me 4-5 years ago would’ve eaten ts up lmfaoo only like 5 chaps in n i cannot take this s...

Well... they are not real? I never understood this kind of critics against fictions.

Well… fiction is based of on reality? It is not so hard to understand that not all people can be satisfied with one dimensional characters or characters that over rely on archetypes or tropes.. sry I appreciate some complexity because they are still depicted to be human beings and I know that humans are complex! but ofc since I never caught up with this n read like 5 chaps max I can’t say fs that the writing is terrible :p

"Unrealistic fiction" is a tautology. Reading you, I feel like you meant "far-fetched".

no actually lol, ur assuming that fiction by definition is “not real” so therefore it’s a tautology but you’re misunderstanding it sure fiction is always unrealistic in the sense that it’s not real life but in this context “unrealistic” is js a way of pointing out that something within the media doesn’t feel authentic or credible to me. When characters feel flat or act in ways that don’t line up with human behavior or their own established personalities it breaks immersion to readers who value that or engage better when it feels more realistic to them which I’m sure most people do whether they realize it or not
so this is a completely valid and common flaw to point out lmao

You should check the definition of fiction.

You don't have to keep explaining your statement, assuming that I don't understand what you meant. I know very well what people mean by an "unrealistic story". My grief comes from people's inability to use accurate diction.

If realism was truly expected, people would read documentaries or bibliographies. Saying a fiction is "unrealistic" is not a fair complaint. Fiction is inherently an exploration beyond the confines of real-life limitations, whether it’s through imaginative worlds, exaggerated characters, or improbable plots.

Terms like "implausible" aligned with your critic. "Unrealistic" is a poor choice of word. If you can accurately say that it does not "feel authentic or credible", that it lacks "Multi-dimensional" and "complex" traits, there is no need to use "unrealistic" since a degree of non-realism is always expected from fictions.

Furthermore, some actual people have bland personalities, giving reality a crude taste. Complaining that the fiction is "unrealistic" is often a circular critique because those engaging with fiction aren't genuinely seeking reality. Pointing out that fiction is "unrealistic" often fails to grasp the underlying appeal: readers and viewers are usually drawn not to strict realism but to the intricacies that enrich the story. Those seeking realism often look for layered complexities, believable interactions, or nuanced characters, not literal representations of reality. It renders the "unrealistic" critique largely void of sense as it implies a failure to align with reality, while it is a poor choice of word while highlighting flaws of a fiction.

I understand what you mean. The FL makes me so made sometimes and I can’t understand why.

“Those seeking realism often look for layered complexities, believable interactions, or nuanced characters, not literal representations of reality.” that’s quite literally what I’m saying LMFAOO if you understand that then this entire debate is pointless??? Dude r u using ai ☠

1) Nah I think I do have to keep explaining my statement because you’re misunderstanding shit once again even proving it by saying “story” instead of “characters” but the problem here clearly lies in our definitions of realism. Dude I truly understand what you mean, but when I refer to characters feeling “unrealistic” I’m pointing to behaviors that don’t resonate with the human psychology. This isn’t about factual accuracy or the rules of a fictional world, but the believability in character motivations and actions.

It’s not like any of our “definitions” are wrong it’s just that I am applying the term realism to something specific making the meaning less broad iygwim, I am emphasizing on realistic behaviors (you may misunderstand this as well so i’ll come back to this)
unlike you who seem to focus on the broad literal concept of realism and since fiction is inherently non realistic me calling it unrealistic is flawed. ☠
So the term unrealistic can serve as a shorthand for deeper issues like for example inconsistency & over reliance on trope !!

It is NOT a poor choice just because you happen to misunderstand it, it’s a very valid way to express dissatisfaction with character portrayals and in fact you are the only person I’ve encountered to argue that unrealism is an invalid critique if it’s something fictional out of all of the countless debates I’ve had with highly educated people and people double my age dawg People typically tend to argue for why it’s realistic instead lmao..
I’d also argue that realism is more expected than non-realism in the context of behavior but of course not maybe things such as the world building, but good thing I am only talking about characters right?

How about stopping forcing your views on me?

2/2 anyways I said “realistic behavior” cuz I didn’t wanna keep repeating and its much more simpler to use but that could be misunderstood easily and the more accurate words to use would be realistic human psychology. I understand why you’d misunderstand this tho clearly proven thru one of the points u were making “some actual people have bland personalities” I have another response to this but it’s practically irrelevant cuz it’s not rlly the point im tryna argue for.
what you fail to realize, which I don’t blame you for, is that it’s not about the personality traits thats surface level shit, I’m talking about whats under that. But ofc that can play a part in realism too but it’s not really what I’m referring to or getting at

I’ll use my all time favorite character to explain because I think you’ll understand better then. Luffy from one piece, would you find anyone like him irl personality wise? Probably not. Does his behavior often like “make sense” in a literal way? Hell no he does the most stupid shit.
Is he realistic in a literal way of the definition, not applied to this context? No he’s a drawing there’s no way he could be realistic. In a way that you could find people like him irl? No, in that case the characters of the fox club would be a better example.
However he is a character with depth, he has real motivations, authenticity, nuance, etc just like someone real would have. Therefore, he is one of the characters that would classify as realistic in a psychological way.

I don’t actively seek out stories with characters that behave like people i’d typically encounter, I just expect behaviors that align w the human psychology in most medias that depict human beings with the intention of creating a meaningful work to the consumers. So i expect realism to a certain degree, not to an extreme degree but as if in the bare minimum to create a compelling story.
And notice how i said “most medias” so not all.. with the exception of media that just prioritize pure entertainment and humor over anything else like for example many comedies, parodies and children shows. Like you won’t catch me leaving a review about how dissatisfied I am with the paw patrol being unrealistic bro☠ I’m hoping I won’t need to explain why I’d have no expectations for paw patrol in that area but not for this manhwa I’m hoping I won’t need to explain why I’d have no expectations for paw patrol in that area but not for this manhwa

you misunderstanding this is making ts way more complicated than it should be so this is long cuz there were a lot of things to address

Who told you to reply to me? Man really sent me an ai generated argument tryna sound smart but created a bunch of misunderstandings instead cuz u may perhaps be too dense to realize that ai ain’t accurate

I am corroborating your point. It is that simple.

it reminds me a bit of wmmap (but worse) which used to be my fav years ago

Im dead your paragraph debunks this gang.. it just sounds like you’re backpedaling cause you realized that one of your ai generated points supported my main argument which you’ve been arguing against this entire time

I said that "unrealistic" is a poor choice of words; it is inaccurate. Just because something is "popularized" does not mean it is valid. Many expressions "live rent free" nowadays, yet many lack real meaning etymologically. If you can express yourself accurately using words like "authentic" or "complex," there is no need for "unrealistic."

It is not that I misunderstand, as you wish to believe; it is a misuse of language that holds no meaning on its own. The fact that you feel to explain yourself, despite not being asked to, it is a proof: the need to use more words to clear yourself as "unrealistic" does not fully capture it.

I have already pointed out that some people can be plain or have bland personalities. For instance, some individuals may not think deeply about their actions. While this is a broad generalization, it illustrates that "irrationality" is not always rooted in complex psychological intricacies. Sometimes, reality is quite mundane; some murderers kill simply because they "felt like it."

It is human nature to search for meaning in what does not inherently possess it. This tendency also informs fiction: the notion that actions carry greater significance and the desire to attribute "elaborate" personalities to them. Some individuals are simple and lack "colors", yet they are just as real as those labeled "realistic." When studying language, we must be cautious about words being used to convey meanings they do not possess.

You quoted my previous statement, and it embodies my point to its fullest.

My point remains the same: "unrealistic" is a poor choice of words. I don't need to oppose or support your argument to sustain my views; my statement is as clear as I intended it to be. "Those seeking realism" do not seek "literal representations of reality", because they "often look for layered complexities, believable interactions, or nuanced characters". Is this rephrased version better for you?

While they pretend seeking realism, they are, in fact, looking for intricacies, which are not always grounded in reality. These intricacies are often "pure fiction," some of which fail to be psychologically explainable. However, humans, by nature, will invent the most elaborate or far-fetched justifications for actions that hold little real meaning. Albert Camus's "L'Étranger" serves as a good example. Humans tend to sophistication, but sophistication is not always real, which make the whole "unrealistic" critique void of sense in regards to fiction. Realistic fiction, as you suggested, will be a novelty, but unrealistic fiction, as tautological as it sounds, is the expected.

If you want my point to go in a certain way, no matter what I wrote, you will always believe what you want to believe regardless what I mean. It is called being biased.

Did you comprehend anything I said? It just seems like you’re clinging to your stance as a matter of pride rather than genuinely engaging with what I’m saying bro literally what bs r u on now
If you weren’t misunderstanding me (or well you could be doing it on purpose now) or if there wasn’t some sort of disconnection in our definitions you probably wouldn’t have said this “some actual people have bland personalities” “if realism was truly expected, people would read documentaries or bibliographies” “readers and viewers are usually drawn not to strict realism but to intricacies that enrich to the story” and more
Your own words literally counter your claim that unrealistic is a poor choice, you or ai argued that readers often seek “layered complexities, believable interactions or nuanced characters” which is exactly what I mean by unrealistic. I am not misusing the term I’m using it as shorthand for “lacking psychological realism” which once again is a valid critique and aligns with your own point? Instead of forcing this conversation towards a lesson on diction you could recognize that we were talking about different aspects of realism within fiction (after everything I said your dumbass still managed to somehow conclude that I was referring to literal realism) this is the last time I’m saying ts

could you tell me why your viewpoint out of everyones is more reliable and valid? Someone who has continuously shown logical fallacies and contradictions in their arguments and even maybe uses ai to form their arguments??

also language evolves gang

Alr bro just define realism rq I think it’ll make this much easier to discuss