@alacaelum :
But I refuse.
All fiction, even of the fantastical variety, needs some grounding in reality to remain relatable. It is that juxtaposition of the mundane and the fantastical that makes it work.
But see... the difference between the fantastical and the mundane, at its core, is logical consistency. That which is real necessarily adds up in some manner, whether we see the reasons or not... while that which is fantastical has some necessary logical holes into which pure whimsy can be inserted and a completely different set of rules from those of reality can be built from them.
The trick to making it all work is ensuring that those holes are small enough to not be immediately apparent... to make it so that the fantastical elements seem realistic at first glance. To make it seem that, with just a little nudge, something like this
could happen.
If it doesn't have that, then aspects of the story start to break down, as it becomes unpredictable and nonsensical, and no longer functions as a story at all so much as just an avant garde consciousness-stew.
... Of course where one draws the line as regards believability or not often depends on one's personal level of understanding of how things work in reality. What is obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to another.
And what THIS particular example comes down to is that I tend to notice quite easily if an author is applying too much artistic license to biology, since I received a very biology-heavy education. So where I draw my line for what is or isn't believable from a genetic standpoint is necessarily more strict than it would be for someone educated in an entirely different subject.