Well, FMA would be an outlier, since technically it takes place in 1910... so if you really want to go realistic (although that's kinda, hrm, dubious seeing how the 'real world' doesn't actually have automail or alchemy) then you'd probably have to introduce more anti-sodomy laws into the world-building. Which is kinda the opposite of your argument, err, sorry! (heh)
As for science fiction, I think that's also a tough one. I mean, certainly, you could posit a world where there's no -ism of this type or another, but sometimes there's also a value in including that -ism or -phobia regardless, because you're using the not-this-world as an analogue for the actual real world. The original Star Trek used alien races as stand-ins, to get viewers to think about racism or sexism or whatever from a different perspective (that is, without incurring potential knee-jerk reactions of familiar hot buttons). But on the flip side, a writer could also include sexism in a future-story as realistically (for the world-of-now) as possible, as a way to bring it into stark relief: "holy crap, wouldn't that be less of an issue by then? wouldn't that be something everyone's over!?" and maybe then some readers -- who'd never given it much thought -- might say, "should that really be a permanent part of our human existence?"
That's one major value of realism in fiction (regardless of genre), and it can be a really powerful part of it. I also think in some ways it's more powerful than the aspirational/escapist version, because the 'reality' resonates with us as 'people right now might be experiencing this very situation' whereas the instance of, say, a woman being given a raise equal to what her male peers make gets the reaction of 'wow, that'd be nice, but she's maybe what, one in a million and very lucky to boot, and fictional anyway'. The problem for me is when readers declare that stories that lack this as-it-is type of power are therefore totally powerless.
And, as you point out, sometimes it's equally valid to exclude such aspects of reality, as part of the author's means/goals in getting some part of the story's meanings/themes across. As I said (or implied, maybe, now that I've revised slightly, uhhh, long day and it's not even lunchtime yet!), sometimes there's just as much value and meaning for a reader, to get to read something where the bastards are not grinding anyone down.
no subject
Date: 25 Oct 2010 05:12 pm (UTC)As for science fiction, I think that's also a tough one. I mean, certainly, you could posit a world where there's no -ism of this type or another, but sometimes there's also a value in including that -ism or -phobia regardless, because you're using the not-this-world as an analogue for the actual real world. The original Star Trek used alien races as stand-ins, to get viewers to think about racism or sexism or whatever from a different perspective (that is, without incurring potential knee-jerk reactions of familiar hot buttons). But on the flip side, a writer could also include sexism in a future-story as realistically (for the world-of-now) as possible, as a way to bring it into stark relief: "holy crap, wouldn't that be less of an issue by then? wouldn't that be something everyone's over!?" and maybe then some readers -- who'd never given it much thought -- might say, "should that really be a permanent part of our human existence?"
That's one major value of realism in fiction (regardless of genre), and it can be a really powerful part of it. I also think in some ways it's more powerful than the aspirational/escapist version, because the 'reality' resonates with us as 'people right now might be experiencing this very situation' whereas the instance of, say, a woman being given a raise equal to what her male peers make gets the reaction of 'wow, that'd be nice, but she's maybe what, one in a million and very lucky to boot, and fictional anyway'. The problem for me is when readers declare that stories that lack this as-it-is type of power are therefore totally powerless.
And, as you point out, sometimes it's equally valid to exclude such aspects of reality, as part of the author's means/goals in getting some part of the story's meanings/themes across. As I said (or implied, maybe, now that I've revised slightly, uhhh, long day and it's not even lunchtime yet!), sometimes there's just as much value and meaning for a reader, to get to read something where the bastards are not grinding anyone down.