|>>|| No. 5144
>he's chosen specific examples that would probably be indicative of a poor author, but it happens in almost any work of fiction.
Sure the point was to spell it out for people, and to do that you need examples people will understand and by definition those are simplistic and obvious.
>Upon reading, given the criteria of >>5137, this account is going to be quite utterly unrealistic. The focus will be on a single person, all the other characters will seem empty and not have their motivations explained, all the minor characters will only ever be seen talking to the main character or, perhaps, friends of his and the only real motivation explained will be that of the main character (as only his thoughts are revealed to the author.
If you record all of it, isn't going to be unrealistic at all, but it will probably be a dull meandering mess though because real life regularly is.
As soon as you start editing it down and picking parts to weave a story though you are creating a fiction. You can call that a narrative instead if you like that is just semantics.
Even if you never add anything new, it is a fiction, because you have inserted an intent.
>Likewise if I wrote about an imaginary fight that happened in my local pub last December it would also be a work of fiction, but it'd be entirely believable because there are often fights in my local.
For a given value of believable, believability is just about how deeply you are willing to dig. If you are willing to go to the really anal layers the details at some point will be wrong, it has to be, the best example I can give you is seeing a film or a tv show set somewhere you live or watching a news report on something you know a lot about, to a normal audience, it will seem fine but you might end up spotting details that are off and jarring, it isn't that it is bad it is just that you have a level of familiarity that makes it unrealistic to you even though a normal audience would never have a problem with it.
Again I will stress a third time. That I am not critical of this existing I think it is fine, just because you understand how something is done doesn't make it any lesser. My objection is pointing that out as if it means something bad because you spotted it for once. 'Harry Potter has a monomyth story line with simple unrealisticly black and white characters' - that doesn't make it bad, that is part of its charm, I don't think anyone for example thought the Adam West Batman was 'realistic' and if you said it was 'unrealistic' people would think you an idiot for even pointing it out and it wouldn't have been better if it was realistic, the point is not to be realistic the point is to be entertaining.