Is 'realism' being overdone in tv and novels?

Hi all.

I had originally thought to broaden the title on this one to be more inclusive of a lot more media, but I've been struck by the divide I at least personally have with some people I know and have been wondering if I've been overreacting or if in fact a trend towards realism isn't being mangled for the sake of supposedly 'sophisticated' audiences.

Now, don't get me wrong; I studied film in university and am deeply appreciative of adult works and adult movies, such as Kurosawa's Ran, Scorcese's Raging Bull, and was a fan (at least for the first two series) of Dexter.

My problem has become that a 'realistic' portrayal of people and situations seems to have become mistaken for 'conflicted characters who seem to need therapy'. My points of division came over the tv series Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined), Torchwood, and the current run of Stephen Donaldson's White Gold Wielder stories.

All three of these stories tend to concern characters in real extremis and often are in gut-wrenchingly difficult situations, none of which I can honestly relate to my own life, let alone anyone I know or in fact. I understood early that Battlestar wasn't afraid to try and hold up a mirror to modern society (as is the right of science fiction) but seemed to increasingly hang its hat on overt displays of religion, 'morally justifiable' violence and an apparent desire to give the characters a 'realistic' resolution to their stories (though I note the fates of Starbuck, Six and Baltar are glaring here), with the viewer supposedly given the ability to interpret what has happened.

Torchwood: Children of Earth I found profoundly depressing, though many would argue this is what would 'realistically' happen given the story as it's outlined. I came away from the story thinking that Jack Harness has become Russell T. Davies' personal whipping boy, as the character routinely has any happiness stripped away from him and is placed in often convoluted and extreme moral situations (the end of this miniseries is a prime example). One of my friends argued that it was good in that none of the series regulars bar Jack was safe in a very dangerous world and conceded that there were 'unpolished glimmers' of hope and positivity in the story.

Lastly, the above friend has raved about the Thomas Covenant Chronicles and has even expressed intentions to have our tabletop roleplaying group play in this universe. I think the setting of The Land and the story structure sounds very interesting, and Donaldson seems to have a penchant for redemptive characters through extreme catharsis down to a fine art.

However, I couldn't bring myself to accept the explanation that Covenant in the very first novel, convinced that the world is a delusion, commits **** on a female character. My friend argued that it's realistic given his situation and even though he finds frustration in that Convenant takes three books to do what should really take one, that he likes the character.

I have to admit feeling deeply disillusioned with this depiction of 'realistic' characters. I feel often when they're presented to me that they are laden with vastly more negative traits and positive and this is somehow a balanced, realistic portrayal of characters, replete with psychology and modern, adult realised characters. Yet some of my favorite novels (such as Lord of the Rings), movies (Star Wars, Superman) and other works don't have any of these things (or at least their complexity) and are considered as well as if not better than a lot of these works.

I'm not advocating a juvenile abandoning of any mature work or 'burying my head in the sand' approach, but I would like to hear from people on both sides (or any side) of a discussion about this so in turn I can feel I've got a more balanced view of things.



S.

I get tired of it. I read books and watch television to get away from the crap in my life, not wallow in it. I stopped reading the Honor Harrington series when it became clear that the formula involved Honor being both maimed and suffering some form of emotional trauma in every book. I had no interest in seeing what new ways David Weber came up with to abuse the character. I'd much rather get my military SF fix reading stuff like Keith Laumer's Bolo series where the stories are about honor and duty. The same principle applies to pretty much any form of entertainment. I want stories that make me feel good, not ones that make me depressed. The occasional downer is alright but I don't want a steady stream of them.

I feel the same way to be honest....and without trying to sound cheesy, your forum name cheered me up, as it's the name of my current Doctor Who tabletop game. Never ignore what fate shows you, I say.


S.

I more or less agree with you, and this is speaking as someone who was impressed with the conception of Thomas Covenant.

I think I've had similar reactions to the OP, from time to time. I noticed this in the recent superheroic prose anthology, Masked. (Refer to the "Superhero Fiction (Not Comics)" thread for more information on this book.) While most of the stories were well-written, I was struck by the fact that most of them also focused on either "villains" being victimized by superheroes or on demonstrating, to put it briefly, that "superheroes are crazy and sick." I don't think this was really meant to be the theme of the book, either, which made its prevalance all the more interesting.

Notably, I see much the same attitude from forumites, from time to time. I vividly recall a comic creator discussion where one participant stated something along the lines of, "All heroes are really just egotistical monsters, while villains are expressing freedom." Now, I can appreciate the idea of a story where a superhero is an egotistical monster and a so-called villain (the protagonist of the story) is expressing freedom, but, simply because we can imagine that story, does that make every hero a bad guy and every criminal heroic? I don't think so. Your Mileage May Vary. (For those interested in these sorts of issues, you might enjoy my AE arc, "Primal Crusade," #459120; think about the Crusader's Manifesto.)

At the same time, angst, or even torturous, tormented character development, has its place. It should just seem natural, not forced, as it clearly did to SuperOz in the examples he gave, or as it does it me in, say, Joss Whedon properties ("Ah! I'll kill off a character at random! That'll prove this is meaningful!"). Making these things believable, and making them draw sympathy for the protagonist rather than antipathy, is one of the components of superior writing.

Agreed.

Realism often means cynasism (sp?) and a lot of time, people and their realism ruins the fun of the property.

Not just in writing, but also in art for comics. How I've hated it when superhero comics will put in an artist who's art style is realistic. :/ Laaaame.

Gritty and 'realistic' are nice, and they can add depth to a show/novel if they're used correctly. But that sort of thing does become tiring if it's used too often, which it currently is.

One of the reasons I love the show Psych is that it's so far from realisitc that it needs two stamps if it wants to send realistic a letter. Shawn and Gus don't take anything seriously (Shawn once did a wrap-up while in a sarcophagus, and Gus used tap dancing to help Lassiter solve a crime), even if they're in a life-threatening situation. The only time they've done serious and realistic(ish) is for the Yin-Yang Killer, and those episodes were great because they broke the usual episode mold.

to use a crappy analogy, current tv is like the attack of rob liefield superpositioned anatomy and pocketry in his 'art' http://progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html as compared to a jim lee, or personal favourite since the mid 80's, art adams.

it essentially consists of an ever widening array of car wreck characters in brutally unbelievable or unrecognizable situations for most people, and not in a fastasy 'gee, i'd really like to do that sometime' kind of way.

breaking bad, dexter, sgu, weeds are just a few series examples of this sort of entertainment. in order, meth lab, serial killer, desert island minus ginger/maryann/reasontolive, and spiralling drug dealer and then some.

i briefly touched on this in the south park heroes thread, but current trending would suggest that the next big tv show would be one where every character is the biggest assh0l3 you've ever come in contact with and dies, every single episode, for several seasons. we'll call it voodoo television where people can work the television show the same way they might work a heavy bag, or a baseball bat while visualizing [relevant human target you don't agree with] all in some sort of circumstance that let's them come back such as an alternate universe paradigm allowing for a greater variety of a$$h0lery.

No, I'd think not. I get kind of tired of shows and books that're afraid of harming their characters. It's kind of like, "Oh man... does this guy ever once have a bad day?" It's nice to see some media realize that **** happens and sometimes you can't do anything about it.

I have to disagree. I find nothing wrong with adding realistic reactions of an average person when put into extreme situations.

One reason is that there is also plenty of media out there that doesn't do this either at all or to a different extent. And this is me thinking as someone who watches this as entertainment.

To take your example of Russell T. Davies. In recent years he has bought back Doctor Who, created a new series Torchwood and re-introduced another character in the Sarah-Jane Adventures. All three programs are based around the same franchise but each approach the idea of realism of the characters reactions in very different ways.

On one side you have The Sarah-Jane Adventures. Although this has been created as a kids program me and my partner find the program great fun to watch. The characters have interesting adventures, real life situations are dealt with in a mature yet understandable way but everything does turn out ok in the end.

In the middle you have Doctor Who. This program has a mixture of realistic reactions (for example loss, ie the doctor losing his companions) and having fun and thrilling adventures. Not everything is ok at the end, but the spirit of adventure remains.

And on the other side you have Torchwood. This was always billed as the dark side of Doctor Who and it does what it says on the tin. It takes ordinary people and put them in extreme distressing situations. As you mention there is Childrem of Earth but there is always the cannibal episode and the deaths of Owen and Toshiko. Nothing ever seems to turn out ok and every character takes away something from each episode to digest about their inner nature.

Now each of these approach the idea of realism of human nature in different ways and I find each of them as entertaining as the other. If current media was flooded with just the extreme then, yes, it would be a problem but its not.

There are also programs that try to find a balance with extreme realism and the "its ok in the end" approach. My main thoughts here are about the series Glee. It has dealt with some extremely difficult issues with some quite painful reactions (e.g. Kurt coming to terms with his homosexuality and Quinn's pregnancy) in both hard hitting ways (some intense well acted scenes) and in more approachable ways (when they sing). At the same time it also has a sense of fun and humour to the program.

Now if I look at this as a trained counsellor (which I am) I find I want to respond to what you say here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwillinger Quote: 16. Has Paragon Studios redefined "player" to require your mouse to subscribe separately from your keyboard? If your mouse has greater processing power than your gfx card, the answer is yes.

I think, as has been hinted at by others, the problem is more about the quality of writing than the supposedly "realistic" themes.
I think that the attempts toward gritty and such are a bit more noticeable, as they tend to be a bit more disturbing to some...
So, poor attempts of writing that involve that aspect tend to have that aspect stand out rather largely.
As opposed to the countless other styles that have gone by with poor writing.

A drama that is poorly done is never worth the experience.
Ever watch a movie that sucker punches you with cheap and obvious emotional toil, but gives you nothing of substance for any of it and turns out to be unworthy of your time and investment?
They tend to suck, because they didn't earn the feelings. They just used easy targets of sadness to pull you in, without cleverness, ingenuity or artistry. (EG meet the lovely child... kill off the lovely child... have no solid story of interest or intellectual reward... roll credits)


Now... I am someone who loves insanely dark, deeply emotional, haunting, terrifying (Well, if I could find such a thing) works of art.
I am all for as dark as can be.
I can get a lot of enjoyment of things based around completely sick and villainous minds.
I've long wanted more of it.

I don't find the current trends to match this desire of mine though.

I see it much more often as similar to hanging out around role-players who think they are amazingly deep for their brooding characters, ooooooh.
Their parents died 87 times before they were the age of 3 and they have the weight of letting the entire world die every single night when they sleep... They have 8 girlfriends who are all on suicide watch and they have a bad drug addiction that they manage to fend off, but the resulting struggle gives them a bad temper... even though they are truly a very sincere and sensitive soul... blah blah blah...

So, in a sense... yes, obviously the current predominant trend has been grittier stuff (I'd guess the Sopranos were a large part of that, as its success helped to usher in more suits' confidence in such material).
However, I find the real problem to be that creating grittier/darker content (focusing on soul searching and the like) generally requires a greater quality of writing (directing, acting and editing as well... it is definitely not always the writer) to work well... And not so much that the gritty/realistic trend is too much to bear.

That is just me though.

Thank you for your great response SuperOz, it really has given me something to think about, however I think we are coming from different perceptions of same thing. As you say:

Quote:

The problem there is that I disagree with that assessment. I find extremis to be the norm as far as current entertainment, in a great number of forms across a great range of media.

From my experience from what I choose to watch I don't find this the case while from your experience you do. And there is nothing wrong with that as there is a good chance we choose to watch/read different things.

For example on a daily basis I watch stuff which is just silly/fun (e.g. Sarah-Jane Adventures, Whites, Family Guy, My Family, 30 Rock, The Inbetweeners), stuff that blends the fun or interesting with real life (Doctor Who, The Bill, House, Glee, Merlin, Lie to Me, Sherlock, Hustle, Justice League, Casualty) and then the extreme realism (Torchwood, Battlestar Galactica, Angel, Being Human). I would also add to the extreme realism the later series of Smallville and Buffy as they got quite dark towards the end. And I find all of these entertaining and watch them for different reasons.

But again this is just purely from my perception of what I choose to watch (and this isn't a comprehensive list of everything I watch at the moment) and doesn't cover everything that is available to watch as well.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but realised it was going to get into a discussion about one (maybe two) programs which in way will create a tangent away from your original point about the over saturation of extreme "realism" in the media.

I think my argument boils down to what my perception is vs what yours is and there is no way to prove/disprove either. So I sense an agree to disagree moment

Edit - just read what Electric-Knight wrote and find myself agreeing with what is said here:

Quote:

However, I find the real problem to be that being grittier/darker (focusing on soul searching and the like) generally requires a greater quality of writing to work well.

But again it comes down to opinion again about what works and what doesn't. The examples of the darker stuff I watch above, to me, do handle it well where others may disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwillinger Quote: 16. Has Paragon Studios redefined "player" to require your mouse to subscribe separately from your keyboard? If your mouse has greater processing power than your gfx card, the answer is yes.

I wonder how much of this is caused by overly positive TV of the 70s conflicting with the reality of the 70s and how that had an impact on the psyche of creators starting in the mid 80s.

We had the TV world of The Brady Bunch, Good Times, other TV family sit-coms. Dramas where good always defeat evil. The police always caught the bad guy. The PI's always solved the mystery. Tragedy rarely happened. Now conflict it with the reality of recession, the "loss" of Vietnam, the Nixon near impeachment, the oil crisis, Three Mile Island. Escalating divorce rates. Inflation.

The real world was nearly the antithesis of the world portrayed on TV and in comics. It only seems natural for all of those real world influences to burst the dam of unreality on TV and in comics. And in cases of extreme repression, the pendulum swung a bit to far the other way. Now everyone is deeply flawed. Not with just one or two problems but the whole list of maladies mentioned in a Psyche 101 textbook.

It's swung so far over that we have become cynical to the extreme. We don't believe there are heroes anymore. And if we found one we would dredge through their lives looking for a flaw that could be amplified by mass media to tear them down. Everyone must have an ulterior motive. A hero must be overcompensating for something horrible he did in his past. "So when have you stopped beating your wife?"

It's not enough to provide an outline of a character's history to an actor so they can understand the motivation and use it to create a believable but character. No we have to have episode upon episode where their past is brought up instead of providing just a hint of insight every so often. No, if we don't spell it out in 50 foot tall letters what their problems are the audience simply won't get it.

So now instead of providing a false but happy world on TV, we get one with characters so flawed that we actually feel good that we aren't as screwed up as them. That our day to day lives feel peachy in comparison.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Father Xmas. I often think this need to see other characters in worse off situations or behaving far more badly than we might is what also gave rise to the current crop of reality television, Jersey Shore being the prime example. I've never seen the show myself (I don't get cable), but the amount of stories around and about the characters that populate that show have at best been cited as the worst stereotyping of Italian Americans in a generation, yet they're practically venerated as A-List celebrities because of their poor behavior.

I think that's an aspect generally of 'reality tv' that turns me completely off, because more often than not, the shows revolve around rejection (The Bachelor/Bacherlorette, America's Next Top Model, et al) or conflict/competition (Survivor, et al) and so on. There's only been maybe a handful of shows I've seen at best that seem to emphasise what I presume we would all want to see as the best of human behavior and I find it somewhat worrying.

I think I found it hardest to take in the show United States of Tara, because I have a very good friend who suffers from clinical schizophrenia and wanted to see if there was remotely a realistic look at mental illness. Alas, it became an overblown soap opera with Tara manifesting a personality who is her own therapist and her family are fine with it!

I don't mind the balance of good vs. evil or where good doesn't win, etc...I'm a grownup and I know how the world works. But what I can't reconcile to is that every single story I encounter lately seems to be of this deeply flawed, '50 foot tall letter' sort of characters.

The friends I spoke of before cite True Blood as one of their favorite shows. And it's not for the supernatural; it's apparently for the gratuitious T&A and as one of them put it 'seeing what trauma they put the next character through next'.


Tired Angel, I have no problem with an 'agree to disagree' approach to a mature discussion, because that's why I came here. City of Heroes players tend to be grownups who can discuss these things not only politely, but intelligently.

I think you're fine to say the point is just that, it's a matter of taste, but my point has always been that it seems to be overdone and overblown. I think Father Xmas has crystallised my thoughts better than I have so far and I'd refer you to that.


S.

I haven't seen the Jersey Shore either, simply because I still remember MTV as a channel that ran music videos and not reality shows.

However there was an episode of the show Bones this season where the title character (a hot, brilliant but utterly lacking in awareness of popular culture), a forensic anthropologist, got hooked on the Jersey Shore but thought it a documentary about a unique sub-culture. Most of her commentary to her FBI partner during the episode sounded like it was lifted from a nature documentary when the case they are working on leads them to, the New Jersey shore.

Well I thought it was funny.

i suppose my complaint is less realism as cynicism and nihilism, it sells to males 18-29 so it pays the bills, but it is trite. reality has good and bad both, nihilism and cynicism just focus on grimness for the sake of grimness, it is no less unrealistic than sappy sentimentality.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.