I was at a friend’s house several months ago, and we were discussing the Harry Potter universe (neither the movies nor the books specifically). My friend made some comments concerning the economy in Harry Potter. I believe they were twofold:
a) Economy is an interesting topic of discussion for a fictional universe like that described in the Harry Potter series. It should have been given more focus.
b) The small descriptions of the economy in Harry Potter did not seem reasonable given the constraints of that universe. The power and abilities of those living in the universe should have made a substantial impact in the logistics of their economy, yet there is no evidence of that in the series.
When b) was mentioned, one of the people involved in the discussion made comment (argumentatively) that Harry Potter was a work of fiction. The implication was that Rowling can do whatever she wants since it’s her universe. This is relatively true, but one can’t write any string of random words and call it quality fiction.
I’ve been thinking about this since, and I have come up with two questions:
- Is self-consistency important for a work of fiction?
- Is it important that a fictitious world obey our fundamental notions of commerce, math, physics, and human nature? Or at least those notions that we believe hold true even in a [metaphorical] vacuum?
Is Self-Consistency important?
Self-Consistency is definitely important.
Frankly, self-inconsistency makes the work less relateable. Fiction is often powerful because the reader/viewer believes that the work *could* be true (in another possible universe or another time). If the work is intrinsically and provably wrong, it detracts from that notion, and makes it uninteresting fiction. In fact, I would make the claim that if a work is self-inconsistent, it is no longer fiction; it is nonsense.
For instance, when the writers of a TV show say ‘A’ in one episode and ‘Not A’ in another episode, it is a Bad Thing - a sign of writer/editor laziness and apathy. It detracts from the quality of the show, and insults the viewers. This particular phenomenon has been a plague to the loyal viewers of many a geek-oriented television show. This is probably because (firstly) geeks care far more about self-consistency than the average viewer and (secondly) Television is far more susceptible than other media to inconsistency as it is generally created by large and diverse groups of writers, editors, and directors.
Should a work of fiction acknowledge our current notions of fundamental, universal properties?
On the one hand, it is arrogant to think that all of our fundamental ideas about human nature and the world around us are true.
However, like it or not, we all assume these laws to be true. If the author believes these to be untrue, I think there is some obligation on the part of the author to make note of it, either explicitly or passively through example.
For instance, if one were to base a book around the notion that 2+2=5, it would be best to mention it specifically at some point, or show an example that clearly illustrates that is going on.
Likewise, if an author created a fictional universe in which items with large supply and low demand command an exorbitant price, he should probably attempt to explain the phenomenon at some point. If the phenomenon isn’t explained, a reader would wonder why the packs of gum in the impulse aisles are inexplicably selling for $1,200, and would almost certainly find it vexing.
The book Flatland is a great example of this. In the book, the author describes a 2 Dimensional physical space and expounds on it. He does an excellent job explaining the nature of the universe, and explicitly describes how it differs from our own.