User:Scribolt/Draft RfC

RFC on whether a plot summary must always be written from a real world perspective

Should a plot summary always be written from a real world perspective?

Background

Nearly all articles on works of fiction include a section which describes the narrative. Although the naming of this section varies between articles (Plot Summary/Plot/Synopsis), in this RfC we will refer to the narrative as the 'plot summary'. Some plot summaries make explicit reference to the real-world context in which the fiction has been created, others do not. This RfC wishes to establish if the definition of a real-world perspective in this guideline is commonly understood and whether the related instructions conflict with common practice and the requirement to allow editors the flexibility to write clear and encyclopedic plot summaries.

There are three sentences in this guideline that are particularly relevant for the description of narratives for works of fiction.

• "As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

• "Important aspects of real-world perspective include....: Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative."

• "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis."

Proposals

Option A Plot summaries can be written in either an in-universe or real-world perspective in order to provide a clear narrative for the reader. The content of the plot summary will continue to abide by the existing requirements regarding encyclopedic language defined in MOS:PLOT and other sections of the article will continue to be written from a real-world perspective. The guideline should be updated with the following edit, or with other suitable language if required.

Option B Plot summaries should always be written from a real world perspective. Writing from a real-world perspective in the plot summary does not require that explicit reference be made to the real world context of the work. The guideline must be updated to reflect this.

Option C Plot summaries should always be written from a real world perspective, according to the guideline as currently written. Explicit references to the real world context are not required in the plot summary. No changes are required to the guideline to reflect this.

Option D Plot summaries should always be written from a real world perspective, according to the guideline as currently written. Explicit references to the real world context are required in the plot summary. No changes are required to the guideline to indicate this.

Survey

Support Option A The guideline as written requires that the "characters, places and devices are identified as objects of a narrative". No limits are defined, so this must apply to the entire article, with no exceptions. In addition, the article entire must not treat "the [universe] as if it were real and [ignore] real-world context". This includes the content of the plot summary, meaning that the plot summary must treat the narrative as though it were real and ignore the fact that the characters, places and events take place within a fictional context. If the fictional context cannot be ignored, this therefore means that the content of the plot summary needs to explicitly identifying itself as a fictional narrative. The guideline as written requires the plot summary to explicitly affirm the real world context.

Do our 'best' articles explicitly affirm the fictional nature of characters and events in the plot summary? I chose the first 5 articles from a selection of genres from the FA and GA lists, 40 in total.

Examples for discussion along with possibly non-neutral analysis

FA list. First 5 articles in different genres alphabetically. Books: All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes: Opening framing, reference within the text to literary devices and structure. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Archie vs. Predator: No reference to real world context within Plot Section. Big Two-Hearted River: Refers to the fact that is a story during the plot narrative. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards: Opening framing, nothing else afterwards. Inconsistent framing of narrative Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel): No reference to real world context within Plot Section. Play/Musical: Allah jang Palsoe: No reference to real world context within Plot Section The Author's Farce: References to the structure of the play throughout. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Allegro (musical): No reference to real word context within Plot Section Carousel (musical): No reference to real world context Flower Drum Song: No reference to real world context within the narrative (although the headings refer to the acts). Inconsistent framing of narrative Film 300: No reference to real world context within Plot Section (although it is framed as a non contextualized character recounting a story). Inconsistent framing of narrative ? (film): Refers to both the story and the real world in which the story is set. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Air Mata Iboe: No reference to real word context within Plot Section Aitraaz: Refers to a flashback within the narrative. Inconsistent framing of narrative Alien vs. Predator (film): No reference to real word context within Plot Section TV: Abyssinia, Henry: Refers to the existence of it being an episode and scenes etc throughout. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.: Sypnosis refers to the fact that is an episode. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative. All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural): No reference to real world context within the narrative (although the headings refer to the parts). Inconsistent framing of narrative All things: Refers to flashbacks and the narrative. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Aquaman (TV pilot): No reference to real word context within Plot Section. The last paragraph does, but is not actually anything to do with the plot summary or narrative and should not be in a plot summary section at all. Video Games: Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express: Refers to the fact that it is a game within the summary. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Anachronox: Story section refers to scenes / settings etc. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Aquaria (video game): Plot section refers to the fact that it is a video game. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Bastion (video game): Plot section refers to the fact that it is a video game. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Batman: Arkham Asylum: Only reference to real world context comes in the last line which refers to a post credits scene. GA List. First 5 articles in different genres alphabetically. Novels: Amelia (novel): Refers to itself as a novel. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative And the Mountains Echoed: Refers to itself as a novel. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Any Human Heart: Refers to itself as a novel. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Apex Hides the Hurt: Refers to itself as a novel. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative Artemis Fowl (novel): No reference to real world context. Films: An Adventurous Automobile Trip: No reference to real world context. Rescued by Rover: Refers to itself as a film once at the beginning. Inconsistent framing of narrative A Trip to the Moon: Only reference to real world context comes in the last line which refers to a scene that is missing in some prints. Inconsistent framing of narrative A 29-Cent Robbery: No reference to real world context. A Dog's Love: Refers to itself as a film and narrative devices throughout. Fictional nature explicitly confirmed within narrative TV: The Aftermath (30 Rock): No reference to real world context. Adventure Time (pilot): Identifies itself as a story once at the beginning. Inconsistent framing of narrative Hurricane! (American Dad!): No reference to real world context. Afterbirth (American Horror Story): No reference to real world context (headings used to indicate different time periods in the narrative). The Man from Jupiter: No reference to real world context.

In the examples I provided above (with some rough commentary added by me), about 40% explicitly mention throughout the plot summary that the narrative occurs in a fictional context, about 40% make no reference at all to the fictional nature of the characters or events and the remaining 20% make only a passing mention at the beginning or have sub headers indicating the narrative is divided into parts. I suspect that if you were to do the same exercise for non FA/GA articles the % of no reference to real world context value would increase. Less than half of the FA/GA articles examined explicitly and consistently affirmed the fictional nature of the characters and events within the plot summary.

To square this circle, we can either allow in-universe writing within the plot summary section, or re-define what in-universe writing means within the guideline. I believe that the guideline as written the definition of in-universe is relatively fit for purpose for the parts of the article that are not plot summaries (which in any case attract the worst of the fan-cruft stuff; character biographies, flowery prose regarding the lore of the world etc). A re-writing of the definition of 'in-universe' would have to ensure that it only allowed the option of the real world perspective to no explicit within the plot summary, whilst still maintaining it within the rest of the article. I find it hard to imagine that this will result in clear, understandable policy.

On the other hand, I see little risk of allowing in-universe perspective for the plot summary section only, because if we want to ensure that narratives are brief (in proportion to the content), neutral and reflective of the structure of the original source material, this is better controlled via MOS:PLOT. Attempting to do this by enforcing a certain perspective is unnecessary and undesirable, especially if this results in technically preventing editors writing clearly and concisely. Complex narratives by their nature are complex to describe, and again the tool of real world perspective as written is of no more practical help the instructions within MOS:PLOT, which can always be further improved.

Therefore, the simplest solution is to remove the restriction on perspective from sections of articles where it does more harm than good. Scribolt (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)