Xephyr wrote:But I was referring to a hypothetical conlanger for whom "a belief system... is reality, and conforming a world to it is realism" and who "worr[es] about [their] character's relationship to God just as [they] worry about their way of life and their conflicts". And the point of my post was that for a conlanger, giving your conpeople all the merriments possible in life-- be it justice or salvation-- is bad if it includes a sacrifice of realism.
If such a person creates a world, they in effect must write some fiction about God: what does he do about the people in this world? It's not realistic, within the creator's worldview, that God simply leaves them alone.
Not every religious person would worry about this, of course. But the question was basically "why would someone do this" and that's one reason.
Zompist is (or was) a bit unconventional in that his conworlds are biased towards realism. Most conworlds at least contain some element of counter-factual thought experiment, and many more are projections of various philosophical/ideological concerns into another realm.
Is that so? I kind of had the impression most conworlders (the serious ones at least) paid a great deal of attention to realism. Many appear to take realism even further than Zompist generally has.
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."
Zompist is (or was) a bit unconventional in that his conworlds are biased towards realism. Most conworlds at least contain some element of counter-factual thought experiment, and many more are projections of various philosophical/ideological concerns into another realm.
Is that so? I kind of had the impression most conworlders (the serious ones at least) paid a great deal of attention to realism. Many appear to take realism even further than Zompist generally has.
That may be true now, but I don't think it was true at the time that (e.g.) this community got started up, and I don't think it's true of the most widely-published SF authors. I don't think it's a particular virtue that a conworld is realistic or not; "satisfying" is a better description I'd suggest. No-one suggests that Neil Gaiman is a bad author.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.
