Now, I'm not saying that this is what EVERYONE thinks, I'm just saying I see this a lot.
It seems to me that the extreme is considered realistic. The more main characters that die, the more realistic your book is. The more of a jerk your main character is, the more realistic he is. The less moral the people in your books are, the more realistic they are.
Again, I understand SOME people in the world are like that, but not everyone.
I've read reviews where if, in a book, the character chooses to remain abstinent from sex, the author will be decried as a 'Christian' or a 'prude' or something like that. Where as, if the character decides to bed every woman he meets throughout the course of the novel, no question will be raised whatsoever. But here's the thing, they're BOTH ok, if it fits the character.
If your protagonist is a very devout follower of a religion that requires abstinence, then it only makes sense that they would remain abstinent (barring that he/she gets married.) If your protagonist follows no religion in particular, or a religion that does not mention the subject, then it makes sense that they woud have no qualms about sleeping around. There's nothing wrong with either! Yet it appears a lot of people have a problem with the first.
Similarly, if you have five main characters, and they all go to war and all end up dying in the end… fine, it happens, people die in war. But if you have five main characters, and they all go to war, and all survive in the end… that's fine too, because you know what? In war, even though a lot of people die, MORE people (usually) end up surviving than dying.
However, there are people that complain that that something isn't realistic because it's not extremely gritty. Those are just two examples, there are plenty more.
Going to the extreme (on BOTH sides) is unrealistic. In a truly realistic world, there will be people who are horrible, and people who are good, and people who are in between. People who die, and people who survive. People who never have sex, and people who do, and people who wait to be marriage. There will be Black, White, AND Grey characters.
But it appears the only way to be realistic is to be only Grey.
Again, I'm not saying everyone thinks this. As far as I know, this viewpoint is limited to the people around me. Maybe most people agree with me, and I don't even know it. But in my experience (my circle of friends, writing groups, ect. ect.) this seems to be the general theme. I wanted to bring my thoughts to other writers. Am I wrong? Am I just insane?
It seems to me that the extreme is considered realistic. The more main characters that die, the more realistic your book is. The more of a jerk your main character is, the more realistic he is. The less moral the people in your books are, the more realistic they are.
Again, I understand SOME people in the world are like that, but not everyone.
I've read reviews where if, in a book, the character chooses to remain abstinent from sex, the author will be decried as a 'Christian' or a 'prude' or something like that. Where as, if the character decides to bed every woman he meets throughout the course of the novel, no question will be raised whatsoever. But here's the thing, they're BOTH ok, if it fits the character.
If your protagonist is a very devout follower of a religion that requires abstinence, then it only makes sense that they would remain abstinent (barring that he/she gets married.) If your protagonist follows no religion in particular, or a religion that does not mention the subject, then it makes sense that they woud have no qualms about sleeping around. There's nothing wrong with either! Yet it appears a lot of people have a problem with the first.
Similarly, if you have five main characters, and they all go to war and all end up dying in the end… fine, it happens, people die in war. But if you have five main characters, and they all go to war, and all survive in the end… that's fine too, because you know what? In war, even though a lot of people die, MORE people (usually) end up surviving than dying.
However, there are people that complain that that something isn't realistic because it's not extremely gritty. Those are just two examples, there are plenty more.
Going to the extreme (on BOTH sides) is unrealistic. In a truly realistic world, there will be people who are horrible, and people who are good, and people who are in between. People who die, and people who survive. People who never have sex, and people who do, and people who wait to be marriage. There will be Black, White, AND Grey characters.
But it appears the only way to be realistic is to be only Grey.
Again, I'm not saying everyone thinks this. As far as I know, this viewpoint is limited to the people around me. Maybe most people agree with me, and I don't even know it. But in my experience (my circle of friends, writing groups, ect. ect.) this seems to be the general theme. I wanted to bring my thoughts to other writers. Am I wrong? Am I just insane?
