Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/20439
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Terry Pratchett had a clever excuse for readers if something happened that went against the laws of physics. He'd simply say that the rules were different because the world was shaped like a disc instead of a sphere. But he only used that for the laws of physics. He didn't try to explain away every possible plot hole that way.

I think as long as you are consistent, there shouldn't be much problem. But if in every single chapter the readers are thinking, "Wait, how is this even possible?" The answer better be a little more in depth than, "Because magic! Anything can happen with magic!" You'll get away with that once or twice, but any more than that, then you're going to have serious difficulty holding things together.

I remember working on a MUD with a friend several years back. (basically an online game.). I told my friend that there were some serious flaws in the combat system. For instance, in the game, it was possible to stand in front of a monster who was fully aware of your presence, and backstab them with a hammer. He said that this was no problem at all, because the game was fantasy, and therefore anything was possible. I told him that may apply to wizards casting fireballs, but you can't backstab someone who knows you're there. If you're going to stab them in the back, you shouldn't be facing them because most people have their backs behind them. And you can't use a hammer to do all this, because you can't do any stabbing at all with a hammer.He disagreed, and then threw several hissy fits when several beta testers complained about the mechanics of backstab.

Anyway, you don't have to get every single detail on point. In fact, I read somewhere that in fantasy magic, if you get too detailed and try to make it too scientific, there will be readers who will pick your books apart because you didn't follow your own rules exactly. Apparently, Robert Jordan's biggest fans are the worst about it.

So long as most of the story is honest and has decent explanations that are mostly consistent, your readers will be willing to suspend disbelief over a few minor inaccuracies.

Original score: 2