Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26412
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26412
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

At extremes: yes, relying on "chance" as a plot device can be very unsatisfying.

The reader knows that "chance" isn't really a matter of luck; instead, it's the author manipulating events.

The reader also knows they need to suspend disbelief -- so some level of luck and happenstance and implausibility is to be expected. But too _much_ of it, or having chance play too central a role, and the story can feel arbitrary, forced, and unsatisfying.

## Chance as premise is fine; chance as plot development is trickier.

Generally speaking, chance _as part of the story premise_ is not a major issue. A chance occurrence as an inciting event is fine -- a lot of stories get their start when chance events shake up "what was _supposed_ to happen."

Consider, for example, _A Wizard Of Oz_. Dorothy and her house _just happen_ to be swept up in a hurricane and dropped on the Wicked Witch of the East. That's the event that gets the whole story going. But imagine what a dull story it would be if she got all the way up to the Wicked Witch of the West, and right when she got there, a hurricane _just happened_ to drop a house on _that_ witch as well.

It's precisely the same coincidence. Same event. Same level of plausibility. But as a premise, it works just fine; while as a development mid-story, it just stops the story's momentum and feels arbitrary.

## When something _looks_ implausible, but is justified, acknowledge its implausibility.

Sometimes you have some information management to do -- something _seems_ like an unlikely coincidence, but actually it's got a perfectly reasonable justification. The problem is, from the POV of the character the coincidence is happening to, _they don't know_ that there's a good reason. That makes it hard to win reader trust -- even if it's just "Trust me, there's a good explanation for this, which you'll discover later on."

One thing that can help is to _acknowledge_ the implausibility as a conundrum to be solved. Sometimes it's important to signal to the reader "Yes, this _is_ weird, it _is_ implausible. Don't worry; it'll make sense later. I'm not just careless or messing with you."

Turn the implausibility (which the reader might be annoyed at) into a mystery (which the reader is looking forward to seeing solved), and you'll have an easier time with this category of "coincidences."

## Chance is better for complications than it is for solutions.

In general, it's easier to accept coincidences that make things _harder_ and more complicated, than coincidences that make things easier and more straightforward.

Maybe it's because we feel the author is making life easy on themselves, sparing themselves from tighter plotting. Maybe it's because we believe in Murphy's Law, whereas miraculous boons and solutions rarely fall into our laps. But it's a helpful tool. It might _technically_ be a coincidence, but if you can make it feel like a moment of "I _KNEW_ something was going to go wrong," or "Uh oh, that's going to MESS THINGS UP," you can often ride that feeling of "narrative correctness" and the implausibility will be excused.

The flip side of this is, _avoid_ letting _solutions_ occur by happenstance. The dramatic arc before a solution is one of tension -- "how are they going to get off this; how are they gonna pull this one off?" Coincidence is an extremely unsatisfying resolution to that tension; avoid it.

## Chance can be made less implausible by groundwork and foreshadowing.

While the "easy" answer to a criticism of implausible coincidence is "Don't do it," very often this is solvable. If you can shore up your coincidence and make it feel less coincidental, more a natural consequence of preceding events, the problem often goes away.

You do groundwork by setting things in motion _before_ the coincidence happens. You set down a trail of dominoes leading to your coincidence, and knock the first one over _early_ in the story; now it's part of the premise and the coincidence feels minor and unremarkable. But then you have another consequence follow, and another -- these feel perfectly plausible, not coincidental at all -- until finally you arrive at the coincidence you _really_ wanted, and it flows flawlessly from what you've already set up.

Foreshadowing is very similar, but it's more in hints and narrative conventions than in concrete facts. Start making the reader _suspect_ that something is going to be complicated, or that a miraculous solution is close at hand, if only they knew what it is. Hint that someone may do something rash, or have unexpected resources, or be doomed to a tragic death. _Whatever_ it is that you foreshadow, it makes the coincidence feel like something that was a long time coming.

* * *

Hope this helps. All the best!

Original score: 7