Here's a curious question - the nature of Fantasy writing in itself is escapism, so realism can easily become discarded. But how real should be the worlds that are constructed?
For example, I remember well reading the Dragonlance novels in my teens, and consciously noting that the world being fought for had absolutely no culture of it's own - it lacked any form of identity that you may find in the real world - there was no history, no art, no religion or philosophy - no general sense of culture whatsoever. And Terry Brooks has published a handful of letters on the internet where he applauds himself for not bothering with world building.
Now, there are other writers out there who make an attempt to give their worlds an identity - time is taken with the world-building. But the question is, how much should be revealed to the reader?
In other words, how much of a novel should mention anything about a history or culture of the world being explored? Especially when the direct application of such knowledge may not be immediately apparent to the more immediate plot?
Just asking...
