Reality and Disbelief on Lit

[Magineer]

all disbelief must be suspended by those who enter here...

Why? Disbelief is a serious matter and a natural reaction which is scarcely controllable by the individual.

Like many, I simply walk away from any story where the writer hasn't made at least some effort to make things seem real. It becomes totally clear, usually very early on, when a writer is obsessively preoccupied with his own childish fascination for e.g. lurid fantasy creatures and settings at the expense of actually telling an interesting story about a situation that might involve real people.

An inconvenient truth: a large tranche of the Lit-visiting public will simply lap up, uncritically and uncaring, any old pap that's put in front of them. This does not in any way make it a good story. Nor, please note, does the byzantine machinery of "likes" and "views".

Your "funny statement" touches on a real problem which has not had its fair share of debate either on this silly board or even in, say, AH.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Why? Disbelief is a serious matter and a natural reaction which is scarcely controllable by the individual.

Like many, I simply walk away from any story where the writer hasn't made at least some effort to make things seem real. It becomes totally clear, usually very early on, when a writer is obsessively preoccupied with his own childish fascination for e.g. lurid fantasy creatures and settings at the expense of actually telling an interesting story about a situation that might involve real people.

An inconvenient truth: a large tranche of the Lit-visiting public will simply lap up, uncritically and uncaring, any old pap that's put in front of them. This does not in any way make it a good story. Nor, please note, does the byzantine machinery of "likes" and "views".

Your "funny statement" touches on a real problem which has not had its fair share of debate either on this silly board or even in, say, AH.

I said something like this on another thread. Lit is not a boutique publishing company or a literary magazine. It's a huge writing "factory," turning out mass quantities of written stuff. Or compare it to Amazon or WalMart, which provide vast amounts of products shipped in via container ships. The one-to-five rating system is even like Amazon's, I think. But for most of us writing here, it's the only opportunity we will ever get to publish anything.

I don't see the reality of that ever changing.

 

[Magineer]

I said something like this on another thread. Lit is not a boutique publishing company or a literary magazine. It's a huge writing "factory," turning out mass quantities of written stuff. Or compare it to Amazon or WalMart, which provide vast amounts of products shipped in via container ships. The one-to-five rating system is even like Amazon's, I think. But for most of us writing here, it's the only opportunity we will ever get to publish anything.

I don't see the reality of that ever changing.

Well, IMHO this kind of "publishing" is almost not worth the name. Reality or not, I'd rather keep my stuff to myself or share it with people I trust or value... and I've noticed more than one poster state as much or something like it recently.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Well, IMHO this kind of "publishing" is almost not worth the name. Reality or not, I'd rather keep my stuff to myself or share it with people I trust or value... and I've noticed more than one poster state as much or something like it recently.

Well, whatever works for you. It appears that you have already pulled your stories from the site.

In my experience, having friends and relatives (not that I have many left at the age of 67) read things can be awkward. I can think of a couple of times when I was asked to read somebody's work. The problem is that it has a sense of obligation; "do I really have to do this?" Then, when I tried to offer opinions, they got a bit bent of shape if I wasn't completely positive about their stuff.

On-line, the great unwashed readership doesn't know who we are and they owe us nothing. If one can wow complete strangers at times, then maybe one is getting somewhere.

 

[Magineer]

Well, whatever works for you. It appears that you have already pulled your stories from the site.

In my experience, having friends and relatives (not that I have many left at the age of 67) read things can be awkward. I can think of a couple of times when I was asked to read somebody's work. The problem is that it has a sense of obligation; "do I really have to do this?" Then, when I tried to offer opinions, they got a bit bent of shape if I wasn't completely positive about their stuff.

On-line, the great unwashed readership doesn't know who we are and they owe us nothing. If one can wow complete strangers at times, then maybe one is getting somewhere.

Depends on how much you value the opinions of those strangers. It really does. I know it sounds snobbish - but then I refer you to your own comment about "unwashed".

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument or debate is here.

I don't agree with the originally quoted statement. My view is that, as with any form of fiction, some element of disbelief probably must be suspended, but not all. That's true of just about every kind of story. A good author can get readers to suspend disbelief enough to buy into the premise and the story that follows, but one of the ways the author does that is by not asking too much of the reader and by giving the story the appearance of reality--verisimilitude. When I write I do so with a general guideline in mind: avoid too much magic. A little magic is fine. But when you keep defying the laws of physics and psychology over and over again in new ways you lose readers, and you deserve to.

 

[Euphony]

If a venue isn't well suited to your needs, of course go elsewhere.

Just as certain music styles may not earn a living toured in other areas of the country (Appalachia Bluegrass could struggle in urban centers in the SW)

Lit is an open mic with its pluses and minuses.

Plus, within the site rules, anyone can have a chance at being heard by others and share their works which may otherwise be lost to time in a drawer.

Reader has to separate the wheat from the chaff - There's a ton of schlock but that schlock can be demonstrative in a "what not to do" way, a story bunny way, a self-improvement way for the author. More writing is how most get better. If sometime even trivial to some (votes, engagement, seeing it on a web page) inspires more writing...

I find it a touch head scratching some who spend, what I'd consider, unproductive time debating the right to exist of certain style of fiction here.

Feels like the race is already run. The site is built on views, engagement, numbers, with a very tepid nod to "quality" (through voting, awards, comments)

Sisyphean to try and meaningfully change that it would seem.

 

[Euphony]

I don't agree with the originally quoted statement.

You have obliterated my real world human women who birth litters every month story project Simon.

I am utterly devastated right now, FRFR.

 

[djrip]

I tend to aim for the unbelievable in at least some of my stories. It's fun. Other times I try to be a little more serious. But just a little!

 

[NotWise]

Depends on how much you value the opinions of those strangers. It really does. I know it sounds snobbish - but then I refer you to your own comment about "unwashed".

I'm surprised you're willing to offer an opinion here. What did we do to deserve such a treat?

 

[SimonDoom]

You have obliterated my real world human women who birth litters every month story project Simon.

I am utterly devastated right now, FRFR.

Not at all. My view is that with some cleverness you can get your readers to suspend disbelief about any ONE thing, no matter how far-fetched. But you can't pile magic upon magic. Human women who birth monthly litters, fine. Just don't add killer clowns from Mars to the story later.

 

[Euphony]

Not at all. My view is that with some cleverness you can get your readers to suspend disbelief about any ONE thing, no matter how far-fetched. But you can't pile magic upon magic. Human women who birth monthly litters, fine. Just don't add killer clowns from Mars to the story later.

Thanks for the help. I'll keep all clown action strictly terrestrial.
#JuggaloNation

 

[alohadave]

Not at all. My view is that with some cleverness you can get your readers to suspend disbelief about any ONE thing, no matter how far-fetched. But you can't pile magic upon magic. Human women who birth monthly litters, fine. Just don't add killer clowns from Mars to the story later.

And if you are going to have something fantastical, having everything else that is mundane be correct helps to sell it.

When you have something that is normal that isn't supposed to be wildly different, it can really throw you for a loop.

It can be the littlest thing that does it too. Some little detail that there's no reason for it to be wrong just pulls you out of the story. IME at least.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

There’s a difference between realistic and believable.

An analogy, if you will permit me - the wildly-popular Discworld series by the late Sir Terry Pratchett. Dozens of books set on not a planet but a disc on the backs of four massive elephants, themselves atop an even larger star-swimming turtle. The laws of physics are replaced by Magic (capital M, please). Water pours off the edges continuously, gods rise and fall depending on belief and ‘black-ribbon’ vampires have tea circles. It’s impossible, yet Sir Terry’s genius was such that disbelief is suspended.

Literotica charges nothing, guarantees less and provides most readers with something.

You’re welcome.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Depends on how much you value the opinions of those strangers. It really does. I know it sounds snobbish - but then I refer you to your own comment about "unwashed".

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with that. But if you are a professional writer, filmmaker, musician, whatever, you are going to need the "public" to see (or hear) your work and they will have differing opinions about it. And yes, they are all going to be strangers, and they may not all be "washed" properly. But what is the point of being, say, Duke Ellington or T.S. Eliot (I just picked those names at random) if you keep everything to yourself and only let a handful of people have access to it? Without criticism - which might not always seem fair - there can be no growth.

I'd rather have 10,000 strangers "view" (I know, just click on it probably) and thirty of them vote on my work.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thanks for the help. I'll keep all clown action strictly terrestrial.
#JuggaloNation

I think that's for the best. Good luck with the story.

 

[stickygirl]

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1cefde498ef855669358ecf224f6c816-lq

 

[gunhilltrain]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument or debate is here.

I don't agree with the originally quoted statement. My view is that, as with any form of fiction, some element of disbelief probably must be suspended, but not all. That's true of just about every kind of story. A good author can get readers to suspend disbelief enough to buy into the premise and the story that follows, but one of the ways the author does that is by not asking too much of the reader and by giving the story the appearance of reality--verisimilitude. When I write I do so with a general guideline in mind: avoid too much magic. A little magic is fine. But when you keep defying the laws of physics and psychology over and over again in new ways you lose readers, and you deserve to.

This thread consists of posts that were chopped off the end of another thread on Story Ideas - they were deemed to be irrelevant or thread drift. The original half-dozen posts are there under the title "The Hermaphrodite Next Door." Thus it may seem a bit abrupt or confusing to catch it in the middle.

 

[bumpercars]

On the one hand, I think there's a valid debate to be had here about realism in stories. I think that the amount of realism that's desirable varies from reader to reader, and I don't think that a less realistic story is necessarily worse, but that any story needs something to anchor it to the reality that we're familiar with. I don't think that SirHugs' quote is accurate, but I simultaneously think that all stories require some suspension of disbelief lest we remember that the characters are imaginary. I think that the story described in the original thread (involving characters with multiple sets of functional sex organs) would require a lot of suspension of disbelief, but that we can't know the quality of the story until we read it. I think that having characters who think and feel like us, and who we can empathize with, is the one bit of realism that we should always strive for.

On the other hand, Magineer, you're on a high horse which is mounting another high horse, and it's hard to have a discussion over the sound of the high horses' passionate whinnying.

 

[RetroFan]

In all works of fiction, there has to be some form of realism for readers to connect with the characters and story, even in works with an unrealistic premise.

For example, take the classic satirical political novel 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell. The premise of this story could never happen in real life, and animals of course don't talk, run farms themselves, read or write or build windmills, but one thing Orwell does that is critical to the novel's success is have the animals behave like their real-world counterparts with corresponding intelligence levels. For example, the pigs, dogs, cats, goats and donkeys are the most intelligent animals on the farm as they would be in real life, and the cat is shown to be independent and the donkey stubborn, traits seen in these animals. Next are the horses and cows, which Orwell notes can learn individual letters but could not put words together, the chickens, ducks and geese cannot learn to read and stupidest of all are the sheep, which mindlessly bleat slogans.

Sheep are not noted for their intelligence, so this is pretty fitting in the plot of the novel. If however Orwell had written his novel involving super-intelligent sheep that think for themselves, immediately the reader becomes disengaged from the story.

 

[lovecraft68]

Thanks for the help. I'll keep all clown action strictly terrestrial.
#JuggaloNation

The Juggalos invaded rock and shock in 2019 (I think)when ICP was one of the featured acts in that night's concert. Fun crowd, but the music has no appeal to me.
But hey, I was at the concert the night before for Testament and Sepulcher, so I'm not exactly high brow.

 

[Euphony]

The Juggalos invaded rock and shock in 2019 (I think)when ICP was one of the featured acts in that night's concert. Fun crowd, but the music has no appeal to me.
But hey, I was at the concert the night before for Testament and Sepulcher, so I'm not exactly high brow.

I think I've heard secondhand that the group and most of the traveling fans are basically younger gen Deadheads similar. And they are known to do good works from time to time.

They (or their managers and/or promotors) also hire porn stars to stalk around the festival grounds naked for a bit, ostensibly to paint a picture into impressionable young men's head to get them to buy tickets to the next stop.

It's a mixed bag.

Glad they exist though. Concerts (even *bad* musician/band's concerts) were a critical part of growing up to me and I loathe how f*cky Ticketmaster has gotten in their profiteering, keeping those who would most benefit/have a true experience economically out.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument or debate is here.

I don't agree with the originally quoted statement. My view is that, as with any form of fiction, some element of disbelief probably must be suspended, but not all. That's true of just about every kind of story. A good author can get readers to suspend disbelief enough to buy into the premise and the story that follows, but one of the ways the author does that is by not asking too much of the reader and by giving the story the appearance of reality--verisimilitude. When I write I do so with a general guideline in mind: avoid too much magic. A little magic is fine. But when you keep defying the laws of physics and psychology over and over again in new ways you lose readers, and you deserve to.

I would modify that slightly: a story can still work with a lot of magic, but the magic can't substitute for earning a satisfying resolution.

To run with @TarnishedPenny's example, Discworld has a LOT of magic. Even basic probability doesn't work the same way as in our world - "one-in-a-million" chances come off nine times out of ten. But nobody in Discworld gets to solve their problems just by waving a wand and casting the right spell. They still have to work for a happy ending, and often that involves tough questions like "how do I change the way this group of people thinks?" where the answer isn't a mind-control spell.

 

[SimonDoom]

I would modify that slightly: a story can still work with a lot of magic, but the magic can't substitute for earning a satisfying resolution.

To run with @TarnishedPenny's example, Discworld has a LOT of magic. Even basic probability doesn't work the same way as in our world - "one-in-a-million" chances come off nine times out of ten. But nobody in Discworld gets to solve their problems just by waving a wand and casting the right spell. They still have to work for a happy ending, and often that involves tough questions like "how do I change the way this group of people thinks?" where the answer isn't a mind-control spell.

I agree with all of that and wouldn't want to try to push a single formula. But I think there's a limit to how much disbelief an author can ask the reader to suspend. There's a balance to be struck, although that balance varies greatly from reader to reader.

For example, in the TV show Star Trek, there's lots of magic: faster than light travel, transporters, tricorders, telepathy, innumerable planets with atmospheres that can sustain human beings, spaceships with gravity, etc. But the characters are still very human and limited in what they can do and withstand (most of the time) and the limits help ground the story, most of the time (obviously, opinions will differ).

As someone who did not grow up with CGI movies, a problem I have with many contemporary movies, including most superhero movies, is there's so much magic that it makes me bored. If anything is possible, then nothing is dramatic. If it's completely detached from reality, then I don't care about what the characters are experiencing. I cannot relate to them and cannot enjoy the story.

This is very subjective. I've had some readers respond to some of my stories with comments like, "This is stupid. She would never have acted that way." I can't really argue with that. I often write stories about characters who push the boundaries of plausible behavior. I personally like that, and so do many of my readers. But some don't. I don't blame them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I agree with all of that and wouldn't want to try to push a single formula. But I think there's a limit to how much disbelief an author can ask the reader to suspend. There's a balance to be struck, although that balance varies greatly from reader to reader.

For example, in the TV show Star Trek, there's lots of magic: faster than light travel, transporters, tricorders, telepathy, innumerable planets with atmospheres that can sustain human beings, spaceships with gravity, etc. But the characters are still very human and limited in what they can do and withstand (most of the time) and the limits help ground the story, most of the time (obviously, opinions will differ).

Yep, and lots of factors affect just how much the reader can take. A TV show can build up that universe over time without the info-overload you'd get trying to impart all that background knowledge in a single movie. A story about "vampires" can assume readers know the standard tropes, so it only has to detail the ways in which My Vampires Are Different. There's a reason so many atheist writers use real-world religious frameworks as a starting point for their fantasy.

In Pratchett, a lot of the magic is background colour so the reader doesn't need to know exactly how it works, and he's pretty good at conveying to the reader which parts we do need to worry about.

With an unfamiliar author, on the other hand, it's often not clear how closely one is expected to think about such details.

I read one book recently (Light From Uncommon Stars) which played with this in some odd ways. It takes a couple of different genres and sticks them together without explaining how one should expect their conventions to interact. The resolution broke one of those conventions in a major way, which at first left me feeling dissatisfied, almost cheated - a bit like running into "it was just a dream".

But when I let it sit for a while, one of the themes of that book is that people are often trapped by a limited understanding of their world, constraining themselves to rules that aren't really laws of nature, just convention. So maybe that was the point? I'm still not sure about that, but it made me think.

This is very subjective. I've had some readers respond to some of my stories with comments like, "This is stupid. She would never have acted that way." I can't really argue with that. I often write stories about characters who push the boundaries of plausible behavior. I personally like that, and so do many of my readers. But some don't. I don't blame them.

IME the closer I stick to RL experience, the more likely I am to get that kind of comment.

Not that "it really happened" is always the definitive answer for such occasions. Even if I'm stealing something directly from real life, it's still on me as the author to bring the reader along with it, get them empathising with why the person made that decision. But some readers do have very limited conceptions of what humans are capable of, and I can only spend so much of my time trying to appease those particular readers.