Plausibility?

[lazyhobo]

Originally Posted by lance gt

I don't read GM and if I did, I wouldn't be reading your shit. Where you figure I make comments on your story is beyond me, but you are known for making assumptions and false accusations about people. Have fun writing your fantasy about me, I do hope you find it worthwhile, because in the end, it'll suck like all the rest of the shit you write.

Since when did How much someone annoys you in a forum, and How good their writing is, ever come into alignment?

So he likes annoying people, hes able to do it, so he does it. That says absolutely nothing about his stories. I would expect something less petty... Ah well nevermind.

[jen_litgirl]

Originally Posted by LaRascasse

95% of the stories I get are seriously lacking in realism or plausibility. They become strange sexual fantasies where the sequence of events fails to make sense. Real world principles take a flight out the window.

I have thought this same thing many times in the short time that I've been editing. There have been a couple times when I have made suggestions that were brushed aside by authors, reasoning that this is just the way it is in the world they've created. If I can't figure it out after pouring over your story then a casual reader isn't going to pick up on it either. I feel sometimes like a writer will get a great plot idea, start to flesh it out and then gets lazy about finishing it, as long as there is sex all is forgiven.

The OP never said the story world had to be realistically based.

sr71splt, The world that you create as an author is legitimate. It's real in regards to your characters and their story. I need to work within that world as an editor and not change it.

[sr71plt]

Indeed, speaking of plausibility, it's rather difficult to be plausible by saying out of one side of your mouth that you don't read what someone writes and out of the other side of your month that what someone writes is shit.

The agenda of this seems pretty transparent and thus self-defeating (and pretty juvenile to boot).

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by jen_litgirl

IThe OP never said the story world had to be realistically based.

Whether the OP meant it to be taken that way, what was actually stated pretty much means to me that the OP was saying any world in writing has to be realistically based on "real world principles":

95% of the stories I get are seriously lacking in realism or plausibility. They become strange sexual fantasies where the sequence of events fails to make sense. Real world principles take a flight out the window.

My view is that in a reconstructed fantasy world, real world principles can be thrown out the window. All the author need do is be true to the limits and "rules" of the fantasy world created to replace the real world. And the editor should either be able/willing to work inside that reconstructed world and only question what seems not real or plausible based on the construct of that fantasy world.

It very well may be that the OP didn't mean for that statement to be taken as I understood it, of course. But it seemed to be pretty much a sweeping generalization to me.

[lazyhobo]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

My view is that in a reconstructed fantasy world, real world principles can be thrown out the window. All the author need do is be true to the limits and "rules" of the fantasy world created to replace the real world. And the editor should either be able/willing to work inside that reconstructed world and only question what seems not real or plausible based on the construct of that fantasy world.

Encase someone else finds something he says as "Unable to Understand this nonsense" Here is an example of what he means.

Regarding my previous example of the "author makes a world where gravity is opposite, say instead of falling down, things fall UP. If the editor makes a suggestion or comments that it should be falling Down, then hes ignoring and not working with the rules of the authors fantasy world and should be more willing to accept them if he plans on helping them improve it.

But, should there be a mistake with the story, where something counteracts the Fantasy worlds rules, like for example, say in this gravity opposite world he said "and the thrown ball fell onto the floor" then the editor should correct him here, as it would fall up into the sky, not down onto the floor.

See the difference?

[snoopercharmbrights]

There seem to me to be three different types of story world:

Real: The usual laws of physics, biology, and legislature appropriate to the setting apply, and the action is fictitious only in detail. (E.G. Poirot)

Alternate: The usual laws of physics and biology apply, but the legislation and the action is fictitious. (E.G. 1984)

Magical: The usual laws of physics and/or biology do not apply, and the action is fictitious. (E.G. Alice in Wonderland)

All that is needed is for the author to be completely self-consistent within the limits of the world (s)he is using.

Unfortunately, for the latter two types much care is needed in setting up the relevant world framework, much of which will not be explicitly described in the story, and few authors seem to bother.

Even worse, for the first type a good deal of knowledge of the target location is required and many authors can't be bothered to do the research. An obvious example of this is legal drinking ages; not all countries have the same rules as the USA, so drinking alcohol in a bar in the UK at 18 is legal, and drinking soft drinks is OK at 14 in designated areas.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by snoopercharmbrights

There seem to me to be three different types of story world:

Real: The usual laws of physics, biology, and legislature appropriate to the setting apply, and the action is fictitious only in detail. (E.G. Poirot)

Alternate: The usual laws of physics and biology apply, but the legislation and the action is fictitious. (E.G. 1984)

Magical: The usual laws of physics and/or biology do not apply, and the action is fictitious. (E.G. Alice in Wonderland)

With shades of grey in between those - there are plenty of authors who stretch the laws of physics/biology without violating them quite as blatantly as a full-on magical setting.

There's also the "high magic"/"low magic" distinction, again with lots of shades of grey: "Game of Thrones" is low-magic, Harry Potter is high-magic, Middle-Earth somewhere in between.

I'd add another dimension to all that: laws of chance. Some books that might be perfectly "realistic" in the physics/biology/history rely on a string of unlikely coincidences (Les Miserables for one). In a magical setting you can handwave it away as "destiny" but in an otherwise-realistic setting it can get quite distracting. My partner enjoys the Jackson Brodie novels & TV adaptation, but they're HEAVILY dependent on coincidences in a way that I find really jarring - I just don't expect that in a gritty modern "realistic" story.

[lance gt]

Originally Posted by lazyhobo

Since when did How much someone annoys you in a forum, and How good their writing is, ever come into alignment?

So he likes annoying people, hes able to do it, so he does it. That says absolutely nothing about his stories. I would expect something less petty... Ah well nevermind.

He didn't get the title scummies jr. for nothing. You'd have to be here long enough to know that, but you'll soon get it.

[elfin_odalisque]

sr just made one of his legendary 'mobius strip' arguments, full of sound and fury but just leaving us where we were before he huffed and puffed vacuously.

All fiction is unreal as it involves imaginary characters - they are superheroes who have no bodily function or relation to the real world.

The fantasy worlds created on lit from GM and T/S through the rest of the cats are, well, unbelievable - but we like them if they are well written and keep us on the edge of our computer chair.

The point I find fascinating is that that the OP cited 'plausability'. Isn't that the last thing to be applied to fiction?

[LaRascasse]

Originally Posted by elfin_odalisque

The point I find fascinating is that that the OP cited 'plausability'. Isn't that the last thing to be applied to fiction?

Maybe an example will help.

The most common kind of "plausibility" issue is a bizarre sexual situation formed as such:

An Incest story where the father happens to walk in on his daughter doing her boyfriend and the most natural thing in the world happens, ie- he penetrates her other hole.

I kid you not, this was all the exposition given.

[elfin_odalisque]

Originally Posted by LaRascasse

Maybe an example will help.

The most common kind of "plausibility" issue is a bizarre sexual situation formed as such:

An Incest story where the father happens to walk in on his daughter doing her boyfriend and the most natural thing in the world happens, ie- he penetrates her other hole.

I kid you not, this was all the exposition given.

I know, I know but this is what the cat demands. Incest is a shortcut to avoid the effort to create reality within fiction. What you quote is typical.

[jen_litgirl]

Originally Posted by jen_litgirl

I have thought this same thing many times in the short time that I've been editing. There have been a couple times when I have made suggestions that were brushed aside by authors, reasoning that this is just the way it is in the world they've created. If I can't figure it out after pouring over your story then a casual reader isn't going to pick up on it either. I feel sometimes like a writer will get a great plot idea, start to flesh it out and then gets lazy about finishing it, as long as there is sex all is forgiven.

The OP never said the story world had to be realistically based.

sr71splt, The world that you create as an author is legitimate. It's real in regards to your characters and their story. I need to work within that world as an editor and not change it.

[quote=sr71plt;41331579]

My view is that in a reconstructed fantasy world, real world principles can be thrown out the window. All the author need do is be true to the limits and "rules" of the fantasy world created to replace the real world. And the editor should either be able/willing to work inside that reconstructed world and only question what seems not real or plausible based on the construct of that fantasy world.
[quote]

I thought that I was supporting you in my earlier statement. As I read it, the above two quotes, mean relatively the same thing.

In case I'm not able to express myself very well, I'll use one of your own quotes,
All the author need do is be true to the limits and "rules" of the fantasy world created to replace the real world.

I agree with this statement of yours. I just wish that more authors believed it and followed it as well. I don't want to change any story I help edit. If I wanted to be a Lit author than I would. What I do wish is that more authors were able to see that we're trying to edit within the constraints and 'world rules' that they've provided us.

[PennLady]

Originally Posted by elfin_odalisque

The point I find fascinating is that that the OP cited 'plausability'. Isn't that the last thing to be applied to fiction?

No, it's not. Plausibility is not, or not necessarily, whether events are realistic. It's whether they are acceptable given the rules the author has set out in the story. That can range from characters to anything else. If you have a character who hates cats, it's implausible that they suddenly like them without some changing event in between.

I liken some of this to Star Trek and their shield rule with transporters. Much is made of the fact that one cannot transport with "shields up." Yet there is an episode in which they do that. Given what went before, it's implausible (and contradictory of course).

Plausibility doesn't have to mean realistic, at least not to me. It means that the chain of events has to make sense given whatever parameters the author has set out.

[talismania]

Plausibility differs from reality. It means something is apparently reasonable or believable. It's not the same as actually being real. Fiction isn't real, but well-written fiction can make readers believe it might be real.

Not all writers, or readers, for that matter, care about having stories that pull readers in and feel like they might actually be happening. Many sexual fantasies, mine included, have only a toehold in reality and maybe no plausibility. That doesn't keep them from being hot to the individual, or prevent others from enjoying them if they share the orientation. Revenge fantasies, too, are often implausible (like the one where I get revenge on the jerk-off who cut me off in traffic by having him cause an accident and I get to testify in court that he was driving recklessly right before it happened... I don't really want an accident to happen, or people to get hurt, or even ruin the jerk financially because, hey, he might have people who love him), but such fantasies are fun.

Writers who want to achieve plausibility in their fiction work for it. Readers who enjoy stories they can move into and believe reflect human reality--if not this reality, a kind of reality--seek out that quality. I know I do. I'm always on the hunt for stories that transport me and don't drop me with a clunk every other page. I think it's good to talk about how to do it.

[lazyhobo]

Originally Posted by talismania

Not all writers, or readers, for that matter, care about having stories that pull readers in and feel like they might actually be happening. Many sexual fantasies, mine included, have only a toehold in reality and maybe no plausibility. That doesn't keep them from being hot to the individual, or prevent others from enjoying them if they share the orientation.

Yeah but, in a similar sense, For a straight guy, if porn has a naked girl, he can jack off successfully to it.

But that doesnt make it a good movie / film or even short video, it just makes it jack off material, What we're talking about is Erotic -NOVELS- as in, something that you want them to enjoy as well as jack off too.

[lance gt]

Originally Posted by lazyhobo

Yeah but, in a similar sense, For a straight guy, if porn has a naked girl, he can jack off successfully to it.

But that doesnt make it a good movie / film or even short video, it just makes it jack off material, What we're talking about is Erotic -NOVELS- as in, something that you want them to enjoy as well as jack off too.

Exactly Hobo, the characters have to have lives that revolve around the normal ones real people might have. That makes it plausible, when readers can relate to them as real people and then the sex can be wild and crazy, but still remain in the realm of being realistcally achieveable for normal people. Fantasy characters can have parts out of the normal range of size and have super-human capabilities, but the construct of the fantasy world has to express that it isn't realistic, but plausible in that world, because of how you develop it.

[lazyhobo]

Originally Posted by lance gt

Exactly Hobo, the characters have to have lives that revolve around the normal ones real people might have. That makes it plausible, when readers can relate to them as real people and then the sex can be wild and crazy, but still remain in the realm of being realistcally achieveable for normal people. Fantasy characters can have parts out of the normal range of size and have super-human capabilities, but the construct of the fantasy world has to express that it isn't realistic, but plausible in that world, because of how you develop it.

Don't get me wrong, but sr71plt, isn't this basically what You have said and I have agreed with? Haven't we said something similar to this for a while?

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by lazyhobo

Don't get me wrong, but sr71plt, isn't this basically what You have said and I have agreed with? Haven't we said something similar to this for a while?

This sentence in lance's posting seems to keep what I'm saying and what he's saying in disagreement.

the characters have to have lives that revolve around the normal ones real people might have.

I've posted that the fantasy world doesn't have to be populated with characters who "have lives that revolve around the normal ones real people might have." Even in the example I gave, which isn't a goblins and vampires or alien fantasy world, what is "normal" for the characters populating the world created most definitely does not revolve around the reality of normal society.

I can't set any limits at all on a fantasy world an author might construct and successfully deliver.

[lance gt]

Originally Posted by lazyhobo

Don't get me wrong, but sr71plt, isn't this basically what You have said and I have agreed with? Haven't we said something similar to this for a while?

I never disagreed with that. I stated his writing was unintelligble to read properly. Big difference in what we're talking about.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by elfin_odalisque

The point I find fascinating is that that the OP cited 'plausability'. Isn't that the last thing to be applied to fiction?

Hell no. For a lot of fiction, strict real-world plausibility is a major selling point. Even in a magical setting, stories usually need to lay down some ground rules about how the universe works, and stay consistent with those rules.

Part of that's because a lot of dramatic tension comes from the things the protagonists can't do. George Smiley cannot cast a mind-reading spell to figure out who the traitor is. If Sean Bean's character dies, he's not coming back. Frodo can't destroy the One Ring by hitting it with a really big hammer. Poirot's locked-room mystery is not going to be caused by a ghost who can walk through walls. And Elisabeth Bennett can't use a love potion to make Mr. Bingley love her sister.

When anything is possible, challenges are meaningless. In stroke porn, that might not be an issue; some people are content just to see fleshy bodies pounding one another. But if you're trying to write something with a bit of story, then internal consistency matters.

[MarieWriter]

I think even if it is fantasy or sex, it makes for a better story and therefore a better reading experience if it is at least plausible. I suspect many fantasies themselves are based in something that can at least happen under the perfect circumstances. Having said that, while I think its a better story I'm not editing on that as a criteria. I might and sometimes do make comments or suggestions along those lines, but nothing more really.

I'd say the biggest issues I see thus far, and I'm very new to this still, is telling vs. showing.

[snoopercharmbrights]

Reading through this thread again, I wonder if the OP meant 'self-consistency' when the word 'plausibility' was used?

That certainly seems to be what several other contributors want.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by snoopercharmbrights

Reading through this thread again, I wonder if the OP meant 'self-consistency' when the word 'plausibility' was used?

That certainly seems to be what several other contributors want.

Overlapping concepts. They're both about reader expectations of what can and can't happen in a given setting. If the rules in question are provided by the author we call it "self-consistency" and if they're provided by RL we call it "plausibility", but the issues are pretty much the same.

[PennLady]

Originally Posted by snoopercharmbrights

Reading through this thread again, I wonder if the OP meant 'self-consistency' when the word 'plausibility' was used?

That certainly seems to be what several other contributors want.

I tend to think of it as plausibility within the story, so self-consistency is probably a good word for that. As I said before, I like what happens in a story to follow the rules the author has set out for their world, whether it's contemporary fiction or sword-and-sorcery fantasy.

[elfin_odalisque]

Originally Posted by snoopercharmbrights

Reading through this thread again, I wonder if the OP meant 'self-consistency' when the word 'plausibility' was used?

Originally Posted by PennLady

I tend to think of it as plausibility within the story, so self-consistency is probably a good word for that. As I said before, I like what happens in a story to follow the rules the author has set out for their world, whether it's contemporary fiction or sword-and-sorcery fantasy.

In a fantasy, the writer has a duty to set the rules of his world from Harry Potter to Star Trek. Of course, they have the omnipotency to change the rules but need a reason.

In 'real-life' fiction, especially erotic, rules fly out of the window. We are all complicit in taking for granted that condoms and birth-control issues are not needed, just as precautions before anal sex are irrelevant. Is that plausible?

I think PL comes closest with 'self-consistency' within a story - heck, Patricia Cornwell throws consistency out of the window between books but not within them.

Forgetting the 'plausability' of bathroom breaks, sleep, washing and eating - ignored (I hope) unless relevant - from Greek tragedy to Dan Brown and Harlan Coben, the concept of 'suspension of disbelief' has been key to keeping the unlikely plot rolling without extraneous detours.

I read Stieg Larsson not because he's plausible but because he's a page-turner.

I have no liking for scouries' writings as I find them childish and 'implausible' but you must admit that he's targeted the G-spot of incest readers. Implausibility abounds and, inadequate writer that he is, he avoids the preamble to jusify why two people from the same family want to have sex.

We all suspend our disbelief when confronted with a gripping plot. Knowing that 'House' was ridiculously implausible, I watched every episode avidly.

To summarize, forget this nonsense but write directly for the audience you want to read you. That's what Shakespeare, Twain, Dan Brown et al, did.

One person's 'implausibility' is anothers's exciting read.