• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

What kills believability in a constructed world?

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

Minstrel
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

Istar
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

Inkling
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

Myth Weaver
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.
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:

WyrdMystic

Inkling
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Istar
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.
 
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

Istar
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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! :D
 

Aravelle

Sage
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*
 
Last edited:

Aravelle

Sage
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.
 
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

Istar
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! :D
+1


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?)


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.
 
Last edited:

WyrdMystic

Inkling
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Top