Plausibility in Lit stories

[astuffedshirt_perv]

For me, stories have to plausible, not necessarily likely to occur. The analogy I use is this: I weigh north of 170. Dogger weighs 50. I walk her every day. Could dogger yank me off of my feet? Possible, but highly unlikely.

I mention this because dogger put me down yesterday, first time in over a decade (different dogger).

 

[KeithD]

A writer writing fiction can always devise hundreds of plausible ways any size of dog could bring any size human down on a walk. Writers end to have and use their imagination and creativity.

 

[NotWise]

For me, stories have to plausible, not necessarily likely to occur.

Lots of stories on Lit are inplausible. Just look at I/T. Mostly, they're never meant to be plausible.

 

[Privates1stClass]

For me, stories have to plausible, not necessarily likely to occur. The analogy I use is this: I weigh north of 170. Dogger weighs 50. I walk her every day. Could dogger yank me off of my feet? Possible, but highly unlikely.

I mention this because dogger put me down yesterday, first time in over a decade (different dogger).

I agree. If a story isn't plausible, I'll click out of it and read another story. When a story describes a guy with a 10" dick or a 100-pound woman with EE-boobs for the characters, it has to be fairly compelling for me to keep reading.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

I guess I just have industrial strength suspenders of disbelief. As long as there’s some internal consistency I usually can enjoy the story.

I wonder if haunting nonhuman, erohorror and sci-fi is either the cause or result of this?

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

I guess I just have industrial strength suspenders of disbelief. As long as there’s some internal consistency I usually can enjoy the story.

I wonder if haunting nonhuman, erohorror and sci-fi is either the cause or result of this?

I'm a big fantasy reader (both books and stories here), and also read the non-human category. I still check out of a story if it seems too farfetched or illogical. For me there's a difference between a story being realistic and plausible. As long as it's consistent with its own world and it could at least happen withing the story, it's fine with me. Magic is fine, as are nonhuman being or transformations of any kind. As long as the story tries to justify or explain why it's happening, or at least makes it feel like a logical or believable thing to happen in-universe.

I'm fine with a dude being able to shoot lighting out of his dick if that's what the story is about, provided that isn't just a random thing that's never explained. But if he tried to fuck a wall socket and got a lighting dick from that? Sure, that sounds like a superhero origin story to me. (I'd probably call him Chad Thundercock) At least there's a reason for things being the way they are, even if, realistically speaking, that dude should probably be dead or at least have a fried wiener.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Internal plausibility is what’s important. I read a lot of SF and that’s not reality as we know it, but a story has to be able to hook you and hold you and allow you to suspend disbelief. For that, you definitely need internal plausibility.

 

[BrokenSpokes]

Internal plausibility is what’s important. I read a lot of SF and that’s not reality as we know it, but a story has to be able to hook you and hold you and allow you to suspend disbelief. For that, you definitely need internal plausibility.

THIS. The number one thing that’ll make me click-close is when a story isn’t internally consistent.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

Internal plausibility is what’s important. I read a lot of SF and that’s not reality as we know it, but a story has to be able to hook you and hold you and allow you to suspend disbelief. For that, you definitely need internal plausibility.

I agree, that's basically what I was trying to say. Just worded way better and more concise, haha.

 

[LupusDei]

I actually like some, limited, dissonance with observable reality in either actions or events, or game rules.

If she does something "no one would ever do" it only urges the question why she did. I don't expect explanation, but if there's hints that helps my own imagination it's even better, but the motivation should be at least possible to construct within universe.

I don't care if events are implausible, as long there's physical possibility, however marginal the chance (e.g. I see no problem to toss grenade into engine of a passing fighter yet), "once in a lifetime of universe" chances are acceptable, as long those are acknowledge as such and consistent within universe.

Hard science fiction that declare clear, limited differences from know physics, not necessarily explained, and well defined magic systems are more fun, although I'm flexible. Especially if magic deals more with reliably reproducible near-zero chance events or mostly psychological effects, generally results that retain alternative "non-magical" explanations although those can be arbitrary more complex than the seemingly obvious magical link (that's how "real" magic works, both for illusionists -- where its "alien technology" used for trickery, and spirituality -- where it's reinforced conformation bias). I wonder why authors doesn't explore this ambiguity of magic more, but then, perception dissonances seem underrepresented in general. (Could be just more of the extremely annoying black&white mentality in action.)

Perceived really differ for each person, each character, oftentimes dramatically, and "objective reality" is nothing more than open agreement and communication framework (even hard math is just a language). That framework can be altered, but such alterations must be contracted. In writing, such contracts are one-sided. We can assume a lot of leeway and willingness of a curious reader and a lot depends on the sales pitch of the author, but generally one must get the small things right to get away with major alterations, I believe.

Exaggerated physical descriptions goes into category of fantastical creatures if pressed. There's nothing wrong with fantastical creatures, but it does expend credibility points, and sure, I personally prefer if it's allowed to believe that "very large" breasts aren't larger than C, and I would try to ignore numerical descriptions. Then, I recently read a story where a small frame girl was wearing much too small EE bra; it was used on a secondary character for a great effect, following through with realistic descriptions and effects of the situation and it was good fun.

 

[Inkhorn]

I'm fine with a dude being able to shoot lighting out of his dick if that's what the story is about, provided that isn't just a random thing that's never explained. But if he tried to fuck a wall socket and got a lighting dick from that? Sure, that sounds like a superhero origin story to me. (I'd probably call him Chad Thundercock) At least there's a reason for things being the way they are, even if, realistically speaking, that dude should probably be dead or at least have a fried wiener.

One of my friends has been planning to run a tabletop RPG campaign where all of the player characters are B- and C-list superheroes. And by George, I think you’ve given me the premise for my character!

 

[RetroFan]

You can write about fantasy things - time travel, ghosts, life after death, body swaps, magic, aliens and many other things - and this is fine because readers know what type of stories they are reading about. But if you have a totally implausible plot in a real world story, you lose your readers pretty quickly.

Let's say a writer wants to write foot fetish stories. They could write real-world stories about foot fetishism, such as a young man with a thing for women's feet pretending to be gay and getting a job at an up-market women's shoe store, or simply stories that concentrate on the feet of the female characters.

They could write a fantasy story involving feet, such as a young male college student who is reduced to the size of an ant in a science experiment gone wrong, and who at night goes into the girls' dorms and soriety houses and explores the bare feet of female college students as they sleep.

However if an author wrote a real world story set in an office where all of the attractive young female staff go barefoot at all times without explanation, even the most ardent of the many foot fetishists on this site would find this story too implausible to enjoy it.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

I actually like some, limited, dissonance with observable reality in either actions or events, or game rules.

If she does something "no one would ever do" it only urges the question why she did. I don't expect explanation, but if there's hints that helps my own imagination it's even better, but the motivation should be at least possible to construct within universe....

Perceived really differ for each person, each character, oftentimes dramatically, and "objective reality" is nothing more than open agreement and communication framework (even hard math is just a language). That framework can be altered, but such alterations must be contracted. In writing, such contracts are one-sided. We can assume a lot of leeway and willingness of a curious reader and a lot depends on the sales pitch of the author, but generally one must get the small things right to get away with major alterations, I believe.

I completely agree with this so well-stated observation. Plausibility isn’t impervious or unchanging; it’s subjective and relative to experience and exposure. A well-crafted fictional environment, even one constructed in omnipresent third person, does well to respect the dissonance between Occam’s razor and potential unknowns.

For me, a story has to be particularly compelling to continue reading if it’s about, for example, a five foot four woman of average or thin build who is a 36B: that is jarringly implausible without some explanation as to why the woman is thin but barrel-chested like a linebacker. And it speaks to the likelihood that the writer is either a man, or a woman who’s sadly never owned a correctly sized bra.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think Chloe has it right. Plausibility is not important in fiction. Many great works of fiction are based on implausible premises. But once you have a concept you have to work with it to keep the reader on board.

 

[bushyTrail]

I usually stick to plausible stories too, where by plausible I mean "not obviously against the laws of nature and human psychology", which is broad enough to allow far-fetched fantasies but, for example, rules out things like non-human, which don't turn me on/interest me.

 

[SimonDoom]

Plausibility isn't a big deal for me as a reader, but it obviously matters to many Lit readers. Many are quite picky about things and get easily turned off if something happens that they don't buy into. The risk of pregnancy without protection, for instance, is something that bugs some readers, although I think it's a silly concern. I've had a reader complain that I didn't adequately allow for the adverse role that sand would play when two people had sex on a beach.

I wrote a story about a bikini with magical properties that keeps trying to expose and fall off of a woman on a beach. It's an exhibitionist/voyeur story. The magic element is revealed in the title of the story, so it's not a surprise. It's done well in terms of views and favorites but its score is significantly lower than my average story score, and I think many readers simply can't accept the premise, especially because the degree of magic involved increases as the story goes on. But I wouldn't rewrite it even if I could just to get a higher score.

 

[ICM8781]

Plausibility isn't a big deal for me as a reader, but it obviously matters to many Lit readers. Many are quite picky about things and get easily turned off if something happens that they don't buy into. The risk of pregnancy without protection, for instance, is something that bugs some readers, although I think it's a silly concern. I've had a reader complain that I didn't adequately allow for the adverse role that sand would play when two people had sex on a beach.

Wow! Even I'm a little upset someone complained about that. There are ways to have a good fuck on the beach without getting sand everywhere and I wouldn't find it too helpful to explain how it was done. That's not even a plausibility thing really, just a reader with little imagination.

 

[ICM8781]

I'm kind of torn. I actually changed a good chunk of a scene because, though she loved the scene, she didn't find it realistic that she would be able to remain standing in the shower if she was cumming so hard. So, now the shower has a soap ledge the character was able to lean on.

I really am able to appreciate some level of plausibility, but I think it does a disservice of the erotica aspect of this type of writing to explain every difficult to imagine situation a writer want to create.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

Wow! Even I'm a little upset someone complained about that. There are ways to have a good fuck on the beach without getting sand everywhere and I wouldn't find it too helpful to explain how it was done. That's not even a plausibility thing really, just a reader with little imagination.

I've had a comment on my Runner's High story about a "continuity error" in the route of the female runner. I didn't fully describe her route (as the protagonist wouldn't know since he started at the other side of the beach), but she basically started from a parking lot and ran one way along the dunes, then curved around and ran back along the beach to end up at the bar close to the parking lot she started at. I thought it was easy enough to figure out, but a commenter was convinced that I had forgotten the layout of the beach when they walked back from the bar to her car and it only took minutes instead of the whole distance she covered while running earlier. I've asked some people who read the story and no one said it was unclear to them, so I guess some readers just don't pay attention and then go complaining about it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I really am able to appreciate some level of plausibility, but I think it does a disservice of the erotica aspect of this type of writing to explain every difficult to imagine situation a writer want to create.

I see it this way. A good story is like a zen garden. It doesn't try to duplicate reality. It has well placed elements that suggest reality. The reader doesn't need a complete explanation of everything -- just a few things placed here and there that draw the reader into the author's world/garden and keep the reader there.

 

[8letters]

I think Chloe has it right. Plausibility is not important in fiction. Many great works of fiction are based on implausible premises. But once you have a concept you have to work with it to keep the reader on board.

Recently, I've started watching all the Star Wars movies. I've watched the original three and the first of the prequels, and I'm in the middle of the second prequel. And it's really hard to watch. Almost ever scene has something implausible. It's the same basic setting as the original three which I enjoyed very much, so it isn't the far-in-the-future setting. How does Anakin go from being much younger than Queen Amidala to being about the same age? How does he smash into a floating flying car at terminal velocity and not get hurt? And the romance scenes - oh my god. There's nothing appealing about his personality, and he's wooing one of the universe's most attractive women.

 

[ICM8781]

I've had a comment on my Runner's High story about a "continuity error" in the route of the female runner. a commenter was convinced that I had forgotten the layout of the beach when they walked back from the bar to her car and it only took minutes instead of the whole distance she covered while running earlier.

Continuity's a bitch to begin with. I've got a story I've been writing for a few years now, 15k words so far and not even half way done, that I'm constantly re-reading to make sure the continuity is at least reasonable. I want it to be a ten day story, but after the third day I really had a tough time keeping the time span straight. Ive settled to just finish the story and correct the references to how much time has passed later.

Also, because it's been taking me a few years to write it, some of the restaurants and clubs I mention don't even exist anymore.

Like I said, there's a point where asking for plausibility is just to unreasonable.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Wow! Even I'm a little upset someone complained about that. There are ways to have a good fuck on the beach without getting sand everywhere and I wouldn't find it too helpful to explain how it was done. That's not even a plausibility thing really, just a reader with little imagination.

Yes well , in real life sand can be a real spoiler. And don’t get me started on biting insects. Ever been bitten by a blackfly while bonking? (Sorry, I had to go with the b’s). It’s a major distraction, speaking as someone whose butt got bitten badly. Takes all the romance out of romping in the rough.
..

 

[SimonDoom]

Recently, I've started watching all the Star Wars movies. I've watched the original three and the first of the prequels, and I'm in the middle of the second prequel. And it's really hard to watch. Almost ever scene has something implausible. It's the same basic setting as the original three which I enjoyed very much, so it isn't the far-in-the-future setting. How does Anakin go from being much younger than Queen Amidala to being about the same age? How does he smash into a floating flying car at terminal velocity and not get hurt? And the romance scenes - oh my god. There's nothing appealing about his personality, and he's wooing one of the universe's most attractive women.

I thought the original trilogy worked pretty well, because once it set up its "magic" it stuck with it. But you're absolutely right about the prequel trilogy, and the problem continues with the latest trilogy.

My biggest objection to Star Wars is the Force, and in particular the Force as it's shown in the latest trilogy. It violates the principle that you can't keep changing your magic as the story progresses. The Force in Star Wars is infinitely malleable -- it's whatever it needs to be in the moment to allow the character to do amazing and impossible things. In other words, it's a deus ex machina. I couldn't stand The Last Jedi because it violated this principle so badly.

Rogue One is quite good. I recommend watching that one. It keeps the magic in check and is much more "plausible" than the recent trilogy films.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

I thought the original trilogy worked pretty well, because once it set up its "magic" it stuck with it. But you're absolutely right about the prequel trilogy, and the problem continues with the latest trilogy.

My biggest objection to Star Wars is the Force, and in particular the Force as it's shown in the latest trilogy. It violates the principle that you can't keep changing your magic as the story progresses. The Force in Star Wars is infinitely malleable -- it's whatever it needs to be in the moment to allow the character to do amazing and impossible things. In other words, it's a deus ex machina. I couldn't stand The Last Jedi because it violated this principle so badly.

Rogue One is quite good. I recommend watching that one. It keeps the magic in check and is much more "plausible" than the recent trilogy films.

Power creep is also a reason I've heard thrown around a lot by people who don't like the latest trilogy. I haven't watched them personally, but I heard the thing the new Jedi are doing with the Force is really making even the most powerful Jedi and Sith in the older movies look pathetically weak. Although I guess that already went out of the window earlier in the games, with Starkiller of the Force Unleashed being able to pull down a gigantic ship to make it crash on a planet using just the force.