6 ms·

Tolkien himself had a different point of view. In his opinion, if suspension of disbelief becomes necessary, it's a sign that the writer has failed. He preferre

Tolkien himself had a different point of view. In his opinion, if suspension of disbelief becomes necessary, it's a sign that the writer has failed. He preferred "secondary belief" instead. The idea was that the reader should remain immersed in the fictional world, confident that the world works consistently according to its internal logic. That the logic is there, even if the reader doesn't know it, and that the writer doesn't break it for their own convenience.

WalterBright 2y ago
I lost all interest in Harry Potter when he was hanging outside a window, helpless. Then, his buddy appears with a flying car to rescue him. I'm not interested in such lazy writing.
- dylan604 2y ago
  That's like complaining that Harry was stuck but magic happened to get him out of a situation. That's kind of like the entire point of the series
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Making up random arbitrary things whenever needed to get out of a fix is just bad storytelling. One of the great things about LOTR is the ring is ascribed various powers, and then the consequences of that play out. The rules within its world are consistent. HP has no consistency. Probably why I also prefer hard scifi - it must follow the known rules of physics, or at least have plausible extensions. I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > Probably why I also prefer hard scifi - it must follow the known rules of physics, or at least have plausible extensions. Well, if you're going to put in plausible extensions instead of following the rules then "i'm not interested in such lazy writing" as you stated. In any fictional story telling, there's going to be some creative licensing involved to tell the story. Hell, even in biopics and "based on true" there's a lot of creative license just to make the story interesting. Following the rules of known physics just limits the imagination to make for bland stories. > I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest. From the very off of the show, the resurrecting dead people was involved in the story. If it wasn't, "the night is dark and full of terrors" and "winter is coming" would be pointless. Just because the dead coming back was timed to happen with the story is just part of it. I mean, next, you'll tell me that Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead were pointless since they were resurrected dead people too. I think you've moved into the comic book guy territory of "worst book/movie/comic ever" type of meme
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        I was referring to the Jon Snow resurrection, which came out of nowhere. While I watched all the episodes, my interest in it dropped dramatically after that.
        dylan604 2y ago
        oh, that one. yeah, you might actually have a point with that one! However, at least it gave some purpose to the Red Lady other than smoke assassin.
        alternatetwo 2y ago
        It very, very clearly came not out of nowhere, even in the show. We had the Brotherhood of Banners resurrecting Bendric several times using the same magic, and in the book we had Lady Stoneheart to show what can also happen after being resurrected. While the resurrection is probably going to happen if Winds ever comes out, it's not clear if Jon will actually be the Jon we know, or even Jon, after he comes back. Warging into Ghost will probably play a role, as that's a common theme in Dance. Oh and, we had wights right from the very first book, maybe even Prologue ... So it's not "convenient", nothing for GRRM is convenient currently, otherwise Winds would be out by now ...
        WalterBright 2y ago
        The JS resurrection was not related to the zombies, as JS was able to resume a normal life. If this could happen in the GoT universe, wouldn't you think that there'd be a massive effort by kings and others to resurrect dead family members? Or even talk about resurrecting them? There was no hint of that. (Zombies violate the laws of physics, like conservation of energy, which makes it sad that most zombie movies try on some hackneyed explanation for them being the result of some virus. If you're going to try a scientific explanation for them, don't blatantly violate fundamental laws of physics.)
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        That... didn't come out of nowhere. The capability of priests of the Lord of Light was established as was the stage for Melisandre to grasp on to the Jon after the defeat of Stannis.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest. The (inconvenient, in context, for anyone who might be considered a protagonist) resurrecting of dead people is a major point in literally the first sequence of the first episode of the series, which is literally telling you what is coming that the people making mundane human decisions based on mundane human foibles and passing off anything more exotic as superstition were ignorant of to their peril. The return of that kind of magic to a largely unprepared world was telegraphed as the central theme of the series.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > Making up random arbitrary things whenever needed to get out of a fix is just bad storytelling. It is also poor form when you are trying to make a point. > HP has no consistency. Perhaps so. Then why did you not choose to criticise something which happens in the actual books?
    - foldr 2y ago
      >One of the great things about LOTR is the ring is ascribed various powers, and then the consequences of that play out. The rules within its world are consistent. LOTR has not one but three people rescued in the nick of time by enormous flying eagles that can talk. That's technically all fine within the rules of the universe, but it hardly seems any less of a stretch than flying cars in Harry Potter.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        True about the eagles, but fortunately they came in at the end. The eagle thing is well known flaw in LOTR. But I forgive Tolkien because of the many hours of enjoyment I derived from his books!
        foldr 2y ago
        Not just at the end. They also rescue Gandalf from Orthanc.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      > HP has no consistency. That is just plain false. The rules are not as clearly defined in HP (because it's not trying to be a hard magic system), but when Rowling makes a rule she follows it. For example, you can't bring people back from the dead. That's a rule which is clearly stated and is followed through the series. In your example, no rule was broken. The book never said "things can't fly in this world". In fact, it's established pretty early on that broomsticks can fly by means of specific enchantment spells. The fact that someone got the idea to apply those enchantments to a car doesn't break the rules of the world. The fact that Harry's friends showed up to rescue him at the right moment is certainly convenient, but also doesn't break the rules of the world. The book explains why they were worried and came to check on him, after all. No rules were broken in this scene, you just don't like it. Which is certainly your right! But it's not poor writing which breaks the rules of the world.
- anileated 2y ago
  When you sense a deus ex machina ruining your immersion in a story, just think of it as observation selection effect: “if it went the other way, and hanging Harry was not rescued by a friend in a flying car, there would be nothing to write about in the first place”.
  - cwillu 2y ago
    Then I'm mentally making notches for every “the story would have ended there”. The story runs off its rails and needs the hand of god to set it back onto the track, and that diminishes the enjoyment of the world-building.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Maybe that's why I never liked Batman. He always just happened to have the exact very specialized tool on his belt to escape whatever contrived setup the Joker trapped him.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Batman was a parody of cop shows, and his utility belt was part of the joke. Get Smart did similar things to lampoon spy movies. The Munsters had a running gag where Herman would look into a mirror and it would shatter. I'd still laugh every time.
    - anileated 2y ago
      Invert the logic. The universe is in state X with narrator in it to tell the story because a super unlikely chain of events occurred. Call it anthropic principle. Or, think how in many-words interpretation there is a universe for any arbitrarily unlikely development. The writer picked one that floats her boat.
      - gravescale 2y ago
        I think it becomes intrusive into the storytelling when it becomes a constant chain of "and then yet another, even crazier thing happened to this one character". Especially when the character started as an everyman. It's a problem many book series have - one character keeps being the centre of the universe and surviving insurmountable odds repeatedly to the point of incredulity and usually the ante keeps ratcheting up as well so your original ordinary-human character ends up with some kind of godlike powers. To me, Harry Potter is actually fairly good in this regard, as the character development is at least not utterly unlike 11-18 year olds at school during the re-outbreak of a traumatic civil war, and from the start, there's a clear, in-universe reason why the main character is always the one near the action in the depicted timeframe. Star Wars did this quite well originally ("why is this rando farmhand at the centre, oh, cool, that's why"). The prequels did a little worse ("here's how the farmhand's father got to the centre, ok well maybe it's awfully convenient the ship broke down right there and a simple blood test reveals The One, but ok") and the recent films rather worse ("these people are at the centre...how? Why? Genetic predestination?"). Notably, the less you explain the Force, the easier it is to keep the story believable and consistent. Again, Harry Potter's vagueness over the specifics of magic helps it. Something that seems to be getting more common, though it's not new, as series lengthen in real-world time is to do a Star Trek: TNG and start an in-universe subseries where you can have things happen to someone else entirely for a change, but as part of the overall universe's story. It can be tricky if the universe is very predicated on one person, like Harry Potter is. Star Wars has not done well at this, but have tried. I think they keep trying to bootstrap interest from existing fans by character reuse, but the better series like Andor pick a whole new story to tell. Iain M. Banks was especially good at this and didn't even really have a main narrative, as he'd hop all over the Culture in time and space so you could have the cool stuff happen that he wanted to show the reader, but didn't need to keep powering-up one person (or ship) endlessly. But space opera has the advantage that you can just go and be somewhere and somewhen else very easily. It's a bit harder if you need the subseries to be nearby without constantly dragging the other main characters in, especially when they're further along their upgrade path as you need to explain why they don't just pick up the phone, pop round and stomp the "mortal threat" flat and it's another kind of deus ex machina. Doubly so if the threat is very obvious and world-ending, because surely they'd turn up to that!
- gravescale 2y ago
  If you don't like that, definitely don't read the first Frontlines series by Marko Kloos! I find it enjoyable, but the main character is like a one-man quantum immortality thought experiment.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    As I've gotten older, I've found myself more drawn to history books than fictions. History is more interesting, because it actually happened.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > lost all interest in Harry Potter when he was hanging outside a window, helpless. Then, his buddy appears with a flying car to rescue him. Hmmm. When exactly does that happen? Are you referring to the very start of chapter 3 in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Because Harry most definitely is not hanging out of a window before his friends arrive. He is kept locked up by his aunt and uncle. Because of that he is not answering his friend's letters. His friend has access to the magical means of busting him out (a flying car) so they do. If he would have decided to rescue him a day earlier or a day later he would have found Harry in basically the same situation. This is the same in both the film [1] and the novel. Soooo what are you talking about? I think you made the scene up, which seriously undermines your point. 1: relevant scene in the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Yi49pHlEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Yi49pHlEo
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Yeah, that looks like the scene. Thanks! It was a long time ago that I saw it. The problem is the existence of the magical car was not previously mentioned.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Why would you mention something while it was not relevant? The Weasley's dad was known to be intrigued by things of the Muggles, and was known to collect items such as the specific Ford (car not available in the US so the reference was a bit lost). If Ron had told Harry about the car in some random conversation in a previous book, you would probably then complain about some bit of obtrusive foreshadowing ruining the plot line. Okay, maybe not you specifically, but that's another common trope of criticism of fiction.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I don't really see that as a problem, though. This is a world where magic is a thing, and is commonplace. That's the entire point of the world and the story wouldn't exist without it. A flying car seems utterly unsurprising, especially when we've already seen flying broomsticks. I think I'm more surprised that we didn't see more of the flying car.
- crznp 2y ago
  FWIW, I interpreted that backwards: There needed to be a flying car, so Harry had to hang out of a window in need of a flying car.
- gambiting 2y ago
  It's the exact opposite though - the world presented a set of rules and then followed them, so it requires your belief not disbelief. The good example of that "suspension of disbelief" is The Last Jedi, where the film kept breaking rules established within the franchise, so as someone familiar with Star Wars you have to keep suspending your belief to enjoy the film - and at a certain point it becomes too much. Like if LotR ended with Aragorn just smashing the one ring with a sword, that would be an extremely unsatisfing ending to the story, partially because the books made it very clear earlier that the ring cannot be destroyed this way, so it breaks your set of beliefs that were established. You could say "why does it matter, it's all made up anyway!" but every story requires being consistent to be enjoyable.
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    I don't want to start a debate about the Last Jedi, but I will just say that the rules that are ironclad in franchises tend not to be the mechanics of the world but rather the emotional expectations of the audience. The kind of rules breaking you describe of Aragorn just smashing the ring is not so different from Dorothy learning she could click her heels together to go home all along, an idea that is silly and also deeply emotionally resonant.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I think it's different for different kinds of stories. To borrow your example, one possible interpretation of The Wizard of Oz is that it's a political and economic allegory around the gold and silver standards. Allegories often by their very nature have to stretch and bend reality (even an internally-defined one) to tell the story they want to tell. I agree with your hesitation to start a debate about The Last Jedi, but I think your point about what rules are ironclad is why reactions to that movie were so mixed. For me (and many others), the mechanics of the Star Wars world are paramount. I have trouble experiencing strong in-universe emotions when those mechanics are broken, because when that happens, I'm pulled out of the story and have trouble immersing myself in what's happening to the characters. But to others, the emotional impact of what happens to the characters, and how they act, is the most important thing, as you suggest, with all other concerns secondary. The writers of the Star Wars sequel trilogy had a very tall order on their hands: the "original" Star Wars fans are older (some might say much older) now, and they needed to tell a story that could appeal to those people (such as myself), but also appeal to children and young adults. It's very hard (some might even say impossible) to create a narrative that speaks to superfans who have been steeped in the mythology and mechanics of a world for decades, but also attracts a more casual viewer who just wants to watch a cool story with lightsabers and spaceship battles. My opinion is that they sacrificed the first bunch in order to attract a fresher audience, but it doesn't really matter if my opinion is "correct" or not; the fact that the movie (or entire trilogy, even) was so controversial, with so many opposing views, is all we need to know: they tried to appeal to too many different types of people, didn't do a great job of it (if a great job of it is even possible) and in the end a lot of people were unhappy.
krisoft 2y ago
> In his opinion, if suspension of disbelief becomes necessary, it's a sign that the writer has failed I mean on the base universe level there are tiny ink blobs on paper. There is no Frodo, there is no Middle Earth, there is no words or sentences just ink marks on paper. Anything other than that is the "suspension of disbelief" already.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That feels reductive to me. Any story -- fiction or non-fiction -- that is written down is just tiny ink blobs on paper. I don't need to suspend my disbelief to read a textbook about anatomy. Reading fiction isn't about believing that the created world it's real, only that it's plausible, given the natural laws, constraints, and logic present in the world that's been built. Put another way, when I read LoTR, I don't believe that Tolkien is asking me to suspend my disbelief that elves, dwarves, and fantastical creatures once populated our Earth; instead, he's built a world where such things exist, and he's asking me to read a story about them, while promising that his stories will maintain the internal consistency of the world he's built. I like the GP's use of the term "secondary belief"; I think it very much encapsulates that middle ground where an author creates rules for a fantastical world that are always obeyed during storytelling, vs. an author who creates a fantastical world, but bends and breaks that world's rules (if there even are any to begin with) in order to serve the story they want to tell, which does require suspension of disbelief.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > he's asking me to read a story about them But that is the thing. We all learned that in order to enjoy a story we kinda pretend to believe it. Just sticking with Tolkien, you read the first line of the Lord of the Rings: “When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.” And you can right there and then say: “What a load of bollocks. There is no such a place as Hobbiton.” And then you close the book. And you are right! There is no such place as Hobbiton. Of course you will be poorer for it. But that thing, where for the sake of the enjoyment of the story we pretend that “Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End” exists enough to hear the next sentence is the suspension of disbelief! Where you keep reading instead of calling the writer a liar is where you suspended your disbelief. It is the basis of all fiction. It is so inherent that you often don’t see it. The same way a fish don’t see the water. But it is there. What you are talking about, the importance of having an internaly consistent story, is not where suspension of disbelief is, but where by abusing it the writer breaks it. And suddenly as it is shattered you realise its previous existence. The goal is not to not have suspension of disbelief. Because you can’t tell any fiction without it. The goal is to not abuse it in order that the reader can enjoy the work.

WalterBright 2y ago

I lost all interest in Harry Potter when he was hanging outside a window, helpless. Then, his buddy appears with a flying car to rescue him. I'm not interested in such lazy writing.

dylan604 2y ago
That's like complaining that Harry was stuck but magic happened to get him out of a situation. That's kind of like the entire point of the series
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Making up random arbitrary things whenever needed to get out of a fix is just bad storytelling. One of the great things about LOTR is the ring is ascribed various powers, and then the consequences of that play out. The rules within its world are consistent. HP has no consistency. Probably why I also prefer hard scifi - it must follow the known rules of physics, or at least have plausible extensions. I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > Probably why I also prefer hard scifi - it must follow the known rules of physics, or at least have plausible extensions. Well, if you're going to put in plausible extensions instead of following the rules then "i'm not interested in such lazy writing" as you stated. In any fictional story telling, there's going to be some creative licensing involved to tell the story. Hell, even in biopics and "based on true" there's a lot of creative license just to make the story interesting. Following the rules of known physics just limits the imagination to make for bland stories. > I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest. From the very off of the show, the resurrecting dead people was involved in the story. If it wasn't, "the night is dark and full of terrors" and "winter is coming" would be pointless. Just because the dead coming back was timed to happen with the story is just part of it. I mean, next, you'll tell me that Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead were pointless since they were resurrected dead people too. I think you've moved into the comic book guy territory of "worst book/movie/comic ever" type of meme
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      I was referring to the Jon Snow resurrection, which came out of nowhere. While I watched all the episodes, my interest in it dropped dramatically after that.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        oh, that one. yeah, you might actually have a point with that one! However, at least it gave some purpose to the Red Lady other than smoke assassin.
        alternatetwo 2y ago
        It very, very clearly came not out of nowhere, even in the show. We had the Brotherhood of Banners resurrecting Bendric several times using the same magic, and in the book we had Lady Stoneheart to show what can also happen after being resurrected. While the resurrection is probably going to happen if Winds ever comes out, it's not clear if Jon will actually be the Jon we know, or even Jon, after he comes back. Warging into Ghost will probably play a role, as that's a common theme in Dance. Oh and, we had wights right from the very first book, maybe even Prologue ... So it's not "convenient", nothing for GRRM is convenient currently, otherwise Winds would be out by now ...
        WalterBright 2y ago
        The JS resurrection was not related to the zombies, as JS was able to resume a normal life. If this could happen in the GoT universe, wouldn't you think that there'd be a massive effort by kings and others to resurrect dead family members? Or even talk about resurrecting them? There was no hint of that. (Zombies violate the laws of physics, like conservation of energy, which makes it sad that most zombie movies try on some hackneyed explanation for them being the result of some virus. If you're going to try a scientific explanation for them, don't blatantly violate fundamental laws of physics.)
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        That... didn't come out of nowhere. The capability of priests of the Lord of Light was established as was the stage for Melisandre to grasp on to the Jon after the defeat of Stannis.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > I liked GoT a lot as it was driven by human decisions and foibles. But it slowly devolved into convenient magic absurdities, like resurrecting dead people, and I lost interest. The (inconvenient, in context, for anyone who might be considered a protagonist) resurrecting of dead people is a major point in literally the first sequence of the first episode of the series, which is literally telling you what is coming that the people making mundane human decisions based on mundane human foibles and passing off anything more exotic as superstition were ignorant of to their peril. The return of that kind of magic to a largely unprepared world was telegraphed as the central theme of the series.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > Making up random arbitrary things whenever needed to get out of a fix is just bad storytelling. It is also poor form when you are trying to make a point. > HP has no consistency. Perhaps so. Then why did you not choose to criticise something which happens in the actual books?
  - foldr 2y ago
    >One of the great things about LOTR is the ring is ascribed various powers, and then the consequences of that play out. The rules within its world are consistent. LOTR has not one but three people rescued in the nick of time by enormous flying eagles that can talk. That's technically all fine within the rules of the universe, but it hardly seems any less of a stretch than flying cars in Harry Potter.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      True about the eagles, but fortunately they came in at the end. The eagle thing is well known flaw in LOTR. But I forgive Tolkien because of the many hours of enjoyment I derived from his books!
      - foldr 2y ago
        Not just at the end. They also rescue Gandalf from Orthanc.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    > HP has no consistency. That is just plain false. The rules are not as clearly defined in HP (because it's not trying to be a hard magic system), but when Rowling makes a rule she follows it. For example, you can't bring people back from the dead. That's a rule which is clearly stated and is followed through the series. In your example, no rule was broken. The book never said "things can't fly in this world". In fact, it's established pretty early on that broomsticks can fly by means of specific enchantment spells. The fact that someone got the idea to apply those enchantments to a car doesn't break the rules of the world. The fact that Harry's friends showed up to rescue him at the right moment is certainly convenient, but also doesn't break the rules of the world. The book explains why they were worried and came to check on him, after all. No rules were broken in this scene, you just don't like it. Which is certainly your right! But it's not poor writing which breaks the rules of the world.
anileated 2y ago
When you sense a deus ex machina ruining your immersion in a story, just think of it as observation selection effect: “if it went the other way, and hanging Harry was not rescued by a friend in a flying car, there would be nothing to write about in the first place”.
- cwillu 2y ago
  Then I'm mentally making notches for every “the story would have ended there”. The story runs off its rails and needs the hand of god to set it back onto the track, and that diminishes the enjoyment of the world-building.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Maybe that's why I never liked Batman. He always just happened to have the exact very specialized tool on his belt to escape whatever contrived setup the Joker trapped him.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Batman was a parody of cop shows, and his utility belt was part of the joke. Get Smart did similar things to lampoon spy movies. The Munsters had a running gag where Herman would look into a mirror and it would shatter. I'd still laugh every time.
  - anileated 2y ago
    Invert the logic. The universe is in state X with narrator in it to tell the story because a super unlikely chain of events occurred. Call it anthropic principle. Or, think how in many-words interpretation there is a universe for any arbitrarily unlikely development. The writer picked one that floats her boat.
    - gravescale 2y ago
      I think it becomes intrusive into the storytelling when it becomes a constant chain of "and then yet another, even crazier thing happened to this one character". Especially when the character started as an everyman. It's a problem many book series have - one character keeps being the centre of the universe and surviving insurmountable odds repeatedly to the point of incredulity and usually the ante keeps ratcheting up as well so your original ordinary-human character ends up with some kind of godlike powers. To me, Harry Potter is actually fairly good in this regard, as the character development is at least not utterly unlike 11-18 year olds at school during the re-outbreak of a traumatic civil war, and from the start, there's a clear, in-universe reason why the main character is always the one near the action in the depicted timeframe. Star Wars did this quite well originally ("why is this rando farmhand at the centre, oh, cool, that's why"). The prequels did a little worse ("here's how the farmhand's father got to the centre, ok well maybe it's awfully convenient the ship broke down right there and a simple blood test reveals The One, but ok") and the recent films rather worse ("these people are at the centre...how? Why? Genetic predestination?"). Notably, the less you explain the Force, the easier it is to keep the story believable and consistent. Again, Harry Potter's vagueness over the specifics of magic helps it. Something that seems to be getting more common, though it's not new, as series lengthen in real-world time is to do a Star Trek: TNG and start an in-universe subseries where you can have things happen to someone else entirely for a change, but as part of the overall universe's story. It can be tricky if the universe is very predicated on one person, like Harry Potter is. Star Wars has not done well at this, but have tried. I think they keep trying to bootstrap interest from existing fans by character reuse, but the better series like Andor pick a whole new story to tell. Iain M. Banks was especially good at this and didn't even really have a main narrative, as he'd hop all over the Culture in time and space so you could have the cool stuff happen that he wanted to show the reader, but didn't need to keep powering-up one person (or ship) endlessly. But space opera has the advantage that you can just go and be somewhere and somewhen else very easily. It's a bit harder if you need the subseries to be nearby without constantly dragging the other main characters in, especially when they're further along their upgrade path as you need to explain why they don't just pick up the phone, pop round and stomp the "mortal threat" flat and it's another kind of deus ex machina. Doubly so if the threat is very obvious and world-ending, because surely they'd turn up to that!
gravescale 2y ago
If you don't like that, definitely don't read the first Frontlines series by Marko Kloos! I find it enjoyable, but the main character is like a one-man quantum immortality thought experiment.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  As I've gotten older, I've found myself more drawn to history books than fictions. History is more interesting, because it actually happened.
krisoft 2y ago
> lost all interest in Harry Potter when he was hanging outside a window, helpless. Then, his buddy appears with a flying car to rescue him. Hmmm. When exactly does that happen? Are you referring to the very start of chapter 3 in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Because Harry most definitely is not hanging out of a window before his friends arrive. He is kept locked up by his aunt and uncle. Because of that he is not answering his friend's letters. His friend has access to the magical means of busting him out (a flying car) so they do. If he would have decided to rescue him a day earlier or a day later he would have found Harry in basically the same situation. This is the same in both the film [1] and the novel. Soooo what are you talking about? I think you made the scene up, which seriously undermines your point. 1: relevant scene in the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Yi49pHlEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Yi49pHlEo
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Yeah, that looks like the scene. Thanks! It was a long time ago that I saw it. The problem is the existence of the magical car was not previously mentioned.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Why would you mention something while it was not relevant? The Weasley's dad was known to be intrigued by things of the Muggles, and was known to collect items such as the specific Ford (car not available in the US so the reference was a bit lost). If Ron had told Harry about the car in some random conversation in a previous book, you would probably then complain about some bit of obtrusive foreshadowing ruining the plot line. Okay, maybe not you specifically, but that's another common trope of criticism of fiction.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I don't really see that as a problem, though. This is a world where magic is a thing, and is commonplace. That's the entire point of the world and the story wouldn't exist without it. A flying car seems utterly unsurprising, especially when we've already seen flying broomsticks. I think I'm more surprised that we didn't see more of the flying car.
crznp 2y ago
FWIW, I interpreted that backwards: There needed to be a flying car, so Harry had to hang out of a window in need of a flying car.
gambiting 2y ago
It's the exact opposite though - the world presented a set of rules and then followed them, so it requires your belief not disbelief. The good example of that "suspension of disbelief" is The Last Jedi, where the film kept breaking rules established within the franchise, so as someone familiar with Star Wars you have to keep suspending your belief to enjoy the film - and at a certain point it becomes too much. Like if LotR ended with Aragorn just smashing the one ring with a sword, that would be an extremely unsatisfing ending to the story, partially because the books made it very clear earlier that the ring cannot be destroyed this way, so it breaks your set of beliefs that were established. You could say "why does it matter, it's all made up anyway!" but every story requires being consistent to be enjoyable.
- throw4847285 2y ago
  I don't want to start a debate about the Last Jedi, but I will just say that the rules that are ironclad in franchises tend not to be the mechanics of the world but rather the emotional expectations of the audience. The kind of rules breaking you describe of Aragorn just smashing the ring is not so different from Dorothy learning she could click her heels together to go home all along, an idea that is silly and also deeply emotionally resonant.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I think it's different for different kinds of stories. To borrow your example, one possible interpretation of The Wizard of Oz is that it's a political and economic allegory around the gold and silver standards. Allegories often by their very nature have to stretch and bend reality (even an internally-defined one) to tell the story they want to tell. I agree with your hesitation to start a debate about The Last Jedi, but I think your point about what rules are ironclad is why reactions to that movie were so mixed. For me (and many others), the mechanics of the Star Wars world are paramount. I have trouble experiencing strong in-universe emotions when those mechanics are broken, because when that happens, I'm pulled out of the story and have trouble immersing myself in what's happening to the characters. But to others, the emotional impact of what happens to the characters, and how they act, is the most important thing, as you suggest, with all other concerns secondary. The writers of the Star Wars sequel trilogy had a very tall order on their hands: the "original" Star Wars fans are older (some might say much older) now, and they needed to tell a story that could appeal to those people (such as myself), but also appeal to children and young adults. It's very hard (some might even say impossible) to create a narrative that speaks to superfans who have been steeped in the mythology and mechanics of a world for decades, but also attracts a more casual viewer who just wants to watch a cool story with lightsabers and spaceship battles. My opinion is that they sacrificed the first bunch in order to attract a fresher audience, but it doesn't really matter if my opinion is "correct" or not; the fact that the movie (or entire trilogy, even) was so controversial, with so many opposing views, is all we need to know: they tried to appeal to too many different types of people, didn't do a great job of it (if a great job of it is even possible) and in the end a lot of people were unhappy.

krisoft 2y ago

> In his opinion, if suspension of disbelief becomes necessary, it's a sign that the writer has failed I mean on the base universe level there are tiny ink blobs on paper. There is no Frodo, there is no Middle Earth, there is no words or sentences just ink marks on paper. Anything other than that is the "suspension of disbelief" already.

kelnos 2y ago
That feels reductive to me. Any story -- fiction or non-fiction -- that is written down is just tiny ink blobs on paper. I don't need to suspend my disbelief to read a textbook about anatomy. Reading fiction isn't about believing that the created world it's real, only that it's plausible, given the natural laws, constraints, and logic present in the world that's been built. Put another way, when I read LoTR, I don't believe that Tolkien is asking me to suspend my disbelief that elves, dwarves, and fantastical creatures once populated our Earth; instead, he's built a world where such things exist, and he's asking me to read a story about them, while promising that his stories will maintain the internal consistency of the world he's built. I like the GP's use of the term "secondary belief"; I think it very much encapsulates that middle ground where an author creates rules for a fantastical world that are always obeyed during storytelling, vs. an author who creates a fantastical world, but bends and breaks that world's rules (if there even are any to begin with) in order to serve the story they want to tell, which does require suspension of disbelief.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > he's asking me to read a story about them But that is the thing. We all learned that in order to enjoy a story we kinda pretend to believe it. Just sticking with Tolkien, you read the first line of the Lord of the Rings: “When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.” And you can right there and then say: “What a load of bollocks. There is no such a place as Hobbiton.” And then you close the book. And you are right! There is no such place as Hobbiton. Of course you will be poorer for it. But that thing, where for the sake of the enjoyment of the story we pretend that “Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End” exists enough to hear the next sentence is the suspension of disbelief! Where you keep reading instead of calling the writer a liar is where you suspended your disbelief. It is the basis of all fiction. It is so inherent that you often don’t see it. The same way a fish don’t see the water. But it is there. What you are talking about, the importance of having an internaly consistent story, is not where suspension of disbelief is, but where by abusing it the writer breaks it. And suddenly as it is shattered you realise its previous existence. The goal is not to not have suspension of disbelief. Because you can’t tell any fiction without it. The goal is to not abuse it in order that the reader can enjoy the work.