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]

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]

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 cliché 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]

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]

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 cliché 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]

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]

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]