funny thing is, I've seen Us, and even by the end it's completely unexplained as to why the things in the movie exist and what the purpose of their mission statement is. Watch it, it's a great movie, hell, watch it twice! But I guarantee that you'll still come away with questions, kinda destroying his statement about it being "over-explained" because it's really not explained at all. Also I watched his video in preparation for your rebuttal, and you hit the nail on the head, over-explanation really only holds true for horror. Hard sci-fi or hard fantasy if well written is actually MORE impressive if they can explain the fantastical in a way that seems logical to the layman.
I like hard systems because they really do a good job of showcasing the writer's ability. But soft systems can be just as effective if used properly. I think Lord of the Rings owes a lot of that visceral wow factor to the softness of its fantasy elements (and the fact that Tolkein didn't just use magic as a quick fix to every problem) Also, I'm still low-key shocked that Bricky made such a poorly argued video. That's very out of character for him
Glad to hear your opinion on the matter. I have never heard of Bricky and did not watch the video you are referring to but a trusted UA-camr's views can really influence the confidence one has in their own writing. I personally agree on your points and that is also how I handle suspension of disbelief in my stories. One particular story has superpowers, and I tried not to go the flimsy "bitten by something radioactive" route of explanation. I give some background about some scientists messing with their DNA to create some kind of Übermensch, with the volatile DNA being inheritable. I could have just kept stuff unexplained and just made the reader accept that there are superpowers in the world but I wanted some background. Plus, I can tie in some stuff with that background, like the scientists being evil and rapey, so their superhuman descendants are at best quite flawed characters. With Bricky's view on suspension of disbelief, I already explained too much and made it more convoluted and less believable. I do belief that I have just narrowed the suspension of disbelief down. The broad "superpowers exist" versus "DNA can be manipulated at will". And I also try to hold the powers to certain scientific standards, for example if you create heat, the air around you cools off. I do not think explaining those things takes anything away from my story and actually helps with the suspension of disbelief.
My main thing is that the more you explain, the more you open yourself up to potential continuity issues. Basically, it becomes easier to write in plot holes. However, when done well, it can do wonders for overall immersion and it'll feel like a completely natural part of the world
A lack of engagement will make the plotholes, inconsistencies, and contrivances stand out. A story free of structural errors that is not engaging (not exist?). There is not a single story that is perfectly executed. All stories will have logical inconsistencies somewhere. You can write stories with more and more convincing arguments, but as long as an argument can be formed against a claim, your argument (or the story's) is not perfect. If a perfect argument can be rebutted, then how can it be perfect? A story can make increasingly more convincing arguments, but what argument is most convincing depends on the person and what they understand to be true about reality, so therefore will never be completely consistent or objective across the board (no consensus achievable). Therefore, assuming all stories are arguments of some kind, and no argument can be perfect (logically or consensus-wise), then all stories will have contrivances and things that hurt the argument of the story*. So not being engaged makes it easier to notice these inevitable (and not even completely objective) flaws. *A person's understanding of reality may also change midway thought the story and a previously theoretically perfect (for the sake of argument) story argument may not be so convincing after being compared the said person's now different view of things. Hence Bricky was right. Disinterest does amplify a stories (certainly) existing flaws. You could argue that if you need to experience the respective story eight times to notice this inconsistency then it's the same as if it didn't exist, but I don't agree, as there's always the possibility of you do noticing it. (Sorry for the long post).
I think you misunderstood my argument. Bricky's video was centered around the suspension of disbelief, and he said (I'm paraphrasing) that a story must be engaging/fun in order for the suspension of disbelief to be possible. I personally believe that suspension of disbelief and engaging storytelling are two entirely separate elements of writing and it's possible to have a story that's well-constructed on a technical level that may not be a very engaging experience. However, I do acknowledge that a high degree of engagement can amplify the effectiveness of suspension of disbelief. It's just to me sounds like the equivalent to saying "In order to properly suspend disbelief for a magic system, you need to make sure the pacing is correct." In that instance, pacing is absolutely important, but it's a complete non-sequitor and ultimately not a component of suspension of disbelief. And this is especially true with softer systems like Bricky seems to prefer. Like, if you have a boring story that takes place on a spaceship that travels between galaxies where it doesn't go into technical details, it's not like you'll get to the point of "I reject that this spaceship can travel like that," because the issue isn't with the suspension of disbelief, it's with the overall fun factor of the work. It's a core premise to the story that the audience accepts as a part of that story independent of the writer's ability to draw you in.
"I think the biggest factor in what makes the suspension of disbelief work is in how central the particular thing you're supposed to suspend belief for is to the fictional universe or at least to the plot at hand." I massively disagree with this assessment. Imagine you were reading a story set in a modern earth setting and randomly in the middle of the story a dragon appeared and just sat in the protagonist's garden - the impact on the story and narrative is entirely minimal and yet you'd struggle to find anyone who could maintain their suspension of disbelief through such an event. Now you may be tempted to say "well the appearance of a dragon in the modern world SHOULD be a massive event so I'll just change my definition to be how important it should be rather than how important it is" but I think we can do better: "Suspension of belief is most at risk when the audience's assumptions about the world are challenged. The greater the challenge the greater the risk that it will collapse." Why do I think this definition is better? 1. Embedded into the definition is the fact that there is (typically) no concrete sense of whether a specific story element violates the suspension of disbelief or not - it's ultimately a subjective assessment even if there are clear trends. 2. Also embedded into that is an understanding that it's not about what is true, but what the audience thinks is true. When the audience has false assumptions about the real world (such as lasers traveling in visible beams in most science fiction movies) their suspension of disbelief will be violated when a movie is realistic. People are also more or less eager to bring assumptions into a work of fiction with them (i.e. "everything is like earth unless I'm explicitly told otherwise" vs "I have no idea what anything is like until I'm told or being earth like is a natural interpretation of what is written") and more or less tolerant of abstraction (some people will just instantly zone out as soon as something surreal or metaphorical happens on screen, for instance). 3. It captures well the fact that readers are far more willing to suspend their disbelief at the start of a piece of fiction than at the end. As an example, people would almost universally accept a magic system introduced at the start of the story but if it was added part way through despite being objectively less important to the narrative people would be less willing to suspend their disbelief. Fundamentally, the suspension of disbelief is an embodiment of the relationship between the author and the reader so any definition needs to be considerate of each party. How the author sets expectations will make the story more or less susceptible to violating the suspension of belief later on - if you add a time machine to the plot and it's easy enough to find that even a child has access to one then later characters that SHOULD have access to it don't use it or you claim that somehow all of them were destroyed (and no one alive is capable of making a new one) then you're changing the rules of the game half way through and it makes readers zone out. The author can also use sleight of hand trickery and change their delivery to make a violation more or less egregious. Probably the most common example of this in fiction is when the protagonist pulls some hidden power from within themselves to defeat a villain. I think anyone who thinks about what's actually happening in those sorts of scenes understands what is actually going on and the author is clearly playing on the reader's expectations of defeat to create jubilation in the readers but if the MC's speech is rousing enough and if the mumbo is jumbo enough then readers can get swept up in the emotion of the scene and maintain their suspension of disbelief through hype. This is the most significant area where your mileage may vary because different people will have different susceptibility to certain story beats and different aspects of the story as prominent in their minds: - Maybe this is the 23rd "power of friendship" speech I've heard this month and all I can think about is how the portals that the MC creates could just be closed with the villain's head inside it ending this instantly. - Maybe I'm afraid of the ocean and when the character is described as "flailing around with no sense of direction as seawater forces it's way into their lungs" it totally slips my mind that two sentences before they had a life jacket on. - Maybe I skimmed through the explanation of how alchemy works and so I don't even understand how what's happening now is wrong. It's not an exact science and I think when you try to pin it down so precisely you're definition will be overly personal or overfitted to a specific piece of fiction.
Yeah, I really enjoyed Harry Potter, but oh man, JK Rowling's writing is absolutely filled with issues. And it didn't help that she clearly didn't know where she was going with the story until Goblet of Fire
funny thing is, I've seen Us, and even by the end it's completely unexplained as to why the things in the movie exist and what the purpose of their mission statement is.
Watch it, it's a great movie, hell, watch it twice! But I guarantee that you'll still come away with questions, kinda destroying his statement about it being "over-explained" because it's really not explained at all.
Also I watched his video in preparation for your rebuttal, and you hit the nail on the head, over-explanation really only holds true for horror. Hard sci-fi or hard fantasy if well written is actually MORE impressive if they can explain the fantastical in a way that seems logical to the layman.
I like hard systems because they really do a good job of showcasing the writer's ability. But soft systems can be just as effective if used properly. I think Lord of the Rings owes a lot of that visceral wow factor to the softness of its fantasy elements (and the fact that Tolkein didn't just use magic as a quick fix to every problem)
Also, I'm still low-key shocked that Bricky made such a poorly argued video. That's very out of character for him
I'd rather re-watch the review of Us by E;R
Glad to hear your opinion on the matter. I have never heard of Bricky and did not watch the video you are referring to but a trusted UA-camr's views can really influence the confidence one has in their own writing. I personally agree on your points and that is also how I handle suspension of disbelief in my stories. One particular story has superpowers, and I tried not to go the flimsy "bitten by something radioactive" route of explanation. I give some background about some scientists messing with their DNA to create some kind of Übermensch, with the volatile DNA being inheritable. I could have just kept stuff unexplained and just made the reader accept that there are superpowers in the world but I wanted some background. Plus, I can tie in some stuff with that background, like the scientists being evil and rapey, so their superhuman descendants are at best quite flawed characters. With Bricky's view on suspension of disbelief, I already explained too much and made it more convoluted and less believable. I do belief that I have just narrowed the suspension of disbelief down. The broad "superpowers exist" versus "DNA can be manipulated at will". And I also try to hold the powers to certain scientific standards, for example if you create heat, the air around you cools off. I do not think explaining those things takes anything away from my story and actually helps with the suspension of disbelief.
My main thing is that the more you explain, the more you open yourself up to potential continuity issues. Basically, it becomes easier to write in plot holes. However, when done well, it can do wonders for overall immersion and it'll feel like a completely natural part of the world
@@Adze Yeah, I am quite paranoid about continuity issues, which is why I extensively use Excel for notes and plan ahead a lot.
A lack of engagement will make the plotholes, inconsistencies, and contrivances stand out. A story free of structural errors that is not engaging (not exist?).
There is not a single story that is perfectly executed. All stories will have logical inconsistencies somewhere. You can write stories with more and more convincing arguments, but as long as an argument can be formed against a claim, your argument (or the story's) is not perfect. If a perfect argument can be rebutted, then how can it be perfect?
A story can make increasingly more convincing arguments, but what argument is most convincing depends on the person and what they understand to be true about reality, so therefore will never be completely consistent or objective across the board (no consensus achievable). Therefore, assuming all stories are arguments of some kind, and no argument can be perfect (logically or consensus-wise), then all stories will have contrivances and things that hurt the argument of the story*. So not being engaged makes it easier to notice these inevitable (and not even completely objective) flaws.
*A person's understanding of reality may also change midway thought the story and a previously theoretically perfect (for the sake of argument) story argument may not be so convincing after being compared the said person's now different view of things.
Hence Bricky was right. Disinterest does amplify a stories (certainly) existing flaws. You could argue that if you need to experience the respective story eight times to notice this inconsistency then it's the same as if it didn't exist, but I don't agree, as there's always the possibility of you do noticing it.
(Sorry for the long post).
I think you misunderstood my argument. Bricky's video was centered around the suspension of disbelief, and he said (I'm paraphrasing) that a story must be engaging/fun in order for the suspension of disbelief to be possible. I personally believe that suspension of disbelief and engaging storytelling are two entirely separate elements of writing and it's possible to have a story that's well-constructed on a technical level that may not be a very engaging experience. However, I do acknowledge that a high degree of engagement can amplify the effectiveness of suspension of disbelief. It's just to me sounds like the equivalent to saying "In order to properly suspend disbelief for a magic system, you need to make sure the pacing is correct." In that instance, pacing is absolutely important, but it's a complete non-sequitor and ultimately not a component of suspension of disbelief.
And this is especially true with softer systems like Bricky seems to prefer. Like, if you have a boring story that takes place on a spaceship that travels between galaxies where it doesn't go into technical details, it's not like you'll get to the point of "I reject that this spaceship can travel like that," because the issue isn't with the suspension of disbelief, it's with the overall fun factor of the work. It's a core premise to the story that the audience accepts as a part of that story independent of the writer's ability to draw you in.
@@Adze
Ok. Well thank makes more sense then. Thanks for the reply!
I'm always happy to talk about this kind of stuff. That's half the reason I started UA-cam in the first place
"I think the biggest factor in what makes the suspension of disbelief work is in how central the particular thing you're supposed to suspend belief for is to the fictional universe or at least to the plot at hand."
I massively disagree with this assessment. Imagine you were reading a story set in a modern earth setting and randomly in the middle of the story a dragon appeared and just sat in the protagonist's garden - the impact on the story and narrative is entirely minimal and yet you'd struggle to find anyone who could maintain their suspension of disbelief through such an event. Now you may be tempted to say "well the appearance of a dragon in the modern world SHOULD be a massive event so I'll just change my definition to be how important it should be rather than how important it is" but I think we can do better:
"Suspension of belief is most at risk when the audience's assumptions about the world are challenged. The greater the challenge the greater the risk that it will collapse."
Why do I think this definition is better?
1. Embedded into the definition is the fact that there is (typically) no concrete sense of whether a specific story element violates the suspension of disbelief or not - it's ultimately a subjective assessment even if there are clear trends.
2. Also embedded into that is an understanding that it's not about what is true, but what the audience thinks is true. When the audience has false assumptions about the real world (such as lasers traveling in visible beams in most science fiction movies) their suspension of disbelief will be violated when a movie is realistic. People are also more or less eager to bring assumptions into a work of fiction with them (i.e. "everything is like earth unless I'm explicitly told otherwise" vs "I have no idea what anything is like until I'm told or being earth like is a natural interpretation of what is written") and more or less tolerant of abstraction (some people will just instantly zone out as soon as something surreal or metaphorical happens on screen, for instance).
3. It captures well the fact that readers are far more willing to suspend their disbelief at the start of a piece of fiction than at the end. As an example, people would almost universally accept a magic system introduced at the start of the story but if it was added part way through despite being objectively less important to the narrative people would be less willing to suspend their disbelief.
Fundamentally, the suspension of disbelief is an embodiment of the relationship between the author and the reader so any definition needs to be considerate of each party.
How the author sets expectations will make the story more or less susceptible to violating the suspension of belief later on - if you add a time machine to the plot and it's easy enough to find that even a child has access to one then later characters that SHOULD have access to it don't use it or you claim that somehow all of them were destroyed (and no one alive is capable of making a new one) then you're changing the rules of the game half way through and it makes readers zone out.
The author can also use sleight of hand trickery and change their delivery to make a violation more or less egregious. Probably the most common example of this in fiction is when the protagonist pulls some hidden power from within themselves to defeat a villain. I think anyone who thinks about what's actually happening in those sorts of scenes understands what is actually going on and the author is clearly playing on the reader's expectations of defeat to create jubilation in the readers but if the MC's speech is rousing enough and if the mumbo is jumbo enough then readers can get swept up in the emotion of the scene and maintain their suspension of disbelief through hype. This is the most significant area where your mileage may vary because different people will have different susceptibility to certain story beats and different aspects of the story as prominent in their minds:
- Maybe this is the 23rd "power of friendship" speech I've heard this month and all I can think about is how the portals that the MC creates could just be closed with the villain's head inside it ending this instantly.
- Maybe I'm afraid of the ocean and when the character is described as "flailing around with no sense of direction as seawater forces it's way into their lungs" it totally slips my mind that two sentences before they had a life jacket on.
- Maybe I skimmed through the explanation of how alchemy works and so I don't even understand how what's happening now is wrong.
It's not an exact science and I think when you try to pin it down so precisely you're definition will be overly personal or overfitted to a specific piece of fiction.
Also I definitely agree with you about Harry Potter.
Yeah, I really enjoyed Harry Potter, but oh man, JK Rowling's writing is absolutely filled with issues. And it didn't help that she clearly didn't know where she was going with the story until Goblet of Fire