Nicole+Gololobov+RP+Post+5

Art is characterized by its ability to resemble real life to whatever extent the artist chooses. Though, even with this freedom, there are some people who argue that fiction should be realistic in order for it to be relateable for the reader, while others would say that the point of art is to break boundaries on what is plausible. In "What Makes a Story Feel Unrealistic", Jami Gold argues that a story needs internal consistency and some truth, otherwise, readers will "remember they're reading words on a page." I agree with this because, even when reading or watching fantasy or science fiction, what annoys me isn't typically the impossibleness of the situation, but the illogical characters and plot holes within the story world. In good books, characters' "personalities are often very realistic." Janice Hardy in "Do we Expect Too Much Realism in our Stories" delves into the issue more, saying that an unlikely to happen premise can "explore human nature" as if the scenario was "an experiment." They seem to believe that realism limits creativity. However, realism in art can be positive. On one hand, it sounds boring and too normal, but on the other hand , it makes the story relevant. In "Romanticism vs. Realism", the latter is "interested in recent or contemporary life" with characters who are like "ordinary people" rather than the idealized heroes or overly neurotic protagonists found in Romantic works. The plot may not have "unusual events" or "high adventure", but it is driven by "ordinary events and circumstances", which sometimes gives the story more power and meaning. This is especially noticeable when, as mentioned in "Realism in Poetry", the work concerns the "issues of the day", social or political ones, and "employs images" rather than vague symbolism. In general, I think that Realism and Romanticism are both important and that artists should choose what method they want to use.