So even though I refuse to watch the Walking Dead, I saw this on Pinterest today:
which spawned a little nine comment discussion on realism v. escapism. Your mission as a writer is to make your made-up story as “real” as possible. Some people, including a few folks on Pinterest, don’t think that’s necessary, while others get highly annoyed when something implausible occurs and takes them out of their suspended reality. This basically happens all the time in the action genre: the bad guys can’t shoot the broad side of a barn while the main character is always dead on accurate, for example. That’s become an action staple, so no one questions that leap in logic anymore.
However, apparently Herschel’s infinite shotgun is a bit of a sticking point with a few viewers. What do you think? Are you willing to accept a little–or a lot–of implausibility if the story is good? Or would you be in the Imma Counting Herschel’s Bullets Club?