominator', that's something else again-- it's a talent, sure, but it doesn't 'expand' beyond itself like great writing would. I too sometimes think I'd write that sort of fic if I could, but I also don't want the squeeing adulation of mindless fangirls (upon further thought). I sometimes think I -could- do it if I analysed what works (and there are specific enough things) and then just -did- it, but I would feel so... dirty :>
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:37 pm (UTC)...Thass what it's aaaalll about.
(or that could be my ashamed!Draco thing talking... I *really* like it when he hates himself. Um. It's just so likely, if he did suddenly want Potter.)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:39 pm (UTC)Shame sex is too hot. Like that new yaoi with the 'steeds' that's out. As long as they really want it, shame is like icing sugar.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 07:48 pm (UTC)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: 2006-01-25 08:12 pm (UTC)/
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 08:17 pm (UTC)...am almost inspired to like, get a 'normal' H/D icon now. Almost. There's always this one (http://www12.wind.ne.jp/songster/g-summertime.htm) just dying to be icon'd :D :D
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 08:19 pm (UTC)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 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 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~:))
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 05:34 am (UTC)The whole 'ignoring logic for character aggrandizement' probably pisses me off the most, all logic/realism aside, just 'cause it's so dishonest/fake and transparent, and also almost always horrendous writing. I do think that some people probably find groups easier to write than individuals-- they're the types that write huge fantasy epics and make me want to puke whenever I think too long about the actual characters in them. But that's just me :D
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:12 pm (UTC)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 02:14 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:27 pm (UTC)Though, I find the juxtaposition of imagination and realism/rationalism to be a false dichotomy, but I think you already know. Reason is not the opposite of immagination, that's just what romantics say to excuse their lack of reason and dependence on sense. Mostly I am very firm by now on the position that romanticism is a lie, and I can't reconcile myself with the idea that imagination has to be a lie. My thoughts are jumbled now though, because I am still so annoyed at the Naruto stuff.