Getting away with it?

gmw · 03-06-2013, 11:04 PM

I was re-watching some of the newer Dr Who recently - a lot of laughs and a lot of fun ... but holes and inconsistencies? You bet. Same goes for lots of movies and TV series, the more modern the worse it gets (it seems to me). But that doesn't stop (at least some of) them from being enjoyable. Much the same applies to books, though I think readers have less tolerance for holes than viewers. Why?

When you read critical reviews of many books the plot-holes and inconsistencies often get listed near the top of any complaints. If you write fantasy and distant sci-fi you are bound to have some issues, it can't all be completely realistic or it wouldn't be fantasy and distanct sci-fi. But some stories get away with it and others don't. Why is that?

I could happily gloss over this with: Oh, if it's fast-paced enough then the readers won't even notice. And to a certain extent I think this is true. Give the person a fun ride and they won't care about the holes. But I also wonder if some sorts of holes are worse than others. Are there some inconsistencies that a reader is more willing to swallow than others?

How much can you get away with?

Turtle91 · 03-07-2013, 12:42 AM

Well, it's obvious isn't it?

Readers are smarter than your average boob-tube watcher!!

Seriously though...I have been banned from commenting on said holes/inconsistencies during any TV show...apparently I'm supposed to sit back and willingly suspend my disbelief...except in the case of Star Trek and any GOOD Sci-Fi (is there bad Sci-Fi?). We all know that stuff is TRUE and it's just a Govm'nt Conspiracy to keep it from us good folks!! Holes/inconsistencies will just get fixed when they jump through the time dilation chamber/donut....

crich70 · 03-07-2013, 01:50 AM

I think it has to do with the difference between seeing and comprehending. When you see an image on a movie/tv screen it's there and gone before you have time to think about it. But with a written document you are forced to slow down and read every single word and understand what you are reading in order to create the picture of what is happening. It's like the difference between a dream and waking life. Even if you remember dreaming you don't often remember many details (if any) but in the waking world you have to pay some attention to what is going on round you even if you don't see/understand everything. So we notice if something doesn't make sense in writing more often than if it's a visual presentation because we have to take more time to comprehend what we are reading.

gmw · 03-07-2013, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle91

Well, it's obvious isn't it?

Readers are smarter than your average boob-tube watcher!!

[...]

I think you can be arrested for being one of those!

VydorScope · 03-07-2013, 06:49 AM

I deliberately and intentionally ignore that stuff in Dr. Who. I really enjoy the current reboot of the show, and do not care to pick it apart.

I say that because I bet more people feel the same way when they watch TV/Movies.

I do no think that books are any different really. I have big mistake in one of my books that is out there, and to date no one has called me on it. I did admit to it on my blog when I wrote a "fix" for it in a later book, but it supports my point. I do my best to avoid ay holes/etc. But they slip through even the best writers.

J. Garrett · 03-07-2013, 01:39 PM

I always try to make sure that no glaring plot holes or inconsistencies make their way through to the final draft, but I suppose it's going to happen sometimes and there's the chance that things most people won't notice [and even the writer might not notices] can be picked up on by the kinds of people who dig deeply into stories and try to tease out things like that.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with leaving certain things vague and letting the reader come up with their own idea to fill that hole. Of course, you do have to be careful there, because some readers do want all the details or maybe will unintentionally fill the hole with something they don't like. So, I guess it's a balancing act, of sorts. How much do you want to explain? And do your "plot holes" work within the framework of what your narrator [and, by extension, your reader] should know about?

Not all plot holes are created equal, is what I'm getting at.

gmw · 03-07-2013, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Garrett

[...]Not all plot holes are created equal, is what I'm getting at.

I agree. For a start some holes are built into the original premise. To take up my Dr Who example: crossing his own timeline is built-in unless he only ever moves forward in time, but they have to say "oh no, I can't do that" in certain places or the particular story they're creating just won't work. And we happily go along with it.

Normally I'd say that the big "no no" is to break your own rules - but even that doesn't hold in something like Dr Who. Maybe the rule is more like: don't break your own rules unless you do it deliberately. Seeing a writer stumble accidentally is like watching someone trip over their own feet, we can't help but be amused even though (or perhaps because) we do it ourselves and know how embarrassing and sometimes painful it can be.

taosaur · 03-08-2013, 01:39 PM

It depends a lot on the genre and the expectations the author sets up for the reader. In a mystery or procedural where the plot logic is the main draw, inconsistencies are less forgivable, whereas a fantasy or speculative story can get away with a lot of hand-waving.

The easiest way that a lot of authors get away with inconsistency these days, though, is to set the story up as at least partly absurdist from the start. They might use an unreliable narrator, introduce some quantumy metaphysics, go for full blown magical realism, or take the meta-narrative approach of hanging a lantern on unlikely events by declaring them "like something that would happen in a novel." Going meta in a lighthearted way a la Gaiman can be very satisfying for contemporary readers while also giving the author all the wiggle room in the world short of total incoherence.

VydorScope · 03-08-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taosaur

"like something that would happen in a novel." Going meta in a lighthearted way a la Gaiman can be very satisfying for contemporary readers while also giving the author all the wiggle room in the world short of total incoherence.

I've done that

I had a chance encounter that I really wanted to happen, that while it was POSSIBLE, I knew it would seem a bit to convenient to be chance. So the main character in the scene says something like "This kind of thing doesn't happen in real life" BUT I use that in the story to make them suspicious of the event. So I guess that make its better, right?

frahse · 03-09-2013, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmw

---
How much can you get away with?

You gmw are one of those people who "don't do even numbers well."

On the subject though, I have given up on several TV programs that started out fairly well, but then went crazy.

Homeland
Revolution

Others that I have managed to tolerate so far are
Grimm
Falling Skies

frahse · 03-09-2013, 07:05 AM

And by the way, my science is always perfect!

My stuff always works.
Well, at least on that other world, in that other universe, for those creatures...

gmw · 03-09-2013, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frahse

You gmw are one of those people who "don't do even numbers well."

Hmmm... Now is this a reference to my current Karma levels that are most definitely odd at this moment (though not a prime, I'm sorry to say

) ... or is it a polite way of saying I'm odd. Either way, I'm happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frahse

On the subject though, I have given up on several TV programs that started out fairly well, but then went crazy.[...]

TV series seem particularly guilty of the offense, I think - as Turtle91 suggested - the writers rely on the average viewer having a short attention span.

forsooth · 03-09-2013, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmw

Hmmm... Now is this a reference to my current Karma levels that are most definitely odd at this moment (though not a prime, I'm sorry to say

) ... or is it a polite way of saying I'm odd. Either way, I'm happy.

high probability reference to odd karma rounding to zero ability difficulty.

..9 + 1 .NE. .10 (mobileread range)

forsooth · 03-09-2013, 11:09 AM

QED

58999999 +11 = 59000009

morriss003 · 03-09-2013, 02:48 PM

I don't mind suspending disbelief for the initial plotline, but if I'm asked to suspend disbelief for side plots, I give up. I gave up on Revolution real fast. I'm barely hanging on to Falling Skies. That show and Terra Nova were hurt by poor casting on the male leads. I don't mind dubious science in science fiction, but I won't accept it in other genres. I hate impossibly noble men in romance and stupid women in all genres. For some reason, TV writers love stupid women, probably because the writers are men.

03-06-2013, 11:04 PM	#1
gmw cacoethes scribendi Posts: 5,809 Karma: 137770742 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650	Getting away with it? I was re-watching some of the newer Dr Who recently - a lot of laughs and a lot of fun ... but holes and inconsistencies? You bet. Same goes for lots of movies and TV series, the more modern the worse it gets (it seems to me). But that doesn't stop (at least some of) them from being enjoyable. Much the same applies to books, though I think readers have less tolerance for holes than viewers. Why? When you read critical reviews of many books the plot-holes and inconsistencies often get listed near the top of any complaints. If you write fantasy and distant sci-fi you are bound to have some issues, it can't all be completely realistic or it wouldn't be fantasy and distanct sci-fi. But some stories get away with it and others don't. Why is that? I could happily gloss over this with: Oh, if it's fast-paced enough then the readers won't even notice. And to a certain extent I think this is true. Give the person a fun ride and they won't care about the holes. But I also wonder if some sorts of holes are worse than others. Are there some inconsistencies that a reader is more willing to swallow than others? How much can you get away with?

03-07-2013, 12:42 AM	#2
Turtle91 A Hairy Wizard Posts: 3,093 Karma: 18727053 Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Charleston, SC today Device: iPhone 11/X/6/iPad 1,2,Air & Air Pro/Surface Pro/Kindle PW & Fire	Well, it's obvious isn't it? Readers are smarter than your average boob-tube watcher!! Seriously though...I have been banned from commenting on said holes/inconsistencies during any TV show...apparently I'm supposed to sit back and willingly suspend my disbelief...except in the case of Star Trek and any GOOD Sci-Fi (is there bad Sci-Fi?). We all know that stuff is TRUE and it's just a Govm'nt Conspiracy to keep it from us good folks!! Holes/inconsistencies will just get fixed when they jump through the time dilation chamber/donut....

03-07-2013, 01:50 AM	#3
crich70 Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,305 Karma: 43993832 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Monroe Wisconsin Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)	I think it has to do with the difference between seeing and comprehending. When you see an image on a movie/tv screen it's there and gone before you have time to think about it. But with a written document you are forced to slow down and read every single word and understand what you are reading in order to create the picture of what is happening. It's like the difference between a dream and waking life. Even if you remember dreaming you don't often remember many details (if any) but in the waking world you have to pay some attention to what is going on round you even if you don't see/understand everything. So we notice if something doesn't make sense in writing more often than if it's a visual presentation because we have to take more time to comprehend what we are reading.

03-07-2013, 06:49 AM	#5
VydorScope Wizard Posts: 3,418 Karma: 35207650 Join Date: Jun 2011 Device: iPad	I deliberately and intentionally ignore that stuff in Dr. Who. I really enjoy the current reboot of the show, and do not care to pick it apart. I say that because I bet more people feel the same way when they watch TV/Movies. I do no think that books are any different really. I have big mistake in one of my books that is out there, and to date no one has called me on it. I did admit to it on my blog when I wrote a "fix" for it in a later book, but it supports my point. I do my best to avoid ay holes/etc. But they slip through even the best writers.

03-07-2013, 01:39 PM	#6
J. Garrett Enthusiast Posts: 46 Karma: 1000010 Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Oklahoma Device: Kindle, 6" E-Ink	I always try to make sure that no glaring plot holes or inconsistencies make their way through to the final draft, but I suppose it's going to happen sometimes and there's the chance that things most people won't notice [and even the writer might not notices] can be picked up on by the kinds of people who dig deeply into stories and try to tease out things like that. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with leaving certain things vague and letting the reader come up with their own idea to fill that hole. Of course, you do have to be careful there, because some readers do want all the details or maybe will unintentionally fill the hole with something they don't like. So, I guess it's a balancing act, of sorts. How much do you want to explain? And do your "plot holes" work within the framework of what your narrator [and, by extension, your reader] should know about? Not all plot holes are created equal, is what I'm getting at.

03-08-2013, 01:39 PM	#8
taosaur intelligent posterior Posts: 1,562 Karma: 21295618 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ohiopolis Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2, Samsung S8, Lenovo Tab 3 Pro	It depends a lot on the genre and the expectations the author sets up for the reader. In a mystery or procedural where the plot logic is the main draw, inconsistencies are less forgivable, whereas a fantasy or speculative story can get away with a lot of hand-waving. The easiest way that a lot of authors get away with inconsistency these days, though, is to set the story up as at least partly absurdist from the start. They might use an unreliable narrator, introduce some quantumy metaphysics, go for full blown magical realism, or take the meta-narrative approach of hanging a lantern on unlikely events by declaring them "like something that would happen in a novel." Going meta in a lighthearted way a la Gaiman can be very satisfying for contemporary readers while also giving the author all the wiggle room in the world short of total incoherence.

03-09-2013, 07:05 AM	#11
frahse occasional author Posts: 2,314 Karma: 2064403292 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Wandering God's glorious hills, valleys and plains. Device: A Franklin BI (before Internet) was the first. I still have it.	And by the way, my science is always perfect! My stuff always works. Well, at least on that other world, in that other universe, for those creatures...

03-09-2013, 11:09 AM	#14
forsooth tec montage Posts: 435 Karma: 544444445 Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: harsh unforgiving places Device: kindles, lenovo, chromebook, mobiles	QED 58999999 +11 = 59000009

03-09-2013, 02:48 PM	#15
morriss003 Evangelist Posts: 438 Karma: 3409790 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Maui Device: kindle	I don't mind suspending disbelief for the initial plotline, but if I'm asked to suspend disbelief for side plots, I give up. I gave up on Revolution real fast. I'm barely hanging on to Falling Skies. That show and Terra Nova were hurt by poor casting on the male leads. I don't mind dubious science in science fiction, but I won't accept it in other genres. I hate impossibly noble men in romance and stupid women in all genres. For some reason, TV writers love stupid women, probably because the writers are men.