me 4-5 years ago would’ve eaten ts up lmfaoo only like 5 chaps in n i cannot take this seriously the characters feel so unrealistic its js silly to me it doesn’t seem like this will get any better but is this worth continuing
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
Js so yk your last sentence reflects bias in your own argument
I already did. Feel to reread if you are that curious.
Besides, you don't need to antagonize me nor to rely on ad personam. My proses are not meant to be provocative. I keep replying out of politeness or because you keep projecting your misunderstanding on me. And yes, I know you are going to say for the 20th that I misunderstand like a broken record.
What is the point of me saying that those seeking realism do not seek reality for one to conclude that unrealistic is an accurate term? Intricacies are sought, not realism. Intricacies do not equal reality, the more something is intricate does not mean it is closer to the real. It's a common misconception when modelling, believing the more complex the model is, the more it would grasp real patterns.
In modeling and in storytelling, the level of complexity does not guarantees realism; complex models, just like complex characters, don’t inherently mirror reality. As such, reality or realism (commitment to reality) is not the goal, but sophistication, polishment, refinement and truly, plausibility. A lot of things are believable, everything believable is not real. A lot of things are complex, everything complex is not real. A lot of things are nuanced, everything nuanced is not real.
As I already wrote, realistic characters are novelty, while exaggerated or unrealistic ones are the norm. Saying characters from a fiction are unrealistic is like complaining that artificial vanilla tastes like fake vanilla; it would be a novelty if it tasted like real vanilla. I like to think about HxH. Incredibly complex and nuanced characters. Far from realistic, but definitely plausible, coherent, cohesive, deep and authentic. "Plausible" is worth opening the dictionary for.
Finally, if you are that displeased with my rhetoric and find it pointless, you do not need to keep seeking me.
hello so no I am not saying a character doesn’t feel plausible
I’d rather see you debunk all of my arguments making me doubt myself instead of whatever this is, you’d make a great writer for literacy fiction tho
does “unrealism” not fully capture what I mean so therefore it’s a poor choice of words as you mentioned before or did you just happen to initially misinterpret me (trying to avoid the now forbidden word but it’s basically the same thing, mb for overusing it) because of your own maybe not always great comprehension skills so I should adapt to your special needs and use another word because you didn’t understand immediately even tho I think the average person would, my original comment has like 10 likes and one person replied saying they get what I mean…? You’re the only one disagreeing with me here, I really don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend what I was saying so it’s not a poor choice of words and I still do not agree with that it’s inaccurate but tbh I’m just gonna drop that bc we’re only gonna go back n forth if that’s brought up again
err but ofc I am not sure if everyone who read mt comment really understood what I meant, if you wish I could ask a few people ik that aren’t stupid to read my comment without any bias and explain what I meant to see if they understand what I mean without me having to further explain. If they all end up responding similarly to you or simply don’t understand me then yeah I’d probably consider using a better choice of words next time but hey you’re still the only person I’ve encountered to claim that unrealistic is an inaccurate choice of words even in a context like this
I don't know why you feel the need to cry at almost every reply or to assume things that you cannot prove, especially about myself since we are basically strangers. I am even more confused on why someone believing that a conversation is pointless and ridiculous is still engaging in circular arguments. But before one may be tempted to explain the obvious, I shall state that I know why. Regardless, it gives me hopes that I may even be able to make cats graduate Harvard, which is a pleasant mindset I uphold.
- "I am not saying a character doesn’t feel plausible" Nor do I say you do. Read carefully what I wrote, I was talking about my views on HxH. When I refer to your statement, I use the words "multi-dimensionnel", "authentic" or "complex" or words you seem familiar with it. I once said that implausible aligns with your critic, which does not mean that I am suggesting you accept this term. I am making observations, not projecting them on you.
- "does “unrealism” not fully capture what I mean so therefore it’s a poor choice of words as you mentioned before or did you just happen to initially misinterpret me" I believe I clarified this point multiple times already. My first reply reads as "I never understood this kind of critics against fictions". One who does not presume may wonder: why don't you? My second reply suggests that it implies a tautology. Tautologies are most of them not insightful unless you want to emphasize on something as, "the man who speaks is a man able to speak". Furthermore, I graciously made my views more explicite: "I know very well what people mean by an "unrealistic story". My grief comes from people's inability to use accurate diction." As well as with "unrealistic characters" as you pledge. This last quote answers your question. If there is more accurate wording to express fully oneself, why do people keep using words which fail to fully capture what they mean? This question does not seek answers. I know the reason why and you know why you use this term. I simply raised an eyebrow upon seeing this formulation, so bizarre yet common.
- " not always great comprehension skills so I should adapt to your special needs" You complained earlier that I used fallacies yet failed to name them and properly illustrate them, making the accusation baseless. Ad personam or the personal attacks that you throw at me does not rebuke my point. It may portray you as an abrasive and rude person, but it does not demonstrate any flaw in my statement.
- "I think the average person would, my original comment has like 10 likes and one person replied saying they get what I mean…?" You keep believing that I do not get what you mean. But my point is not that I do not understand you, it is that "unrealistic" is a poor choice of words. It is really that simple. You keep asking the same question over and over, and naturally, I will keep giving the same reply. You may want to push this fantasy of yours that I do not understand, but my point can sustain itself without you. As people commonly use "unrealistic" to mean something which has often little to do with realism.
- "You’re the only one disagreeing with me here" I do not need to agree or to disagree with you. I already said it before, I do not need to argue against or in support of your statement. My point is what it is and most often, I simply answer your questions and correct, what I believe to be a mischaracterization of my statements as you desperately want to picture me as an imbecile. What can I say? There was a time when people were so desperate to call anyone with slightly unorthodox beliefs fools or heretics despite History proving them right, but I digress.
- "I really don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend" It never was. But one cannot stop an individual to believe it could be hard for others, projecting that idea on them, as to validate whatever they want to validate. If one wants to believe that anyone who does not share their views are idiots, well, "it is what it is" as they say.
- "I still do not agree with that it’s inaccurate" You do not have to agree. I simply made a point and never was asking for validation nor felt compelled to insult your intelligence.
- "we’re only gonna go back n forth if that’s brought up again" Inevitably as you use the same claims and I find no need to be creative with my answers.
- "I am not sure if everyone who read mt comment really understood what I meant," The matter is not if people understand you or not. The matter is about diction. More than you, as you take it so personally, it is about "unrealistic" being used in a poorly fashion. As I already said, my point can exist without you. And the appeal of majority is a fallacy. It does not prove me wrong nor prove you right. It just shows that many share the same beliefs. Racism was once a popular belief. And History taught us to be wary of the opinion of the mass.
- "I’ve encountered to claim that unrealistic is an inaccurate choice of words even in a context like this " It is not accurate, therefore it is a poor choice of words. It does not mean that you cannot be understood through inaccuracies or that is an uncommon use, it means that one lacks diction. Toddlers for example use simple terminologies, which are most often inaccurate, but can be very intelligible. We do expect toddlers to use words that sounds more "familiar" to them than words which fully capture what they mean. But among adults or "little adults", who are expected to have developed linguistic discernment, it can feel a bit jarring. Words evolve as you said, but not always in the right direction.
Take care of yourself, as I wish you to find stories with more vibrant characters.
It really does aound like AI, whether it is or isn't doesn't really matter anyways. I might be incorrect but it seems like the diffrence in opinions is one person saying, for example. (The brothers loving the fl after meeting her for one day is "UNREALISTIC"). While the other person argues that the use of the word "unrealistic", not the underlying meaning or purpose of intent with the word, is reduntant and serves no real purpose and a better way to express your frustrationation/critic would be, for example. (The brothers loving the fl after meeting her for one day is "UNBELIEVABLE"). Atleast that's what I got from it
This is a nice summary. Concise and straightforward. Very correct, in my opinion.
Regarding the AI allegations, or that seemingly red herring, it's a bit weird that as soon as someone writes "properly", even with slight grammar mistakes, it is attributed to AI. I think people should higher up their standards, because it is just regular writing we were once taught. I believe a lot of people are able to write as I do but wish to do otherwise. But like you judiciously wrote, it has basically nothing to do with the issue at hand.
ya my fault i was stuck on that “misunderstanding” since one of your first replies implied or maybe seemed to imply the opposite of understanding and your later replies did not help because they came across as dismissive to me rather than directly addressing it or engaging with my point since the focus was on diction but I suppose that I could’ve done the same not sure ima have to reread everything but I also further emphasized my stance to clarify that my usage was valid something like that
I saw this before but was too lazy to type out my response so this is the best i can do
alr yes “unrealistic” can potentially be ambiguous and there might be more precise terms I could use however my intent with that was to convey a broad critique that’s widely understood by audiences and “unrealistic” serves that purpose so is it really objectively a poor choice if it effectively communicates a critique understood by the audience? If people get the message, then I don’t think the word choice is poor. like I said, language evolves and you said not always in the right direction but it doesn’t frequently lead to confusion nor has it lost it’s meaning so I wouldn’t argue that it evolved in the wrong direction unlike um idfk “literally” ?
Dude that is not considered a regular way of writing in a debate your writing style got more complexity than clarity it was exhausting to read sometimes but you can take the ai allegations as a compliment
Does this have a kdrama it sounds so familiar
It does.
this seems fire based of on the comments ima start it rn
oh my god
oh my gosh
good luck
i caught up like two hours after i said thag lmao but its really good i love it
yess it fr is I love it
the bf is so cute n i love their character designs sm as well as their relationship that freak ruined everything
the fl handled that pretty well ig shes really strong bro cuz realistically speaking who’s recovering from that even after he turns back to normal its gen so evil that all of this is being done in the body of the person she loves the most wtf