What kills believability in a constructed world?

[Mindfire]

Reasonably equipped? Not for me. Average Joe cutting down a tree with a chainsaw is nothing…..a toothpick, however, that would be something!!

That’s an extreme, but my point is this – if it is reasonable for the protagonist to overcome the situation, then no heroic feat has occurred. Even in realist fantasy you will have situations where you could use the term ‘Against All Odds’. This is because either – the situation is unreasonable or the characters are ill-equipped, or both.

Nowadays the question is less ‘Will they survive?’ and more ‘HOW will they survive this time?’

WyrdMystic has a point. In general, the more implausible the feat, the more glorious the victory. The trick is not crossing that invisible line where SoD is strained to breaking point. WyrdMystic is also right that you can't please everybody. Write for yourself first, worry about the reader during revision. (Maybe.)

 

[Gurkhal]

Reasonably equipped? Not for me. Average Joe cutting down a tree with a chainsaw is nothing…..a toothpick, however, that would be something!!

That’s an extreme, but my point is this – if it is reasonable for the protagonist to overcome the situation, then no heroic feat has occurred. Even in realist fantasy you will have situations where you could use the term ‘Against All Odds’. This is because either – the situation is unreasonable or the characters are ill-equipped, or both.

Nowadays the question is less ‘Will they survive?’ and more ‘HOW will they survive this time?’

I think we agree, in way.

That a situation can reasonable be overcome does not, in my mind, mean that the odds are stacked in the protagonists' favor but that the situation is such that their success don't seem like impossible.

Two guys who kills twelve guys thanks to use of tactics, enviroment and lack of such from the larger group strikes me as an victory against all odds that can be reasonable explained - and if the two have previously been shown to possess such tactics and ability to use the enviroment I won't complain. If they have never held a weapon or been in a fight and they still do it, they are in my mind not reasonable equippped to make that.

WyrdMystic has a point. In general, the more implausible the feat, the more glorious the victory. The trick is not crossing that invisible line where SoD is strained to breaking point. WyrdMystic is also right that you can't please everybody. Write for yourself first, worry about the reader during revision. (Maybe.)

I think we agree.

 

[WyrdMystic]

I think we agree.

Generally yes, though I still think if those two had never held a weapon before it would be a greater feat - of course, if it's written well.

 

[Tansy]

Sometimes it is trivia that does it. I remember reading a fantasy novel that was set in another world, and out of nowhere the author refers to the French doors leading from a room in the palace. That pulled me right out of the story for a minute. How can there be French doors in a world that doesn't have a country called France?

Sometimes it is the author getting facts wrong. Even in fantasy, I don't accept that a man can cut another man in half with a single blow from a sword unless he has superhuman strength or the sword is magically enhanced. It looks cool in movies, but it just doesn't work. There was an old essay on the sorts of silly mistakes writers made (and sometimes still make) in sword-and-sorcery fantasy titled "On Thud and Blunder." I don't remember who wrote it. It mentioned things like riding a horse at a full gallop all day or wielding a 12-pound sword for hours. These things cannot happen in real life, so if the author wants the reader to accept it happening in a story there has to be an explanation: the horse is actually a demon that never gets tired; the swordswoman has an amulet of strength. If the author gets realistic things wrong I don't trust them to handle the made-up things right either.

 

[Mindfire]

Sometimes it is trivia that does it. I remember reading a fantasy novel that was set in another world, and out of nowhere the author refers to the French doors leading from a room in the palace. That pulled me right out of the story for a minute. How can there be French doors in a world that doesn't have a country called France?

Sometimes it is the author getting facts wrong. Even in fantasy, I don't accept that a man can cut another man in half with a single blow from a sword unless he has superhuman strength or the sword is magically enhanced. It looks cool in movies, but it just doesn't work. There was an old essay on the sorts of silly mistakes writers made (and sometimes still make) in sword-and-sorcery fantasy titled "On Thud and Blunder." I don't remember who wrote it. It mentioned things like riding a horse at a full gallop all day or wielding a 12-pound sword for hours. These things cannot happen in real life, so if the author wants the reader to accept it happening in a story there has to be an explanation: the horse is actually a demon that never gets tired; the swordswoman has an amulet of strength. If the author gets realistic things wrong I don't trust them to handle the made-up things right either.

IIRC there is historical record of katanas slicing through multiple human bodies in one swipe. However, I've been told this was possible because they were fitted with extra-long handles for greater leverage and wielded by exceptionally strong executioners. So take from that what you will.

As for horses being able to gallop for a full day, I have a special breed of horses that can do just that, and I made up a legend to explain why.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me it's internal consistency that must be maintained at all times. When things go strange and people start doing things they just can't do, I sort of tune out.

But I also can't deal with supermen, either as heroes or villains. I can handle people who are stronger and tougher, but someone like Superman who has only one weakness, an element from his own exploded planet that isn't normally found on Earth - it's just too much. And the Borg are the same, just far too damned powerful. When one borg can land on a planet and the next day the planet is borg central, they're undeafeatable. And in both cases the writers have to stretch all credibility to find a way they can be fought. It's like their foes have to win the lottery every hour on the hour to keep fighting.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

It's like their foes have to win the lottery every hour on the hour to keep fighting.

I have trouble with zombies for the same reason. Can't kill them - they're dead already. If you hack bits off, they keep coming at you, and so do the bits. And every non-zombie who dies becomes a zombie, so their numbers increase as yours decrease. It's impossible odds.

 

[Mindfire]

Hi,

For me it's internal consistency that must be maintained at all times. When things go strange and people start doing things they just can't do, I sort of tune out.

But I also can't deal with supermen, either as heroes or villains. I can handle people who are stronger and tougher, but someone like Superman who has only one weakness, an element from his own exploded planet that isn't normally found on Earth - it's just too much.

Kryptonite isn't Superman's only weakness. He's also susceptible to magic, certain kinds of radiation, super-high voltage electricity, some energy based weapons, fatigue (it just takes a while), megaton atomic warheads, and good old fashioned fisticuffs from a foe equally as strong as he is, particularly Darkseid and Doomsday, both of whom have beaten Superman half to death at one point or another. Heck, Batman once took Superman on while wearing a suit of powered armor. It's generally lazy writing that resorts to kryptonite all the time.

 

[Penpilot]

Kryptonite isn't Superman's only weakness. He's also susceptible to magic, certain kinds of radiation, super-high voltage electricity, some energy based weapons, fatigue (it just takes a while), megaton atomic warheads, and good old fashioned fisticuffs from a foe equally as strong as he is, particularly Darkseid and Doomsday, both of whom have beaten Superman half to death at one point or another. Heck, Batman once took Superman on while wearing a suit of powered armor. It's generally lazy writing that resorts to kryptonite all the time.

Yep... but there's more. Superman can be out thought. That's part of why Lex Luthor exists. Superman is at his base pure strength and Luthor is pure intellect. Also Superman is but one person who can't be everywhere at once. His morality and unwillingness to kill has been used against him. His emotional connections to friends and family are weaknesses that can be exploited, as well as his emotions in general.

Just because you're impossibly strong doesn't mean you can't be beat.

 

[Steerpike]

Superman is at his base pure strength and Luthor is pure intellect.

Interestingly, there was a rise in anti-intellectualism in the country at the same time period of Superman's creation and popularity.

 

[Mindfire]

Interestingly, there was a rise in anti-intellectualism in the country at the same time period of Superman's creation and popularity.

Which is odd considering that Batman is, at bottom, an intellectual hero, and he was invented around the same time Superman was. But maybe that's more an issue of "detective" intellectual = good, "mad scientist" intellectual = bad? IIRC this was around the time the world would have been hearing about the horrors of the Nazi "experiments".

 

[Steerpike]

Which is odd considering that Batman is, at bottom, an intellectual hero, and he was invented around the same time Superman was. But maybe that's more an issue of "detective" intellectual = good, "mad scientist" intellectual = bad? IIRC this was around the time the world would have been hearing about the horrors of the Nazi "experiments".

I don't know the history of this that well, but was Batman as popular in that time period? I remember the black and white Superman TV show from the early 50s, but Batman wasn't on TV for another decade.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't know the history of this that well, but was Batman as popular in that time period? I remember the black and white Superman TV show from the early 50s, but Batman wasn't on TV for another decade.

There were Batman serials and the like.

 

[Chilari]

Ahem. Comic books. Your post is debunked.

By which you mean mainstream DC/Marvel comics, I assume. There are thousands of very good comic books and webcomics which do not fit the overpowered archetype. It's just that Marvel and DC don't like messing with their formula. If you want an example of comics with great characters who are well developed and unique and get into trouble and experience struggles, I can recommend Dresden Codak and Gunnerkrigg Court for starters.

 

[Wanara009]

Personally, I find it hard to maintain my suspension of disbelief if the world has no consistent, logical framework around it. It doesn't need to be 100% scientifically accurate so long it has consistency and logic it. My favorite example is the world of Monster Hunter franchise. Each monster has a believable consistent story behind them (as far as I know anyway, I only got into the franchise when I bought Monster Hunter Tri) and a logical reason why they look and act the way they do.

 

[WyrdMystic]

Personally, I find it hard to maintain my suspension of disbelief if the world has no consistent, logical framework around it. It doesn't need to be 100% scientifically accurate so long it has consistency and logic it. My favorite example is the world of Monster Hunter franchise. Each monster has a believable consistent story behind them (as far as I know anyway, I only got into the franchise when I bought Monster Hunter Tri) and a logical reason why they look and act the way they do.

But if everything was logical, wouldn't we be living on Vulcan?

 

[WyrdMystic]

By which you mean mainstream DC/Marvel comics, I assume. There are thousands of very good comic books and webcomics which do not fit the overpowered archetype. It's just that Marvel and DC don't like messing with their formula. If you want an example of comics with great characters who are well developed and unique and get into trouble and experience struggles, I can recommend Dresden Codak and Gunnerkrigg Court for starters.

The thing about the over powered archetype, especially with Marvel, was that for each over-powered hero, there was an over powered villian to even the odds. Very rarely were they struggling against mere mortals. In that respect, are they truly over-powered, if you measure them against the challenge they face?

 

[Wanara009]

But if everything was logical, wouldn't we be living on Vulcan?

Nah, it's just if you have a logical framework, you don't have to explain everything since the reader will be able to figure the rest out (avoiding exposition dump that will break suspension of disbelief). Also, I find world with logical framework is a lot of consistent and easier to get into.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Hmm well believability and just poor writting skills can be similar but totally unrelated topics. I don't like it when the author portrays a character in a certain way and then has them act or react in a way that they shouldn't, or at least what I think they should. It makes characters lose their personality and spects that make them, them.

I agree with what Chilari said about using terminology.

I also don't like it when the author makes characters (especialy the MC) seemingly impossible to kill or over powered. I don't mind characters being overpowered at all, just don't make them invulnerable. Or don't overdo having your character perfrom extraordinary feats a lot. I say a lot because narrowly defeating a dragon by just the skin on your teeth is fine once, but having your character do it over and over again annoyes me.

 

[MadMadys]

What pulls me out, personally, is when a world begins when the story begins. Now putting aside books where this is an actual plot device, when a writer just lazily hashes over a world's history then jumps into the story it makes it feel like I'm just reading a play script. Now I don't mean every book should begin with 'a complete history' section but characters in the world should carry on like we do. We have euphemisms, analogies, and our common past gives us points of reference. It leads to wooden or stagy dialogue in particular when this is left out which has caused me to stop reading more than a fair amount of otherwise well written books.

Fully realizing a world, as an author, is something of a service to the reader.