The principles of aesthetic evaluation that I have outlined above may work synergistically in some cases and may come into conflict in others. In cases of conflict,
the principle of aesthetic evaluation that is valued more will overrule the principle that is valued less.
The interplay between principles of aesthetic evaluation is illustrated by an exchange during Riley’s interview where she described when the realism of science is most likely to affect her overall response to a narrative. I quote the exchange at length to capture the sense in which Riley moves between different principles of aesthetic evaluation:
Riley: Like if the science is just in the background, like, “Oh yes, la la la science and then this happened,” it’s less important. But if they’ve got something scientific as a core plot point and they get it wrong, it does tend to be very irritating and I prefer it to be realistic then. Like Interstellar has accurate physics, like, quite accurate physics until you get into the area where we actually have no experimental data to say it’s not accurate and that, like, helps to drive the plot and I feel like that was like, a real benefit to the film, whereas, you know, like, when you’ve got something that’s like, central to the plot but it’s completely inaccurate, it irritates me a lot. Yeah.
JLG: So you would regard Interstellar as an example of where it was central to the plot?
Riley: Yeah, cos you know, like, a lot of the drama arises from like time dilation and that was portrayed quite accurately and, you know, it was quite well researched and, you know, I felt like that was a benefit to the plot, whereas, you know, when like, it’s Doctor Who—so I suppose I should give it a free pass—but when they’re like, “We’re reversing the polarity of the neutron flow,” and I’m just like, but the neutron flow has no polarity, why? So yeah, that sort of stuff irritates me when it’s like, bad and central to the plot.
JLG: So you mentioned the Doctor Who example there, but also mentioned that you might give it a free pass. Can you tell me a bit more about that?
Riley: I think, also the tone that they’re trying to evoke. Like Interstellar was a serious film with serious science whereas Doctor Who was at heart quite ridiculous with, you know, monsters made out of shoelaces and like, a very, a not very serious plot line. And so the science there I can kind of be like, oh you know, they’re not trying to do anything of great drama, but like in films like Pulp Fiction, like, I normally love Tarantino films, but in Pulp Fiction, my mum is a nurse so this is how I know this, but in Pulp Fiction when they’re trying to revive Mia Wallace it’s like, that actually wouldn’t work, and they’re trying to build the drama on that. I’m like when you don’t know it doesn’t really matter, cos you’re just like, “Oh this is so intense,” but when you kind of do know it kind of suspends disbelief. So when films are being more serious about the thing they’re doing and they’re trying to lend real urgency using the science or the med or whatever they’re using and they get it wrong, it tends to be quite distracting and annoying. So I feel like if you’re trying to be really serious with your science and like how it’s affecting the plot, have good science and accurate science.
of scientific uncertainty. She also values the effect arising from the unrealistic science—it was “a real benefit to the film.” In this way, the narrative contract and the principle of plot centrality are overruled by a synergistic combination of uncertainty and enhancement. In the case of Doctor Who (1963–), unrealistic kernel science is redeemed (grudgingly) by the narrative contract. For Riley, Doctor Who is “at heart quite ridiculous”; it is not committed to realistic science.
By contrast, there is little to redeem the unrealistic science in Pulp Fiction (1994). In Pulp Fiction, the unrealistic medical science is central to the plot and the narrative is serious in tone, but unlike Interstellar, the science at issue is settled—Riley’s mother establishes its settled status through her authority as both nurse and parent. Furthermore, unlike
Interstellar where the unrealistic science was of “real benefit,” the unrealistic science in
Pulp Fiction diminishes the sense of drama—the principle of enhancement does not come into play. Riley later clarifies that she still “love[s]” the film overall. The aesthetic damage is done at the level of the scene rather than the film as a whole. However, the principle of aesthetic fulfilment does not seem to come into play here, since despite “loving” Pulp Fiction overall, Riley still regards the unrealistic science as unacceptable in the scene where it appears.
In this way, Riley’s response illustrates how readers may draw on multiple principles of aesthetic evaluation to determine the acceptability of unrealistic science in fiction. However, when principles come into conflict it is difficult to make confident conclusions about which principle will take precedence. The narrative contract was the most frequently reported principle of evaluation in my study. Yet, as Riley’s response illustrates, sometimes the narrative contract overrules other principles (as in Doctor Who) and sometimes the narrative contract is itself overruled by other principles (as in
Interstellar). The relative precedence of principles of aesthetic evaluation warrants further research.