# Believability in fiction



## Violanthe (Apr 11, 2006)

Whether it is the books you buy or the films you watch, what do you find important for believability? How are these stories successful in getting you to suspend disbelief about what is happening? What have stories or films done in the past to make you lose faith in the "reality" of their fictional storylines?


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 11, 2006)

Consistency, basically. The story has to make sense in the context of the world that has been presented. An example of something that didn't fit this is _The Wind in the Willows. _

This book presents a mostly consistent world view. We all know deep inside that little riverside animals do not generally speak, smoke pipes, drive motor cars, or wear smoking jackets, however, we are willing to not necessarily believe but to accept it because the author makes the rules. . . however, what is up with the River God, Pan like creature who saves the baby Otter? Why is there a obviously greek influenced creature in the midst of these quiet country scene? Or did I miss something? I don't know. It doesn't fit.

Now, I can just blink after this scene and continue on to the rest, but if there are too many such insertions you may lose my interest completely. 

Alice in Wonderland is believably unbelieveable because nothing fits so everything fits. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules on this though.


----------



## Annaheru (Apr 11, 2006)

depends on what type of fiction we're talking about:

in historical fiction an absolute necessity is correct general facts (don't give your 1860s western character a Winchester rifle, give him a Henry), you'll be making up events/characters but they should conform to the period, and they should be possible, given historically known events.

if you're writing modern action fiction or a mystery novel, make sure your information is accurate to your timeframe (a book set in 2006 cannot have John Kerry as US president), and don't insert mythical headline events into your story's background information.

in pure fantasy, simply be consistent (as Elgee stated). When I write fantasy I normally write up a list of physical/natural/metaphysical laws that will govern my world before I begin. When the story is finished I'll go back and fix discrepencies.

those are my hard and fast rules. There are, of course, others.


----------



## Mike (Apr 11, 2006)

I have to agree, consistancy is key.

However, there are some cases where this is not true. Take some surrealist short stories or novels-they are, for the most part, purposefully made to be inconsistent. A second however: these inconsistancies are usually made for a certain effect.

There aren't really hard and fast rules in my case, but there are a few things that get me positively steamed concerning believability:

1. Historical inaccuracies. Aaaargh! Also in this category: innacurately described tasks, including physical impossibilities. (If you don't take the time to research how a sword is forged, then don't bother writing a scene where a sword is forged...)
2. Character inconsistancies...to elaborate, a character acts a certain way for an entire novel/film, and then, with no explanation, suddenly does something completely contrary to his/her character.
3. Rampant Coincidences-this one a little less than the other. Character suddenly meets bad guy in subway and kills him. End of story. Huh?
However, there are also acceptable uses for this, such as Dr. Zhivago, since real life is, in the end, a string of coincidences: Dr. Zhivago meets man. Man turns out to be his half-brother. Half-brother gives him a place to leave in the Urals. Zhivago escapes Moscow for the Urals.
Coincidence? Yes, especially since the Half-brother (Vassya, I believe his name was) does not apear earlier in the story, but completely acceptable, since this is the way real life works--especially for such a fate-tossed character like Zhivago.

Sorry about the excessive Zhivago-references...GREATEST NOVEL OF ALL TIME!!!!-ahem, excuse me...

Of course, Tolkien also has a lot of coincidences, but they are generally thouroughly explained later and present to real problem--the story's too absorbing for me to care in any case. The movies, on the other hand, did raise my ire several times when trying my believability complex; though that may be because I can't view computer animation as "believable" in any light.

And now, i have run out of words. Good day.

EDIT: Wow, I just realized this was my 100th post!


----------



## Snaga (Apr 12, 2006)

I agree consistency is important. But I think the most important thing of all is that the story has to be really good. At some early point the author/film-maker will probably make it clear that the normal rules do not apply. As the reader/viewer, we accept that on the basis that the story will be worth suspending disbelief for. This means, particularly, having characters that you care about, empathise with, and want to succeed. But the moment the story stops being satisfying on the emotional level, the reader picks holes in any and every aspect because they stop wanting to believe.

A fairly recent example of this was a SF space opera type novel called 'Revelation Space' by Alistair Reynolds. By the end of the book, I was rolling my eyes at every bit of technology, every bit of junk science, every flashy effect the author rolled out. But fundamentally, it was the fact that not one character in the book was appealing or likeable that meant I didn't want to believe in it, and stopped really caring how things turned out.


----------



## Kementari (Apr 12, 2006)

Mike said:


> 3. Rampant Coincidences-this one a little less than the other. Character suddenly meets bad guy in subway and kills him. End of story. Huh?
> However, there are also acceptable uses for this, such as Dr. Zhivago...



There are ALOT of these types of coincidences, especially regarding a characters geneaology, in classic novels of this era, for instance:

1) in C Brontes "Jane Eyre" the family who find Jane homeless and dying turn out to be her cousins. A very similar event occurs in her novel "Villette"

2) Dicken's "Great Expectations" ***SPOILER**** Pips mysterious benefactor ends up also being Estella, his loves, father.

There are more examples i cant think of at the moment. Anyway these things didnt stop the books from being some of the best loved of all time. After a while reading Victorian books are predictable though


The one thing that I absolutely cant stand is historical inaccuracy!! RAH! In "Pillars of the Earth" (Ken Follet) I almost died when a peasant woman from the early 12th century was wearing buttons.....

I also find that *some* fantasy books are just lazy medieval stories....


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 13, 2006)

Violanthe said:


> Whether it is the books you buy or the films you watch, what do you find important for believability? How are these stories successful in getting you to suspend disbelief about what is happening? What have stories or films done in the past to make you lose faith in the "reality" of their fictional storylines?



I guess it's the overall quality of the writing of a book, or the acting and special effects of a film. If some element(s) is so ridiculous that it actually interferes with my (usually total) willingness to suspend disbelief, then that would be a problem for me, I guess. On the other hand, something that announces from the get-go that it is going to be wildly over the top allows me to go along with the lunacy and so enjoy it.

Laurel and Hardy films are like that. 

There's a new Chinese film called _Kung-Fu Hustle_ that is so outrageously wild and funny (frankly, I never realized that modern Chinese culture allowed for such broad slapstick humor — parts of it are like watching a Warner Brothers cartoon) — and totally unreal — that I go along with it precisely for that. It's a send-up of all the latest Chinese martial-arts films that have come out that have been spawned by the _Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon/Kill Bill genre,_ that utilize extreme violence and actors on trapezes and computer animation. If you want big belly laughs, I recommend it!

Barley


----------



## Mike (Apr 13, 2006)

> There are more examples i cant think of at the moment. Anyway these things didnt stop the books from being some of the best loved of all time. After a while reading Victorian books are predictable though


 
True, true. 

"Rampant Coincidences" should perhaps be changed to "coincidences used in a lazy way,"...as in there is no advancement in the story, or it feels like the author suddenly needed something resolved, couldn't think of anything truly acceptable at the moment, and decided to resolve it with a randomized event. If the character lands in jail for a list of crimes and is suddenly aquitted because the judge recognizes him as "the son of Mr. Smith, who gave me a crust of bread in my troubled youth", then I think all would agree this is unacceptable. Life just isn't that tidy. (This example pertaining more to Victorian novels, I should say, than any others.)

As for the "predictableness" of Victorian novels, I should say you are pointing to a specific type of Victorian novel in your post. I should say there are plenty of unpredictable Victorian novels floating around as well-I found them, and I'm sure you will.


----------



## Kementari (Apr 16, 2006)

You are right, Mike. "Crime and Punishment" and "A Tale of Two Cities", for example, certainly were not predictable.


----------



## Violanthe (Apr 18, 2006)

> I also find that *some* fantasy books are just lazy medieval stories....


 
Can you think of a specific example?


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 18, 2006)

Lloyd Alexander isn't what I would call "Lazy" but some of his books fall into the catagory of "made up medieval stories with no real fantasy content but no context in modern world." Most notably the _Westmark_ trilogy, which isn't really his best work. _Gypsy Rizka_ also lacks any "true magic" but is held again in a non-existant country. 

I know I tend towards this too simply because I use very little "magic" in my works but am not a huge fan of historical fiction. I don't like to play by the rules of history. I want the kings and princesses and knights to be totally within my power to do whatever I want to. At the same time I like a authentic flavor to the world I'm writing about.


----------



## Starbrow (Apr 23, 2006)

One important part of believability for me is the ability to visualize what is happening in the story. If I can't make sense of it visually, I don't like it. This is why I can't get into the Redwall books by Brian Jaques because I can't figure out if the characters are small in relation to the buildings or not.

In one of the absolute worst books I ever read, which I don't remember the name of, the main characters, centaurs, are riding in a carriage. That is an absurd picture. While reading the book, I had the feeling that the author had used the word find button to change his original characters to centaurs, because what he had them doing just did not make sense for centaurs.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 24, 2006)

I had the same problem with Redwall, with the horse in the first scene. Where had they gotten a horse or a wagon big enough to use it with. . .


----------



## Kementari (Apr 25, 2006)

Violanthe said:


> Can you think of a specific example?



Um, George RR Martin comes to mind, and several more unknown fantasy autours... Thats just my opinion of course...

I think I should clarify that by lazy i mean lack of research or authenticity. Ohh horses and swords thats exciting, ill write about that... Not lazy in their own writing efforts


----------



## Violanthe (Apr 25, 2006)

You found GRR Martin "lazy" in his research? In what ways?


----------

