Believability and Sense of Disbelief

[tenyari]

In http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?&postid=2525609#post2461179

The feedback said
...
the boss could have been jailed for blackmail.
I felt like replying that it was fiction, not a documentary, but needless to say the feedback was anonymous.

I've sent feedback like this, but never anonymously.

Some of us have different standards for different issues.

In a story, I want believability and consistancy with the genre.

If the boss doesn't get sued or jailed, I want to know why.
Not having a good enough reason will destroy my sense of disbelief for the story which turns it into something I just can't get into.

This issue is vital for me as a reader and a writer in any genre; but especially in 'non-real' genres like fantasy, science fiction, super hero, or whatever. In such genres for me to accept the unreal I have to be able to accept the real and they have to integrate together in a smooth and consistant manner.

 

[Route66Girl]

Tenyari-

"Some of us have different standards for different issues."

Interesting point, and very true.

On the thread you branched off of here, I said that trolls aren't to be taken seriously and that they don't realize stories are just stories. I was speaking, of course, of those anons who leave nasty one-line messages for authors without offering any constructive criticism.

Yes, it's true that lapses of reason in a plotline can be annoying, even distracting. They often exist because the author, in his or her zeal to finish, overlooked it. Or perhaps it would ruin the momentum of the plot to create reason.

But that's nothing new. "Suspension of disbelief" is something that writers and filmmakers rely on heavily to tell stories. My own BS tolerance is pretty high, as long as the story is otherwise engaging and well-written.

 

[Guest]

I'm a bit embarrassed to ask, can someone please define "troll" as used in these forums? Is it some kind of "lurker"? I think I might be one. This is a serious question, I've never been sure of the meaning. It sounds like something from Dungeons and Dragons. Did it originate in online RPGs?

 

[Route66Girl]

Hi Josh

No need to be embarassed. I highly doubt you're a troll, though.

It's not the same thing as a lurker. A troll is what we call someone who leaves nasty, anonymous feedback for an author. And by nasty, I don't mean critical. I've read some of your posts. If memory serves, you actually provide criticism rather than insults.

I'm not sure how the term originated. In fairy tales, a troll is a repulsive, dangerous creature that lurks under bridges. But I have no idea if that's the original use of the word.

Hope this helps.

 

[coaster12345]

trolls

brewer's dictionary of phrase and fable (an excellent writer's
and reader's reference) says trolls are dwarfs of northern
(norse) mythology. living in hills or caves; they're represented
as stumpy, misshapen, humpbacked, inclined to thieving and
fond of carrying off human children and substituting their own.
they are especially averse to noise, from recollection of a time
when thor was forever throwing his hammer at them.

coaster12345

 

[Guest]

Re: trolls

brewer's dictionary of phrase and fable (an excellent writer's
and reader's reference) says trolls are dwarfs of northern
(norse) mythology. living in hills or caves; they're represented
as stumpy, misshapen, humpbacked, inclined to thieving and
fond of carrying off human children and substituting their own.
they are especially averse to noise, from recollection of a time
when thor was forever throwing his hammer at them.

coaster12345

Yes!! that's me EXACTLY!

 

[Rod Hardwick]

Well, I think one has to realize that there are two main types of stories on Literotica. First, there are the works of literature, meant to tell a story and connect to the readers, to communicate to them some important part of the human condition, where sex is used as a plot device to touch the reader?s heart. Then there is the pure, filthy smut meant to touch something else entirely. I happen to write stories of the later variety.

What this means, of course, is that there are two different audiences, as well, and what appeals to one will probably not appeal to the other, and there?s nothing wrong with that. In real life, most people (most, certainly not all) are reserved about sex. They are not likely to have sex with someone they just met, and certainly not at school or at the office, which are common settings for Literotica stories. Shy girls who are ?overcome with lust? and proceed to fuck 20 guys at a party just don?t exist. However, people write stories about them, because it?s an exciting fantasy.

So, when judging a story, I think people should take into account the author?s purpose and audience. Was this piece meant to communicate the importance of honesty in a marriage, or was it written by a plant from a keyboard manufacturer, intended to ruin as many keyboards as possible and drive sales up? In either case, ask, ?Did this story accomplish the author?s goal?? If so, it?s a good story, regardless of how believable it is.

 

[the_bragis]

Ding Ding!!

Rod,

Then there is the pure, filthy smut meant to touch something else entirely. I happen to write stories of the later variety.

Ok... You've won me over!

Seriously though, your posting, I couldn't have possibly said this better myself. There are two main types aren't there? Personally I enjoy both. It depends a great deal on my mood I guess.

Are your stories really that raunchy Rod? I'm going to find out for myself.


Have a great day,
Alex (fem)

 

[Rod Hardwick]

Uh oh, looks like I'm in trouble now! Hehe, you can check out my stories at

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=38775
and
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=60362

I think they're pretty filthy, with no redeeming value or worthwhile social commentary whatsoever. I hope you concur

Rod

 

[gauchecritic]

I think you'll find Rod that no matter how much you attempt to write 'filth' for the explicit purpose of getting your audience hard or wet, or both, there will always be someone who manages to find some hidden depths of meaning behind the porn. When I was younger I questioned a famous author about this very subject, he told me that all he did was write stories, it was other people that found meaning in them.

Gauchecritic

 

[Rod Hardwick]

I don't know about that, gauchecritic. In writing erotica, I go out of my way to NOT develop my characters. I want them to be two dimensional. My stories are about tits, pussies and cocks--the characters are merely attachments. The thing is, I think character development is a distraction. When the young woman in my story is being coerced into having sex with several men, I don't want the audience to feel pity for her, as you would for any real person caught in such a predicament. Instead, I want them to see her the same way you view an actress in a porno movie: as a purely sexual entity.

Also, it's a lot harder to write these kinds of stories if you attempt to develop the character. They say you should always write about what you know, right? Well, nobody knows the kind of people in these stories because they don't exist. I like writing stories about, well, shy girls who wind up being slightly coerced into having sex with a room full of men. There is no such thing as a shy girl who would submit to having sex with a room full of men. So if I tried to really develop such a character, and justify WHY she was doing these things, I would fail miserably, and the audience would see through it, and rightly vote a low rating. On the other hand, if I keep my story purely in the world of fantasy, I think it works out rather nicely. The audience doesn't connect with the character on a level deep enough to feel genuine concern for her, so instead they feel lust and excitement, which is just my goal.

The men are similar. In my stories, they're generally forceful and uncaring. As they are, they’re not particularly likeable, but they are exciting. If I tried to explain who they were, and why they were doing these things, the audience would probably either hate or pity them. Neither emotion is particularly conducive to masturbation. As such, I truly believe that my characters are pointless, the plots are pointless, and the only message my stories communicate is "please unzip your pants."

If, however, you can identify and describe an actual, worthwhile message to either of my stories, I will salute you, and buy you a cookie.

 

[the_bragis]

Your hot little stories.

I think they're pretty filthy, with no redeeming value or worthwhile social commentary whatsoever. I hope you concur


I just had a look... you' really are a hot and horny old bastard aren't you Rod? ~little giggle~


I worn all the hair off my belly reading these they were so low down in the gutter. They are sex. sex, and more sex, with very little else. But you know what? They are also well done and well written. I enjoyed them, and I'm not afraid to admitt it.

Have a great day,

Alex (fem)

 

[Couture]

A sense of disbelief is so subjective. It is easy to say that you don't find it believable, but what about someone else?

My SO absolutely despises sci-fi and fantasy. She won't watch it or read it. She will however watch Touched by an Angel. Some people will believe the evil boss can make the poor secretary do anything in the world with an outstanding mortgage, including blowjobs, fucking other people, and chewing sexilicious gum.

Anyway, if you tell an interesting story, many people are willing to overlook the impossibility of time travel and evil bosses that don't get caught. Of course, some people won't disbelieve that, but you aren't writing for them anyway.

 

[Rod Hardwick]

Re: Your hot little stories.

I just had a look... you' really are a hot and horny old bastard aren't you Rod? ~little giggle~


I worn all the hair off my belly reading these they were so low down in the gutter. They are sex. sex, and more sex, with very little else. But you know what? They are also well done and well written. I enjoyed them, and I'm not afraid to admitt it.

Have a great day,

Alex (fem)

Hey, thanks Alex! Hot and horny, yes, but I'm only 24. I hope I'm not old just yet. Again, "sex, sex, and more sex, with very little else" was just what I was going for, so I'm glad you enjoyed my stories.

Believability and an appropriate suspension of disbelief are still very important, but what really matters is, did the audience enjoy reading the story, and did the author enjoy writing it? If it's a yes in both cases, the story is a success, and don't trouble yourself about what anyone else says.

Rod

 

[Whispersecret]

I agree with the people that said that the amount of realism in a story must depend on the tone and genre of the story. I haven't read Rod's stuff, but it certainly sounds like his writing doesn't require the type of "seriousness" that other types of stories need.

Having said that, I'll address those other types of stories.

Believability is a tightrope we writers must walk. I think that usually a reader is willing to suspend their disbelief at the beginning of every story. They go in hoping for a great ride. Whether they get one or not depends on many things. Of course, sometimes the mindset of the reader gets in the way. But I'd say most of the responsibility falls upon the author's shoulders. If a story is unbelievable, it's probably because of the writing.

When I read a story, and find something improbable, I usually go with it. But inside my head is a little bullshit/realism meter, and that little improbable something registers. As I continue to read, the needle swings left or right, depending. The goal is to have the realistic stuff outweigh (or equal) the "oh, come ON" stuff. But sometimes the needle goes into the yellow zone, then the orange zone, and finally swings all the way into the red, and I give up on the story. And sometimes it's not even the bullshit that pushes that needle. Sometimes it's crappy writing, spelling, characters, etc.

As a writer you have to use your judgment. If you're asking the reader to accept something outrageous, like a humanoid alien with two cocks, then you have to do your best to balance that with an equal amount of realism. Knowing where this balance lies isn't something that can be defined. If you're unsure, the best advice I have is to get someone else to read your story. Someone who will be honest with you. (Sometimes your friends don't want to hurt your feelings.)

 

[KillerMuffin]

According to what I've read and instructors/writers that I've been exposed to, readers enter a fiction story with a certain amount of disbelief. They know it's fiction. The know it didn't happen. The don't believe in it.

It's the author's job to make them suspend that disbelief enough to develop a relationship with the characters and get into the story. They have to believe in the characters as people, rather than know they are created entities. It's easier to enjoy and get something out of fiction if you think of the people in it as "real."

This obviously doesn't apply to stories where the only purpose the reader has is to get off.

 

[Rod Hardwick]

I think suspension of disbelief and believability are two entirely separate concepts. Suspense of disbelief allows the reader to accept fantastic concepts, and accept them as true. For example, Star Trek. As far as we know, there are no aliens. There are no starships. You can't go faster than the speed of light. Yet, nobody sees the Enterprise and alien crew members at the start of the show and says, "Oh come on, I don't believe that!" and switches the channel.

Whether a story is believable or not depends on whether or not the rules set forth for the universe in which the story exists are followed. When you watch Star Trek, you believe, for the purposes of the story, that human beings travel fantastic speeds in giant starships and meet alien species. However, if during the course of an episode, Captain Picard, a normal human as set out in the story, suddenly flew around the room shooting laser beams out of his eyes, you'd reject that out right. "Come on, he can't do that!"

Well, why can't he? If you're willing to accept starships, aliens, transporters, and Cap'n Kirk's toupee, a little flying and laser eye beam action shouldn't be such a big deal, right? Well, it's fine...if the rules of the story say humans can fly can emit molten beams from their eyeballs. However, the rules don't say that, so that episode of Star Trek would be unbelievable, but an episode chock full of spaceships and aliens without levitation and heat rays may be perfectly well believable. If you want your story to be believable, don’t break your own rules.

 

[tenyari]

It's easier to enjoy and get something out of fiction if you think of the people in it as "real."

This obviously doesn't apply to stories where the only purpose the reader has is to get off.

I don't think so...

Even in pure porn, if you can feel for and understand the protagonist you can get into it more.

When something absurd happens, something which doesn't fit the genre, how the character -should act- (based on how the author has presented said character), or simply doesn't make any sense then a reader can get jarred out of the story.

Even in pure raunchy porn.
If that boss gets away with blackmail, the reader should see some sense of why that doesn't raise their absurdity alarms.

I write mostly fantasy and science fiction. I'm even writing a super hero story. These are genres where the believability issue is a constant factor. You can have some of the most wild gizmos, magic, super powers, or what have you if you pass them off in a plausable manner -with a straight face (in a written sort of way)- and keep it internally consistant and reasoned out.

On the flip side, you can toss in a piece of reality, popular myth, or science fact and have it totally bust up your reader's sense of disbelief if you present it in a shoddy genre-inconsistant manner with no support for why or how it is happening.

This is glaringly obvious in the fantasy, science fiction, and super genres. However it is just as present as an issue in any other genre.; albeit a bit less obvious to the conscious mind.

As Whispersecret said: one moment of inconsistancy may not be enough to toss your reader out of the story; but each occurance builds up. Eventually a reader will just toss a story aside in confusion or inability to relate.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Always an issue I like to discuss.

...Even in pure porn, if you can feel for and understand the protagonist you can get into it more...

I agree. But the more specific your write your protaganist, the less likely a specific reader will identify with that person. And with porn, identifying with the character is pretty critical to getting off. At least for me. Except for that I suppose that there is a bit of a voyeuristic thing on, too.

I have a theory, which I've posted elsewhere, of why incest stories do so well. The idea I had was that precisely because many people have a family life, they can identify with the general situations presented. But if you get too specific, it breaks the illusion. If I say "my sister," then it often conjures up a very specific image. But if I say "my redheaded sister" it may jar with what you've already imagined. Thus, perhaps less detail can be better in some situations.

One of the best ways to deal with motivation is to avoid it altogether. Often, when I discuss a motion picture that I've seen with a friend, we speculate on how a particular plot could make sense. We say things like "She probably sensed Kevin Spacey's character's alienation and had purchased the gun several weeks, before." or "She needed the gun to protect herself in her real-estate business."

The thing is, all of this is rationalization. The movie characters have no life, and no actions other that what we directly see. They are fictional, and anything we infer beyond the actual presentation is all in our heads. The genius of keeping a story simply about action is that the reader/viewer can infer all kinds of backstories to make sense of the story as it is presented.

Which presents an interesting idea. Those stories that I really like--do I only like them because I'm smart enough to figure out how they could be plausable? Or are they really just good stories intrinsically? Or, said another way, if you need to be very perceptive and/or intelligent to figure out a story--does that mean the story is badly written?

I really enjoyed the movie "Starship Troopers," for example, because I saw it as wonderfully satirical. I'm not alone in this perception, but I also know that a lot of people thought the movie was just idiotic. Was the movie intended as satirical, or was it intended as straight science fiction/fantasy? It seems to me that Heinlein intended his story to be straightforward science fiction. Does it matter?

 

[Whispersecret]

Danger: Rant Warning

I agree. But the more specific your write your protaganist, the less likely a specific reader will identify with that person.

I have a theory, which I've posted elsewhere, of why incest stories do so well. The idea I had was that precisely because many people have a family life, they can identify with the general situations presented. But if you get too specific, it breaks the illusion. If I say "my sister," then it often conjures up a very specific image. But if I say "my redheaded sister" it may jar with what you've already imagined. Thus, perhaps less detail can be better in some situations.

I couldn't disagree more. Identification with a character has no correlation with the amount of detail included. Vague characters make for a boring story, in my opinion. To me, details make the characters come to life.

My kids watch the Disney channel, and sometimes they have this little commercial thing where a magic pencil draws a cartoon. At first it's just this line sketch, and the kids are supposed to guess what Disney character is being drawn. Eventually the details are added, along with color, and BAM, you see it's Goofy, or whoever.

If the writer doesn't tell us specifics about his characters, the story is going to populated with tissue paper people.

I think identification with characters hinges on other things. A lot of the time I think it's because the character in the story is going through something we've all gone through, like rejection or unrequited love. Sometimes we identify with the character, not because we see some aspect of ourselves or our lives, but because the writer has made us care about what happens to that character. I can't think of any more examples. Maybe someone else can.

One of the best ways to deal with motivation is to avoid it altogether.

Egad. Again, I disagree. True, in a pure sex story, you probably don't have to delve too deeply into motivation. But in my opinion, in order for a story to be emotionally satisfying, characters must have motivation for their actions.

Part of what differentiates the really erotic stories from the pure stroke stories, for me, are the reasons why the characters are having sex. If two people meet and fuck in a museum, I could care less and will probably back click immediately. But if the author takes the time to tell me why the man is compelled to fuck this woman in the museum even though it could mean his job, then I have something invested in the character. I'm worried about him losing his job. There's danger involved, upping the hot factor. Conflict equals action, and you probably won't have conflict without motivation.

Oh, by the way, I really liked Starship Troopers.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Rant on, whispersecret.

There's nothing I like more than a little debate, healthy or not. Some might even suggest that I play the devil's advocate from time to time.

I'm willing to change my mind on the motivation thing, but I still have to say that in the best stories the motivation is never explained, but that it is instead implied through the character's actions. Ever read Piers Anthony? I really dislike those long expositions of what his character's are thinking. It's as if his character's actions need the justification. Of course, if the action is all taking place in one's head, like in Zen and the Art..., then it kind of makes sense. Otherwise, it just seems overly pedantic. I'm not an idiot. I can figure it out.

As for detail, too much of it really kills me. I liked "The Hobbit," sort of, but I really didn't like the other LOTR stories because they are just too detailed--too many names and made-up words and place-names. It's just feels overwhelming and irrelevant to me. Kind of like those afternoon soaps when you have to remember who slept with who.

Perhaps it's a personality thing. On the Myers/Briggs scale, I classify myself as an intuitive-type person. I have a friend who I would classify as a sensory-type person. It's not that she doesn't understand analogies, but she doesn't like them. She's a friggin' genius at chemistry and the sciences, so it doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, exactly. She prefers to discuss what is real. To her, the detail makes it real. To me, it just gets in the way of what I'm thinking.

Incidently, wasn't there a Friends episode where a guy fucks a woman at the museum? Yup, it's all about context, I can imagine you saying. The thing is, the episode should stand on it's own, don't you think? Why should I have to know the whole darn backstory in order to appreciate the episode?

I didn't know the backstory for Star Wars--and the backstory is incredibly dull, come to find out. A brief allusion to the clone wars or a glimpse at some of the potential species in the galaxy at the canteena was enough to bring up a whole tangle of interesting ideas, for me. There's nothing quite like a stripper spreading her labia in my face to wilt any hardon I may have had, let me tell you. Give me a little mystery, anytime.

 

[Mag58]

Hi,
I'm a fairly new recruit to Lierotica, so be gentle with me.
I was intrigued by this thread. I write stories ( 3 on this site)that are, also, based on true/confessional situations. My stories are all based on fact/true events. Some involve me, my sisters or work colleagues. Obviously I let my mind wander as I embellish the facts, with plenty of fantasy and intimate detail, and I re-write them 7 or 8 times until I believe that all of the events could have actually happened. Quite oftan the original seed for a story involved quick sex, but in an interesting situation, so I add plenty of build up (foreplay) and I like to add an ending ,perhaps only a cuddle, but it's important to me..
We all have different tastes (especially porn), my guess is the average guy wants 'wham bam thankyou mam' ' man in control sex' and women want more intimacy or reality. Maybe I'm wrong.
In fact I first got into porn when my husband and I used to read his magazines, together. As well as the letters (Gonzo stories from men) there was always a column called 'I confess', which were stories written by women. While I like porn, I have always been disappointed to find very little by and for women.
So, a year or so back, I wrote my first story 'Friday Night' - just posted here last week - look out for it.
It was published/posted within 48 hours. I can't tell you how excited I was following it's life on that particular site - especially watching the hit counter rise.

 

[Whispersecret]

Ever read Piers Anthony? I really dislike those long expositions of what his character's are thinking. It's as if his character's actions need the justification. Of course, if the action is all taking place in one's head, like in Zen and the Art..., then it kind of makes sense. Otherwise, it just seems overly pedantic.

I haven't read Anthony in at least fifteen years. I got tired of the Xanth novels. They all started resembling each other. But it's funny, I do remember those long internal monologues!

As for detail, too much of it really kills me. I liked "The Hobbit," sort of, but I really didn't like the other LOTR stories because they are just too detailed--too many names and made-up words and place-names. It's just feels overwhelming and irrelevant to me. Kind of like those afternoon soaps when you have to remember who slept with who.

Again, The Hobbit was way back in Jr. High for me, and that was mumblemumble years ago. But I do remember that it was heavy into the description. But that was the style back then.

Incidently, wasn't there a Friends episode where a guy fucks a woman at the museum? Yup, it's all about context, I can imagine you saying. The thing is, the episode should stand on it's own, don't you think? Why should I have to know the whole darn backstory in order to appreciate the episode?

You have a point, but I think we're comparing apples to oranges. Stroke story vs. not. Sit com vs. one hour drama.

I didn't know the backstory for Star Wars--and the backstory is incredibly dull, come to find out.

Haven't seen it. Wasn't impressed with Phantom Menace, so wasn't willing to pay eight bucks to see this one.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Whispersecret, I won't bother to PM you since I'm sure your box is often full.

I haven't got anything more to say at the moment, but I did want to thank you for reading what I wrote and bother to compose a response. It made my hour, if not my day.

 

[Whispersecret]

Pfft. My PM box is thick with dust.