At its best, worldbuilding not only offers an escape to the audience. It enhances the verisimilitude of a story. However novel the setting, if its rules are internally consistent and logical, and the setting-bound characters have understandable motives, the reader will connect.
The idea of fully immersing the reader in the setting is seductive. What quicker way to learn, or what better way to make them feel as the characters do? It may seem intuitive that the more realistically the setting is presented, the more verisimilitude the story has, but that is often not the case. Realism flattens the space the writer works in, disallowing narrative concepts that inform the reader how they should feel about the characters and where the story is going. This can actually leave the reader confused and with a cold, empty feeling.
From the realism Wikipedia page:
Realism as a literary movement was based on "objective reality." It focused on showing everyday activities and life, primarily among the middle or lower class society, without romantic idealization or dramatization. It may be regarded as the general attempt to depict subjects as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation and "in accordance with secular, empirical rules."
You've probably heard of Chekhov's gun. It's the dramatic principle that if you take the effort to show the audience something, it should come into play later. A gun is the most striking example of this, but it could be anything. Cranky Uncle Bill has a prosthetic leg. The question leaps to our mind: Why? Such a detail must be included for a reason. That reason is the payoff. The prosthetic leg is the setup.
Realism disdains this principle. If something is there, it's there whether it comes up again or not.
This extends to all story elements, not just setting. Real people are textured and exhibit the full range of emotion. They do not fit into the molds of heroes and villains. The realist approach calls that "simplification." Thus, for the sake realism, character archetypes are done away with. There is no black and white, but endless shades of gray.
The same goes for plot. What did you do today? You may have started a book, cleaned out the garage, taken the kids for a play date, or prepared a big family meal. But so many other things happened that don't align with personal narratives. You watched TV, slept, ate, went potty. These mundane activities, interchangeable day to day, have no bearing on plot. But, if a depiction of reality is the foremost goal, who are you to leave it out?
This cuts the writer's job in half. Normally a writer creates the fictional world of the story and selectively depicts it in service to the story. Under realism, the writer gives you everything without discernment. You might call this vain and lazy, and I wouldn't disagree.
Realism has its place, especially in literary and period fiction. Elsewhere, though, it has a tendency to demoralize the reader. People approach stories with a variety of wants and desires. Perhaps first among them, on the meta level, is the quest for meaning. What is a story but to give meaning? I'm not talking about the meaning of life, just something to care about, like the success of a startup or the outcome of a battle. Realism denies this want by obscuring meaning in the people and events it depicts in copious but profane detail. So the reader's left feeling cold and empty.
For further reading on this subject, I recommend Rawle Nyanzi's blog post, "Indoctrinated Into Realism."
As always, let me know what you think in the comments. If you like hard sci-fi and a quest for meaning, check out my books Seeds of Calamity and Tendrils to the Moon. You can find extended previews for each here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment