Is calling a story unrealistic a fair criticism?

[Ottservia]

Oftentimes whenever I hear people complain about stories. I always hear things like this story is contrived or unrealistic, but when you break it down is that really a proper criticism of something? Like what does 'unrealistic' necessarily mean in this context? Cause when you think about it, Stories are unrealistic by nature and not just because of super powers and such. Dialogue in it of itself is an unrealistic aspect of storytelling because actual conversation is not nearly as clear cut and understandable. It's a big old mess most of the time. I dunno this video has me thinking.

It's just a topic that interests me anyway. It's food for thought.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ottservia

[Flere210]

Unrealistic does not mean much, but it can be criticized for not making sense. 

The problem of the battle of Witerfell is not that it's unrealistic  but that the unrealism make everyone involved looks like an idiot. Why in a war council of many seasoned veteran no one pointed out that sending a blind cavalry charge and putting artillery in front of the infranty is stupid? I don't need a deeply researched battle that include obscure details  but please, everyone that played Total War once can se the idiocy.

[Benice]

Yes, if the unrealistic part is unrealistic in the context of the story.  For example, let's just say that there's a setting where magic spells are possible to pull off, but they require intense concentration, but in one scene, a character just starts throwing spells around effortlessly, mostly for the convinience of the plot. Thatbothers me, as does the "Superhuman strength being uncovered when it mattersmost/going 0-60 in terms of strength" plot device. Just because everyone's relying on you doesn't mean you should all of a sudden become a minor deity. I personally like unrealistic stories, but it has to make sense. (For example, no one calls Ike out for being able to jump about 90 feet in the air when he activates Aether because for some reason many mastery skills allow you to jump very high, such as deadeye. FE isn't really noted for being realistic very often, though.)

[X-Naut]

It depends on how far it stretches your suspension of disbelief. People are willing to overlook unrealistic things to an extent, but at some point an alarm trips in your head to tell you that something is just plain wrong.

[Etrurian emperor]

Depends on the type of realism. Fiction always needs to have some leeway in terms of how it compares to the real world since its fiction. But if something is unrealistic within the rules that fictional world provides then it starts to become a problem. 

Game of Thrones is probably the most notable modern example of something not being realistic within its own world. The Unsullied are a very specific group. You can't simply put on the uniform and join. Since they are slaves that are trained from soldiers at birth they can't be easily replaced. In the later seasons this elite group that was very hard to replenish suffered many losses but their numbers only seemed to increase as the plot demanded. 

Or the inept Cersei with a very weakened empire suddenly being able to defeat the strongest realm in the land in one episode despite her supposedly so superior father needing three whole seasons to defeat two houses far weaker than what Cersei defeated.

[vanguard333]

Unrealistic and Contrived mean two different things.

People can mean all kinds of different things when they say, "realistic" or "unrealistic" so I try to avoid using the word "realistic" in general when talking about anything media-related. When I talk about historical/scientific accuracy, I usually say one of those or, "authentic". If I'm talking about a story being more grounded and down-to-earth as opposed to something more over-the-top, I'll say, "grounded" and "down-to-earth"; it much more clearly conveys what I'm meaning.

When it comes to The Long Night in Game of Thrones, people are mostly referring to authenticity when they say it was unrealistic. Now, that's not usually too big an issue unless you're writing historical fiction, but in the case of that particular episode, we see characters that are established as experienced tacticians making mistakes so basic that even those completely unfamiliar with medieval warfare are able to look at those mistakes and think, "I'm pretty sure no tactician would ever be that stupid". Stuff like putting the siege engines on the front line, putting the bulk of the army in front of the castle, sending a light cavalry horde to charge at an undead (and therefore fearless) enemy that they can't see, etc. 

 

By contrast, contrived means something more specific. Contrived is a question of the story's internal logic: the story is only able to progress from A to B because of x reason, but there was no internal reason for x to happen and it would be highly improbable for x to happen in the context of the narrative. It's not inherently contradictive, so it's not as bad as a plot hole, but it can strain suspension of disbelief, as it's a moment where the story is relying on coincidence to keep going rather than the characters and worldbuilding that are already there. Having a bit of coincidence is not inherently a bad thing; coincidences happen all the time. But if the story begins relying on them, then the problems occur. 

[Hanes]

I would say yes when it comes to people doing unreasonable things or having a sudden chage of heart that comes out of nowhere, etc. But if the worldbuilding is unrealistic then who cares? It's someone's world it can be however they want it to be.

[eclipse]

This is in the wrong place.

For the topic, I'll criticize whatever the hell I want.  There's no moral police when it comes to things like taste in story realism (though the logic of how I got there may call my personality into question).

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

This is in the wrong place.

For the topic, I'll criticize whatever the hell I want.  There's no moral police when it comes to things like taste in story realism (though the logic of how I got there may call my personality into question).

To quote the video, "I'm not talking about personal enjoyment. I'm talking about the more recent standards in critical analysis in regards to understanding storytelling. Standards beyond just personal taste" I have nothing against anyone for having tastes and opinions because people have different tastes and opinions in what they value in a story. What I'm getting at here is the question of, Why the lack of "realism" in stories is considered poor writing. It's fine to like a story for being realistic and vice versa but what does that criticism mean at the end of the day? Like is it right to criticize a story for being poorly written because it broke my personal suspension of disbelief? or to criticize a story for not being true to life when it has no intention of doing that(like for example criticizing a story like awakening for not having a realistic portrayal of medieval politics when the story clearly had no intention of portraying any of that)? I would argue no to both of those questions.

[eclipse]

Just now, Ottservia said:

To quote the video, "I'm not talking about personal enjoyment. I'm talking about the more recent standards in critical analysis in regards to understanding storytelling. Standards beyond just personal taste" I have nothing against anyone for having tastes and opinions because people have different tastes and opinions in what they value in a story. What I'm getting at here is the question of, Why the lack of "realism" in stories is considered poor writing. It's fine to like a story for being realistic and vice versa but what does that criticism mean at the end of the day? Like is it right to criticize a story for being poorly written because it broke my personal suspension of disbelief? or to criticize a story for not being true to life when it has no intention of doing that(like for example criticizing a story like awakening for not having a realistic portrayal of medieval politics when the story clearly had no intention of portraying any of that)? I would argue no to both of those questions.

You missed the point.

To tailor your criticisms to what others think is acceptable is the entire crux of the issue I have.  I'll be responsible for my own thoughts, thankyouverymuch.  Even if it means I'm telling things about myself that don't make me look good.

[Ottservia]

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

You missed the point.

To tailor your criticisms to what others think is acceptable is the entire crux of the issue I have.  I'll be responsible for my own thoughts, thankyouverymuch.  Even if it means I'm telling things about myself that don't make me look good.

I suppose that's fair. I mean dislike a show for whatever reason you have. You won't hear me complaining. All I'm saying is that people need to separate subjective bias and objective analysis/critique a little bit.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ottservia

[eclipse]

Just now, Ottservia said:

I suppose that's fair. I mean dislike a show for whatever reason you have. You won't hear me complaining. 

It's a little more nuanced than that.

Once you start categorizing criticisms as "this isn't okay by some external standard", you're censoring your own thoughts for the sake of another.  It also gives that other person an excuse to dismiss a criticism, for not conforming to their standards.  Stuff like mental dishonesty needs to be called out, not swept under the rug.

I'd stop watching videos that encourage these kinds of things.  It says awful things about the mindset of the creator.

[Interdimensional Observer]

For realism, it does depend partly on what the thing in question is trying to do/be. In FE, I'm fine without 20% (whatever was the norm of the WWI world) of my army dying to disease. FE doesn't try to be realistic in that regard, nor does FE ever try to pride itself on being very realistic.

Realism, as others have said above, matters more when it is promised. The making and breaking of promises can seriously impact one's thoughts on things. A promise is an expectation, an expectation is hope, hopes that crushed can be worse than no hopes at all. So promise me good political drama, and if what I get is no politics or botched politics, I will be more critical of it the same kind of product sans political drama. A book/movie/TV show/game that makes no promises of any kind might sound ideal then, but why try it when makes no offers- promises- to me?

[Ottservia]

12 minutes ago, eclipse said:

It's a little more nuanced than that.

Once you start categorizing criticisms as "this isn't okay by some external standard", you're censoring your own thoughts for the sake of another.  It also gives that other person an excuse to dismiss a criticism, for not conforming to their standards.  Stuff like mental dishonesty needs to be called out, not swept under the rug.

I'd stop watching videos that encourage these kinds of things.  It says awful things about the mindset of the creator.

I'll ask one more thing because I don't wanna drag this out anymore than necessary. But then where does one draw the line between subjective critique and objective critique? Like clearly it's totally fine to just take a random inbetween frame completely devoid of context and criticize that as poor animation when that's not how animation works. Like at all. I'm not saying you can't say that or that you can't laugh at that but that's not what bad animation is. Animation should be judged in motion because that's what animation is. So am I not allowed to say that is a poor way to criticize animation? 

[vanguard333]

12 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I'll ask one more thing because I don't wanna drag this out anymore than necessary. But then where does one draw the line between subjective critique and objective critique? Like clearly it's totally fine to just take a random in-between frame completely devoid of context and criticize that as poor animation when that's not how animation works. Like at all. I'm not saying you can't say that or that you can't laugh at that but that's not what bad animation is. Animation should be judged in motion because that's what animation is. So am I not allowed to say that is a poor way to criticize animation? 

The line between subjective critique and objective critique is in the names: 

• Is the person arguing from facts and reasoning which can be measured and shown to be true/false or strong/weak? If so, then it is objective criticism.
• Is the person arguing from emotion; their personal experience, how they felt, their opinion, their preferences, etc.? If so, then it is subjective criticism.

You are allowed to say it is a poor way to criticize animation (just make it clear or at least implicit that you're saying it's a poor way to objectively criticize something). You have made a statement that can be proven true or false. You could then present some arguments, such as that animation is meant to be seen in motion as one frame moves to the next, so criticizing a singular frame is a weak criticism. Those arguments, as well as the original statement, can be argued, debated and discussed. 

The whole point of objective critique is to encourage meaningful discussion, not silence it.

All too often I see videos throw up subjectively as a shield against criticism to try and shut down discussion. It is usually done because it gets personal for them: they've put a personal stake into their belief on the matter; be it that they loved a movie so it must therefore be good or something like that, so they get very emotionally defensive when that belief on the matter (such as the movie being of high-quality) is challenged. In Critical Thinking class, I recently read a textbook section subtitled Watch Out When Things Get Personal that talks about this sort of thing. 

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

The line between subjective critique and objective critique is in the names: 

• Is the person arguing from facts and reasoning which can be measured and shown to be true/false or strong/weak? If so, then it is objective criticism.
• Is the person arguing from emotion; their personal experience, how they felt, their opinion, their preferences, etc.? If so, then it is subjective criticism.

You are allowed to say it is a poor way to criticize animation (just make it clear or at least implicit that you're saying it's a poor way to objectively criticize something). You have made a statement that can be proven true or false. You could then present some arguments, such as that animation is meant to be seen in motion as one frame moves to the next, so criticizing a singular frame is a weak criticism. Those arguments, as well as the original statement, can be argued, debated and discussed. 

The whole point of objective critique is to encourage meaningful discussion, not silence it.

All too often I see videos throw up subjectively as a shield against criticism to try and shut down discussion. It is usually done because it gets personal for them: they've put a personal stake into their belief on the matter; be it that they loved a movie so it must therefore be good or something like that, so they get very emotionally defensive when that belief on the matter (such as the movie being of high-quality) is challenged. In Critical Thinking class, I recently read a textbook section subtitled Watch Out When Things Get Personal that talks about this sort of thing. 

This 100% agree with. I was more so arguing eclipse's point about not dismissing criticism. Like Yeah if a criticism is factually incorrect, I should be able to dismiss it on that grounds. Like my whole point in all of this is that people need to learn how to criticize something properly and have their criticisms be devoid of bias as possible. I'm challenging how people view and understand stories in order to get a proper discussion going on the nature of story telling and what objectively good story telling is. All of this so I can better my own understanding of stories as both a critic and a writer myself. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ottservia

[vanguard333]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

This 100% agree with. I was more so arguing eclipse's point about not dismissing criticism. Like Yeah if a criticism is factually incorrect, I should be able to dismiss it on that grounds. Like my whole point in all of this is that people need to learn how to criticize something properly and have their criticisms be devoid of bias as possible. I'm challenging how people view and understand stories in order to get a proper discussion going on the nature of story telling and what objectively good story telling is. All of this so I can better my own understanding of stories as both a critic and a writer myself. 

Okay. It's just that stuff like, "Stories are inherently unrealistic" (like you have in the first part of the thread) is something I've seen thrown up as one of those "defences" quite a few times; usually as part of a strawman to dismiss someone's argument. It's a bit similarly to responding to the criticism of characters not behaving logically with, "People are illogically. If characters behaved logically, they'd all be Vulcans and the story would be boring." <-- Something I've actually heard someone argue.

When people say, "unrealistic" or "illogically", they usually mean internally; in the latter case, a character's internal logic. For instance, a character who we know is almost single-mindedly obsessed with achieving a certain goal going out of their way to do something that hinders said goal, and that they should realize would hinder said goal given what we know about them. This would be a character behaving illogically. 

Similarly, for the unrealistic thing, I've seen people respond to criticisms of something being "unrealistic" with stuff like, "This is a movie about space wizards intended for children", which misses the point entirely. When people complain about something being unrealistic, it is usually in the sense that something previously established as similar to how it is in our universe suddenly not being a factor or behaving in a way that it shouldn't. For instance, a story with a supposedly effective military means that the basic battle tactics should still make reasonable sense, whether the battle is fought with real guns or laser guns. If it isn't, then that's "unrealistic", though a better term would probably be internally inconsistent. 

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay. It's just that stuff like, "Stories are inherently unrealistic" (like you have in the first part of the thread) is something I've seen thrown up as one of those "defences" quite a few times; usually as part of a strawman to dismiss someone's argument. It's a bit similarly to responding to the criticism of characters not behaving logically with, "People are illogically. If characters behaved logically, they'd all be Vulcans and the story would be boring." <-- Something I've actually heard someone argue.

I say stories are inherently unrealistic because they are. I mean dialogue alone kinda shoots down the notion of any story because real life conversation is nothing like scripted dialogue. What I mean is that story(and the video I posted goes into more detail on) is that a story should not be really be praised for being realistic nor should a story be dismissed because it is unrealistic. A story isn't good or bad because of its realism or lack there of. There are several stories that distance themselves from reality and yet are still well written despite not caring about accurately portraying reality. Is Chrom an accurate portrayal of what a real life medieval prince was like? not really no. Does that matter? not really no because the story was never concerned with portraying that through Chrom as a character. That was probably a bad example but I think you get my meaning.

 

11 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Similarly, for the unrealistic thing, I've seen people respond to criticisms of something being "unrealistic" with stuff like, "This is a movie about space wizards intended for children", which misses the point entirely. When people complain about something being unrealistic, it is usually in the sense that something previously established as similar to how it is in our universe suddenly not being a factor or behaving in a way that it shouldn't. For instance, a story with a supposedly effective military means that the basic battle tactics should still make reasonable sense, whether the battle is fought with real guns or laser guns. If it isn't, then that's "unrealistic", though a better term would probably be internally inconsistent. 

Yeah that's not what I mean when I say you should stop criticizing stories for being unrealistic. Again, watch the video. It does a good job of explaining what I mean but tl;dr a story does not need to be "realistic" to be a good story. Stories are by nature artificial and it's that fictitious nature of stories that creates an unavoidable dissonance when you judge it purely on the basis of realism. Is it realistic for a character to gain a super power when they're beaten back by the enemy and remember something important that their teacher taught them? absolutely not but it does drive home the thematic message that which the story wants to convey. Or to take an example from the video. Is the concept of a school idol realistic? no it's not but that doesn't matter to the story because the story is not interested in accurately portraying the logistics of the real life idol industry. If it bothered at all with that then it would create logistical problems that would change the show entirely to something it is not. Other shows may be interested in exploring those logistics but love live is not and that is totally fine. Every story has its own rules by which it operates. You should judge each piece of media by its own rules and what it sets out to accomplish within those rules.

[Hawkwing]

I'd rename the title of "Is it right to criticize a story for being unrealistic?" to "Is calling a story unrealistic a fair criticism?". There's not really a moral issue with being unrealistic, unless a story tackles a real life issue in a way that's tactless.

Anyway, given that fiction inherently has to take some liberties with reality, there's no way for a product to fully confirm to realities rules. That said, this doesn't mean that creators have to ignore real life concepts to enhance their work, nor do they have to be chained by things such as physics and logistics. Regardless if the movie, show, or videogame has a focus on being grounded and down-to-earth or has characters flying around and shooting lasers, it should be important that the product follows whatever internal rules it establishes, and has a good explanation for when those rules are broken.

This doesn't mean that realistic works can get something wrong and still come off as grounded. The Dark Knight Trilogy, for example, has several moments were science doesn't follow the rules of the real world (microwave transmitters, sonar, and fusion bombs don't work that way), yet the illusion of reality is maintained as these technologies are still applied practically within the established rules. Similarly, there are a multitude of reasons for why mecha are impractical in real life, yet there are several products out there that apply the concept in grounded ways, with a focus on utilizing giant robots in tactical ways and addressing the logistics behind them. Nor does it mean that fantastical worlds can't be enhanced by applying real world situations. In The Witcher, the main character is a monster hunter, and in Avatar: The Last Airbender, people can bend the four classical elements, yet the former has the protagonist deal with finding jobs, as well as facing corruption and racism, and the latter doesn't gloss over genocide and has the Fire Nations conquest comes off more as real world imperialism than the general "evil army attacks other nations because they're evil" cliche.

The criticism that a work is "unrealistic" usually comes from a product claiming that it is authentic and then has everyone spinning around during the swordfights. Sometimes there are production reasons for this (such as not having the money to buy or make more accurate props or costumes, or not having the time to choreograph a more authentic fight), others are more practical (actor safety in films and shows. Giving the player time to react to an enemy attack in videogames), and some are deliberate artistic choice, which range in how well they work. The duel in Potop (or The Deluge), for instance, has a character that spins in a fight, but this is used to show how inexperienced and desperate they are, and when they ask their opponent to stop toying with them and get it over with, the duel is ended in a single swift move. In Saving Private Ryan, the bridge would have been destroyed as a first resort, as while the process still took hours, the allies could rebuild them in a short amount of time. Similarly, tall places like clocktowers would have been destroyed by either side due to being such an obvious sniping spot. Spielberg kept them in to as they would make the climax more dramatic. For the most part, though, glaring inaccuracies or maneuvers in either tactics or fights that cause the audience to question why the characters would do such a thing (and can't be answered by it being something that historically happened), is distracting and a legitimate criticism, especially if the characters involved are supposed to be skilled tacticians or warriors, as it them becomes a case of saying one thing and showing another.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Hawkwing

[Timely Rain]

Unrealistic is fine on a narrative level, I'd say. The problem arises when it doesn't keep its internal consistency and contradicts itself, or if the characters don't have a reaction that makes sense for them. Realistic or not, doesn't really matter. What's important is to follow the rules you stablish. 

[vanguard333]

11 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I say stories are inherently unrealistic because they are. I mean dialogue alone kinda shoots down the notion of any story because real life conversation is nothing like scripted dialogue. What I mean is that story(and the video I posted goes into more detail on) is that a story should not be really be praised for being realistic nor should a story be dismissed because it is unrealistic. A story isn't good or bad because of its realism or lack there of. There are several stories that distance themselves from reality and yet are still well written despite not caring about accurately portraying reality. Is Chrom an accurate portrayal of what a real life medieval prince was like? not really no. Does that matter? not really no because the story was never concerned with portraying that through Chrom as a character. That was probably a bad example but I think you get my meaning.

11 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah that's not what I mean when I say you should stop criticizing stories for being unrealistic. Again, watch the video. It does a good job of explaining what I mean but tl;dr a story does not need to be "realistic" to be a good story. Stories are by nature artificial and it's that fictitious nature of stories that creates an unavoidable dissonance when you judge it purely on the basis of realism. Is it realistic for a character to gain a super power when they're beaten back by the enemy and remember something important that their teacher taught them? absolutely not but it does drive home the thematic message that which the story wants to convey. Or to take an example from the video. Is the concept of a school idol realistic? no it's not but that doesn't matter to the story because the story is not interested in accurately portraying the logistics of the real life idol industry. If it bothered at all with that then it would create logistical problems that would change the show entirely to something it is not. Other shows may be interested in exploring those logistics but love live is not and that is totally fine. Every story has its own rules by which it operates. You should judge each piece of media by its own rules and what it sets out to accomplish within those rules.

 

Yeah; I get your meaning, mainly because that's pretty much a given. I mean; no one watches a shonen anime and thinks, "What? I thought this was a history documentary! 1/10!" Except for maybe one confused guy that misread the title.

If stories didn't take breaks from reality, we wouldn't have most genres; especially not fantasy or sci-fi. As far as I'm aware, no one is talking about that when they criticize something for being unrealistic; as I said, they're usually talking about when it gets to the point of internal inconsistency. 

 

Chrom is an interesting example. Yes, the story had no interest in telling a realistic portrayal of a medieval crown prince. However, the story did, in a way, go out of its way to justify why he behaves so differently:

In his family's backstory, he and his siblings were hated by the public for their dad's war with Plegia that took so many lives and pretty much starved Ylisse. it wasn't for some time after Emmeryn became Exalt and worked to rebuild Ylisse that the people started calming down. In a sense, Chrom going out and leading the Shepherds rather than doing actions more befitting a crown prince is his attempt at atonement for his father's war. He considers Emmeryn reaching out and healing the people that hated them to represent the best part of the royal line, and he's trying to represent that as well in his own way. 

Did it need to do that? One could argue not necessarily. But it did so anyway, and at the same time used it to explore one of its main characters, and it's honestly one of the best-written aspects of Awakening's overall fairly-generic main story. Incidentally, this is very similar to Elincia from Path of Radiance: the story didn't need to say why its royalty was unusual, but it did so anyway:

Quote

Mist: “Sorry, this is kind of awkward. Making a princess help with packing…”

Elincia: “Please don’t worry, Mist. I just hope that I don’t end up slowing you down by getting in your way.”

Mist: “Don’t be silly! You’re so much better at this than I am. It’s a big help! Are all princesses as good at this sort of thing as you are?”

Elincia: “Ha ha! I wasn’t raised at court, so my life was a bit different than other princesses. I cooked, cleaned, sewed…Why, I did all manner of things.”

Elincia was hidden away in a villa to keep people from finding out about her birth because she was born after her uncle had already been named the king's successor. This ties into her character arc, as she has to go from a sheltered princess that doesn't know the first thing about being a princess to being able to take on the leadership position that was unexpectedly placed upon her (which mirrors Ike's character arc; Path of Radiance had such good writing). 
 

You can start with whatever base you want when creating a story. But, anything that you don’t state, show or imply to be a break from reality can and will safely be assumed by the audience to reflect reality. For example, if your story is an outer space sci-do world full of aliens, you can write the aliens however you want, but, unless stated otherwise, the humans will be like our humans. If an alien character gets their arm cut off and it grows back, this will be taken as establishing the species’ healing powers, and is fine unless contradicted elsewhere. But, if a human character gets their arm chopped off and it grows back, the audience will need an explanation. Does that make sense?

Edited January 27, 2020 by vanguard333

[eclipse]

On 1/26/2020 at 4:12 PM, Ottservia said:

I'll ask one more thing because I don't wanna drag this out anymore than necessary. But then where does one draw the line between subjective critique and objective critique? Like clearly it's totally fine to just take a random inbetween frame completely devoid of context and criticize that as poor animation when that's not how animation works. Like at all. I'm not saying you can't say that or that you can't laugh at that but that's not what bad animation is. Animation should be judged in motion because that's what animation is. So am I not allowed to say that is a poor way to criticize animation? 

You need to expose the logic behind the critique before calling it anything.  Something that is clearly not supported in facts can be taken apart - in your animation case, it would be apparent because the supposed critic isn't taking context into account (in this case, the fact that animation is more than one still frame).  Something that is purely subjective is trickier, but at the end of the day, it's most likely an opinion that isn't going to change the course of history.

[Johann]

On 1/26/2020 at 10:27 PM, Ottservia said:

Yeah that's not what I mean when I say you should stop criticizing stories for being unrealistic. Again, watch the video. It does a good job of explaining what I mean but tl;dr a story does not need to be "realistic" to be a good story. Stories are by nature artificial and it's that fictitious nature of stories that creates an unavoidable dissonance when you judge it purely on the basis of realism. Is it realistic for a character to gain a super power when they're beaten back by the enemy and remember something important that their teacher taught them? absolutely not but it does drive home the thematic message that which the story wants to convey. Or to take an example from the video. Is the concept of a school idol realistic? no it's not but that doesn't matter to the story because the story is not interested in accurately portraying the logistics of the real life idol industry. If it bothered at all with that then it would create logistical problems that would change the show entirely to something it is not. Other shows may be interested in exploring those logistics but love live is not and that is totally fine. Every story has its own rules by which it operates. You should judge each piece of media by its own rules and what it sets out to accomplish within those rules.

For what it's worth, there is a case for criticizing a story not just for the consistency or integrity of its internal rules, but also the implications/impacts of the creative choices that lead to those rules. In other words, it's good to ask why a creator chose to take a given direction, especially if it's inconsistent with the rest of the story or if the implications behind it are impossible to ignore.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Well that depends. In the case where most people use it, the entire thing hinges on the type of work the story is. Suspension of disbelief is a thing. It becomes a problem when a story breaks it's own rules but that's more commonly called a plot hole.

So, no I guess I do not think calling most stories unrealistic is valid. They're stories, they're meant to be unrealistic to varying degrees depending on the story.

[Lewyn]

On 1/27/2020 at 3:52 AM, Timely Rain said:

Unrealistic is fine on a narrative level, I'd say. The problem arises when it doesn't keep its internal consistency and contradicts itself, or if the characters don't have a reaction that makes sense for them. Realistic or not, doesn't really matter. What's important is to follow the rules you stablish. 

This right here is a perfect explanation.  The best fantasy, sci fi, even the most outlandish sets rules to their universe and sticks to them.  Other wise it is just poor writing in addition to taking a person out of the world that has been set.