I have not read anything from Ken Liu, but your OP makes sense.

You don’t just suddenly drop everything you believe in for the opposite, unless you have mood disorders. And then going back to a grey zone just seems pseudo philosophical in the sense of “oh but nothing is black and white”. — Skalidris

In the end, when people read stories, do they want to be comforted in their opinions or do they want to learn something through a story that makes sense? — Skalidris

Yes, good observation. One of the things I learned about fiction is that it is not an invitation to implausibility. A former professor would say that plausibility is what connects us to the characters, no matter how outlandish they are.
I've watched a few movies where the director "cheats" on the characters just to move the story along. For example, just as when you get to know the hero -- very rational, intelligent, and courageous -- he, all of a sudden drops common sense and walks into the trap of a killer he's trying to catch and gets killed himself.

In the end, when people read stories, do they want to be comforted in their opinions or do they want to learn something through a story that makes sense? — Skalidris

Haven't read any of Ken Liu's stories but am currently reading Dostoevsky's novella,Notes from Underground, and find that the narrator is somewhat ridiculous and unbelievable. The exaggerated madness/neurosis of the character is there for Dostoevsky to illustrate his pessimism/doubt/mock enlightenment ideals of his contemporaries.

Another oddity in Dostoevsky's dialogues which wholly breaks from realism is the length of speech/monologues of his characters. No one in history likely holds a dialogue this way. They go on for pages and pages sometimes, you'd think the people being spoken to would have left the room ages ago.

Perhaps Ken Liu's poetic license of inconsistent/implausible character is justified in a similar way, as a means to some other end.

But can a story with surrealistic characters be thought provoking?
To me it’s like saying you had a revelation about a philosophical topic by reading a Disney story… You could understand the ideas of the author better, but how can it be thought provoking if you can’t stay in the story and think deeply about the characters, about how they would react in the world the author described?

But maybe it’s just the way people think in general, if the author exposed some human traits, they don’t mind making links with other things without considering humans as a whole.

Of course it’s impossible to make completely realistic characters, but personally when I’m thinking about any topic in humanities or social sciences, I try to think of humans as a whole as much as I can, not just one or a few traits and make an opinion based on that.

I read about half way through "The Grace of Kings" but lost interest, largely due to the poor characterization. The book might have a lot of merit, as the sort of retelling it sets out to be, but the characterization was too discordant for me.

Similarly, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment lost me, due to the psychological implausibility of the characters.

Well, he does state that he’s not into realism, so it’s too much to expect realism in his work. Or is the problem the lack of logic in the behaviours and motivations of the characters? What is it to be: realism or logic?

Because the most realistic depictions of people I’ve read have involved unpredictable and illogical behaviour. I’m thinking of the central three characters of War and Peace, for example. Could be Liu doesn’t make the illogical believable like Tolstoy does.

But I haven’t read Ken Liu so I can’t comment on his execution. The quotation seems to suggest that he favours the imposed narrative over the attempt to reflect the chaos of reality—which is surely a suitable approach to fantasy—perhaps because what interests him are themes (the “logic of metaphors”) and storytelling in general. I suppose this can be done well or badly, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Most fiction does this to some degree. Maybe Liu doesn’t do it well, does it too simplistically, etc.

In the end, when people read stories, do they want to be comforted in their opinions or do they want to learn something through a story that makes sense? — Skalidris

Personally, neither. I want to find out what a writer has written, or what’s in a particular book. It doesn’t have a function. That said, I do seek out things like good prose, originality, uniqueness, playfulness, depth of insight and observation, formal innovation, beauty, weirdness, friction, etc.

Haven't read any of Ken Liu's stories but am currently reading Dostoevsky's novella,Notes from Underground, and find that the narrator is somewhat ridiculous and unbelievable. The exaggerated madness/neurosis of the character is there for Dostoevsky to illustrate his pessimism/doubt/mock enlightenment ideals of his contemporaries.

Another oddity in Dostoevsky's dialogues which wholly breaks from realism is the length of speech/monologues of his characters. No one in history likely holds a dialogue this way. They go on for pages and pages sometimes, you'd think the people being spoken to would have left the room ages ago. — Nils Loc

These comments remind me very much of Nabokov’s much more vehement negative judgements on Dostoevsky. He really hated him.

For me, all fiction is about prizing the logic of metaphors-which is the logic of narratives in general–over reality, which is irreducibly random and senseless — Ken Liu

I haven't read anything by Ken Liu, but were I to find what you quoted as a blurb on a back cover, I'd give it a pass. Too high concept.

I'm not a creative writer either, but as a reader it seems to me that complex characters are much more interesting than simplistic ones. Indeed, characterization is close to the heart of a writer's job along with plot and dialogue.

Because the most realistic depictions of people I’ve read have involved unpredictable and illogical behaviour. — Jamal

To me, a story, or a character is "logic" if it is a logic continuum of the premises, whether they are realistic or not.

If in the story, there are a lot of birches (presented as regular birches) growing underground without any light, it's illogical if the author never explains how they do photosynthesis. Similarly, if a character is presented as a healthy human being, then later in the story is completely distorted, if that distortion is never explained, it's illogical given the premises. But if the premises are that the character is completely crazy (or not a human being), then, even if the reader can't make sense of their behavior, it can be considered logical.

In the OP you complained about the lack of realism and the illogical behaviour of the characters. But now I see what you mean. Sure, works of fiction have to make sense somehow, usually with internal consistency. Whether unexplained underground birch trees strike the reader as delightful or stupid depends on the skills of the author and the experience and attitude of the reader.

But can a story with surrealistic characters be thought provoking?
To me it’s like saying you had a revelation about a philosophical topic by reading a Disney story… You could understand the ideas of the author better, but how can it be thought provoking if you can’t stay in the story and think deeply about the characters, about how they would react in the world the author described? — Skalidris

For this question alone, no. To me, surrealism is an ambient atmosphere -- there needs to be the development of the characters themselves in order for it to be thought provoking.

If in the story, there are a lot of birches (presented as regular birches) growing underground without any light, it's illogical if the author never explains how they do photosynthesis. Similarly, if a character is presented as a healthy human being, then later in the story is completely distorted, if that distortion is never explained, it's illogical given the premises. But if the premises are that the character is completely crazy (or not a human being), then, even if the reader can't make sense of their behavior, it can be considered logical. — Skalidris

Yes, this is a very astute comment. I will give an example of the movie Lamb (2021) by the director Valdimar Jóhannsson ( Icelandic). There is no book, I'm afraid. But a screenplay co-written by the director. This is a horror genre. In the movie there is the hybrid of lamb (or ram) born in the barn of a couple who owns and runs the farm. (The baby lamb has a father which is revealed later in the story. The father is also a hybrid of human)
But for the meantime, the couple took care of the baby like she's their own -- with a head of a lamb and body of human.
I'm not gonna tell the whole story, but my point of bringing this up is, the director very skillfully just started the story with no explanation of how the hybrid came to existence. You're just gonna have to accept that piece of the story. And as you keep watching, the story just makes you want to continue watching and find out what happens in the end. The director makes you forget about that question, or he makes your forget about your gripe that there's no explanation how they came about, he only wants to make you curious about what happens next and what happens in the end.

Going back to what I said about plausibility. Here,

Whether unexplained underground birch trees strike the reader as delightful or stupid depends on the skills of the author and the experience and attitude of the reader. — Jamal

I believe this is very true. (In this case, I am using a film, instead of a book).
The plausibility lies in the relationship between the characters -- there is continuity and consistency in what happens in the end. The fact that one couldn't fault the hybrid father for what he's done is, to me, enough to fulfill this quality.

If in the story, there are a lot of birches (presented as regular birches) growing underground without any light, it's illogical if the author never explains how they do photosynthesis. Similarly, if a character is presented as a healthy human being, then later in the story is completely distorted, if that distortion is never explained, it's illogical given the premises. But if the premises are that the character is completely crazy (or not a human being), then, even if the reader can't make sense of their behavior, it can be considered logical. — Skalidris

@L'éléphant gave a thoughtful answer to this concern, which I agree with.

Have you seen David Lynch's Mulholland Drive by chance? Despite a lot of surreal disjunction of scenes and characters, we are still able to piece together a explanation of what might be going on that makes the film deeply satisfying, meaningful. This explanation may radically change if we start listening to David Lynch himself provide contextual clues.

Some viewers might be completely turned off by the non-sequitur character jumps and inexplicable improbable events, such that they have no desire conjure up a logic that justifies such a strange experience.

I've got to admit though, aside from Mulholland Drive, I find Lynch's other films less compelling because I cannot really account for the chaos of what is going on in a way that would sustain my interest. The will to do the work of achieving coherence is lost.

Have you seen David Lynch's Mulholland Drive by chance? Despite a lot of surreal disjunction of scenes and characters, we are still able to piece together a explanation of what might be going on that makes the film deeply satisfying, meaningful. — Nils Loc

Yes, I've seen the movie. And your comment about it is on point.