- 65
- 17
In many works reference is made to concepts (such as: Meters, Hours) or places in the real world (New York, Moon, Jupiter, Tokyo). We tacitly understand that when the author refers to such things it is because he wants to put them with all their characteristics and parameters into the fiction.
This is a somewhat difficult issue to explain, not because of its complexity but because of its simplicity.
A simple example of the importance of this would be:
Suppose you are in a debate, and your character has a feat destroying Mount Everest in his universe.
In principle everything is fine, the problem comes next; The author of your work has a very particular style of drawing, and therefore. That Everest seems smaller than it really is, and your opponent takes this point to contradict you.
At first glance it may seem like an issue of consistency of the drawing, in a way it is, but the main point is that regardless of how the author has represented it graphically, narratively it indicates that it is Mount Everest. And at no point is it indicated that Mount Everest has gone through any change that makes it smaller than Mount Everest in our world.
Two things can be inferred from this;
1)The parameters of reality-fiction equality are defined by each individual alone, which is why there is far from being a consensus.
2)Your opponent, without a doubt, is someone who is quite stubborn.
I hope I have explained myself well.
This is a somewhat difficult issue to explain, not because of its complexity but because of its simplicity.
A simple example of the importance of this would be:
Suppose you are in a debate, and your character has a feat destroying Mount Everest in his universe.
In principle everything is fine, the problem comes next; The author of your work has a very particular style of drawing, and therefore. That Everest seems smaller than it really is, and your opponent takes this point to contradict you.
At first glance it may seem like an issue of consistency of the drawing, in a way it is, but the main point is that regardless of how the author has represented it graphically, narratively it indicates that it is Mount Everest. And at no point is it indicated that Mount Everest has gone through any change that makes it smaller than Mount Everest in our world.
Two things can be inferred from this;
1)The parameters of reality-fiction equality are defined by each individual alone, which is why there is far from being a consensus.
2)Your opponent, without a doubt, is someone who is quite stubborn.
I hope I have explained myself well.
