a looking-glass book

Consistancy of what, I think is the real question - I mean, does consistency count if it's consistency of being inconsistent? That's a real question, by the way. I would think that it would count. I would also beg to disagree that speciificity bears much in terms of how much pleasure I dervive from "narratives." I think that in general, I find things that are too specific uninteresting and those that are more ambiguous

well, obviously i disagree, since i posted it. this isnt something im totally sold on, but reflecting on it today it seemed to hold up. consistancy = some form of repetition. for example (off the top of my head): read today that the first matrix movie was a set-up for teh second two (duh). but it had to be made to create a world where people could bend the rules of physics. without that set-up, deviating from the real world, the story would have collapsed because people wouldn't have bought it. it doesn't matter then what the consistancy really is; the viewer just needs that concrete element be able to hold onto.
it does count if it is inconsistant, but it makes for a more difficult audience - look at the popularity of sitcoms vs. david lynch movies. this is not to say consistant = boring or predicatable.
specificty is what builds character. i am not talking about interactive narrative (and kurt saying that metal gear is developed with intentionally underdeveloped characters for immersion's sake). to be able to say 'this character is in this location, behaves like this, etc, etc' goes a long way vs. 'a person floats in space.' much of my writing is vague and im trying to reverse that trend as feedback from peers has indicated it isnt engaging or gripping or *gasp* entertaining.