Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2742
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2742
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Basically, anything that the reader considers implausible **when he's already suspending disbelief,** can spoil the illusion and break that suspension. The key issue to understand is that up to a certain point, your story is _exposing_ the world of the story, and explaining what's allowed and what isn't. Anything you establish clearly, the reader will be willing to accept, and suspend disbelief over. Anything implausible that you _don't_ explain, or suggest can be explained (perhaps later), is not "protected", and can prompt readers to feel that the story is nonsensical or contrived - not in the agreed-upon, "protected" premise, but in the reasonable flow of events and consequences from that premise.

What, precisely, seems implausible may be highly individual. Here are major issues in my experience.

- **Setting rules are inconsistent or unclear:** An SF/F reader will generally be willing to accept bizarre and impossible world constructions, as long as they are internally consistent. But if your stardates don't match up with each other, or if something impossible turns out to be possible with no real justification, then the reader senses that your rules are **arbitrary** and that the author does not feel bound by his own rules. The same thing happens if he can't figure out what your rules are meant to be to begin with. It's like playing a game somebody invented where he gets to change the rules all the time, and then declare himself the winner if he's losing anyway. 
- **Excessive and/or unacknowledged inconsistency with the real world:** In the real world, time travel is almost certainly objectively impossible; that doesn't mean you can't write time travel stories. But if you do something that's impossible in the real world without explaining it, or making it clear that this _is_ an interesting difference from real-life, and you-the-author are aware of this, then you come across as **ignorant**. The reader has difficulty trusting in your story. This could be scientific knowledge ("you couldn't _really_ do that"), local knowledge ("that city doesn't _really_ look like that"), social knowledge ("people don't \_really act that way"), etc., etc.

- **Coincidence as a plot development:** If anything immensely unlikely happens, it's best for it to happen at the beginning - as part of the premise. Using coincidence as a plot development can feel **contrived** - since it's not _really_ a coincidence, but fiat on the author's side, the reader can sense that the author is deliberately manipulating the story in implausible, artificial directions, and he loses faith in the plot as being plausible, natural, and thus significant.

- **Unjustified references to real-world elements:** In fantasy and science fiction, direct references to the real world can be very **distracting**. They have no more reason to dwell on, say, 21st century politics than we have to dwell on 13th century politics. It's unlikely that 2000 years from now, all spaceships will be named for current SF writers (and no future ones...). Even things that are _similar_ can provoke this reaction - e.g. you don't want to name your fantasy princess "Diana" even if "Diana" is a perfectly fine name and it makes perfect sense for there to be a "Princess Diana" in your world. References to the real world, _our_ world, throw the reader _out_ of the story world.

Most of these issues can be solved by sufficient set-up - if you establish the unbelievable premise in a clear and plausible manner, it ceases to be unbelievable. But if you don't _need_ something that's tough to justify, then avoiding it to begin with is often wise.

Original score: 22