[Gary Wassner]

I think I understand where we are crossing purposes here. What you are calling realism, I am calling consistency. Realism for you defines the logical consistency within the fantastic. I was talking about realism in terms of possiblity and being authentic to what we can reasonably expect to occur in the 'real' world.

Sure, if a book is inconsistent and 'unrealistic' in that sense, if an elf doesn't follow the rules that an elf should follow based upon the definitions and parameters of 'elfhood' then it's 'unrealistic' and therefor unbelievable, again within the context of the fantastic. Your view is a micro and mine a macro, I suppose.

[Dawnstorm]

I think I understand where we are crossing purposes here. What you are calling realism, I am calling consistency. Realism for you defines the logical consistency within the fantastic. I was talking about realism in terms of possiblity and being authentic to what we can reasonably expect to occur in the 'real' world.

Sure, if a book is inconsistent and 'unrealistic' in that sense, if an elf doesn't follow the rules that an elf should follow based upon the definitions and parameters of 'elfhood' then it's 'unrealistic' and therefor unbelievable, again within the context of the fantastic. Your view is a micro and mine a macro, I suppose.

I don't think that's quite it. Fairy tales have a kind of logical consistency as well, but it's to be found on the allegorical level rather than at the "realistic". In a fairy-tale, I care little about reality; it's subordinate to theme; whatever furthers your theme is fair game. I've written a fairy tale, too. I could recast it as fantasy, or even science fiction. The method for fantasy would be to add realism: specific names, locations, and a pseudo-realistic frame-work that accounts for consistency at the realistic level.

The fairy tale has a tropic fish communicating with a dolphin. How? Because they can. Because it futhers the theme.

If I'd recast it as fantasy, I'd have to come up with an explanation for that. Some kind of freak in magic? Also, I'd have to know why they communicate. I'd have to know what race the tropic fish is (and whether it's really a dolphin or more a porpoise...). I'd have to know why this particular fish would communicate with a dolphin, when dolphins eat fish.

If I'd recast it as SF, I'd have to tone down the communication. I'd have to put up a pseudo-scientific theory of consciousness; or perhaps, it'd be a far future/alternate reality scenario, where both the fish and the dolphin are actually human offspring, the result of aesthetic genetic decisions. Which has lots of social implications.

On a continuum from fairy tale to science fiction, the way I see it, fantasy in the middle. And it's a continuum where the "real" becomes more and more important at the compositional level. A straightforward personification of an abstract theme or type becomes an individual which starts to misbehave and rebel and refuse to be reduced to the personification status, which then becomes an individual who is independant of the personification and turns into an example of a concept by the inference of a "narratorial device" (either a character's PoV, or a clearily characterised narrator, or even a - invented - social convention).

Sex and violence become relevant at the fantasy level. Not to include it, for me, is as much a decision as to include it. Writing a fairy tale, I'd only include it if the story was about it.

Now, there's certainly not a clear distinction between fairy tales and fantasy and science fiction (and what about myth, and scripture, to make it really complicated?). But it's a - relatively - simple way of thinking of different levels of "realism".

For example, I can confidantly say that Lord of the Rings has a more realistic approach to naming than Gormenghast, but both are logically consistent with the way they imploy names. Tolkien's names hint at culture rather than narrative function (there are, I think, embarrassing slips: Mt. Doom, Wormtongue...; but the general trend is there); Peake's got "telling" names: the Family of Groan, a cook named Swelter... (I could make up a social naming convention, but Peake doesn't, so I don't see why I - as a reader - should).

Now, it's clear that - because the comparison I've just made holds true for naming (or not, perhaps I'm wrong) - doesn't mean that LotR is more realistic than G. It always depends what you look at, and where you place your accents. There's anything from "realistic names" to "realistic ecology" to "realistic history" to "realistic psychology" (which is in itself problematic, because we haven't necessarily come to terms with what's real regarding ecology, history or psychology; the debate's on).

Personally, I prefer Gormenghast to Lord of the Rings, because I feel it has a clearer concept to where it stands, regarding realism. Tolkien, I think, knew what he was doing in the Hobbit, but I don't think his concept works quite as well in LotR (as I said above, names as Wormtongue or Mt. Doom, which are perfectly fitting in fairy tales, grate in fantasy - at least when I'm reading).

I must admit, though, that I never read the LotR, just countless excerpts, and a lot about it. Still, even if I'm wrong, it ought to help understand where I'm coming from. I don't really know if I'm making sense, as it's a complex and confusing subject matter.

***

On second thought, you're right about me being more micro than you in my definition. But I still think I'm not only talking about consistency.

[Gary Wassner]

[QUOTE=Dawnstorm]I don't think that's quite it. Fairy tales have a kind of logical consistency as well, but it's to be found on the allegorical level rather than at the "realistic". In a fairy-tale, I care little about reality; it's subordinate to theme; whatever furthers your theme is fair game.

Consistency is consistency, regardless of the matter. We expect certain rules to be followed in order to understand and accept. How rigorous the rules are may vary depending upon the type of story, granted. In that respect I agree that fairy tales, though allegorical, are different than fantasy, though fantasy is often quite metaphorical. All the characters we utilize are metaphors, they are not meant to be real. Elves, dwarves, orcs etc, if we choose to use them, are already metaphors before we even aniimate them in our own books. We may alter them, but why use them if not to evoke the sensibilities we expect lurk behind these tropes? You would still expect your talking fish in a fairy tale to swim, though we accept that they can survive on land if the author wishes them too, and to talk, because they are not really fish at all, but symbols. We know this going into a fairy tale, I agree. Our expectations are different. But still, if my character in a fantasy transforms into a fish and swims around the ocean under water, I may have to explain how his body transforms in order to accomplish this so that the reader is able to accept what I am writing. Is that realism? Is that what you mean? I give a logical though perhaps impossible explanation that the mind can wrap itself around and therefor not question the scientific absurdity of my creation? Is that realism? Rationalizaiton? I must be missing something here. What exactly do you mean by realism in fantasy? Anaesthetic for the mind so that we can read this and not feel foolish? Are there actually levels of realism? What does that mean? Something impossible can't be less impossible than something else that is also impossible. I think you're forcing this somehow to satisfy your desires. There are messages in both fantasy and fairy tales. The messages, the provocative ideas that underlie the stories, transcend the specifics anyway. We are not learning about the higher values of elves because of their different perspective in time. We are learning about time and about value.

If my character can make the earth erupt by focusing his mind upon it and transforming the molecular structure, you might be comfortable with that way of looking at the use of power, but to call it realism because I explain it in more scientific terms, seems strange to me. All I'm really doing is making is sound and seem more realistic because I am providing you with an explanation of the kind you are used to when you want something explained to you. I am not giving you reality. People can't bend molecules. Maybe it's me, but I have a serious problem with the requirement today regarding realism in fantasy. It seems almost absurd to me. Either it grips you or it doesn't. If it's not consistent and it doesn't make sense and seems ridiculous, then it just doesn't work. And if providing absurd (measured against 'real' reality, instead of our fake 'fantasy' reality or our even less rigorous 'fairytale' reality) explanations that allow the reader to believe your story, satisfies the need to feel less juvenile and more mature, that's fine too. But realism in fantasy? I would be happy if we could just find another word to describe this. I see what you are saying, I just have a problem with the conotations of the word and the value implications that are now being applied by virtue of it's usage. Realism is better than non-realism in fantasy! Why? Because we like it better? Why? Help me out here if you can.

[Dawnstorm]

I think the key to understand what I mean lies in this:

All the characters we utilize are metaphors, they are not meant to be real. Elves, dwarves, orcs etc, if we choose to use them, are already metaphors before we even aniimate them in our own books. We may alter them, but why use them if not to evoke the sensibilities we expect lurk behind these tropes?

A metaphor has two components. The theorists term them tenor (the idea expressed) and vehicle (the means by which it is expressed). In the case of elves, for example, we have a vehicle that has no referent in the real world. Nevertheless, the concept of what makes an elf has to be indepentant of the tenor to make for a functional metaphor. This is probably so; you could paint a picture of an elf, and even if people don't recognise it, they will most likely answer correctly if you ask them wether the picture represents an elf or a dwarf. You can point out physical attributes that make the difference.

Now, there are two - theoretical - ways to write a metaphor:

You could play with tenors: you look at what ideas an elf can represent. You may combine traditional elven tenors (mortality; caprice; gender-ambiguity...) with new ones, modifying the vehicle and innovating the trope.

This is NOT what I call the "realist" approach, as the idea determines the way things look/act... etc.

You might also play with the vehicle: Your elves will be a lot more traditional, albeit more detailled, but suddenly you'll find them representing different tenors. Tenors that weren't planned.

This is what I'd call the "realist" approach. The reason why I find "realism" not a misnomer in this respect is that what you use to expand on the "unspoken" details of elven life is reality. You treat elves like organisms. You use the general reality of organisms as a template to find out what the "conventional" treatment of elves has overlooked. The aesthetic tenors of the metaphor elf is somehow subverted once you realise that what eats must ****. Now, in a "realistic" portrayal of elves, you can still play with the aesthetic tenors; you will then have to decide if you include elven toilet training. The relationship of the original tenor to the "realisitically" expanded vehicle, then, is, itself, at issue, becoming a vehicle for "idealisation".

At some point, the concept of an elf diverges from the way we make sense of organisms in the world. I identify the life span; who knows what others may identify. But this divergance is not arbitrary; it has a shape. There is some understanding why this isn't possible; like heart rate. It's not so much how I justify this (I'm quite happy saying "magic" keeps them alive; and, yes, to some extent magic will also be problematic, though this doesn't have to be explicit). It's what I make of this. For instance, what if I have a human fall in love with an elve, they lay side by side, and human muses in shock about the "heart beating slowly, like a funeral drum".

The realist approach is not so much about value that it's about misconceptions, misunderstandings, differences. By developing the vehicle through "pseudo-realistic" means, your interest shifts from the tenor to the way the unacknowledged properties of the vehicle subvert the tenor.

So having the wet and squishy aspects of "love" and "slaying evil" in a fantasy isn't necessarily only graphic. It's often meant to expose hidden assumptions.

Assertions that "realistic (hmm... how about materialistic? empricist?) fantasy" is somehow superior to "idealistic fantasy" have never convinced me; and I find them ironic, because "idealistic fantasy" can easily exist without "realistic fantasy". But "realistic fantasy" without "idealistic fantasy" is impossible.

[Gary Wassner]

So in the end, your sense of realism in fantasy is not what others are referring to when they talk about gritty, dark, realistic fantasy. You're giving the term a functional meaning, not a normative one. That I can always accept, whether I agree with it or not. It seems it's a matter of semantics and definitions, rather than a judgment.

[Hereford Eye]

After spending so much time so close together on their travels and never having sex or even talking about it, I guess they are all just getting a bit horny. What can I say? Relationships on that level tend to add a different dimension to the story, one that I am not certain I want to spend that much time working out in this series. Besides, I'm not sure I know what elves and dwarves prefer. How realistic is it if I make up the proclivities of these races? And how well would it go over? After all, elves live for a long time. Variety might very well be the spice of their lives, and I don't know if my readers are ready for that.
Here we seem to have characters from multiple races becoming intimate. What to do with the intimacy? Before sex can be an answer, should not a decision be made: what's the purpose of sex? Suppose that is simply a means for mutual pleasure, then sex has no moral complications at all. It would be no worse than the whole gang sitting aroung the fire, one playing guitar, singing all the old songs. Mutual pleasure, nothing more. And it could be written into story as "they went off to do what comes naturally." No further explanation is required.
Suppose sex has the additonal purpose of procreation; now we must wonder if the races are cross fertile. If they are, then the ramifications of having sex with another race take on a complication simple pleasure did not manifest. That love of variety now carries consequences that makes it also a love of daring the odds. Now we get to wonder about the motives, the self-interest, the true meaning of this relationship. Are they risking the accidental bond that could ensue? Or is there some prophylactic device employed?
If they are not cross-fertile, then the interest in variety could tell us something not-human-normal about the people involved. Would we conclude an interest in bestiality?
Tolkien gave us no half-elves in the LotR and I don't recall if the aftermath identified any issue from the Arwen-Aragorn match and I'm too lazy at this moment to go look it up. She gave up her immortality but was there any indication of any other impact of their relationship? So, their relationship - while presumably physical - was simply an expression of their love and nothing more.

The conversation thus far expresses a male POV. Suppose we looked at it from the female POV, does it change anything in our thinking?

At the end, though, there could be a need to include some semblance of the physical reality of the relationships if for no other reasons than to answer the questions raised herein. Wouldn't that tell us something real and basic about these people?

[Dawnstorm]

So in the end, your sense of realism in fantasy is not what others are referring to when they talk about gritty, dark, realistic fantasy. You're giving the term a functional meaning, not a normative one. That I can always accept, whether I agree with it or not. It seems it's a matter of semantics and definitions, rather than a judgment.

I cannot answer too many questions at once. But, while I agree that I make no attempt at a normative statement and instead try to clarify semantics, I don't think it's too far off from what people mean by "gritty, dark, realistic fantasy".

Expanding the vehicle of a classic metaphor via analogy to realistic (real life) concepts in order to arrive at new tenors is just a writing method. But it's one that's, IMO, more likely to come up with "gritty, dark, realistic fantasy", then the reverse method of trying out new tenors on an established metaphor; simply because the subject matter of fantasy, when broken down into real life components, is a sticky, sweaty, bloody (and worse) affair. This says nothing about the relative desirabilities of the various fantasies, though, and the fact that these aren't mutually exclusive methods, complicates matters.

However, I do think that a lot of the discourse about "dark, gritty, realistic fantasy" can be broken down using these terms. The argument might run:

Careless handling of metaphor results, via over-emphasis of the intended tenor and under-evaluation of possible alternate analogies (implied, if not explicit) between the physical descriptions of the vehicle and real life phenomena, in unconscious perpetration of "ruling class sentiments".

I think that it's no coincidence that a lot of the ideologues of movements, such as New Weird, sound a bit (or a lot) like Neo-Marxists, and that the catchphrases are escapism, cliché, and mainstream, vs. criticism, estrangement and - dare I say it - revolution.

The racism allegations against "Lord of the Rings" make no sense when his metaphors are viewed through the tenor; Orcs are evil, simply because that's what they're ment to represent. But once you start looking at the vehicle, even at it's most abstract the concept of having "an evil race", is worrying; as - in real life - this is compatible with the reasons warmongers tend to give when they want to motivate people to kill.

Life becomes a tricky affair, if you're always trying to do "the right thing". The problem I have with that line of argument is that - I suspect - their intentions tend to work best when they "preach to the converted". "Dark, gritty" can very easily be (mis?)understood as perversion, or titilation. I don't like writing to a beat, and I don't like reading to a beat; that somehow reduces the experience.

All I can say about "dark, gritty, realist fantasy" is that - at its best - I like the way I dislike what I read; and sometimes it's just that I can relate.

[Gary Wassner]

No arguement with that post at all.