Why would anyone make a replicant?

[Starglider]

edit: for some people in this thread you might ask 'why is it stupid/unreasonable' simply because you can't think of a plausible reason? 'plausible' is purely a value judgement, depending on what an individual (or group) decides fits their views and/or preconceptions. Its not like people are computers, and yet sometimes questions that get asked like that seem to have that underlying assumption that humans SHOULD be robots and having irrational, emotional reasons is horrible.

To be fair, while people make individual artifacts and scientific/engineering advances for all kind of crazy reasons, they don't get mass produced in the multi-millions without some hard economic justification. For Blade Runner, replicants are apparently the cheapest legal way to get a mass disposable labor force. That said the technical and cultural assumptions behind replicants seem pretty straightforward to me, particularly if the point of divergence is the 1970s rather than the present day.

[jollyreaper]

I mean you might as well ask why any setting that has power armor doesn't have any sort of robot or remote controlled combat vehicle (most universe with power armor fo some form also have some fairly sophisticated robotics, drones, etc.) After all, thats more 'realistic' sorts of combat, is it not? But you don't often hear 'power armor' being questioned (I blame Starship troopers and DARPA myself. LOL)

That's a great example. Obviously, you wouldn't have a story otherwise. That's the suspension of disbelief you have to climb over getting into Starship Troopers or Battletech.

So, the question one might ask is whether the technology really does make sense, makes sense only within the context of the universe the story is set in, or whether the justification is pretty dodgy even then.

I'm pretty comfortable with the answer for that sort of thing, power armor. No, it doesn't make any sense but it's fun. But there's also some fun in discussing why it does or doesn't seem plausible, shortcomings, justifications, workarounds, etc.

[Connor MacLeod]

Here's a hint to ask yourself reaper: Why is it that 'justification' as you put it must be dictated substantially (if not totally) in terms of 'efficiency'? Are you even aware you're imposing this sort of restriction on the discussion? Why is your definition of 'sensible' the only reasonable one?

[jollyreaper]

You're ALMOST THERE. You're one step away from engaging with fiction instead of 'analyzing' it.

Your condescension means the world to me. I, I promised I wouldn't cry.

[Stark]

One day you'll take that step, and you'll have actually interesting things to say. We're here to help.

[jollyreaper]

Here's a hint to ask yourself reaper: Why is it that 'justification' as you put it must be dictated substantially (if not totally) in terms of 'efficiency'? Are you even aware you're imposing this sort of restriction on the discussion? Why is your definition of 'sensible' the only reasonable one?

It's not the only standard, obviously. I was curious to know if others did have an explanation that could explain it.

Several posts up, mentioning that the novel had better tests that were more expensive, that the psych test was the field-expedient, there's an explanation there, even if it isn't as sensible by light of today's technology. It's like the idea that computers are really expensive but human life is cheap which is why we have manned starfighters -- it fits a 1950's sensibility but doesn't work so well today.

When I talk about justification and efficiency, humans will generally want to do things in a cost-effective fashion. Of course, there are ridiculous exceptions to that dictated by custom, politics, etc. It's along the lines of "No, this isn't best practices, but this is why we're doing it."

[Connor MacLeod]

It's not the only standard, obviously. I was curious to know if others did have an explanation that could explain it.

But you make it sound like it is. When I asked the 'power armour' question, your response was 'you couldn't have a story otherwise.' Basically, you inferred that its not possible to have a plausible reason for power armour, at all. At most you could have is a contrivance. This is why I asked in addition if you realized you imposed that restriction or not, because its the same sort of thing I run into Spacebattles when it comes ot 'justifying' shit because it violates the HARD SCIFI REALISM principle. It literally does seem to me sometimes that people are so caught up in sci fi being a certian way, they can't envision it happening any other way unless they can fabricate some sort of crutch within a very narrow context to bolster it.

Several posts up, mentioning that the novel had better tests that were more expensive, that the psych test was the field-expedient, there's an explanation there, even if it isn't as sensible by light of today's technology. It's like the idea that computers are really expensive but human life is cheap which is why we have manned starfighters -- it fits a 1950's sensibility but doesn't work so well today.

First problem: Why would you assume that their technological progress (or other things in universe) neccesarily progress the way they did for us? In some ways you have to treat sci fi as an 'alt history' stuff. Take Lensman for example, it would be impossible to explain why (for example) they never developed railguns or automation or shit like that. In fact if you try to adhere to an obsessively LIKE REAL LIFE 'sense' paradigm, its impossible to make sense of the setting. At all. And yet the setting itself is far from arbitrary - its actually amazingly, remarkably internally consistent. Its just not 'sensible' or 'consistnet' in a way that most nerds would find 'sensible'.

Its interesting you mention starfighters, as they're very much the sort of thing that is a stumbling block for nerds when it comes ot incorporating them in fiction. I've seen lots of people try asking various iterations of 'how can I have space fighters in my sci fi realistically', not even realizing how self defeating that question is.

When I talk about justification and efficiency, humans will generally want to do things in a cost-effective fashion. Of course, there are ridiculous exceptions to that dictated by custom, politics, etc. It's along the lines of "No, this isn't best practices, but this is why we're doing it."

The way you phrase that makes it sound as if you have a massive distaste for 'ridiculous' as if it were anathema to science fiction, even though science fiction is, to varying degrees, 'ridiculous.' I mean even amongst hard sci fi nerds its pretty ridiculous (and yet sort of also cool to my mind) how much time, effort, and energy they invest in obsessing over those little details in the 'worldbuilding' context. I mean 99.99% of that shit really isn't important to the story when you get down to it, its either just because its what interests them, or its a comfort zone thing (eg they need it to write.)

[Ted C]

Right, but what would you use them for that you can't get bog-standard humans for? The only thing I can think of is torture/sex/kill, like Hostel. But wouldn't it be cheaper to just get poor people?

We don't know enough about the legal restrictions for "natural" human labor to say.

And wouldn't hookers be cheaper? That's what I keep getting stuck on. What makes them different and better?

You'd have to pay a prostitute for every service. You'd only have to buy a replicant once. Also, given their superhuman traits, a replicant could probably engage regularly in some strenuous activities that would be difficult or impossible for a human.

3) There's definitely no justification there. Their strength, endurance, and tolerance for temperature extremes all indicate that a simple tissue test should be able to easily identify a replicant.

Yup. So, all we have left is the sex angle.[/quote]

There's also the "super-soldier" angle. Roy's a combat model. Stronger, faster, and tougher than a human soldier, and presumably more obedient in the early stages of his life (development of their own "emotions" apparently doesn't happen until they're nearly four years old).

[NeoGoomba]

IIRC, Zhora was a cop/detective off-world. So you have a soldier model in Roy, an enforcement model in Zora, and a heavy laborer in Leon. All of them could require the types of "upgrades" they have over normal humans.

As for why, Tyrell even says "More human than human is my motto" when talking to Deckard, so obviously his God-complex is about creating "better" humans, even if they are under the yoke of their creators. And his work is successful enough to have become acceptable to the populace.

[Stark]

Maybe he'll get the point if enough people repeat it. Saying replicants are only good or sensible in 'the sex angle' when we have a fairly good cross section of undesirable jobs being performed by the characters in the movie is hilarious. Content of movie less important than preconceptions? Hell, just by combining their jobs and nothing else you can imagine a pretty clear picture of what the colonies are all about (and why Tyrell is so rich). Sounds like it makes sense to me.

[Connor MacLeod]

As an analogy you might think of Star Wars and why there is still things like slavery, or human labor when you have droids and computers and shit that could do that stuff. One of the more obvious ones (which was mentioned for Blade Runner as well) is status. We know that slaves on tattooine were considered signs of status.

It can also depend on the political and economic models present in the galaxy. If certain cultures (or parts of the government indeed) resist change, that might mean that biological labour is preferred because it sustains economies, or gives a civilization's citizens a purpose, or is part of the culture, and so on and so forth.

In a military context, you might wonder why droid armies aren't used more often. There could be prejudices on the sophistication of such technology and the numbers involved. There have been (at least in the EU) a number of cases where droid armies or rebellions were instigated by malfunction or programming or whatever calamity. Whether it is a legitimate thread or simply hysteria (depending on setting and technology) it can lead to limitations in how/why/what droids are used in warfare. OR in any other roles for that matter.

Now all these reasons, one might surmise, are either relative, arbitrary, or even irrational. But that in itself is kind of the point - just because they're not perfectly 'logical' or sensible or rational or something a emotionless passionless computer might do does not mean its a bad thing or it doesn't explain the situation or make sense. It simply means it does not make LOGICAL or REALISM (as in what might happen in real life) sense, and that's not the same as making sense. Its very easy to confuse trying to derive sense or impose plausibility on a setting with 'imposing real life' on the setting, and those aren't the same things either.

[Simon_Jester]

First problem: Why would you assume that their technological progress (or other things in universe) neccesarily progress the way they did for us? In some ways you have to treat sci fi as an 'alt history' stuff. Take Lensman for example, it would be impossible to explain why (for example) they never developed railguns or automation or shit like that. In fact if you try to adhere to an obsessively LIKE REAL LIFE 'sense' paradigm, its impossible to make sense of the setting. At all. And yet the setting itself is far from arbitrary - its actually amazingly, remarkably internally consistent. Its just not 'sensible' or 'consistnet' in a way that most nerds would find 'sensible'.

However, it would have been, in 1939- a time when relativity had not yet permeated the general consciousness of science fiction, when the latest big discovery was radio and when the popular image of the lawman was the Prohibition-era G-man.

Hm, that's interesting to picture: Boskone as a supersized version of Al Capone's gangsters...



The trick is to recognize two separate kinds of 'scientific errors' in SF. The first type is made out of ignorance or foolishness on the author's part. The author portrays his characters acting nonsensically, irresponsibly, or in a way very much at odds with human nature. This causes a breakdown in the credibility of the narrative.

For example, maybe the author contradicts himself in ways that make his characters seem foolish or ignorant. If they try a plan they know shouldn't work because of the stated laws of physics, and it works because the writer pulled a miracle out of a hat, then the author has done badly and his characters are delusional fools.

Or maybe some machine, social system, or character in the setting is portrayed one way, then presented differently. We might imagine the central computer of a planet as this vast uncaring mechanism... but if the computer is portrayed as being unable to do basic arithmetic, or to keep track of large files of data at once, or to remember factual data, it's not much of a computer. This weakens the computer as a character and/or piece of setting in the story, because its actions don't fit its characterization.

As Larry Niven put it, "Moby Dick isn't believable as a metaphor unless he's believable as a whale."

This kind of contradiction or 'illogical' behavior in fiction is the kind that usually gets people trained to seek such inconsistencies.


The problem is yes, you're right, there is also a second kind of 'mistake' authors make. This is not an ignorant or stupid mistake, it's a deliberate one. The author may have deliberately made predictions about future technology that never panned out (Lensman setting being only one example). The author may have chosen to ignore something that we MIGHT see in the future, but haven't seen yet, for the sake of the story (sentient computers).

People get stuck on the first kind of error, because that occurs often in low-quality writing and with the rise of the Internet we're all exposed to a lot more bad writing. But once you train yourself to spot the first kind of error, it's all too easy to misunderstand good works of fiction because you're sensitized to the second kind of 'mistake' as well. This is why people get hung up on starfighters.


Good analysis of fiction comes from being able to notice the first kind of problem (which affects plot, characterization, and scene-setting), and ignore the second (which doesn't).

[Stark]

In many cases people have trained themselves to see them as the same (or equally 'bad' for fiction) and this is why we see people wanting to define 'quality' as 'amount of realism'. It's even worse when 'realism' means 'things I like', which is often the case. Sometimes people had to re-learn how to engage with fiction rather than apply broken rulers designed for vs debating to them.

[Connor MacLeod]

Its not really fair to place the onus of 'error' on the Author, for one thing that makes assumptions about the authors intent and mind, and we can't always do that.

That doesn't mean errors NEVER happen, but I've lost count of the number of times an 'error' is identified simply because the person doing so simply doesn't understand or grasp what the author may be going for, or lacks important knowledge. Its happened to me personally on any number of occasions, in fact.

There's plenty of 'errors' that can crop up simply becuase the nerds reading/viewing it don't always have a complete understanding of science, engineering, or whatever the doctrine/discipline being disputed is. Or because the fan is arrogant, or imposing their preconcpetions on something and twisting the facts. Heck, there's tons of examples of people who (especially in hard scifi camps) can and will train themselves to 'spot' such errors, which is basically just more 'pattern recognition' stuff.. it works as long as you know the patterns, but it can become a problem when you don't. And sometimes when they don't, they assume the fault lies externally rather than internally (when in fact it could be either, or both.) Any number of 'spot errors in common sci fi element' threads on Spacebattles are a prime example of this.

One might also argue that an emphasis on 'error-spotting' or even considering that 'errors' might exist in sci fi can be counter-productive. There's a certain arrogance in fans who think they know better than the authors/writers/animators/special effects guys, and its not restricted to any particular franchise or faction, and that's always been disturbing.

ultimately, whilst the entire board (and mike's website) was formulated on the idea of certain 'rules' of vs debating existing, those rules only apply insofar as people 'agreed' to them, and even then it was in a very narrow context (SW vs ST debates really.) They can (and do) owrk within that narrow context (esp when people agree) but its not neccesarily something you can apply as an absolute rule either. I tried doing the 'SDN approach' to 40K, and that pretty much failed spectacularly.

[jollyreaper]

But you make it sound like it is. When I asked the 'power armour' question, your response was 'you couldn't have a story otherwise.' Basically, you inferred that its not possible to have a plausible reason for power armour, at all. At most you could have is a contrivance. This is why I asked in addition if you realized you imposed that restriction or not, because its the same sort of thing I run into Spacebattles when it comes ot 'justifying' shit because it violates the HARD SCIFI REALISM principle. It literally does seem to me sometimes that people are so caught up in sci fi being a certian way, they can't envision it happening any other way unless they can fabricate some sort of crutch within a very narrow context to bolster it.

I'm not so much a hard SF fetishist. I simply get curious about the underpinnings of settings and wonder where the plot holes are. Certainly it's possible to fall down the fanwank rabbit hole but I at least like to know which discussions lead that direction.

Bumpy forehead aliens, for example, I know why they're exceedingly unlikely. Any setting that has them is going to be softer scifi in some areas, even if they try to be harder in other ways. Babylon 5 has them but also has human ships with spin gravity and newtonian maneuvering and no energy shields. New Galactica actually had "no bumpy forehead aliens" as part of the premise, Olmos said he'd walk if Klingons showed up, and mostly tried to stick with that.

First problem: Why would you assume that their technological progress (or other things in universe) neccesarily progress the way they did for us?

I generally assume that any futuristic scifi set on Earth is meant to be in our own future unless a serious timeline divergence is already indicated. But certainly if it's clearly a secondary world, expecting technology and society to progress as ours did is not founded. But if the secondary world borrows heavily from real Earth societies, one might wonder how closely they did adhere.

In some ways you have to treat sci fi as an 'alt history' stuff. Take Lensman for example, it would be impossible to explain why (for example) they never developed railguns or automation or shit like that. In fact if you try to adhere to an obsessively LIKE REAL LIFE 'sense' paradigm, its impossible to make sense of the setting. At all. And yet the setting itself is far from arbitrary - its actually amazingly, remarkably internally consistent. Its just not 'sensible' or 'consistnet' in a way that most nerds would find 'sensible'.

I'm fine with explaining away the absence of technology that wasn't invented at the time. I know why Kirk's communicator can talk to ships at interplanetary ranges and yet doesn't even have a display screen.

Its interesting you mention starfighters, as they're very much the sort of thing that is a stumbling block for nerds when it comes ot incorporating them in fiction. I've seen lots of people try asking various iterations of 'how can I have space fighters in my sci fi realistically', not even realizing how self defeating that question is.

It's amusing when a modern jet fighter seems to have better weapons than X-Wings and Vipers. The extended range AAMRAM's are supposed to be able to engage targets a hundred miles away and far more accurately than the Phoenix ever did.

The way you phrase that makes it sound as if you have a massive distaste for 'ridiculous' as if it were anathema to science fiction, even though science fiction is, to varying degrees, 'ridiculous.' I mean even amongst hard sci fi nerds its pretty ridiculous (and yet sort of also cool to my mind) how much time, effort, and energy they invest in obsessing over those little details in the 'worldbuilding' context. I mean 99.99% of that shit really isn't important to the story when you get down to it, its either just because its what interests them, or its a comfort zone thing (eg they need it to write.)

There as a perfect case in point on this site a while back. "Why can't R2D2 speak?" Obviously it's because he's a mute or at least non-speaking character, the kind of character that has a long tradition in literature and cinema. There's not going to be any good reason to justify/rationalize/explain him not speaking from an in-universe perspective. But speaking R2 just wouldn't feel like the same character. I know why he has to be that way. But there was a huge flamewar trying to justify how voiceboxes must be expensive and this and that.

Strict realism can be pretty boring. Even accounts of real life stories usually have the boring bits edited out. Nobody is going to be interested in reading about Miss Marple's vacation where nobody dies, even if she has a lovely time. If the story is about firefighters, they might only encounter one massively impressive structure fire a year. For the sake of keeping things interesting, the writer might have major fires back to back. But if the movie isn't trying to be spoofy or tongue-in-cheek, having the firefighters carrying on with stupid action hero antics might ruin a viewer's suspension of disbelief, even when he's fine with the frequency and severity of the fires being far higher than usual.

I love crazy action comedies like Shoot 'Em Up. I can enjoy the hell out of crazy martial arts like the Raid: Redemption. But I would find it dumb if a movie is sold as a gritty, serious, no-nonsense caper film and wire-fu and gun katas are thrown in. It would feel out of place.

[jollyreaper]

In a military context, you might wonder why droid armies aren't used more often. There could be prejudices on the sophistication of such technology and the numbers involved. There have been (at least in the EU) a number of cases where droid armies or rebellions were instigated by malfunction or programming or whatever calamity. Whether it is a legitimate thread or simply hysteria (depending on setting and technology) it can lead to limitations in how/why/what droids are used in warfare. OR in any other roles for that matter.

I have a vague memory that it was a major cultural taboo due to war crimes in the past, somewhat akin to poison gas being used in WWI but not even the Nazis risking it in WWII, even though they had it.

Now all these reasons, one might surmise, are either relative, arbitrary, or even irrational. But that in itself is kind of the point - just because they're not perfectly 'logical' or sensible or rational or something a emotionless passionless computer might do does not mean its a bad thing or it doesn't explain the situation or make sense. It simply means it does not make LOGICAL or REALISM (as in what might happen in real life) sense, and that's not the same as making sense. Its very easy to confuse trying to derive sense or impose plausibility on a setting with 'imposing real life' on the setting, and those aren't the same things either.

"If people made sensible decisions, we wouldn't have tragedies, we'd have to have a new greek word that means 'people solving problems and settling differences like adults.'"

I think the Ned Stark situation is a great example of a bad decision that is completely justified. He makes a terrible mistake but it's completely in character for him, for the people who screw him over, and serious consequences flow from it.

So, what would you consider to be a suspension-ruining implausibility? What does it take to knock you out of a story?

[Stark]

I think that's a question you need to ask yourself. Connor's already taken the step. Personally I think 'not realz' is never a valid criticism of fiction and generally takes the place of the more honest 'I don't like it'. There's nothing wrong with not liking something, and you shouldn't feel you have to make up excuses to justify why. And frankly if your REALZ theory about a work doesn't create verifiable predictions (ie explain what we see) it sucks and should be abandoned or changed, just like in real science.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that's a question you need to ask yourself. Connor's already taken the step. Personally I think 'not realz' is never a valid criticism of fiction and generally takes the place of the more honest 'I don't like it'.

I think I agree with what I'm pretty sure you meant, but I'm not sure that holds in general. What do you think of the following:

"Not realistic" isn't a valid criticism of a setting as such in science fiction and fantasy. Hyperdrives and robots and magical oaths don't really need to be realistic, although there are valid stories that you can write that spin entirely on exploring the implications of one such thing. Like "what if there really were gods that punished you for violating an oath sworn in their name." Once you write that kind of story you're under some obligation to be internally consistent, but that's it.

But "not realistic" may be a valid criticism of characters. Most bad characterization in fiction involves people acting unrealistically- too childish, too cynical, too ignorant, too knowledgeable, too quick to fall in love or hate, whatever.

And "not realistic" may be a valid criticism of genres other than SF&F. SF&F runs on carefully plotted out deviations from reality. For a detective novel, you probably want to make sure that all the action portrayed in the novel follows the laws of physics- though it might bend the laws of the legal system, I suppose.

[make all due allowances for cross-genre, i.e. fantasy detective stories]

[Stark]

Even then it usually boils down to 'person does thing I don't agree with' or 'person does the for reason I don't agree with', where the viewer rejects the event as 'wrong' instead of honestly examining it to find out what it means.

And frankly all fiction is more or less obvious bullshit. It being more real doesn't make it anything but more real; a REALISM story is not somehow intrinsically better than a LESS REALISM story. They're just different stories, and the rejection of message of anything not 'real' enough basically destroys your ability to engage with fiction.

[jollyreaper]

I think that's a question you need to ask yourself. Connor's already taken the step. Personally I think 'not realz' is never a valid criticism of fiction and generally takes the place of the more honest 'I don't like it'. There's nothing wrong with not liking something, and you shouldn't feel you have to make up excuses to justify why. And frankly if your REALZ theory about a work doesn't create verifiable predictions (ie explain what we see) it sucks and should be abandoned or changed, just like in real science.

I really don't get bothered by something in a genre I'm not into or subject matter that doesn't interest me.

Simon_Jester nailed it on type 1 and type 2 errors. "The trick is to recognize two separate kinds of 'scientific errors' in SF. The first type is made out of ignorance or foolishness on the author's part. The author portrays his characters acting nonsensically, irresponsibly, or in a way very much at odds with human nature. This causes a breakdown in the credibility of the narrative."

A given story might postulate strong AI is possible and explores the consequences. Whether or not you think strong AI is possible in the real world isn't important. AI as sovereign citizens or property could still be a question of setting: if the story is about emancipating AI's, they have to have been enslaved in the first place, even if you don't think we'd really do such a thing in the real world. But if the hardware to run AI's is complex, expensive, fills a building and and weighs a hundred tons, it would not follow to say "Humans are so mean, they put an AI in a Mars rover and left it to die all alone on that planet, just like the Russians did with that poor space dog." Why would you do that instead of operating the rover by telepresence from Earth, the same way we've done in the past? You could easily make the scenario a little more sensible if you tweaked a few things. Gen 1 AI's are expensive to operate, Gen 2 AI's are smaller and cheaper, Gen 1's have been sent to the knackers just like old draft horses.

If you still want the space probe situation, make it an interstellar mission. The probe ship is enormous, complicated, and needs the AI onboard because it will be beyond easy control from Earth. It's a one-way trip, the probe beaming back information as it goes.

Just as easily, someone could write a story with human troubleshooters out at Oort Cloud mining stations. Why humans? Because strong AI can't be done, only weak AI along the lines of expert systems. Good enough for many but not all things. The ultimate purpose for the whole story is exploring the psychological isolation of humans so far, far from home and the complications that arise. What are they mining? McGuffinite. Why does it only occur on the outskirts of the solar system? Because it does. Why tell the story in space instead of going with oil workers in Siberia? Maybe because the technology of the future allows for super-duper memory enhancements. You don't just carry a snapshot of your loved ones, you have rich, full-immersion memory playbacks and there's no fading of time and distance to dull the pain.

Character wears a green jacket and you like blue, that's an aesthetic difference and cannot be called a mistake. if it turns out green is the color associated with a rival family who are his sworn enemies and there's already a scene of him freaking out over seeing green and later we see him in green without comment and the author never addresses it again, that looks an awful lot like a mistake.

[jollyreaper]

"Not realistic" isn't a valid criticism of a setting as such in science fiction and fantasy. Hyperdrives and robots and magical oaths don't really need to be realistic, although there are valid stories that you can write that spin entirely on exploring the implications of one such thing. Like "what if there really were gods that punished you for violating an oath sworn in their name." Once you write that kind of story you're under some obligation to be internally consistent, but that's it.

And the suspension of disbelief tends to break when something is done wrong that's not part of the implicit departure from reality involved in the suspension of disbelief. "Hey, I'm not arguing that your robot shouldn't exist, I'm saying he just violated a law of thermodynamics!"

In a fantasy story, we could totally buy talking animals from the start but we might get put out if halfway through we encounter talking deer. "Are you a god, forest spirit or in some way magical?" "No, all animals can talk. We just don't usually see the need to talk to you."

But "not realistic" may be a valid criticism of characters. Most bad characterization in fiction involves people acting unrealistically- too childish, too cynical, too ignorant, too knowledgeable, too quick to fall in love or hate, whatever.

That usually is what tears it for me.

And "not realistic" may be a valid criticism of genres other than SF&F. SF&F runs on carefully plotted out deviations from reality. For a detective novel, you probably want to make sure that all the action portrayed in the novel follows the laws of physics- though it might bend the laws of the legal system, I suppose.

[make all due allowances for cross-genre, i.e. fantasy detective stories]

I do put a premium on novelty. Cliches are very, very boring. if characters are locked in a cell, I'd love to see a novel way of getting free. What I really don't want to see is someone faking getting sick so the guard comes in and gets hit over the head and then one of them puts on the uniform and "escorts" the other one out of the prison.

If the hero and villain are having their big showdown, I don't want to hear the hero say "You won't get away with this!" and I don't want the villain to chortle "But I already have!"

[The Yosemite Bear]

trust me there are enough Otaku for the continuing sales of the basic sex slave modle to continue.

[Ted C]

But "not realistic" may be a valid criticism of characters. Most bad characterization in fiction involves people acting unrealistically- too childish, too cynical, too ignorant, too knowledgeable, too quick to fall in love or hate, whatever.

That usually is what tears it for me.

What bugs me is when the author's description of a character doesn't match the character's behavior.

Terry Goodkind was a particularly egregious example in the "Sword of Truth" novels. He kept telling me that Richard and Kahlan were very smart people, but they kept acting like idiots. That turned me off of his writing pretty fast.

[jollyreaper]

Breaking Bad tore it for me on something like that. I could see Walt being an arrogant, pigheaded idiot. That's what got him into this mess in the first place. Gus was meant to be sensible, pragmatic and ruthless. There's no way Gus would have put himself into the vulnerable position of having to work with Walt, especially after several Walt stunts.

The writers provided an answer -- Walt's meth is the best, he's a crazy good chemist which explains how he made stuff better than the South American cartels -- but that still wouldn't be worth the risk to Gus. And I have exception even with the best meth thing. Certainly he would be doing better than the average tweaker cook but better than the cartels? The guys with trained chemists and production facilities?

Some people will say the details like that aren't important and it's the character interactions that matter. Ok let's go with that. Why is there any loyalty between Walt and Jesse? There's no big history between them offscreen. It's all there for us to see. And I just don't see why they would even care what happens. There's not even really a sense of I hate you but the act doesn't work without you.

The fan reaction is mixed. Some think its still the bee's knees and some abandoned it after season 3, feeling the writers lost the story. I am morbidly curious to know how they end it but am no longer watching. It wouldn't bother me in the least except it was a good show and it feels like they lost their way.

[Stark]

It sounds like you're looking for the 'true nature' of fiction, which is a fools errand. Talking about Breaking Bad is one thing but constantly ending with 'but what is the truth' like a cut-price news reporter is futile (and ultimately destructive). Share views on what exists.