Reality and Disbelief on Lit

[TheRedChamber]

For example, in the TV show Star Trek, there's lots of magic: faster than light travel, transporters, tricorders, telepathy, innumerable planets with atmospheres that can sustain human beings, spaceships with gravity, etc. But the characters are still very human and limited in what they can do and withstand (most of the time) and the limits help ground the story, most of the time (obviously, opinions will differ).

Star Trek is a great example of fans suspending disbelief in that it gets a lot of things right but also, as is to be expected after sixty years, occasional drops the ball badly.

There's an interesting discussions between those fantasy writers who believe that magic should be mystical and unknownable and those who believe that a magic systems should have clear rules explained to the reader s thdat, come the denument, the resolute makes sense to them (See Sanderson Rules of Magic for this.)

Star Trek fans mainly know the rules for how most things work in the series. That's why they get so upset when the series breaks them (plus the show attracts a certain personality type...) That's why JJ Abrams movies having the Enterprise emerge from the sea after completing a stealth mission leads to calls of bullshit from fans. A quick watch of a number of episodes is clearly going to show the Federation ships aren't designed to enter atmosphere. They only ever crash into planets at the end of movies, dammit! The bottoms aren't even flat. Crew get to the planet surface via shuttle or transporter. And if five minutes into the movie the director is not going to respect this, then none of our normal assumptions when watching the rest of the show can be made.

From another angle, the recent Picard series had an interesting issue when it had one character, after a disaster they failed to stop, live for years in what was basically a trailer park in the desert and develop alcohol and substance issues. This caused debate because all the captains always say that (all) social problems on Earth have been solved, so for a lot of fans this felt off contradicting sixty years of assumptions. The series hasn't spent a lot of time on Earth and when it does it's mostly in idyllic places like Picards vineyard. Is it really realistic to say a society would have solved all problems? On the other hand it's also reasonable to assume that a Starfleet which had a counselor sit at the captains left side at all times would have better veterans support.

I think the point is that as a writer you're given a certain amount of time and leeway to develop the rules, but once?things don't start to add up you're going to get called on it.

 

[Magineer]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with that. But if you are a professional writer, filmmaker, musician, whatever, you are going to need the "public" to see (or hear) your work and they will have differing opinions about it. And yes, they are all going to be strangers, and they may not all be "washed" properly. But what is the point of being, say, Duke Ellington or T.S. Eliot (I just picked those names at random) if you keep everything to yourself and only let a handful of people have access to it? Without criticism - which might not always seem fair - there can be no growth.

I'd rather have 10,000 strangers "view" (I know, just click on it probably) and thirty of them vote on my work.

You again evade the point that it depends where that criticism comes from.

Would Ellington have "grown" from any in-depth critique proceeding from the tone-deaf community? Would Eliot's poetry have improved greatly after recommendations from the semi- or wholly illiterate brotherhood who now constitute our majority public?

Yes, as a "professional" you're going to need the spondulix... but let's not kid ourselves that's for anything more than keeping the rent collector at bay. A writer who actually values his powers of storytelling should also value seeking out a more discerning readership... certainly as far as informing his "growth" is concerned.

Apologies that this has gone pretty far off-topic.

 

[gunhilltrain]

You again evade the point that it depends where that criticism comes from.

Would Ellington have "grown" from any in-depth critique proceeding from the tone-deaf community? Would Eliot's poetry have improved greatly after recommendations from the semi- or wholly illiterate brotherhood who now constitute our majority public?

Yes, as a "professional" you're going to need the spondulix... but let's not kid ourselves that's for anything more than keeping the rent collector at bay. A writer who actually values his powers of storytelling should also value seeking out a more discerning readership... certainly as far as informing his "growth" is concerned.

Apologies that this has gone pretty far off-topic.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Whoever wanted to know Ellington's or Eliot's work had to go buy an album or a book. Or libraries had the book, but I don't think they had music CDs until recently. I don't remember if they ever had vinyl records or not. So that is probably a self-selecting audience.

A lot changed with the Internet. The Literotica home page emphasizes that it is, 1) free, and 2) it has the "hottest in erotic fiction and fantasy." That's going to bring in a lot of people who are looking for "porn," however that is defined. There are readers who have here hundreds of favorite stories, so they are happy with it.

You might feel more comfortable on a site that limits voting and comments to members only. (I can PM a name to you.) That keeps the anonymous trolls at bay. Or you might prefer a site that is more "literary" in its aims but which will accept explicit material.

P.S.: I don't know how my message got separated from your original. Lit does indeed have glitchy software, but I've seen worse.

 

[Magineer]

Returning to the matter under discussion, I've been described earlier as being on a "high horse" for stipulating that I need realism in a story.

Really? For sure, I acknowledge that many visiting this site (referencing those purely here for wank fodder) may themselves be astride Shetland ponies - but I haven't deliberately gone out of my way to be demanding or combative.

The jolly citizen who made this half-thread into an OP and switched it from Story Ideas to AH seemed to think that suspension of disbelief was something a reader could just perform to order. Even made a joke about it. No need for subtlety or hard work on the part of the author. How very convenient. To me, that shows a virtual contempt for the (kind of) reader (whose opinion I would value).

Whenever I write something, I simply take it as a given that any reader looking for eroticism (as distinct from said "fodder") will need to be drawn into a story and persuaded that a plot could really be happening. Whether what I then produce lives up to my objectives is a matter of opinion but at least I try. This is just the way I am and I'd dispute that I'm alone in believing in the existence of that need.

 

[SimonDoom]

Returning to the matter under discussion, I've been described earlier as being on a "high horse" for stipulating that I need realism in a story.

I think in reality this is one of those pseudo-debates where people disagree more in theory than they do in reality.

You use the word "realism," and I use the word "verisimilitude," which means the appearance of reality in a fictional setting. I don't think the concept is very different. I have a high tolerance for stories based on improbable and fantastic scenarios, but if you push me too far with the improbable, you'll lose me. I need some effort from the author to lend the fantastic scenario an APPEARANCE of realism so the story means something. Otherwise, to me, it's "ho hum."

The problem is that we're all so different in terms of what we're willing to suspend disbelief about and what we're not that it's virtually impossible to establish any general rules on the subject. I have readers who like my own blend of realism and fantasy and other readers who think it's stupid and get turned off.

 

[lovecraft68]

Returning to the matter under discussion, I've been described earlier as being on a "high horse" for stipulating that I need realism in a story.

Really? For sure, I acknowledge that many visiting this site (referencing those purely here for wank fodder) may themselves be astride Shetland ponies - but I haven't deliberately gone out of my way to be demanding or combative.

The jolly citizen who made this half-thread into an OP and switched it from Story Ideas to AH seemed to think that suspension of disbelief was something a reader could just perform to order. Even made a joke about it. No need for subtlety or hard work on the part of the author. How very convenient. To me, that shows a virtual contempt for the (kind of) reader (whose opinion I would value).

Whenever I write something, I simply take it as a given that any reader looking for eroticism (as distinct from said "fodder") will need to be drawn into a story and persuaded that a plot could really be happening. Whether what I then produce lives up to my objectives is a matter of opinion but at least I try. This is just the way I am and I'd dispute that I'm alone in believing in the existence of that need.

Spending any time in the Story Ideas thread is enough to make your head hurt. I'm all for suspending some belief but most of those ideas are straight out of a Beavis and Butthead level mentality.

And if its not eye rolling idiocy its pure rape porn because just about everything there starts off non con or within three posts the most harmless idea becomes non con. Good amount of poorly veiled under age as well.

I'm not high brow, but looking for an idea to use over there is the writing equivalent of slumming

 

[lovecraft68]

I think in reality this is one of those pseudo-debates where people disagree more in theory than they do in reality.

You use the word "realism," and I use the word "verisimilitude," which means the appearance of reality in a fictional setting. I don't think the concept is very different. I have a high tolerance for stories based on improbable and fantastic scenarios, but if you push me too far with the improbable, you'll lose me. I need some effort from the author to lend the fantastic scenario an APPEARANCE of realism so the story means something. Otherwise, to me, it's "ho hum."

The problem is that we're all so different in terms of what we're willing to suspend disbelief about and what we're not that it's virtually impossible to establish any general rules on the subject. I have readers who like my own blend of realism and fantasy and other readers who think it's stupid and get turned off.

I always like to use the example of mother/son incest where I've been told that my mom characters shouldn't talk dirty, a mother wouldn't speak that way.
But apparently a mother would fuck her son...makes sense

 

[dmallord]

I am enjoying this thread as it is above the norm in thought.

Realism or Verisimilitude or truthlikeness. The conversation is rooted in this: "Verisimilitude comes from the Latin verisimilitudo, "likeness to truth" and is used to describe stories. In it, you'll see the word similar, meaning it is similar to what's real. Art that aims for realism seeks verisimilitude. An actual synonym for verisimilitude is truthlikeness."

Thanks to both of you for this educational moment. It is an erudite moment similar to a 'pa-ta-to vs. pay-tah-toe' conversation.
_________
Today, as an example of your mother-son language and being realistic, my incest category post has an anon commenting that my story has 'inconsistencies/improbabilities.' The writer first believed that 'Irish Twins' could not be born nine months apart. [They can be.] The writer added, "Also, there was no explanation of why the parents came home at a time when the twins were clearly not expecting them." [They came home at their regular work end time and caught the twins in flagrante. Well ... if that played out as the anon noted, the parents would not have caught them, and I'd have no end.]

Readers bring their perceptions to the written page. A writer cannot overcome those; they only hope that their readership, as a whole, understands the intent and derive some sense of enjoyment at having read the work.

 

[lovecraft68]

I am enjoying this thread as it is above the norm in thought.

Realism or Verisimilitude or truthlikeness. The conversation is rooted in this: "Verisimilitude comes from the Latin verisimilitudo, "likeness to truth" and is used to describe stories. In it, you'll see the word similar, meaning it is similar to what's real. Art that aims for realism seeks verisimilitude. An actual synonym for verisimilitude is truthlikeness."

Thanks to both of you for this educational moment. It is an erudite moment similar to a 'pa-ta-to vs. pay-tah-toe' conversation.
_________
Today, as an example of your mother-son language and being realistic, my incest category post has an anon commenting that my story has 'inconsistencies/improbabilities.' The writer first believed that 'Irish Twins' could not be born nine months apart. [They can be.] The writer added, "Also, there was no explanation of why the parents came home at a time when the twins were clearly not expecting them." [They came home at their regular work end time and caught the twins in flagrante. Well ... if that played out as the anon noted, the parents would not have caught them, and I'd have no end.]

Readers bring their perceptions to the written page. A writer cannot overcome those; they only hope that their readership, as a whole, understands the intent and derive some sense of enjoyment at having read the work.

In examples like yours especially about the parents I start to wonder how much of the story they read vs skimmed. I don't mind negative comments or someone saying something seemed out of place in a story, but not when going by their comments they either didn't read it or have no comprehension of what they read.

 

[Djmac1031]

I'm a firm believer that if your characters are interesting and compelling enough to make me care about them and what happens to them, it's far easier to suspend disbelief with everything else.

A great example is Tony Stark. Complex, compelling, detailed and well rounded character development and arc. Who cares that his Iron Man suit would never actually fly that way?

 

[dmallord]

Evening brings a dark cloudy night. No stars above - pitch black at ground level. Quiet. A hot cup of java would help calm a spooky story night of writing.

'Irish Twins' Home Alone' [incest] posted sometime after midnight - [just two days in the hopper - good job Laurel.]

Seems well received at this point: 14.8K, 25 favorites, 4.36/250 with 3 comments.

Hope all the medical needs friends are well tonight.

 

[panaflora]

In examples like yours especially about the parents I start to wonder how much of the story they read vs skimmed. I don't mind negative comments or someone saying something seemed out of place in a story, but not when going by their comments they either didn't read it or have no comprehension of what they read.

Unfortunately I have this feeling more and more. That's really no better than TLDR.

 

[Magineer]

I'm a firm believer that if your characters are interesting and compelling enough to make me care about them and what happens to them, it's far easier to suspend disbelief with everything else.

A great example is Tony Stark. Complex, compelling, detailed and well rounded character development and arc. Who cares that his Iron Man suit would never actually fly that way?

Yes indeed and there you have it.

How many writers are willing to produce... or, dare one risk asking, even capable of producing that mixture of hard work and imagination?

My own stuff can and does end up occasionally in the realm of the surreal but I take care to at least try to ground it initially in what a thinking reader would find believable. I mean: what is the point of producing ad nauseam barely-disguised simple descriptions of fucking? All I can tell is that this seems to find favour with many and it mystifies me.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Yes indeed and there you have it.

How many writers are willing to produce... or, dare one risk asking, even capable of producing that mixture of hard work and imagination?

My own stuff can and does end up occasionally in the realm of the surreal but I take care to at least try to ground it initially in what a thinking reader would find believable. I mean: what is the point of producing ad nauseam barely-disguised simple descriptions of fucking? All I can tell is that this seems to find favour with many and it mystifies me.

I mean, why do you care? Write what you want to write. It finds an audience or it doesn't. If your shit isn't finding an audience, don't blame the readers. If it's not getting ratings, or insightful comments, or favorites, that's part of the gig. If you're not publishing it because you think the plebes can't handle it, or aren't worthy of it... honestly, grow the fuck up.

I write stuff that tries to be challenging to the reader, at least most of the time. Sometimes, occasionally, I wrote something closer to a stroke story, but even then I take a swing at making them think. And sometimes, most of the time, that's going to be grounded in reality but still kind of fantastical. It doesn't have to be realistic, just believable, which you've already conceded.

But then you swing around to "but people just want to read about porn!" On... a porn site. Sorry, an "erotica" site. Like, what the fuck point are you actually trying to make? If you want to say "I don't like stroke stories," say that. I don't particularly care for them either, most of the time. But I don't try to couch it in some highhanded moral argument. And I don't try to both say "why don't people publish 'real' stories" and also "I choose to not publish my stories."

 

[MillieDynamite]

It is disconcerting to me that on this subject, I'm having a great deal of difficulty even forming the words to explain my opinion. But, I shall endeavor to give an opinion. First, a story can be fantasy and impossible, and yet the reader can lift the burden of disbelief if there are truths inside the story. Let's say the relationships in the tale must ring true; while the science is sketchy at best, if the interactions feel real, the reader will continue. In a swinging narrative, one must believe the people would do what they do. In a romance, people must seem real, and falling in love must be relatable to the reader. In a cheating wife or adulterous husband tale, we need to feel what their doing has a purpose, fills a void, or, in some way, is part of their character. The serial killer has to be realistic. It helps to use your eyes and ears and include traits you have seen and situations that happened in the real world.

Well, not exactly what I wanted to say, but this will have to work in place of what I can't put into words.

 

[alohadave]

It is disconcerting to me that on this subject, I'm having a great deal of difficulty even forming the words to explain my opinion. But, I shall endeavor to give an opinion. First, a story can be fantasy and impossible, and yet the reader can lift the burden of disbelief if there are truths inside the story. Let's say the relationships in the tale must ring true; while the science is sketchy at best, if the interactions feel real, the reader will continue. In a swinging narrative, one must believe the people would do what they do. In a romance, people must seem real, and falling in love must be relatable to the reader. In a cheating wife or adulterous husband tale, we need to feel what their doing has a purpose, fills a void, or, in some way, is part of their character. The serial killer has to be realistic. It helps to use your eyes and ears and include traits you have seen and situations that happened in the real world.

Well, not exactly what I wanted to say, but this will have to work in place of what I can't put into words.

While the situations may not be realistic or even possible, the people involved need to feel like they are acting and reacting like a real person might. In the absence of realistic behaviour, they should at least act consistently.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

While the situations may not be realistic or even possible, the people involved need to feel like they are acting and reacting like a real person might. In the absence of realistic behaviour, they should at least act consistently.

What if the person is one who, by their own nature, is inconsistent in how they act and react? There are those types of people. Whether they are bipolar, scatterbrained, or someone who shifts from one belief to another to please other folks. Those in the last category of individuals react by where they are and who they are with. People with secrets react oddly at times to preserve what others shouldn't know.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

 

[alohadave]

What if the person is one who, by their own nature, is inconsistent in how they act and reacts? There are those types of people. Whether they are bipolar, scatterbrained, or someone who shifts from one belief to another to please other folks. Those in the last category of individuals react by where they are and who they are with. People with secrets react oddly at times to preserve what others shouldn't know.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

That's the challenge of writing a character like that. Plus, unreliable narrator is technique that is used. Them changing how they act should be supported by the story so that it's not just a random jag in how they act. Ie: there should be some acknowledgment by the story or other characters about the behavior.

I've read stories where a character changes but there is no acknowledgment of injury, outside stimulus, or reason for the change, and no one in the story notes it as unusual. That is jarring to read.

 

[bumpercars]

Yes indeed and there you have it.

How many writers are willing to produce... or, dare one risk asking, even capable of producing that mixture of hard work and imagination?

My own stuff can and does end up occasionally in the realm of the surreal but I take care to at least try to ground it initially in what a thinking reader would find believable. I mean: what is the point of producing ad nauseam barely-disguised simple descriptions of fucking? All I can tell is that this seems to find favour with many and it mystifies me.

I feel like we're honestly on similar pages in terms of what bits of realism are necessary - you have to feel like you're reading about characters having some sort of emotional journey that you can empathize with. Bending reality is fine as long as there's a story about people at the heart of it. The story idea that kicked off this thread might be outside the realm of reality, but if we empathize with the characters and understand their choices it could work just fine.
But, if there are plenty of people who are looking for different things, that's okay. Like, there is an audience for stroke stories and an audience for stories with emotional journeys. If people want to get off to something simpler than what you or I would prefer to write or read, that's fine.