3 ms·

> But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spe

by tivert 3y ago

> But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. If it's not compelling it's only because the OP's precis went into far too much detail about actual technique for an actual story. The Princess Bride would not have been compelling if the movie actually showed Westley learning each of the fencing techniques he refers to in his duel with Inigo. An actual character development arc would be something like this: > In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.... They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct... [cue montage] ... [cue Yoda lecture] ... Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
- tivert 3y ago
  > That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]

by tivert 3y ago

Ensorceled 3y ago

> Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.

tivert 3y ago
> That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]