Fringe Fiction Unlimited discussion

Almost every story depends on coincidences, happenstance and other scenarios that strain the credulity of common sense and the very fabric of reality. Authors play fast and loose with facts to keep things interesting and the plot moving - it's just how stories get told.

In YOUR opinion - when are authors demanding too much acceptance of readers?
When is it unreasonable or irresponsible to expect readers to suspend disbelief?

When does it cross the line from fiction or artistic license into contrived, clinched or simply poor storytelling?

Give examples, if you have them, to illiterate your point - what are stunts authors shouldn't pull with readers?

One example that springs to mind is Michael Crichton resurrecting the character of Ian Malcolm in "The Lost World" because although he dies in the novel of "Jurassic Park", he survived in the movie.

And he did it in a lame way, with a bit that said "It had been reported in the media that he'd been killed, but he actually hadn't". It made me wince!

It's so transparent I almost want to laugh

Courtney wrote: "It's so transparent I almost want to laugh"

I would have, if I hadn't paid for the book at that point... ;)

One of the things I really can't stand in novels is when something is so obvious to the reader and the protagonist still doesn't pick up on it. Sure, there are circumstances where they might not know as much as we do (if the book is from multiple points of view)but I've definitely read novels where it's abundantly clear to us where it's going but the protagonist remains clueless. It drives me insane!

Buggy boo - girl-protagonist gets hassled/assaulted by random dude only to have *le gasp* her love interest happen by to rescue her before anything gets out of hand.

Much depends on whether it's comic.

Anything that is a sort of deus ex machina - that is, something totally unexpected for which no ground has been laid in the story so far.

Particularly in fantasy/science fiction stories wherein someone suddenly finds that have certain powers that get them out of a hole.

Or in the case Courtney quotes, the love interest happens to turn up at just the right time without there having been something in the story so far that makes that a logical development.

I get "coincidences" have to happen for the sake of anything getting accomplished in an interesting fashion but authors need to abandon the overdone ones or figure out how to put a spin on it to make it worth reading

Heh, just thought of another one. In the first Jack Reacher novel, "Killing Floor", Reacher arrives in some one-horse town in the middle of nowhere. He gets arrested by the local cops for a murder that happened the previous evening. When the murder victim is identified, he turns out to be Reacher's estranged brother.

Reacher even remarks that this is a totally preposterous coincidence, and I thought "Aha, something will be revealed later in the book that shows why it isn't a coincidence". But no. o_O

Mike wrote: "Anything that is a sort of deus ex machina - that is, something totally unexpected for which no ground has been laid in the story so far.

Particularly in fantasy/science fiction stories wherein s..."

Deus ex machina kills me. I feel like at that point the writer probably wrote themselves into a hole and saw no other way out.

Wow.

When was that Reacher book written? Because those were like "plot twists" before they went full-blown cliche.

Courtney wrote: "Wow.

When was that Reacher book written? Because those were like "plot twists" before they went full-blown cliche."

Published in 1997, apparently.

Nick wrote: "Heh, just thought of another one. In the first Jack Reacher novel, "Killing Floor", Reacher arrives in some one-horse town in the middle of nowhere. He gets arrested by the local cops for a murder ..."

On the other hand, it happened as the inciting incident.

There's a lot more tolerance for "this is the story kicked off by an amazing coincidence" than "this is a story resolved by an amazing coincidence."

Still depends on how it's handled.

Lynne wrote: "One of the things I really can't stand in novels is when something is so obvious to the reader and the protagonist still doesn't pick up on it. Sure, there are circumstances where they might not kn..."

the opposite of this gets me. when the clues are appearently there, but so obscure the characters (who are normal human beings) put it all together as though we should have seen it coming. then I read it a second time and still couldn't see the damn clues!

I agree, Mary - I think if an author just needs to do something like "sitting next to a stranger on a plane - enter plot" and that pretense is all they need to get things going, that's totally within the realm of suspending disbelief :)

Michael, I haven't encountered that one yet. Yes, that would be annoying!

Oh, true Michael - jumping to sherlock-level conclusions/connections is likewise irksome

I guess it would just go in with keeping characters and plots being consistent. the moment things turn to fit the authors needs, especially if it's done often (one moment smart, next stupid, then super duper smart), then the moment of disbelief is broken and i'm bored of it.

"As the plot demands" does get old.

I can't name a specific title but I absolutely hate : unbelievable characters- the whole innocent virgin girls and man whores in the new adult books.
Basically the cliche characters that are used again and again.
Instant love made in 5 minutes.
Girls that are stupid, who fall for a total psycho where while reading you figure it out 100 pages before the main characters do, the hint are endless and clear but still everyone knows it except her.
Story's without a plot, you read it en finished it and there's no story.
When for example a boy and a girl like each other and every time they try to steal a kiss someone comes in, calls, they get in an accident etc.

Don't get me started on when we have a young teen and the existence of mankind is depends on her/him.

Or when an untrained teen has to do a military rescue mission while assisted by trained soldiers. Makes no sense at all.

Story's with walking plots, there's a plot in the plot from the plot still with me?

I remember 50 Shades asked readers to believe a 21 year old girl in the 21st century was so virginal she never masterbated - not once.

...was she in a coma...or going for a Guinness book record...

If the internal logic of the story becomes illogical, that's mostly when a book ends up in the bin.

^^^ Exactly what I was going to say.

Courtney wrote: "I remember 50 Shades asked readers to believe a 21 year old girl in the 21st century was so virginal she never masterbated - not once.

...was she in a coma...or going for a Guinness book record..."

When I hear doesn't even masturbate I always jump to a history of sexual abuse. Would explain her voice in men... :-(

Are you suggesting that women who don't masturbate must have a history of sexual abuse? I have never done it and I can assure you I have no history of the kind.

Courtney wrote: "I remember 50 Shades asked readers to believe a 21 year old girl in the 21st century was so virginal she never masterbated - not once.

...was she in a coma...or going for a Guinness book record..."

I don't think it's so much her being that virginal (not to me anyway) but rather the author expecting us ti believe someone who IS that virginal would jump into a sexual relationship with someone with Greys sexual proclivities.

That and he read like EXACTLY what he was...a stalker i think she expected us to suspend our disbelief in regards to the genre she placed it in. Christian Grey was not romantic at all IMO

No, he definitely wasn't romantic.

Lynne wrote: "Are you suggesting that women who don't masturbate must have a history of sexual abuse? I have never done it and I can assure you I have no history of the kind."

I think she made that deduction based on both factors. Anas redfaced embarassment about masturbation AND her choosing to date an abusive man.

I dont agree with her assumption but i (think) i get it

One of the most overused devices in modern fiction in all types of media is that the protagonists can't go to the police for help because a) they're in on it, b) they don't trust them, c) the characters have done something wrong.

God, can't authors and writers come up with something better by now? We're expected to believe that every law enforcement agency in the country is in on it or corrupt?

If you can't figure out something better then don't write it!

Next we have the all powerful, invincible killers who can do virtually anything - until the end when the protagonist easily manages to defeat them.

And finally the author uses some technology that's scientifically impossible. If you want to do that then make it a sci-fi story.

Yeah, I hate those scenarios.

Lol
Great question, great answers, none of them wrong

Or how about the female that has very little combat training, hand to hand but is suddenly kicking ass and dropping bad guys like ninepins

Yolanda wrote: "Or how about the female that has very little combat training, hand to hand but is suddenly kicking ass and dropping bad guys like ninepins"

Well, women have a lot of pent-up anger. Once they cross the 'violence threshold' and stop caring about hurting feelings, they can be more dangerous than men.

Yes, but to be good enough to defeat everybody, in spite of having little training? I agree with Yolanda. That scenario annoys me too.

Reminds me of the advice I was given once (from someone who tool self-defence classes, that is): "If someone tries to mug you, throw your wallet to their face and get the hell out of there while they're still surprised." If a character doesn't know how to fight, has the opportunity to flee, and doesn't do it, that's when I start wondering if they have a death wish or something.

Now I hope the pent-up anger remark was a joke, cause otherwise it's cliché too. :P (Although we may have a tendency to appear as more vicious, perhaps, if we immediately go for the balls. But then, hey, whatever works.)

You know, there's actually a scene in my third book where a girl does something similar to this. Because of the way this 'power' works, I know that she is capable of doing what she does (it's sci-fi), but you don't always get the opportunity to explain all those nuances if they don't actually come up in the story. That annoys me, because I know some people will read that and say, 'She shouldn't be whooping those guys because they've had more training than her!' and I want to say, 'But the power works like this ...' Sometimes it's frustrating when you can't just stop telling the story and explain everything to the reader, but I guess that's what author websites are for.

My post was tongue-in-cheek, but not totally. Many women are indoctrinated their whole life to 'please' others, which can turn anger and frustration inward. Men have a tendency to express their anger and frustration outward, so they're used more to physical violence.

Still, greater upper body strength doesn't turn a conflict automatically into an advantage for men, because with most conflicts the most dedicated person tends to win (if all things are equal, which they never are).

So even meek women can become hellions if they set their mind to it.

Oh yes, they certainly can. :-)

Lynne wrote: "Oh yes, they certainly can. :-)"

Now, they won't win from a Navy Seal in a combat situation, but a civilian can surprise a trained fighter if the woman fully utilizes the surprise factor.

Yes, that's one of the elements that allowed my protagonist to win, although it wasn't the only one.

It'd be interesting to see when this applies - what studies have been conducted, maybe? Not when it comes to social situations, in which bottling up anger etc. may be the expected reaction, but in purely physical danger/fight situations. Would a "meek" woman, raised up to "please", obey such reflexes first? Would she be more dangerous than one who's used to asserting herself in other situations? Or would there be no tangible difference once it becomes a matter of fighting for one's own life?

I only write about what actually happens in real life. I use my own life experiences and what happens in my community. I write what I would like to see written in the style I'd like to see it written in. I get bored easily with cliché and formulaic stories. I'm original. So it has to be original. I think all authors have to find their natural tone and originality. Then you will see more unique stories. Natural is better.

In my upcoming novel I feel like I go from one extreme to the next. In several instances I explain in detail and it's simple and easy to pick up on. But then I feel like at times if I don't explain it, people won't get it which of course you don't want to confuse the reader but you also want them to be intrigued.

Yes, and you can't just explain things for the sake of explaining them either. It has to be an explanation that the characters can discover and that they have some plot-related reason to discover.

Beta readers. They can be useful in other respects, but they can be vital in explanations, because as the writer, you know everything so well that it's very hard to judge whether you are revealing it well.

If its a fight for your life even the "meek" woman will do what she can to stay alive, good ol survival instinct. But if an untrained woman is up against a knife or gun...need I say more. We have a lot of crime in SA and usually most women land up on the wrong end of said knife or gun. If there's more than one attacker, you're done for. If a woman has learnt some self defence she has a better chance, but its slim. As for explaining something to the reader, I once asked my friend if she 'got' something in my book and she looked at me and said "yes, well, actually I'm quite smart. I worked it out. If the story is well set up there's no need for lengthy explanations.

Good point Lynne. Having certain situations in the book just for the sake off having them there without a logical explanation can really turn off a reader. Its got to be straight forward or simply put so the reader can pick up on what's being said..if it's just there, obvious or confusing your deceiving the audience.

Lynne wrote: "Are you suggesting that women who don't masturbate must have a history of sexual abuse? I have never done it and I can assure you I have no history of the kind."

I'm just saying the connection is there in my mind. I'll admit it's because of one specific case and isn't based on any empirical data.

On the other hand, if it isn't how you naturally are, it's a ridiculous thing to tell teens to aspire to.