It entirely depends in what you are reading. If you read the principles Aristotles detailed in his Poetics he claims all good art will inevitably be a mirror of the world and should strive to be as reasonably close to it as possible, or if the writer takes a more fantastical type of approach he should strive for internal and external consistency at least
Deep down literature and art are capable of describing reality better than science ever could strive for. No one looks at other humans and sees a pile of hormones, molecules and organs, we see a soul there and project our depiction of what that soul is on them. It's why impressionism and expressionism are more realistic than hyper realistic artwork, because they depict the metaphysical curls and emotions we feel while looking at or experiecing something, our world inevitably distorts itself into an emotional mess, places can be majestic or pathetic depending on your mood that day. Thus the most expressionist and honest type of literature that attempts to depict reality in it's rawest form according to the artist will never be truly escapism, because you're not creating a new reality, it will always be a mirror of it through which the reader can reason himself wih the reality around him, how many times has reading a otherwise depressing book with a cast composed of sinners, schizoids and dickheads made you ultimately feel a little bit more at peace with the world?
Genreslop and booktokslop are almost always just pure escapism and suffer from turgid arsenine robotic prose, it's no wonder those authors are worried AI might replace them because ChatGPT's writing skills are jusr a flowerless and impotent as theirs

>>281531116
That’s boring