# What kills believability in a constructed world?



## Teramis

A lot of fictional worlds just "don't work" on some level, where things feel out of whack for some reason or other. This got me to thinking about what it is that kills believability in a world.  

What kinds of things do you find most jarring in a fictional world? What knocks you out of your belief in the setting? 

I'm curious to hear what others think about this.  I have my own take on this which I can't get into too much right now.  Plus I scored an interview with Ursula Le Guin on the subject, so that ain't half bad.)  But this still seems to be a topic that doesn't get talked about too much among world builders: maybe we're all so busy in the trenches with the nuts and bolts of world-building that more subtle factors about believability are easy to overlook?

Anyway, I'm curious what your thoughts are on this. What kills your suspension of disbelief?


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Teramis, Welcome to Mythic Scribes.

I have removed the promotional link to your website, sorry. You are welcome to start a different thread sharing links to your site at the Notice Board Forum.

This thread about World Building is interesting, anyway =)


----------



## Teramis

Sorry about that. Can you restore my post minus that sentence? I don't have time to repost here right now.
btw I looked through your faqs for guidelines on links and didn't see any mention of them. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place?  If you have a url with that info please share. Thanks.


----------



## Sheilawisz

No problem =)

We have different Forums with many different purposes, please take a look at this: How to use the Notice Board.

Again, welcome to Mythic Scribes.


----------



## Penpilot

You can have dragons that tap dance and I'll buy it so long as the word and characters have common sense when it comes to the important story elements. Characters can be stupid if that's who they are, but as soon as a smart character does something really stupid without a good reason, aka idiot plotting, it's game over. The author looses credibility with me.


----------



## Chilari

I'd say my believe in a setting is most likely to be destroyed by using overly modern terminology. If a word or concept didn't exist in the middle ages, and your fantasy is set in the middle ages, don't use that word or concept. That's one of the things I disliked about the BBC Robin Hood about 5 years ago - the Sherrif kept referring to Robin Hood as a terrorist. Nope. Just no. Outlaw, brigand, bandit, something like that is believable, but using terrorist is just trying to draw parallels with modern though and events.

So if you're describing clothes, and talk about a t-shirt, that's not going to work. Tunic or short sleeved shirt, something like that works. But a t-shirt depends on having elastic, otherwise you can't get your head through the hole, so in olden times they had various forms ofaltering the neck hole, using fastenings and whatnot. Thus not a t-shirt.

For the rest of it, I'd say the pace at which the non-earth elements are introduced are important. Dump it all on me in the first chapter and I'll get confused if it's a complicated set-up. Why is this human sacrifice taking place? What are flarlgebeasts and is it usual for someone to be riding one? Why is the sky green with five moons and lightning coming out of nowhere? Why is everyone wearing a stupid hat? If there's so much weird stuff in the first few pages that I can't take it all in, then it doesn't matter how good the plot is, the world will close the book for me.


----------



## mbartelsm

The most important of all is *inconsistency*​, an inconsistent world is an unbelievable world. If you create a necromantic magic system, then one of your characters can't go around using elemental powers without a proper explanation, and even if it is explained, many people are not likely to believe it.

Other reason is *improperly using established beliefs*, such as making vampires that glow under sunlight, no, just no.

Finally, *not abiding the rule of cool*, if something is too fantastic, but not cool enough, there won't even be any suspension of disbelief to destroy.


----------



## Steerpike

There's no reason whatsoever that you have to conform to established characteristics for fantastic creatures, in my view. The literature is rife with examples of people taking an established or mythological creature and tweaking it for their own ends. That's great. As long as the end result is internally consistent within the world that has been created, it is fine. 

In my view, consistency is the only requirement here. If you're good enough, you can pull off virtually anything if you create a world that abides by its own internal logic.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Teramis said:


> What kinds of things do you find most jarring in a fictional world? What knocks you out of your belief in the setting?



When the rules of the world are not clearly established. 

The new Batman movies irk me to no end because they suffer from this. It feels to me like the movies can't make up their mind on whether they want to be dark and serious dramas, or cartoonish popcorn flicks. So, we end up with character recovering from life-threatening injury, characters with no motivation, moments of sheer improbability...the list goes on. It's as if anything at all can happen in that world, and we're just supposed to accept it because the writer didn't do the work of establishing what can and cannot happen in that world.

You need a consistent tone and a world where the rules are clear and not broken.


----------



## shangrila

Inconsistency is the main one but also, for me, it's stupidity. If I find something to be stupid I'll really struggle to suspend my disbelief. To use an example above, vampires sparkling in the sun was a unique take on it but I still couldn't believe it because I thought it was idiotic.


----------



## CupofJoe

Lack of layers — any world where all the peasants speak with west-country or Irish accents or everyone of a race are evil/good/wise. Inconsistencies of action — as has been said smart characters acting stupid all of a sudden or when the rules change conveniently. Mary Sue characters — I read a book recently where the MC was: a sports hero,  expert gambler,  scholastic genius,  followed by women that threw themselves at him,  one a fistfight against 5 men,  became independently wealthy when a relative [unknown in the story up to then] died and left him their estate....  and he wasn't even 17 — I was bored 50 pages in...  I like my Heroes [male or female] heroic but give me a break...


----------



## mbartelsm

Steerpike said:


> There's no reason whatsoever that you have to conform to established characteristics for fantastic creatures, in my view. The literature is rife with examples of people taking an established or mythological creature and tweaking it for their own ends. That's great. As long as the end result is internally consistent within the world that has been created, it is fine.
> 
> In my view, consistency is the only requirement here. If you're good enough, you can pull off virtually anything if you create a world that abides by its own internal logic.



You are right, I meant things like calling a scaled creature that spits fire a werewolf, people won't buy it. You'd have to create a completely new creature or simply find one that fits yours a bit better (like dragons).


----------



## Paladin

I think the answer to the question is... different things can kill a fictional world's believability, depending on the reader. Different readers will have different expectations and different likes and dislikes when they begin to read a book.  Some readers will probably be reading books for different reasons from other readers. I also think it can have a lot to do with the reader's personal views and personality in general. 

For example, one reader may say the countries/nations in your world are too peaceful and get along too easily and this isn't realistic---because war and strife is an inescapable reality of existence.  But another reader may disagree and say your countries/nations are not peaceful enough and realistically, they should be solving more disputes through diplomacy and civilized negotiations.  Both of these readers are having the believability of the fantasy world killed for them.  If you try to please one, you'll inevitably alienate someone else. 

I think the solution is... to just write what feels right to you. Don't worry too much about pleasing readers, because you'll never please everybody. There will always be someone who just doesn't find your world interesting or realistic and obviously, they aren't your target audience then. 

~Paladin~


----------



## Game

An interesting subject indeed, I think what turns me off in a story's stream of events is inconsistency and sudden information dumps. As in, throwing 10 chapters worth of information in one, that screws it up.


----------



## hyluvian

I think Paladin hit the nail right on the head when it comes to trying to please everyone - you'll always cause somebody to be slightly bent but hey, not everyone is going to like everything (how boring would that be?)

Me personally, I'm rather easy-going.  Hell I'll believe near anything if you give me a decent reason to.  I think that most readers are happy to sit in your world if you have it make functional sense.

If I could invoke cult classics for a moment, look at Doctor Who.  That show bends over backwards making up the craziest things possible and many times leaving plot holes the size of Alaska in its stories yet somehow its fans (myself included) just don't seem to care.  It's that essence of time travel and the crazy possibilities that tie everything together and make us all shrug our shoulders and say 'Eh, Timey-wimey.'

I think the point of the message here is that your world, not unlike the one we find ourselves in, shouldn't be just a simple backdrop to your story.  It should be an incredible mosaic of crazy, awesome possibility that frames what's going on in the character's lives and can help or hinder their progress (much the way other characters can).  The key to all of that is setting ground rules for yourself and adhering to those rules.  If you make the system and all the pieces fit together, the machine should work just fine!


----------



## Konstanz

The worst thing for me? Setting a special rule for your world (e.g. humans cannot use magic.) and then making a main character who is an exception to that (e.g. Max is the only human in the entire world that can use magic because he's the chosen one.) That's just so clichÃ© and overused that it's just not believable anymore. Some stories manage to pull it off (Harry Potter being one - Though I must say I'm not that big of a fan and the books aren't - sorry folks - aimed at an audience of critical adults). For people who are just getting into Fantasy, that sort of thing might work.

For someone like me, who has a very particular taste in Fantasy (dark, realistic fantasy, without the big bad guy and the cool good guy) it just doesn't work.


----------



## ccrogers3d

Penpilot said:


> as soon as a smart character does something really stupid without a good reason, aka idiot plotting, it's game over.


I agree with this so much! As a reader, I feel cheated when an author makes a character do something out of character just to get the plot where he or she needs it to go. Grrr!


----------



## Mindfire

Konstanz said:


> The worst thing for me? Setting a special rule for your world (e.g. humans cannot use magic.) and then making a main character who is an exception to that (e.g. Max is the only human in the entire world that can use magic because he's the chosen one.) That's just so clichÃ© and overused that it's just not believable anymore. Some stories manage to pull it off (Harry Potter being one - Though I must say I'm not that big of a fan and the books aren't - sorry folks - aimed at an audience of critical adults). For people who are just getting into Fantasy, that sort of thing might work.
> 
> For someone like me, who has a very particular taste in Fantasy (dark, realistic fantasy, without the big bad guy and the cool good guy) it just doesn't work.



That's less of a story/worldbuilding problem and more of a _taste_ problem. Your dislike for something is not sufficient grounds to declare it ineffective.


----------



## Konstanz

Mindfire said:


> That's less of a story/worldbuilding problem and more of a _taste_ problem. Your dislike for something is not sufficient grounds to declare it ineffective.



Paladin mentioned that "what kills the believability of a constructed world" is subjective and depends entirely on the reader. So if you agree with that hypothesis, that means *it is a matter of taste.* My dislike for something is sufficient grounds to declare something ineffective for me. I did mention it was the worst thing *for me.* 

Also, as a more general rule, the term "Mary Sue" can be given to most characters who have mind-blowing superpowers. I don't know if that term is used by writers (I know it from the RP world) but I think it's still very important to writers. If your characters are too unique or too perfect, the reader won't relate to them and your story will fall flat.


----------



## Mindfire

Konstanz said:


> Paladin mentioned that "what kills the believability of a constructed world" is subjective and depends entirely on the reader. So if you agree with that hypothesis, that means *it is a matter of taste.* My dislike for something is sufficient grounds to declare something ineffective for me. I did mention it was the worst thing *for me.*
> 
> Also, as a more general rule, the term "Mary Sue" can be given to most characters who have mind-blowing superpowers. I don't know if that term is used by writers (I know it from the RP world) but I think it's still very important to writers. If your characters are too unique or too perfect, the reader won't relate to them and your story will fall flat.



I don't think there's any such thing as a character who's "too unique". Rather, I think the problem most Mary Sues have is that they _aren't_ unique. They're generic self-inserts. As for "too perfect", how would you define perfect? A character can have impressive skills and be all around awesome and still be interesting despite, or rather because of it. A fantasy related example would be Tavi/Octavian from Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Tavi is clever, a quick thinker, and manages to solve every problem he encounters with ingenuity and style. His only limitation is that he was born without the superpowers everyone else in his culture takes for granted, and that sole defect eventually fades away also (spoilers: he's a late bloomer) and he becomes pretty much a demi-god. I can't think of a single time where he really loses or fails. If he did fail or make a mistake, they're massively overshadowed by his incredible victories. And did I mention that he's secretly the Emperor's grandson? And that he alone manages to befriend and ally with alien races that his countrymen have been at war with for generations? And that he pretty much ends up saving all of Alera from utter annihilation/assimilation? And that after his victories he takes the name and title Lord Gaius Tavarus Magnus (Lord Wolverine the Great) and rules as the new Emperor? 

On paper, Tavi is a classic Mary Sue, but when you actually read the books, he's an interesting character who you love to root for, he doesn't overshadow the great supporting cast despite his feats of strategy and power, and he never comes off as being the "chosen one" despite the fact he kind of is. Having exceptional abilities, royal lineage, inherent "specialness", or even all these things at once does not make a character a Mary Sue. It's all about presentation.

[plug]READ THE CODEX ALERA! IT'S AWESOME![/plug]


----------



## icebladeaskante

I've often heard the rule, you can only have your readers suspend their disbelief at one major point in your world. In romance novels, I suspect (not having read very many admittedly) its a set of circumstances that may seem too coincidental, but you ignore that fact and enjoy the story, in fantasy mostly it is that magic exists, and the fact that nearly all the authors I've read have tried to create laws and boundaries for the magic would support it as a general rule.

Mostly what can kill a world for me is over-explanation, as though the author is saying this world could totally exist. Yes I get it, you've created a complex believable world, but this is fantasy and as a reader while I love the idea of it being real potentially that doesn't mean you need to ignore the characters and stories to _make_ me believe.

Though there was one series I loved, that I stopped reading because the author simply had the set of circumstance that drove the plot and series too coincidental, with little pacing. So maybe the author was asking me to suspend my disbelief in two things.


----------



## Konstanz

Presentation can of course play a major role in mitigating some of the damage a "perfect" character can do. And yes, by perfect I mean "prince charming on a white horse" perfect. Or incredibly powerful, smart, sensitive, handsome and magical person who achieves everything at a very young age. Like you said, a lot of characters in books are Mary Sues because they don't have to share the spotlight with other roleplayers. The trick to write a successful hero is by having him struggle. He can be victorious all the time and save everyone's ass as long as he struggles to do it. As long as it seems like he'll lose, the reader will be drawn in. I still like heroes without "superpowers" or who aren't "chosen" better. I like reading books about people that are heroes because of what they do, not because of what they are.


----------



## Mindfire

Konstanz said:


> Presentation can of course play a major role in mitigating some of the damage a "perfect" character can do. And yes, by perfect I mean "prince charming on a white horse" perfect. Or incredibly powerful, smart, sensitive, handsome and magical person who achieves everything at a very young age. Like you said, a lot of characters in books are Mary Sues because they don't have to share the spotlight with other roleplayers. The trick to write a successful hero is by having him struggle. He can be victorious all the time and save everyone's ass as long as he struggles to do it. As long as it seems like he'll lose, the reader will be drawn in. I still like heroes without "superpowers" or who aren't "chosen" better. I like reading books about people that are heroes because of what they do, not because of what they are.



It seems to me that who we are and what we do are very much intertwined.


----------



## WyrdMystic

I have a problem with the whole concept of magic having rules...even in a fantasy setting that becomes biology or physics or chemistry and stops being magic. Magic is unexplained, unknown, not understood. I'm afraid I'll have to be a fish swimming against the tide on that one even if it dooms me.

As to what makes a world believable? That's down to the writer and the reader both. The writer needs to have conviction, the reader needs to understand that these are not real worlds and therefore don't have to be 'believable' in the sense that we believe in our own real world.

This is just my opinion - and probably just mine. Realism in fantasy is a sub genre of fantasy, the same rules should not apply to other sub genres. If the writing is convincing....anything is possible.


----------



## Ireth

What really gets me is when people deviate vastly from the standard characteristics of well-known fantasy creatures without ever giving a reason or explanation to make it plausible. Case in point: those freakin' sparkly vampires! (*ducks thrown rocks*) I could buy it if Meyer said they had a specific strain of vampirism among many, or a mutation or something that led to their skin somehow refracting light or whatever, but NOPE. Not a word of explanation besides "it makes us better hunters". (Um, how?) At least when I muck around with vampire lore, I take care to give my vampires backstory telling WHY they are different.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Ireth said:


> What really gets me is when people deviate vastly from the standard characteristics of well-known fantasy creatures without ever giving a reason or explanation to make it plausible. Case in point: those freakin' sparkly vampires! (*ducks thrown rocks*) I could buy it if Meyer said they had some kind of vampire mutation that led to their skin somehow refracting light or whatever, but NOPE. At least when I muck around with vampire lore, I take care to give my vampires backstory telling WHY they are different.



Lots of people hate that & I get it. She was only twisting the reason they don't go out in sunlight. I thought the premise was clever but it just didn't come off right for me.


----------



## WyrdMystic

Ireth said:


> What really gets me is when people deviate vastly from the standard characteristics of well-known fantasy creatures without ever giving a reason or explanation to make it plausible. Case in point: those freakin' sparkly vampires! (*ducks thrown rocks*) I could buy it if Meyer said they had a specific strain of vampirism among many, or a mutation or something that led to their skin somehow refracting light or whatever, but NOPE. Not a word of explanation besides "it makes us better hunters". (Um, how?) At least when I muck around with vampire lore, I take care to give my vampires backstory telling WHY they are different.




Seconded! As a long time lover of WoD and pretty much anything to do with the sort - thirded, fourthed and on and on until I run out of fingers, toes and severed arms nailed to my wall (of course I don't have a morbid collection of severed arms nailed to my wall....yet).

For me, if you're going to twist an already well known creature in some fundamental way to suit a story, the first thing to ask is...why am I using this creature in the first place? Why not make up my own creatures? If you end up still wanting vampires to have leech like mouths or werewolves to change everytime someone says 'Marry Poppins', make sure it's fully explained.

Same goes for elves, dwarves, dragons, and...yes....the most over used, twisted, meddled with race of them all....humans.


----------



## Steerpike

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Lots of people hate that & I get it. She was only twisting the reason they don't go out in sunlight. I thought the premise was clever but it just didn't come off right for me.



Didn't bother me, either. It is a mythical/made-up creature. You don't necessarily have to go into why their skin behaves a certain way anymore than you would for any other race or creature in a fantasy work. I wrote a short story once with small, goblin-like creatures who's skin imparted camouflage by changing to colors that blended in with the environment. Did I bother to explain how the camouflage worked? No. If I had, I wouldn't blame a reader for skipping it or putting the story down.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> Didn't bother me, either. It is a mythical/made-up creature. You don't necessarily have to go into why their skin behaves a certain way anymore than you would for any other race or creature in a fantasy work. I wrote a short story once with small, goblin-like creatures who's skin imparted camouflage by changing to colors that blended in with the environment. Did I bother to explain how the camouflage worked? No. If I had, I wouldn't blame a reader for skipping it or putting the story down.



That's a slightly different case, I think. Your goblins' camouflage is a purely practical detail, and it actually makes sense. For a vampire to sparkle like a disco ball in the sunlight and claim it's an advantage to him as a hunter, to me, just screams bullsh*t. It'd be far more likely to scare _sensible_ humans and animals away than it would draw them within striking range. (Note the emphasis on "sensible", which Bella Swan is definitely NOT.) The logic behind that sparkling isn't very consistent, if it is present at all. Why don't they glitter under any light BUT full direct sunlight? Is there a symbolic or supernatural reason, like how the moonlight affected the crew of the _Black Pearl_ in the first POTC movie, or how my vampires become bestial in appearance under full sunlight if they've fed from humans? This is never brought up.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> The logic behind that sparkling isn't very consistent, if it is present at all. Why don't they glitter under any light BUT full direct sunlight? Is there a symbolic or supernatural reason, like how the moonlight affected the crew of the _Black Pearl_ in the first POTC movie, or how my vampires become bestial in appearance under full sunlight if they've fed from humans? This is never brought up.



I don't think it really makes a difference. Vampires are traditionally affected differently by sunlight than other light, so no big deal there. Is there any part of the explaining or lack thereof with respect to sparkling that actually impacts the story? Anything that would have resolved differently based on why they are sparkling? If not, it isn't necessary information in my view. People's views different on these things of course but that simply didn't bother me.


----------



## Devor

Teramis said:


> What kinds of things do you find most jarring in a fictional world? What knocks you out of your belief in the setting?



To me, anything that would only result from unrealistic human behavior.  Or else anything that would look too simple to be real or just a little too convenient for the moment.

Most of the time I _feel_ like something is off even before I can pinpoint it.


----------



## Mindfire

WyrdMystic said:


> I have a problem with the whole concept of magic having rules...even in a fantasy setting that becomes biology or physics or chemistry and stops being magic. Magic is unexplained, unknown, not understood. I'm afraid I'll have to be a fish swimming against the tide on that one even if it dooms me.



I hear you, Wyrd. "Magic as science" doesn't appeal to me either. It's too easy to make a rule-based magic system into a game of numbers, mana, and D&D stats. Magic should have "rules" in the sense that the author should have a consistent vision for how magic works and what it does in the world. However, I prefer for those rules to remain _behind _the scenes.


----------



## icebladeaskante

Funny I think how those rules are presented can actually enrich a story or at least allow for the story to take place. After all if you're writing a story with a beast like villain, say a mindless terrorising dragon why doesn't the nearest wizard blow it up into tiny little pieces? The dragon has an immunity. Why, maybe they are all ready so magical that adding more is like trying to put 10 litres of water into a 5 litre bucket, its just not going to happen. So a rule of the magic might things can only contain a certain amount of magic before it starts to be not affected by any magic. Or maybe the dragon is a magic sink, absorbing the power before the Wizard can shape it. But if there is no rules or at least limits like these,  the story may end up being: A ravening beast of a dragon appeared to terrorise the land, but the brave wizard faced it down and made it go splat covering everything in a mile radius in dragon blood. The End. Giving rules or limits (which are simply well defined rules) lets you explore a better story.


----------



## Mindfire

icebladeaskante said:


> Funny I think how those rules are presented can actually enrich a story or at least allow for the story to take place. After all if you're writing a story with a beast like villain, say a mindless terrorising dragon why doesn't the nearest wizard blow it up into tiny little pieces? The dragon has an immunity. Why, maybe they are all ready so magical that adding more is like trying to put 10 litres of water into a 5 litre bucket, its just not going to happen. So a rule of the magic might things can only contain a certain amount of magic before it starts to be not affected by any magic. Or maybe the dragon is a magic sink, absorbing the power before the Wizard can shape it. But if there is no rules or at least limits like these,  the story may end up being: A ravening beast of a dragon appeared to terrorise the land, but the brave wizard faced it down and made it go splat covering everything in a mile radius in dragon blood. The End. Giving rules or limits (which are simply well defined rules) lets you explore a better story.



Allow me to illustrate what I meant.

*Behind-the-scenes Magic Rules:* Dragons are resistant to magic, making them difficult for even an accomplished wizard to defeat.

*Fully Visible Magic Rules:* Dragons are resistant to magic because they ingest a mineral compound called ixonemethelanite, which they then synthesize via bacteria in their small intestine to produce a substance called oxyneletherium, which then goes into the bloodstream and catalyzes with another compound called metanoxobrastiose to produce a chemical reaction that results in a neurochemical called hexoantisteramine, which allows the central nervous system to unconsciously manipulate the naturally occurring mana fields of the planet which occur due to planetary phase shifting and radioactive partical bombardment, resulting in the dragon being able to psionically create an anti-magic force field that neutralizes any spells used against it. The effect can be countered however through an alchemical reaction of plexiamythestiorium with hydronitromethalene, which...


You see my point? The first explanation is more vague, but the reader will accept it. NO ONE believes the BS science I made up. (98% of it doesn't even mean anything.) Most attempts to make magic into science will fail, at least for me. I prefer to avoid all that and go the opposite way: linking magic to spiritual experience. The rules will be determined by the will of the relevant deity: specific enough to make the story work, but vague enough not to be intrusive. With magic, the _why_ is more important than the _how_.


----------



## Steerpike

Well sure, Mindfire, of course no one is going to believe that BS. Metanoxobrastiose is clearly a sugar, based on the suffix, and you're going to use a sugar and this oxyneletherium to produce a neurochemical?  Get real!


----------



## Aravelle

Ireth said:


> What really gets me is when people deviate vastly from the standard characteristics of well-known fantasy creatures without ever giving a reason or explanation to make it plausible. Case in point: those freakin' sparkly vampires! (*ducks thrown rocks*) I could buy it if Meyer said they had a specific strain of vampirism among many, or a mutation or something that led to their skin somehow refracting light or whatever, but NOPE. Not a word of explanation besides "it makes us better hunters". (Um, how?)



I like believing it's a sort of magical insect-like virus, one that makes their skin hard and shine, not unlike a bug. After all, they do drink blood and do use a venom to create other vampires.

That, or it's a magical venom that can turn other creatures into a variety of lower fae.

I came up with this because it was the only way I could enjoy the story when I got over my twilight phase and the rest of my family still loved [and love] the movies. *is shot*


----------



## Aravelle

To me, a story loses believability when the characters are overpowered. Not as in overwhelmed, but given too much power... like in Eragon, for an example. In the last book, he was practically a demi god.

It also loses believability when the character does not struggle, when help arrives "just in time", fate seems to favour them. It should be used very sparingly. 

Oh, and romance. There's waaay too much wish fulfillment in them, especially when the love interest is very attractive and not human, or "damned" in some way that somehow makes them seem more attractive.. admittedly I'm guilty of this but sometimes they're just _too_ perfect.


----------



## icebladeaskante

Mindfire said:


> You see my point? The first explanation is more vague, but the reader will accept it. NO ONE believes the BS science I made up. (98% of it doesn't even mean anything.) Most attempts to make magic into science will fail, at least for me. I prefer to avoid all that and go the opposite way: linking magic to spiritual experience. The rules will be determined by the will of the relevant deity: specific enough to make the story work, but vague enough not to be intrusive. With magic, the _why_ is more important than the _how_.



Not everybody will want to go into the spiritual deity road. And you are right about making it scientific, but rules and limit and laws doesn't mean that magic is science, but simply that the use has evolved to appear as though magic has replaced what the real world views as science. Perhaps it is the logical side of me that wants to know why dragons are immune. Otherwise I'd think the story is based on plot devices. 

Well dragons simply are immune to magic, therefore you get this story I wrote that I could not write otherwise. Insted by taking one of my more 'advanced' rules you can actually tell the story because that's how it would happen in the world you have created. E.g. Dragons are like magic sinks absorbing all that magic. Well maybe they absorb it and that's how they breathe fire - converting absorbed magic, so to hinder it you need to fight it somewhere as magic free as possible. So you have turned a plot device into a diverse world, with potentially new problems or advantages. Would wearing armour made of dragon skin also make you immune to magic, and would the absorption mean you have a potentially powerful magic suit of armour that allows you to blow up everybody around you. That's useful, so maybe dragons are endangered and need to be protected, and maybe you can then get a terrible villain who starts taking over the kingdoms by blowing up its leaders and threatening everybody. 

By defining those rules a little better for both you and your reader, you suddenly have more than one story to tell and you have crafted a World, a place that, with a certain set of circumstances i.e. magic exists, could actually exist. And that's a world that is easier to get into because it feels almost real. Or at least that's my opinion on it.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Well sure, Mindfire, of course no one is going to believe that BS. Metanoxobrastiose is clearly a sugar, based on the suffix, and you're going to use a sugar and this oxyneletherium to produce a neurochemical?  Get real!


*+1*




Aravelle said:


> To me, a story loses believability when the characters are overpowered. Not as in overwhelmed, but given too much power... like in Eragon, for an example. In the last book, he was practically a demi god.



Actually, I've seen overpowered protagonists work very well, usually by matching them up with an antagonist that's equally or even more overpowered. Exempli gratia: The Codex Alera! Tavi is practically a demigod by the series's end, but his final opponent is the equally powerful Vord queen, who also happens to be backed by an army of hive-minded insectoid warriors who can adapt to pretty much any threat. And then once Tavi defeats her, the series ends obviously. Because it'd be near impossible to find any foe powerful enough to warrant his personal attention after he's just defeated the Borg Vord Queen by using his elemental powers to control an entire mountain. (Not making this up.)

But Eragon... oh boy. Eragon. We could spend an entire thread on that one. In fact, why don't we? Someone make an Eragon thread. It can replace the Robert Stanek He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named thread that Black Dragon deleted, and the discussion will probably be more productive. We can talk about what the series did wrong through all four volumes, how to avoid those mistakes, and what the author did right. (Seriously, what _did_ he do right?)




icebladeaskante said:


> Not everybody will want to go into the spiritual deity road. And you are right about making it scientific, but rules and limit and laws doesn't mean that magic is science, but simply that the use has evolved to appear as though magic has replaced what the real world views as science. Perhaps it is the logical side of me that wants to know why dragons are immune. Otherwise I'd think the story is based on plot devices.
> 
> [...]
> 
> By defining those rules a little better for both you and your reader, you suddenly have more than one story to tell and you have crafted a World, a place that, with a certain set of circumstances i.e. magic exists, could actually exist. And that's a world that is easier to get into because it feels almost real. Or at least that's my opinion on it.



Of course not everyone has to (or should) go the spiritual route. I was just giving my personal solution to the issue, and I think it works great for me. But the point is, sometimes showing your work is a good thing while at other times it's better to hide your work so it doesn't get in the reader's way. It's up to you to figure out when to do one and when to do the other. Sometimes it's okay to show off, and other times it's better to Resist the Urge to Explain. Also, a unique concept like the one you described falls more into the category of "story premise" than "rule system". I thought we were discussing the latter.


----------



## WyrdMystic

icebladeaskante said:


> Not everybody will want to go into the spiritual deity road. And you are right about making it scientific, but rules and limit and laws doesn't mean that magic is science, but simply that the use has evolved to appear as though magic has replaced what the real world views as science. Perhaps it is the logical side of me that wants to know why dragons are immune. Otherwise I'd think the story is based on plot devices.



All stories are based on plot devices, regardles of what people say...otherwise...no plot.



icebladeaskante said:


> Well dragons simply are immune to magic, therefore you get this story I wrote that I could not write otherwise. Insted by taking one of my more 'advanced' rules you can actually tell the story because that's how it would happen in the world you have created. E.g. Dragons are like magic sinks absorbing all that magic. Well maybe they absorb it and that's how they breathe fire - converting absorbed magic, so to hinder it you need to fight it somewhere as magic free as possible. So you have turned a plot device into a diverse world, with potentially new problems or advantages. Would wearing armour made of dragon skin also make you immune to magic, and would the absorption mean you have a potentially powerful magic suit of armour that allows you to blow up everybody around you. That's useful, so maybe dragons are endangered and need to be protected, and maybe you can then get a terrible villain who starts taking over the kingdoms by blowing up its leaders and threatening everybody.
> 
> By defining those rules a little better for both you and your reader, you suddenly have more than one story to tell and you have crafted a World, a place that, with a certain set of circumstances i.e. magic exists, could actually exist. And that's a world that is easier to get into because it feels almost real. Or at least that's my opinion on it.



I think my original point was that the way I see it magic + logic = science. After all, isn't the picture appearing on the TV screen magic? Using an invisible force to produce something unnatural? Do I want to know how it works? No.

Maybe wearing dragon armour makes you immune? That is plot device. A magical ring (we've all heard that one) - plot device. Wise wizard - plot device. Two mischievous ferrets with no use other than to steel the keys at the end of the movie - plot device. Actually, any occurance, any character, any object - plot device. If it wasn't it wouldn't be applicable to the plot.

Thats my opinion anyway - I actually like books that explain magic to the nth, but prefer when they don't. As soon as there is explanation it, by definition, removes mystery. That for me takes away the draw of using magic. The awe.

As soon as the rules are explained, magic just becomes mundane, ordinary.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't believe an author has to explain the rules of their magic system. I do believe the author herself should have some idea of the 'rules' that govern the system, even if just a vague sense. This helps to ensure the logical consistency of magic in the fantasy world. If the consistency isn't there, readers will sense it. But once you establish boundaries, narrow or broad, I think most readers will go along with what you want to do.


----------



## WyrdMystic

Steerpike said:


> I don't believe an author has to explain the rules of their magic system. I do believe the author herself should have some idea of the 'rules' that govern the system, even if just a vague sense. This helps to ensure the logical consistency of magic in the fantasy world. If the consistency isn't there, readers will sense it. But once you establish boundaries, narrow or broad, I think most readers will go along with what you want to do.



Yes, agreed. That's what I should have said. In fact, lets pretend that I said it


----------



## Caged Maiden

Okay since we're talking about magic system failures, and where you stop reading a book.. I have to weigh-in here on this one.

I loved Brotherhood of the Wolf.  LOVED IT!  The problem, was I put it down, because I hated the magic.  IN that world, you can bestow one of your traits on your friend, say I'm going to give Steerpike all my intelligence, to make him a superpowered smarty-pants.  Well... while he has my trait, I'm essentially a drooling idiot who can't think at all.  SO this main bad guy, has THOUSANDS of these traits stored up in him.... too overpowered, too unbelievable... had to stop reading.  Too bad, I loved the characters.


----------



## WyrdMystic

Caged Maiden said:


> Okay since we're talking about magic system failures, and where you stop reading a book.. I have to weigh-in here on this one.
> 
> I loved Brotherhood of the Wolf.  LOVED IT!  The problem, was I put it down, because I hated the magic.  IN that world, you can bestow one of your traits on your friend, say I'm going to give Steerpike all my intelligence, to make him a superpowered smarty-pants.  Well... while he has my trait, I'm essentially a drooling idiot who can't think at all.  SO this main bad guy, has THOUSANDS of these traits stored up in him.... too overpowered, too unbelievable... had to stop reading.  Too bad, I loved the characters.



Never read it, but of the sound of it I would of though someone would snap after taking on two or three traits, let alone a thousand.


----------



## Grimbold

For me, its the little things...I'm not the type to pick out if someones eye colours have changed, but i mean little things as in a character saying something you don't think he would have said. That, and writing thats 'to' fantasy or not fantasy enough...
E.G: "And lo the elfling cried out in vain and valor"/"Alright mate wheres that dragon then?" ect ect


----------



## 071095se

In non magical matters, I highly dislike things that defy the laws of physics. Though if a valid magic reason is given as why this is so I will be very happy e.g. floating mountain ranges


----------



## Gurkhal

I'm going to throw in with the crowd that think that lack of consistency kills a world, because it does so for me. But then again I'm pretty strict in the Low Fantasy territory to overt use of magical elements or lack of logical/realistic explinations also makes me question the world, and which can lead to my disbelief overtaking me and probably turning it into wishing harm on the world.


----------



## Chime85

For me, it is overpowered characters that kill a story for me. I am happy with disc shaped worlds on elephants, or sparkling vampires if you must (tbh, there is over 100 variations of vampires in our cultures, very few of them even touch blood!) Again, there is nothing appealing to overpowered characters. 

Let's say for example that someone is very smart, very clever and is a dab hand at magic. Why would you wish to read about the "struggles" of a super-dooper character, who barely has to sneeze to finish a 10v1 bar fight! Despite having all the power of the world, the character is still human (or elf, dwarf, smurth) and it is worth noting that they can still be killed by desease, a stab in the back or a shot to the face! Otherwise, there is no point in struggling on with the story, the character certainately isnt.

x


----------



## Mindfire

Chime85 said:


> For me, it is overpowered characters that kill a story for me. I am happy with disc shaped worlds on elephants, or sparkling vampires if you must (tbh, there is over 100 variations of vampires in our cultures, very few of them even touch blood!) Again, there is nothing appealing to overpowered characters.
> 
> Let's say for example that someone is very smart, very clever and is a dab hand at magic. Why would you wish to read about the "struggles" of a super-dooper character, who barely has to sneeze to finish a 10v1 bar fight! Despite having all the power of the world, the character is still human (or elf, dwarf, smurth) and it is worth noting that they can still be killed by desease, a stab in the back or a shot to the face! Otherwise, there is no point in struggling on with the story, the character certainately isnt.
> 
> x



Ahem. Comic books. Your post is debunked.


----------



## Chime85

Mindfire said:


> Ahem. Comic books. Your post is debunked.



Uum no, it isn't. To begin with, comic books are a platform, _not_ a genre. Nor are they renowned for literary excellence. Artwork wise, by all means, they far outstrip any novel I can think of with regards to graphics and artwork. Besides, there are plenty of comics that do not rely on overpowered protagonists

By raising the flag of comic books, I assume you mean the generic comic book hero. Just because characters I described exist, it does not debunk my point. Infact, it adds weight to the argument. It grows tiresome to see (with a little bit of reading) superman solving a situation once again with......super strenght!!!!

x


----------



## Mindfire

Chime85 said:


> Uum no, it isn't. To begin with, comic books are a platform, _not_ a genre. Nor are they renowned for literary excellence.



Let's not play at semantics. I don't see the point. 



Chime85 said:


> Artwork wise, by all means, they far outstrip any novel I can think of with regards to graphics and artwork. Besides, there are plenty of comics that do not rely on overpowered protagonists



Depends on what you mean by "overpowered." Not all comic book heroes are as god-level as Superman, but in comic books it's usually a given that the hero will survive and triumph. And if they don't, they'll come back from the dead later and try again. The only real argument against overpowered characters is that they have a certain guarantee of victory. Comics has that in spades regardless of the character's actual power level. For the most part, mainstream comics have a status quo that is maintained pretty rigidly. Every so often a big "event" happens to push the reset button. Those that do otherwise are usually being artsy or different and (as far as I know) are a niche-within-the-niche, or a super-niche if you will. Most people who read comics (again, as far as I know) read things like Batman and Superman. After around 70 years, those characters are still with us despite being practically (or literally) bulletproof.



Chime85 said:


> By raising the flag of comic books, I assume you mean the generic comic book hero. Just because characters I described exist, it does not debunk my point. Infact, it adds weight to the argument. It grows tiresome to see (with a little bit of reading) superman solving a situation once again with......super strenght!!!!
> 
> x



Does it really? Grows tiresome to _who_ exactly? The legions of comic book fans out there? Certainly not, otherwise the books wouldn't sell. If it were as tiresome as you say, nobody would read it, or go to see the movies. Avengers is now one of the top grossing movies of all time, and it had a DeM ending and everything. (Although your mileage may vary about whether or not it was a "true" DeM.) "Literary excellence"? What does that even mean? By what rubric do you judge this and what qualifies _you_ to be the judge? I believe that, at bottom, the only thing that really matters is whether the audience enjoys the work. If that is true, something was done right, overpowered heroes or not.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it is safe to say that what kills believability in a constructed world is going to vary from person to person. For some, over-powered characters might do it. For others, lack of a logical framework for magic. For a third person, it might be Greedo shooting first. Who knows.


----------



## Weaver

Chime85 said:


> For me, it is overpowered characters that kill a story for me.



How would you define _overpowered_?

Do you mean a character like Superman but without that pesky kryptonite allergy?  Do you mean a character who is both a genius _and_ able to kick butt in a fight?  Is it dependant on the setting, or is there such a thing as too powerful no matter the circumstances?

And what defines power itself in this?  Magic and super strength and immortaility?  Or can it be mundane things like ridiculous wealth or being born into a royal family?

(This is absolutely NOT a disagreement.  I don't like overpowered characters, either.  Just trying to understand what other people mean by that.)


----------



## Ankari

Two points:

1) This thread was started to ask each individual their opinion on "What kills believability in a constructed world?"  Everything that a poster states is, by the intent of the thread, all personal opinion and bias.  There isn't really a need to argue anything that anyone writes.

2) What kills it for me is the aura of protection that surrounds the author's favorite character.  You'll know who that character is by how he always survives _every life-threatening situation, even if that character isn't equipped to handle it._

Also, poor world building.


----------



## Chime85

Weaver said:


> How would you define _overpowered_?
> 
> Do you mean a character like Superman but without that pesky kryptonite allergy?  Do you mean a character who is both a genius _and_ able to kick butt in a fight?  Is it dependant on the setting, or is there such a thing as too powerful no matter the circumstances?
> 
> And what defines power itself in this?  Magic and super strength and immortaility?  Or can it be mundane things like ridiculous wealth or being born into a royal family?
> 
> (This is absolutely NOT a disagreement.  I don't like overpowered characters, either.  Just trying to understand what other people mean by that.)



Well all of the above are good examples. I think a better phrase would be without flaws, or their strengths greatly outweight their weaknesses. I don't just mean in terms of abilities and skills, but socially and morally too (although these details can be flacked away another time). For instance, imagine a knight who has done great deeds (could be, these deeds are far exagerated), but as a flaw, he is a disgusting womaniser and racists. that to me would be a flaw that could be interesting in a story. 



> 2) What kills it for me is the aura of protection that surrounds the author's favorite character. You'll know who that character is by how he always survives every life-threatening situation, even if that character isn't equipped to handle it.



That's a very good point, completely in agreement with this.
x


----------



## Mindfire

> 2) What kills it for me is the aura of protection that surrounds the author's favorite character.  You'll know who that character is by how he always survives every life-threatening situation, even if that character isn't equipped to handle it.


But if they died wouldn't the story be over?


----------



## Mindfire

Chime85 said:


> Well all of the above are good examples. I think a better phrase would be without flaws, or their strengths greatly outweight their weaknesses. I don't just mean in terms of abilities and skills, but socially and morally too (although these details can be flacked away another time). For instance, imagine a knight who has done great deeds (could be, these deeds are far exagerated), but as a flaw, he is a disgusting womaniser and racists. that to me would be a flaw that could be interesting in a story.



Could you elaborate on what you mean by strengths outweighing flaws?


----------



## Gurkhal

Mindfire said:


> But if they died wouldn't the story be over?



You can still limit yourself to threatening situations that the characters are equippped to reasonably overcome.


----------



## WyrdMystic

Mindfire said:


> But if they died wouldn't the story be over?



Not neccessarily. There's no rule that says the main character has to live. Generally though, you can expect the main character to come out victorious and that makes the tension etc an illusion. Tension therefore comes from the fact that the reader is focussed on the current scene, the past is in the back of their mind, and the ending doesn't need to be worried about yet. Unless your reading a crime novel in which case the one armed butler's lover's secret twin sister's plastic surgeon's uncle's photographer did it because....your mum!.

I’ve thought about this subject a bit more and have reached a conclusion – a very cop out conclusion.

Because there are so many different reasons why different people may lose faith in a fantasy world - the reason is the reader’s unwillingness to suspend their belief, or release their grip on the aspects of reality that they feel most important on an individual level (whether it’s physics, logic, geography, sociology etc.).

No-one can cater for all tastes, so the more pertinent question then might be – what would make you lose faith in your own constructed world? You can guarantee there are a million (more) other like-minded people out there. Cater for yourself first.

PS – comic books rock and there is no such thing as a graphic novel, just an insanely, awesomely long comic book!


----------



## WyrdMystic

Gurkhal said:


> You can still limit yourself to threatening situations that the characters are equippped to reasonably overcome.



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?’


----------



## Mindfire

WyrdMystic said:


> 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

WyrdMystic said:


> 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. 



Mindfire said:


> 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

Gurkhal said:


> 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

Tansy said:


> 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

psychotick said:


> 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

psychotick said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Penpilot said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Wanara009 said:


> 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

Chilari said:


> 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

WyrdMystic said:


> 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.


----------



## Nbafan

For me, a writer must be consistent. If not, it makes the novel or series extremely unbelievable because they are just able to shift things to suit their plot. Tying in with this is the hero getting by and reaching his goals unscathed. No one goes through life without some struggles and pains and when the hero just kicks ass the entire way without any competition, it destroys the realism that I often like.


----------



## mpkirby

I look for three attributes:

1) The world should be internally consistent.  If you make flying rocks, there should be a reason for it (or for the rocks flying and nothing else).

2) The characters in the world should behave consistently as compared to the rules of their world.  For example RR Martin's world is unbelievably brutal.  And his characters (good and bad alike) behave consistently with that world.  Sometimes good characters doing bad things relative to what the reader's world would do.

3) The world must be relatable to the reader.  Creating a world with arbitrary and capricious rules that make no sense to a modern reader is a problem.  For example in "The Hunger games"  I have several issues.  What kind of wacko world treats its children the way that world does.  Even in roman times or the middle ages, children were considered a maleable asset even by those who would brutalize the parents.  And the disconnect in wealth seems also inconsistent.  For a world that can create matter out of thin air how is it that coal is the one thing that the society needs.   It's a stretch.  And finally why use children as a way to control the adults.  Just round up 200 people in a village and kill them all if they get out of line.  If a society isn't afraid of brutality, then there are easier ways to control a society.

Mike


----------



## arroncook

It might sound strange, but I think sometimes, a world written in too much detail. If you write every single detail in such descriptive length that there's nothing left for me to create in my mind, it feels too "wooden" and too difficult to picture consistently in my mind whilst I read.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I agree, over-thinking is a major problem.  I think that's one of the things that points out a new writer, someone who spent way too much time planning their novel, and not enough time writing it.  While I appreciate imagination and creativity, there's a place where it crosses the line for me, and treads into the realm of indulgence and then written masterb**ion.


----------



## Mindfire

Caged Maiden said:


> I agree, over-thinking is a major problem.  I think that's one of the things that points out a new writer, someone who spent way too much time planning their novel, and not enough time writing it.  While I appreciate imagination and creativity, there's a place where it crosses the line for me, and treads into the realm of indulgence and then written masterb**ion.



Like that one guy who wrote the entire book in Elvish?


----------

