See, I think you are not arguing against Ursula's point at all. She's stating that to have a random character die in a story, it must be dealt with realistically, consistantly with the story's world.
A carefully constructed story can create a more 'real' reality than one that kills people randomly or dips constantly into 'grittiness'. I'm not condoning flat-out pulp. But think about stories like The Last Unicorn, where a clearly fantastic reality does convey ideas poignant to our own lives.
You can't create vivid storytelling merely by fighting against common unrealities. If a writer is too strongly motivated by wanting to appear 'real' it will affect the work, like toolmarks showing, much the same as a writer who uses unreality as an excuse to violate consistancy and causality.
So, really, I think you are both arguing the same point from different perspectives. Stories make promises, implicit in the way the world and characters are introduced. Violate those promises, and the reading becomes unsatisfactory.
Re:
A carefully constructed story can create a more 'real' reality than one that kills people randomly or dips constantly into 'grittiness'. I'm not condoning flat-out pulp. But think about stories like The Last Unicorn, where a clearly fantastic reality does convey ideas poignant to our own lives.
You can't create vivid storytelling merely by fighting against common unrealities. If a writer is too strongly motivated by wanting to appear 'real' it will affect the work, like toolmarks showing, much the same as a writer who uses unreality as an excuse to violate consistancy and causality.
So, really, I think you are both arguing the same point from different perspectives. Stories make promises, implicit in the way the world and characters are introduced. Violate those promises, and the reading becomes unsatisfactory.