Post History
The number one rule in making things believable is detailing. This applies to outlandish theories just as much as world-destruction type stakes. None of it will seem real without the details that l...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-12T17:48:57Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/16180 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T04:02:15Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/16180 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
The number one rule in making things believable is detailing. This applies to outlandish theories just as much as world-destruction type stakes. None of it will seem real without the details that lend it credence. It is admittedly a bit more difficult with things we know to be false. I think in order to make these _particular_ things seem realistic, you have to ask yourself the question, "what if we were wrong?" Research how we know something is false. Then ask yourself what small detail you could tweak, what small fact you can call into doubt, and how. The bottom line is that you have to **explain why we were wrong (or why the impossible is now possible), and/or how we missed the truth** (Via new technology, discoveries that 'disprove' the truth, etc. See comment by dmm below for details.). With things that we know to be false, and indeed just about any kind of stakes, you will have to tweak things a little. Believability starts with the truth, and then uses details to show how the exact right events played out. Note: Though I find it likely, I do not know if the authors of the examples you mentioned used this technique to build credibility, having not read the books.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2015-02-10T01:48:58Z (almost 10 years ago)
Original score: 1